Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stoning murder of Israeli teens

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 19:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stoning murder of Israeli teens

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails to have notability per WP:EVENT- this was merely a non significant double murder. Passionless -Talk 19:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Still find it significant enough for inclusion in the Wikipedia.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator also wants the article on one of the victims to be merged to this article. As ofcourse the murder victim in this particular case isnt notable in himself but the event itself is. Which tells me this article should be kept.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is a very notable case. United States Congress named the act for one of the victims.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as Murder of Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran for consistency of other articles involving murder. It passes WP:EVENT and its various subguidelines (e.g. it meets WP:EFFECT given the legislation that was ~~passed~~ proposed). There is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources regarding the event, Koby Mandell, and the Koby Mandell Act. Location (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename to Murder of Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran and merge info from Koby Mandell. This was a highly notable attack covered in the international media and discussed in several documentaries on the conflict. The extent of coverage and the uniqueness of the attack vs. other attacks can be derived from the sources currently in the article. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with info merged as above. WP:N/CA implies that strong media coverage may indicate notability; in this case, I'd say there is such. There is a lasting impact in the form of the new legislation, and the dates on the sources indicate ongoing coverage for years afterwards. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Meets the proper guidelines and is a very notable subject. SunCountryGuy 01 23:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to pass WP:EVENT from sources in Google Books (although sources actually cited in article don't seem to be adequate). Legislation ~~never passed, though~~ isn't as important or directly influenced as you're making out, and I'll add a note at the article to this effect. Re-name. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, so I guess I should counter the claims being made above in favour of the article's notability, being that out of the three sources published post 2001- the first is an opinion piece in the JPost which dedicates an entire two sentences to the murders out of pages of text, therefore this source does not show notability as it is in passing. The second is a piece in the entertainment section of the JPost, which talks about the comedy act named 'Comedy for Koby', nothing about the murders. The third is again in a local paper-the JPost, which is an interview with the father of Koby talking about the Itamar attacks, not about the murder of Koby. I think it is quite clear outside Israel the murders are quite unimportant and not talked about. Also, according to Roscelese the legislation in the US congress which many of the keep voters mentioned was never passed. So, I think this murder case is like many that happen everyday, it is in the local news, and possibly international news when it is part of a greater conflict or a famous person, but by the end of the week it is non-notable. Passionless -Talk 01:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction and apology: the law itself was never passed, but elements of it were added into an omnibus spending bill which was passed. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to this the act did pass. And how about all other sources used ABC News, New York Times; BBC, Guardian; USA Today; Daily Mail. There are many more, but I believe those should be enough!--Mbz1 (talk) 01:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said post 2001 coverage- news coverage at the time of the event is meaningless in this discussion per WP:NOTNEWS-"most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." Passionless -Talk 01:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but you still forgot about this one published in 2007.And I just added this one from the end of 2007. There are quite a few other books that mention the murder as well.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a memorial. This is a news happening, not a historic event. Carrite (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - an event that sparked enough attention as to have a US act of congress named after it several years after the fact can't be described as "not notable after the end of the first week". this is from 2006, this from 2007. There are many others. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename as Murder of Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran per above suggestion and naming conventions. Current title is vague.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Keep I disagree with the nominator's assertion that this act was a "non significant double murder". It is well covered and received responses from several organizations, the pope and had a proposed bill. The article can use a little clean-up though. I also think Koby Mandell (with its own AfD) should be merged in.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you meant keep? Passionless -Talk 02:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Whoops.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are murders everyday around the world, sadly–and we can't start articles about them all. The response to this event appears to exceptional rather than routine, however. It was widely reported in international media sources and caused a government half-way across the world to pass a new law in response. That indicates to me that it is a notable criminal event. I will note that like 95% of Wikipedia articles some cleanup is needed, but as a wise old man once said, "AFD is not the place to bring articles just because they need some cleaning up". Qrsdogg (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ynhockey -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 05:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add U.S. Congressional acts from Koby Mandell article assuming it is deleted. Sposer (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's already in this article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is in accordance with every policy I can think of. I suggest that passionless reads some real material and not the junk of Haaretz. Broccolo (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move as prev suggestion to Murder of Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran, and kindly lay off the 'junk of Haaretz' talk. It cheapens the discussion, and we don't want it descending into the usual 'anti-arab' vs 'anti-semite' BS that occurs too often on this sort of contentious article. Not taking sides here (I myself am Jewish by race if not practice, and a supporter of a free Palestine, make of the contradiction what you will...), just can't be bothered with the flamewarring. Bennydigital (talk) 09:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.