Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Ramot Junction attack

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. RL0919 (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Ramot Junction attack

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article does not pass the WP:GNG. Such events are unfortunately quite common these days. For the United States, we normally wouldn't write an article for an attack with 2 deaths because Wikipedia is NOTNEWS. I do not understand why this attack needs an entire article. My preference is a redirect to Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2023#10 February. Nythar (💬-❄️) 07:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and Israel. Nythar (💬-❄️) 07:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Strictly speaking it's 4 dead now, if one includes the attacker. If 2021 Jerusalem shooting with 1 dead can pass muster, why not this one? Selfstudier (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Selfstudier, is it too large to fit in Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2023? — Nythar (💬-❄️) 02:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  It can fit, of course, historically it seems there has been a trend to create small articles for every event including those that are relatively minor like the example I gave above. Something occurs and within an hour or two, someone has created an article and once created they tend to stick around. Citations are not usually a problem, all of these events get good citations initially, but then there is no lasting impact in a lot of cases. Selfstudier (talk) 09:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is just like all other articles on ramming and stabbing attacks, and it has good citations, so I don't see why we should delete it.

RowanJ LP (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It does meet the WP:GNG and the event guideline and does not violate WP:NOTNEWS. Unfortunately, notable and violent events in the Middle East and elsewhere keep coming. gidonb (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; it meets WP:GNG and does not violate WP:NOTNEWS. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep per above. 4 deaths, and the incident does pass WP:GNG. Mooonswimmer 23:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep for now anyway. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is absolutely no indication this event passes WP:NOTNEWS. Seems to be a bog-standard event in an increasingly bloody area, that only received coverage over a period of a single news cycle. Deadlier events do not have an articles, so there's no indication why this one should be an exception to NOTNEWS. If there is more coverage down the line, there is nothing stopping the article from being recreated. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.The question whether it is WP:LASTING cannot be determined now so keep for now.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2023 (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.