Paul J. Alessi (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

I do not understand why this actor's page was deleted, I understand sources are a major thing but it appears as though the page was mass nominated for a delete, appears to be use of sockpuppetry. As a fan of Paul's I do not understand why the page was so speedily deleted. Paul has been an actor in numerous television parts and movies. I propose that if a person such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ringca who is a yo-yo'er and a drummer from Florida who is no longer active in either field. I feel that Paul's page should be un-deleted. I am currently assisting in trying to locate more sources for information on Paul's work and career in Acting, production, and other fields. Thank you. 98.82.76.112 (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed nomination; this went through a third AfD. No comment on the merits. Mackensen (talk) 11:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Sparse AfD participation, but 2 notability guideline-citing calls for deletion is enough, the AfD really could not have been read any other way. If you want to try to find sources to meet the Wikipedia's guidelines then that's always a possibility, but looking through his list of roles, they appear to be minor and/or in films that are themselves non-notable. Tarc (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• vote for un-deletion I feel Paul J. Alessi is notable enough to warrant a page for himself. I have found numerous wikipedia pages of people that are not known at all to the general public and am confused as to why an actor's page was removed. Also I would like to add that Paul is a producer and as per his IMDB page has been involved in NUMEROUS productions. Please give me info on what sort of sources would be acceptable to wikipedia as I am very confused by numerous pages and pages of drivel and guidelines that make this place seem more like a neighborhood H.O.A than a place for research, and the preservation of knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.210.40 (talk)AKA A-less 15:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  First off, a call to "endorse" means that you wish to see the discussion's results upheld, i.e. the page deleted. From the rest of your comments, I think you mean to say "overturn the deletion". Second, if we're going to go by his role as a producer, I believe the closest guideline is WP:CREATIVE. But there, we hit the same issues as with his acting roles, especially as he has done both for several of these films. The films themselves just aren't "well-known or significant", as the criteria requires. Tarc (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Tarc, I do not understand how wikipedia works as the democracy of this place reminds me of a bad H.O.A. I feel anyone with 184,000 results on google from independent movie/other news/reviews does indeed warrant a wikipedia page, as well as being on the first season of a reality show. The same results could be applied to the whitehouse party crashers wikipedia page, or the octo-mom due to general public dislike of either. Notable figures in their fields they are not, but yet they still have wikipedia pages. Paul J. Alessi is an accomplished actor and producer, and if this iteration of the page was deleted then another one will be written to the guidelines. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.210.40 (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• vote for un-deletion I am not understanding why there are many pages of content with no source and people that have done nothing but yo-yo and fallen off the face of the earth, but a notable actor gets deleted? This makes about as much sense as a broken piggy bank. I nominate that this page be fully restored as Paul is a known actor. He has many sources and he is still active, unlike a person I found on here that did yo-yoing years ago. -Feanix — Preceding unsigned comment added by FeanixFire (talk • contribs) 15:39, 14 September 2010 — FeanixFire (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  As I explained to the IP user above, an "endorse" means that you would wish the article to stay deleted. As for your argument, we generally tried to avoid "If !A then also !B" arguments. If you find an article which you feel warrants a deletion, the by all means begin a deletion discussion on that article. Tarc (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Endorse, per the above.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow EndorseAMuseo (talk) 12:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete: This appears to have not been a clean deletion. Being that it was of a controversial nature, the page should be restored to its last version before the proposal. If someone wants to propose it again, that's fine, and hopefully, the discussion will be clean. Linda Olive (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which part to you see as not being clean, as being controversial? Articles creator was informed. AFD listed in a timely fashion. Two people arguing for it's deletion, one commenting on it not being a speedy deletion candidate (G4), no one arguing against deletion and an administrator closing it as delete. Looks good to me. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The article had no reliable sources and therefore deletion was justified. Nobody in this debate has demonstrated that such sources actually exist. Ruslik_Zero 14:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources: http://www.housewifeinhollywood.com/tag/paul-j-alessi/ , http://www.movieroomreviews.com/knuckle-draggers-movie-review , http://www.reelheart.com/2009/reelheart/582 (won best actor for Knuckle Draggers), I am still trying to locate the rest of the sources from independent web pages/publications for un-deletion purposes. My main complaint is that the article seems to be personally targeted by the original deletion nomination user and then vigilantly voted over and over by friends of his in a sort of personal vendetta not against the actor in anyway but just because the user wanted the page removed for his own reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.210.40 (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for those sources, however, they do not meet the criteria for reliable independent sources (see here and here). HouseWifeInHollywood is a blog written by a housewife; MovieRoomReviews "is a media site with a balance of personal opinion reviews and news items, written and edited mostly by the domain and website owner" (from the website); RHIFF is a film festival, but looking at the article on Wikipedia, I see no evidence that it would meet the notability guidelines - and I can't find coverage at reliable sources about it, which makes usign it as a source a bit iffy. Also, it should be noted that DRV is not "AfD part 2", it is to discuss whether the close was correct or not. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. (I nominated the article) Suggestion this was mass nominated don't make sense. The only thing I've seen to anything suggesting possible sockpuppetry has been in this deletion review. Other parts of the reasoning for this review are WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFF. DRV is not a contiuation of AFD and the AFD in question was run and closed properly. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I see nothing wrong in the close for this AfD. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Motorsport in the UK (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I cannot understand why the decision to close this nomination as kept, when the only person to vote keep was the template creator himself, but then if you are the creator of the template, you really will do anything to save your template, well who wouldn't. My point for deletion was as I pointed out that if you added a more comprehensive amount in bluelink or redlink that have the potential to become bluelinked, then this template will become too oversized for its own good, which the admin failed to realise that the one keep vote was from the creator himself. Since this decision to keep this template, I have addad a lot more in to illustrate my point, not to mention there will be some more to come. Donnie Park (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse While there was only 1 !vote favoring keeping the template, a second editor endorsed a modification to the template, an expressed desire to have the template retained in a different form and an implicit keep. The nominator failed to attract any other delete !voters, which is the real issue here. A relist or no-consensus close would also have been acceptable, but there's no abuse of discretion involved here. Jclemens (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The one vote was by the creator of the template himself who didn't have a valid reason why this template is worth keeping, I can't see that vote is worth keeping considering it was by the creator himself. Personally, I would like another renomination as I think this is a joke that it was closed as a keep considering that weak keep vote was by the creator himself. Donnie Park (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to point out that there is no second editor, the keep nominator endorsed a modification to the template that I cannot see made much difference as series come and go a lot like I pointed out. Donnie Park (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. So, you have added a ton of redlinks to the template increasing its size by almost three times! Now you are claiming that because of this it suddenly has become more deletable than before. You are obviously trying to make a point here. Ruslik_Zero 19:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The nominator didn't convince anyone else to support deletion, and the deletion rationale is poorly reasoned at best. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. No reason was provided for deletion; the administrator got it right. It's not a bad argument for a split or a redesign, but those are editorial questions best decided elsewhere. Mackensen (talk) 11:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The reason for deletion appears to be "I don't like it". I also find it sad that you were so pointy as to add all those redlinks. You didn't get anyone to support the deletion nomination, and the correct decision was to keep the template -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toplist (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Topsite (www) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Widespread and important web concept - 106 million ghits! Toplist was effectively blanked by the nominating author. Insufficient attempt to find sources - certainly there are many topsite scripts available. The idea is of a similar vintage to banner exchanges and webrings. Rich Farmbrough, 14:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

So where are the sources? The AfD appears to hinge on the lack of sourcing--many people asserting sources should be findable, no sources brought forth in the AfD. I don't doubt that there might be sources out there, but the AfD looks eminently reasonable and I endorse Spartaz' close. Jclemens (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Google hits are irrelevant, and mere existence is not the same as there being sufficient verifiable content for us to have an article. Rich's argument is essentially IVEHEARDOFIT and GHITS. I couldn't find any discussion of the idea of "Toplists" in reliable sources either, so I doubt the failure of those at AfD to find such sources was due to neglect. If Rich or anyone else can dig up sources then deletion could be reconsidered - but not until then. Fences&Windows 17:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The articles in as-deleted state were awful, and there were a total of zero convincing keep arguments at either. Show me some decent sources and I'll happily support recreation, but so far I'm not seeing much. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, clear consensus to delete. Argument presented here is essentially WP:GHITS. Would support recreation, but only if a suitably referenced replacement article is prepared first. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse clear consensus, and GHITS is always an extraordinarily poor reason to keep anything. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ah well not enough time to research this particular one myself. We should perhaps let it become a palimpsest, until the history of such things is written widely. Rich Farmbrough, 02:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse Consensus seems clear - and I note that despite the nominator and one of the 'delete's saying that they would change their opinion if reliable sources could be found, these were not found. GHITS is not a basis for keeping an article - especially when I can't see any at reliable sources! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010 West Bank shooting (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

August 2010 West Bank shooting (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

• Overturn to keep on both There was no consensus to delete. The claim that NOTNEWS trumps NOTABILITY seems weak because the editors who supported retention made a case that this incident was not routine, having particular special characteristics and the closer failed to address this argument. In asserting the primacy of the not news argument, the close lacked consistency with our general practise and failed to observe the guidance of WP:DGFA by not respecting the judgement of the editors and deleting despite the element of doubt. AMuseo (talk)

The articles should be kept for two reasons. One is that there is a WP:CONS that individual terrorism incidents are significant. This consensus is demonstrated by the fact that Wikipedia has hundreds of such articles, many about incidents as minor as the Columbus Shopping Mall Bombing Plot. That article has been on Wikipedia since 2007. The fact that hundreds of stable Wikipedia articles exist on minor plots, incidents of intended terrorism that never happened, makes it clear not that anyone is arguing that Israel/Palestine articles should be treated differently, as the closing administrator has asserted, but that I/P articles are in fact being treated differently than other articles. To wit: they are deleted whereas comparable articles about incidents of terrorism elsewhere in the world are not. Note, for example, that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting was nominated for deletion before I had even finished writing it. The 2010 Ottawa terrorism plot was not treated this way. Nor was the 2010 Newry car bombing. To keep them but delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting you have to argue that I/P articles be treated differently than articles about the British Isles. My second argument is that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2010 West Bank shooting and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting should not be deleted under NotNews because they are about incidents that are having a real impact on the peace process and on the construction freeze in settlements in the West Bank. in particular, because pressure from settlers in the West Bank has caused the government of Israel to lift the ban on construction in West Bank settlements [1], [2], but also it is widely understood that Hamas launched the attacks in a deliberate effort to derail the peace talks [3], [4]. there are dozens more articles like these in this week's news. Deleting an incident with this kind of impact as a news story of merely temporary interest is incorrect.AMuseo (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus on both - there wasn't so much as a majority supporting deletion, how can there be consensus? The closing admin cited "newish users" participation, but even with their votes disqualified the results were 55% and 50% supporting deletion in the June and August AFD respectfully, not even borderline consensus (and still not even a majority in the later). Rami R 13:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep on both. In both cases, about half the participants in the discussion advocated keeping and half deleting. Rami is right that this looks like a no-consensus, but almost all of the people in both AfDs who actually discussed the issue, rather than merely voting and citing a Wikipedia policy with no substantiation of its applicability here, advocated keeping. The arguments they raised were not responded to. (If this assessment is challenged, I can itemize the users and the arguments, but I'd really rather not.) If consensus or lack thereof were measured by votes as opposed to quality of arguments, there would be no point in having discussions. An independently sufficient reason to overturn to no consensus, if not to keep, is that there seems to be a Wikipedia-wide consensus that terror attacks are notable, as several users pointed out. To go against this consensus, deletion advocates had to bear the burden of showing why these terror attacks are exceptional, something they clearly failed to do. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus on both Closing administrator imposed his view of policy in these AfD discussions, disregarding the actual consensus of those who participated who addressed the NOTNEWS issue and explained why it was not relevant here. There was no consensus for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Consensus is not forum shopping. 1, 2, 3. --Jmundo (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Posting to a wikiproject and to two editors talk pages in bland non-prejudicial manner is not forum shopping either, of course.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to keep—closing administrator made an incorrect decision both in regards to the deletion policy, and the policies he cited. Both sides presented an argument but the consensus seemed to be keep. The assertion that WP:NOTNEWS trumps WP:N is false. These policies aren't even about the same thing; it's like comparing apples to oranges. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep From NOTNEWS: "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." While NOTNEWS is indeed policy, it is often used inappropriately via WP:VAGUEWAVE. A "no consensus" close would have been within discretion based on the numbers, but the NOTNEWS arguments misrepresent the policy and should have been accorded less weight. Jclemens (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion and censure the abuse of the DRV process. Disagreeing with the outcome is not a valid rationale to file a deletion review, and as many seem to willfully ignore, an AfD is a discussion, not a vote. Consensus is not about bean-counting, but rather about about weighing the strengths and weaknesses of the opinions. You disagree with how the closing admin weighed those opinions? IMO, too flippin bad. It is well within admin discretion to do so. No wrongdoing on his part here, no valid reason to overturn. Move on. Tarc (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. We wrote WP:EVENT for a reason people! WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS clash, and that guideline on the notability of events is an attempt to reconcile the two. It'd be nice if it were referred to just occasionally, it's actually quite nuanced. Sheesh. Because of this clash, vaguewaves at guidelines or policies are pointless, and closes like those of Spartaz that simply assert that something fails WP:NOTNEWS rather than demonstrate why this is the case despite opposing arguments are basically worthless. Therefore overturn to no consensus, as the closer has failed to sufficiently explain their reasoning and appears to be simply applying their own personal preference to side with those vaguewaving at NOTNEWS instead of analysing the debate. And Tarc, don't be silly: DRV is to challenge admin decisions, this is plainly not an abuse. Don't be a wikilawyer. Fences&Windows 17:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  DRVs should be be for serious misapplications of policy, not "I disagree with the outcome". Doubly so for cesspool topic areas like Israel-Palestine, where the reasons are partisan rather than procedural to oppose the AfD conclusion. Tarc (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Look, Tarc, you're welcome to your opinion. You're welcome to present it here at DRV... but implying that other editors are not opining in good faith does not lead to an appropriately collegial environment. With all due respect, please argue policies, not motivations. Jclemens (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Yea... Surely you don't need to be told that AGF is not a suicide pact, Clemens, you've been around the block long enough. Reading this discussion, I see quite a bit of bad faith and personal attacks directed at the closing admin. Tarc (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I could care less about there, you've accused people here of having "partisan rather than procedural" reasons. If that wasn't your intent, I strongly suggest you clarify your above statement. Jclemens (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  What was said there shows that comments here are not being made in good faith, IMO. Is that clear enough for you? Tarc (talk) 13:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It certainly appears to be that your WP:ABFing despite plenty of opportunities to repudiate that impression, which is unfortunate, because you're also quite wrong, at least as it applies to me. I can't directly comment on others' motivations, but I AGF that they're not pretexting their rationales. Jclemens (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not assuming, I'm looking at a WP:SPADE. That is the end of this as far as I am concerned, so please, do not address me again. Tarc (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  sorry, but you don't get to cast aspersions on everyone's motives AND then hide their responses to this behavior. HupHollandHup (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion per Tarc. DRV isn't a second bite at the apple. Nobody has produced a convincing argument that the AfD closing procedure was flawed. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, WP:NOTNEWS is a policy that should be followed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep per Jalapenos and YnHockey. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. Fences & Windows makes a persuasive argument here. I might have considered endorsing a delete close that had properly explained why the NOTNEWS !votes were stronger than the N ones, rather than just making a bland statement in favour of them without explaining why. As it stands, delete doesn't make sense. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to Keep, per Jclemens & Fences & Windows. NOTNEWS was intended to keep out 'routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities', no tmajor events that received widespread national and international coverage, such as these. WP:EVENT specifically states that 'Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below).' HupHollandHup (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse "NOTNEWS trumps N" is a completely uncontroversial statement. Just reading the keep !votes - especially those near the end - it was right to give them less weight. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep on both per AMuseo's detailed explanation. LibiBamizrach (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus on both I support keep, but the issues here is the admin's closing of the AfD singling out these widely reported and analysed events as NOTNEWS, and the Afd did not reach a consensus on anything. --Shuki (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn to no consensus Not routine events but serious incidents which were plausibly argued to be major enough to not be covered under NOTNEWS (although I'd prefer if people didn't refer to these incidents as terrorism which is a very non-neutral term). JoshuaZ (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. While NOTNEWS is part of a general WP policy, it does not provide specific detailed, or enforceable criteria for establishing the cutoff point between what is notable, in the encyclopedic sense, and what is merely newsworthy. The cutoff points/standards are determined by community consensus, an ongoing/dynamic/evolving, and sometimes imperfect process. It is not the closer's role to determine what consensus the community ought to have reached, based on the closer's view of where the cutoff point should be and the closer's reading of NOTNEWS. Unless the expressed consensus in a discussion is unquestionably aberrant, the community's determination should be respected. The idea that NOTNEWS "trumps" N strikes me as entirely misconceived; NOTNEWS is designed to provide general standards for interpreting N; if the two are found to be in direct conflict, then either the interpretation of one or the other, or both, is misguided, or NOTNEWS is defective and needs to be reworked. The former case is much more likely. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus on both The deletion was inappropriate. There was no consensus. There are hundreds of articles that are about news and nobody complains about those. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:OTHERSTUFF. —Mikemoral♪♫ 05:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep on both. While the closing admin's policy analysis is correct, it is a strawman argument. The essential point of the consensus in favor of keeping the articles was that the incidents notability extended beyond the dog-bites-man stories which NONTEWS was intended to exclude. None in favor of keeping the articles made the argument that the closing admin was "debunking", namely that GNG trumps NOTNEWS.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep on both. Per Museo.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn , application of WP:NOT NEWS here is wildly overextended and against the general consensus of how it should be used.It is intended for trivial local events only, not those that affect international relations or major political conflicts. And there is an advantage in consistency, --someone deviating from a general string of decisions should be able to explain why, We're too important now to decide everything ad hoc from first principles. If users find something here, they expect to find similar things also. DGG ( talk ) 16:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to the misuse of NOTNEWS, I completely agree. It is one of the (more than a few) that some editors seem to use having read no further than the title, inasmuch as their bandying about of the guidelines fail completely to reflect the meaning of the guidelines -- but just resemble what one's guess might be as to what the guideline said if they only read the title. Perhaps we could help those editors by renaming some of these guidelines (e.g., notrivialnews).--Epeefleche (talk) 03:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and restore both. This was the main news in Israel when it occurred, dominating the headlines at the time. I was in Israel at the time of some of these shootings, and that's all the TV and print media was covering. The motivation for these events was also notable; these were on the level of terrorist acts. Linda Olive (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Quite simply, the closing admin felt the policy truly trumps the guideline. I see a similar habit on the AfDs that is occurring her on the DRV, lots of WP:PERNOM or WP:MAJORITY !votes, which frankly really are people just voting without a proper rationale behind the vote. The point of discussion is to present real reasons why an article should be kept, deleted, etc., not votes because people want an article to be kept. These polices written for a reason; if you disagree with them, propose a change to them. —Mikemoral♪♫ 05:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that a perusal of the afd will reveal that real reasons were given as to why the Wikipedia article is not inconsistent with NOTNEWS and none of them included arguments that N trumps NOTNEWS (an arguement the closing admin made up himself) or arguments that NOTNEWS is a policy that anyone disagrees with.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure. The closing administrator correctly realised that WP:NOTNEWS, a policy, overrules WP:N, a guideline. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So Stifle, you've been around long enough and I'm presuming you don't have a particular personal axe to grind in the I-P area, as I don't, so I'd really like you to comment in more detail on why you think NOTNEWS applies, given the current wording of NOTNEWS, to this situation. We're all agreed that NOTNEWS trumps N... but not that this sort of event is covered by the wording or intent of NOTNEWS. Can you please articulate in more detail why you think it applies? Jclemens (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because the shootings are one-off, transient events. WP:EVENT elucidates this further. Now I appreciate that you're trying to demolish my argument and won't accept anything that I post, so I'm not going to respond to this any more. Stifle (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - policies do in fact override guidelines and it is an entirely uncontroversial thing to say. All this over encyclopedia articles where every single source was a news article from the day of the attack. Until WP:NOT is modified these articles remain inappropriate for an encyclopedia, and the closure was proper. nableezy - 14:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

point of fact. User:Nableezy is entitled to his own opinion; he is not entitled to his own facts. He states flatly that both of these articles exclusively include material from articles written on the day of the events. Moreover, even if Nableezy's false statement that "every single source was a news article from the day of the attack." were true it would be irrelevant, since reliebe newspapers have since covered such events as settlers breaching the construction freeze in self-proclaimed response to these attacks, Hamas holding celebrations of the attacks in Gaza, Hamas spokesmen threatening further attacks in articles that cite these attacks as indications of their power to attack using sleeper cells, and various pundits musing over the likely impact of these two attack on peace talks. Had the article not been deleted, they would both now feature many more of the news article that are still being written about the impact and aftermath of these attacks [12] , "west+bank"&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=shootings+"west+bank"&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=nws:1&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn&fp=6f32b8af52b7e0b8, [13]. AMuseo (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every single source in the June article was a news piece from the day of the attack. Every single one. You dont like how the AFD turned out and are now playing this game to get a second chance. That you can find op-eds now does not change that fact. There is no false statement in what I wrote and saying so is both malicious and untrue. nableezy - 15:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except, of course, for this one [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/01/world/middleeast/01settlers.html?_r=1&ref=world "Killing of Israeli Settlers Rattles Leaders, Isabel Kershner, Mark Lander, August 31, 2010, New York Times. I hope that you will 1) retract your incorrect factual assertion that in both articles ""every single source was a news article from the day of the attack." Since it is demonstrably untrue of both articles. and 2) address the real issue, the fact that these two incidents have garnered ongoing news coverage and, in addition to their non-transient importance, are notable under WP:EVENT.AMuseo (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I missed that one article. That one article which mentions the June incident in passing. The other 10 sources were all from the day of the attack. However, DRV is not a second chance to argue the AFD, it is to see if the close of the AFD is proper. The closing admin wrote an entirely non-controversial closing statement, that NOTNEWS, a policy, overrides N, a guideline. There is nothing procedurally or factually wrong with the close and as such the DRV should end with it being endorsed. nableezy - 16:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And except that not everyone would consider this a mere "in passing" reference. The second-to-last paragraph of this New York Times article, written two months after the event, reads"In July, Israeli security officials said they had arrested several members of Hamas’s military wing who were responsible for the fatal shooting of an Israeli police officer south of Hebron in June." [14].AMuseo (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had hoped that you would apologize for calling me "malicious," asserting the my statement was "malicious and unture" and for asserting bad faith on my part, accusing me of "playing this game to get a second chance." As I see it. You made an error, and , when called on it, instead of checking your facts, you made a second assertion of error and accused me of bad faith. You now admit to having made an error in your assertions that sources for the page on the June attack were all form the day of the attack, what about your similar assertion of the page on the August attack? Was that also an "error?" Or were you stating your assumptions as matters of fact on a discussion page? As I see it, we have a difference of opinion: you believe that these two articles fail WP:NOT NEWS; I believe that they qualify as notable under WP:EVENT. But I am troubled by your uncollegial style.AMuseo (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - Clearly a case of news stories, not historic events. AfD got it right. Carrite (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing admin's comment I have deliberately stayed away from this discussion given the outrageous attacks on me by some of the participants but I do hope the closing admin will take this into account and the possible canvassing alluded to earlier in the discussion. Obviously I endorse my own close given that arguments based on policy must always be given more weight then those based on guidelines. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, Your closing comment on the AFD was "NOTNEWS is policy and trumps N. Arguments of inate notability are well assertions and carry little weight." Several editors have argued that The assertion that WP:NOTNEWS trumps WP:N is false. and one wrote We wrote WP:EVENT for a reason people! WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS clash, and that guideline on the notability of events is an attempt to reconcile the two. It'd be nice if it were referred to just occasionally, it's actually quite nuanced. Sheesh. Because of this clash, vaguewaves at guidelines or policies are pointless, and closes like those of Spartaz that simply assert that something fails WP:NOTNEWS rather than demonstrate why this is the case despite opposing arguments are basically worthless. Therefore overturn to no consensus, as the closer has failed to sufficiently explain their reasoning and appears to be simply applying their own personal preference to side with those vaguewaving at NOTNEWS instead of analyzing the debate. Can you please address these points?AMuseo (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I recall we were still discussing this on my talkpage before you went ahead and raised this DRv without waiting for a response to your latest comment. You then sat silent while one of your wikifriends engaged in an extended atrocious and outrageous personal attack on me and now you dare to demand I answer your questions? Forget it! Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you could tone down your hyperbole just a tiny notch? One editor made an inappropriate assumption about your motives, and has since then struck out his comment and apologized for it. There were no "extended atrocious and outrageous personal attack"s on you on this DRV, just a multitude of editors saying you made a bad call which is not in line with policy. No one is is demanding anything from you - you are free to not defend your poor decision, but don't be surprised of such lack of response will be weighed heavily against you when this is overturned, as it is likely to be. HupHollandHup (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not backing down, and the fact that the resolved tag has been argued with at ANI several times suggests that other users share my disgust at the way I was treated. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what ANI you are talking about - I was referring to this discussion, brought up earlier by Tarc, which is consistent with how I described the actions of the editors involved. Pointing out the obvious, even if you were treated badly elsewhere, that has no relevance whatsoever to the arguments made here against your decision. Your bringing it up as an argument to support the deletion is a non-sequitur and a red herring. Either make argument to support your decision, or don't, but the behavior of other editors toward you is not relevant to this discussion. HupHollandHup (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HHH: yes it has relevance, and yes it is relevant. First. You write here: has since then struck out his comment and apologized for it, and then I have no idea what ANI you are talking about (sic). I don't believe you. Did you really read around that elephant? (here you give a nice example of self-nullifying talk) Second, you are redherring us away from the topic. The topic here is: the closing admin was attacked personallly, and s/he has every right to point that out here. After all, since it's about argumentation not (personal) motives here, it is fully correct to check these editors arguments on being consistent. If an editor says different things elsewhere (or even on the same thread like you did here), their argument is idle. Clearly: an argument put here, while somehow somewhere contradicted by that same editor, has less weight. Third, your request to get another argument from the closing admin, says you don't get the DRV process. I declare your contributions here void. -DePiep (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But luckily you do not have power to declare anyone's contributions anything here. So please get back to topic instead of insult other editors. LibiBamizrach (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To me it's viod a logic outcome by reading hhh's text. If If you accuse me of insulting, at least point to it eg by a diff. -DePiep (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DPiep, You write "I don't believe you." Whatever happened to WP:Assume Good Faith?AMuseo (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@LibiBamizrach, No proof of "insulting" - then back off.

@AMuseo: AGF disappeared right between the two HHH quotes I wrote above. Have you read them at all? I took them both to be true -- and they are contradicting. Now the real thread is: the closing admin was attacked in your thread AMuseo under your very nose, and you did not touch a key on your keyboard. Now go follow the smell of your own red herring, if your nose is still functioning. -DePiep (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

QuestionIs what DePiep implies true? That is, if I put a topic on a talk or project page, do I then become an officer of the law responsible for patrolling the subsequent comments and chastising those who make inappropriate comments? I did not think that this was so. I certailny have never felt responsible for returning to every page where I have made a remark to insure that all subsequent remarks are appropriate.AMuseo (talk) 22:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overfishing the herrings. -22:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

As I remember it, you dismissed my arguments and those of another editor off in a 2 day discussion during which it seemed to me that you did not encounter the arguments that we were making [15] at which point User:Colonel Warden opened the discussion below and I understood that there was a path, this review, by which I could subject my views to the judgement of a larger number of editors. Given the chasm between your interpretation of notability and mine, I do not think that I acted unreasonably. If you continue to believe that these three articles should be deleted, I am still interested in hearing your response to the arguments that I and others have made.AMuseo (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you are still not repudiating your friend's actions so I'm not interested in interacting with you in any shape form or way. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a sense in which this is the second time that I have been accused on this page of being a member of some sort of conspiracy. The fact that when I went to your talk page to suggest that you rethink your closing of the AFD I found that another editor was there ahead of me arguing that your closing was inappropriate does not make him my "friend,' although I am willing to assume that he is a very nice person. The troubling aspect of your argument is that you seem to think that because one editor made an inappropriate remark about your motivations, you can vent your feelings in place of making a reasoned argument for deletion. Frankly, it makes me wonder whether your status as an editor empowered to make deletion decisions is appropriate.AMuseo (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, are you making a joke? Who are you to say he must apologize for his "friend"? Do you know this people in real life to say they are "friends"? And even if this is so, it is not AMuseo's responsibility to say sorry for someone else actions. Nor to make any comment about the situation. You are being unreasonable when demand that he "repudiate" something in order for you to interact with him. What is this blackmail? You deleted these articles in way that many, many people think is inappropriate. So you should be clarifying your reasons now, not using someone else as excuse to burry head in the sand. LibiBamizrach (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SILENCE - If you don't object it means you agree with something. I don't intend to waste my time interacting with bigoted people who assume I'm biased just because of the location of my posting, or even with those who think its OK to cast around aspersions like that. I'm presuming you are in the second category. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know what they say about people who assume? You have a lot of nerve. LibiBamizrach (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@LibiBamizrach: above in this same comment I wrote: @LibiBamizrach: No proof of "insulting" - then back off. -DePiep (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn-- perfectly valid and poignant articles shouldn't be deleted when there is no consensus at AfD to do so. DVD 21:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: ANI: There is an ANI called Assumptions_of_bad_faith_and_Battlefield_mentality about a contributors behavior re the closing admin. -DePiep (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – I was not convinced on the retention side in either of the two AFDs. The deletion side's arguments seem to present much more weight than the retention. There are reasons why WP:N is only a guideline; you cannot have it both ways. –MuZemike 01:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Besides the strong opinions of some editors against the deletion, and the argument that other pages have not been deleted, there is no evidence to indicate that the closing admin went beyond his reasonable discretion. --Jmundo (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What several editors have actually argued is that this pair of shootings meet the criteria of WP:EVENT because of their impact on the peace talks and on the settlement construction freeze. Sources in the articles.AMuseo (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentI am appalled at Spartaz(Afd closing admin)'s poor recommendation (non AGF) to the closing admin that the 'outrageous attacks' (no diffs provided, and is it one or all editors?) have any weight on the decision. The accusation of canvassing (no diffs provided) is similarly unbecoming of an admin who has not bothered to reply to. Spartaz has not bothered to take part in the discussion instead reply why he isn't, somewhat disregarding the DRV. --

This comment added by User:Shuki. Is a copypaste of the their comment here This signing added by -DePiep (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Er, I was in Dubai from Monday to Thursday this week and not editing (check my contribs and the notice in the history of my talk page since you decided to assume bad faith. Also I was extremely shocked by the way that my location was misused to attack me honesty. Forgive me for being upset by something as blatant as this but I'm neither a robot nor possessing of a 3in thick skin. Thanks for not assuming any good faith on my part. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dude, I commented on your comment and your decision not to comment, nothing else. Nothing to get upset about or ask for revenge on others if you've been slighted by one. My assumption has not changed until you can reply with something more substantial which a DRV expects. What AGF can I give to your simple reply that 'I used policy and that's all I'm going to write'? --Shuki (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Eh, "dude?" Are you really accusing an administrator with a solid standing of lack of AGF? Spartaz has all the right to be upset. WP:NPA state that, "extreme personal attacks, or personal attacks based on race, religion, nationality or sexual identity of an editor are often grounds for an immediate, indefinite block until the remarks are retracted." Please, stop making assumptions and read the whole thread. --Jmundo (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • You Canadian? Yes, you should read the whole thread again as well. Read my remark again and his. No admin of 'solid standing' is above criticism. FWIW, I am not defending anything else here except a lack of taking this DRV seriously and getting insulted by an editor who seems to have retracted whatever comment, and then refusing to take part. Jmundo, if you have seen anything violating NPA, report it. Again, does not justify blowing the rest of us off. --Shuki (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I just added this to the terrorism-related deletion log.AMuseo (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note The nom for this DRV is User:AMuseo. -DePiep (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have read the three AfDs. I have read this thread too. And even the DRV guidelines.

-First: the small stuff. Like: AMuseo, a nom here, started the AfDs with a "Speedy Keep" (but a challenge for motivation was not answered). Very many copypastings of arguments between the three AfDs. While AMuseo talks per trio, they are DRV'ed here two + one - no explanation. Small stuff per item, but it makes a stack of sloppyness.

- At the admin's after-closing talk, reproduced above, Wikifan introduced his argument that only was revoked after a long ANI. Assuming good faith is no problem, and we are not here to weight someones motives. But when someone makes a statement, we are perfectly rightful to check that statement against other related statements of that same user, to learn about consistency. An inconsistent argumentation is a weak argumentation. This is valid for multiple participants here.

Frankly I think it would be more productive if User:DePiep would discuss the merits. But since he insists on dragging up insults, I wish to point out that they have been flung in all directions. I was accused (above) of being "malicious," of making "untrue" statements by an editor who made an nonfactual statement then repeated it with insults, and of "playing this game to get a second chance," which makes an assumption of bad faith. I urge the closing administrator to ignore the insults and just look at the articles - to which more articles from major newspapers can and will be added when this interminable discussion closes.AMuseo (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The DRV start was not timely nor motivated (correctly or at all). The talk at the closing admins talk page was not finished (see the DRV-guidelines, #1). The introduction above says nothing about: "I DRV these pages because ...".

- The nom, nor most of the participants here, point to any flaw in the process. It's the AfD discussion all over again. The nom riding in front. No new information or other DRV-moving arguments are added. On top of that, some drama was added. -DePiep (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Your comments seem quite counterfactual. The direct discussions were getting nowhere and DRV was quite appropriate as per WP:DRV, "Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly." The reasons given for the DRV directly address the quality of the close and its flawed reading of policy and process. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If a closing administrator is interested in this quibbling rather than in the merits of the case, he is free to look at the discussion [16] on the closing administrator's talk page. It was certainly my belief at the time that I was talking to a man whose mind was made up and who was not encountering my arguments or those of others.AMuseo (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derogative talking. No arguments. -DePiep (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per my comment above, and other comments earlier here. Not a DRV at all. -DePiep (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn There was no consensus to delete and the assertion that there was a policy override is false because NOTNEWS only applies to routine ephemeral news not major international incidents incidents of this kind. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: It was revealed today, along with other details, that the August event was intended by Hamas to bring about the failure of the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and the resignation of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.[17] Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that settles it. Today's news [18] [19] [20] [21] makes it impossible to argue that these articles are not notable. This Australian story, dated today, is a new angle. [22] AMuseo (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)AMuseo (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Tally The quality of the arguments is more important than the tally. But the vote was 19 for Overturn vs. 11 to endorse deletion. (Most of the overturns were to keep, others to no consensus, and still others argued that the articles should be kept but that the previous discussion reacned n consensus. Nevertheless 19 editors voted to overturn.) A tally of 19 to 11 is a clear consensus.AMuseo (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010 rocket attack on Eilat/Aqaba (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There was no consensus to delete. The claim that NOTNEWS trumps NOTABILITY seems weak because we routinely cover topics which are in the news and do this to the extent that we reserve a place on the main page for them. In considering whether a topic is weighty rather than ephemeral, notability is commonly used as a test and so the two considerations are complementary rather than antagonistic. The editors who supported retention made a case that this incident was not routine, having particular special characteristics and the closer failed to address this argument. In asserting the primacy of the not news argument, the close lacked consistency with our general practicum and failed to observe the guidance of WP:DGFA by not respecting the judgement of the editors and deleting despite the element of doubt. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to keepI concur that this deletion was inappropriate. Note that the article is not, in fact, about a single incident but about a series of rocket attacks on Aqaba, Jordan and Eilat, Israel over several years.AMuseo (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, see my comment above. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifan, your argument is quite empty since you forgot to include your attacking judgement on people from Qatar. And if you would include have it here -- the same. -DePiep (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus - same as the DRV above: If there wasn't so much as a majority supporting deletion, how can there be consensus? Rami R 13:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep, for the exact same reasons as in the discussion above. It's worth noting that there are two additional rocket attacks on Eilat/Aqaba, both of which are consistently mentioned by the reliable sources when discussing this one, because of their similarity. The article could expand to include them, or they could each have their own article; I don't see that it matters much. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus as in the DRV above, the issues of NOTNEWS were addressed and rejected by consensus of the participants at AfD. There was no consensus for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Consensus is not forum shopping. 1, 2, 3. --Jmundo (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep per my reasoning in the above discussion. Jclemens (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion and censure the abuse of the DRV process. Disagreeing with the outcome is not a valid rationale to file a deletion review, and as many seem to willfully ignore, an AfD is a discussion, not a vote. Consensus is not about bean-counting, but rather about about weighing the strengths and weaknesses of the opinions. You disagree with how the closing admin weighed those opinions? IMO, too flippin bad. It is well within admin discretion to do so. No wrongdoing on his part here, no valid reason to overturn. Move on. Tarc (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per Tarc. DRV isn't a second bite at the apple. Nobody has produced a convincing argument that the AfD closing procedure was flawed. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, WP:NOTNEWS is a policy that should be followed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep per Colonel Warden. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to Keep, per my argument on the previous DRV. NOTNEWS was intended to keep out 'routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities', no tmajor events that received widespread national and international coverage, such as these. WP:EVENT specifically states that 'Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below).' HupHollandHup (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep per AMuseo LibiBamizrach (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse For the same reasoning as the above DRV. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to Keep The other two attacks could be easily debated, but this was an international incident that generated world-wide attention. An attack on Jordan and Israel? Historic. Wikipedia hosts Israel/Palestine articles with half the notability. I know, OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus I support keep, but the issues here is the admin's closing of the AfD singling out these widely reported and analysed events as NOTNEWS, and the Afd did not reach a consensus on anything. Admin also violated AGF. --Shuki (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. While NOTNEWS is part of a general WP policy, it does not provide specific detailed, or enforceable criteria for establishing the cutoff point between what is notable, in the encyclopedic sense, and what is merely newsworthy. The cutoff points/standards are determined by community consensus, an ongoing/dynamic/evolving, and sometimes imperfect process. It is not the closer's role to determine what consensus the community ought to have reached, based on the closer's view of where the cutoff point should be and the closer's reading of NOTNEWS. Unless the expressed consensus in a discussion is unquestionably aberrant, the community's determination should be respected. The idea that NOTNEWS "trumps" N strikes me as entirely misconceived; NOTNEWS is designed to provide general standards for interpreting N; if the two are found to be in direct conflict, then either the interpretation of one or the other, or both, is misguided, or NOTNEWS is defective and needs to be reworked. The former case is much more likely. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus on both The deletion was inappropriate. There was no consensus to delete. There are hundreds of articles that are about news and nobody complains about those. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per my comment above.[23]--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep. Per nom.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep . This was the main news in Israel when it occurred. I was in Israel at the time. Linda Olive (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep same argument as the other one. -- this is much too important for not news to apply. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - Again, this is a news story, not a historic event. There is a well documented campaign to skew Israel-Palestine coverage on Wikipedia and there should be a very high bar set for addition of such controversial articles, which are effectively POV trojan horses. Carrite (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please document that the editors participating in this debate are part of a "campaign," as you allege. Or, if you cannot provide such documentation of this accusation, please withdraw it and restroe a civil tone to this debate.AMuseo (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a recent call for Palestinians to edit Wikipedia. [24] Have you also accused the editors who think that the article should be deleted of editinf in response for the call for pro-Palestinian editors? Have you established that any of the editors involved began editing in response to these calls. I ask because I can readily see many of theeditors voting to keep these three articles have been editing for years, and that others do not edit primarily on Israel/Palestine issues. I find your accusations to be both biased against editors who voted to keep and uncivil.AMuseo (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so now we have a conspiracy theory. There are hundreds of thousands of edits between those stating that the closing admin violated the rules by closing the afd against the consensus.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing admin's comment I have deliberately stayed away from this discussion given the outrageous attacks on me by some of the participants but I do hope the closing admin will take this into account and the possible canvassing alluded to earlier in the discussion. Obviously I endorse my own close given that arguments based on policy must always be given more weight then those based on guidelines. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn-- perfectly valid articles should not be deleted. The AfDs for these looked to me like a keep or no consensus. DVD 21:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: ANI: There is an ANI called Assumptions_of_bad_faith_and_Battlefield_mentality about a contributors behavior re the closing admin. -DePiep (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per the above related DRV (this should have been lumped into that one IMO). –MuZemike 01:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Besides the strong opinions of some editors against the deletion, and the argument that other pages have not been deleted, there is no evidence to indicate that the closing admin went beyond his reasonable discretion. --Jmundo (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What I am other editors are arguing is that this series of rocket attacks made jointly on a Jordanian and an Israeli city over the course of several years are notable. This is a difference of opinion with the closing editor, not an assertion that he exceeded his competence.AMuseo (talk) 01:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What article are you talking about? The article's time frame was limited to a month. --Jmundo (talk) 04:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you go the cache it shows information on similar attacks in 2005, and an attack early in 2010, in addition to the August attack. Since it is about three attacks over 5 years, the title could be changed to reflect the article's breadth.AMuseo (talk) 11:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentI am appalled at Spartaz(Afd closing admin)'s poor recommendation (non AGF) to the closing admin that the 'outrageous attacks' (no diffs provided, and is it one or all editors?) have any weight on the decision. The accusation of canvassing (no diffs provided) is similarly unbecoming of an admin who has not bothered to reply to. Spartaz has not bothered to take part in the discussion instead reply why he isn't, somewhat disregarding the DRV. --Shuki (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cut the drama. Above I pointed to the ANI (nothing less) stating that the closing admin you describe so lovingly was involved attacked in bad_faith_and_Battlefield_mentality. Then again, a closing admin is not even expected to redo the discussion here. No closing admin should be 'bothered to reply to' (To you? here at DRV?). Their comments here are a gift. After your bad reading, finally, and not unimportant, you accusing the closing admin being "(non AGF)" you must source, or withdraw. -DePiep (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Refined & linked -DePiep (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. the nom for this DRV is User:Colonel Warden. -DePiep (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per my comment in here in the similar DRV above. -DePiep (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per my earlier comment on a similar DRV. This DRV is just another attempt for editors to keep the articles, even though policy (not guideline) says they don't belong in an encyclopedia. DRV says "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome." In the four main points in DRV, I fail to see the reason find why the articles are be contested in the AfD process. The AfD process was properly followed, so, please point out the problems in the process. —Mikemoral♪♫ 21:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The policy in question does not say this or anything like it. NOTNEWS specifies "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities". This incident was neither routine nor ephemeral sports/gossip. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a misunderstanding, Col. It looks to me that Mikemoral also referred to the four DRV-principal reasons here as policy. Is how it makes sense to me, and it does say anything like it. -DePiep (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely not a misunderstanding, Depeip. Col Warden is referring to the NOTNEWS policy, which was clearly incorrectly applied to this afd. Terroristic events with worldwide ramifications are clearly not "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities". The closing admin misapplied the policy, by making a strawman argument (as I note above), while going against the concensus of the afd discussion.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In today's news... AP is writing up arrests in Egypt related to and ongoing implications of this "deadly rocket attack last month on Israel and Jordan's Red Sea port of Aqaba that killed one person and wounded four" [25]. Today's headlines [26] [27] make it untenable to maintain that this article is less than notable.AMuseo (talk) 18:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New articles about the influence of these attacks on the political situation are still appearing. [28], To sum up the arguments for keeping. The articles/incidents are WP:notable because of the large amount of international coverage at the time they occurred. Because the coverage has continued. Because there is a WP:consensus that individual terror attacks are notable. The fact that these attacks were planned by Hamas in an attempt to derail peace talks and that they succeeded in having a real political impact on the construction freeze and the political atmosphere in Israel during the talks is icing on the cake, since the attacks were intrinsically notable as individual acts of terrorism. But it really should make this an easy Keep decision fo ran administrator.AMuseo (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]