Svetlana Velmar-Janković

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Terrorism. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Terrorism|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Terrorism. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Terrorism/archive

Hezbollah drone smuggling investigation (2024–2025) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOTNEWS, lack of significant coverage for WP:GNG, does not seem to have enduring significance WP:EVENTCRIT – we don't have articles for every international policing operation and the "European network" is alleged and unnamed. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Lebanon. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Hezbollah foreign relations (or another article). TurboSuperA+_(connect) 17:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, and Europe. WCQuidditch ✎ 19:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Hezbollah military activities is the more appropriate merge target. Longhornsg (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Foreign relations of Hezbollah#European Union. Came to the same conclusion as User:TurboSuperA+. Yes, it is mentioned elsewhere yet that structure may not be right and especially not expanded. The target should be expanded with this information. gidonb (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DDPF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged for speedy deletion by Jules* with the reason:

original research / not verifiable. Sources do not say that DDPF is a terrorist group, we don't even know if a such group really exists (sources only talks about a Telegram group and police is not sure of anything about it. See Le Monde

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

However, the related page on attacks carried by this group shows a substantial number of references. First, I want to emphasize that Jules* removed the mention of anarchism as the main lead pursued by French authorities—even though this claim is backed by two sources in the specific article about the attacks. A simple Google search would have confirmed this. Here are the two articles: (1) (2).

Regarding DDPF, the user selectively picked sources and provided only one, Le Monde, which questions whether the attacks are coordinated and examines the links between the Telegram channel claiming responsibility (and providing close-up images/videos of the attacks—clearly from people with direct access I should say) and the actual assaults. Let me clarify: I extensively research terrorism in general and anarchist terrorism in particular, and such practices are entirely typical of 21st-century terrorist groups. The most obvious example that comes to mind is Al-Qaeda or ISIS’s online recruitment and incitement campaigns during the 2000s and 2010s. Whenever radicalized individuals carry out attacks and claim them in the group’s name, they are considered part of it—which is logical, as this is one of the primary forms of early-21st-century terrorism, sometimes overlapping with lone-wolf attacks but not always. Here, the only precise witness accounts describe multiple assailants (e.g., people in a car or hooded figures setting fire to targets)—clearly not individual acts. So, as I told Jules*, I don’t see why, even if the investigation eventually concludes (which is possible) that this isn’t an anarchist group, we couldn’t mention it as the main lead as it is the main lead so far.

The reality is that most sources do refer to it as a group—especially since the terrorist group and the Telegram channel share the same name. We’re likely dealing with a hardcore nucleus that carried out some attacks and is now trying to incite others (e.g., people linked to prisons—the only arrested suspect so far is a former inmate) to follow suit. This is a classic strategy of modern terrorism (and not even just modern—terrorism in general).

As for the claim that the Telegram channel is separate from the group (which they changed in the introduction also), frankly, I think the user deliberately cherry-picked an isolated this source. Plenty of others clearly treat it as a group—here’s a sample.(3)(4)(5)(6 in English)

Some speak of it as a 'movement', such as Le Figaro (6)

In fact, the position of the Guardian (7) describing it as a group based on the Telegram channel to communicate (meaning their main modus operandi known so far is to use that homonymous channel to coordinate, incite and mediatize their actions) seems to be the fairest one, and probably where the inquiry will go towards, but don't know yet.

But in any case, I don't see why she would delete the page ; either it's a group, a movement or a slogan anti-prison if it's ultimately decided (which is very dubious and unprobable) ; in any case it would be usable here and not a non-deserving subject. Look at the amount of sources we are discussing the subject while it's still going on, I feel like it kinda shows that it's a big subject, and I mean it's a current event, so the page will follow it's usual temporality and follow the sources as they come through ; deleting seems clearly wrong regarding the amount of sources avalaible online. Also I should note that Jules* is admin on the FR:WP and I won't repeat the accusations I made against them in the talk page of DDPF but the FR:WP admin team deleted this page for 'Manifest vandalism' while I was sleeping without opening a single discussion on it - and I feel very attacked by this categorization of what I did, which is clearly not vandalism but instead trying to do subjects I like, and you know I like terrorism-related subjects since I did hundred of pages regarding that (in this account and this one, so as not to fool anyone) ; I spent time trying to improve the FR:WP on that matter, and I still engage there while I'm being harassed, etc and this is how they act and how they categorize my edits. Do you really think it's 'Manifest vandalism' ? I feel like it was maybe rushed, but you know me, you say it to me on my talk page and I add sources and I'm a cyclical dude, I would have come back to the page to add sources over time, like I always do, Jules*. Anyways, yes, that's it, delete it if you want but it's not deserved by the amount of sources and it's more of a revealer of the atmosphere I feel like against me on FR:WP, where everyone is against me and hates my guts, basically. But it's probably deserved, hey, strange that in EN:WP it's not the same at all. Aristoxène (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History, or God, or human consciousness or whatever people believe in will judge. I just feel like I'm being systematically attacked since I criticized rape culture there and harassment targetting me and the feminist project and their administration management of the issues. Since then, it's only hostility and them hating my guts and I'm the worst dude ever. So I'm sorry to feel that this is in the same process but I feel it's the same dynamic ; and it's personal ok but the attacks seem personal too and often by the same people. Aristoxène (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After some thinking, I should say that I don't have the whole time of the world, so like I need to improve Rosalie Soubère and other pages for a project and do stuff IRL, so I'm sorry but I will drop this issue, do what you want with the page, it should stay, but I won't engage anymore with it or any related subjects, either here or in the FR:WP, it's ok, they will do better. I remove them from my Watchlist and I mute Jules* and I thank you all for the choice you will make, I'm sure it will be the right one. I won't be harassed like this, it's just work I did that goes into the bin and me not having the satisfaction of shaping the page I liked creating as it goes forward and we learn more about it, RIP. Aristoxène (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I just feel like I'm being systematically attacked since I criticized rape culture there and harassment targetting me and the feminist project and their administration management of the issues." This has nothing to do with the current matter: I never met you on fr-wp before and did not even know you name until today. And it has everything to with you writing things that are not in sources. — Jules* ^talk 22:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: DDPF is obviously notable, there are dozens of reliable sources about it. Also, it definitely exist, people are literally commiting terror attacks in France in the name of this group and spray painting its name on the walls. See [1] for proof WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Terrorism, and France. WCQuidditch ✎ 00:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into 2025 French prison attacks. Regardless of what constitutes the DDPF, the reliable sources above only appear to discuss the group in relation to these attacks, not as independently notable. It would be best, then, to cover DDPF in the context of the attacks, and if there are additional sources about the DDPF in isolation (separate from the attacks) in the future, it can always split out to an independent article in summary style. Also noting that most sources unfurl the acronym as "Défense des droits des prisonniers français" not just "Droit des prisonniers français". And as a side note about personal attacks, every language Wikipedia is administered differently, but bringing an article to AfD discussion is foremost an opportunity to talk about the sources for the subject so I'd try not to view it as a personal judgment on the article's editors. czar 01:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into 2025 French prison attacks. It doesn't appear that the Telegram group is independently notable as a standalone topic outside the context of the prison attacks. Including this content in the larger article improves the encyclopedic coverage of both. Longhornsg (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This acronym may refer to a terrorist group or to an action by the French far left against prisons. The action is under investigation and will probably be followed up in the near future. Let's keep a trace of it, even if it's a pity that it has been removed from wiki:fr, not by the community but by the sole will of its administrators. Sg7438 (talk) 07:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to 2025 French prison attacks. Coverage is limited to mentions in relation to the 2025 French prison attacks. No standalone notability demonstrated or argued in this discussion. Yue 07:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to 2025 French prison attacks, per above. Whether or not this group exists, it's pretty clear that it is not independently notable outside of the prison attacks being committed. Per WP:NORG, I don't think there's any need for this to be a separate article, at least not based on the current coverage in sources. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2025 French prison attacks. Same concerns as above, yet not sure anything is missing at the target. It all looks very similar to me. We should respect our merge team's limited people and time resources. gidonb (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Hadera stabbing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not pass WP:NEVENT, every source here is from the day it happened. Prod removed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and Israel. WCQuidditch ✎ 00:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support deletion per nom and wikipedia is not a collector of information. Easternsahara (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Highway 4 shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not pass WP:NEVENT, less than a week long period of coverage. Prod removed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Terrorism. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Under most article standards and in most other nations, this is a very WP:MILL event and the article title is so vague that it doesn't inform anyone of its location. Nathannah • 23:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The article was deleted less than an hour into the nomination by Liz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Since the deletion reason simply pointed to this nomination, which normally only happens as part of closing a discussion, I'm not sure if this was intended or erroneous — there does not appear to be any reason to indicate the week-long discussion period is not necessary, especially when there has already been a declined PROD. (Normally, if an article at AfD is speedy deleted during the AfD discussion period, the deletion reason reflects the relevant speedy criterion, and generally nothing else.) I have no other opinion or further comment, at least for now. WCQuidditch ✎ 00:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nathannah and PARAKANYAA Easternsahara (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. WCQuidditch ✎ 04:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Tarqumiyah shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not pass WP:NEVENT, less than a week long period of coverage. Prod removed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Terrorism. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into 2024 Israeli military operation in the West Bank, potentially in the Aftermath section (which admittedly may not be the best target). WP:RS place this shooting in the context of this ongoing military operation and the resultant spillover into the southern West Bank. For example, [2], [3], among others. Longhornsg (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Fine by me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Cool (and it's already covered in the article anyway). Agree with you that a standalone isn't necessary. Longhornsg (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. WCQuidditch ✎ 00:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Merge Definitely fails in terms of notability for it's own article via WP:NOTNEWS. As suggested above, redirect to 2024_Israeli_military_operation_in_the_West_Bank#1_September which already exists. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2024 Israeli military operation in the West Bank - No need to merge as it is covered there already, with multiple sources and the salient details. Not notable for its own article, the merge/redirect is certainly a suitable ATD as the information is due in the target. Sirfurboy (talk) 07:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think it can be merged in accordance to WP:DUEWEIGHT, it is very insignificant. Easternsahara (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & Redirect into 2024 Israeli military operation in the northern West Bank. Article is not a WP:NEVENT, however I see no reason the information shouldn't be added to an existing article on a related topic. Stickymatch 23:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zhao Xinmin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Questionable whether there was any WP:SUSTAINED notability here to merit any article. Amigao (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Terrorism. Skynxnex (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG. Coverage has continued years after his death; this source is from 2020. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After checking a few references they do not seem to verify the contents properly (and are AI generated), the 2002 award is not mentioned by the source. Neither is the HIV thing, in fact the source mentions an entirely different motive (money) which are the first two I checked... it is better to delete it and start over.

Probably notable though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look the worse this gets. The broad strokes are here but almost all the fine details in this article seem to have been hallucinated by AI. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The 2002 award is mentioned by name in the source's headline (" 《感动中国》2002年度人物：赵新民 " - "2002 'Touching China' figure: Zhao Xinmin"), and the beginning of the first paragraph ("颁奖") makes it clear the topic is an award. I agree there seems to be no mention of HIV in the source cited for that claim, but HIV is mentioned in this source cited later in the same paragraph. However, the URLs with ?utm_source=chatgpt.com are a red flag for sure. The subject seems to be notable, but I can see an argument for WP:TNT on the basis that the article appears to be LLM-generated. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG Iban14mxl (talk) 05:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 21:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Tapuah Junction shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No secondary coverage. Wikipedia is not a repository of news stories. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Terrorism, Israel, and Palestine. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thebiguglyalien hello, im not familiar with the English Wikipedia article deletion policy, so i would be happy if you would be able to explain to me why 2013 Tapuah Junction stabbing, and 2010 Tapuah Junction stabbing considered notable enough for an article, and this article isn't. There an important detail that i didn't mention in the article cause i didn't found source in English for this particular claim but there a lot of Hebrew sources. This detail is the fact that the settlement of Evyatar was re-establish be Israeli settlers as "response" for this attack.Benbaruch (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone would have to look at those articles, but it's possible they aren't notable either. Articles about events on the English Wikipedia require sustained coverage beyond the initial reporting of the event. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thebiguglyalien, i understand, but what do think about the fact that a large output that currently being regulated by the Israeli government, was re-establish as "response" for this attack, don't you think that this fact makes the article about the attack notable enough? Benbaruch (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Keep There was the attack. Following that there was a manhunt which got coverage including his wife being arrested. He had a trial which got additional coverage. Then Israel military demolished his family home, which got coverage including the US State Department condemning it (a rare event).

The article needs work and additional sources, but I do think this incident and it's aftermath got sustained notice both within Israel but also around the globe. Searching using the name of the perpetrator is a good place to start for additional sources[4] -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Under scholarly sources, I found one book which doesn't just have a description of the attack but also discuss clashes and violence in response to Israel engaging in the manhunt[5] Bob drobbs (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm updating my vote to Strong Keep after reviewing the number of sources which covered this attack and it's aftermath.

And while WP:OTHER isn't usually the strongest argument, in this case if we start applying a not-policy definition of secondary source which some here are trying to use to justify the deletion of even articles where hundreds of news articles were written about an event over a period of years, then much of this site would have to be deleted. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'd consider merge or redirect to an appropriate page, which is the level of treatment that this gets in the book above. To meet GNG, a subject must have significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. The newspaper coverage is primary, as is the state department rebuke. The book, Jewish Lives Matter has only a short entry that does not significantly describe the attack such that a wikipedia page can be written. The nature of the work shows why multiple sources are required. We are certainly not at a WP:N pass yet, and if we are to rely on this kind of sourcing to keep an article then systematic bias in our coverage is likely. Sirfurboy (talk) 08:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  > The newspaper coverage is primary...

  I'm not sure this understanding of secondary sources is correct.  Reading through it again, a newspaper journalist synthesizing facts regarding an incident seems sufficient to qualify as secondary:

  "A Secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources"

  Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources

  In which case, this incident got plenty of secondary source coverage over an extended period of time.

  -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This comment is meta. Which sources do you contest are secondary, and why? Sirfurboy (talk) 08:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As I said above, based on policy it seems that all that's required to be a secondary source is for someone at least one step removed from the event synthesizing facts about it. And for this story, there are dozens (if not hundreds) of examples over a period of years. Here are just a few of them:

In this Haaretz article about the conviction the journalist synthesized a bunch of related facts regarding this case.

https://archive.is/CzIV8

Here's an article which focuses on the demolition of his family's home, but also meets the metric of synthesizing facts:

https://www.euronews.com/2021/07/08/us-israel-palestinians-violence

Here's another one which condemns Rashida Tlaib for tweeting about the house demolition.

https://www.algemeiner.com/2021/07/11/antisemitic-congresswoman-rashida-tlaib-slammed-on-twitter-for-denouncing-demolition-of-palestinian-terrorists-home-failing-to-mention-his-victim/

The US embassy issuing a condemnation is a primary source. Tlaib tweeting about it is a primary source. But if any journalist writes about these things then that's a secondary source. Bob drobbs (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Let's look at each of these:

1. The Haaretz article is a news report about sentencing of Muntasir Shalabi. This is a primary source. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS or any good book on historiography. It is a discursive primary source, and it reports the background, that is, the shooting, saying Shalabi, a U.S. citizen, was convicted of shooting the three victims from inside his car while they were waiting at a bus stop at the Tapuah junction in the northern West Bank. and later According to his indictment Shalabi fired from close range and stopped shooting when his gun malfunctioned and fled the scene. That's not SIGCOV, but notice carefully that "According to his indictment". The news source is reporting court documents. This is a primary source for this detail also. News reporting is a primary source, and does not count towards notability, and that is Wikipedia policy. N
2. The Euronews article is a news report of the demolition of his house. Again, this is reporting events, and adds reported detail of the background of the events. This is a primary source. Again, refer to WP:PRIMARYNEWS. N
3. The algemeiner: This is a news report of criticism of the demolition of Shalabi's home. It contains only this background on the topic of the article: Of course what Hamas lobbyist @RashidaTlaib omits to mention is fact that this home belonged to a Palestinian terrorist who murdered a Jewish Israeli man. That is not SIGCOV, and is a quotation in response to the criticism. It, too, is primary sourcing. Note that what we don't have is a source that has synthesised material here. We don't have an article that has examined the whole matter, and draw together reporting, and chosen to include this criticism, and examined its effects. Instead we have a news report that we have decided to include in the article. The synthesis is ours. Again, this is a discursive primary source, and does not count towards notability. N

Sirfurboy (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you're looking at Wikipedia:PRIMARYNEWS as the best or only place to determine what a secondary source. Above you rejected my argument as "meta", but have you looked at Wikipedia:SECONDARY which defines what a secondary source is.

It only requires a few things:

• At least one step removed from an event
• Contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas

And here's my understanding of the word "synthesis" in this context:

• Combining information from multiple sources to create a new, cohesive understanding or argument

Do you have a different understanding of the word?

And is there any disagreement with the idea that the Haaretz journalist probably talked to multiple people and maybe reviewed multiple documents to put together their news report? Bob drobbs (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PRIMARYNEWS links you to the policy page. Now look on WP:SECONDARY, scroll up a couple of paragraphs, and read note d under WP:PRIMARY. These are primary sources. Sirfurboy (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Restricting participation to EC editors per WP:PIA.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 15:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep, I noticed another editor saying that wikipedia is not news, and though that is true, that is not what this is about. A review of the sources in both English as well as Hebrew demonstrates clear notability per WP:GNG for this article to be kept. The article also references an event from 2021. This was and is a notable event that meets our standards for encyclopedic mention. Keep all around. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Per Bob Drobbs comments and further inquiry, my Strong Keep moves to Even stronger Keep. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi lijhgtn. You may only have one highlighted !vote per AfD. I am curious though: your !vote above was made at 15:26 yesterday, but you had !voted on a previous AfD just 2 minutes earlier, at 15:24. Did you do your WP:BEFORE review of the sourcing at some other time? Would you be willing to post up your source review? Thanks. Sirfurboy (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I bolded text after the first and only !vote. Will it somehow count as a second one? If so, that was not my intention, I was simply bolding the second mention of "Strong Keep" and "Even Stronger Keep" for emphasis. I thought only your first bolded !vote was "counted" (and yes I know they are not simply votes and therefore it is not simply a matter of which "side" has the highest number of !votes on their side but rather which arguments are most based in policy. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In other words, if I did something wrong, please ping me and let me know so that I come back to this thread and I will correct it. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for removing the additional bolding. It keeps things clearer for the closer. Sirfurboy (talk) 08:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This did not receive any – let alone significant! – secondary source coverage over time and warrants deletion for that reason. (WP:NOTNEWS / WP:SIGCOV) Already covered in Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2021, besides. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  See my comments above. Can you please clarify what your understanding of a secondary source is?

  Because it appears that between coverage of this shooting and coverage of the perpetrator/aftermath dozens if not hundreds of secondary sources gave significant coverage to this story. And to clarify my use of the word "significant" these weren't just passing mentions, these were are all news articles written specifically about the incident or things directly related to it's aftermath (manhunt, trial, home demolition) which IMO should be included in the scope of this article.

  As just one example, of countless examples, here is a secondary source giving coverage of the attack:

  https://www.timesofisrael.com/student-shot-in-west-bank-drive-by-shooting-dies-of-injuries/ Bob drobbs (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Times of Israel article is a news report of the death of Yehuda Guetta. The article is news reporting throughout. As above, refer to WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Such reports are primary sources occasioned by the event (this one is occasioned by the death of the victim). These are not secondary sources demonstrating notability nor WP:LASTING effect. N Sirfurboy (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    IMO Wikipedia:Secondary source seems like a better, and probably the definitive place, to try to get an understanding of what a secondary source is. Bob drobbs (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, scroll up a couple of paragraphs on that page and carefully read note d regarding what are primary sources. Per policy, these are primary sources. Sirfurboy (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I did scroll up. it seems 100% clear that Times of Israel (and countless other sources) aren't a primary sources based on this definition:

    "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event..."

    But there's also this qualification:

    "For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources..."

    I wasn't sure, so I had to look up how wikipedia defines "breaking news":

    "Breaking-news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Wikipedia can and should be up to date, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia" Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Breaking_news

    So it seems very clear that the only standard here is to treat news stories within 24 hours of an event with a large degree of skepticism, not that every single news article written within 6-12 months of an event is a primary source. Bob drobbs (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This is just wikilawyering. Have another read of WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Sirfurboy (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    You keep referring to WP:PRIMARYNEWS, but that page is just an opinion essay written by some editors:

    "This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community'"'

    By comparison, WP:SECONDARY is policy. Bob drobbs (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It is an explanatory essay explaining Wikipedia policy, and which, like all explanatory essays, has a higher level of consensus than someone trying to assert that a news source is only primary if it is within 24 hours of an event. It also links quite clearly to the policy. News reports are primary sources. It is not just Wikipedia saying so.

    Discursive primary sources include other people’s accounts of what happened, such as reports of meetings, handbooks, guides, diaries, pamphlets, newspaper articles, sermons and literary and artistic sources.^[1]: 69.

    Sirfurboy (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    At any rate, WP:SECONDARY is very clear: A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. The ToI article provided does none of these things. Smallangryplanet (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    News reports are primary sources

    Yes, some very academic-focused essays make this claim, but this is not wiki policy.

    There's literally a WP:In the news section featured at the top of the homepage which is written based on news reports. Bob drobbs (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Why does Wikipedia need to define what a secondary/primary source are? This is a real term and not something made up for the purpose of the project like WP:NOTABILITY. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It is wikipedia policy. See WP:PRIMARY and especially note d. Sirfurboy (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no secondary coverage, and yes news reports are primary sources: [6] Traumnovelle (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I would normally be a delete on articles like this, per WP:NOTNEWS if the coverage in WP:RS were limited to fleeting WP:PRIMARY. However, this shooting and its aftermath garnered significant WP:SIGCOV in a diverse array of WP:RS across the world meeting WP:DIVERSE ([7], [8], [9], there was continued coverage of subsequent developments in the case in international news wires and outlets in the months and years following the shooting meeting WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE ([10], [11], [12], [13]) WP:SIGCOV of the subsequent manhunt ([14]), WP:LASTING due to the shooting being part of events that predicated subsequent clashes that drew international coverage and analysis ([15], [16], [17]) and Israeli settlers named a outpost after the victim, which became a flashpoint in following years ([18], [19]), among other coverage. There are a lot of these incidents that don't satisfy WP:GNG. This isn't one of them. Longhornsg (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The manhunt, trial, and razing are all breaking news themselves. It's still pure news, just for aspects that happened years apart. "Part of events" is also carrying a lot of weight here since those sources aren't about this subject. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Sirfurboy and my understanding of WP:PSTS. For events like this, being covered in the news is a given, but notability comes from multiple secondary sources – that's what makes an event significant enough to be in an encyclopedia. This doesn’t seem to meet that threshold. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per WP:NOTNEWS and all the convincing deletion arguments above 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete as above. Easternsahara (talk) 23:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I don't see a consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, isn't that when a "No consensus" close is appropriate? Iljhgtn (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was started on March 27. Is it standard practice to just relist into eternity until a super majority is presented? Iljhgtn (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

up to 3 relists are quite common where consensus remains unclear. Note that Liz said this is the final relist. Sirfurboy (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per EVENT, GNG and Longhornsg. gidonb (talk) 02:04, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]