Deletion of 2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing

Comment: There are many  establishing notability. This was an international incident with international coverage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: pr  
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: WP:NOTNEWS is a dead letter because WikiNews has flopped.  To see a fresh example of this, compare 2017_shooting_of_Paris_police_officers|our coverage of the recent Paris shooting with https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/2017_Paris_Shooting theirs – a bare single sentence.  Our core principles of ,  and  work better than theirs when it comes to digesting the world's news.  Such cases are certainly notable and notability does not expire.  Our other policies such as  and  then apply
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:V||WP:OR||WP:PRESERVE||WP:CENSOR)

Comment: It clearly meets /CA and  - in my experiance, wp:not news is almost never followed here (unless there is a clash with the projects bias) and so needs reviewing, the project is so big now that it is impossible to stop editors reporting what is in the immediate press, the position is ''there are multiple wp:rs'' so I can republish it here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:GNG)

Comment: as per usual.  by this I mean that it has become normal to '''keep''' articles about terrorist attacks because they generate substantive international coverage, as is the case here.( cf. 2017 Paris machete attack, 2016 stabbing of Brussels police officers, etc.)  Nom gives a  argument for deletion, but, '''Note''' that in fact terrorist attacks tend to be revisited and referenced going forward, in this case, it is likely to be part of the growing attention being paid to suicide by cop|suicide by soldier, in which, as Shin Bet is suggesting here, an already suicidal perp commits a terrorist attack in order to achieve a socially approved, even lauded, death.  '''Note''' also, as I have argued before at AFD, that it is far easier to create articles on these incidents soon after they occur - and sources are available without access to paywalled archives - rather than to hope that someone goes back years later to create an article when an incident like the 1980 Antwerp summer camp attack or the 1996 Paris Métro bombing comes back into the news
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: or merge. No lasting coverage, per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: There is a high standard for  because it must meet  requirements including  - since this article has liberally cited multiple sources for a single article (which should be treated as one source) - a careful examination of the sources may prove that this article does not have sufficient references. I have cleaned out the obvious ones, but there may be more
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCRIME||WP:RS||WP:NEWSORGS)

Comment: per Bolter21's reasoning, without prejudice against creation of a Wikipedia article should  effects occur. There's really nothing here beyond a summary of the events and the condemnations by various dignitaries. As it is, it's a bit awkward that this was created and nominated on the day of the event, as it's too soon to tell if it will fulfill LASTING, but considering the frequency of terrorist incidents that happen in the Middle East, I'm leaning towards no
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LASTING)

Comment: per , which is still a policy (or so I've been told) and policies trump guidelines (or so I've been told). —&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Meets  per; {{tq|media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources}} and otability per; {{tq|"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material}}. Just some of the many different available sources; http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/14/middleeast/jerusalem-woman-fatally-stabbed/ CNN, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-15/jerusalem-british-student-fatally-stabbed-on-light-rail/8445524 ABC News which also links to multiple other sources including http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39601337 BBC, the Sydney Morning Herald, etc, etc. Many many Israli sources including http://www.timesofisrael.com/palestinian-who-stabbed-to-death-british-woman-ruled-fit-for-trial/ Times of Israel. All of these have provided more than a simple one paragraph repeat of every other source. There's also more minor mentions like this one in the https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/israeli-police-palestinian-man-kills-british-woman-on-jerusalem-train/2017/04/14/2f58b2e4-211d-11e7-bb59-a74ccaf1d02f_video.html WashingtonPost. To put this a little further, there's a requirement for reliability which should be self-evidently met, but, look at the sources for yourself. Sources are both secondary and independent of the subject. Now, this gives it ''presumed'' notability which is not the same as notability as some would be quick to point out. Because of that, it makes sense to address some of the arguments for deleting the article presented above. Argument 1 ; That is something of a  assumption, but, a credible one. I think it'll last a little bit longer than your "run of the mill" attack given that a British exchange student is the victim and thus forces international coverage. There might be some greater implications than a random stabbing attack on a local would. The same reasoning applies to  as well. Argument 2 - "likely fails  + + +"; from the guideline itself {{tq|This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable}}. Same crystalballing being applied as the first argument. But, again, the argument to keep is crystalballing in the opposite direction. Argument 3 - ; obviously does not apply given international coverage due to death of British student. This is not local news, its gone international. Argument 4 - OTNEWS; {{tq|... editors are encouraged ... and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events}}. There's no guideline or policy on what constitutes "significant", but, there are a couple of essays on it that really don't do anything to help (e.g.  and ). I think  applies here and that it suffices to establish significance per; {{tq|Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable}} which of course if this is being reported in Israeli, US, British, Australian and even German sources is more than enough to meet "diverse". These sources aren't just word for word repeats of each other either, but, they do cover the same general gist of what has happened. Argument 5 - {{tq|An unfortunate bias exists here where any attack on a non-Arab by an Arab is considered notable but, for the most part, it doesn't work the other way around}}. That is a  argument of {{tq|Delete We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this}}. In this case, that is not a credible argument for deleting. Lastly I'll tackle OT#NEWSREPORTS; again, this does not apply. It has nothing to do with; {{tq|routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia}}. Other than that there are quite a few more delete arguments which are "per somebody else".  It makes greater sense to me to look at the  essay (even though it's a bit more than just a murder) which links to a variety of guidelines and policies most of which have been mentioned here but only one which I think needs close inspection; "Persistence". I think the strongest argument for delete is  specifically because; {{tq|Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article}}. To extend this back to "Murder of", persistence is met if at least some of the following happens; {{tq|Some factors that may lead to a murder being notable include a '''large volume of coverage beyond the local area of its occurrence''' and continuing for a lengthy period of time thereafter, a highly publicized investigation or trial, an article about the case in a magazine long after the case has been closed, coverage on a TV series, a movie or documentary being made about the case, a new forensic technique being used to solve the crime, a law being passed as a result of the crime, or other lasting effects}}. I've emphasized one point which has already been met. The trial is already being lightly publicized; {{tq|fit to stand for trial}}. Whether or not the trial itself gets any attention is a matter for when the trial comes along. It's still in the news cycle and may or may not be as notable in a week, month, or year from now. My feeling on this is that while it won't be a ''huge'' deal it already is more than a ''minor local affair''. I think because of this, the article merits inclusion on the encyclopaedia. Side-issue; There is a lot of, to be honest, useless nonsense written above that is entirely distracting from the issue. I have to endorse Kingsidian's comment about "giving it a rest
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCRIME||WP:N||WP:SUSTAINED||WP:CRYSTALBALL||WP:PERSISTENCE||WP:EVENT||WP:GEOSCOPE||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:SIGNIFICANT||WP:CCSI||WP:DIVERSE||WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS||WP:NOT||WP:MURDEROF||WP:PERSISTENCE)

Comment: per  and WP:NPOV. This article is used by some of the more vocal defenders / editors of the article to further an agenda. Notice edits like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_Jerusalem_Light_Rail_stabbing&type=revision&diff=776514158&oldid=776506864 this from last hour, re-adding "terrorism" wherever possible (including the navbox for "Terrorist attacks against Israelis in the 2010s", even though this was highly uncertain as a terrorist attack, and not against an Israeli, adding categories like :Category:Mass stabbings (as explained multiple times, there was no "mass" stabbing here) and :Category:Palestinian terrorism (which seems to be the main reason why this article was created and must be kept separately at all costs). This is a minor incident, probably not an actual terrorist attack but simply a deranged, deluded murder, which gets hyped up to further a political agenda. We shouldn't play along with such games. If it has real, lasting repercussions beyond one very sad death and one trial, it is time to revisit this. Until then, this shouldn't be on enwiki
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)