Deletion of 2011 Tel Aviv nightclub attack

Comment: this is a routine event and the article attempts to pump up its significance in the greater context of the ongoing Israeli Palestinian conflict.  There is no evidence that this event was tied to any terror group - it was by all appearances a disgruntled 21 year old.  Nobody was killed, thankfully.  The background section doesn't fit - efforts to secure the border have nothing to do with this attack, yet the article tries to conflate the two. The radicalization section is likewise out of place. The suspect practiced with a knife and stick in his apartment?  He made and deleted a video?  He tried to take a tractor but it was gone?  It's four paragraphs of routine info that tricks readers into thinking there's more here than there is.  The vehicle ramming as a trend section is also a weak attempt to beef this up through association with more notable vehicle ramming events.  Each source listed only mentions the event in one sentence, with no context or indication of significance. Finally, per , there's no indication that there's any enduring legacy from this event, or that it's become part of the cultural zeitgeist in any way
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Deleting this article would result in a loss of function for Wikipedia because it is linked form other articles including Stabbing as a terrorist tactic, Vehicle-ramming attack and Haoman 17, although merging this to the nightclub's article  would have an  impact on that article.  I also '''note''' that there is a steady drumbeat of hits on this article, ~10 a day, with occassional spikes to 200-300 hundred hits a day, which confirms that this article serves our users.  My primary argument, however, is that just as edifices are made of individual bricks, Wikipedia is built of individual articles that can be linked, as this article is, from articles like Vehicle-ramming attack, enabling readers to delve into important topics like terrorism.  Moreover, article is strongly sourced to  in  the year it happened and some ongoing coverage the years since, and . Plus,  editors responded to this AfD by adding coverage of this attack years after it took place, including a book I just added
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:SIGCOV||WP:RS||WP:NOTTEMPORARY||WP:HEY)

Comment: the article reads like a news report: who; what; when; where. The sources presented as an argument for sustained coverage are passing mentions. There's no lasting significance or societal impact and no depth of coverage; fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: because of the continuing coverage spanning 2011, 2012 and 2013; the 2014 and 2016 explainers of vehicular terrorism in Slate{{cite news|last1=Keating|first1=Joshua|title=Why Terrorists Use Vehicles as Weapons|url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2014/11/05/car_attack_in_jerusalem_why_are_terrorists_ramming_vehicles_into_crowds.html|publisher=Slate|date=5 November 2014}}, in NBC News,{{cite news|last1=Jamison|first1=Alastair|title=Truck Attacks: Low-Tech, Soft Target Terrorism Is Growing Threat|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/berlin-truck-attack/truck-attacks-low-tech-soft-target-terrorism-growing-threat-n609996|publisher=NBC News|date=20 December 2016}} and in Australia's The New Daily{{cite news|last1=Stiles|first1=Jackson|title=The ‘dreadful simplicity’ of vehicle attacks|url=http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/world/2016/07/15/history-vehicle-attacks/|publisher=The New Daily|date=15 July 2016}} that specifically cite the 2011 Tel Aviv attack; and the 2017 white paper on "''Vehicles as a Weapon of Terror''"https://www.counterextremism.com/vehicles-as-weapons-of-terror#dd-summary by the Counter_Extremism_Project|Counter Extremism Project that also references Tel Aviv. In addition, the Tel Aviv attack is included in the 2013 book ''A Citizen’s Guide to Terrorism and Counterterrorism''.{{cite book|last1=Harmon|first1=Christopher|title=A Citizen’s Guide to Terrorism and Counterterrorism|date=2013|publisher=Routledge|isbn=0415709423|page=12}}Now, the first claim for deletion is , but LASTING says that an event with "lasting significance is likely to be notable;" i.e., not having LASTING by itself is no grounds for deletion.  The second claim is that «The media repeated the same story for a few days».  But the criteria for  is "stories are reported in the news just once on a single day, or over a period of a few days, and then are forgotten."  Well, this story certainly was not forgotten in 2012-2017.  The third claim is , but the relevant fail criteria are "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" and "breaking news".  Again, reporting from 2012 and 2013 and books and explainers from years later do not meet either.  The fourth claim for deletion is that the article fails diversity in sources.  I don't know what that means; certainly the sources are from Australia, Israel, the United States, the UK and others.  Does that fail ?.  The next claim is quite curious:  "sources saying the same thing".  Not applicable, as the sources span time and place.  Following is the claim that  is not met.  But  says "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group."; i.e., it is a good to have, but not a must have.  Next the claim is made that  is not met, but again, see coverage 2011-2013.  Plus,  actually says: "If an event is cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down, this may be an indication of lasting significance" ---please see the 2014-2017 explainers and white paper.  Finally, claims are made that reportages on the trials and convictions of the terrorists (i.e. criminals) are .  But back when the terrorist was a mere suspect, liable to be let go after 72 hrs, did we know what the outcome of the investigations and trials were going to be?   is clearly aimed at weddings, game scores, the police blotter and "Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Routine_coverage|often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award), stories that frequently appear in the back pages of newspapers".  Such a serious misreading of policy should be tempered by reading , which explains: "Be careful not to make  mean something that it does not. Just because a news article is written about a pre-planned event does not make it "routine" coverage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LASTING||WP:109PAPERS||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:DIVERSITY||WP:BOMBARD||WP:GEOSCOPE||WP:GEOSCOPE||WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE||WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE||WP:ROUTINE||WP:NOTROUTINE)

Comment: after ensuring content is covered in any apprpriate list articles. Incident received shortlived media coverage and fails , sadly an event which impacted on the individuals, but which had no long-term consequence nor in-depth analysis to justify a seperate article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY)

Comment: Added sentencing for perp, and coverage of the rehabilitation and return to service of one of the victims - years after the attack. Meets  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:EVENT)

Comment: Incident received shortlived media coverage and fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY)

Comment: for now - This is a difficult one to say the least. I'll dispense with the weak arguments presented first. As of this moment, this article actually has a better argument for / than the 2016 Nice attack. I say this because the Nice attack, though notable, is almost exclusively discussed in sources from 2016 with only two citations from 2017. By contrast, this 2011 attack has been discussed by sources, however limitedly, in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, and even in 2017. The first real question with regards to this is, whether or not this can be considered routine coverage, even if persistent. I'm a firm no on this, specifically because a terror attack isn't simply ''routine'' coverage and because coming up multiple times in six years negates any routineness about it. I'm also not entirely sure why the OP has linked to Wikiproject:Diversity in their nomination, I assume this was a mislink meant to be for . Eh, again, the sources aren't mirror images of each other and they aren't just local. So this argument doesn't hold much water. Same with , national and international coverage does negate this argument. The OP isn't particularly interested in a GNG argument, since it's obvious that this article will meet it; it received some significant coverage in a variety of reliable sources independent of the subject and is thus presumed notable. You could make that argument and just walk away, to be fair. There's also somebody's "litmus test" for this article about there being casualties, this event has 8/9 (IB/Lede) casualties. As I've explained before, a casualty and a fatality are not the same thing. Casualties include injuries, fatalities, for obvious reasons, do not. That dispensed with, the nom does bring up something of particular value to this kind of discussion. That is, . The big keep or delete split really should come down to that question. The closest this article comes to meeting lasting, afaict, is the branding of this attack as being {{tq|an early example of the the terrorist vehicle-ramming attacks}} phenomenon within the article itself. A check of the sources supporting this claim ... do not support it. From http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2014/11/05/car_attack_in_jerusalem_why_are_terrorists_ramming_vehicles_into_crowds.html one specific source; {{tq|In 2011, when a stolen taxi rammed into a police roadblock outside a club in Tel Aviv, injuring seven, the Jerusalem Post reported that it was the fifth attack of its kind in the past three years}}. Beyond that, while its part of the I/P conflict, nothing seems to have precipitated out of it. No retaliation, no policy, no nothing ''except'' the cited claim that other vehicle-ramming attacks drew inspiration for this one. Right now, I'm leaning towards a weak delete. I'll have to revisit this, and find the previous AfD, before making a final statement on it. This is just what I have for now
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PERSISTENCE||WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE||WP:DIVERSE||WP:GEOSCOPE||WP:LASTING)

Comment: Meets  also reported by  sources make it notable. doesn't apply in this case as it not routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCRIME||WP:DIVERSE||WP:NEWS)