Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing
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
— User:Mr, 11:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: 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 (Wikipedia:Notability)