2015 Tel Aviv bus stabbing attack: No fatalities or WP:LASTING effects to meet WP:EVENT .  LibStar ( talk ) 02:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Terrorism , Israel , and Palestine .  LibStar ( talk ) 02:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Wikipedia:EVENTCRITERIA , we have BBC, NYT, Times and Haaretz coverage, that is enough for this, particularly as there is later coverage of the sentence.  FortunateSons ( talk ) 12:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Where is the lasting coverage?  LibStar ( talk ) 22:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - it is in the category of prominent crimes in Israel.  It is well-referenced. -- FeralOink ( talk ) 16:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is only well referenced at time of event, needs persistent, lasting coverage to meet WP:EVENT .  Not really a prominent crime is no one died.  LibStar ( talk ) 03:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Well-sourced event that passes Wikipedia:EVENTCRITERIA .  For good and bad, Israelis have a long memory and write about such events time and again in books and articles.  It's still early for that.  gidonb ( talk ) 21:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 9 years after where is the WP:LASTING coverage?  10 of the 11 sources are from the time of the event.  LibStar ( talk ) 03:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You mean references.  Your nomination sure is focused on what is in the article!  It shouldn't be.  Here is a second source from another moment.  gidonb ( talk ) 04:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] from March 2015, barely 2 months after the incident.  LibStar ( talk ) 08:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "Israelis have a long memory and write about such events time and again in books and articles."  So where are the books and articles about this event and its impacts to meet WP:EVENT .  Please read WP:LASTING as well.  LibStar ( talk ) 08:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "Events that have a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance are likely to be notable."  LibStar ( talk ) 08:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I responded to your comment and went to sleep to find three more comments under my comment.  So next there will be nine?  And this happened not only under my opinion.  You now argue with literally every person who does not agree with you, and that is everyone, in total defiance of WP:BLUDGEON and WP:REPEAT .  What is going on LibStar ?  This is why the arguments are bad: [1.] Your AfD is focused on references (which you called sources).  This is in defiance of WP:NEXIST .  You say that there 10 references from the time of the event in the article and one that is from a later time and therefore the article should be deleted.  Well, that doesn't matter yet following your logic I brought an extra source that is later than the event and that should have sufficed.  By your logic.  [2.] Next, your argument becomes a moving target.  Suddenly later sources are no good anymore, you complained it was 10-1, and now it is 10-2, yet suddenly the sources need to be from even later.  You ask where are these even later sources.  Under everyone's opinion.  I'll address that as well.  News is quick.  The source that I brought was a 2-months later history of the event, not just news.  Other histories take time to be written.  Let's consider a security event from way back so we will have enough historical perspective.  I will pick the Ein Ofarim killings because I participated in the debate and remember the debate well.  In Ein Ofarim, three Israeli security guards, securing a drilling site, were murdered.  All of them happened to be Druze.  The event occurred in September 1956.  When the article was nominated for deletion in 2022, there was one reference from 2022 in the article.  A history.  The Israeli archives suck (well, still they're better than nothing), yet I was able to find more sources and after the fact stick these in the article as well.  Now in the article, you will find news reports from September 1956 and histories from 1963, 1964, 1992, 1988, and 2002.  This means that while on average, a relevant history is written every decade, there can be also gaps of nearly 30 years.  The important part is the principle, which I already laid out: For good and bad, Israelis have a long memory and write about such events time and again in books and articles.  It's still early for that.  gidonb ( talk ) 23:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping.  So we should wait for 30 years before considering this article for deletion?  The fact there are 10 sources indicate this is perhaps WP:NOTNEWS .  LibStar ( talk ) 23:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument at all.  An OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument would be if I would assign importance to the fact that another article was kept.  I DO NOT!  I'm explaining to you with an example of an event that happened a long time ago that it takes time for history to be written.  And even then, the source that I added is a HISTORICAL SOURCE that looks back at the event! gidonb ( talk ) 00:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] so should we ban AfDs for 30 years on all Israeli event articles?  LibStar ( talk ) 00:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No.  Some AfDs make sense.  This nomination is not one of them.  And here is a source that discusses the event in 2016.  Almost 2 years after it happened.  It totally debunks your argument once again!  In other words, the subject of this AfD should be kept by WP:EVENTCRITERIA , WP:LASTING , WP:EFFECT , and WP:NOTNEWS ! gidonb ( talk ) 00:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Significant coverage by reliable sources.  The number of fatalities is irrelevant to the question of notability.  Marokwitz ( talk ) 11:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Did the attack have any WP:EFFECT as evidenced by persistent coverage well after the event?  LibStar ( talk ) 11:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  As a significant event with numerous reliable sources.  Hogo-2020 ( talk ) 07:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep