Shorouq Dwayyat: The entire basis for the article is their involvement in and punishment for the 1E attack, sourced to routine news.  The event itself is not notable, the victim sustained moderate injuries, no deaths.  // Timothy :: talk 03:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Crime , Terrorism , Israel ,  and Palestine .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for the following reasons: Not BLP1E: Shorouq Dwayyat is recognized for multiple significant events beyond a single occurrence, including her 2015 stabbing attack [40] [41] [42] , trial and imprisonment [43] [44] , and her release as part of the 2023 Hamas hostage deal [45] [46] .  These events have been extensively reported by reputable sources.  WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE : There has been sustained coverage by reliable sources from 2015 to the present, underscoring her ongoing relevance and historical significance.  Note that her name has various alternate spellings such as "Shurouq Dawiyat״,  "Shurooq Dweiyat" or " Shuruq Dweyat", not to mention Arabic and Hebrew spellings. The WP:DIVERSE coverage by established media outlets globally such as The New York Times [47] , Al-Jazeera [48] , Financial Times, Irish Times [49] , [50] and The Times of Israel among many others, clearly indicates that Dwayyat meets the GNG. BLP1E suggests redirection to an incident article if the individual is notable for a single event. Thus at most, this argument (if accepted) calls for a rename to Stabbing of Daniel Rosenfeld , rather than deletion. Marokwitz ( talk ) 07:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . While the policies listed in the intro – BLP1E, BLP, GNG and NBIO – are at the core of notability for biographies, in the case of Shorouq Dwayyat these are reasons to keep rather than delete. Marokwitz makes that case already above me. gidonb ( talk ) 16:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This definitely looks like a case of WP:BLP1E which is defined as " Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.  " All references to her are in the context of the 2015 stabbing - the trial is about the stabbing, and therefore by definition, in context of that single event. We normally cover both the crime and its subsequent trial in the same article. Likewise, her release from prison is in again in connection with the 2015 stabbing - why else was she in prison? VR talk 22:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's an essay about such cases that refutes your argument: WP:BIO2E . gidonb ( talk ) 22:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 04:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - WP:BLP1E says We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met and the third condition is The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. I don't view the stabbing as a "significant" event (the knife intifada was but not this particular attack), and the prisoner exchange was a significant event but she did not have a substantial role in that event (being one of many prisoners exchanged) and she only gets a brief mention in the prisoner exchange coverage. I don't see a merge target. Levivich ( talk ) 18:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] More broadly: this topic area has far too many articles about every single documented incidence of violence, in a conflict that has an extraordinary number of documented incidents of violence. We could do this also for every murder in the West, but we don't. I do not believe this particular stabbing meets WP:NEVENT , nor do many of the killings by Palestinians or Israelis, as it doesn't have WP:LASTING , WP:GEOSCOPE , WP:INDEPTH coverage. The sources hit two of those criteria but not all three, e.g. GEOSCOPE coverage (like NYT) isn't LASTING or INDEPTH; LASTING, INDEPTH coverage isn't GEOSCOPE, etc. Levivich ( talk ) 18:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with the third point, she didn't have a big part in the prisoner exchange; she isn't some high-ranking person in the military or a well-known criminal such as Al Capone. Person that did bad things, went to prison and got moved around as part of a larger conflict in a prisoner exchange. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep of course. It's clearly not a BLP1E as she is known for multiple events and has coverage from being 18 years old in 2015 when she tried to kill several people until now and the coverage is in English ( 2016 , 2016 ), Hebrew, Russian ( 2023 , 2023 ), Arabic ( 2015 , 2020 , 2023 ), etc. A simple Google search reveals that she is known for the 2015 violence act ( an example ). In 2020-2023 it was mentioned that she has spent 16 years in prison ( 1 , 2 ). In 2023 she got wide coverage again in multiple regions and languages on her release . For example Novaya Gazeta at the end of 2023 has covered her bio with details on arrest, noting that she got the longest sentence period in prison among Palestinian female prisoners in Israel correction facilities and she expressed a desire to die as a “martyr” ( the source ). The interest was not only in her act of stubbing in 2015 as well as her early release in 2023 but her prison life in between got wide attention as well . One can read for example this very detailed editorial on her life in prison and there are other materials as well. She became a celebrity for her actions. BBC considers her to be one of the most famous female Palestine prisoners . No problem with BLP. There were no points mentioned regarding issues with BLP just a general "fails BLP" when it doesn't fail.  Plus I can now expend the article since I saw quite a few new sources which were not yet cited in the current version.  See #1 for more info.  No problem with GNG as even with select sources brought here and in the article we can see that there is a significant coverage in reliable multi-country, multi-language, multi-year sources that are independent of the subject.  See #1 for more info.  No problem with NBIO as provided sources such as Novaya Gazeta and BBC provide additional uniqueness of her case.  See #1 for more info.  With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk ) 16:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Great answer, Oleg Y. Marokwitz ( talk ) 22:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Full agreement with Levivitch.  -- asilvering ( talk ) 02:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  03:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  An interesting article.  It needs a bit more work, but many articles need that.  Bduke ( talk ) 02:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Per the nom: a pretty exemplary case of WP:BLP1E - with biography based on a single event that itself has little to no case for notability (and so has little case for a page about the event either) - indeed fails GNG and NBIO.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 18:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, NotAGenious ( talk ) 06:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per arguments/sources brought up by Oleg Y and Marokwitz.  S5A-0043 Talk 07:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The crime she was convicted of isn't notable; I'm not sure being part of a prisoner exchange is notable either.  She could be briefly mentioned in an article about the prisoner exchange, but I don't see notability for her actions/life alone.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Known for more than just a single event, so fails WP:BLP1E .  - UtherSRG (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  BLP1E is for deciding whether to have an article on a notable topic that is based around the person or around the event .  Not meeting the criteria for BLP1E thus does not mean the topic actually is notable; that should be determined by the existence of SUSTAINED secondary coverage.  Crime reporting follows the predictable pattern of flashes of primary coverage for the initial crime, trial, sentencing, and sometimes appeals/release, all of which generally fall under the same context.  Unless there is significant secondary coverage later in that sequence of some aspect that isn't merely repeating whatever info appeared in earlier coverage, the topic does not meet SUSTAINED, no matter how many further primary-coverage-only events occur.  It does not seem that the subject's involvement in later prisoner exchanges garnered significant secondary coverage of either the initial stabbing or the exchange itself, so the criteria for N are not met.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 20:13, 23 January 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: no consensus