Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Reuven Shmerling: Difference between revisions

Murder of Reuven Shmerling

Murder of Reuven Shmerling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not news. This incident was in the news, mostly regional, for about four days because it was called suspected terrorism. However, it appears to have been a monetary dispute. Even if it was terror, which needs a trial not news reports to confirm, there is no long-term impact or significance to a wide region. The story was covered in predominantly Jewish sources; nothing wrong with that but it fails WP:DIVERSE. No WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE from four days in the regular news cycle and potential coverage (no WP:CRYSTALBALL please) on a trial is WP:ROUTINE. Remember, the affects of WP:RECENTISM on a recent story and please avoid employing a "wait and see" tactic to this AFD. WP:RAPID goes both ways and that alone has no assessment on the notability, or lack thereof, of this tragic but unnotable crime. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Weak Keep per WP:RAPID. There is coverage. It actually has been confirmed as terror - Reuven Shmerling recognized as victim of terrorism, YNET, 15 October 2017 - not that this is relevant for WP:GNG / WP:NCRIME - what matters is coverage. At this point it would be crystal balling to assess the future persistent (or lack thereof) of coverage. In terms of coverage level - national level coverage is AOK for NCRIME. Notability is assessed per coverage - and in this case - 15 days of coverage - during which coverage is sufficient for those 15 days.Icewhiz (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Icewhiz read my comment about WP:RAPID -- it has no bearing on notability. Routine news reports about a crime is not a sign of notability, it's just expected. I do agree, it "would be crystal balling to assess the future persistent of coverage" which is why an article should have never been created on this incident. Until, or if, we are offered actual analysis or impact of the alleged crime, we have no indication of notability whatsoever.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Murders are not routine, and in this case it is not routine murder covering. In most murder cases - we have an article the next day, maybe two, and little else until the trial. In this case we have several news items coming in several spurts throughout the 15 days from the event.Icewhiz (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, sadly, murder is routine. 437,000+ people are murdered globally on an annual basis. We cannot create 437,000 articles a year. AusLondonder (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete This has no encyclopedic value. Wefihe (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Per WP:RAPID as article was already created. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply doesn't apply "its not routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" .Also WashPO is not Jewish source [1]] so its meets WP:DIVERSE too