Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis - Wikipedia


Article Images
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was keep. Most of the !votes are keep with good reasoning, and an editor suspected some of the delete !votes were canvassed. (non-admin closure) Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 21:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis

Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis (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)

Pr WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING . Mr Tsibouktzakis is not known for anything, AFAIK, except his murder. Compare him with, say Bassem Abu Rahmeh of Bil'in (who was internationally known at the time of his murder), then wonder why one has a Wikipedia article, why the other one doesn't? Huldra (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I looked up, Bassem Abu Rahmeh - mentioned by Nom. He was hit in the chest with a tear gas canister while participating in a protest March in Bi'lin.[1]. Tragic, but not notable. Note also that when a notable individual is murdered, we write an article about the individual. By contrast, articles about notable murders of individuals not previously notable begin Murder of..., as here, indicating that the murder, not the individual is notable. In this case, ongoing attention has been attracted by the conviction for this murder of Marwan Barghouti.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah...ongoing attention ...... by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel. While for Bassem Abu Rahmeh, the Israeli court conveniently looses all the evidence. Oh, and I forgot, who told us that we should be the parrots of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel? Huldra (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Malik Shabazz: There's a chance that this will get closed as delete; perhaps you'd like to reconsider? K.e.coffman (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete WP:NOTNEWS and does not seem to be notable in any way. Brexit123 (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC) editor Brexit has been banned from Wikipedia.[reply]

  • Keep: Per E.M.Gregory's reason for creating the article in the first place: it may have happened over ten years ago, but it found its way back into the news cycle again in recent days. That definitely indicates long-term notability. Could use some expansion, but otherwise, I don't see a problem with it. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Blocked as sockpuppet.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge with Marwan Barghouti. The murder has little or no independent significance. There were a few press reports at the time. Almost all the later references cited in the article are talking about Barghouti, or the Second Intifada, not this murder in particular. This NPR article is typical of the coverage. It has no lasting significance, apart from the larger conflict in which it was embedded, or the person who was convicted of it. When EMG says that this is "in the news" again, it's because the NYT recently ran an op-ed by Barghouti. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. There were a thousand Israelis and three thousand Palestinians killed in the Second Intifada. Is EMG going to create an article on each of them? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 22:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are not talking about the murder, they are talking about the person who was convicted; because he was an influential Palestinian leader. Read any news article in 2004; almost the entirety of the article will be about Barghouti, not the murder or the victims. Mostly, even the monk wouldn't be named. The NPR article I cited is typical in this respect. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 22:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the difference is of course, that Bassem Ibrahim Abu Rahmah is not a stand alone article, it is merely a redir. And I would not object to Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis becoming a redir, too.Huldra (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no significant difference. Whether a topic is a section in a larger article or a smaller separate article is just an implementation detail. Both cases are covered and there's no case for deletion of either of them. Andrew D. (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you would be ok with making Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis a redir to Marwan Barghouti, then? Huldra (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your understanding of policy is idiosyncratic to say the least. When you say that "notability does not expire", aren't you only quoting half of the policy? WP:N lays down two conditions: The topic should be notable, and it should follow the WP:NOT policy. If the topic violates WP:NOTNEWS, then the second condition isn't satisfied. Besides, WP:Notability (events) specifically lays down WP:PERSISTENCE as a policy. As I tried to demonstrate above, the WP:PERSISTENCE part of the murder is entirely based on the person who was convicted. If the murderer was some low-level Fatah operator, nobody would bother to mention it, just as few of the other 1000 Israelis killed in the Second Intifada are mentioned. Secondly, there is indeed a large difference between a redirect and a separate article. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many AfDs which are closed as "redirect" or "merge" instead of "keep". The crucial difference is that in a main article all aspects of the matter can be discussed in WP:DUE proportion. Almost the entirety of coverage of this matter in WP:RS is focused on Barghouti and the Second Intifada. If one tried to rewrite this article to match the emphasis in sources, it would be a copy of the Barghouti article. So why not redirect it there? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"the other 1000 Israelis killed in the Second Intifada" — Now you've done it. We'll have 1000 new articles by tomorrow. Zerotalk 04:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This should be OK we have already article every depopulated Arab village with no in depth coverage on the most of them--Shrike (talk) 07:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator's acceptance of redirection concedes the validity of the topic and so we're only talking about ordinary editing now, not deletion. I prefer small, distinct articles to large compendia as they are both easier to read and to write. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 07:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
user:Andrew Davidson Huh? Just take an example; I have recently made loads of redirs to Tel Afek, as that place have had many, many different names up through the history, like Recordane and Kufrdani. Does this mean that I think Recordane, or Kufrdani should be stand alone articles? Of course not. Huldra (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That place already has more than one page and it might usefully have even more as, currently, they are overloaded, conflating a modern nature reserve with a Crusader fortified mill, which are somewhat different in both name and nature. The topic we discuss here is even better kept separate as there is no clear single redirect target. Per WP:NOTPAPER, there is no physical limit to our pages and so it is sensible to have distinct pages for distinct names rather than jumbling everything together. Andrew D. (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? There is only one Tel Afek, and the whole article is only 15 K. The most important thing about this article (Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis) though, is, as Bolter said, that his significance in the world, according to the sources, was his death. That is basically the definition of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:MEMORIAL, and not an Encyclopaedia....Huldra (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now you are changing the argument, you wrote "The nominator's acceptance of redirection concedes the validity of the topic". I claim that me accepting this article as a redir absolutely does not "concedes the validity of the topic". You claim that because there is another article about the biblical town of Aphik, (with may, or may not, be located at Tel Afek)...then there should be two articles here? Alas, that is not the same as there being articles about Recordane and Kufrdani (the redirs I created). Oh, and you don't have to state that your vote still stands, of course it does. I’m just interested in the logic, or lack of it, with which you defend it. Huldra (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • These other cases are blue links and so should this be too, which the nominator has conceded. Deletion is therefore off the table. As we are retaining the content then the simplest result is to let the page stand as is. The subject was the abbot of a historic institution and so is quite notable. Hypothetical merger and redirection would be more problematic because there is no clear merge target – there were multiple perpetrators, associated events, the locality and the institution. Redirects can only have one target and so it is best that we don't go to an uncertain destination. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reconsidering the topic, in the light of improvements, I continue to oppose deletion. The variation in the subject's name and the corresponding difficulty in locating sources across a number of alphabets (latin, greek, cyrillic, arab and hebrew) means that we still can't assume that everything that can be done has been done and so there is good scope for further improvement per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source for him being canonised? Otherwise this seems like WP:CRYSTAL. As for Barghouti, that seems like a perfect example of WP:NOTINHERITED. Grayfell (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - When is NOTNEWS going to matter to editors creating these articles? Typical press coverage does not make it notable. Period.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will reiterate what I said earlier: the murder may have happened over ten years ago, but it found its way back into the news cycle again in recent days. That definitely indicates long-term notability. And let's not forget all of the reliable sources that make up the article. Forever a warrior against wikiwashing. 03:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. The request for deletion seems POV with a rhetoric question implying the comparison of a delibarate pre-organized intended murder of innocents by an organization who's charter is publicly set up for just that, with the death of a demonstrator in a clash with soldiers who misuse non-lethal anti-demonstration weapons. The topic here is the murder of this person, and the deletion request seems to be coordinated with the reported and widely discussed attempts to downplay Barghouti's personal involvement in these horrific actions. As documented in this article, once murdered, Tsibouktzakis' unique lifestyle came to attention, along with the fate of many Christians, especially those in remote monestaries, formerly safe under Israeli rule, and now in areas under control of the Palestinian Authority or Hamas following the Oslo Accords and the failed 1996 peace process. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 05:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a big mess of WP:OR. Where does the article mention anything about his 'unique' lifestyle? Do you have any reliable sources for this? Do any of these sources pass WP:ROUTINE and WP:LASTING? Grayfell (talk) 06:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A monk living in the middle of the desert, alone or with few companions, is living a unique lifestyle or at least an eccentric one. This is mentioned in the article and elsewhere. Killing the guardian of an ancient monastery, who is not involved in the conflict, is rather significant - and has been covered in reliable sources.Icewhiz (talk) 07:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it is significant, but "significance" on Wikipedia is exactly as much as reliable sources say, no more. Right now, all sources are either specific to the time and place the event happened, are WP:ROUTINE, or are overwhelmingly focused on Marwan Barghouti. It make more sense to me to cover it at his article, with maybe some details at St. George's Monastery, Wadi Qelt. Grayfell (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: All the reasons are already told. Too much POV here... The NOTNEWS question should not be debated at Wikipedia articles regarding every day violence, not here.Tritomex (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of the stated policies of Wikipedia is to show balance in our editorials. Since there is a strong pro-Palestinian sentiment in some articles on Wikipedia, it is only fair to show the "obverse side of the coin," and to show where there have been Palestinian atrocities committed against Jews or Christians.Davidbena (talk) 08:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an editorial, this is an article, and besides, wouldn't that be false balance? We're not here to set the record straight. Grayfell (talk) 08:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC) I suspect that this is a non-native English speaker, who wrote "editorial" when he intended "editing."E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Grayfell, actually, Oxford Dictionary explains "editorial" as meaning in one instance: "Relating to the commissioning or preparing of material for publication." This would apply also to articles written so as to be published on Wikipedia. What I meant by bringing balance to this venue is that if we should delete an article that treats on the wanton murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis, per se, we might as well delete the WP artice entitled Kidnapping and murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir. Just as we are impartial about justice in his case, so we ought to be impartial about justice in this case.Davidbena (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Davidbena, such a justice would only underpin the strong unbalance that there is on Wikipedia wrt these "Memorial" articles. If a Palestinian kills somebody, or a Jew is killed by an Arab/Palestinian, there is an excellent chance that they will get a Wikipedia article, as there are lots of editors over the years who have "specialised" on just such articles. If, however, you are Palestinian victim then the chances are much less to get such an article...with about a magnitude of a 100. It is easy, really, just look up the number of civilian Palestinian casualties, compare them with civilian Israeli casualties, then compare the number of articles about each group. Now, even if the the number of civilian Palestinian casualties is hugely greater than the Israeli counterpart, on Wikipedia, the number of articles on Israeli victims vastly outnumber the number of articles on Palestinian victims. It is as if Wikipedia tells Palestinian victims "F...you! You don't count!!" Your "impartiality" would just cement that injustice. Huldra (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Huldra, the criterion should not be the number of deaths, but rather who, out of no menace of their own, died a death that was totally uncalled for and/or unjust, as in the two cases that I mentioned above. Most here would agree that there is no place for an article written about a man who was shot dead after ramming his car into several innocent bystanders.Davidbena (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Davidbena When I use the words "civilian casualties", I of course only include those who have never taken part in any physical attacks. Seriously, are you disagreeing with me, when I say that the number of such civilian Palestinian casualties vastly outnumber the number of civilian Israeli casualties? Huldra (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Although I have no statistics to show you, Israel claims that most of the Palestinian Arab deaths ensued after some instigation of violence against Israelis.Davidbena (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
.User:Davidbena That is against every single statistics I have seen, from BTselem, to the UN. You better show me some statistics, here.... Huldra (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Collateral damage vs. actual target of the attack. The targeting of civilians per-se (and no, rioters who hurl rocks are not civilians and are not peacefully demonstrating - but are rather performing a military attack), without an associated military target, by Israel post 1970s has been quite minimal so far. Palestinians, on the over hand, have been blowing up buses and targeting cities with indiscriminate and inaccurate indirect fire. This has nothing to do however with the notability of this article - which is based on on-going decade+ of coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be speaking about two different parameters. I was NOT speaking about the 2014 war in Gaza, where many civilians were inadvertently killed by army shelling. Here, I am specifically referring to these vigilante-style attacks against Israeli citizens and where the assailants are usually shot and killed. As for the 2014 war in Gaza, it has already been duly covered by Wikipedians.Davidbena (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

‘the editorial team’

  • Note A bunch of book refrences - [2].Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing administrator. This AFD is a WP:POINTy response by Nom in response to this: [3] AN/I discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: There are many, MANY reliable sources about this incident, which is sufficient to establish notability for Wikipedia. On top of that, this incident keeps on coming up repeatedly, even though it is now nearly 16 years after the killing. As an aside, I think that any monk in charge of a monastery like this [4] (image of St. George Orthodox Monastery from Wikimedia Commons) could be deserving of a Wikipedia mention if enough reliables sources are available! OtterAM (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Saw this referenced at another AfD. I think it amply meets notability requirements. Coretheapple (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. I won't give any names, but I was WP:CANVASed into this RfD, which means this RfD, and possibily other RfDs for those bullshit attacks has been rigged. I'll go by the same method I used for a recent RfD. Is this article Encyclopedic? No. How do I determine it? By removing all section headlines and showing it looks more like a WP:MEMORIAL page and not an Encyclopedic article that will have its stand-alone entry in a respected, written encyclopedia about terrorism or whatever:

Tsibouktsakis Germanus (alt. Georgios Tsibouktzakis; Germanos Tsibuktsakis; Fr Gerasimos) was a Greek Orthodox monk murdered by a Palestinian terrorist on 12 June 2001 in a drive-by shooting.

Tsibouktzakis was a member of St. George's Monastery, Wadi Qelt.

Tsibouktzakis, born near Saloniki, Greece, went to Israel as a student, took monastic vows in 1993 and resided in St. George's Monastery for the rest of his life. He was 35 years old at the time of his death. He was an Israeli national.

At the time of his death, Fr Gerasimos was acting abbot and sole occupant of the ancient monastery; he was buried at the monastery.

He was killed while returning from Jerusalem to the desert monastery in a car with Israeli license plates. The monk's superior, Archbishop Theopanes, complained that the Arabic press had mistaken his grief over the death for sympathy with Israel.

The attack was carried out by members of the Fatah-affiliated Tanzim terror network.

In 2003, Ismael Hassin Radeida, a 22-year-old member of an armed faction of Fatah, was convicted of shooting and killing Fr Gerasimos. Radeida told the court had killed the priest in error, having intended to kill Jews driving along the road.

Palestinian leader Marwan Barghouti was convicted of murder in 2004 for having directed the attack.

As you can see, it is something that will be found in a terror victim memorial website. There is nothing encyclopedic here. The incident has no lasting effect. Every murder has people convicted of (hopefully) and every murder of a known figure sparks comments, but there is nothing special here. It is simply a murder. We had the same experiance in the Hebrew Wikipedia, when a popular activist was murdered by a terrorist, and after her death, many ceremonies were made in her memory, and things were named after her and her works as an activist were published, but the Hebrew Wikipedia showed an unexpected maturity and said that the article does bring many sources, but in the end, it is simply a memorial page, and it would have never been written if she didn't die. The woman's significance in the world, according to the sources, was her death, and the same thing is here with this priest. He wasn't a notable person before his death, his death wasn't a unique event with much to say about and nothing special happened after his death. He has no value for an encyclopedia. And I am waiting for the clown who will accuse me of WP:POV. And the people who were WP:CANVASed here, please be humane, and delete your comment, 'cause that's just disgusting.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Bolter21, You assert (below) that you have been canvassed to come here and make a demand: "And the people who were WP:CANVASed here, please be humain, and delete your comment, cause that's just disguasting." You make this demand in the comment where you iVote to "delete." Perhaps you want to walk back either the demand or the iVote?E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not comment, If I wasn't ask to "Vote Keep" as I was in two E-mails from two different users. Heard about that policy/essay telling users not to dominate the discussion and respond to every single comment?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except, of course, for the fact that this murder is cited by the government of Israel as one of 5 murder convictions that preclude them form releasing Barghouti from prison so that he can run for office in the Palestinian Authority. And the news coverage that has continued now for 16 years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I stumbled upon this AfD, and I don't have any involvement in I/P matters. I shall just echo Grayfell's argument: Judged on its own merits, I do not understand what the actual claim to notability is. The article fails to explain why it is an article. As the article concedes, it was a drive-by shooting of an unnotable passer-by by an unnotable Palestinian militant. Tragic, but pretty much everyday event under the circumstances. No such user (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The attack was carried out by members of the Fatah-affiliated Tanzim terror network

That is all wrong. As Kingsindian said, the article fails to contextualize the murder. More importantly in such remarks as the above, it links Barghouti's Tanzim to Fatah. The whole point of Barghouti's movement was to challenge the ascendency of Fatah. Barghouti was one of the two favourite interlocutors of Israeli politicians after the Oslo Accords, the other was Arafat. They fell out when it became apparent that the Accords merely justified Israel's occupation, and in Barghouti's view, the PA/Fatah was accommodating itself to this slow-creep takeover. Arafat had an interest in getting rid of his rival. Israel chose in the end to indict Barghouti, and thereby keep him alive (ass an embarrassment to Aarafat) while removing him from challenging the PA, a favour to Arafat. Secondly, the trial was widely reported to be a farce, and a violation of international law. There are here no details regarding the evidence produced in the trial spedcifically regarding the link of Barghouti to the killing of Tsibouktakis, whether he directly signaled T for execution (unlikely, since it contradicts his whole career)= or whether the assassin, being a member of Tanzim, automatically by acting as a Tanzim operative, could be said to have executed T under direct orders from Tanzim's leader, Barghouti. I have no opinion on this matter, of culpability. All I know is that in wiki's neutral voice, just saying B was convicted of T's murder by a court is unacceptable, since it was independently judged by the Inter-Parliamentary Union to have been staged as a media event (hence it got a lot of coverage, used by EMG), compromised by the presiding judge's declared bias on day one, and in all probability a gross violation of the Geneva Conventions, since Israel (as opposed to the Palestinian Authority) had no technical right to put Barghouti on trial in the first place. All of this in the context of the extremely shady manoeverings of both parties in a national insurrection (the Al-Aqsa Intifada). All these articles by Gregory are flawed by the total absence of context, or a minimal understanding of the cases. You have a murder, an indictment or killing of a suspect, and memorial lists of international reactions.Nishidani (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nish, you know a great deal more about Palestinian terrorism and the politics of the several Palestinian terrorist movements than I. If the sources I cited were in error, then I hope that you or another editor with that sort of expertise will clarify Barghouti's affiliations. This is how it works here, articles are built over time, by collaboration. While Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup, for me, an AfD is often a prompt to improve an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One reason that I am wary of the articles of this kind you write is that they are written in boiler-plate fresh off the press, and the news does not do an adequate job on background. That is what emerges in historical retrospect, when historians examine these things (notability). All I see in newspapers is what is left out, which is a huge amount. But Wikipedia policy is rightly opposed to my, or any other editor, providing context not in sources. There are no sources that give this background for Georgios Tsibouktzakis, though it is, in historical context, absolutely bizarre, the idea that a man with Barghouti's record would order the murder of a Greek Orthodox priest, even if he had Israeli nationality (which he had). Tanzim was a militant organization ('terrorist' for Israel) fighting in the war (that is ther pro-IDF/Israeli Anthony Cordesman's assessment) that broke out in late 2000. Barghouti controlled Tanzim, which was a paramilitary force partially created to counter the growing attraction exercised by a militant Hamas. But, and this occurs constantly, factional/clan infights quickly invalidated his attempts to 'direct' the insurgency, which got out of hand and could not be micro-managed at the level of everyday actions like ambushes or shoot-outs. Another good example is the murder of Albert Glock. No one has a clue as to what really lay behind that, or Georgios Tsibouktzakis's murder. I am opposed to articles that cannot ferret down, or get to the meat, of such indispensable details. They tell you nothing, except that a murder occurred. It is quite possible Barghouti gave orders that cars with Israeli license plates driving in the West Bank were 'fair game', but to say he 'orchestrated' that specific incident (mfa) is just hot air. I can think, given the intense factionality of Palestinian groups, that any number of other hypotheses exist. But this is just my skepticism, and your request can't be satisfied because there is no sourcing available for any of this (precisely, EMG, why I doubt its notability). Nishidani (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I responded by making major improvements to the article, satisfying many of Nish's objections. Note that despite Nish's argument to the contrary, media, historians, political scientists and judges hold heads of militant organizations responsible for directing the actions of members of the organizations they run when they have - as Barghouti is stipulated in media reports to have done here - issued blanket orders for the killing of specific categories of human being.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin

There has been WP:CANVASing going on here, see this Huldra (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that article has been expanded in ways that I believe obviates the objections above. It had 9 sources when Huldra AfD's it. It now has 19 solid sources showing ongoing, substantive, international coverage. Variant transliterations of victim's name form Cyrillic and Hebrew alphabets, variations in his name (changed names on taking vows), and variations in the name of the monastery make the searchbar above virtually useless (I have listed alt. names in article; I suspect that there are more alt. names out there.) There must also be sources in Greek, I didn't even try to search in Greek.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is absolutely typical behaviour by EMG: they puff up the source count to try to add notability to the article. The added sources that fill the references (except the news reports in 2001 in the immediate aftermath of the murder) do not deal with the murder; they are almost entirely about Barghouti and mention his conviction in a line or two. That counts for EMG as "ongoing coverage". Just read the title of the sources added: "Palestinian leader convicted of ordering shootings". "Marwan Barghouti not to be released, Israeli minister says", "Two guards die as Palestinian leader is caught in gun battle" etc. There are exactly two extra sources which deal very tangentially with the monk. One is "from the archives" from Jerusalem Post, which I'm guessing simply reprints some articles from their archive. (I can't actually find the text, since I don't have a ProQuest subscription). Another is Breitbart, which is simply recycling a Palwatch press release about some Greek bishop who attended some ceremony in Bethlehem which, Palwatch says, inadvertently honoured, among other people, a terrorist who killed the monk. This apparently counts as "ongoing coverage". This kind of source count puffery is ridiculous.

What I find absolutely amazing is that there is still no mention in the article that this murder happened during the Second Intifada. Does EMG think that this is some incidental detail? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • You really should read the links before dismissing them, the headline "Two guards die as Palestinian leader is caught in gun battle," for example, refers to an incident when Mahmoud Abbas was caught in a firefight between his guards and a more militant Palestinian faction, but the article is about the political contest between Barghouti and Abbas over who would succeed Arafat. It is materially relevant to your assertion that this murder had no impact. Impact was that it kept Barghouti in prison, and out of the Presidency.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The JPost source is happened-x-years-ago article, not a reprint. I added it because in revisitn=ing this murder it made an assertion I had not heard before, that this shooting of a random motorist in a car with with Israeli plates by a terrorist was a "first" in the "area". Terrorsm tactics constantly evolve. For those unfamiliar, Israeli plates are given to legal residents of Israel, whether Muslim, Christian or Jewish - the Vietnamese boat people Israel gave citizenship to get them too. This is why it is relevant that the terrorist stated at trial that he had mistaken the monk for a Jew; i.e., he was scanning the occupants of cars to make sure he was killing a Jew, not a Muslim. and shot a Christian by mistake.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(I have indented all of your comments to the appropriate level) In other words, the article is about Barghouti, not the murder. Exactly as I said. Notability is not inherited, and you can't cite stories about Barghouti to claim "continuing coverage" about the murder. Barghouti was convicted of four other murders as well; are you going to create a separate article for each of them? He would still be in jail if this murder hadn't happened (he got five life terms).

As for the yellow license plates issue, your comment makes no sense, and you have mangled the original source (it says "Israeli", not "Jewish"), as I pointed out on the talkpage a few hours ago. If all Israeli legal residents are given yellow vehicle plates, how can the attacker use license plates to get the religion of the victim? It sounds to me that the attacker got Gettier cased. While that may be an ironic philosophical point, I fail to see what is significant about it. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notability comes from secondary source coverage of this terrorist killing of the Abbot of a notable Monastery; some of this coverage is generate by the fact that the killing of a Greek monk by a terrorist draws press attention (see 2014 Kabul restaurant bombing for another case where the identity of the dead drew press attention,) and some from the fact that one of the convicted terrorists is a well-known political activist (see as the 1969 PFLP bombings in Jerusalem for a similar case), but notability, per WP:GNG is gauged by coverage that is extensive and ongoing, as here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We read it don't worry.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am here to apologize to anyone who has been annoyed by the the slow build-out of this article. I certainly thought it was adequately sourced when I began. But as continue to work on I find that I had missed some important aspects of the story. While I am sure that better sources exist for those who can read the Hebrew and Cyrillic alphabets with ease, the number of possible transliterations of Georgious Tsimtouktsakis makes this slow work. I missed stuff at first, like the fact that the international coverage of the article was driven in part by the fact that George Tenet and William Joseph Burns were busy forcing a truce down Palestinian and Israeli throats, signed the morning after this shooting. The shooting was part of Marwan Barghouti's pledge to spit the cease-fire back up even before it was signed. Point is, some of the editors who have dismissed this as inadequately sourced, may want to try out of few good keyword searches for themselves, or look at the sourcing now in the article. Or even at the deleted material. And perhaps reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been following the build-out here - it is much-much better now in terms of sources. Also - from some searching for sources on my own - the alternative spelling and psuedo-name / titles (which vary) - are also a mess - a rather big mess. This attack occurred at a significant juncture in the 2nd Intifada (possibly first drive-by shooting in this round (is claimed in text - certainly not first ever (there were a few in the 90s) - but possibly intifada2)) - affected things on the ground, impacted a major cultural site (the sole residing monk/acting-abbot at a very iconic monastery), and killed a foreigner (which always generates more coverage) who was also church-related. Adding that this is one of the murder convictions (for direction) of Marwan Barghouti who is receiving on-going coverage in RS - generates even more coverage. Coverage abound - definitely enough per WP:CRIME.Icewhiz (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think E.M.Gregory did a nice job addressing a lot of the critiques in the edits to the article, making it more well rounded and encyclopedic. As I mentioned above, I thought that this was a Keep from the beginning. (I was familiar with this case even before the creation of the article by E.M.Gregory.) However, now, with more context and new references I think it's an even stronger case. OtterAM (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This might justify a mention in Bargouti's article, not a stand alone article. All of your arguments are really broken. You have provided some 30 sources, but almost all of them are just new reports, mostly the same report from a different news paper. This is not "significant coverege". The MFA source is a propagana source. It can be reliable for technical info, but not as a source for exteinsive information, and absolutely not an indication of notebility of the incident. The MFA source is a propaganda piece against Marwan Bargouti, not about the death of the monk. Breitbart News is also not a serious source and the article there is about a memorial ceremony. There is no indication what so ever that this incident is special. It has coverege, because someone unique was killed and the alledged planner of the attack is an important Palestinian figure. This means that the subject is worthy of mention in Bargouti's article, and most of the comtemporary sources deal with Bargouti anyway.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, two editors, one of whom iVoted K and the other D above, recently vetted the article with extreme care, removing all instances of "the same report from a different news paper." Coverage at the time of the attack was in-depth and worldwide, with details of his life sourced to foreign press accounts. Articles like this month's AP story: "Barghouti, who is serving multiple life terms in prison after Israel found him guilty of involvement in the deaths of four Israelis and a Greek monk, is widely expected to run for president once Mahmoud Abbas is out of the picture." [8] show significance.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here, again you use a very technical argument. "Look, there's an article about Bargouti with mention to the monk, so an article on the monk is justified". I don't give a damn about how many article you"ll bring to talk about that terrorist and his victims, you still don't show why the incident of the monk is notable, without the argument of "there are many sources". Many sources for what? For a monk who was killed by accident in a terrorist attack, one in a million, in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? What is notable here? There are 8,000 victims of terrorism in Israel, not each one gets an article. Sure the monks and the foreign students who are killed get their coverege because the media likes them, but that doesn't make their death notable.--Bolter21 (talk to me)
Bolter21 - the monk is not notable. His murder is. Both due to Bargouti and due to him being a foreigner and a church member to boot. I agree this page should not be a memorial (and in respect to the Hebrew wiki - this makes sense). However this particular attack - has lasting significance. The page itself should focus on the attack and ramifications - not on the monk himself where coverage should be limited to basic background material. If this page is deleted (which I think is wrong) - then we should merge this to Bargouti's entry - as the circumstances surronding his convictions are highly relevant.Icewhiz (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bolter21 writes, "get their coverege because the media likes them, but that doesn't make their death notable." It is certainly true that the media gives disproportionate coverage to some things, fairly or unfairly. But, I do think that this excess coverage does increase an event's notability. (While the reverse is not necessarily true as long as there exists at least some good reliable source.) For example the Wikipedia:Notability (events) page gives the example of the Runaway bride case as a notable event due to its media coverage, even though it later turned out that no crime had occurred. OtterAM (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's no compare between the two incidents, especially when you look at the fact the murder of that monk was done in a perid of five years full of simmilar terrorist attacks, within a 90 years old conflicts full of simmilar murders. The bride case, as seen in the article is notable only because it was popularized by the media and eventually even became an "example" in books and articles. The muder of the monk was not popularized by the media, it was just mentioned a few times by a few news papers and most of its references after 2004, are just referring to Bargouti, which is a subject of its own.This unsigned comment was made by Bolter21.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)♚ 13:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this page forms a useful link from Monastery of St. George of Choziba, Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange, Marwan Barghouti and Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I've read over the article and have no recent (last ten years?) involvement in this topic area. I don't see the claim to notability. There was a murder and some press coverage of the fact, and it had some ripples in the ongoing peace process. There's nothing much to build on here. Mackensen (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this is notable because the noted Palestinian leader Barghouti was (rightly or wrongly) convicted of masterminding the attack, and because of the religious status of the victim also makes it stand out. (I don't mean to say it is notable because he was a Christian religious, but simply because he was a religious official (abbot) – if he had been a Rabbi or Imam instead, it would stand out just as much.) In general, I am sceptical of creating articles on every single low victim count attack in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, because there are so many of those; but, I think this attack has enough distinctive characteristics to overcome that general scepticism. SJK (talk) 08:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This week at the United Nations, Palestinian representative Riyad Mansour was on his feet making demands about imprisonment of Barghouti, Israeli ambassador Danny Danon was calling a Barghouti ""a terrorist and a murderer" and the AP-based McClatchey story read: "Barghouti, who is serving multiple life terms in prison after Israel found him guilty of involvement in the deaths of four Israelis and a Greek monk, is widely expected to run for president once Mahmoud Abbas is out of the picture." [9]. My point is that far from fading form sight as most murders do, even most WP notable murders, the murder of this monk comes into the news cycle with increasing frequency as the years pass. (Last week Barghouti had an op-ed in the New York Times, prompting a wave of criticism of the Times for not mentioning that he has been convicted in this and other murders. Next week it will be somehting else, because Mahmoud Abbas is old and Barghouti is the/a leading candidate to replace him.) Having an article where interested readers can find reliable, objective information about stuff like this is what Wikipedia is here to do.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not great at counting, but it seems to me that you have now made 21 separate additions to this AfD. It is not ok for one editor to attempt to dominate an AfD process like this and this is not the first time you have behaved in this fashion. I think you should stop it. Zerotalk 12:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention your comments are ridiculous and repetitive. Do we have to make an article for every British officer killed by a Lehi or Irgun attack because it was planned by Begin or Shamir, two Israeli Prime Ministers? You are giving us arguments about Bargouti, but this is not an article on Bargouti.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is an article about a murder that received substantive international coverage when it happened, and that has been in the news regularly in the years since because a leading politician was convicted of murder in this case.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It means the politician is notable, not the murder.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bolter21: I don't think that it's a valid argument that, just because another article doesn't exist yet, this one shouldn't either. The thing is that this one does exist because somebody took the trouble to find a number of sources, put together an article, then revise it and expand it based on criticism he got. It's undeniable that this murder had some political repercussions, and it's also clear that the existence of this event is periodically mentioned by reliable sources from around the world. So, while the "importance" of this event may be debatable, the WP:Notability is well covered. If you can create an new article about a Lehi killing of a British officer that had some (if minor) historical repercussions, I say: go ahead. After all WP:NOTPAPER. OtterAM (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bolter21: Should we send The Sergeants affair to afd? Somtimes the murder is significant even if the person murdered is not. In the case of the monk thrre is simply on going coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To editor OtterAM: What do you mean by, "just another article doesn't exist yet, this shouldn't either"? The event can be summerized in a section in Marwan Bargouti's article. Most of the information in the article is proves no notablity what so ever. It is like a WP:DIARY but instead of a person, we are recording every development in a story that hasn't had any impact what so ever and is far, far, far away from having significant coverege to justify an article. This article still gives you no more knowlege than what a WP:MEMORIAL page or a news paper can give you. It has no encyclopedic value.
Thanks for your answer. To answer your first question, I'm saying that just because a different article hasn't been made yet doesn't mean that this article shouldn't exist. There are two criteria for WP:AfD, verifiability and notability. The article is very good on in terms of verifiability, and was improved during the AfD discussion by E.M.Gregory. As for notability, how else would you explain why this 16-year-old murder continues to be mentioned in newspaper/media articles in the BBC, the Guardian, the New York Times, the Toronto Star, etc if it is not notable?! OtterAM (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Icewhiz: if you mamanged to compare this pity incident with the Sergeant Affair, an affair I, my brother and my father (back in the 60s) learnt about at school, I doubt your contribution to the discussion. I wouldn't bother, but I had to explain to you and the poor admin who will read this, the difference. The Sergeant affairs was a turning point. The incident was so significant, it led to the end of the hanging of Jewish insurgents, and it also led to the killing of five Jews by the British and widespeard anti-Semitic riots in the United Kingdom. The incident was covered by dozens of books and articles in more than a mere sentece, but in full chapters. The murder of the Greek monk sparked and caused nothing but comments and arrests that were covered by media outlets who report comments and arrests regularly.
I didn't want to answer because I think I commented enough on this thread, which is something some users should feel, but I responded becuase both of you responded directly to my comment.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bolter21: Looking through some editing histories, it seems to me that almost all the articles created by "some users" are immediately nominated for deletion by the same small group of editors, leading to the same discussions on subsequent AfDs over and over. Many of these AfDs have ended up with the articles being kept (while some not). However, it seems to me that the continual efforts to purge this certain editor's contributions from Wikipedia ends up in a waste of time for many contributors. If somebody want to write well-sourced articles about murders in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I say let them. If someone else wants to write well-sourced articles about minor, depopulated Palestinian villages of 15 families from 1948, I say let them do that too. OtterAM (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A village is a village, not an event. I would have loved to be the one who will create thousands of articles on depopulated Kurdish villages with 15 residents, but I am unable due to the fact no one cares. I "fight" here for what I think Wikipedia should be, which is the way I interprate it's policies. I do not try to promote a personal agenda or to hounde any user. This user in question has created dozens if not hundreds of articles, many of them, with all respect, seem needless in my eyes, but I don't have enough knowledge to judge there. On the Israeli-Palestinian conflict I do have knowledge and it is my main field of editing in Wikipedia and when I see that a user creates articles I think shouldn't be there, and I know the background and the subject, I will speak against it. There were already some here who claimed there is some sort of a scheme to whitewash all of the articles about Palestinian atroceries in order to promote a pro-Palestinian cause, so I do not get excited when you hint I am part of a systemic raid on Gregory's articles. Don't ping again if your comment is about personal matters. As I said, my contribution to the discussion was made long ago and I shouldn't be adding more comments, just as I demand Gregory to do so.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bolter, would you be willing to look at the article & sourcing again? I know that you read it before, but your comments make me think that you may possibly have missed the recent expansions showing the depth and unusual breadth of coverage at the time of the attack, including coverage in publications like the left-of-center Christianity Today that do not routinely cover events in Israel, and, especially, the "Content" section detailing the coverage of this incident in the context of the cease-fire that Yassir Arafat had declared in effect at the time that this shooting took place. I am certainly not attempting to create an article on "every" event in the second intifada, but I do feel that this article meets the standards set forth at WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Read it again yesterday, my opinion hasn't changed a bit. The expansion of the article only strenghten my opinion that it is uncessariy. In my eyes the improvement made to the article did not contribute to its encyclopedic value, but instead were more of an attempt to save this article in the wake of the RfD. AGF here.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that we have very different views about what WP:GNG states. I do, however, ask that you do me the courtesy of WP:AGF and grant that starting an article on a murder that, in a case when long experience regularly editing CRIME and TERRORISM articles leads me to regard this event as a notable event and useful addition to the encyclopedia. I was genuinely shocked to see an article on a long-ago terrorist attack that had returned to the new cycle taken to AfD. Improving an article at AfD with WP:RS is generally regarded as a positive contribution to the project. I am at a loss to understand on what grounds you criticize me it. WP:HEY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not hinting anything about you. As far as I can tell (I haven't looked closely) you seem to create a bunch of solid articles about Israeli towns. I'm mentioning something I noticed about E.M.Gregory's history – there are at least 6 articles he started about various terrorist incidents that *immediately* got nominated for deletion, at least 4 of which survived. I don't know if you've interacted with him before, but if he wants to comment on an AfD about an article that he's involved with, that's his right. If you want to comment here or not comment here, that's your right too. It's a free encyclopedia. OtterAM (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete This is not MurderPedia. Every single death in the second intifada does not merit its own article. Not notable on its own at all, and the various reasons it should be deleted have been laid out in detail above this comment. CrispyGlover (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC) The user doesn't meet WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 criteria.--Shrike (talk) 09:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • A Brigadoon SPA? Due to shenanigans by 2 sockpuppets above, I looked at this unfamiliar editor (although there are unfamiliar keep voters here, most of the keep and almost all of the delete ivotes come from editors who regularly edit I/P.) CrispyGlover joined about a year ago with a familiarity with our terminology, aplomb, and random-appearing range of interests rare in a new editor. On his first day he made a series of smooth edits to the article on Allentown, PA, and other neutral topics, weighing in with the vocabulary of an experienced editor at a series of AfDs. He has since appeared about once a month, always with a similar pattern: a series of rapid edits on disparate topics and a range of AfDs. Could he be a sockpuppet of one of the 2 sockpuppets who weighed in above but were blocked during the course of this AfD? Sure. He could be a sockpuppet of anyone. I don't know how to bring him to book because I have no idea whose sockpuppet he is. What he does not appear to be is a "normal" user. Posting this here in case his editing pattern rings bells with another editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I welcome any and all sockpuppet investigations. I started out editing as an anon IP years ago. When I discovered the deletion discussions, I realized it was time to register an account. I use the registered account mainly for deletion discussions, and sometimes I'm still logged in unintentionally when I make edits to articles. I expect an apology from E.M.Gregory (talk) for automatically assuming nefarious activities just because I don't agree with his point of view on one particular topic. I've never edited this particular page in my life and wasn't even aware of it until today when it was the oldest still-active deletion discussion. My view on the article's notability is thus completely and totally impartial - unlike E.M.Gregory (talk), who pretty clearly has an agenda here. CrispyGlover (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article has been improved substantially by E.M.Gregory since most of the early comments were written, and I think we need to revisit the article in its current state from scratch.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ritchie333 forgive me, but I have never seen this done before. Can you be more precise about what "revisit the article in its current state from scratch" means? Are we effectively blanking the discussion above this line and starting fresh again from scratch?E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that everyone who commented earlier should look at the now-improved article and judge if their !vote is still valid, though there is no obligation for them to do so. At the moment, I think consensus was marginally towards "delete" in terms of arguments, but those arguments were based around old versions of the article. So a relist is necessary; if after this iteration there are no new insights, I think it would be reasonable to discount the older "delete" !votes and close with "keep" instead. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: I'm not sure what relisting is supposed to achieve. According to the policy, relisting is typically done when there is low participation in the AfD. This is obviously not true in this AfD. As one of the earliest !voters, my !vote is exactly the same for the expanded article as for the original article, because the new references are just filler. If you think it's no consensus, then close it that way. If you think it's delete, then close it that way. There's no point in dragging this out. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fact check when KingsIndian cast his iVote, the page looked like this [10]. Additions have been more than "filler," adding, as they do, info about reactions to the killing, the actors involved in the killing, the fact that Arafat had declared a unilateral ceasefire before the killing, the New York Times assertion that this Palestinian sniper attack was a first on the road leading east from Jerusalem. And more.E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:Deletion process, "If there is a lack of comments, or the action to take is unclear, the discussion may be relisted for an additional seven days." If I closed it as any of "delete", "keep" or "no consensus", somebody would complain, so I think it's better to run with it for another seven days to make absolutely sure we've got the right decision. I would also point out that this AfD was right at the back of the queue of discussions to close / relist; obviously all the other admins were terrified of touching it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (apologies if this overlaps with stuff above, but I thought I'd sum up my opinion for the re-list) The article is long enough (beyond a stub length) and doesn't appear to have undue weight in any one aspect (the victim, the event, the alleged perpetrators, the political situation, or the aftermath). The article is verifiable with every assertion backed up by a reliable source, mostly news articles. The topic has persistence because it continues to be mentioned by a number of major world media sites (BBC, New York Times, the Guardian, al Jazeera, Times of Israel, etc.) 16 years after it occurred. The article has links from several other Wikipedia articles, including the Marwan Barghouti article which got more than 18000 views in the last month. Merging all the information in this article into the Marwan Barghouti article would be undue weight for the latter article, because Barghouti, as leader of the Second Intifada, was involved in many other diplomatic and militant incidents. Nevertheless, this event is important because it is one of 3 incidents that Israel used to convict Barghouti, another of which also has its own Wikipedia article. The incident also occurred at a (marginally) notable juncture in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, breaking one of many ceasefires during the Second Intifada. Georgios Tsibouktzakis could be considered (marginally) notable himself due to his work to maintain the Monastery of St. George of Choziba. The article meets the criterial of WP:NCRIME due to past and present media coverage. (This is not the only WP:NCRIME article on Wikipedia with only one victim.) Anyway, thanks for your patience reading all this :). OtterAM (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:LASTING - continued coverage many years after the event. Passes WP:GNG.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a thoroughly sourced, fully detailed article about a major incident that far surpasses the minimums of the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 02:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I changed my vote in light of Gregory's expansion. I still think it is simply a news incident but I suppose editors are more lleniate with that policy.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . Article and it sources support lasting notability of this murder. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - the topic has sources from 2001, 2003 and 2015, indicating that it passes WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTABLE. We may consider renaming to Georgios Tsibouktzakis in line with biography article rules.GreyShark (dibra) 20:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - continued coverage throughout several years. good sources. sources supports notability and lasting such. also WP:GNG applies as well.BabbaQ (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have long since decided that there's no point to these AfD discussions, because of mindless voting like the ones seen above. The "expansion" by EMG is pure filler, as I demonstrated above. Almost all the sources past 2001 are talking about Barghouti, not the murder. This is because Barghouti is notable, the murder isn't. There was some initial newspaper coverage because the victim happened to be a foreigner; none of the four other people whose murder Barghouti is supposed to have directed have an article. The murder had no lasting significance: a thousand Israelis and three thousand Palestinians died in the Second Intifada, and this murder is no worse or no better than any of them. This article conspicuously does not even mention the fact that the Second Intifada was going on, because it undermines the point of the article. The article is irredeemably horrible, as I detail on the talkpage. EMG's "expansion" has not addressed a single one of my points I raised there, which does not surprise me in the least, because I know how EMG operates. This is why I suggested that it be merged or redirected to Marwan Barghouti. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I worked in the Second Intifada and context in the scope of hostilities. You could've just fixed this instead of repeatedly bringing it up.09:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
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.