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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 09:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 IDF T-Shirt controversy[edit]

Keep - By considering this for deletion there are certain questions arising about Wikipedia's neutrality. This is obviously a controversial incident worthy of archiving. Unless you're implying that this behaivour is very characteristic of the IDF. In addition, images of the t-shirt definitely need to be posted to give reader's a better idea. Talk) 27 March 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.36.48 (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is clearly recentism and applies to a small non-notable event. Wikipedia is not news, and maybe this article should be rewritten and moved to WikiNews. The article was also PRODded, but the tag was removed by the original author. Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a notable controversy that belongs on WIkipedia. Factsontheground (talk) 09:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is not even a summary of a single news article; it is a selective summary of a single news article, with the effect of misrepresenting the non-notable topic and (surprise) promoting a POV. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too much like news, with a touch of POV. Too small an article for it to be a separate article (unlikely to grow either). Certainly it could form a paragraph in another article on the conflict.--Dmol (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Jalapenos do exist and Dmol. -- Nudve (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Classic case of POV-fork and lacks necessary notability. Shall we also create articles on the bazillion of t-shirts, bedspreads, blankets, and tupperware decorated with hateful messages and grotesquely illustrated pictures of Israelis that sell like hot cakes all across the Arab world? Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or maybe Merge as part of the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza Conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamanam (talk • contribs) 12:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete One of the least encyclopedia-worthy articles I've seen on here in a while. This is newspaper-worthy?? Maybe on the back page of the National Enquirer, along with photos of dismembered heads in a flower pot. --Gilabrand (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable controversy, at least as notable as Pallywood, 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies, Adnan Hajj photographs controversy, Palestinian textbook controversy or the Saudi-Arabian textbook controversy. pedrito - talk - 23.03.2009 14:04
Keep but expand to include also Israeli soldiers' testimony of war crimes and wanton murder during the attack on Gaza. RolandR (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But what's the relevance to T-Shirts? Rami R 20:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Classic POV. Guy0307 (talk) 06:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete recentism and a extremely non-notable event.Historicist (talk) 14:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Extremely non-notable. This isn't even the IDF itself, but private acts of some soldiers, which have no bearing on anything. This is simply using Wikipedia to create a controversy that doesn't really exist. okedem (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nableezy (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Nableezy (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —Nableezy (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Soldiers exhibiting a bad sense of humor? Doesn't sound very notable to me. If however it is found to be notable, it should probably be renamed (I don't see anything in the article suggesting that this phenomenon is terribly specific to 2009). Rami R 15:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-There are articles about far less notable incidents, outrages, here. Seems like an attempt to sanitize wikipedia of anything critical of Israel. Also, I put {Banner WPIPC|category=no} on the talk page since it obviously is within the parameters of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration (which came out of the 2008 Request for arbitration on editing on Palestine-Israel articles) where I found mention of it. What the article needs most is some photos of the t-shirts! CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that similarly inappropriate articles exist is never an argument for keeping an inapropriate article. If You know of other arrticles that do not merit inclusion on Wikipedia, please list them so that they can be merged or eliminated as appropriate.Historicist (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I really don't see anything in this article that fits what should be an encyclopedia entry. Yossiea ^(talk) 17:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RolandR — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Classic POV. Guy0307 (talk) 06:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or/and merge with articles like 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza Conflict. Notable. Brunte (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per RolandR - probably rename as well to encompass all allegations of unethical and/or criminal actions by the idf. untwirl(talk) 20:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Classic POV. Guy0307 (talk) 06:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

whose pov? bbc? jewish week? haaretz? provide the other pov ('aw shucks, thems just jokes'?) if you think its unbalanced. pov is not a reason for deletion, notability is. untwirl(talk) 20:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nauseating but notable. Ian Pitchford (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: If this isn't even on the IDF website, then why should this be on Wikipedia? Tavix (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the IDF isn't the sole source in the world, and is in fact not reliable whereas the sources used in the article, Haaretz, The Times, SKY, are. Nableezy (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same reasons as RolandR Wodge (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Classic POV. Guy0307 (talk) 06:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to somewhere suitable like Israel Defense Forces#Controversies. A touch on the newsy side, but there are a lot of reliable sources available here - BBC News, MSNBC, Sky News. Black Kite 22:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So far, four users (Roland, Malik, Untwirl and Wodge) have suggested keeping the article in order to "expand to include also Israeli soldiers' testimony of war crimes and wanton murder during the attack on Gaza". Clearly, this is not an argument, but more importantly, it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the affair. Not coincidentally, this is the same misunderstanding effected by the way the article is written. The affair has absolutely nothing to do with war crimes and "wanton murder" committed by the IDF in Gaza, whether or not these were committed. Neither the soldiers who ordered the shirts nor anyone else claim that the messages on the shirts portray events that actually happened, and the soldiers interviewed made it quite clear that the messages were facetious. Anyone who does not understand the affair, either because they didn't read the original news item or because their prejudice regarding the IDF renders them incapable of basic reading comprehension, should not be considered qualified to comment in this discussion, and their votes should be discounted. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your insults. I understand the situation perfectly. The t-shirts are symptomatic of the reaction of IDF soldiers to what happened in Gaza, which is why expanding the article to include the recent soldiers' testimony makes logical sense. Thanks again. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

random break, cont.[edit]

And yet there is no indication in the original news item that the shirts have anything to do with the recent Gaza conflict; in fact, at least some of the shirts seem to have been made before the conflict started, so they could hardly be "symptomatic of the reaction of IDF soldiers to what happened in Gaza". Least of all is there any connection to war crimes or wanton murder, in Gaza or anywhere else. Several explanations are offered in the news item as to why the shirts were created, none of which mention war crimes or wanton murder. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet there is no reason for insults. And who has reading comprehension problems? The article does connect some of the t-shirts to the Gaza conflict. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If by "insults" you mean my implication that some users, including you, seemed either not to have read the news item or to be prejudiced against the IDF to the point of not understanding it, I disagree. I don't consider the implication an insult, and I think there are good, substantive reasons for expressing that view of the situation. As for the article, there is one shirt out of many connected to "Gaza", possibly meaning the recent conflict, and there are zero out of many connected to war crimes or wanton murder, in Gaza or anywhere else. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no connection? perhaps you missed this [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-military-condemns-soldiers-shocking-tshirts-1651333.html , "The practice came to light following disclosures that soldiers who took part in Israel's military offensive in Gaza complained about rules of engagement allowing them to kill civilians and destroy property. The Israel Defence Forces said yesterday that the T-shirts "are not in accordance with IDF values and are simply tasteless. This type of humour is unacceptable. Commanders are instructed to use disciplinary tools against those who produce T-shirts of this type." untwirl(talk) 02:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still having problems with the reading comprehension, Jalapenos? There are at least two references to t-shirts associated with the Gaza conflict. (Hint: The Gaza offensive was code-named Operation Cast Lead.) — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you and Untwirl have illustrated your mistake better than I could. Saying that B happened after A is not saying that B is a reflection of A, although someone prejudiced to think that everything is a reflection of A could be forgiven for thinking so. What they would not be forgiven for is trying to edit an encyclopedia article on B while blinded by this prejudice. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"blinded by prejudice"? tone done the rhetoric, please. you must have missed the many sources that have covered the soldiers' testimony and the revelation of these tshirts as related to soldiers' conduct in gaza. try these, for example [1] [2] untwirl(talk) 20:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider Jalapeno's comments insults, you have a paper thin skin, and live a very sheltered life, OR are a melodramatic crybaby. Take your pick. Of course, Jalapenos is wrong regarding sourcing, but trying to redefine this article beyond is topic is typical POVFORKing, a much bigger wrong. There is an article for the Gaza war, 2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict, where a section called "Controversy over rules of engagement and military rabbis" exists, and perhaps should be expanded. This article is about the t-shirt controversy, and should remain so.--Cerejota (talk) 03:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please take note that the article Mechinat Rabin, which was recently created, includes information on the testimonies controversy, so the T-shirt controversy is a separate case and the two should not be mixed just because they came almost at the same time. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article seems based on a single news-piece published on March 20. In that sense, I don't quite yet see an article devoted solely to the "incarcerated effigy" of Gilad Shalit based on the few articles that published the story which occurred around the same time and had far more exposure.[3] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't object to this article being moved to WikiNews, but Wikipedia is not the place for it, as the article right now is a classic case of WP:RECENTISM. Khoi khoi 03:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has significantly improved since the AfD nomination. Certainly very notable in Israel. "t-shirts gaza" returns over 666 gnews ghits, more than many other sub-topics. Sources like the Associated Press, The BBC, The Times, and of course Ha'aretz (who broke the story), clearly demonstrate and establish notability (this is contrary to those who have argued there is only one source). There is a long history of coverage of such mediatic/peripheral controversy in the WP:ARBPIA topic area, and while each article should be considered on its own, the sources sustaining this article are of a much higher quality than, say, Pallywood, and I do not see a reason to break this systemic consensus now. I diasgree about "recentism", this is precisely the type of controversy that becomes legendary in these types of intractable conflicts. The idiot that came up with this brilliant idea will get a medal from Hamas - All we have to do is report it.--Cerejota (talk) 03:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It's not that notable in Israel. I haven't seen Ynet or any TV News pick up on it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cerejota, all the new sources you brought are simply summaries or restatements of the original Haaretz article. You've said, and I agree with you, that the fact that something is mentioned by reliable sources doesn't necessarily make it notable enough even for inclusion in an existing article, much less for receiving its own article. If this affair were notable, the least we would expect is for the media to do some independent investigating, which they haven't. A celebrity's new haircut gets nore media attention than this has. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 11:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Tidy page, why delete? Chendy (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

random break #2[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google hits aren't a qualifier for notability. All those sources are simply reporting the same thing, big deal. If we are going to make articles for every "insulting" clothing a Middle Eastern soldier might wear in their free time then we have a lot of work to do. Edit: I suggest the user move the article to a userspace if their is potential for improvement. A fork is a fork, leaving it on wikipedia to "improve" is a dubious goal. The process has violated standard policy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not think there is a single other instance of encyclopedia in this realm of ours which includes such a colorful fashion related article. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict? the t-shirts do provide verifiable evidence of IDF culture. pohick (talk) 14:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major political information in its own right, and the coverage by the press shows it. The clothing in the context of the war represents the sort of idiotic bravado that is being widely seen in the world as justifying the view of the Israeli tactics during the war as deliberate and criminal. DGG (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable current military scandal referenced to independent, mainstream third party sources. You may have noticed that its in all the papers. The rush by so many of a certain political viewpoint to delete this topic should suggest that they too consider it quite notable. T L Miles (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, it is user:Gilabrand, one of those who "rushed to delete" the article, who is largely responsible for it now being a reasonable article (covering a non-notable topic), as opposed to the amateurish POV exposition it originally was. Perhaps not everyone who disagrees with you is motivated by sinister political concerns? Hmmm? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See, that's odd, cause I never said, nor do I believe "everyone who disagrees with [me] is motivated by sinister political concerns". Merely that the flood of POV deletion arguments is an additional suggestion that the topic is well known and quite notable. You really should avoid assumptions of conspiracies. T L Miles (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what can I say. If you consider the fact that a bunch of people are saying "this topic is not notable" as evidence that the topic is notable, a conversation with you is not likely to be productive. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He also did, in your words, disrupt wikipedia to make a point by putting in random nonsense, so I wouldnt be so quick to say that sinister political concerns are not at all an issue. Nableezy (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Gilabrand is a she. She did disrupt the article to make a point about the article's notability, and then fixed the article up. Both of these actions are consistent with a motive of simply thinking that the topic is non-notable, but preferring a good article on a non-notable topic to a bad article, and being willing to spend time and effort to make it good. The actions are not consistent, however, with a motive of realizing that the article's topic is notable and then trying to censor it for political reasons, which is the motive ascribed by Miles to "many" of those advocating deletion (though he then tried to backtrack). Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Black Kite and WP:N. Plenty of sources exist in significant newspapers for something that isn't one-event. Thus we should have an article. Hobit (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not only related to 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, reports mention shirts from Lebanon war and that many of these shirts are bought at the completion of training, so I dont think a merge to 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict would be appropriate. Press coverage shows notability. Nableezy (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I read the entire article, and think its a fine addition to the encyclopedia. Shows the mentality of some of the Israeli soldiers. This is an incident that should be recorded, to demonstrate the mindset of the soldiers in that area at this time in history. Dream Focus 19:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is based on a single news-piece published on March 20 and distributed over wire services rehashing each other. Non-notable, non-encyclopedic, no other like article exists elsewhere in WP. The article does not even fit into the seemingly relevant cats. --Shuki (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think a lot of the users either aren't understanding the situation or refuse to. "IDF-T-shirt controversy" is not only an inherently POV title, it is false. These soldiers bought the t-shirts on their own time without sanctioning from the IDF. Also, notability does not = news coverage. At the most, this should be merged into the Israeli Gaza conflict and MAYBE the IDF, which the author of this article *shocking* already did. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delte until further sources exist. Without new sources, this article can't be NPOV. Guy0307 (talk) 06:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not right now? Nableezy (talk) 07:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because we have no idea at all how widespread the T-shirts were, or if they existed at all. One testimony picked up by the media around the world is not enough. Guy0307 (talk) 08:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know they existed because there are pictures of them. Check the links at the bottom of the article, and you can look at them. Most disturbing. Dream Focus 09:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not one soldiers testimony, there are a number of interviews in the Haaretz piece on it. Nableezy (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Today's (25/iii/2009) Haaretz has an article on T-Shirts with slogans and insignia of Israeli Army units. It quotes this article and puts it in a broader context. Phil_burnstein (talk) 08:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

link to what you are talking about please. Dream Focus 09:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Keep or Merge by Editor:Black Kite and Editor:Wikifan. @Editor:Jalepeno...Anyone that can see the humor in advocating despicable acts of violence and ignore the harmful side effects of War on us all (human species) may need to get a physical checkup. Diagnosis?....skin too thick!--Buster7 (talk) 08:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the threshold for inclusion is notability and this article is sourced. The topic of the article goes beyond the context of a single event, because it shows the mindset of a group of soldiers during the war. I agree that the article should be expanded and probably rename. --J.Mundo (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear violation of WP:SYNT. Jtrainor (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this SYNTH? That doesnt even make sense. All the sources are talking about the same things, we dont come to any conclusions that any one source didnt. If you are just going to make a blanket comment like this violates X policy, without any explanation, at least get the policy right. Nableezy (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the Haaretz article [4] appears to be independent of the previous reporting on the topic. So comments that this is all one article that has been repeated would seem to no longer be true. Hobit (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the original article, of which the other, later articles are summaries and restatements. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This is Wikinews material, although some of the stuff might be added to 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza Conflict.--Sloane (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a manifestation of several widely reported phenomena, the brutalization of some types of military training, the excesses of Israel's latest incursion into Gaza, ..., yet it is a cohesive topic in itself. No WP:SYNT here. -MBHiii (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere - I see some mention of this is already in Mechinat Rabin, and the main Israel-Gaza conflict article; do we have a Criticism of the IDF article the rest can be merged to? I think the controversy is notable, but I'm not convinced it deserves a separate article - the information would be better presented as part of a larger context. We don't need to create a new article every time either side in this conflict finds another news story that supports their view. Second choice, if a merge is impossible: delete. Robofish (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. There seems to be a clear desire to keep this and expand it into an article called Bad Israel-- or better yet a WP:category so named. A handful of soldiers are wearing bad t-shirts and they will probably be banned shortly if not already, and next week this will be a dead issue, no pun intended. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with Pedrito that this article is as notable as notable as Pallywood, 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies, Adnan Hajj photographs controversy, Palestinian textbook controversy or the Saudi-Arabian textbook controversy. Not one of them is notable. They should all be deleted. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I thank User:Ravpapa for pointing out these (generally well sourced) articles on topics of which I was only vaguely aware. However controversial, every one of them should stay for the enlightenment they provide. -74.162.154.194 (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another comment: I and Pedrito did not suggest these should be deleted because they are controversial or ill-sourced, but because they are of very transient, even evanescent, notability. Here today, gone tomorrow. They may be indicative of a greater phenomenon of disinformation by both sides, which might be article-worthy. But as individual episodes, they should long ago have been wrapping fish. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or transwiki to wikinews (if that is even possible). NOTNEWS. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not WP:SYNTH and meets WP:NOTABILITY. Could be merged to Criticism of the IDF as suggested above. That's a discussion for the talk page of the article. Tiamut^talk 10:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guarded Keep Does meet notability criteria. Could it be part of a more general article covering similar behaviour by other military and paramilitary organisations? I don't support merger with articles on the recent Gaza conflict as the sources indicate that this phenomenon preceded that conflict.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now Seems notable enough and sourcing is fine; revisit after a bit to see what this looks like in hindsight. -- Banjeboi 14:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flash in the panYoung soldiers writing inappropriate things on T-shirts. Haaretz runs a story. It is picked up by Sky News, Yahoo News, and the Independent. Is there some standard, a rule fo thumb about what makes an incident like this notable? Because, I cannot help thinking that if this had been any army other than the Israeli Army there would not be an article.Historicist (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the IDF article on the model of what was done with the material re: the recent conflict in Gaza at Mechinat Rabin. Brief scandals at large institutions donot merit individual pages, even when they merit coverage.Historicist (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete recentism and a content fork. Some guys in the IDF wore offensive t-shirts? That's a news article, not something for an encyclopedia.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2009 (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.