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 delete. There seems to be a rough consensus as it stands that this page isn't fit for inclusion in the project. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Israeli Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2013[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Israeli Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2013 (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)

Per consensus obtained on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2012, of which this article is an obvious POV fork (WP:POVFORK). This article is a direct violation of our neutrality principle, selectively choosing sources in order to promote a very specific point of view made clear by the title. It is not the job of Wikipedia to make moral and legal judgments. Some of the material in this article is completely WP:OR - citing sources which do not use the term "Violations". A new article may be created, covering Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip from a neutral point of view, however the present article contains no salvageable contents. Marokwitz (talk) 07:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Marokwitz (talk) 07:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel_or_Palestine-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (constabulary) @ 09:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (tell me stuff) @ 09:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (state the obvious) @ 09:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military and combat-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (state) @ 09:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1- I didn't participate in the previous AFD. 2 - That AFD ended with no consensus. 3 - A successful consensus was formed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2012, which deals with the same topic. Therefore, speedy delete would probably be more appropriate. Marokwitz (talk) 05:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some articles like this get kept others deleted. Its all about whoever randomly shows up to comment and the opinions of the closing administrator. All events on this list get coverage in reliable sources, and its important to keep track of things for history. Wikipedia has no shortage of space. Dream Focus 09:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is easy to verify that the closing admin declared that consensus is to delete, and suggested to begin a new neutral page. Having that article userfied and being prepared for re-creation, only gives more validity to delete current article as POVFORK. Marokwitz (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The closing admin was asked why he closed the discussion as delete when there was no evidence of a consensus to delete the page in the discussion. He responded by stating that he was persuaded by SH argument to move and merge the page. There was never any consensus to delete that page. Therefore using that discussion as the basis for a deletion of this page is ridiculous. If anything we should be going back to the other discussion and asking why the page was deleted without consensus. Dlv999 (talk) 10:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus to delete was formed here: [[1]]. Marokwitz (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The vote was 8 delete/7 keep or move/merge (the latter means 'conserve'. A razor-sharp majority is not a consensus, at least in English and English-speaking democracies. Nishidani (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5:8 is how you define "consensus"? --aad_Dira (talk) 11:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
See Wikipedia:Consensus. In the case of AfD, consensus is determined by the closing administrator. Marokwitz (talk) 11:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Deletion policy. In the case of AfD, "The deletion of a page should only be done when there is consensus to do so. Therefore, if there is no rough consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging, or redirecting as appropriate" --aad_Dira (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I think you should avoid accusing others of harmful motives. You are wrong, and assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. I am a strong supporter of the neutral point of view, and as I have clearly and explicitly wrote above, I suggest that new article is created, covering Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip, from a neutral perspective. Marokwitz (talk) 11:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not accusing, I'm stating a fact, This article was by a majority saved from deletion. The sister article was then challenged, and with no consensus (see dlv above) deleted, much to the surprise of experienced editors. Some of us do not fuss, but are disconcerted. The disconcertion is augmented by the fact that you now jump at a dubious precedent to move, within a few weeks, for the deletion of this one as well. People in good faith can work for a cause. I'm sure you're in good faith. The cause we are supposed to work for is wikipedia, which demands scrupulous fairness to give equal representation to both parties. That, not some outside cause, should be our obligation.Nishidani (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you are very well aware, Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. See WP:CLOSEAFD. I've seen articles deleted in the past based on a minority of !voters. The same logical, policy-based arguments apply to this article as well. We don't write biased articles to balance other articles - each article should be neutral on its own rights. Marokwitz (talk) 12:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please read dlv's analysis. The admin deleted the page, because he was persuaded by sean.hoyland's argument to merge it. Statements like that, since I can't understand them, convince me I really am stupid. But, if that was the admin's judgement, and you accept it, then you are profoundly illogical in moving for the deletion of this. Your motion, on precedent, must logically be to merge it, as the admin advised. No, you argue for deletion. I.e. you don't reason according to the same closing admin's argument that you cite in defense.Nishidani (talk) 12:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As to neutrality, if that is really a concern of yours, by all means adjust the ubiquitous 'Palestinians fired' (collective ethnic stereotype) into 'Palestinian militants fired' in all of those articles. Nishidani (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've never edited those articles. I took a quick look in List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2009 and it does seem to use the correct "Palestinian militants" terminology.Marokwitz (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the earlier discussions, these two articles, of many, were compared
In these, Palestinians and Palestinian terrorists is the standard word. The first is a moral slamming of a whole population with the rap of collective guilt. The second is POV. We usually click on links in following arguments. Nishidani (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Quoting the proposing editor: "I suggest that new article is created, covering Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip, from a neutral perspective." - There seems to be an agreement on the of the desired outcome. The only issue is how we get there. Dlv999 (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this suggestion appears clearly in my delete rationale above. Marokwitz (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, rather than make it disappear, merge it and the other with the Israeli articles, whose utility here no one is contesting. The only way to balance those articles is to incorporate the Palestinian side, not make the evidence for it disappear.Nishidani (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article seems to be in violation of the neutrality rules of Wikipedia, and nearly all of the sources are from the Palestinian Center for Human Rights and the Palestinian Information Center. Rather than having lists of violations, which are always going to sound POV, there should be a "List of violent incidents following the November 2012 Israel-Gaza ceasefire" or something similar. --1ST7 (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Predictable block-voting by the usual partisans. No reason, and if one gives one, it's obviously irrelevant. To adduce WP:NOTNEWS of an article listing damage to Palestinians is laughable, were it not a disappointing index of attitudes affecting articles here.Nishidani (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stop insulting editors and stop with the hypocrisy. Your !vote as well fell out just as everyone "predicted."--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Partisan editor" Excuse me? I've probably made less than 10 contributions total to any article that has anything to do with this conflict pbp 20:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize personally to you for having including you in a noted group. I would however call your attention to the fact that the call on the last deletion of the sister article was technically questionable, and is being exploited here (Marokwitz is a very good and reliable editor generally) to ask that this article, which a mere few weeks ago, survived a request it be deleted, be also cancelled on the example of that dubious precedent. It's a very poor picture. I'm not satisfied with the articles (all of these articles) myself, but I can see POV pushing at the drop of a hat, and what's going on here has little to do with encyclopedic concerns.One should improve or merge articles, rather than delete because you dislike the content.The deletion of this will leave this sector of wikipedia replete with pages devoted to Palestinian attacks on Israel, and nothing to balance that bulk of lists.Nishidani (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a valid keep reason. No consensus means no decision was made, and the arguments did, in fact, change. Marokwitz (talk) 09:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is not a valid delete reason. The arguments have not changed, it is the same bias story about Palestine and Israel articles again, giving WP a bad name. Let the data and the encyclopedia live.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful. Look at what you are saying logically. This article survived a deletion motion. When immediately afterwards the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Violations_of_the_Ceasefire_of_21_November,_2012. article was nominated for deletion, 'the same logic' should have applied there, by your own statement above. I.e. it should have survived because there was no clear consensus. No. A different logic was applied, and it was deleted. Now, irony of ironies, we have the second used to delete the first, to fit a claim of ostensible consistency. No consistency existed however in the application of the first Adf (2013) to the second Adf (2012) Wilde said:'Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.' I think that was moulded on Dr Johnson's patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.:) Nishidani (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I probably was not clear. Let me repeat then. I've reviewed the sources and content. The date, 21 November 2013, is in the future is not it? The content is poor quality, why to insist to keep in the mainspace? Therefore the logical step would be userify the content for now and work on it to improve it. Some references could be reused in other pages, but current list format is a recipe to create another virtual plaza for POV pushers' entertainment. Why do we want to provide an opportunity for them to say in neutral Wikipedia voice what is actually reported as an opinion by reliable sources? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. You were clear. You contradicted yourself. You don't in your rephrasing. I'll tell you what will happen. The article will be cancelled, like the other, with a suggestion to 'merge'. To be merged with what? The parallel Israel-victim articles whose status no one questions. But to do that, you need the consent of editors, and that consent will not be forthcoming. So, what will happen is that the material for Palestinians under assault (corresponding to the material regarding Israelis under assault) will disappear for months if not years. It's called wikichess, and here the result is check-mate in two moves. Nishidani (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, Nishidani, you can comment the so-called "Israel-victim articles." If you do, please comment me, and I'll support you. But here I cannot help you. I cannot support a keep-motion here if I’ll support your delete-motion there. Nor can I support a delete-motion here if the Israeli-victim-articles keep standing on WP.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't understand your point. I have never supported the deletion of articles in this series regarding either side (correct me if my memory is straying). I have consistently asked editors not to violate NPOV by making calls on whether an article is to be deleted or conserved according to the ethnicity of the victim.Nishidani (talk) 11:32, 4 June 2013 (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.
More