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. For me, there's pretty close to a consensus to rename here, but I will leave it to an editorial decision to move it to a new title. This could either be done boldly based off this discussion, or via WP:RM. Daniel (talk) 09:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wehda Street massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

It is likely that an article should exist for this event. While few media sources have published articles exclusively about it, many have published articles that focus on this amid a broader article about the 2021 Israel-Palestine crisis.

However, this article is not suitable for that role. To start, the article was created in violation of WP:A/I/PIA, with none of the three primary contributors User:Rsawikza, User:Belal2795, and User:Osps7 (article creator) meeting the 3/500 requirement for contributing to articles broadly related to the Israel-Palestine conflict at the time of their contributions. Per the Arbcom ruling, deletion is permitted but not required.

In this case, I believe the permitted option should be exercised as the current article heavily, and likely irremediably, breaches WP:NPOV. This can be seen both in the article, and in the edit page, with an editor describing an edit after the neutrality template was added by User:Ynhockey as 'tried to introduce more "neutrality"', quotations in original.

The issues in the article itself can be prominently seen in the title and heavy use throughout the article of the word "massacre", a word that is not used outside quotations in any article on the strike that I have reviewed.

In general, the article suffers from the use of biased phrasing, such as in "The bombardment was the single deadliest of an 11-day attack on Gaza" and "Zionist Israeli citizens used force against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank" (the particulars of the second example are not supported at all in the provided source, as best as I can tell.)

It also suffers from using POV statements as facts, such as "Hamas, Gaza's governing body, affirms that its leaders are not in hiding" and "Since the beginning of the attacks on Gaza critics brought attention to the US for their unwavering support of Israel" (the second example is not fully supported in the provided source). The reverse happens when it comes to POV statements from Israel, using words such as "claim" against MOS:CLAIM.

These issues also extend to what is not included. For instance, the article does not include statements from the Israeli military that hypothesize that the considerable damage inflicted beyond the street was due to secondary explosions, nor when it discusses the lack of warning provided does it mention the statements, again from the Israeli military, that Israel believed based on previous strikes of a similar nature that the damage would be localized and not pose a threat to civilians.

While I have provided a few specific examples above, these are just the tip of the iceberg; these issues are heavily embedded in every section of the article, and I believe that the only way we can reasonable achieve an article at this location that meets WP:NPOV is to delete this one and start again. BilledMammal (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wehda_Street_massacre&oldid=1035623443 - Permanent link to current version of article BilledMammal (talk) 09:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Osps7 is in the extended confirmed group as far as I can see so that objection falls. I don't see it as necessary to delete an article in order to "start over", amend what is there. I deleted the lists of victims since WP is not a memorial, we should restrict to notables and victim/casualty counts as reported in reliable sources. I will have to check the sources for its description as a massacre but the event is clearly notable and is specifically highlighted as a possible war crime in a just released (27 July) Human Rights Watch report https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/07/27/gaza-apparent-war-crimes-during-may-fighting.Selfstudier (talk) 09:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. Checking [[1]], you are right, with them holding 506 edits - checking their contributions page put them slightly under, but I believe that some edits don't show up there if a page is deleted? However, they would not have met the requirement when they created the article, having made approximately sixty edits since creating the page, and so the violation of WP:A/I/PIA continues to apply. BilledMammal (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is not reasoning supporting deletion. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Wehda Street Bombing, or similar – the word massacre is highly loaded, and this really stretched the definition. WP:RS sources don't call it a massacre, unlike a number of other articles related to the conflict. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There is some support for massacre in the sources but not that I could find among the best sources so yes I would suggest airstrikes as there were a number of them.Selfstudier (talk) 10:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but the word "massacre" might need replacing with something that is most commonly used in sourced. BeŻet (talk) 10:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename. While I sympathise with the nominator, most of what has been included in the nomination should be at WP:ANI, and not at AfD. Ultimately, Wikipedia is a work in progress and issues relating to content, disagreement over inclusion, and proposals to change the title of articles should all be dealt with on the article talk page, not in a discussion about whether an article should be deleted. I don't see that the issues here quite get the point of blowing it up and starting again (beyond my hesitancy to use that WP vernacular in this context). St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are multiple WP:RS which describe this event and its legacy well after the event itself. See for example NYT (“the raid on Al Wahda Street remains emblematic”) and Independent (“Wehda Street, one of the best-known streets in the 40-km long strip, is now a forlorn reef of funeral wakes, lined with posters displaying the names of the dead”), both from a month after the attack. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is about a real event that took place in the Gaza Strip. The topic of the article occupied the world and was talked about by many international news channels, and many international human rights institutions talked about it. Also, the bombing of Al-Wahda Street in Gaza was among the largest bombings in 2021. Osps7 (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Extended-confirmed protection has been requested for both the article and this AfD, per WP:ARBPIA. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, done. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article needs a lot of work, with a standard referencing format as Deborah Jay noted. 'Massacre' is appropriate because upwards of 40 civilians died, and, so far, no evidence has been forthcoming regarding militant casualties, if there were any. It took place in an extremely densely populated civilian area over 1 km in length, and the result was massive civilian deaths. As to Ynhockey's renaming proposal, I disagree. In this area, several articles where notable numbers of civilians died in an armed conflict between the warring parties are not unusually called 'massacres' because of the high incidence of non-military casualties, i.e. Kfar Etzion massacre, Hadassah medical convoy massacre, I don't see why, when it concerns Palestinians, 'massacres' are deemed inappropriate.Nishidani (talk) 12:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as definitely notable. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 19:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename it to a less dramatic title. - Daveout(talk) 18:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to airstrike of course, which is what this was Free1Soul (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2021 (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.