Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Dalu family killing

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Per WP:SNOW Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Dalu family killing

edit
Al-Dalu family killing (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)

Not even close to being notable. This isn't a battle in a part of a larger war, it was a single attack in the course of a military operation.  Ryan Vesey 02:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The event under discussion constituted the largest death toll of any single strike during the entire operation. Significant attention has been given to it — not least because all of the victims were civilian, and also because of serious discussion over the proportionality and appropriateness of Israel's air-strikes and speculation that charges of war crimes can come from it against Israel. This is very much a notable subject, and, having in light that even attacks on Israelis that result in no casualties have gained entries, I don't know why a much bloodier event should be given less consideration on Wikipedia. Considering that, even though every single of his objections apply to the Tel Aviv bus bombing (to say nothing of his entirely arbitrary claim that the al-Dalu massacre isn't notable), the nominator nonetheless doesn't think that entry should be removed. I don't know why that of al-Dalu should be. Guinsberg (talk) 02:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Tel-Aviv bus bombing was a terrorist attack. This was a military airstrike. Ryan Vesey 02:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What of it? They were both part of ongoing military operations, both aimed at civilians and both strikes may as well contitute war crimes. That one attack aimed a bus and the other was launched from a jet, in no way makes one less notable than the other, and, considering the vastly greater number of casualties resulting from the air-strike on the al-Dalu family home, I'd argue the latter event is far more notable. Guinsberg (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Guinsberg, I find it somewhat amusing that you've recently voted to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Tel Aviv bus bombing based on the reasoning of Sepsis II, who wrote "This attack was a small part of the larger hostilities, to make articles for each of the individual attacks that made up the conflict is ridiculous. We do not need this article or any other articles such as one on the bombing of the Dalu family being made as these events are already covered in great enough detail, and linked to all apposite references, in the proper article already." Marokwitz (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Neutral - seems ostensibly to be a WP:COATRACK for one particular view of one particular incident in a much wider conflict. That there happens to have been some verifiable alternate take (the NYT comments) of that incident does not make the incident notable, nor the article encyclopaedic. The current version is full of POV statements that aren't verified by reliable sources though that is very much a WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM sort of problem. Either source them or remove them. I'm not convinced this couldn't be covered elsewhere but I'm not so convinced it shouldn't have an article that my position is a strong one. I'm not excited about the immediate jump to WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments, though I understand it is inevitable in this particular context - it's difficult to claim neutrality while keeping one article and deleting something some will see as a counterpart equivalent. While AFD does not exist to prompt clean-up, I think in this instance a good clean with the NPOV brush would allow editors to make a more informed decision. Stalwart111 03:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is in need of sources? The article is well-sourced and the changing positions of all involved in the incident - the Israeli army and the family - are registered throughout the article. I don't think it is either lacking in RS nor ignoring different takes on the event. Guinsberg (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay;
  • Well, we should probably have a source for the claim, "The family has no known conections to Gazan militant groups" (sic), given this directly contradicts the claim by those who launched the strike. Known by who? There is a source confirming a claim they did (regardless of how accurate that claim might be) and no source to say they didn't, yet we include a statement that they didn't. That's obviously problematic.
  • Equally, the following section starts with, "During the engagement in Gaza, the IDF alleged that it fired warning shots over residential areas so as to allow civilians to flee their homes before Israel's air-strikes", which is also un-sourced. That might be amongst the sources provided, but I couldn't find it and it seems like something we should have a source for. There is a source for the following line (the same source which a later section of the article is specifically critical of).
  • In the space of a few paragraphs we go from quoting a supposedly reliable source to quoting a counter-argumentative source that claims it isn't a reliable source at all. That's seems contradictory at best but it's a contradiction not supported by more than a solitary source.
  • The criticism of the NYT author is in an of itself problematic (I think). It's based on one opinion-editorial that ties the journalist's story to some related tweets. But the source in question (which we use as a reliable source, as I noted above) actually ties those comments to quotes from a local who said, "We got used to it; we got used to the killing", which is essentially what the journalist repeated anyway. That's not to say there shouldn't be some criticism (and there has been) but giving it a section of its own while at the same time not taking it into account when citing sources ourselves seems a bit strange to me.
Like I said, many of these are WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM sorts of problems but they are the very basis of the article, so unless they can be fixed, the whole premise of the article starts to look tenuous. If you start cutting arguably unreliable sources or un-sourced claims then you end up with something that might start running into WP:NOTNEWS trouble. I'm changing my !vote to neutral, though, in light of the fact that there's obviously more discussion to be had and many of the criticisms I have aren't really enough to support even a weak delete opinion yet. I'm happy to discuss it and I'll add a !vote later. Stalwart111 04:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasons given by Guinsberg (less the editorializing). The article has reliable sources and reasonably broad coverage. It meets general notability. - MrX 03:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, you haven't. All you did was to remove the NYT controversy section. Coming from someone who had said the article was "laughingly POV", I expected less lame additions. Guinsberg (talk) 12:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, by far the most notable event of the war apart from the assassination of Jaabari. There is already speculations that the case might be brought against Israel in international fora, the notability of the event extends beyond the war itself. --Soman (talk) 08:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think those arguing to keep the article have sufficiently made their points. This can be closed if anybody wants. Ryan Vesey 17:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the basic question is notability, and we can check this by finding sources which relate to this incident more than a couple of weeks after the operation. If there are then it stays, if no, then we should delete/merge it per WP:NOTNEWS.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Are we also to delete the dozens of equally (or less) notable articles about suicide bomb attacks and other widely publicized specific killings in Israel-Palestine? I don't think so. CarolMooreDC 22:51, 8 December 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Al-Dalu_family_killing&oldid=1082499812"