Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel

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. Even ignoring the blatant !vote stuffing and SPA !votes, there are sufficient cogent arguments from long-time AfD participants to call this a clear keep consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel

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

This article, by its very name and content is a WP:POVFORK of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel - it is a list dedicated only to casualties of one side, and attacks by the other side, without the corresponding casualties/attacks of the other side. Were we to include the missing content , it would be a copy of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel AlanS (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons given above:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 09:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a useful tool when you try to study Hamas terror evolving from "traditional" terror attacks to something different. Perhaps a list of Hamas rocket attacks would be more accurate for it is difficult to define "Palestinian" as a unified group regarding the conflict between Israel and palestinians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juhoeerikki (talk • contribs) 17:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can see the logic for deleting List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel (and replacing with a redirect) since all the links from List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel are also included in Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. But that isn't an argument for deleting the individual articles List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2001: Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel presents summary-style information with links to more detailed articles, so I don't see how the more detailed articles can be considered a POV fork.

Lists of casualties from one side are legitimate: there is coverage of Palestinian casualties from the Arab-Israeli conflict in other places on Wikipedia, and even if there wasn't, Wikipedia is a work in progress and we don't delete one article just because nobody's yet written another complementary article. POV issues can almost always be fixed by editing and therefore are not cause for deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a POVfork. Brad Dyer (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keepNo more a POV fork than everything else on the subject. I try to avoid this topic because of the difficulties of true nPOV writing, but I think trying to cover a list of attack by both sides in the same article while in theory desirable, would create even greater practical difficulties in fair proportionate editing. DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This looks like a legitimate topic for one or more lists. The fact that it covers only the aggressions of one side and their resulting casualties is not a POV issue. The Arab-Israeli situation is complex and there are plenty of articles with a similar focus on alleged aggressions by Israel. That said I would suggest adding links to some of those articles in order to provide a quick reference for those seeking some subject balance. Additionally I concur with the points raised by Colapeninsula. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Putting something up for AfD simply because it is a subject of world interest for the moment is not the way to do it. Wikipedia should not be one-sided but cover a broad spectra of this conflict.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unless the same information will be available elsewhere with a redirect.. It's being a very singular list in no way keeps anyone else from making a similarly singular list of which they approve. FlaviaR (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)FlaviaR[reply]
Keep. Per above Keeps. If the current trend continues, this would be a good SNOW candidate. Epeefleche (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I think the issue here is that we need to take a balanced coherent approach. As shown by the nominator we have many one sided articles that document only Palestinian violence. Recently someone created an article List of Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in Operation Protective Edge to document Israeli violence during its current attack on Gaza. That article is nominated for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in Operation Protective Edge). It can't be right that we can have numerous articles documenting Palestinian only violence but not a single one that documents only Israeli violence. Dlv999 (talk) 04:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Additionally the articles are a WP:FORK of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. AlanS (talk) 06:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The title explains the content exactly. If the content is substantively correct, I am interested in it. No one else should be able to decide for me what information I get to see, not I for them.Mary-Anne Sillamaa (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Resolve any POV concerns by adding articles to represent 'List of Israeli airstrikes on Palastine' or somesuch, rather than deleting the content here.--Flibble (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As previously discussed the issue is that one single article was created to document Israeli attacks on Palestinians and it is slated for deletion. So the issue is whether it is legitimate to have a local consensus that prohibits any article documenting Israeli attacks on Palestinians but at the same time have a local consensus that allows numerous articles documenting Palestinian attacks on Israelis. Dlv999 (talk) 04:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:POVFORK advises: "do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing." This article falls far short of being an "extreme case of persistent disruptive editing". Israelgale (talk) 05:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - But at the same time I agree with Dlv999's remarks, because the absurdly POV nomination of List of Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in Operation Protective Edge for deletion has to be considered here as well. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The attacks are real; there is much interest. "Balanced" has come to mean "Ignore the other side because I disagree with or dislike the facts." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sequoia e (talk • contribs) 14:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This was extremely helpful. Alan s seems to be biased and i believe he should be watched to make sure he does not attempt to silence the suffering of innocents on both sides by POV based beliefs. (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTNEWS. The rocket attacks on Israel are notable, do we need a list of every single attack though? No, the main article pretty much sums up the attacks and people killed. I find this list un-encyclopedic just as a list of rocket attacks by Israel would be, its overkill in terms of details, and the attacks have become routine news. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone may want to look into some of the accounts here, there are more than one that have only one edit to Wikipedia in the form of a vote here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Similar lists exist for other conflicts as well. I don't think this is POV (since it's a neutral listing of occured events), esp. since a complementary list can be easily created. -- Phiarc (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a concise listing of reliably-sourced events. Andrew³²⁷ 20:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a data driven article, not political. I see no reason why a similar article cannot be created to track Israeli attacks on Gaza.Jeff^{(talk) 21:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)}[reply]
Keep. Articles like this which are encyclopedic-bordering-on-the-dull very useful for my work as a journalist. Now to add my Keep vote for the parallel article documenting Palestinian casualties. Yudel (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obvious keep, per all arguments mentioned above (Yudel, JeffMaslan, Andrewman327, Phiarc, Palestinewillbefree, Sequoia). --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since the articles have well-sourced pertinent contents. E3 (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since it's all true and newsworthy and historical. Other events can have other pages. shf1234 (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid list. --cyclopia ^speak! 22:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Invalid deletion rationale. A list of attacks of one side is not a POV fork of the topic of attacks, and no policy demands that a list of attacks during a conflict must contain attack from both sides in the same attacks. No other policy or guideline issues worth considering for deletion in the article: notable, sourced etc. --cyclopia ^speak! 22:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as each article is backed up by thorough WP:V & WP:RS. Note that WP:NOTPAPER and that due to the seriousness of these events and that they are given high priority in the media and in international relations there is therefore a constant outflow of reliable and noteworthy information that is an important encyclopedic record. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All the facts are accurate, wikipedia is an encyclopedia and such articles are part of encyclopedic knowledge. --Yoavd (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel and all related articles by year, which are completely sourced and verified. These articles are not POV forks but valid Content forks. Yoninah (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yet rename - Sublists with notable events, well sourced, and a correct name. The parent list is not called rocket and mortar attacks. These are close enough to be bundled yet distinct enough to necessitate separate mention in the title. gidonb (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to "Lists of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel", because it is a list of lists. Debresser (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Debresser above.Smeat75 (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The facts in these articles is well sourced and is given in a useful manner. Deletion of encyclopedic knowledge in the form of these articles is detrimental to the wikipedia goals in my opinion. Yammiyammi (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verified facts on a notable target. There may need to be another list of Israeli attacks on Gaza, but that is a separate issue.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This constitutes notable (per WP:N), verifiable (per WP:RS and WP:V) information of encyclopedic record as per WP policy, specifically WP:NOT. yonkeltron (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. I was looking for this, but I'm also looking for the exact number of Iraeli airstrikes in the last days..--Neo139 (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. Useful, well-organized page for information access. -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep–article appears to be a valid list, well-sourced, and with notability demonstrated for most/all of the items in the list. If individual statements need more support, it would be best to just tag them inline with {{citation needed}} or other appropriate inline article cleanup tag. N2e (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. Rename article to "Lists...." and also keep the other articles as well. Frmorrison (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know I'm spitting into the wind because Wikipedia will never delete anything that favors Israelis over Palestinians regardless of policy compliance, but delete. The many, many users arguing to keep on the basis that all of these attacks verifiably happened either don't know or don't care that that isn't how Wikipedia works at all, and I hope that the closing admin will weigh them for what they're worth. Wikipedia guidelines specifically point out, in fact, that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and requires that data be put in context. This means that a bare timeline of every single attack is not compliant and doesn't serve Wikipedia's goals of being useful to the reader. The way to handle this sort of thing is to write about ground offensives prompted by X number of recent rocket attacks or rocket attacks as part of Hamas's pattern or whatever. Not daily news-cycle stuff. If it means that there's a rocket that doesn't get documented on Wikipedia, well, that's the price we pay for having an encyclopedia that runs on rules instead of political bias. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a unique and valuable tool to understanding what is going on. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 08:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per yonkeltron. -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2014 (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.