Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 23:00, 30 April 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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. No problem with having sub-articles for the main article (we have a few), but polemical forks are just going to add to bad blood and further fuel disputes, especially when their title is that inflammatory (you should have seen the lengths I had to go to to retitle Operation Summer Rains as 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict). Incidentally, anyone knows why the 2008 Israel-Gaza conflict article doesn't appear to at all mention the 2007 Israel-Gaza conflict? I am hoping to see energies expended toward streamlining & organizing the 2006, 2007, and 2008 articles, than ones devoted to one side trying to get an edge over the other (reply on my talk page if you have ideas). El_C 02:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Izak has taken the initiative of authoring a central Israel-Gaza conflict (as well as creating a Category:Israel-Gaza conflict). Well done! El_C 07:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust of Gaza

Holocaust of Gaza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This poorly thought out and POV title violates WP:NEO, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX (citing and backing a propaganda article from the Tehran Times: Israel's Holocaust against Gaza by Khalid Amayreh that is all twisted hype), because there is no "Holocaust" going on since this is (a) an armed conflict between two armies Hamas (trained and armed by Iran) and the IDF, (b) there is no record of genocide, and (c) there are relatively minor casualties on both sides in this new chapter of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The contents of this article should be merged after editing to comply with WP:NPOV policies into the NPOV 2008 Israel-Gaza conflict article where this subject belongs. IZAK (talk) 07:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete and Merge contents into 2008 Israel-Gaza conflict. IZAK (talk) 07:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 07:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 07:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 07:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per IZAK. I would have said "delete and merge per IZAK" but I'm not sure we could accomplish that under GFDL. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Highly inappropriate. Keyed In (talk) 08:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete With such a plainly inflammatory POV title, you're going to need a better and more neutral source than the Tehran Times and various Syrian websites. Lankiveil 10:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC).
• Merge to 2008 Israel-Gaza conflict after editing for NPOV. The fact that notable people have compared this event to the Jewish Holocaust is already mentioned there, which is quite enough. This title is obviously non-neutral (though calling it "wrong" is itself a POV). The harder question is whether this title should be deleted completely or left as a redirect to the main NPOV article, because it yields a considerable number of non-trivial google hits - i'm not sure what to say here. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to 2008 Israel-Gaza conflict as a WP:POVFORK per Amir. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete 2008 Israel-Gaza conflict covers this. The article looks like it's been automatically translated from the tehran times - almost unreadable. Camillus (talk) 11:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, do not merge: we have plenty of coverage of this, and if we merged the text into any other article, it would just make that article more POV. Nyttend (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Seriously POV to the extent that sources and commentary are unencyclopedic non-starters, regardless of the "non-trivial ghits". "Notable people" (as per Amir) can surely have their opinions stated in their own articles. Merging would set a dreadful precedence: there'd be collections of incendiary and irretreivably POV agitprop all over. Plutonium27 (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This can never be anything but inherently POV. Jtrainor (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to 2008 Israel-Gaza conflict, of which this article appears to be a POV fork. If the term has been prominently used in one or more reliable sources it can be mentioned in the main article. Incidentally, why is this considered a "Judaism-related" deletion? I don't see the purpose of adding this category when there are already two more appropriate categories (Israel and Palestinian-related deletion discussions). *** Crotalus *** 19:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge (do not redirect) whatever is important and compiles with WP:NPOV into 2008 Israel-Gaza conflict. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge & mention the term in the main article.--Statros (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep - gut feeling really..--Camaeron (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• mergeSoroma (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - provocative fork of more NPOV article 2008 Israel-Gaza conflict which already covers comparison to the Holocaust. --MPerel 23:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Per MPerel: provocative fork of more NPOV article 2008 Israel-Gaza conflict which already covers comparison to the Holocaust. Johntex\ 17:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

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.