Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel–Gaza conflict timeline 2006–2008

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 Speedy delete per Criterion for speedy deletion G12. I just searched for the use of the word 'said' in the prose of the article, which is often the give away that material has been lifted from a news story (eg, when it appears in a format such as "an IDF spokesperson said..." or similar), and followed the links to the first ten or so news stories and several others selected at random where the links are still live. In the great majority of cases the material in the article had been lifted word for word from the news story. Google searching for other uses of 'said' selected at random from entries without a specific reference revealed similar problems. This was a simple test, and I imagine that checking each of the entries against the reference (including those which don't include the giveaway word 'said') would have revealed wider problems given that most of the entries were written in the style of news stories. As there is no good version to revert to in an article such as this, it's clearly a candidate for speedy deletion. If editors in good standing would like to work on this offline and provide me (or any other admin) with a commitment that they won't republish it until the copyvios are addressed I'd be happy to email them a copy - though this should still be available from Wikipedia mirrors for at least the next few weeks. Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Israel–Gaza conflict timeline 2006–2008

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

The actual history of this article is a bit muddled, but its apparent creator has called it "all propaganda" and "not worth wasting time." See discussion at Talk:Israel–Gaza conflict timeline 2006–2008#Requested move. This may fail WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. It's a somewhat arbitrary timeline in an ongoing conflict. Is every death in this conflict notable? Its purpose is unclear. BDD (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article was merged from two different ones that detailed events during that time; the larger one seems to have focused on casualities. During November attacks when it was called Timeline of the Israel–Gaza conflict - and obviously was NOT that, I proposed on several relevant Wikiprojects/articles that it focus just on casualties. Hearing no objection, I thus renamed it to Israel–Gaza conflict casualties 2006–2008 per Talk:Israel–Gaza_conflict_timeline_2006–2008#Create_new_casualites_article_and_redirect_this.3F and started cleaning out the material irrelevant to casualties.

Soon after User:Greyshark09 came along, ignored the work I did and just changed it to the current name which I protested on the talk page here. Not knowing how to move it back (having done it wrong in the past), I then asked for move discussion but got little relevant feedback. It's obvious a casualties article will show once again the disproportionate number of Palestinians killed during this period; the new title obsfuscates this issue. Considering the opposition to the article spelling out this fact, and that there are better ways to dramatize the issue, I don't think this article is critical. However, I won't vote for AfD because I have such a big problem with the process by which the name was changed and the questionable excuses for it. I don't like to think a more important article also could be deleted this way. CarolMooreDC 20:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I am concerned regarding what is written above, as this maybe seen as POV advocacy. It shouldn't matter whether one groups casualties is more or less than another. It should be that one is only concern about documenting casualties, period.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article, it maybe as a scope of the article to be a WP:SYNTHESIS. Casualties within the conflict maybe notable, but a timeline of those casualties may not be. At the same time an AfD is not a substitute for clean up. Therefore, I am torn as to what my opinion what what the best outcome should be regarding this article. Perhaps the article should be renamed to Casualties during the Israel–Gaza conflict, and the list transformed into prose, and the content better summarized.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it is just the 2006-2008 ("between the June 2006 end of a ceasefire and the beginning of the Gaza War in late December 2008. ") and I don't think anyone wants to do the work to expand it. There is another article Casualties of the Gaza War also. I see for the first time there also is a Category:Death in the Palestinian territories which includes casualties in First and Second Intifadas as well as Category:Death_in_Israel] which surely will include articles about Palestinians killing Israels. So a casualty article on both Israelis and Palestinians for a two year specific period would not be totally unprecedented. A timeline that is mostly a casualty list of course is absurd and worthy of deletion.

So the real question remains, should it be moved back to original title Israel–Gaza conflict casualties 2006–2008 which was passed by 2 wikiprojects and a couple article talk pages, or left with this one which was passed by no one. CarolMooreDC 04:25, 13 February 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.