Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2009

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. Some of the "keep" !votes are based on the argument of "wait and see, maybe it'll be OK in a few months"; remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Other "keep" arguments included other stuff exists, etc. However, it looks like a suitable redirect for Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2009[edit]

Nominating together with:

for deletion/merging into Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. These are essentially POV forks where partisans of each side mostly own the respective articles, and try to maximize coverage of their respective grievances, whereas the timeline is a unified treatment. If there's something wrong with the timeline's current treatment, it can be improved; or if it's too large for one timeline, it can be split into separate articles, but in some way that's more useful to our readers e.g. by date or phases of the conflict. Splitting into "attacks by Palestinians" and "attacks by Israelis" is a particularly bad way to split it from an NPOV perspective. Note that these are part of a multiplying set of POV forks of this conflict's timeline/list articles; see also another recent nomination. --Delirium (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are similarly two articles for 2008 (one 'by Israel', one 'on Israel'). So it seems sensible to have one for 2009. (Of course the info is in other articles, but not in a timeline manner such as this one.) I recommend "KEEP" -Johnbibby (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In what sense is Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict "not in a timeline manner"? --Delirium (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "in Israel" article was probably created in the anticipation of further attacks in 2009 happening after the end of the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. Since there were thousands of such attacks before the conflict, the anticipation is not at all far-fetched. And since the conflict is over, I don't see the harm in waiting a few weeks to see whether the anticipation proves true. The "in Israel" article should not have been nominated with the "by Israel" article, as the cases are different. Besides, the "by Israel" article is badly titled and is derivative from the former. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also recommend "KEEP". I have contributed the two pages that are suggested to merge. I think that I did it in a balanced way mentioning always the source. The reason to keep two pages are:

-I see much more clearly the whole subject scaning in two documents with already the splitted information than having to concentrate in one and separate both contributions.

-The two documents can be linked to any time-line document wihtout the need to erase them.

-The subject of rocket firing is previous and can last longer than just this last Gaza Strip episode and it is not exactly the same.

-The page Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict as well as the other two proposed for delection are still to be developed as the conflict is too recent for the information to be acurate (remember the death toll claims in the 2008 South Ossetia war where 228 deaths became 69 and 1400 became ~350). Splited information can help future definition of real numbers for the merged paper and even then I would keep the 3 pages inter-linked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thevoyftp (talk • contribs) 00:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I cans see the merits of having such an article here, and I admit that I think we could benefit from it, but the article needs to be rewritten or cleaned up or something because at the moment it looks more like a news report than an article on an encyclopedia.
Delete as POV forks. All relevant info is or should be in Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. Biased editors have been creating useless POV forks off that particular article (and Israel/Palestine-related articles in general) for some time, and this is yet another example. Graymornings_(talk) 02:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I sense this debate going to get bloody (no pun intended). The article violates WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:IINFO, as well as being a blatant POV fork from the main article. It's basically a collection of trivial information branched out of a more notable article. No offense to anybody personally affected by the attacks, but this article doesn't belong on here. Themfromspace (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. It really is trivial information. Timneu22 (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. --GHcool (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with a simple merge (see my full comments below). This article is filled with excessive details that overwhelms the reader. Summary statistics should be used in any consolidated timeline. I think the related 2008 lists should be deleted as well and there should be a single consolidated article that has a table of summary statistics. That type of article will have long-term value, where as these excessively detailed articles are more "make work" projects because someone thinks they serve a useful propaganda purpose. --John Bahrain (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and cite from neutral sources. These attacks are reported worldwide as they happen and together easily form the basis for an article. That said, I think that there's a lot of merit in User:GHcool's suggestion to merge this with Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with the point about merging. The major points of this should be merged to the timeline and this article be deleted/redirected. Themfromspace (talk) 07:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The list is necessary assuming further attacks. There is no harm in adding the attacks from either side into Timeline of the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict while maintaining them in this article. Keeping this format makes reference to specific information much easier and more accessible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.240.90 (talk) 07:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per the same reason that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian fatalities resulting from Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip in 2008 should be deleted, a classic example of WP:COATRACK. --J.Mundo (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong "Take decision after 4 months" This is a piece of information that can be usefull for future, more settled, articles. Is there any hurry to erase it? . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thevoyftp (talk • contribs) 23:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge together. This is a trivial level of detail, and shouldn't water down the conflict timeline. But if it must be kept, then merge the two lists of attacks into one. —Michael Z. 2009-01-21 15:39 z
In relation to the previous comentary: To me "spliting" is remarking and "merging" is diluting or watering down. The meaning of the comment could be that it highlihgts excesively some facts but that could be a misevaluation of the inteligence of the reader. I would like some more comment on how does the splitted information water down the timeline.

Thanks in advance.

delete or merge. There is no reason that any useful info couldn't be merged into the combined article and these 2 are complete content forks and WP:coatracks. Any impartial reader would prefer the iformation together for comparison. Isolating them just gives a reader a skewed view. Wikipedia is for the readers, not the POV-warriors.Yobmod (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. Flayer (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think that this is not a useful article as it is a highly detailed list when really a single article on rocket fire with a table of statistics (per year or a chart of per month) would be more valuable to readers. I have a feeling that someone thinks it is a better form of propaganda to have a long list rather than an informative article -- that might be the case, but it serves Wikipedia readers to have a single proper article as it is easier to maintain and it has better long term value. I can't image these highly detailed and excessively long lists having any real value to readers a few years down the road, only an overview with proper content and summary statistics (per year or a chart of per month) is going to have that long-term value that aids understanding -- the type of article we should be driving towards. --John Bahrain (talk) 14:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, this is a great resource for people to have access to. It is in a timeline fashion and covers both sides so no one can claim that this is biased or is propaganda. those seeking to delete this article are guilty of wanting to censure information they feel hurts there cause. This is public information important for the public to know. This is a great reference and should be kept and updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.123.149 (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2009 (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.