Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Gaza airstrike


 * 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. Tone 22:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 Gaza airstrike

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

WP:NOTNEWS. What makes this specific airstrike more notable than all the other regularly-happening ones? Guy0307 (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This specific airstrike is more notable due to the fact that the three killed were not ordinary militants. One was a senior field commander of the Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine. Also, the fact that the same argument Guy0307 made could be used for the January 2010 Gaza Tunnels airstrike, which has so far not been nominated for deletion. That airstrike is seen as significtant for destroying the tunnels used to smuggle rockets, while this should not only be seen as an airstrike, but noted due to the fact that it killed a top commander. WP:NOTNEWS applies to articles which are not a news source, but this is not news, but an event in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and should be treated as such.

Reenem (talk)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS: has tried to explain why this airstrike is more notable than the others, but he is using subjective standards of significance and an "OSE" argument. Incidentally, why is there a WikiProject tag on the article-page? ╟─ Treasury  Tag ►  belonger  ─╢ 09:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable. Top anonymous commander is also non-notable. This article cannot be developed further and there is no benefit to keeping it. --Shuki (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Why should it be "more notable than other airstrikes"? It has received significant public attention, and that will suffice. Everyking (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT Nick-D (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete—Treasury Tag is correct. There is no evidence that this strike is more notable than any other that came before it. WP:NOTNEWS. —Ynhockey (Talk) 15:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But that's not the point. Who cares whether it's notable relative to some other airstrike? We should judge these things objectively based on whether they received substantial public attention, not based on whether they're more notable than other, similar things. Just as an example to show how absurd the logic is, imagine an AfD for the Boer War article on the grounds that it's far less notable than, say, World War I. Everyking (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - it is sad world we live in, in which a military airstrike can be classified as "trivial" or "routine". But that is reality: these airstrikes happen on a regular basis. This one had no particularly notable victims, nor did it have an unusual amount of them. The media attention for this strike wasn't exceptional in anyway. Nothing is expected to develop out of this, and within a week it will be completely forgotten. Alas, this really is a case of NOTNEWS.  Rami  R  07:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. NOT.  NEWS.  IS.  ENCYCLOPEDIA.  FULL. STOP.  JBsupreme (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2010 (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.