Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Hamas terror campaign


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

2010 Hamas terror campaign

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH. This article takes the statements of an Israeli security official that Hamas has begun what he calls "terrorist attacks" and presents that as a fact. It then combines what the creator of the article feels is part of that "terror campaign". The sources for the existence of this supposed campaign are either Israeli government officials or partisan organizations. The actual reliable sources on each of the attacks that the article combines do not actually say they are part of any "terror campaign". Nableezy 23:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  -- Nableezy 23:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions.  -- Nableezy 23:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A well-sourced article about a widely-covered campaign of terrorist violence sponsored by the government of Gaza.AMuseo (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sigh. Another attempt to delete any article related to Hamas activity. We have nominations for the individual acts and now we have a nomination for the entire scheme. Pretty soon, terrorism itself will be nominated for deletion. The recent extreme jump in terror activity was noted by numerous sources. The allegation may stem from Israel intelligence reports, but its coverage is clearly significant and undoubtedly meets WP:GNG. Any POV concerns or article name concerns should be taken up at the talk page.-- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 23:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NEWP, and fix up. The nom's apparent rationale, that the existence of a campaign is only the assessment of Israeli security officials and scholars, is false. Hamas itself has declared a campaign of attacks against Israel with the stated aim of derailing the current Middle East peace talks, in which "all options are open" (i.e. attacks targeting civilians): . In the title, "Hamas" should be changed to "Palestinian", since the agent of the campaign is a broad coalition of Palestinian groups (see the source). Also, if there is a significant POV that this campaign is not a terror campaign, the word "terror" in the title should be changed. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes the article is in rough shape, but it's being worked on by a legitimate editor, is actually cited, and is about an event that is still in progress. I would support a rename to make it more neutral, but I would not delete it. Coincidentally, this looks like an edit war in the making, so I would advise both Nableezy and AMuseo move away from the page for a while. Sven Manguard  Talk  00:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that this is not about "an event", it is about several events that have been synthesized together into one "campaign" on the basis of an Israeli security officials say-so. And I have no intention of editing this article, I corrected one blatant falsehood and that is about all I intend to do besides argue for its deletion.  nableezy  - 00:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, an edit war ending in ArbCom action and topic bans may well be just what Wikipedia needs here. This wikiwar is getting tiresome. —Carrite, Sept. 26, 2010.


 * Keep The nomination makes no argument for deletion. The article's sources demonstrate the notability of the topic and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing in accordance with our editing policy. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please dont write clearly bogus comments. A clear argument for deletion is given in the nomination. That you either do not understand or do not agree with that argument does not make it not an argument for deletion.  nableezy  - 02:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me be more clear: the litmus test is the article sources. I quote: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. There are a lot of arguments to avoid in AfD discussions. The nomination makes no proper argument for deletion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, that is a blatant falsehood. An article being a POV-pushing SYNTHesized OR essay is a "proper" reason for deletion. Please do not continue to write things that are not true.  nableezy  - 13:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nab, I guess topic is not accurate, I'd go with "Hamas reaction ...". Nothing is artificially synthesized, sources note that it is in context of current round of peace talks, this is Hamas reaction. sources put under "a topic". I guess you disagree, but that's ok. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - POV essay which attempts to link a number of likely unrelated events as part of a "terror campaign." Tendentious "Original Research" at its worst. —Carrite, Sept. 26, 2010.
 * Except, of course, that the article has reliable sources such as the editorial staff of the Washington Post who call this a deliberate "campaign" by Hamas to disrupt the peace process.AMuseo (talk) 02:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per AMuseo and the Washington Post. Hamas regularly refers to its own resistance efforts. --Shuki (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per AMuseo. LibiBamizrach (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep My initial reaction was to !vote delete. However, the sources do tie the attacks with the peace process and/or make it clear that it is some sort of campaign involving multiple attacks Since we all know in the I-P area of Wikipedia that some people are supporters of one side or the other, I will just come out and say it: Both supporters of Hamas (or at least violent resistance) and Israel should be approving of such an article for POV reasons.
 * More policy and guideline based: The name needs to be changed. "Terror" is one way to describe it but not the only way. No, "terror campaign" is not always used as the nominator points out. So retitle it something similar to "Hamas attacks during the 2010 peace talks" (of course something more clever and less wordy). I was thinking that merging the article into another would work but it would then be the perfect candidate to be spun out into an independent article. The wave of attacks meets the general notability guideline and probably the events one. Numerous sources putting the attacks together or relating it to the peace process. It is ongoing (just started though) independent coverage from reputable international sources. It is safe to assume that there will be some lasting impact but that is something we will have to wait and see about. Cptnono (talk) 09:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep article provides reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - although the concerns raised in the nomination seem valid. Here's another Washington Post ref: Hamas retains deadly reach in West Bank: "Hamas has pledged to follow up on the attacks, which appeared timed to the relaunch in Washington of direct peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority." And attacks do seem to have continued since then.  Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  19:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This is one of the MAIN ongoing news stories in Israel presently. Though it may come from one-sided sources, this is not a reason to delete, only to modify as need be. But it does come from reliable sources. Linda Olive (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:N and WP:V. WP:NPOV is not a reason to delete anyway. article can and should be improved--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutrality is mentioned several times at WP:NOT which is reasoning provided at WP:DEL so NPOV could be a viable reason. However, any neutrality concerns in this article (namely the title) are easily fixed.Cptnono (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep; seems like a good article with originality. Billy Hathorn (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't 'originality', or synthesis, one of the reasons this article was nominated for deletion? I can see no particular rationale for an article on '2010 Hamas terror' in any case. Is there any evidence that Hamas plan their actions on a yearly basis? Why do their actions (or alleged actions) need to be broken down in this arbitrary way? Cannot the article be merged with other articles on Hamas? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Take a look at some of the sources if you have the chance. It is the "campaign" or wave of attacks based on disrupting the peace stuff and PA.Cptnono (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename!; obviously something is going on, in which innocent people are harmed, but using the word terror in the title is the problem. It attributes blame. That's dangerous and simplistic. And it attracts the attention of people who feel uncomfortable with the word. Manual of Style (words to watch) tells us to avoid the word terrorist. That logically applies to the word terror as well. Yes, report what has happened. Even write the certain people are calling it a terror campaign (so long as we say who). But don't fall into the trap of repeating the loaded language of one side in the article title. HiLo48 (talk) 02:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Should we rename it to "2010 Hamas militant use of deadly force against civilian non-combatants"? Article_titles suggests "terror", as the most common description of the Hamas action, is the correct term for the title. Since "terror" is "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject", Manual_of_Style_(words_to_watch) doesn't forbid its appearance in the title. Peter Karlsen (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you comment on the talk page where this is already being discussed? Smartse (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep the article since it is notable, then consider Renaming in line with the reasonable observation of HiLo48. Marokwitz (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep notable topic, properly sourced article, i don't see an issue. WookieInHeat (talk) 23:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * And there's our basic issue. It IS an issue to use the word terror. Several editors have said so. Wikipedia policies say it is. Anyone saying it's not is simply ignoring others' comments (very rude), ignoring policy, and hence showing obvious POV. HiLo48 (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * have no problem with the article being renamed/reworded if the word terror is an issue; but this is an AfD discussion, not a renaming/content discussion. i didn't read the entire novel of commentary, just reviewed the article and offered an opinion. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Move discussion Link to the rename discussion on the article's talk page, for clarity. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep—notable topic discussed at length by the media. Possibly inherently suffers from recentism, but if that is the case then it can be merged into a relevant article a few years from now. —Ynhockey (Talk) 16:02, 1 October 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.