Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Israeli shelling of UNRWA Gaza shelters


 * 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   no consensus. Participants have for the most part provided guideline- and policy-based rationales supporting their stances. Ultimately, there is no consensus herein for the article to be retained or deleted. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 23:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

2014 Israeli shelling of UNRWA Gaza shelters

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:No original research and WP:POVFORK. This is a synthesized article of all such incidents that has not been discussed holistically in the media and created to lead the readers to a certain conclusion. As User:Kingsindian wrote on the talk page when discussing a new title, "Any title that does not mention Israel doing the 'hitting' is probably a non-starter." That is despite the fact that much of the findings of responsibility are unclear and in a number of these incidents, Israel has countered that the shelling was from misfired munitions of Gaza militant groups. The fact that the original title of this article was "2014 Israeli raids on UNRWA schools" clearly says something of the intentions of a number of the editors here. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC) Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Sorry, what? The original title "2014 Israeli raids on UNRWA schools" was overwhelmingly voted to be kept (I did not vote there). I got involved quite late in this article and was one of the people who was involved in changing the title to be less POV, since some other editors raised concern about "raid". A new title was unanimously approved. I don't think this is a POV fork: the allegations are discussed here. This is a WP:SPLIT from the 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict article. See section. There is no original research, no synth. All the incidents are collected here. Kingsindian (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Some recent reports. UN report
 * This is the report that below is talking about. I find it bizarre that this is used to support a "delete" vote. As far as I can see,  made arguments about POV fork, NPOV title, saying that they are not "Israeli shelling", notability, finally the notability of it as a group. From what I can see, the first, second, third, fourth argument are totally without merit. The fifth argument now reduces to "only 3 are notable, not the whole 7". I ask any fair-minded person to consider whether this argument is sufficient for deletion. Kingsindian (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to your opinion that those arguments are "without merit" but saying so doesn't make it so. You've not actually provided an argument against those points beyond, "I disagree". As the author, the WP:BURDEN is on you to provide evidence for your claims and, in this instance, your presentation of those claims. You've still been unable to provide evidence for the collective notability of these events or an explanation for why we should accept the inclusion of material that fails inclusion criteria just because you have elected to combine that material with other more-notable material.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 12:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I was referring to my comments just below your comment, when I made the claim of "without merit". I can only give my opinion, that I addressed all the arguments made. People can read it for themselves. Kingsindian (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep--Please read Notability (events): Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance. Now. do ypu remember prior attack on UN school in Beit Lahiya during Gaza_War_(2008–09)? Are you sure this is last attack on UN schools in Gaza? If you answer these questions, you know this article is notable for past and future.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Very little of that comment makes any sense at all.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 03:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - as written, this is obviously a POV fork and suggesting otherwise is ignorant. Are we seriously suggesting this is the most NPOV title we could come up with? For a start, the incidents aren't all incidents of "shelling". It's spelled out in the first few lines. "Shelling" is artillery (which uses... you know... artillery shells) while the article quite clearly states that some were mortars. There's conjecture as to who fired/launched the shells/mortars in question or whether they were shells/mortars at or were perhaps Hamas rockets. Somehow we've still allowed the title "Israeli shelling of..." despite two of those things not being supported by the very text of the article. That's like an article about 3 people having heart attacks last week being titled Strange bovine strangulations of 1912. I'm still not convinced this "event" (strung together in a manner that suggests WP:SYNTH anyway) is notable in the first place as a stand-alone thing. What makes this particular set of events (what makes it a "set" first) notable in its own right, separate from the many, many, many other sub-sets of events in this conflict?  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 03:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The title was twice almost unanimously approved. If you want to change it, make a move request. This is not WP:SYNTH, I gave a single reference describing all incidents. Regarding responsibility, they are clear for all except one where it was initially disputed, and the dispute is presented in the article. As to notability, it was commented on by the UN secretary general and the US state department (among many many others). I have no idea what the POV claim is about. There is a long verbatim quote by the IDF spokesman in the lead. Kingsindian (talk) 05:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, specific changes were "unanimously approved" by a vast and broad-ranging consensus of 5 editors, all of whom had previously had involvement with the article and were canvassed by the proposer... which is what allowed that move request to be acted on within 24 Hours of it being proposed... and it was "closed" by the proposer. The first 2 responses to the suggestion came within 15 minutes. I wouldn't be hanging my hat on "consensus" like that, especially in support of an argument that this title isn't hopelessly POV and completely inaccurate. Even if we kept this (I don't think we should), it's a terrible title. Yes, you gave a single reference. A single reference. Where's the in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources all talking about these things as one thing. A single article does not a Wikipedia subject make. Bringing these events together and claiming these are all one subject on the basis of one news item (which this article heavily paraphrases anyway) is still WP:SYNTH in my books.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 06:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, if you wish to contest the title, the proper procedure is to make a move request, not an AfD. The first move request was totally legitimate. The person who moved the article a 2nd time was an inexperienced user who took some shortcuts. Nobody at all protested. The OP (Plot Spoiler) was pinged.
 * Though I feel that the SYNTH issue is a total red herring, I gave a one sentence response which defeats it. A single reference is sufficient to address WP:SYNTH. When you say, where are the other references dealing with all incidents, what you are asking about is notability, not SYNTH. There are plenty of references to attacks on UN shelters; many of them are cited, and countless others can be added. There is no requirement to discuss all 7 incidents in every source cited. Plenty of sources one example, simply refer to one of a series of incidents in which UN schools were hit, while saying that this was the 7th time it happenned. Kingsindian (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * To be honest, the title issue is a red herring given I don't think the article should be kept. That's unfair. So let's leave that aside. "Synthesis" applies to article content and to the premise of the article itself. I can't just pick 5-10 non-notable, partially-related events and "create" a subject (or the premise of a subject) because one news article discussed those disparate events in a broad analysis of similar events. A one line mention elsewhere suggesting there had been a certain number (without giving the idea significant coverage) doesn't help much. My point is that this isn't a recognised premise or subject of which there is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Individually, the events wouldn't be notable. They don't suddenly become notable because one article happened to cover them all at the same time (each in passing).  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 10:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, you are talking about synth but arguing about notability. Not sure what you mean exactly. There is nothing in WP:SYNTH I see that applies to an article as a whole. I will ignore the SYNTH claim altogether and talk about notability. At least two events, the attack on Jabaliya school and the Rafah school, were notable. The Jabaliya school attack was condemned all over the place, and it was significant because a similar incident in Jabaliya happened during the 2008 war - this was specifically mentioned in the NYT investigation. The Rafah school incident was singled out by the UN Secretary General and the US state department, the latter especially for anyone who knows about the topic, was very measured about the criticism before the incident. Israel withdrew from Gaza shortly afterwards. Who knows if that was a coincidence or not. To be frank, I find it a bit distasteful to even argue about notability. I will make no further comments. I have said enough, and people are free to make up their minds as they choose. Kingsindian (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps those are the notable events about which we should have articles. There would be nothing wrong with mentioning the others in order to give those context. But creating a subject in order to fit them all in is a problem. These are not a defined set of events about which there has been significant coverage. The non-notable examples don't gain notability from the notable ones such that collectively they are notable. Create articles about the individual examples for which there is WP:GNG coverage. You'll get no argument from me.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 12:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Clearly a WP:POVFORK and WP:SYNTH also POV title don't add much to article.--Shrike (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the explanation of a certain person here can be posted here verbatim and it would apply perfectly. The only issue is that the !vote is different for some strange reason. Kingsindian (talk) 05:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that was about a single event he believed met WP:EVENT (although I happen to disagree). This is about a disparate series of events that have been WP:SYNTHED together to make a non-NPOV whole under an equally non-NPOV title. They are considerably different.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 06:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I was specifically referring to the arguments on the other page: based on WP:DIVERSE and that the original article which is too big for the article to be incorporated, hence the need for a split. Those comments apply here verbatim. Of course, the !vote here is different, based on totally different criteria. This is why I was asking why the different criteria are being applied in different cases. There is no implication of any personal attack here. Kingsindian (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sorry I don't see any diverse sources for example for "Maghazi Preparatory Girls School A & B" also I don't see diverse sources that discuss such events at large--Shrike (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with the argument that this doesn't meet the WP:GNG and needs to be divided. I've long thought that the content on this page didn't respect the NPOV guidelines and Kingsindian (who's account became very active since the start of the war in Gaza and has seemingly focused solely on Israel-Gaza issues) has had more than a few disagreements with me over article content and what is NPOV. I do think that the general trend of this article is to attempt to portray Israel in a negative light regardless of whether they deserve to be or not (evidence the posting of an image of Israeli bombs falling on Gaza from 2009, the original naming of the page, the original content and the generally passionate and not moderate/calm/consensus seeking discussions on the talk page).I support moving these into separate articles.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Israeli strikes against UN schools was very much covered, leading to many news reports and condemnations, including from United States and United Nation's Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:POVFORK An article on a topic like: UNRWA facilities and the 4014 Israel-Gaza conflict that covered issues like Hamas attack tunnels with entrances underneath UNRWA facilities, the launching of rockets from within and adjacent to UNRWA facilities, and the refusal of the UNRWA to evacuate shelters in neighborhoods where heavy fighting was taking place, in addition to the material that it now covers might have the potential to become an acceptable article.   As it stands, this article is mere wartime propaganda.ShulMaven (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have little experience in these things, but is it ok to open a move request right in the middle of an AfD discussion? As to the rest, I find it strange to demand inclusion of things which are already present. The lead has a long quote from an IDF spokesman verbatim, together with rockets being found in UNRWA schools. There is a sentence by UNHRC accusing Hamas (and Israel) of possible war crimes. Half the background consists of the "human shields"/launching rockets close to civilian facilities. There is a separate subsection talking about other UNRWA incidents. Kingsindian (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, while this is a POV Fork, the subject has received significant coverage, but within the scope of my proposed redirect target. Whether this article is recreated will largely depend on the improvement and growth of the redirect target and once a consensus is formed as to what sub-articles are created if the redirect target meets WP:TOOBIG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the comment: is there some doubt that the main article meets WP:TOOBIG? I can't see the "readable prose size", but the article size is already about 180K. And it's getting even bigger all the time. Already several sections have been hived off, and more will follow. As to POVFORK, I would like to see the argument. Kingsindian (talk) 13:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - broadly. In contrast to most of the newsy rubbish that the community insists on keeping when it's Israelis who were hurt, the Rafah shelling is actually still being talked about over a month later. ( - today) Delete votes that claim it's a POVFORK as long as it doesn't talk about violence against Israelis are nonsense and I hope the closing admin will give them the consideration they deserve. It's possible that other attacks on schools and shelters are not encyclopedically notable and that, based on coverage, the right decision will be to turn this into an article on the Rafah shelling and maybe mention other attacks on schools in a section - but that's a decision that needs to be made from the baseline of keeping the article on something that, going by the usual community standards in this topic area, is reeeeeally notable. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, the Jabaliya incident is also notable, especially as it was a repeat of another incident in Jabaliya in the 2009 war, a fact noted here. The above report is talking about Israel's own investigation into one school incident. The UN is mulling an investigation into all of them. Kingsindian (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete and restart this is the sort of POV pushing that weakens WP's credabilty generally. The "Background" section is all about the 2009 conflict, when many of us thought that the 2014 conflict had something to do with some murdered teenagers, not mentioned of course... The topic may be notable, just as the finding of arms caches in UN sites is notable for those with the pro-Israeli POV, but what is written in this article is clearly the result of such persistent POV pushing that it needs to be redone in its entirety. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope the above comment gets the credit it deserves (nil). The murdered teenagers are mentioned (prominently, in the lead) for the main article. In this article, the finding of rockets in UN sites is mentioned in the lead and background (it even has its own section right now). Exactly one paragraph and one picture in the background section deal with 2009 conflict, because it is relevant. Kingsindian (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * One finds through experience that someone who has to berate all who disagree with them in these sorts of debates is WP:NOTHERE but is WP:RGW and his or her input ought to be ignored. I see your antics in these sorts of debates has already been flagged by other editors including a warning and advice. You'd be better served heeding them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Your warning is perhaps well-intentioned, but this is not the venue to discuss user conduct. I "berated" the comment, not the user, giving arguments. And of course my responses are to comments who disagree with me: how could it be otherwise? For what it's worth, I also disagreed with  above, who said "keep". Kingsindian (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep – This is a notable standalone topic, not to mention the hundreds of news articles about this. Now all one has to do is pray that Hamas goes away from UN shelters (but seriously, 69 sources is enough). Epicgenius (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Except that so far, the proponents of this article have only been able to point to 1 source that is actually about this topic. The rest (68?) are about individual events that have been synthed together to make an original research whole. That number of sources suggests at least 1 or 2 of those individual events might be notable, probably more. But then they should be treated as different events. The POV problems stem from the synthesis - the desire to group these disparate events together and suggest they are part of a trend because of common elements. The POV, title problems, original research and weight issues could all be solved by deleting this and splitting the article into disparate parts (properly accounting for disparate events).  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 23:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So each shelling is a notable topic by itself, but not as a whole? If that's so, I somewhat agree that it should be split into separate articles or merged where necessary. Still, the fact that there even are shellings of UN schools is itself backed up by 69 sources, which point to instances of such attacks. Maybe non-notable separate instances can be described within one or two sentences, or a bullet point, in a new article, Casualties of the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict (I'm not familiar with this topic's Wikipedia coverage, so it may already exist). This article should be kept, anyway, as an umbrella page, since most of these instances may not get articles. Epicgenius (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I'm saying, though may be not all of them are necessarily notable (it's less likely that those without fatalities, for example, have received as much coverage). This is effectively a "list article" where the inclusion criteria is too broad, some of the included items aren't notable and the title it terrible. Splitting them into individual, unquestionably notable event articles would be a much better outcome for WP, I think.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 03:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - per Epicgenius -  Cwobeel   (talk)  02:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete-per Stalwart111 - bias issues aside this is a list article at the moment which needs a source discussing the list as whole for it to meet the notability requirement. I think the Human Rights Watch report yesterday discusses the topic but its contents have yet to be placed into the article here in a NPOV way. Also the report only mentions 3 of the 7 shellings listed here so that also points to either a major revision being needed (to focus only on those three events and then retitle the page) or the creation of separate pages.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 11:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - per others 3bdulelah (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to give reasons. AfD is not a vote. Kingsindian (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete One hears that anyone can log on and write anything they like on Wikipedia, that anyone with a horn to blow can use it for puffery or propaganda, that nothing you (or your students) find on Wikipedia can be trusted. But one (or at least )  have rarely come across an article this embarrassing - or this damaging - to Wikipedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.98.138 (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - pr -User:IRISZOOM and User:Kingsindian, --Huldra (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2014 (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.