Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of state terrorism by Israel


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of state terrorism by Israel

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Violation of WP:POVFORK, not enough content to merit a split per WP:SUMMARY. Any salvageable material can be merged to State Terrorism somewhere, perhaps to Arab-Israeli conflict and/or Foreign relations of Israel (changed per User:Jalapenos do exist). Oren0 (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for same reasons, but content (what there is of it) should best be merged into State Terrorism. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Sourcing seems thin. Agree with Jalapenos do exist about possible merger. Edison (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions.   — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.   — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Seems like WP:SYNTH; you can't just list every allegation of state terrorism by Israel and call it an article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - obvious POVFORK. The article is furthermore an indiscriminate collection of loosely-related information. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 02:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Malik Shabazz and Ynhockey. -- Nudve (talk) 06:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with Jalapenos do exist and Oren0. As the article never got expanded enough, contents should be merged to State Terrorism ZencvLets discuss 09:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete "Allegations" articles are crap and this is one. De-crap! Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This will definitely be a test of whether WP is based on a vote count or discussion merit. The above assertions are all erroneous citations of WP guidelines ("Seems like WP:SYNTH"), erroneous statements about WP policy ("you can't just list every..." [X] "...and call it an article" -au contraire) or merely in error("the article never got expanded enough") -the article has been updated in 2009, so it has obviously not been abandoned), or dittoing ("for same reasons", "per Y and Z") All three are present in Malik and Nudve's statements.
 * The original reason for deletion is vague and not substantiated in any way. This is particularly troublesome as the accusation, POV, is a grave one, and the 'POV' should be distinctly shown to be present, in order that it not be conflated with 'controversial'. WP:POVFORK is only asserted; no facts are given to back that claim. As there is no valid reason given that the article is deficient, the following procedures such as merging are moot.
 * A fact which shows merit of the article: See Allegations of state terrorism against the United States, Allegations of state terrorism by Iran, Allegations of state terrorism by Russia.
 * From WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because 'other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc.'"
 * Anarchangel (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment copied from my user talk page : I generally take issue with all of these articles. The problem is that an article about allegations of state terror by any country is very difficult to write in a way that matches up with WP:NPOV and doesn't violate WP:POVFORK because the article is designed to present only one side of the story.  In order to be at all viable, these articles need to present both the allegations and the responses of the given nation and/or its supporters.  This article made no effort whatsoever to do so, and therefore it seems it was written only to disparage Israel.  For the record, I'm not a big fan of the treatment of this subject over at State terrorism either because that suffers from the same problem.  Honestly, I'm not sure how this information should be presented but I think the best way may be to get rid of all "allegations of state terror by X" articles and merge these to "foreign relations of X" or similar.
 * As for "WP:POVFORK is only asserted; no facts are given to back that claim," I didn't think it needed backing up because this page being a POV fork is self-evident. In order to be permissible per WP:NPOV, the article would have to fairly present all sides of the issue with due weight.  The issue is that an article about "allegations of" anything is inherently going to lack the response to those allegations, which makes the article practically the definition laid out at WP:POVFORK.  Since multiple editors have agreed that this is in fact a POV fork, I'd ask you to explain how it is you don't believe this page fits the definition. Oren0 (talk) 02:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)(UTC)


 * Keep per Anarchangel. The article is definitely laden with POV-danger, but the similar articles for Pakistan and the U.S. seem to be moving in an acceptable direction. This should be marked as a stub and given a chance. I'd also like to point out that this attempt to expand the article was deleted by Jalapenos do exist - and I don't see what was wrong with the content. -- Ja Ga  talk  05:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I explained at length on the talk page (as well as in the edit summary) what was wrong with the content. No one has challenged my explanation, including the editor who posted the content. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, he did. But your counterargument to his comment makes a good point that I would want to investigate before restoring the content. -- Ja Ga  talk 15:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant that nobody challenged my talk page explanation, which, as you correctly note, was a response to his comment. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I am against deleting an article only because it promotes for POV, I think there is a better solution, Article development that is. If anyone thinks that this artilce is promoting for POV then it is ok and expected, no one is perfect and therefor no one can write a perfect article, if u feel that a certain article promotes for POV then don't delete it improve it, and if u feel that this particular article couldn't be imrpoved then this is simply because it doesn't contain a POV. Yamanam (talk) 08:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Anarchangel. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Carlos, this is craptastic. Poorly wirtten and referenced, non-notable, POV WP:COATRACK... if not for that, I would love to have voted keep. IronDuke  23:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not worth the fork. JFW | T@lk  23:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as POV fork, we don't need more attack articles. 6SJ7 (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - It is an obvious POV fork. Quoting a personal essay (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) in order to support keeping the article, while in the same breath denouncing "Delete" arguments as not being supported by Wikipedia policy is amusing, but not very convincing. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete krof vop.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 01:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - POVFORK.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  02:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as POV fork. Most of the acts of Israel's gov't are controversial, surely this can be covereed in the article on Israel orIsraily politices.Slrubenstein  |  Talk 02:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. This non-descript stub is just out to make mischief based on the militantly Islamic rantings of Turkey's PM and Dictator for life Hugo Chavez of all people. This is also a violation of WP:NOTSOAPBOX & WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and WP:NPOV. IZAK (talk) 05:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per IZAK in every respect.—Sandahl (talk) 06:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. In this instance the sources making the allegations (as noted by IZAK) are simply not credible. The statements are part of a political discourse not actually allegations. They are also very much an aside to any real discussion or issue. Beyond that though... NONE of the articles listed on State terrorism should exist under those names. The Iranian article should properly be retitled "State-sponsored terrorism" which one point where that article forks from. State Terrorism is NOT a real concept. State sponsored terrorism IS a real concept. The base articles make this clear as do the related examples. This articles needs deletion (unless someone can find evidence of Israeli government sponsored terrorist groups?) and the others need to be renamed to bring them back to Encyclopedic quality. Oboler (talk) 06:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Such matters have been many times debated with regard to Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, and the article was kept.Biophys (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2009 (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.