Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Saturday massacre


 * 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   Redirected. No need for further discussion for deletion, as the page is already a redirect. (non-admin closure) D ARTH P ANDA duel 22:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Black Saturday massacre

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

This is a clear wp:NEO violation. The two sources using this term are from January 3, and the article was written January 4. Those two sources are also not major news outlets, so their neutrality is questionable. The title is highly POV, and the subject is clearly and better covered at 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. NJGW (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Salted redirect to 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 07:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep:At present that article is too large and we should split it.(123,480 bytes)-- Seyyed(t-c) 07:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You do not address the issues with this article. If that other article is split, it should not be to articles with names which violate Wikipedia standards and policies.  NJGW (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What standards and policies are being violated by this name? Certainly in the context it is not neutral, but that is solved by redirect, as its done with another non-neutral article Operation Cast Lead. So I am curious to see what other violations are there? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 07:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, as you point out, wp:N and wp:POVFORK, and then there's wp:NEO, and as for being sourced, I see no wp:V source that this is anything more than a propganda move (as hinted at by the wording and timing of the Daily News source. NJGW (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NEO doesn't apply here. It applies to words, not phrases. Look-up what a "neologism" means in a dictionary, you seem to be confused. That said, we disagree on the lack of verifiability. This is how it is being called by Arab media, and how the article is named (or has been named) in Arab Wikipedia - what is neutral to you and me might not be neutral to Others: WP:BIAS. In English media the whole thing gets reduced to "massacre", but it is verified by (for example) Fox News, YNET and AFP. This is why I agree to redirect, the term is a notable way used by one side of the conflict to unambigously refer to the conflict, or at least to one of its components. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * " A new term does not belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term — not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing." The news sources you provide all quote one side of the conflict to arive at the word "massacre".  Also, this is English Wikipedia.  Each language site has different standards.   So far we have established that some Palestinians call this event a "massacre".  I have seen no wp:V sources which suggest anything different.  The fact that one side refers to an event one way and the other side refers to it in another way is not news, but could be mentioned at the main article.  This discussion is on another topic.  NJGW (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, NJGW, (someone PLEASE back me up), "Black Saturday massacre" is a phrase, not a term or word. All three words used in the phrase have been long used in the English language, and combining them to describe an event is not a neologism. Please read Neologism for a wonderful explanation of what I mean. WP:NEO's purpose and intent is to keep new words, that might not be known by our readers, from creeping in, as we are not a dictionary. Any reader of english even at a basic level understands what "Black Saturday massacre" means. Sorry, but if you do not want to take my word for it, ask an uninvolved person in WT:NEO and they will certainly explain this to you. Its a question of language, not NPOV, and you insiting on this is not good and makes you look dumb. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do not call people dumb. From Wiktionary: "term ... 2. A word or phrase, especially one from a specialised area of knowledge."  As for your link to what Neologisms aren't, that goes to an OR portion of an article, not to any Wiki policy or guideline.  The problem isn't with what the term "Black Saturday Massacre" means, it's with the new usage of that combination of words to refer to specific event and the fact that it is a term created as propoganda by one side in a conflict (a term which they would love to have creep in to common usage).  This is not an official term for the event, nor is it one assigned by historians, or even the press (who only use the term when attributing it to Palestinians).  This is it is exactly what NEO and wp:N were created for.  NJGW (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That might be true, but it isn't for you to decide. You didn't discuss this in the article's talk page. Your argument further evidences the WP:POVFORK nature of this article. However since the term is a verifiable sourced one, we could redirect. If we ever choose to for to it, we would do it. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 07:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Close let merger discussion happen, but if this is not closed then Redirect to 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. Before AfD some other user proposed a merge discussion. Nominator ignored this, which is not good... While this is clearly a WP:POVFORK and I would have WP:SNOWBALLed it had I not found its existence by the merge proposal, the AfD is premature. However, once a discussion was raised, I think an AfD was unnecesary, and shows lack of judgement in a contentious editing environment. As to salting, well, WP:SALT is clear no preemptive measures should be taken, unless I am missing something, there are no vandalism issues here. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 07:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge As I suggested in the article's talk page, I think we should create an article on Operation Cast Lead to describe the first few days of the conflict and merge this article into that one. --Al Ameer son (talk) 08:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do not raise issues here that belong in the talk page, but is suffices to mention the overwhelming majority of the editors do not agree with you. They either want to rename the present article to the Operation, or want to change the current name but keep the redirect a redirect. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Close or Redirect. Agree with Cerejota. Best, Tkalisky (talk) 09:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge well sourced, also as per above. travb (talk) 09:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete or redirect to 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict There is no justification for a separate article on this conflict, and having information in two places is a bad idea. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Cerejota's arguments.--Omrim (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The only valid objection that I see here is the name of the article. Generally, if more than 200 people were killed and more than 1,000 injured in a given location and in a single day, that would be considered notable.  It should not matter whether it occurs in Gaza, Israel or in Gary, Indiana.  I imagine that if the rockets fired from Gaza were to have killed 20 Israelis in a single day, that would be considered to be a unique occurence. Mandsford (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You are talking about two different things. The event is notable and covered at another article, but the title itself is as POV as it gets.  There are thousands of instances in history where hunderds of people have been killed and it wasn't called a massacre (see war).  This phrase is propoganda created before anyone even knew what had happened (see the sources from the same day who already had this name for it).  Even those supporting this name on the article's talk page acknowledge that we don't know if the 200 where military or civilians.  NJGW (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * ATTENTION UNINVOLVED ADMINS THE PAGE HAS BEEN REDIRECTED PER SNOWBALL FURTHER DISCUSSION IS MOOT, PLEASE SPEEDY CLOSE If someone disagrees, please raise an RfD. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree Please close as snowball redirect, and consider salting due to the editwarring which has been going on over the redirect. NJGW (talk) 22:25, 4 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.