Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict


 * 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. Sandstein (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Supposedly, this article is about child suicide bombers.[1] However, a close examination of both the structure and the references reveals that essentially all of the information is either about:


 * 1) Suicide bombers generally
 * 2) Minors' involvement in the conflict generally

Category 1 includes literally every scholarly source in the article. Volkan and Speckhard all discuss suicide bombers in general. They mention children in the context of the psycholigical processes which lead to suicidal terrorism, but not as suicidal terrorists themselves. In fact, both sources discuss at length how traumatic childhood experiences caused by the Israeli actions in the West Bank and Gaza lead to suicidal psychology. However, this article ignores that information, while prominently featuring anything to do with a Palestinian "cult of martyrdom" targeting children.

Category 2 includes a large number of reports of children caught ferrying bombs from one place to another, an extended discussion of the Hamas propaganda version of the Mickey Mouse Club which doesn't mention suicide bombings at all, and a POV-forked missive about Palestinian textbooks which, again, doesn't mention suicide bombings. All of this information belongs at Children and minors in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where in fact most of it is already.

I first noticed these problems this summer, when I began by removing the more egregious cases of coatracking such as the extended discussion of Palestinian TV and textbooks, and by trying to deal with the extensive sourcing of claims to highly dubious groups, including one mainly comprised of former Israeli military intelligence officers. However, I was quickly reverted by a tag team of User:Humus sapiens and User:Isarig and met with a torrent of abuse on the talk page; see Talk:Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on down. I came to understand that this article was WP:OWNed by a small clique intent on highlighting the very worst thing they could think of about the Palestinian cause, without regard to Wikipedia policies.

In summary, this article is an original synthesis of various sources. Many of them are primary sources, such as news reports about a given bombing conducted by a 17 year old. Many of them are questionable at best, such as MEMRI, PMW, etc - none of which make any point at all about child suicide bombings specifically. Others are reliable but still only tangentially related to the topic. The article is here to make a WP:POINT, not to neutrally overview the facts. Once the bluffs have been called, the article has no secondary sources which pertain to the topic specifically, thus failing the most basic test of WP:Notability.

[1] "Child" in this sense would refer chiefly to 16 and 17 year olds, which some Islamic militant groups consider legitimate recruits, and which Israel treats as adults for legal purposes, including mass detention of all adult males in an alleged combat area. There are claims that younger children have attempted bombings; Hussam Abdo was either 14, 15, 16, or 17 when his attack was thwarted, depending on whom you ask.

&lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 05:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The nominator's description of the article does not match the article itself. The article contains sourced material concerning the subject reflected in the title.  The nominator may have a partially valid point that some of the material in the article may belong in other articles, but that is an editing issue, not a deletion issue.  On a side note, this nomination continues the recent trend of AfD nominations that are less valid deletion discussions, and more political polemics regarding the nominator's opinions of other editors.  (See references to "cliques", "ownership", POINT violations, bluffs being called, etc.)  In fact, the nomination makes clear that the real dispute here is about editing the article, and not about its existence.  Which might lead one to conclude, Ask not for whom the WP:POINT violation tolls, it may toll for thee.   6SJ7 (talk) 06:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you check the talk sections referenced, where paragraphs of logical argument were being met with oh-so-clever shots like "Go away, troll"? Did you notice how even though 3 editors agreed with deleting those sections against 1 on talk, he managed to edit-war it back in? Did you notice Humus reverting me with the summaires "rv#1", "rv#2, "rv#3", "self rv 3rr" and then User:Isarig (now on sanction for 3rr gaming) showing up to revert for him? &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 15:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone doubts your frustration, and we can all see the problems you've had, but it still looks like you nominated this to prove a point or get attention. Insults and edit warring are no reason to delete a page. Even though your intentions are good and your cause is just, this isn't the way to go about it. Kafziel Talk 21:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I nominated it it because it fails notability policy; there are no secondary sources provided about the topic. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 21:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is an annoying lightning rod of controversy, and it could certainly use some work, but we don't solve those problems by deleting articles. If differences of opinion are blocking progress, try conflict resolution. Kafziel Talk 08:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see this deletion as support for an obvious need for an AFD like method to draw attention to an article. If some of the article is irrelevant, generally on controversial issues like this one, the content is almost impossible to remove. However, the article as a whole shouldn't be removed. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 11:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but this needs some unapologetic editing and rewriting. Mandsford (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, not a minor phenomena, part of the conflict and major cause to child fatalities. For sake of truth, completeness and encyclepedia of reality - should be kept.  M ath K night  Gothic   Israeli   Jew  21:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to Suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Organize information into sub-sections (have one on children if warranted). Remove section on Palestinian textbooks and other unnecessary additions and WP:OR links.  T i a m u t  01:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Further comment: Baby Suicide Bomber should be merged into the newly renamed article as well. T i a m u t  03:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I oppose the renaming, and people who have already "voted" have not had an opportunity to comment on this suggestion. This article is specifically about child "suicide bombers" -- a phrase I hate anyway, but that's a different subject.  As for the Baby Suicide Bomber, that can be a separate discussion.  There is no point discussing it here, as no rationale has been provided.  6SJ7 (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename per Tiamut. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep If there is any off-topic material in the article, as the nominator alleges, no problem with moving it elsewhere, but otherwise the subject is notable and the content is well-sourced. Beit Or 16:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If anybody can tell me where are the secondary sources about child suicide bombers I'll withdraw the nomination. Thus far there is a list of bombings committed or attempted by minors (which includes a lot of non-bombings, such as cases where minors were caught ferrying explosives from place to place) which is all primary sources, but all the secondary sources seem to be about bombers generally or minors in the conflict generally. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 16:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per 6SJ7's explanation. -- Avi (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the topic is notable and the article does have appropriate references to secondary sources.Osli73 (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Isn't it a little ridiculous to have an article on Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without having one on Suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in general? Which phenomenon is more widespread or notable? Why is Wikipedia shining a spotlight on a sub-phenomenon, rather than writing an encyclopedic entry on suicide bombing in the conflict, a notable phenomenon for which there are many reliable, secondary sources?  T i a m u t  22:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. You should write one. Once there's a viable article there, a merge proposal could go through the proper channels (rather than using AfD) and I would probably support it. Kafziel Talk 23:18, 12 December 2007 (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.