Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversial tactics in the Gaza War


 * 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   redirect to International Law and the Gaza War. Anything that does not duplicate existing content can be merged from the history to the extent consensus allows.  Sandstein  09:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Controversial tactics in the Gaza War

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article duplicates material of International law and the Gaza War thus creating WP:POVFORK everything useful should be merged to main article.It covers all the issues that covered by International law and the Gaza War Shrike (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * When you say the main article, do you mean the Gaza War article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlv999 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No I mean International law and the Gaza War--Shrike (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case I would say the question is whether tactics during the Gaza war were only controversial because of the issue of international law. I would say no, because if you look at the section on allegations of misconduct by the IDF it is not based on international law. My personal view is that a better way to move forward would be to make sure that where the two articles do cover the same information (i.e. where the controversy was due to the issue of international law) that we make sure that both articles are strictly NPOV. WP:CFORK states that "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another." - So pointing out that the two articles share a "significant amount of information in common" does not seem like a valid justification for deletion.Dlv999 (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Its not just "significant amount" this articles contains all the issues covered by International law and the Gaza War--Shrike (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As I have already pointed out the section in this article on alleged misconduct of the IDF is not related to issues of international law. It would not be relevant to the international law article and does not appear in that article. Dlv999 (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Was there anything not controversial in the Gaza War? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The main article is already over long - this article was spun off in order to try to make the main article more manageable. The main issue with deleting this article will be that any relevant well sourced information that is not covered by the International law sub article will have to be re-incorporated back in to the main Gaza War article Dlv999 (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. The article name screams 'POV', and it appears that it's also a POV fork. Nick-D (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Question - If "everything useful should be merged to main article" then shouldn't Merge be followed and once the merge has been completed the article can be nominated for deletion ? It isn't clear here whether deleting the article right now would result in the loss of content/references and there doesn't appear to be any discussion on the article's talk page about merging it. If the outcome of this discussion is delete, it will just be deleted whether or not that results in loss of information present in the article but absent from the target of the proposed merge.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You always can copy the article to you own sandbox.That what I did.--Shrike (talk) 06:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but if there is material present in an article that isn't present in the merge target article (and I don't know whether that is the case in this instance but it's usually the case), and the source article is deleted, it means that content is removed from public view until such time that someone merges it from the sandbox. That doesn't seem like the best way to approach this kind of issue. I assume that is one of the reasons we have Merge rather than a workflow that involves deleting articles that are potential merge sources first and and sorting the merge out later. If the objective is to merge the article now, a merge proposal/discussion/effort is appropriate (presumably followed later by an AfD). If the objective is to delete an article now, an AfD is appropriate.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to International Law and the Gaza War. It's an unlikely search term, but redirects are cheap. It can't remain as an article - as other users point out, it's a POV fork that duplicates a better-done article, and the length-fork argument is invalid since the original article is basically already about stuff that was controversial. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:44, 12 March 2012 (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.