Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IDF field hospital for Gazans


 * 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

IDF field hospital for Gazans

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete - Orphaned article, non-notable, non-encyclopedic. Has POV language like "operation against the terror regime in Gaza. Hamas, however, had urged them to remain in the area and has been using the local population as human shields when firing missiles at Israeli civilians" etc. Minimax Regret (talk) 06:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC) The user had no right to start this AFD per WP:A/I/PIAShrike (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 11:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Propaganda story about the ungrateful animals who refuse medical help from the wonderful people who caused their injuries. Sources are army press release and several near-identical press parrotings of it. Utterly unsalvageable tripe. Zerotalk 13:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Unclear on what reliable secondary source this POV assertion of propaganda is based, however even if true - articles may cover notables pieces of propaganda - e.g. The Flower Girl - the subject matter being or not being propaganda doesn't have any connection with notability. Icewhiz (talk) 06:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You can see better than most editors that this is cheap propaganda. It is also non-notable propaganda. Your comparison with The Flower Girl is completely ridiculous. Zerotalk 11:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Meet WP:GNG as multiple sources exist and WP:NOTCLEANUP --Shrike (talk) 13:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Deletion is not cleanup. The article contains several INDEPTH reports from NEWSORGs. Continuing coverage in a non-news context - . Icewhiz (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT. Hopelessly POV. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 15:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete essentially propaganda. Also, consider speedy per WP:ARBPIA3.  nableezy  - 21:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No such basis for speedy deletion. The article was created prior to the ARBPIA3 case - so was and is not a 500/30 vio.Icewhiz (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see beat it by a few months. Then delete as propaganda remains my !vote.  nableezy  - 21:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I have added additional sources to the page. Passes WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete pr MShabazz, hopeless propaganda, Huldra (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Article is reliable sourced. I just don't like it is not a valid reason for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So don't use it, or its brother, WP:I just like it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:HEYMANN article has been expanded and tweaked for tone. It is WP:RS to INDEPTH coverage.  Sources brought by Iceqhiz above still need to be added, but it meets WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Editors seem to take issue with the field-hospital being propaganda. Without going there, the coverage of this field-hospital in reliable sources, however, is not propaganda, and makes this notable. Debresser (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment, as this looks as if its going to be kept, someone may like to include a sentence or two in the Erez Crossing article? ps. really just wanted to be part of an extended protected afd:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC) - oops, its just been pointed out to me that its already there ... guess i need some zzzzzzs. :)) Coolabahapple (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please do not comment about whether this is propaganda or not; instead, discuss whether it is notable and based on reliable sources, and whether can be made neutral if it isn't sufficiently neutral.
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a place for propaganda Alex-h (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sandstein, I wasnt commenting on if the subject was propaganda. I was saying our article is propaganda.  nableezy  - 17:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Article has been cleaned up, propaganda and narrative spinning removed.  It is reliable sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2019 (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.