Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to the 2006 Qana airstrike


 * 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. Please defer merge discussions to the article talk page. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 06:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

International reactions to the 2006 Qana airstrike
This is one of countless articles spawned from the current Israel-Lebanon conflict. In the scheme of things, this particular event, the Qana airstrike, may be regarded a minor detail of the conflict. There is very little substance in this article - the reactions could easily be summarized in the "parent" article Medico80 09:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge back to the parent article, or delete. Seems a bit POV forkish. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Only because I do not want to see it back in the original article. The original article is growing quickly as events continue to unfold. Unlike many wars everything in this one is open to the press almost and the article size limit is just not gonig to be enough. In order to maintain a decent sized article there is gonig to have to be splits and this is one of them. The information is important as long as it maintains an equal groupings views, it cannot be merged back into its main article due to size contraints and should stand on its own as it is important and relevant. -- zero faults   ' '' 12:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep at least until the current issue fades into historical obscurity. Major current events cause a massive amount of information to be added to Wikipedia, and splitting the articles is often necessary to keep them a reasonable length. &mdash;   Da rk Sh ik ar i   talk /contribs  12:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per Stifle--Shrike 13:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge or keep The information should be kept, but it's debatable whether it should be in a separate article of its own. Jacob 13:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, premature afd. --Striver 14:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per zerofaults. --Wedian 16:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment But the only reason that this article is "long" is that someone finds it nessecary to list an official statement from each country and organisation. Pardon me, but what is the direct influence of the statements by Chile, Norway and Singapore? Why can't these many "small" statements be summarized into a handfull of overall, global opinons? Medico80 17:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia is not paper? &mdash;  Da rk Sh ik ar i   talk /contribs  17:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep for now as the aftermath of this event is still an ongoing and current major event (to assume that it'll not remain so is a POV statement; it might or it might not - we don't know yet). Once the dust has settled, the I could see this being condensed and merged back into the main article. For now, as long as it's properly cited and NPOV, let it be. 23skidoo 19:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per 23skido Arnob 05:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge, no lasting value; we don't have International reactions to the Battle of the Bulge, International reactions to the D-Day invasions, International reactions to any other part of any other war that doesn't have Israel in it, etc. Carlossuarez46 23:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge - I don't think it and the parent are long enough to justify separating the two. --Iorek85 09:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - per 23skidoo. 82.29.227.171 13:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - per 23skidoo. --Freepsbane 13:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - per 23skidoo. --imi2 13:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - per 23skidoo. Hello32020 14:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge - per Iorek & Carlos; this is really out of proportion to much greater events.  Tewfik Talk 02:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per above. Also, the parent article, 2006 Qana airstrike, documents a past event, and thus isn't expected to grow substantially. It is also rather short (this is what I'm viewing) and I don't see any reason not to have the international reactions merged back now. Todor→Bozhinov 10:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge -- turning this into concise prose would be a benefit. Jkelly 03:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge - POV fork risk. --Yms 03:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - per 23skidoo. Sir Paul 04:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge - fetishism with the current events. WP:ENC. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - The articles are too big and long, not to be divided for the users and readers sake imi2 06:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per 23skidoo. BhaiSaab talk 21:44, 10 August 2006 (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.