Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli fatalities of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon 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 Delete: Invoking the snowball clause: Wikipedia is not a memorial. ChrisO 17:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Israeli fatalities of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict
This article is an inexplicable POV fork of the Casualties of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. The main article sufficiently covers all the facts and figures, and a highly detailed list of the death of Israelis non-notables, while certainly a tragic fact, has no encyclopedic value. This page has not resulted of consensus nor has any type of support from major editors of the pages from it is forking.--Cerejota 00:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete There's no need to make this separate from the main article. --Wafulz 02:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete easily covered in main article. ReverendG 02:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Totally agree with Cerejota (above), the content seems more of an online-memorial page as opposed to an encyclopedia.TJ0513 03:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Tragic, but unencyclopædic Avi 03:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete lists of casualties serve no purpose --Musaabdulrashid 03:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. LoomisSimmons 03:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete list serves no purpose. No to memorial pages Rm uk 04:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Redundant as it is. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 04:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete redundant. Iorek85 09:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; Yes it's unfortunate, but then I'm picturing a page on Soviet fatalities of World War II. This is too much tactical detail for an encyclopedia. &mdash; RJH (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. See here for my previous discussion on the matter. ~ clearthought 23:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above. Paddles TC 02:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Unencyclopædic--Nibblesnbits 03:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia.  A list of fatalities is notable (an article on every person killed is not).  If there were enough sources, and enough editors to keep up the list I would not object to Soviet fatalities of World War II. Nor do I see how this is POV; There can just a easily be an article for fatalities of other contries.  Jon513 18:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said before: "Since we pretty much only have details on Israeli deaths, I don't know if it would be fair for us to have detailed death lists for Israel but only numbers for all other parties involved in the conflict." ~ clearthought 18:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That is idiotic. balance does not mean equality.  If there is verifable, and notable information it does not need to censored because we cannot get the same imformation for "the other side". Do we have to remove information about chess tournaments because we cannot get the same imformation about the Scrabble tournaments! Jon513 19:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is all one conflict. There is no reason that we should list every Israeli death name by name if we cannot get even nearly as close in detail for deaths from other sides. On the topic of your comparison of Chess to Scrabble, that is not comparing apples to apples—in this discussion we are talking about one conflict and the parties involved, not two conflicts. Using your game comparison is like saying the World War II article should be just as long as the Gulf War article... not a fair comparison considering we are not comparing the Arab-Israeli war to this Israel-Lebanon (Hezbollah) conflict! If you are to call my idea "idiotic" at least come up with a good analogy. ~ clearthought 19:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Every single fact is separtate. Every fact should be decided for includsion based only on wheather the fact is verifable and important.  Where to put that fact and how to present it should be done in a NPOV manner.  If you feel that this means making a parrell article for Lebanoneze, fine.  Frankly I think that the fact that it is in a sparate article, not overwhelling Israeli fatalities of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, makes it NPOV. Jon513 19:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The arguments/reasons others listed above says it perfectly: Wikipedia is not a "memorial", the article has "too much tactical detail" for an encyclopedia, "serves no purpose" in an encyclopedia. ~ clearthought 19:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think Jon513 is misreading the spirit of " Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia". This means that we can cover more than a regular encyclopedia, are able to give more space to specific research threads, and cannot use size constraints as an excuse to not include material. It's not meant to say that we have to include ALL knowledge, because while we are not a paper encyclopedia, we are an electronic encyclopedia. Specifically, this means we are subject to certain content rules and policies. Among those rules this page goes against is the long standing one that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, in particular the section against memorials. Its incredible that you attempt to use WP:NOT to support the existence of this page and ignore the specific and clear disavowal of memorial pages. It shows you don't understand WP:NOT.


 * There is already and excellent, well debated, and continously edited page on the casulties of the conflict, which is more than enough for all combatants, and does a great job in presenting the information, in spite of course of needing a lot of work. SO the information is being covered in great detail. Instead of going around creating irrelevant, unencyclopedic memorial pages, perhaps you should go there and contribute.


 * I do congratulate the creator of the page on his/her boldness, but I think this time he/she went overboard.--Cerejota 23:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This page is not a memoral page. A memoral page that WP:NOT is refering to is about a person who fails WP:BIO but we all feel really sad that s/he died; this article simply documents who died, it does not talk about their lives and acomplishment and the family they left behind. The article does not contain indiscriminate information, it expands on an already exsisting topic.  A few editor have agreed that the article is notable, and should in theory be included, but since we can't do the same for lebanene we can't include it, because we don't want to offend lebanene sensabilities.  PR is also a form of POV. NPOV means showing both sides of the story, not artifically removing information so they are equal in every way.  Jon513 23:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you vastly misinterpreted my and other editor's arguments;
 * You seem to be the only editor on this page who thinks this memorial, a group memorial (per se) mind you, should not be deleted!
 * ~ clearthought 00:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You are right, I am the only one here who voted to keep. It is hard to go against a crowd and say what one believes. It would be easier just to say "delete per norm" (I wouldn't even have to read the article). Building Consensus does not mean bullying people into saying what you want him to believe. Jon513 00:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I do hope you are not implying that I am bullying you, because I certainly am not. I am just staing what I -- and others here -- seem to believe about this article. There is already a decent Casualties of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict page. ~ clearthought 00:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I personaly support the Iranian stance on Israel, its a illegitimate state based on terrorism and propaganda. As is evident on the current events. So much for my pov. But IN ANY CASE, this list is neither indiscriminate nor OR and verifiable. Hence, it fullfills all criteria for inclusion. Having it on the main article would unbalance it since no equivalent list exist for the other side. And yes, i would vote to keep on List of people died in wars, wikipedia is not paper. I would end this by saying a few words about the subjects of this article, but its better if i don't.--Striver 01:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This page corroborates Israeli fatalities figures by name and place of residence. If the Lebanese want to do the same, let them do it. Can they? Like in Qana, where death toll suddenly has shrunk twicefold. It would be redundant, of course, if the world was not paying such a huge, oversized attention to this relatively small conflict, but it is. It would be better if the efforts of the world would concentrate on Rwanda (too late) and Darfur (almost too late). --Aleverde 16:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We already have the toll numbers, there is no reason to have an expanded list of every single death. ~ clearthought 15:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that in the light of recent fauxtography scandals, death-pimping and death toll shrinking, one might be interested in actual lists. When the world will start paying appropriate amount of attention to the conflict, and not concentrating almost all of the attenion on it (almost exclusively to flame Israel, of course), then it will indeed become redundant. But now it is not. --Aleverde 16:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The list could be just as, if not more, full of false claims. There are always inaccuracies in these kinds of conflicts, and I don't know what "death toll shrinking" you are referring to... I just see it going up! I also fail to see your logic; if there is an even more detailed list, there is bound to be more bad info. Judging by your enormous hatred of Islam, you are prejudiced against them anyway and, thus, if this was a list of Hezbollah fighters who died, you and some others probably would not be voting to keep it! ~ clearthought 16:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, all of the media and most nations are just out there to flame Israel... yeah right. ~ clearthought 16:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, right. Just so. Except of half of US (not even the whole country) and some minor number of right-wing media like Fox News. The overwhelming majority is indeed just there to flame Israel. Heh, like it's something new. --Aleverde 16:19, 20 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.