Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli home front in 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 as unsourced and inherently biased. --Wafulz 20:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Israeli home front in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unsourced, POV, no links, poorly written, no response to talk page request for rewrite RolandR 18:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions.   IZAK 02:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete just poorly written POV version fork from 2006 Israel Lebanon conflict. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Never, in my life, have I seen so many "citeneeded" tags. That tells me the article is sure to become a battleground between pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian editors (as every blasted sentence has one). Eitherway, the lead certainly is POV and doesn't bode well for the rest of the article. Pat Payne 19:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. A very informative article. Needs editing, though. Some "editors" would place that "citeneeded" tag after every word! Garcia-Fons 22:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * An obvious sock-puppet, whose only edits have been today, to a string of AfDs. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 23:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am the writer of that article, and I don't remember that I'v been registered in the name "Garcia-Fons". Regarding the article, don't accuse me in anything. I'v only translated that article from the article about the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict in the Hebrew Wikipedia. My only mistake is that I didn't translated from there the list of reasons to the opposition to the operation, which is:

And two more things: this is an article about the Israeli home front, and Hezbollah is not the most admired organization in Israel. And once I read in the Hebrew Wikipedia that most of the articles that dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict (or was it the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?) in the English Wikipedia have a point of view against Israel, then this article is not the English Wikipedia's only problem. Hjbhuvghgg 16:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The action of the IDF is not proportional in front of kidnapping of two soldiers.
 * 2) The amount of civil killing in Lebanon - over about 300 civilians after a week, and over 600 after about 4 weeks - is not moral.
 * 3) The IDF is harming in Lebanese civilian economic infrastructure and nearly doesn't succeed to harm in Hezbollah.
 * 4) The harming in civilian population was meant to create pressure against Hezbollah. In practice, polls in Lebanon are testifying that the actions of the IDF actually increased the support in Hezbollah by the population.
 * 5) The prime minister of Lebanon promised that the Lebanese army will spread out in the border with Israel, in return to cease-fire.
 * 6) The war is reminding the 1982 Lebanon War which is considered as a mistake in the eyes of many.
 * 7) After the battles, Israel [in the source: the IDF (translator's remark)] will be have to negotiate about the soldiers which are held by Hezbollah from the same position.
 * 8) The pictures of the innocent deads had increased the anger about Israel in the world and increased actions against Jewish and Israeli targets around the world.


 * Amazing! Hjbhuvghgg admits that he translated this from the Hebrew wikipedia (very poorly, in my opinion), but decided to leave out any criticism of the war. Could there possibly be any more conclusive proof of a deliberate POV edit?RolandR 17:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you want that I will put this list in the article, or this is also need a citation of sources? Hjbhuvghgg 15:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * comment 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict has numerous sub-articles. We should know that this article relates to which part of the main article to recognize it as a one of its sub-article. I can't answer this question at present.-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 07:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - Look at all those disclaimer banners! And all those "Citation Needed" tags! On a subject as controversial as the Israeli/Arab conflict, we need to be very careful to maintain NPOV. And that means deleting unsourced material like this. Utterly fails WP:V and WP:RS. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; For such a tiny part of the world, this area generates an entirely disproportional amount of content. The whole 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict subject tree needs a good trimming with heavy shears, as do many of the other Arab-Israeli topics. This is just too much detail. &mdash; RJH (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * keep and rewrite could be a good article if sourced, but one should tag the page with unsourced before just deleting.--Sefringle 02:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The page has already been tagged with unsourced for three weeks, and nobody has attempted to provide any sources. RolandR 18:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case, delete--Sefringle 03:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per User:Sefringle. IZAK 03:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (. . . who has now changed his opinion to "Delete") RolandR 08:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as unsourced. Resurgent insurgent 02:08, 30 March 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.