Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli violations of Lebanese sovereignity


 * 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. Rename to Israeli incursions into Lebanon and check the article to comply with the Neutral point of view policy (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant    talk    04:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Israeli violations of Lebanese sovereignity

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Hard to see how this article could ever be NPOV with such an axe-grinding title. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  20:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, people should try to spell words correctly when creating articles.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  20:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, the spelling has been changed. But you could had done so yourself easily, in the spirit of cooperation. FunkMonk (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge. This, like Lebanese rocket attacks on Israel since the 2006 Lebanon War, is a collection of incidents rather than an encyclopedic topic. Perhaps some of this could be merged into Israeli-Lebanese conflict or to its sub-articles. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: I would support a keep if the content that wasn't about overflights/airspace was removed, and the article was renamed to be about that. The rest is still synthy. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. If the name is a problem, then rename it, a bad name has never been a valid reason for deletion. This is a very notable and important issue in itself, and has been central to the Israeli/Lebanese conflict for decades. The article has many reliable sources, and I can see no valid reasons to delete it here other than "I don't like it". If it is to be merged, it would be into the larger Israeli/Lebanese conflict article, not the article about the 2006 war, since it is not directly related to that, but is about an issue that spans from 1982, and even before. This article is certainly more notable than an article about random rocket attacks since 2006, so go ahead and nominate that one too for balance. As for the aticle just being "a series of incidents", it could be rewritten so it isn't, of course. There are tonnes and tonnes of sources that deal with this issue, here is a bit solely about the overflights via Google books, for example: FunkMonk (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The word "sovereignty" only has one "i" in it. When this AfD is closed the spelling should be corrected. The article is about an ongoing issue and is legitimate as an independent article. It could be merged in to the article called "Lebanon" however there is enough content in the article to justify a separate article.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 06:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And the article could easily be expanded with many reliable sources. The spelling has long been corrected, by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 06:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename and remove POV assertions about sovereignty. Sources can be quoted claiming those things, but the article cannot, under current WP rules. If I had my way, WP could speculate as long as it was made crystal clear that it was intended only as speculation, but that's no more than a dream. We can say that someone else speculated, quote their speculations, but it would be controversial to call overflights a violation of sovereignty even if a court had ruled it. I recommend Israeli overflights in Lebanon, and wonder why Roscelese cites an existing article as grounds for deletion for another. Anarchangel (talk) 06:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC) I take back the suggestion; there are land and sea incursions as well. Perhaps Israeli incursions into Lebanon; it is a tough one. Anarchangel (talk) 06:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But who even denies incursions into the territory of a foreign country is a violation of sovereignty? It is by the very definition, not even the Israelis claim it is legal, they merely state the incursions are necessary. FunkMonk (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename per Anarchangel as Israeli incursions into Lebanon, if kept. Come on, the title as is is absurdly POV. We can and should do better. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename. Okay, after reading the comments here I've changed my mind and no longer think it should be deleted. Renaming it Israeli incursions into Lebanon seems a fair compromise.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  20:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename and re-edit: This article is obviously intended as a piece of POV-pushing. Its very name suggests it is non-neutral, and it interprets UN Resolutions in such a way that Israel's actions are openly declared illegal. This article must be completely reviewed, renamed, and re-edited to conform with Wikipedia's neutral policy.--RM (Be my friend) 20:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "POV pushing"? Whatever happened to "assume god faith"? I saw an article about an important topic was missing, so I created it, please refrain from making non-constructive accusations. FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, I'll assume you're god. :-) Seriously, the UN charter also allows for nations to act in self-defense and no doubt proponents of these incursions could make a case that Lebanon harbours an armed force which itself has attacked Israel. So again, I think we can come up with a more NPOV name. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly, which I mentioned above in my reply to Anarchangel. Israel maintains such incursions are necessary, but that does not make them any less of a violation of Lebanese sovereignty, no permission is asked for such incursions. Whether such a permission would ever be granted or not is irrelevant to whether Lebanon's sovereignty is violated. It could be argued that Hezbollah violates Lebanon's sovereignty as well by being armed, but two wrongs don't make a right, as might be obvious. FunkMonk (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Gee, I can't imagine why anyone might think you're POV-pushing.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  03:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If Lebanese troops crossed Israels border without permission, how would it not be a violation of Israel's sovereignty? I just don't see where the "POV" comes in, stating it is over and over again doesn't really change anything. FunkMonk (talk) 07:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep, but Rename to something less POV. This does seem to be a notable topic, but the current name is unacceptable; I'm struggling to think of an appropriate one that would permit for a neutral article here. Israeli incursions into Lebanon would be a slight improvement, but suffers from many of the same issues. Israeli military actions in Lebanese territory, perhaps? Or Israeli overflights of Lebanese airspace, and restrict it to that subject? We may even have to consider something like Alleged Israeli violations of Lebanese sovereignty, much as I hate the word 'alleged' appearing in titles. I'm going to have to take some more time to think about this one; none of those names seem quite right. If an appropriate name can't be found, it may be evidence that this isn't a suitable topic for a NPOV article after all. Robofish (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, I suppose I should explain why the current name is POV. Simply put, to say that one state is 'violating another's sovereignty' is a very strong claim; it's tantamount to a declaration that a state is acting illegally. We shouldn't do so unless either the overwhelming majority of reliable sources describe these action in such language (which it seems they do not), or there's a clear statement by an objective organisation (basically, the UN) that these actions are illegal violations of sovereignty. Otherwise, we're making a statement ourselves on what is and is not legal, which violates both WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. (And yes, I know it may seem like these actions are violations of sovereignty, but we simply can't make such inferences ourselves. Compare Drone attacks in Pakistan, an article on a somewhat similar topic which manages to avoid stating one way or another whether such attacks are legal or not.) Robofish (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename and check for NPOV violations. I think this is a widely-enough covered topic that deserves inclusion but will inevitably suffer from POV issues. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  04:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems pretty clear then, so can I go ahead and rename it, or should we wait until the vote is closed? FunkMonk (talk) 05:48, 14 March 2011 (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.