Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian children killed by Israelis in 2004

List of Palestinian children killed by Israelis in 2004 (and 2003, and 2002, and 2001, and 2000) was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to transwiki to wikisource.


 * Delete. The existence of these pages is both pointless and inflammatory. Wikipedia is not an obituary list. See Votes_for_deletion/List_of_civilian_killed_by_US_force_in_Fallujah. Okay, as the data is presumably factual, I change my vote to Move to Wikisource, and encourage others to do the same. I would say the same for any similar list, including Terrorism against Israel in 2003. – [[User:Smyth|Smyth]] 22:28, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. [[User:Livajo|&#1051;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1081; | &#9786;]] 21:32, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Transwiki as reasoned below. [[User:Livajo|&#1051;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1081; | &#9786;]] 00:14, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. To be neutral a List of Israeli children killed by Palestinian children would also need to be created. Astrotrain 21:39, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Don't you mean List of Israeli children killed by Palestinians in 2004? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 21:48, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not sure how for example Daniel Pearl is any different than any of the kids in the list. If wikipedia isn't a memorial, why do we have him here then? On the other hand, he did make worldwide news. I do agree with Astrotrain, to stay POV we need that other list as well (and they need to be linked together). However, I think these lists are most likely to unnecesserily inflame people. I'm leaning towards delete at the moment. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 21:47, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * People whose deaths are particularly well-known deserve an article in their own right, obviously. For 90% of the entries on this list, that isn't an issue. – [[User:Smyth|Smyth]] 22:32, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * With a couple of added details, these lists are verbatim copies of those found here (although it's been established these lists are in the public domain), thus I'm not sure how useful they are. Formerly there were "characteristic examples" listed on Israeli violence against Palestinian children, but they've been broken out like this. Although these lists do seem inflamatory, it should be remembered we still have Terrorism against Israel in 2003, ect. I would favor deletion, but only deletion of both sets. Otherwise, merge them in. That is, merge and delete (history merge and delete further recreations). Cool Hand Luke  00:26, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * This is "statistical source data" and, as such, should be transwikied to Wikisource. We don't keep primary source material on Wikipedia, only analysis and commentary. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 22:19, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * A transwiki to Wikisource sounds appropriate. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 22:59, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. The title itself implies that it is not NPOV. - Ld 03:15, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Transwiki, or if that doesn't happen, delete. There's nothing wrong with the title, facts can't be POV, but I don't think this is encyclopaedic (just as much as I don't see much use for a List of children killed by lightning in 2004) --fvw *  03:27, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)
 * Delete. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 03:28, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Transwiki Wyss 03:50, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. jni 07:06, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial.  Rossami (talk) 21:34, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Transwiki or Keep. I agree, though, that factual lists perhaps better belong on Wikisource, and so I will also add all other lists that I can find above. Tarek 23:18, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Well...let's not go crazy, I don't think we should move all lists, but I would stongly support moving the "Terrorism against Israel" series in this manner. Cool Hand Luke  00:26, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep as long as we're keeping the other execrable lists of intifada casualties. I think they should all be deleted, but the problems with deleting one set and keeping another should be self-evident. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 00:29, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Obviously we can't delete one side and keep the other, but the solution isn't to vote Keep, but to vote Delete on both sides. Perhaps it would have been better to nominate all similar lists in one go. In any case, if anyone knows other lists which are not in this series nor included in Votes for deletion/Partial list of Palestinian terrorist acts, please go ahead and nominate them. – [[User:Smyth|Smyth\talk ]] 13:46, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hopelessly POV as it is merely a propaganda tool, and before I get accused of being part of some "zionist conspiracy" I will state for the record that just about all the rubbish that has been generated on wikipedia about BOTH sides of the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict (or Palestinian-Israeli if you prefer, I am not taking sides) should be deleted.  This is an encyclopedia and should therefore not only be dedicated to preserving historical fact, but also putting said facts in perspective.  Every conflict is tragic, but in war people, even innocent people, die.  The fact that these children were killed by Israelis or that other children were killed by Palestinians is not at all notable or relevant and does not belong in a reputable encyclopedia. Indrian 07:25, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * Do remember to vote at Votes for deletion/Partial list of Palestinian terrorist acts. Cool Hand Luke  10:42, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. I actually had voted and forgot to sign, this has since been rectified. Indrian 18:14, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mirv. Unless we get rid of all the POV rubbish that infests the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, which is impossible without also ridding ourselves of the editors who create it, we are stuck with this page and others like it. I also agree with Indrian. One list, if we must have it, of all those killed in the conflict, whoever was responsible, would be more than enough.Dr Zen 07:33, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. These pages are just here for propaganda value. [ by 129.64.154.22 &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 10:23, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)]
 * Delete. I'm not sure what purpose these pages serve other than as propaganda. This is an encyclopedia and these pages have no place here. Carrp 17:02, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I'm quite shocked that this was listed for deletion.  --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 16:00, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep* as well. I certainly hope that neocon propaganda will rule here on this topic. 4.247.170.213CiaraBeth
 * Delete jguk 16:23, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Transwiki and delete. --Conti|&#9993; 16:26, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Move to Wikisource seems nice, but it would need NPOVing (like, should never say Israeli occupational forces, but IDF instead). Also, would need to verify the claims. Does the list come from Palestenian sources? If Israel denies that, then the list would not be NPOV anymore, as we can't be sure whether the facts listed are real or are propaganda. Palestenian terror acts in Israel are at least verifiable, and always admitted by both sides, whereas this is not the case now. Israel does sometimes admit the IDF killed some civilians, then it's fair - but there are many cases when Palestenians say some were killed, and Israel denies that. Solver 22:31, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep* First No body even Israeli government can disagree with all of it. At Best (or worst) it can be said that some of it  May be incorrect. To reduce the objections following steps can be taken
 * Objection It is not authentic.
 * Response' some part of it may not be correct (same is true for every thing if you about the mathematics theorem which says that nothing can be rigorously proven)
 * Solution If objection still persist, a section on authenticity of the claims may be provided in the article.
 * Objection It is memorial type article
 * Response It is not memorial as it doesn't cover people effected by a single incidence. And some of the events may be given separate articles! Like bombardment of any particular day if it killed many people.
 * Solution If objection still persist article can be renamed to 'list of incidences involving killing of Palestinian children' Similar to List of terrorist incidentsand even more all these incidences can be added into List of terrorist incidents as terrorism is defined in the page Terrorism and I quote
 * "use of violence against noncombatants for the purpose of achieving a political goal, on a scale smaller than full-scale warfare, also called low-intensity warfare or guerrilla tactics. Acts of terrorism can be perpetrated by individuals, groups, or states"
 * as you can see from definition and words which I highlighted that they can easily be claimed terrorist incidences.
 * Another suggestion which I will like to make is that this article should be mentioned in State Terrorism
 * Zain 00:52, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete -- propaganda without encyclopedic value. Many of the Palestinian casualties of this conflict have come during gunfire exchanges between IDF troops and Palestinian militants and therefore cannot be said that they were all "killed by Israelis". Jewbacca 04:02, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delette - As sad as this is, delete. Otherwise look forward to names of children killed by Palestinians; names of children killed by XYZ, etc. Good for a website to remember these victims. Not good for an encyclopedia. --04:23, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Is any body reading Deletion Policy Please read the Deletion policy carefully now let me put some points which it say "Problems that  don't require deletion "
 * Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article
 * Article duplicates information in some other article
 * Article needs improvement
 * Article needs a lot of improvement
 * Article is biased or has lots of POV
 * Dispute over article content
 * Can't verify information in article
 * Vandalism or inaccuracy


 * And all these points are not written by me! it is simply copy paste from Deletion_policy 'as it is' without any alteration by me!. In the light of points which I have copy pasted I will say strongly strongly not delete.  Please also read Deletion _guidelines_for_administrators It has only one point in bold which is point number 4.
 * and I quote
 * When in doubt, don't delete
 * So don't delete
 * Zain 14:36, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You posted 8 reasons not to delete. None of them apply to this article. – [[User:Smyth|Smyth\talk ]] 18:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I have specifically chosen those points which apply on it. I didn't copy paste by random but copy pasted those points which were raised by voters to delete. It can be very evident if you again look from top to bottom at the votes and their comments. For you let me copy paste some of them
 * Astrotrain
 * Neutrality
 * Ld
 * NPOV
 * Indrian
 * NPOV and unecyclopedic as I state at the end of my statement. Indrian 00:36, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Mirv
 * NPOV
 * Solver
 * NPOV
 * Jewbacca
 * Accuracy
 * Evolver_of_Borg
 * NPOV
 * IZAK
 * NPOV
 * Jfdwolff
 * Verification
 * Jayjg
 * POV and Verification


 * Many of the people haven't told the reason for delete and just said Delete, assuming that many of them will be citing NPOV, Accuracy, &#8216;Confirmation Problem&#8217;, &#8216;content dispute&#8217; as main reasons, you have to consider deletion on merit. You don&#8217;t have to only count votes but also have to see the reason they present. Let&#8217;s say majority of Nazi Germany agreed with hitler Policies and voted him chancellor, so does this means that, Hitler purposed the correct &#8216;final solution&#8217; to &#8216;jewish problem. You just don&#8217;t have to count votes, you have to see reasons too.
 * If you read the comments again you will see that many are chosing NPOV, accuracy and other non-valid reasons for deletion as per Deletion_policy. Some might see other reasons for deletion which might seem some what valid for deletion, but those too I have answered in my first comments.
 * Now let's try to understand why wikipedia deletion policy exists in the first place! it doesn't exist to eliminate NPOV. It is simply to avoid People adding recepies, user manuals, personal pages on wikipedia. And in all other cases it should not be deleted so if you see Deletion _guidelines_for_administrators only and only one point is shown in bold that is point No 4. which says  When in doubt, don't delete Reason is that, if NPOV or other such problems are causing people to vote for deletion it shouldn't be deleted because some extra kilobytes of text are not big burden on the server. It will take lesser space then a single image. Only problem is that if people start to add their personal pages and their blogs on wiki it will require some extra hardware. My personal perception (which can be wrong) is that people are mostly voting Delete because of NPOV and for ease in confirming, I have tried to list, so you can confirm it by reading user comments that many are citing NPOV as reason. So I don't think it should be deleted.
 * Wikipedia is not for Hiding information but is about sharing information, same as all open source projects.
 * In short strong strong keep because of the very reason it is NPOV
 * Zain 00:17, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * If the it is NPOV, why mention only the children? I detect a "save the children" motive behind this article.  I would not object to an article listing major incidents in which the IDF used violence against Palestinian civilians.  The reason to delete is not to save space, but make Wikipedia neutral to both sides.  --Ld 04:05, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You are not getting my point I say OK let's say it is POV. But as per Deletion policy you shouldn't delete if POV. If it is NPOV take following steps.
 * First you should try to edit the page to improve it and attempt to make it NPOV.
 * If your changes are reverted multiple times try to discuss it.
 * If discussion not helping try to take some break.
 * If still same problem remains try to find third persons.
 * And If all fails ask for &#8216;official mediation&#8217;.
 * Deletion is not an option for NPOV
 * SoStrong Keep
 * Zain 23:54, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm just wondering where it says that Deletion is not an option for NPOV. Could you link to that policy or guideline? If I post a list of everyone who's died in my town this year, is that an acceptable article? Isn't it true that even a NPOV article might not be suitable for an encyclopedia? Carrp 00:00, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It is mentioned here Deletion policy for a fully list of reason which are currently applied on this article but don't qualify as 'legitimate' reasons, please see my earlier detailed comments. with heading of 'is some body reading deletion policy'. As far as your second part of question is concerned Yes if it is not of interest of readers it should be deleted. Zain 18:55, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * "You posted 8 reasons not to delete. None of them apply to this article. &#8211; Smyth\talk 18:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)" - nearly all of them do. Keep. Dan100 22:55, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is just a stupid POV article. I'd say keep, however, the only way I would allow this article to be kept is to have a number of articles compiled listing the names of all Kurdish children killed under the Bathist Iraqi regime, all the children killed by Hutu militia in the Rwandan genocide, etc, in addition to an article listing the number of Israeli children killed by the refusal of the PA to crack down on Palestinian terrorists and to comply to the Oslo Peace Accords. That would be truly even handed, yet I doubt the inconsistent member of the left who posted this would bother, since they couldn't care about the truly innocent black children being murdered by the minute by Janjaweed in Sudan. Evolver of Borg 10:43, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: if these people aren't famous before being killed, and their killing didn't make them famous, then they're not worth having in a list. It's unfortunate that they have died, but wikipedia is not a memorial site. Shane King 00:52, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Response to memorial problemMemorial Point was the only valid point raised, I think for this we should do some change in Title and content like we should change it to some thing like List of incidences where Palestinian children killed by Israelis in 2004 and attempt not to put that much emphases at the names or personal background of each child. We should make it some thing like List of terrorist incidents which is of course not a memorial. So at maximum it should be candidate of cleanup. and as per wikipedia deletion policy it is written that if contents are disputed, it can't be deleted. So that&#8217;s why I think it should not be deleted. Zain 02:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The revised article you describe would certainly solve the "Wikipedia is not a memorial" problem. It would also be a completely different article.  New title and new content - you're talking about starting over anyway.  You have not yet convinced me to change my vote.  Rossami (talk) 00:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete, what is with the add-ons: "and 2003, and 2002, and 2001, and 2000)" in this sub-title, it makes it sound like a vindictive one-way POV obsession.IZAK 07:44, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - It's encyclopedic, and needed. The idea of deleting it is very POV. --195.7.55.146 10:49, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - This is a vital documentation of the children of the rightful owners of the land of Palestine who have been killed in a war they did not ask for. (added by User:80.77.201.191)
 * Comment The above are anonymous and will not be counted. --Ld 18:40, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * There is no policy (that I know of) that says that anons votes don't count. Please remember, assume good faith, don't bite the newcomers and love thy Wikipedian ;-) Paul August &#9742; 06:44, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * For deletion votes, I think we need a slightly higher standard than assuming good faith. If someone feels that a page is a "strong keep", I'm sure they could take a few minutes to register. Allowing anonymous votes would enable users to vote multiple time, which defintely is not the intent. Carrp 12:50, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Actually, there is a long-standing requirement that contributors to VfD discussion threads must be established members of the community.  We assume good faith where possible but these discussions have been frequently attacked by users who attempted to use sockpuppets to bias the outcome.  The defense against sockpuppetry is to discount the suspect votes - those from anonymous users and users with brand-new accounts.  It's a bit strong to say that those votes "will not be counted" but it is our normal practice that they are steeply discounted by the admin who makes the final decision. Rossami (talk) 00:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Depending on whether their votes accord with the admin's wishes usually.Dr Zen 05:43, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence of that, or is it merely a defamatory and unsubstantiated claim? Jayjg 06:08, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Who exactly is defamed by that suggestion? If the cap doesn't fit, no one's asking you to wear it.Dr Zen 07:23, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Where is this "long standing requirement" written down? The only applicable policy that I'm aware of is: "administrators can disregard votes and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith." (Deletion guidelines for administrators) So unless there is "strong evidence of bad faith" our policy is that they count. Paul August &#9742; 04:50, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Who is going to verify the causes of death? Why don't we list all Iraqi children killed by US & UK troops? Or Chechen children by the Russians? Indeed, we're not a memorial. JFW | T@lk  00:00, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV and unverifiable, and Wikipedia is not a memorial.  Get rid of Operation Days of Penitence Fatalities while you're at it.  If delete fails, transwiki as above. Jayjg 00:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It is interesting to note that how many people are voting without reading 'wikipedia deletion policy'. 'POV and unverifiable' are not valid reason for deletion according to wikipedia deletion policy. and Memorial problem can be fixed by changing content. Removing personal information of the children and make it 'incident record' rather then 'children record'.
 * Zain 00:43, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Jayjg and Days of Penitence Although I believe in no personal attacks but after your mention I just checked the page. If you think it is some thing not worth on wiki. Why are you actively editing and Discussing on Talk?. To me it looked very funny. Zain 00:54, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Please keep the discussion on the Vote for deletion of this page. I suggest you, Zain, remove your above comment from this page to keep this page relevant.  Jewbacca 00:58, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * You should have said it to Jayjg first! please see Get rid of Operation Days of Penitence Fatalities while you're at it. Any way I going out now. Will see the response tomorrow. Zain 01:09, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Put your issues with Jayjg on something unrelated to this Vote for deletion on his talk page, not here. Jewbacca 01:14, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * How do you expect your scolding to be taken as anything other than a bad-faith attack when you do not direct it at both sides? Dr Zen 05:43, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Del per my policies.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 11:01, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly. - Xed 11:20, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, maybe transwiki to keep facts, and deletion of similar articles from either side of the IPC.  &mdash; mark &#9998; 15:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Transwiki. What next, List of people killed in World War II? [[User:Xezbeth| Xezbeth ]] 17:46, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, deaths are not encyclopedic. Providing the statistics is enough. Fredrik | talk 19:46, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Also copy it to transwiki. Remember, your child could be the next! Hugokohn 20:24, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet warning: Hugokohn's only edits so far are the above vote and his user page. Fredrik | talk 21:26, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Transwiki. Names of individuals killed in a conflict (and significant for no other reason) belong in Wikisource.  Summaries of statistics on the number of deaths (broken down demographically where the information is available) are appropriate for Wikipedia, as is information on any particularly notable individuals killed.  --TenOfAllTrades 21:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Strong keep or transwiki along with every other list of names. [[User:Eequor|&#8227; &#5339;&#5505;  [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]] [ &#5200; ]]] 22:28, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: non-encyclopedic DCEdwards1966 01:26, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - We have a list of all the casualties on 9/11. - SimonP 04:29, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Is that article called "List of American civilians killed by Muslims on Sept 11 2001"? Jayjg 05:06, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * For balance we would also need List of American children killed by Muslims in 2001
 * Nope, I think you are wrong here because of two reasons
 * If it is List of Palestenians died of any cause known in the world it will be not 'encylopediac', so Israel is used. It is important collection of facts, in the context of 'Arab-Israli' conflict. Resemblence to 9/11 is that, it included many 'small scale' 9/11 as they include deaths of 'non-combats' (If you think a 4 year is a 'Terrorist' I can't help it).
 * If it includes incidences which were not done by Israeli. Please help improve wikipedia by removing it and making it more factual. All your help will be really appreciated.
 * There are no notable names on these lists, not even as notable as a one-time joke on a cartoon show. They are nothing, don't rate even a few bytes on this harddrive. And we all feel safer staying on the side with the power, same as back in '38. Keep Meggar 06:05, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

Current count is 22 votes for deletion, 8 to keep and 10 for transwiki, excluding anonymous users. (This count was provided by User:Carrp who forgot to sign. Paul August &#9742; 16:37, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC) )
 * Of course as pointed out above unless there is "strong evidence of bad faith" our current policy is that anon votes do count. So by my count, the current vote is:
 * Delete: 22 (including one anon and one unsigned vote), keep: 11 (including three anons and a new user with no previous edits), transwiki: 10.
 * These counts do not include a "merge and delete" vote by Cool Hand Luke, and a possible vote by Dr Zen. Paul August &#9742; 16:37, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.