Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass civilian casualties of Israeli bombing, shelling and rocket attacks on the Gaza Strip


 * 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 no consensus. Sadly, this discussion went mostly along predictable lines. Editors might want to explore whether a merger to List of Israeli attacks on Palestine, as proposed several times, might have consensus.  Sandstein  09:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Mass civilian casualties of Israeli bombing, shelling and rocket attacks on the Gaza Strip

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

1. First of all, 6-10, in one case 17 casualties, is not yet "mass casualties". When I read "mass casualties" I think of thousands at least. This is clearly a tendentious article name. 2. This article is not about any thing or phenomenon, rather a list of essentially unrelated incidents. This is indicated in the title of the article as well, which groups "bombing, shelling and rocket attacks" together on a rather flimsy and indiscriminate basis. Debresser (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 22.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 13:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters. —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 13:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete As WP:OR essay i.e there is no sources that discuss those events together as part of some pattern . --Shrike (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with merge at is seems as WP:POVFORK of List of Israeli attacks on Palestine--Shrike (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, editors have problems with the suggestion that it is technically feasible to merge an article with a list composed of 16 articles. How is it done? Can you clarify what on earth a merge means here, because if you cannot show how it is done, your suggestion is pointless. There are no sources anywhere on the several hundred wiki lists which 'discuss those events together'. That silly argument is a frivolous excuse, with no policy basis, to elide just one list. There is no book or article that incorporates the details we have compiled, from numerous RS, to form the List of Shakespeare authorship candidates. The only people who have done that, so far, definitive, impeccably sourced list, are wikipedians.Nishidani (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

"For the purposes of these guidelines, a mass casualty incident is defined as an event which generates more patients at one time than locally available resources can manage using routine procedures. It requires exceptional emergency arrangements and additional or extraordinary assistance.It can also be defined as any event resulting in a number of victims large enough to disrupt the normal course of emergency and health care services".
 * Keep WHO definition of "mass casualty incident"
 * In view of very poor healthcare system, Gaza easily meets this definition. As for trying to argue that attacks on Gaza are not a thing, I cannot agree, it is a regular thing and is discussed at virtually every UNSC Palestine meeting.(Isn't Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel the flipside?) Perhaps "bombardment" could be used as a short form for "bombing, shelling and rocket attacks". Selfstudier (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Even with the poor choices of Gazan authorities, 6-10 people surely can not be enough to disrupt medical services. Not to mention that this definition is not what most people would call "mass casualties". Debresser (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of Israeli attacks on Palestine. The article title is ridiculously cumbersome, so no redirect. It's WP:OR to classify most of these incidents as "mass casualty", and there's no need for two lists covering the basically the same subject. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. How do you 'merge' an article to a list of articles? (b) 'mass' is explained in the definition given by Selfstudier above, but if you prefer 'massacre' (five or over by usual wiki conventions) that might be possible. It would mean only one of the several dozen incidents I can list would go out, but only by ignoring the wounded, who are also casualties (c) If the title upsets you, then try 'Multiple civilian casualties of Israeli bombardments of the Gaza Strip'. We have 16 articles detailing year by year what the main article Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel writes. Why do you think there is something unfair about having one page dealing with the obverse, not least to avoid Systemic bias? The norm here is, after all, a dozen wiki articles on terrorist incidents perpetrated by Palestinians, for every article that might document similar behavior by Israeli forces. Why? because editors like myself think it inappropriate to mirror the practice, preferring a single focused overview to endless stand alone Notability single incident reportage.Nishidani (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Reply. This article is essentially a list of incidents, so there's no problem merging two lists. Second, while "mass casualty" is defined for specific World Health Organization guidelines, none of the references for the entries mention that term even once as far as I can tell, so it's OR. Finally, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:SOAPBOX apply to the rest of your arguments. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Respond. Arguments must have cogency and clarity to be taken seriously.
 * (a)You made an error in proposing a merge of this article with a list that itself has 23 articles. So which of those articles do you propose it to be merged with? It makes no sense, indeed it is technically impossible to, as you suggest, merge an article with a List of Israeli attacks on Palestine.
 * (b)Many references use the word 'massacre' for each incident, not 'mass casualties'.
 * (c) By your premise, all lists are WP:OR. We have a vast abundance of them, and therefore your exception to this one is incoherent.
 * (d) Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It is an essay, not a policy, and, if one reads it, it states that arguments based on such an objection can be valid or invalid. Just citing an essayistic opinion carries no weight.
 * (e) WP:SOAPBOX. Citing pages like that are a lazy mental shortcut for not addressing the gravamen of an argument, the essence of which is obvious. There are a substantial number of Israeli victim articles thronging Wikipedia, and no one, least of whom, myself, holds any objection to their existence - they correlate for the reader a notable number of devastating incidents for rapid information on a topic, an encyclopedic topic. On the rare occasions one thinks the weight of material warrants one or two articles on corresponding victim incidents affecting the other side, Palestinians, one gets this hackneyed refrain, that Israelis are one thing, Palestinians are just 'other stuff(ed)/stiffed stuff' for whom there's no space. Any editor who takes to heart WP:NPOV must deal with this tendentious systemic bias in our judgements. This incongruency of approach, large tolerance vs fastidious rejectionism, stands out like dogs' balls.Nishidani (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Why are some civilian deaths "worth" more than others? I just found the articles: Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada and List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Al-Aqsa Intifada...both basically about the same thing (while Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second/Al-Aqsa Intifada have exactly zero coverage). These, and many other lists, are "lists of essentially unrelated incidents", shall they be deleted, too? (I have proposed that they should be merged into one. If I was acting like Debresser, I would have AFDed them)  And "6-10, in one case 17 casualties" wrt Palestinians is apparently un-noteworthy, while single Israeli civilian casualties is noteworthy?
 * This is a long, long overdue article, and should be expanded. (alas: better, and shorter article name should be looked for, IMO), (or perhaps we should only make a lot of redirs to the article?), Huldra (talk) 22:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ot os not a matter of who is "worth" mor ethan others. It is a matter of naming an article. The two articles you mentioned don't use the misleading and POV word "mass casualties", not do they read "bombing, shelling and rocket attacks". If this article were called "Civilian casualties of Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip", it might come over less POV. That is using an understatement, actually. Debresser (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Rrrrrrrrright; you wanted to nominate this article for WP:MOVE, and by....accident(?) nominated it for WP:AfD instead? Huldra (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I nominated it for what I wanted to nominate it for, for the reasons I explained above. However, if the result of this discussion would be to keep this article, it would need a serious rename. Debresser (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, the reasons you have given for nominating this article for deletion, can also be used for AfD of  Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada and the List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Al-Aqsa Intifada. Are you going to vote "delete" for those articles if I put them up for AfD? Huldra (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It will be expanded. That is all I could manage in a day or two, and my offline duties mean the large volume of documented incidents that fall under this definition must bide their time until I wrest some leisure in the following weeks to transfer them, only after checking the sourcing for each, here.Nishidani (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It will be expanded. That is all I could manage in a day or two, and my offline duties mean the large volume of documented incidents that fall under this definition must bide their time until I wrest some leisure in the following weeks to transfer them, only after checking the sourcing for each, here.Nishidani (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per Huldra. Also note that a poor article title on its own is NEVER a reason for deletion (but, please, don't change the article title before this AfD has concluded). --NSH001 (talk) 10:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. This kind of article has a huge number of precedents on Wikipedia: it is a standard practice to make overview articles listing events coming under a single topic definition as here. It mirrors perfectly Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, which no one objects to, let alone the 16 articles that accompany it. The objections (so far) appear spurious. If the title is long, it can be reduced. There is no synthesis involved - lists compile items so the question of WP:OR is fatuous. It is no use claiming WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, because the other stuff works out to deal with Israeli victims, and only begs the question: why do editors, in violation of NPOV, think only one side of a story can be documented in this manner? It cannot be merged, because you can't merge an overview article into a list which itself registers 16 articles, none dealing with an overview. Distaste is not a valid objection. Finally, there is a massive amount of high quality RS dealing with this issue, and to object to our representation of the topic is to argue that, well, it's an intensely documented reality, but we don't want it on an encyclopedia, for what reason, no one can explain.Nishidani (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 *  Merge Delete to List of Israeli attacks on Palestine#Gaza Strip, as this seems to cover the same topic, and much of it is just a list on incidents. It also has a whiff of OR (what sources say this is mass killing?) and a POV fork.Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * To make sense, a merge proposal, as I keep repeating, must explain technically how you merge an article into a list of other articles. Nishidani (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As I think I said, much of this is already little more then a list. So...the material already list like needs no change.Slatersteven (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete, as per User:Clarityfiend, or Merge to List of Israeli attacks on Palestine. This is a blatant WP:POVFORK from List of Israeli attacks on Palestine, which uses WP:OR to describe as "mass casualty" events which the sources do not describe as such. Anyone wondering about the motivations of the editors creating this article or supporting keeping it, will find this instructive-  Here come the Suns (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * To make sense, a merge proposal, as I keep repeating, must explain technically how you merge an article into a list of other articles. Nishidani (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Do not use "ahh but this user is biased" arguments. It makes me wonder which side is POV pushing.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Could editors please actually respond specifically to the technical issues raised. The merge proposal looks technically impossible. A main article can no more be merged into a sub-article, as in set theory, if x ∈ A, you cannot propose that the masterset (A) be merged into the elements of the subset x, which are part of the constituents of A. Are those proposing merge familiar with elementary logic? To make the usual analogy.
 * The corresponding article this mirrors,Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel (A), has 14 sections devoted to the year by year listing of such rocket attacks. So it is an overview of the following list of 16 articles (x):
 * List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2001
 * List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2002–2006
 * List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2007
 * List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2008
 * List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2009
 * List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2010
 * List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2011
 * List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2012
 * List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2013
 * List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2014
 * List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2015
 * List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2016
 * List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2017
 * List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2018
 * List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2019
 * How would it, were parity of logic used, be possible, as suggested by analogy here, for the the contents of A to be merged into 16 articles. The proposal is suggesting, in sum, that there should be, in the Palestinian instance, no main article, just a fragmentary set of sub articles, a procedure which is erratically unwikipedic. I might suggest to passing eyes, by the way, that almost none of the above articles bears a neutral title. 99% of them cover rocket attacks by ethnicity, whereas the reality is that ethnicity has nothing to do with it- The rocket attacks are overwhelmingly Gazan rocket attacks against Israel, by specific militant groups Hamas or Islamic Jihad. You cannot per NPOV define an attack on a state (Israel) per ethnicity (Palestinians). To make this absolutely clear it is as intolerable as would be renaming Israeli (state) attacks on the Gaza Strip as 'Jewish'.Nishidani (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Simple, each section would be added to he year in question.Slatersteven (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Goodness me. Please focus.There are no year by year lists of Israeli bombings of Gazan civilians. The above are year by year lists of Gazan militant attacks on Israelis. The Israeli POV does this. Editors like myself deplore that kind of practice, of making a huge number of articles (down to every single person killed by terrorists) and concentrate on a general overview type of article.Nishidani (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So nominate the rocket attacks on Israel lists for deletion too. (I'm an equal-opportunity deletionist.) Clarityfiend (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Certainly not. I am an inclusionist, if with somewhat severe criteria for RS. And I certainly wouldn't work on Wikipedia to wipe out information that I think has some encyclopedic value, whatever the POV. Nishidani (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. No real reason for deletion has been provided. This is a very notable topic with a vast supply of reliable sources to draw from. As for the lengthy title, AfD is not the right place to discuss that; think of a better title and start a move discussion on the talk page. Zerotalk 00:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like you read the discussion so far, as multiple reasons have been provided, by multiple editors, including WP:POVFORK and WP:OR Here come the Suns (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * My impression is that most of the objectors haven't read the discussion so far, and are not familiar with the policies cited. This is not an example of WP:OR, for example, except for those assuming WP:OR means no article that lists all elements of category A (here all Israeli bombing incidents where three or more Gazan civilians have been killed) can be permitted to do so unless there is a source which has defined all the constitutive elements of A (z+z+z..), which would fail a thousand wiki articles dealing with lists, like List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft, List of terrorist incidents, List of massacres of Indigenous Australians, List of Palestinian suicide attacks or List of Islamist terrorist attacks No synthesis is made to draw a conclusion not in the sources. The title, by the emerging consensus here, will be changed_ I suggest Multiple civilian casualties of Israeli bombardments of the Gaza Strip. Nishidani (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I just checked, and precisely zero (0000) of these sources use the word "mass casualties". And what does that say about this article...? Debresser (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Health conditions in the occupied Palestinian territory.. "In the wake of mass casualties during protests and demonstrations in the context of the “Great March of Return” in the Gaza Strip..." Admittedly not a result of bombardment but that would create a worse situation in most cases. If all you want is an RS using the term then Mass casualties as Gaza market area bombed (Shujayea 2014)or "People are suffering and dying because of shortages of medical equipment," said Dr. Mahmoud el-Khazndar, who works at Gaza City's Shifa Hospital. "The hospital is not accustomed to accept mass casualties like this."Selfstudier (talk) 10:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We go with what RS say, not how we things pan out (that is what is meant by wp:or). No material can be kept without an RS saying it was a incident of mass casualties, if we start to remove them how many are left?Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No. WP:OR is, if read, being misread, (and the error is common). 'Mass casualties' is a provisory title. A title never means that every source in a list article must contain the words of that title. You are mounting an objection to the content of a list on the basis of a phrasing which all agree should be phrased, throwing the baby out with the barfwater. Innumerable sources use, for the distinct incidents, words like 'massacre' (Levy), 'carnage' (see the Human Rights Watch article). If you go into the philology of the use of 'mass casualties' in I/P reportage, the term is almost exclusively restricted to incidents where Israelis have been the victims of suicide attacks. The term is, in customary usage, under an ethnic restriction. I note things like that, and don't worry about the bias I observe. I am, as always concerned with the obligation of Wikipedia to cover all sides, and not allow to one POV a dominance of the field.
 * Despite the waves  of  mass  casualties  with  multi-injured  patients...re ZeitounSelfstudier (talk) 11:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This in no way contradicts the idea that material not about (what the RS) calls mass casualties should be removed. Policy does not dictate we have to have articles on anything mentioned by RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It was one of the worst mass-casualty incidents of the three-week war (al Fakhura)


 * It was the third mass casualty attack at a UN school
 * Great, so remove all those not sources to RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

At this point we are only discussing delete/keep; if the article should end up being kept then we would likely argue about the title/content. I am only showing that it is not that difficult to back up each incident with suitable RS due to the existence of defined terms like mass casualty(ies)/event/incident used by different organizations.Selfstudier (talk) 12:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And the best way to demonstrate that is to source every incident we have in the article. Nor does this "prove" we need yet another article on Palestinian deaths due to Israeli action.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please focus. Every incident in this article is sourced, and the antic idea that every such entry requires, to validate it, a key term like 'mass casualties' or 'multiple casualties' is a radically silly interpretation of WP:OR. Lastly, what on earth do you mean by the giveaway assertion someone is pressing for 'yet another article on Palestinian deaths due to Israeli action.' Anyone familiar with this wiki area can verify that a large restraint has been exercised by most editors here in not mimicking the 'pro-Israel' practice of registering for article inclusion every civilian death incident (44 Israeli victim articles vs 8 Palestinian individuals here), not to speak of the huge disparity above regarding year by year articles on Gazan rocket attacks (16), with no parallel article, other than this, for the Palestinian side. The historic kill rate in this area is 1:8. Our article coverage is something like 6:1, i.e. systemic bias.Nishidani (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm simply saying we're not there yet as the title may change and the article creator did say he has not finished with the sourcing as yet.(Use cn?) As for "proof" that is just a policy argument and we are having that at the moment.Selfstudier (talk) 12:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * While we're here, since the title is a contentious issue, resolve that by offering solutions. I suggested Multiple civilian casualties of Israeli bombardments of the Gaza Strip. If one reports upwards of 3 deaths, everyone with a reasonable grasp of English should know that the descriptor 'multiple' covers that, and you do not, as per above, need a source to validate a descriptor, which is self-explanatory, and instinct in any account of several people being killed in a single strike. Commonsense please.Nishidani (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think Civilian casualties of Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip would be better as 1. it places no limit on the number 2. "attacks" is broader than "bombardments". Debresser (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That would be impractical, not specifying we deal with strikes leading to multiple civilian victims. After all, in the last 19 years, 104,799 Palestinians have been killed or injured by Israeli forces, almost a tenth of those died in conflict engagements. The general scholarly consensus recognizes that at least two thirds of those are civilians One doesn't want to open the endless can of worms of registering every notice of a civilian death from situations of conflict, What is noteworthy is determined by principles of military and international law: the concept of proportionality. Israel can justify the killing of any targeted person, if the targeted person's death does not incur disproportionate 'collateral damage'. The list here aspires to register only those instances (a hundred or so I know of) where substantial civilian deaths occurred with either no 'terrorist' present, or just one or two.Nishidani (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well now you're moving the goalposts and adding an additional criterion (0-2 terrorists) that isn't in the article, implied by the title or (probably) cited by any source. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon! I did no such thing. I clarified why mass or perhaps multiple is, or should be, in the title. I'm utterly bewildered by the quality of response in this thread. A serious dialogue aims to elicit assumptions, premises etc., not overtly clear. When I do that, it is lambasted with the usual 'shifting the goalposts'. When in the Meno, Meno scrabbles about to find a definition of excellence, only to be shown their inadequacy, and his Socratic interlocutor draws out the underlying principle that must be adequate to all definitions, no doubt Meno could reply:'Oh, you're shifting the goalposts'. That would be a dodge, a refusal to accept the elenchic pursuit of a proper definition, that is intrinsic to the argument he himself raised. Dear me. I guess the next move will be to say that my illustrative analogy discloses a hidden presumption on my part that I am Socrates. Nishidani (talk) 11:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in the article does it mention or even hint at the number of terrorists present as a condition for inclusion. This is entirely something you made up yourself. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Consult the dictionary on pettifogging or caviling. The lead reads:
 * "The reason for such operations is purportedly to carry out targeted assassinations of militants from Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other groups seen to be a threat to Israel, whose Shin Bet data banks monitor thousands of Palestinians for targeting.[1] Israel regards such cases as either unfortunate 'errors',[b] the consequence of civilians being used to shield militants or as acceptable collateral damage."
 * I don't make up things. I have read the relevant literature since 2007, for 12 years, and much of the legal commentary, one of which I mention, is focused on the doctrine of proportionality, i.e., how many civilians die as a collateral effect of targeting one or two or more people classified by Israel as terrorists. Nishidani (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - per Huldra and NSH001  nableezy  - 13:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:POVFORK - casualties of conflict are properly addressed as part of the article(s) about the conflict and the purpose of creating a separate article and the hodgepodge of WP:SYNTH in this instance seems only to be to serve the purpose of pushing a particular angle of one side of the conflict; secondly WP:POVPUSH -  a priori excludes Israeli casualties of Palestinian bombing, shelling and rocket attacks; furthermore "mass civilian casualties" are undefined WP:OR. --PopularMax (talk) 04:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So then you would want to also delete both, say, Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada and the List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Al-Aqsa Intifada? Besides the fact that they both are about the same deaths, they "also "'a priori'' excludes Palestinian casualties of Israeli belligerence? Huldra (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Apart form other stuff not being much a=of an argument [] seems to me to already cover this in term of equivalency.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not at all. You evidently haven't analysed it. That article, which by the way radically underlists the relevant incidents, deals with a 5 year period ending 2005 selecting 70 odd incidents, predominantly in the West Bank, not the Gaza Strip, of which only 3 deal with bombardments of civilians. I.e. it excludes generally what this article, if permitted to reach its natural length of a few dozen incidents of significant collateral damage from missile strikes in Gaza. is focused on. The Gaza related incidents, mainly shootings, number 17 out of 70. Historically, the 'carnage' as sources call it, on the Gaza Strip began in earnest after the end date of that article's brief, i.e. after 2007. So the article, while forming a precedent in its presentation, has a different focus from this one.Nishidani (talk) 14:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So let me get this straight, an article (list or whatever) which is about the Second Intifada is not coveingr the same period or conflict as another whose title says it is about the second Intifada?Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That is incomprehensible. Please don't stir huge threads. The information given is suffioient to grasp the point.Nishidani (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The point you made was we have to keep this article for parity with other articles. But we already have an article that parallels those articles you cite as reasons to keep this one. So your point is not valid.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, no, and I apologize for having to say this. You are not reading closely. I wrote this article because there is a mass of information in high RS sources dealing with it, yet no wiki article. My point about parallels was not the justification for it. I made it to respond to objections that assumed, through unfamiliarity with the topic area, that what I was doing was unusual, or anomalous, by pointing out that if one objects to this, why is that objection never raised for AfDing or radically excising material from numerous articles on Israeli casualties which have long exhibited the features I adopted for this new matter. Please don't persist in not grasping the obvious, or confusing several distinct levels of discourse.Nishidani (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And I pointed out it was invalid as no one has suggest that comparable article to those you cited should be deleted. Whataboutism only works when there is a clear lack of comparability, and even then is not a valid argument at AFD's.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

*Delete per PopularMax. Another Nishidani POV-pushing gem. Unfortunately, this pulled me out of retirement.  Kamel Tebaast  22:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)  Kamel  Tebaast  18:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Now three inactive accounts suddenly take on life.Nishidani (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC).
 * You yourself have risen from self-imposed retirement upon many occasions, so this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Debresser (talk) 13:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * either way, this particular account appears to be banned from this topic .Dan Murphy (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If, as it appears, he is banned from this area, then either that 'vote' should be struck out or the closing admin/editor should not take it into account.Nishidani (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Their talk (and user) page says they still are.Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please drop the inveterate ad hominem enmity and focus on the logical/policy-based reasonings for and against. Or rather, this all discourages independent outside hands from commenting. We have had our say. Let others express their opinions Nishidani (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So then why not strike you ad hominem about people coming out of retirement?Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's not an ad hominem at all, but rather drawing attention to the likelihood that some meatpuppettry is going on. --NSH001 (talk) 14:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Nor is it an ad hominem to point out the accuser has done this themselves, and thus there may well be innocent explanations (such as why they have done it). Many users retire and then come back when their pet subjects start to get (for example) vandalized, or if they see POV pushing they find unacceptable. What is not acceptable is thinly veiled nudge nudge accusations. If people think meat puppetry is going on say so, do not however complain about actions the accuser has themselves engaged in. Now is there an accusation of meat puppetry or not?Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Also which accounts have been "reactivated"?Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Now thats a different matter altogether, and needs to be reported as it does appear to be a violation of a TBAN.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, with reluctance I disagree with many of the comments made above on both sides of the argument. I don’t think either side’s attacks on the other should be in separate articles. Many of the articles in Template:Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel are one-sided. This one is too, but the other way round. We would do a much better service to readers if we organized our Gaza–Israel conflict sub-articles only by time period and not by who the attacker was. In the meantime, this article should be kept. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename to something a little more concise. The article itself lists a number of references from reliable sources (note that it’s messy right now; the sources should be inline supporting statements in the actual article to avoid original research and unsourced statements in the article) and the topic itself is notable, so it easily passes WP:GNG.  Samboy (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2019 (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.