Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Partial list of Palestinian terrorist acts

Partial list of Palestinian terrorist acts (and 2000-2004 lists) 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 keep.

As per Votes for deletion/List_of_Palestinian_children_killed_by_Israelis_in_2004 (note: User:Tarek appears to have nominated this).

This includes the following articles:
 * Partial list of Palestinian terrorist acts
 * Terrorism_against_Israel_in_2000
 * Terrorism_against_Israel_in_2001
 * Terrorism_against_Israel_in_2002
 * Terrorism_against_Israel_in_2003
 * Terrorism_against_Israel_in_2004


 * Transwiki at least the year pages (perhaps move this page to serve some other role): doing less than this is unfair. Cool Hand Luke  05:35, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, transwiki, or merge with the pages covered by Votes for deletion/List of Palestinian children killed by Israelis in 2004&mdash;do the same to both sets, but merge them at minimum into one list. Cool Hand Luke  10:45, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Clarification: if they are not transwikied or deleted, then merge. Cool Hand Luke  21:24, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge them and you end up with a morbid scoreboard like Violence_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict_2004, which nobody will ever be happy with. – [[User:Smyth|Smyth\talk ]] 13:42, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Completely unencyclopedic.  A list of facts without any perspective is worse than useless in an encyclopedia.  An article on Palestinian terrorism in general MAY be appropriate, and certainly specific terrorist groups and truly noteworthy attacks should have articles, but even such articles should not just be a mindless recitation of events. Indrian 18:12, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oops! Forgot to sign earlier, most embarassing. Indrian 18:12, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with Indrian.--Zappaz 04:26, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The only good thing you can say for "List of Palestinian children killed by Israelis in 2004" is that it's a fact that children were killed, that they were Palestinian and that the Israelis did it. We all know one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, so even the title of this cannot stand. Even if it isn't deleted, it should, I think, be moved to an NPOV title.Dr Zen 07:37, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Hypocrite:   &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 11:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Transwiki. No need to actually merge them with the "opposing" lists first, as the events they deal with are not the same. – [[User:Smyth|Smyth\talk ]] 12:29, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. As with the Palestinian children killed by Israelis, this doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Carrp 17:57, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a list of verifiable facts. "Person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter" argument is of "orangs vs. oranges" kind. Terror is a tool, freedom is a goal. Mikkalai 22:54, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This page survived serveral VfD because it is important source of information, and can give a sense of how the intensity of the conflict vary over time. Data is pretty accurate, as each addition require reliable citation. MathKnight 23:31, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming that the data is inaccurate. About 1 in 3 of the events are cited, which is pretty good as WP articles go. I'm only saying that a list of events, labeled with the perjorative word "terrorism", in which each entry does not correspond and never will correspond to an article in its own right, is not something that belongs in an encyclopedia. In general, I think that lists of factual information which are not being used for article classification should be moved to Wikisource. Do you also think that Votes_for_deletion/List_of_Palestinian_children_killed_by_Israelis_in_2004 should be kept in WP? It is an important source of information, and can give a sense of how the intensity of the conflict vary over time. The data is pretty accurate.... Both lists have to go. – [[User:Smyth|Smyth\talk ]] 13:14, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. A good article which completes the other articles. --ThomasK 10:36, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. A good, solid piece of information. Certainly encyclopedic. Dan100 22:48, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. BUT I think using the term "terrorism" as a blanket of all Palestinian acts of violence in the article is POV. I would suggest changing "terrorist acts" to "acts of violence". -- Ld 23:24, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Partial" is irrelevant. You cannot have a partial listing of terrorist acts committed by Palestinian terrorists. I can think of quite a few more terrorist acts than this, such as the events that led to the Entebbe Operation, those that provoked the intervention in Lebanon, and the events of the First Intifada. The content could be kept for a complete article, but this trash can't be kept. Evolver of Borg 10:43, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete If Palestenian Listing is Deleted too I think these both should be voted as one If 'Palestinian children killed by Israelis' is deleted it should be deleted too. If that is kept this should kept too.
 * Zain 10:34, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep or wikisource, certainly do not delete. (User:195.7.55.146)
 * Keep. These are historic incidents.  This is not analogous to the Palestinian children killed by Israelis in 2004 as the individual names there are not academic or encyclopedic, events in a conflict are. Jewbacca 11:48, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * The primary purpose of a Wikipedia article is to present a well-digested and neutral discussion of a topic. An example is Violence against Israelis, which should not be deleted. This is not an endorsement of that particular page as it stands right now; it should most probably be heavily revised, NPOV'd and/or merged with other pages. But whoever started it at least knows what an encyclopedia is for. List pages are useful for the purposes of categorising such primary articles. But when pages are nothing but raw lists of events, people or things, only a tiny fraction of which will ever have articles on their own, we are out of Wikipedia's scope.  This series is such a list. It contains raw data, with the noteworthy, history-making events barely differentiated from the hundreds of minor events which surround them, and not set in any longer-term historical context. "Monday - 2 people died", "Tuesday - 4 people died", "Wednesday - 3 people died", on and on for 5 years. I respect the dedication of the people who compiled this list, even if I don't trust their motives, but although it may be useful for researchers who need the raw data, it does not make an encyclopedia article.  Move the series to Wikisource. It can probably survive there, because the only issue to be discussed is accuracy. – [[User:Smyth|Smyth\talk ]] 01:55, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep but make it encyclopedic. For those who vote delete, why not take on List of terrorist incidents first?  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 11:14, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * List of terrorist incidents at least limits itself to historically significant events. You will notice that a fair chunk of the articles on that list are major enough to have their own articles. That, primarily, is what distinguishes it from this list: some level of selectivity and an attempt to set the events in a historical context. – [[User:Smyth|Smyth\talk ]] 12:01, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * It's not a good example. It seems mostly to be a list of acts done by the less well-equipped side in asymmetric wars. Not much state terrorism gets a look-in. I'd be interested to know how Humus proposes to make this "encyclopaedic".Dr Zen 01:22, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * It's not a great page, I know. The problem is that people persist in using the word "terrorism" as if it had some neutral meaning. It doesn't. It used to mean, roughly, "acts done by the less well-equipped side in asymmetric wars". Now it just means "them". I wish everyone would just realise that and accept that you can't use the word to refer to anyone on Wikipedia, unless you're quoting someone else's opinion, but there are enough people that think they can come up with a nonsubjective definition that I know it's hopeless. – [[User:Smyth|Smyth\talk ]] 15:20, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete this article. I advocate deletion of all similar articles from either side of the IPC.  &mdash; mark &#9998; 15:36, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: DCEdwards1966 01:27, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete.I feel no need to re-iterate previous argumentsmoseythedino 07:36, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Note: This is the very first (and up to now the only) edit of this user. See contribs.  &mdash; mark &#9998; 01:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete  --fvw *  06:21, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

Note from the archiver: Discounting anons, I see 10 deletes, 2 transwikis, and 7 keeps. No consensus, so keep. Mackensen (talk) 17:16, 24 Dec 2004 (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.