Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Nations resolution on Israeli settlement activity, 2011


 * 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. Consensus is to keep with a strong suggestion that it be renamed, which does can be discussed/implemented at the article and talk page. Davewild (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

United Nations resolution on Israeli settlement activity, 2011

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

There was plenty of UNSC resolutions about I/P conflict that were vetoed by US though reported by newspapers it doesn't make this specific resolution somehow notable per WP:NOTNEWS this article should be deleted. Shrike (talk) 09:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. WP:NOTNEWS is worth specifically repeating. --BDD (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 18:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 18:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. WP:NOTNEWS? Because it's a one off article? Then why have we just voted to keep Israeli transfer of Palestinian militant bodies (2012), a completely mediocre piece of blip expansion, of nugatory interest, and a fine example of WP:COATRACK to repeat that there are terrorists in the West Bank. To retain the one while pressing for the deletion of the other, while they ostensibly share the same vice, is a sign of POV promotion and deletion according to one side's ostensible advantage in the media wars, and this, lacking any coherence in principle, means for me we should not make an exception here on the grounds of what, in Shrike's request for deletion, appears simply to be a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Seems like with that amount of sourcing it easily satisfies the project's notability guidelines. Tarc (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I can see this article needs some beefing up since various factoids one can easily read in the references are missing. Obviously it was an important resolution with a number of WP:RS covering it. An article listing failed resolutions might be interesting in addition to List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel which evidently covers ones that were passed (though that does not seem to be definitively stated). CarolMooreDC 04:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and Rename - The topic is notable, historically significant, and widely covered by reliable sources, however the name is of the article somewhat misleading (since this is a failed resolution). Marokwitz (talk) 07:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Very good point. Off-hand, Vetoed suggests itself, but it might sound polemical. Suggestions, anyone?Nishidani (talk) 08:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Marokwitz The Determinator  p  t  c  15:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename - Topic seems notable but the title is misleading. I might suggest "Proposed United Nations resolution on Israeli settlement activity, 2011." Rlendog (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2012 (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.