Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zrarieh massacre


 * 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. signed,Rosguill talk 06:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Zrarieh massacre

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article fails WP:NEVENT the only WP:RS is NYtimes about the incident but its not enough for meeting the criteria Shrike (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shrike (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge - I see reportage in the Jerusalem Post about this raid on 12 March and 13 March 1985. However I have WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING concerns about this event. "Massacre" is obviously a WP:POVNAME and unless there's any evidence that this is the WP:COMMONNAME it should change to "Zrarieh raid" or something similar if this article is to be kept. If it is not kept it should be merged to South Lebanon conflict (1985–2000). Nb. as always with Arabic language romanisation there are lots of different versions of this town's name (e.g., "Zrariyah") which makes searching complicated. FOARP (talk) 11:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I've added four sources. To address FOARP's concern about whether there is sustained coverage, I can see that there is sustained coverage in the Arabic language press - one of the sources I found dealing with the event in depth is dated 2001 and the other is 2018, and there were plenty of others I did not use. An IP has removed the deletion tag from the article by the way. Mccapra (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Mccapra Other than the LA Times ref these don't look very reliable/independent (an Al Akhbar article, "Question of Palestine", "Civil Society Knowledge Centre"). To vote keep on this I'd want to see evidence of WP:LASTING significant coverage in a reliable source (e.g., a history book written a month+ after the raid dedicating at least a paragraph or two to it). Even a book like the 1987 Struggle For Lebanon just gives this event a bare mention. In any event the title is obviously a WP:POVNAME. I note this NY Times article from the day after the raid describes it in very different terms to the "massacre" rhetoric used here. FOARP (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, the basic facts of the event are covered in reliable sources so the article as it stands is certainly verifiable. As to whether it had lasting significance - who would it have lasting significance to? It's not surprising if the people most interested in discussing the event more than thirty years after it happened are Lebanese and other Arabs, and it's clear from the sources I've provided that this is the case. I agree it would not be right to accept these sources as reliable in terms of the detail of the event, but the article does not use them for this purpose. What those sources do show is long-term notability of the event.
 * WP:LASTING also requires reliable sources (i.e., continued coverage in unreliable sources cannot demonstrate lasting coverage). For example, if I controversially win a hot-dog eating contest and this is covered by two reliable sources the day afterwards, and my friends and family then write about it years later on personal blogs, the RS coverage makes "1991 FOARP Hot Dog Eating Contest Controversy" a WP:V pass but the article is still a WP:EVENT fail because whilst there was later coverage the later coverage was not in a reliable source. If you cannot rely on these sources for details of the raid (as their coverage is palpably propagandistic) then you cannot rely on them as an indicator of the notability of the raid.

FOARP (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Good argument, maybe we merge to Zrarieh and South Lebanon conflict. We might create also an article about this subject that covers main topics + those not notable enough for seperate article -- Maudslay II (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC).
 * This piece in Conflict Quarterly is probably better, but the coverage was still only half a para (see page 29). FOARP (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but there’s no comparison. These aren’t random blogs they’re major Arabic-language daily newspapers. I would not want to rely on the accounts in these pieces to verify the details if the event because they are based in eyewitness accounts, not because they are propagandistic. Mccapra (talk) 12:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The rhetoric about Israel being an "entity" and those killed being "martyrs" rather indicates the opposite. To establish notability we need reliable evidence that something was considered lastingly notable, not just that it is an event that is used for propaganda purposes (or if we are covering it as propaganda, coverage from reliable sources independent of those making the propaganda). FOARP (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * PS - I'm going to keep putting up sources I find as I discover new ways of romanising the name - here's a Noam Chomsky article - see p. 182 (clearly not an RS for this, only part of a paragraph), here's a bare mention in a journal from April 1985 (not WP:SIGCOV). FOARP (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Important subject covered in reliable sources. -- Maudslay II (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Shrike, I think it is not good practice to be actively editing the article, including changing the title at the same time as recommending deletion, it gives the impression of trying to influence the outcome via activist editing. Changing "massacre" to "raid" is an example of the non-NPOV you are complaining about, isn't it?Selfstudier (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , There is no such policy. The article is now bad shape as a pov fest probably should deleted per WP:TNT Shrike (talk) 12:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What part of the article is a POVFEST? It’s a stub recording an event of which the basic details are not in dispute. I mean if there are IDF sources claiming they never went into the town and never killed anyone that’s one thing, but those facts aren’t in dispute. There’s a discussion to be had about the title, but that’s not a reason for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's pretty WP:POV to claim its a massacre, that there was no resistance, that no-one was armed etc. etc. etc. and a lot of the sourcing already cited in the article says the opposite. All the same I agree that POV issues aren't typically a WP:DELREASON and, if the WP:LASTING problems can be addressed, the article can probably be kept with a different title and changed content. FOARP (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Those things have been added just recently after this discussion started. The original stub did not have POV issues other than possibly the title. Mccapra (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment As WP:DIVERSE for the article was met I think it does meet WP:EVENT.But I still think the article should be deleted per WP:TNT --Shrike (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * * I say we merge. If you have no problem with that say and let's get this over with. -- Maudslay II (talk)
 * The discussion has only been open a few hours and has plenty of time to run. Mccapra (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no objection --Shrike (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment https://www.ictj.org/sites/default/files/ICTJ-Report-Lebanon-Mapping-2013-EN_0.pdf Lebanon’s Legacy of Political Violence A Mapping of Serious Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law in Lebanon, 1975–2008 dated September 2013 gives the basic facts on p.60 "March 11, 1985: In South Lebanon, the Israeli Army attacked the village of Zrarieh, which was the front line and where the Lebanese Army was based. The Israelis invaded the town for about 10 hours, killing at least 21 residents, and detaining others. The next day the Lebanese Red Cross managed to retrieve 21 bodies and evacuate 22 wounded people." They source this information to An-Nahar, 11 and 12 March.Selfstudier (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a single short para though, so not really WP:SIGCOV. I'm thinking a merge to a new over-arching article about Operation Iron Fist might be appropriate? It was a series of raids of which this raid was part and I see plenty of sigcov for that. Failing that merge to the South Lebanon Conflict article FOARP (talk) 13:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's what you wanted, in addition it implies a significant hr violation so notable. I haven't made up my mind as yet, I would like to see if this was discussed at the UN, for instance.Selfstudier (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Little lasting coverage and what there is lacks depth. The article descrribes a small offensive operation, that covered many villages, as if it occured in one village. For instance two CBS journalists were killed somewhere else. The Lebanon-Israeli war lasted a 1000 days, writing a Wikipedia article based on dispatches from the front for each day is an exercise in futility.Free1Soul (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Probably the series of raids that this was part of is clearly notable? I've started an article under the title Iron Fist policy. Suggest merge there (or to a similar target). FOARP (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If that's the Israeli name, that's not going to fly.Selfstudier (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , We may call it incident. The sources doesn't call it massacre Shrike (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I was talking about Iron Fist, not sure about this one yet.Selfstudier (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Iron Fist was the policy/series of operations under which this particular raid (and a large number of other raids) were carried out. This raid was just one of them. I don't think this article is going to pass WP:LASTING based on the references found thus far so merging somewhere is the only way you're going to preserve this. FOARP (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In your opinion, I haven't decided yet. And Iron Fist is Israeli POV, I noted already on your new page.Selfstudier (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Welcome to start a move discussion to a new location, whatever that will be. Iron Fist was of course the name the Israelis gave to their own policy. FOARP (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "On March 11, Israeli forces raided the town of Zrariyah killing 40 Amal fighters and capturing a large stock of arms" in South Lebanon conflict (1985–2000). Yea, right. Selfstudier (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't write that text, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up to me here. My edit was simply to add a link to the "Iron Fist" policy (see diff here). FOARP (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I tagged it as dubious and someone put in a source that doesn't even support the text. Bah. I might take more of an interest in this Lebanon business, the POV pushing I have seen so far is even worse than the Palestine articles.Selfstudier (talk) 09:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Arab-Israeli conflict is one of the most contentious parts of Wiki an not surprised to see that kind of POV-pushing stuff going on (and this article is of course another example of that). Obviously no article should say in the voice of Wiki that everyone killed in the raid was an AMAL militiaman, any more than they should say they were all unarmed innocents.FOARP (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 *  Merge Keep This is one of a number of Israeli attacks/reprisal operations that occurred in 1985 (see https://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/5D3D9FFF6DD846CE85256BDF0054CB61). There is some discussion of this at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Lebanon_conflict_(1985%E2%80%932000)#Israeli_withdrawal_to_Security_Zone and this would seem to best fit there, possibly expanded with additional relevant material that puts this operation in proper historical context. The new Iron Fist article is one sided Israeli POV and not an appropriate merge target.Selfstudier (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In view of the continuing POV push going on here, I am changing my vote to keep, my original thought was that it would be better to merge and fix the push from the merge target instead but I can see now that is not going to be easy (see eg Iron Fist article).Selfstudier (talk) 09:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep based on ongoing detailed coverage in Arabic sources:
 * Asharq Al-Awsat (2001): : Article title: "The only resistance who survived the Al-Zararia massacre tells Al-Sharq al-Awsat the details of the confrontations with the Israelis"
 * Al Akhbar (2018): : Article title: "Zrariyeh ... the witness and the martyr"
 * English sources are trickier because there are about a dozen ways of anglicizing the name of the town. But these Arabic newspapers confirm the ongoing coverage. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As discussed above, these are clearly not independent, reliable sources on this matter given their propagandistic language ("entity", "martyrs" etc.) and complete reliance on eye-witnesses from one side, and thus cannot establish WP:LASTING coverage of the subject. We need an instance of WP:SIGCOV in an independent WP:RS from more than a couple of weeks after the raid at least, FOARP (talk) 08:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If your criterion for neutrality is that reports from a battle field should have eyewitnesses from both sides (i.e. the soldiers conducting a raid/massacre should be interviewed to give their versions to balance what survivors of an incident recount) I'd like to see where that leaves 99% of battlefield reportage. That is an impossible criterion. And here, to suggest that because the language of the occupied, Arabic, uses terms not used in our world language ('martyr' for a victim) it is unacceptable, well, systemic bias. Soldiers don't tell their stories, survivors do. Nishidani (talk) 09:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep -and expand: if "21 and 32 Israeli civilians" had been killed by, say Hizbollah forces, this would have been a 50k+ article by now; (probably listing all the names). Frankly, the whole  Israel/Lebanon issue have been horribly skewed for years, this should be a start to get a more balanced view. (Reading many of the articles about the 1980s-2000s Israeli involvement in Lebanon; it looks as if they were mostly (all?) written from a totally  Israeli POV.) Huldra (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The contemporary reports from the time of the raid show exactly what relatively independent reportage looks like. Using Amal-member eyewitness reports is clearly not "independent" sourcing. This is particularly the case when the article as presently constituted makes the claim that this was a massacre of civilians. "Martyr" is not simply "victim" (are the Israeli killed called that?) and "entity" clearly shows this to be propaganda incapable of establishing notability. There are lots of good histories of the Arab-Israeli wars written independently, but none of the ones I've reviewed give this raid WP:SIGCOV which casts quite a big doubt over its notability. However, an easy way of resolving this is to take it to RSN and see what they say. FOARP (talk) 11:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, the perspective of the other side here is a shahid is the normative title conferred on any Islamic subject killed in a conflict. The word's primary sense is, precisely, 'witness', just as the Greek word underlying 'martyr' means witness. I think you are objecting to sources because they use standard Islamic nomenclature, an objection which strikes me as biased. It is not, in the end, an eyewitness's reflex use of such terms in reportage which invalidates the testimony. The point is not in the putative skewedness of the lexicon of description that embodies emic values. Were that so, not only anthropology, but even our reports on other societies, would have no raison d'être. It is not the emotional state of the witness that interests us, but the details their account of what they saw, which are not unreliable because the interviewed person happens to think in terms of his own cultural worldview (as we all tend to do). Nishidani (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The Israelis deny that these were all civilians, and news reports included in the article clearly state that the AMAL militia was there and fought the Israelis, so an NPOV recounting of this raid is not going to follow this "Israeli massacre of civilians" narrative. FOARP (talk) 08:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is standard for most military bodies, including the Israeli authorities to deny civilians were killed. We do know that reporters for AP and the Los Angeles Times observed 6 elderly people (with their dangerous bags of lemons) were dead on the road, that one vehicle  crushed by a tank had some corpse inside - several civilians were indeed killed in their cars according to independent testimony, and that alone exceeds the number we usually use to define a massacre. There is no evidence that this was a response to an AMAL militia or actions by the Lebanese Army: attacked, in their own country, - at the tailend of a war of choice undertaken without provocation (1982) which led to a 3 year occupation - they fought back, and the Army withdrew, whereupon Israel occupied and searched the village for 10 hours, resulting in 22-35 dead. 'Raid' does not capture what happened, sounds euphemistic, whereas 'massacre' appears to be the WP:Commonname. For the Lebanese it was a massacre, for Israel it was a (punitive) raid (to root out 'terrorists'? To punish with exemplary acts the Lebanese for the Metula ambush?). All we know is that Israel's adventurism to rewrite Lebanese history in 1982 led to the death of roughly 20,000 Lebanese because no discrimination was ever made between civilians and military (and that is normative in that part of the world). Nishidani (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, obviously. The proposal is the usual 'history as erasure' position in sensitive articles regarding this area of the Middle East. It is extraordinary that coverage in Arabic is ergo, not relevant, as if to be 'mainstream', one has to write for the mainstream English press, with its impressive record for not recording most of what takes place in that area. Some Arabic-competent editor should do what I, for one, have just done with the available English sources so far, i.e., give the details. History is about details: they were there, duly reported bibliographically, but not used for the article to any notable extent. Failure to do this - eviscerate sources for everything they tell - invariably gives some editors the warrant for proposing deletion.Nishidani (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and User:Free1Soul. Also, I wonder if WP:ARBPIA and all its sequels applies here.--Darwinek (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We usually assume Arbpia applies in a wide sense, Shrike added the template, the only reason I didn't was because I thought it a little too early (the partially related is perhaps possible here).Selfstudier (talk) 09:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - per Oncenawhile, and the idea that Arabic language sources are unreliable due to "propagandistic" terms like martyr or resistance while Israeli sources that use the opposite POV language such as "terror" and "terrorist" are reliable is a pretty blatant example of systemic bias.  nableezy  - 18:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've removed those Arabic sources for the moment because they are used only to document what is amply documented in the English sources. I hope someone examines them and, if they find information we lack for the page, that these elements be introduced and the sources restored. It is one of the overwhelming examples of RS POV bias that we accept most stuff from the Israeli press, and raise objections when Arabic sources (they should be transliterated) are adduced. But they should be used for what the Western press omits, otherwise they just tease the reader by their unreadable presence.Nishidani (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The WP:LASTING argument is also being made re these rs (that these are the only), we can bring them back in if that is in fact an issue in reality.Selfstudier (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I overlooked that. In the last few days, the rapidfire claims made when we had just a few sentences have, I believe, been belied by the sources added. But if that's a sticking point, then, sure. Nishidani (talk) 07:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The Not notable pretext is now demolished with sources from 2003, 2013,2015 added. So the point of this deletion proposal vanishes.Nishidani (talk) 10:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per Onceinawhile, Hulldra & Nishidani. --NSH001 (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment rereading the article now after a lot of work has been put into it. It has been expanded enormously from the basic stub it was originally, and I think any argument that the topic is not notable is just plain absurd at this stage. In reference to the discussion above about the use of the word shahid that is being translated as ‘martyr’ being an indication of the propagandistic nature of certain sources - it isn’t. It just means ‘victim’. Mccapra (talk) 08:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Read shahid. Words bear many connotations. Of course it is used as a synonym for victims, just as it is in other languages. In Italian as well, for example, the word martiri means 'martyrs' but is used officially for those civilians whipped off the street and executed by Nazis in WW2 as a  reprisal measure for any German soldier killed: the ration was 11 victims/martyrs for every German killed. They don't call them 'victims' on such occasions, but 'martyrs' because that word invests their status as innocent people savagely mown down by a violent occupying force with a certain historic sacrality as 'witnesses' to the nature of a particularly brutal exercise of power. The parallel with Arabic is precise.Nishidani (talk) 08:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * True, victims of any operation, bombing and even accident in arabic are called "martyrs"/"shahids", regardless if they're fighters or civillians. Many people think it's immoral to call victims as "deaths" or "killed". -- Maudslay II (talk) 10:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * You appear not to have noticed, but that is precisely the point I have been making.Nishidani (talk) 11:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - None of the new sources actually give WP:LASTING WP:SIGCOV. Taking them in turn:
 * An annex to a 1992 paper giving a set of Le Monde reports from 13 March 1985 - not lasting coverage as it comes from only a couple of days after the raid.
 * A UN report dated 1998, with a single sentence totalling 45 words about a car-bombing in Snubarah Square in Bi'r al-'Abd on 7 March 1985 supposedly done by Israeli intelligence followed by the words "Zrariyah massacre". This is not about the topic of this article at all.
 * Same goes for the October 1986 paper - just a bare mention.
 * Same goes for the half-paragraph in a 1987 Noam Chomsky paper, which is also not an RS.
 * The 2013 ITCJ paper is also only a brief mention (three sentences totalling 60 words).
 * The 2015 reference "Lebanese in Motion Gender and the Making of a Translocal Village" does not mention the raid at all.
 * The Robert Fisk book gives this raid a one-sentence mention.
 * The 6 April 1985 in Le Monde story is not about the Zrarieh raid at all but instead about raids on other villages.
 * The real flashing red warning light here is that if Robert Fisk (hardly a friend of the Israelis) only gave this raid a one-sentence mention in his epically-long (700+ pages) book about the war in Lebanon, then you know it probably isn't notable. This leaves us with the AR-language sources, for which there is an RSN discussion open and which strong doubts have been raised about on the talk page. FOARP (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You misread the 88 UN report. It says " Zrariyah massacre, 1985 On 11 March 1985, 22 citizens were killed in fighting with an attacking Israeli motorized force of over 100 vehicles which had stormed the town." Selfstudier (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "Report to the UN" would be a better description, and the text literally reads like this:
 * "On 7 March 1985, in an operation carried out by the Israeli intelligence services, 75 people were killed and hundreds of others, mostly women and children, were killed when a car bomb containing over 200 kilos of TNT exploded in Snubarah Square in Bi'r al-'Abd.
 * Zrariyah massacre, 1985


 * On 11 March 1985, 22 citizens were killed in fighting with an attacking Israeli motorized force of over 100 vehicles which had stormed the town.
 * Al-Tuffah area massacre, 1985"
 * Without knowing that the Israeli motorised column action is the one referred to, how would you know that the bolded text refers to the following paragraph (which it is spaced from) and not the preceding paragraph (which it is not spaced from)? And even with this, 45 words is clearly not WP:SIGCOV. FOARP (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I knew, the only surprising thing is that you apparently didn't. In any case you are so flogging a dead horse here.Selfstudier (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, so where's the actual RS giving this lasting coverage? Do you see one presently cited in the article? I don't, not unless you believe that 1-2 sentences is SIGCOV. People keep adding sources and saying "here, this shows lasting coverage" but the sources are either not RS, not lasting, or not SIGCOV of the topic - and as long as that's the case there is no repetition involved in pointing this out for each new source. Can you see why I doubt this had the lasting significance required by WP:EVENT when people like Frost only give it a sentence worth of coverage in 700+ pages of history of the war in Lebanon? FOARP (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * SIGCOV does not require an arbitrary number of sentences only that the source provide non trivial information, casualty count for example. Context matters too, if the source is mainly about some loosely connected subject or whether it is directly related to the matter at hand. Selfstudier (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of any standard whereby a single sentence of 25 words is significant coverage. FOARP (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * GNG doesn't specify wordcounts or number of sentences. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material" and examples for trivial and its opposite are given. So you need to argue that a source is trivial which for me means contains no significant information or an insignificant amount of it.(eg "Z was attacked by Israeli forces in 1985" I would consider as trivial)Selfstudier (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * It has been over 10 days since this proposal. It has to be setteled. -- Maudslay II (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 04:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Why does this need further discussion? It's 8 to 4 against deletion. The original criticisms of a two line stub have all been met, with the inclusion of a dozen references enduring over time. The only question remaining is the title, and this is not the venue for that. The article will be retained for obvious reasons.Nishidani (talk) 11:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Having read this discussion (and dear old Bob's book), I'm convinced that there's a lot of POV pushing going on and it's not terribly attractive. Did this happen? Yes. Is it a thing? Yes. Is there significant coverage? Yes - and I see no reason to disallow or strike the Arabic language coverage. If you'd read Fisk's work, there's so MUCH going on that an incident where the IDF kill 12-40 people is almost normalised in the context of the broader conflict and the fact that it gets a mere sentence doesn't make this incident unimportant - it just speaks to the scale of the atrocity that took place. Which is itself mildly horrifying, no? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Alexandermcnabb (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
 * Comment The unsigned canvassing allegation made above by editor is false as can easily be seen by simply reading the supplied diff properly.Selfstudier (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm really curious how do you see this as canvassing? -- Maudslay II (talk) 07:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding my voice to the curious hordes... How was I canvassed? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Your first post to the AfD was after Maudslay II posted on your page. The post contains a link to this discussion. Not sure what M2 meant in the wording there,but the link and your immediately subsequent vote are on record.Free1Soul (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Again false. Check the time stamps. Apologies and a withdrawal are in order.Selfstudier (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 13:28 is before 14:43. Please dont continue making obviously untrue accusations. And yes, an apology is in order.  nableezy  - 19:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Silly me, I read the timestamps wrong and posted at the wrong place. It was canvassing, just to a different discussion. Apologies.Free1Soul (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW, it still wasn't canvassing. It was a notification: "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message on the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article, who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics). Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion." The message on my talk was within these guidelines, IMHO. Also, this is a distraction. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep A well sourced article.--Sakiv (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2021 (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.