Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nabatiyeh rocketed house

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 of the nomination was Merge to Operation Grapes of Wrath. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nabatiyeh attack on house

non-notable event which took place as part of Operation Grapes of Wrath. It might perhaps warrant a mention in the the article about the operation, but surely we can't have an encyclopedia article devoted to every single instance where a building was attacked as part of a military operation, or we'd end up with several thousand articles for every recent conflict. Isarig 23:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason presented here for the deletion does not exist in Wikipedia:Deletion policy. That's why I ask for removing the tag from the article as it was used missused in this article. --Banzoo 16:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with the deletion process. non-Notability is a very common reason for deletion, common enough that the Guide to deletions has a designated shorthand code for it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Shorthands Isarig 17:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yet after revision of Wikipedia:Importance#Importance criteria that follows from the Non-notable the reason provided is not pertinent. --Banzoo 17:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This article does not meet any of the 3 criteria listed in Wikipedia:Importance#Importance criteria, which is in any case just a proposal Isarig 17:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you be kind by citing those reasons and showing where it does not meet the article.--Banzoo 17:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested in this subject (eg. it is not well-known in a community); It is a stub rather than an expansion upon an established subject; There is no discussion on the article's talk page which establishes its importance. IOW, it fails each and every single one of the criteria defined by Wikipedia:Importance#Importance criteria, which is in any case just a proposal. Isarig 17:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I beleive all newly created articles can meet those criteria. Maybe because it was tagged for deletion in less than an hour after the creation time. For the first reason (in importance criteria), that's POV judgement, and cannot be objectively shown I think because it didnt get enough time for anyone to show that nobody is interrested to this article. Maybe it could've be more reasonnable to put a merge tag instead, or in the worst case the proposed for deletion tag. That why I think that this tag may be caused by an early judgement. --Banzoo 18:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Then you belive something that is clearly wrong. As for alternate tags - I have no problem with merging the scant information in this article with the broader Operation Grapes of Wrath article, which is where I think this AfD is heading. I just don't think a non-notable attack that occured asd part of a larger military operation is worthy of an article, and expalined my reasoning. Can you shed some light on why you think this is a notable event? Isarig 21:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that the deletion tag is bit unjustified. That said, I'm not with meriging, maybe my idea was misrepresented, i was saying that other tags could've been more understandable than the deletion one. I support having a separate article for this one for the first reason that I was inspired by other wikipedia articles, and since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so whenever someone would do a research it would find what ever was searching for. Even though, having an article devoted to every single instance where a building was attacked as part of a military operation seems reasonable for a good group of people, specially when considering that this instance resulted with a notable civilians cost. So maybe we'll end up with several thousand articles for every recent conflict but I dont see why this cannot be acceptable. After all, in my opinion Human loss during conflicts is not something to be neglected. --Banzoo 17:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. The fact that I'm willing to accept a merge does not mean that the AfD tag is unjustified. I have yet to see any evidence that having an article devoted to every single instance where a building was attacked as part of a military operation seems reasonable for a good group of people. Human cost as part of a conflict is obviously not somethign to be neglected - and it isn't. The Operation Grapes of Wrath already notes the number of civilain casualties in this conflict. Isarig 17:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

When quoting, it wasn't my intention to upset anyone, just to clarify things. Does Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing fall in the same case as this article?--Banzoo 18:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No. There is evidence that the Sbarro incident is notable - a google search for Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing yeilds over 20,000 hits. The event has several pages dedicated to it on the Israeli MFA web site, and was the subject of numerous articles in print -for example [1], [2]. The Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing is in the same class as Cave of the Patriarchs massacre - a terror attack on civilians, which gathered much public attention. Civilians dying in a war zone during a military conflict, tragic though it is, is simply not on the same footing. Isarig 18:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I didnt know that this is the way to measure notability. But since it was mentioned, what was the stats for the article on question? Military conflict? isn't it the case for that bombing that took place during the al aksa intifada (that's considered as a conflict as far as I know). And why an attack on a civilian building in nabatiyeh is not considered as a terror attack? --Banzoo 18:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into Operation Grapes of Wrath. Information should definately be retained but the article is very short and the title unsearchable. If a "history" section is added to Nabatiyeh (which is listed as needing a cleanup). Then a link should be put there. --IslaySolomon 23:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to the above articles, not important enough for own article. SM247^{My Talk} 00:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Expand the article, it's only few hours old, and was flagged for deletion, it is still a stub, and need to be expanded, more research to be done. I found it complementary in a way to organize the Operation Grapes of Wrath article. --Banzoo 00:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion I would like to suggest to postpone this deletion procedure, and give the article some time to grow since it was tagged right after creation. Afterwards, we may discuss the right action to do.--Banzoo 17:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into Operation Grapes of Wrath. Not important enough to stand on its own. If that article grows too big or becomes unbalanced by its presence the talk page there can decide to fork it out at a future date. GRBerry 03:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. The nomination is too soon. CG 06:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Expand: I think it's worth to be expanded as it's not directly related to Qana shelling, however it's important imho to reference this event in the operation Operation Grapes of Wrath article. I recommend doing more research on the background of this attack, the names of victims, their ages... Both parties point of view should be noted. Other events of similar circumstances have been kept and expanded (pick one List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada and all were under the Al-Aqsa intifada) so deleting this article will be a biased attitude. --SuperAriel 12:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This is SuperAriel's first WP edit. Isarig 15:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know there is no policy regarding new users forbidding them commenting on articles. Apparently some prefer digging backgrounds rather than providing arguments and logical answers to my comments. --SuperAriel 20:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course there is no such policy. However, it is quite common for these "first edit" notices to be put up next to users whose first contribution is a vote on a disputed topic, for obvious reasons. Isarig 21:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Obvious reasons?--SuperAriel 08:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:SOCK Isarig 15:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think u should read it more carefully: "...if you call a new user a sock puppet without justification, they will probably be insulted and get a negative impression of Wikipedia..." from here --SuperAriel 19:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per above. Tewfik^Talk 15:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Operation Grapes of Wrath and make this article a redirect. Robin Hood 1212 22:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Smerge to Operation Grapes of Wrath. Stifle (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2006 (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.