Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destruction of Israeli tanks in the Second Intifada

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 delete. Wifione ^Message 22:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Destruction of Israeli tanks in the Second Intifada

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This violates WP:NOT in a few ways, including Wikipedia is not a directory #8 A complete exposition of all possible detail. This information could be worked into another article, perhaps, but as a stand alone article is outside of what we do here. It isn't customary to have articles that solely exist to cover the number and types of destruction of a particular type of military hardware in a single event. It may also run against Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information #3 Excessive listings of statistics. as this list in now way covers why the destruction of tanks during the Second Intifada is independently notable to the degree as to warrant inclusion as an article. My gut feeling says this runs against other guidelines and policies as well. Even with lots of references, that doesn't solve the other issues. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The title is misleading and perhaps should be changed. This is not only a description of tanks destroyed, but also describes the events of several tactical enguagements. So it is of some interest to military historians. I recognize the delicacy of the subject. Maxdlink (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some of the information may be fine in other articles, and likely it already is. I've been watching the article since it was created, waiting to see what it became and if it could be "rehabilitated". The problem (from my perspective) is that there is no way to just rename the article or merge the content to fix the underlying issues, and under no circumstances would a redirect make sense. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the rationale given by the nominator. If indeed the article describes events that are notable - individual articles can be created for them. The only one of these in the list seems to be the event that lead to the capture of Gilad Shalit, which already has its own article- 2006 Hamas cross-border raid Jeff Song (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see why different incidents should be put together just because of the vehicles involved. There should be articles on the whole conflict, on each incident (if notable), and notable problems with the tanks themselves. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnecessary fork of Second Intifada. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SYNTH and OR list of specific engagements. NOT - WP is not a statistics handbook. Would love to see a OTHERSTUFF article if possible. --Shuki (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list of non-notable events, with no demonstration of an overarching notable concept, doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Also is largely a duplication of an off-wiki list, see the amount of content cited to reference 11. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I’m new here at Wikipedia and am not so familiar with the rules of the game. But in this case I frankly don’t see the problem. Wikipedia is full of lists. Just two examples:

List of Lebanese rocket attacks on Israel List of prisoners released by Israel in the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange

I searched Wikipedia for “List of” and got 850,870 hits.

There is a separate article for each and every Palestinian terrorist act against civilian Israeli targets. Apparently they are all “notable”. There is a template connecting all these terrorist acts: Template:Terrorist attacks against Israelis in the 2000s

But to my surprise I discovered that whenever Palestinian violence had been directed against legitimate military target there was usually no article and to my knowledge no suitable template to connect them. So I wrote a couple of articles on this subject:

2002 Hebron ambush

Ein 'Arik checkpoint attack

Wadi al-Haramiya sniper attack

as well as the destroyed tanks article. Two of them are now tagged as not “notable” and one other has been defined as an “orphan”. I am not sure of the implications of that.

It is not simply a list of ”the number and types of destruction of a particular type of military hardware”. It’s an article about seven well-planned Palestinian military operations specifically targeting Israeli armored vehicles during the Second Intifada, leading to substantial losses in men and material. They are just as “notable” as the Palestinian terrorist acts against civilians. I don’t insist that the article remain a list. Quite the contrary, I would welcome the addition of more analytical issues, such as how IDF responded to the Palestinian capability to destroy their tanks. I could accept to subdivide the article into seven separate articles (the one about Shalit incident being redundant) but these would generally be very short, like most of the terrorist act articles, but without a suitable template to connect them. Maybe Template:Non-terrorist attacks against Israelis in the 2000s?Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read What about article x?, as it explains how it doesn't matter what other articles exist. It could simply be that no one has nominated those articles for deletion yet, so their existence is automatically considered a non-argument to keep any article. This isn't an opinion, by the way, it is one of the most fundamental elements of a discussion in an article deletion. Lists ARE acceptable at Wikipedia, assuming they meet the criteria a WP:LISTS. This one does not, and also violate WP:NOT. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your non-policy based argument aside, if you really want to make sure everything is fair and equal the correct analogy to "Palestinian terrorist acts against civilians" is "Israeli terrorist acts against civilians." However there is an article on every single one of the latter but not on every single one of the former. Get to work.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Soldiers (and their AFVs) are expected to get killed (destroyed) every once in a while, so they generally don't get much notice. Civilian casualties in non-wartime situations are a different matter. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , but edit. The names of the soldiers are excessive detail for an encyclopedia . The general events, even at the tactical level, are appropriate. They can be described battle by battle, but articles by type of event are also acceptable. We should, of course, do similarly with earlier history. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For various reasons mentioned. It's the strategies and battles that matter, not the tanks per se. Seems really silly. CarolMooreDC 04:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, along with WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. We don't need blow by blow accounts of conflicts, and about half the vehicles described as being destroyed in the articles aren't even tanks... Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Nick D and Carol Moore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epeefleche (talk • contribs)
Delete. Per Roscelese. Marokwitz (talk) 11:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per all above. Flayer (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Nick D and Shuki.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.