Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel and state terrorism

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 speedy delete as vandalism. The article and the activities in this AFD discussion are essentially one big lump of it.

I've watched this mess get messier for an hour now, and it's only going to get worse. I considered semi-protection, thinking that at least the article creator had been acting in good faith, but it's clear from what has happened and from a few checks on my part that none of this is good faith activity.

The article creator started off with outright copyright violation, since deleted, and has progressed to tagging everyone in the discussion with a delete opinion, even the nominator, as being canvassed. One of the single-purpose accounts did tit-for-tat SPA tagging as well. The edit histories gave away the sockpuppetry. And the article at hand is an improperly attributed hodge-podge of other Wikipedia articles; the article creator simply having progressed to copying from within Wikipedia rather than from without.

This is outright vandalism and disruption. If there is an article to be written here, it will be written properly, by a good faith contributor. All single-purpose sockpuppet accounts, including the account that created the article, have had their editing privileges revoked.

Uncle G (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Israel and state terrorism

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

The article is based on anonymous Daily Mail speculation that does not discuss 'state terrorism', and accusations by Erdogan regarding the Gaza flotilla. Almost all the content and the sources make no mention of 'state terrorism', e.g accusations of apartheid, detention without charges, and are already included elsewhere. This does not have notability as a stand alone topic. Ankh.Morpork 15:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it should be deleted. Nearly all the references are either from an anti-Israel website, or from Erdogan about flotilla. On same note about flotilla, there's a reference from The Guardian (that has been accused of disproportinately singling out Israel and having a heavy bias), but it's irrelevant now, as the United Nations Palmer Report said that the blockade on Gaza was legitimate and while Israel committed mistakes, Turkey should not have let the flotilla embark. Either way, that one incident should not be the basis for an entire article. Recommend for deletion, it clearly pushes a POV based on terrible or outdated sources. --Activism1234 15:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am in the process of adding more references and additional content. This does have notability as stand alone topic. MahdiTheGuidedOne (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mahdi is a very loaded term in regard to Sunnis, i would consider to propose your nickname for blocking on herecy and religious incompatability.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the article certainly has room for improvement, but it is notable enough to justify existence, assuming reliable sources can be found. Ducknish (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This does have notability as stand alone topic. Regulararmy (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- — Regulararmy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. postdlf (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This does have notability as stand alone topic. 113.203.142.92 (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- — 113.203.142.92 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. postdlf (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:CFORK (or at best, duplicate) of the much more comprehensive, more NPOV and balanced, and better cited Human rights in Israel. The content doesn't even match the title or intro, as none of the allegations relate to state-sponsored terrorism, making the selected human rights abuse allegations an even poorer excuse to slip in the "terrorism" label. postdlf (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sources talk about single cases, however no one talks about Israel's involvement with terrorism. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 16:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just removed whole paragraphs that did not include sources that connected them to "state terrorism". Apparently this ostensibly new editor is trying to beef up the article with irrelevant information in an attempt to make it look like it has a lot of sources supporting it and thus is notable. Someone should keep an eye on this. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have to distinguish between figurative and literal. Does Israel literally engage in terrorism? No, it does not. Is it inconceivable that someone critical of Israel could figuratively use the word terrorism in reference to Israel? Certainly. But we should not be creating articles with titles in which terms are being used figuratively. To do so is to mislead the reader. Wikipedia should not be used as a WP:SOAPBOX or a means of promoting an idea unsupported by sources and Wikipedia should not be used for WP:ACTIVIST purposes. Bus stop (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article does have notability as stand alone topic. Pagebirdspagebirds (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)— Pagebirdspagebirds (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. This article does have notability as stand alone topic. Rolepaper9876 (talk) 17:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC) — Rolepaper9876 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - WP:CFORK with poor sources.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or even speedy delete per WP:CSD#A10). This is an amateurish, non-NPOV laden, sockpuppet driven attempt to circumvent existing, balanced articles on the topic. If there is anything salvageable it can be merged into Human rights in Israel, Israel and the apartheid analogy, or other articles critical of Israel. Peacock (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am being harassed. Check out my talk page. MahdiTheGuidedOne (talk) 17:54, 25 July 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.