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 (WP:SNOW). Bucketsofg 20:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admins comments. There is an obvious and clear consensus in the community that the article should not be deleted and so I closed the debate. The community's energy would be more appropriately directed towards improving the article and finding ways to right it that are acceptable to as wide a group as possible. I encourage further discussion about this article to be done on the article talk page. Bucketsofg 20:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian political violence[edit]

Palestinian political violence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

POV minefield, from the offset it calls the people of Palestine terrorists without even mentioning that the violence may be legitimate. Very biased, must be removed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asucena (talk • contribs).

Categorizing debate: S (Society topics). ◄Zahakiel► 17:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous debate: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian political violence

• DELETE - POV minefield, from the offset it calls the people of Palestine terrorists without even mentioning that the violence may be legitimate. Very biased, must be removed. --Asucena 14:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I agree that the article is biased -- because it is not named "Palestinian terrorism." But that is a different issue. Obviously there is no justification for deletion. 6SJ7 16:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as per 6SJ7, though I would prefer to have it renamed Palestinian terrorism. --Leifern 16:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Bias isn't normally a reason for deletion of the article, but for improvement. However, I'm not sure an article with this title can be made NPOV, it only focuses on one side of the issue by definition. Balancing it would require making it into an article about, say Israeli-Palestinian conflict or Al-Aqsa Intifada ... but we already have all those articles. It's a complex issue, and I'm not an expert on the subject, so if someone explains how this article can be balanced, I won't argue for deletion, but unless they do, it does look bad. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Report the various points of view on the issue proportionally to their level of support, as usual? —xyzzy_n 17:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Edit it to make it what it should be, merge some of the other pages, or rename it yet again. An credible encyclopedia has to have an article on Palestinian terrorism, under whatever name. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, The introduction to the article clearly states that the perpetrators of the violence maintain that the violence is justified. The only reason this article is being attacked as POV is the fact that such acts of "political violence" will invariably reflect badly on their perpetrators... hmmm, perhaps we should delete any article that reflects badly on anyone - for instance, Watergate scandal reflects badly on Richard Nixon, etc. etc. Also, it's pretty clear that there is some degree of conflict of interest in this nomination, but that's beside the point.--DLand^TALK 17:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and rename as Palestinian terrorism. Kuratowski's Ghost 17:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If it's POV, make it NPOV. If there's a better title, move it. If it needs further sourcing to make claims for "legitimate" violence, source it. It's clearly an important topic that should be covered. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete. -- Scientizzle 17:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On further consideration, I believe the current title is a fine NPOV choice. Convince me there's a better one. -- Scientizzle 17:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Perfectly legitimate topic that used to be called Palestinian terrorism, and which was moved to Pal political violence is order to be as NPOV as possible. It would be obtuse to pretend there's no such thing. It's also of concern here that the nominator says she is a "an official of the Palestinian authority and a member of Hamas' political public relations division; I am an official representative of the authority in the online field." [1] if that's true, there's a clear conflict of interest. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the equivalent article for the Irish Republican Army called? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, badly written, badly sourced, entirely fixable; very unconvincing nomination with WP:COI potential. —xyzzy_n 17:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Title is factual, not POV; POV comes in the reader's point of view that political violence is not a wonderful thing. Gzuckier 17:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOWBALL Keep - Nominator claims to be an official of the Palestinian Authority. Of course they would want this article deleted. Nomination is itself POV, and dishonest. Nowhere, especially from "the start" are the Palestinian people called "terrorists". It is very difficult to assume good faith with a nomination like this. - Crockspot 17:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Bad faith nomination by editor with self-confessed conflict of interests. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep POV issues are a concern... but that's not a deletion issue, it's something to fix. - Denny 17:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Even if the article's content was pov, it doesn't change the fact that the subject is notable.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Might need a little cleanup, but that's not a reason to delete it.--MONGO 19:48, 21 March 2007 (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.