Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 rocket attack on Eilat/Aqaba (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010 rocket attack on Eilat/Aqaba

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
August 2010 rocket attack on Eilat/Aqaba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 13. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The article is about a notable series of rocket attacks over a period of years that continues to be in today's news because of intelligence information form American, Israeli and Egyptian intelligence agencies that more such attacks are planned. I have changed the article title to Rocket attacks on Eilat/Aqaba to reflect the contents of the article.AMuseo (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which news event are you referring to in the singular? The Al Qeda attack on American naval ships? The rocket that killed a Jordanian soldier in a Jordanian military hospital in 2005? The rocket that killed a Jordanian cab driver at the Intercontinental Hotel in 2010? The recent American travel advisory? Please be specific, because there are a great many news events covered in this article.AMuseo (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saw now that the article has been moved to a new name, so the text is maybe different then the previous. But it now contains a lot of different things that have really no connection to each other, why would rockets fired from Jordan hitting Israel in 2005 have any relation to rockets fired from Egypt hitting Jordan and Israel in 2010? Attacks on Israel in this article can be merged to Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, attacks on Jordan can be merged to List of terrorist incidents, 2005, etc. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is inexcusable that you did not read the article before you voted to delete, and even worse that you did not read the article history and check your facts before making false assumptions in a second comment even when your errors were pointed out to you. The article has been returned to its original title. I put the 2005 attack into the article on the day I wrote it. Do you often just come to AFD pages and type delete without reading the article?AMuseo (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I said that I didn't know if the text was changed ("maybe different") I cant remember everything. Why would I read it again when I thought it was the same article? "August 2010 rocket attack on Eilat/Aqaba (2nd nomination)", I have read it now and I still don't support a separate article here, so: delete/merge is what I believe. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you had ever read it, you could not have thought that it was an "article about a news event" When it is and always has been an article about a series of news events. You obviously read only the title and jumped to incorrect conclusion. You are responsible for the factual accuracy of assertions that you make in Wikipedia discussions.AMuseo (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went back now and I saw that I was right: [1], there were a couple of sentences in the "Similar incidents" section, but the overwhelmingly part of the article was about one thing only. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You actually read the article. Good for you. But although you denigrate them, the "sentences" were there. Which is to say, you were wrong. We all make mistakes.AMuseo (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wasn't wrong. "Similar incidents" section was not about the articles main topic. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AMuseo, your personal, indirect and condemning tone is not needed and not good for the debate. Please change that. Apart from that, there is nothing wrong with SupremeDeliciousness's writing here. The article was deleted for a week until recently, and afterwards you changed the title there (here it's the same), one hour before SD wrote here. -DePiep (talk) 06:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is everything wrong with entering a deletion debate without reading the article.AMuseo (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Events are 'probably notable if they have enduring historical significance" - this is just another set of rocket attacks, so fails here.
  • "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)." - Impact? No, just reporting from the NY Times and BBC, as two possible sources that would demonstrate this, I have no reason to think others would be different. No re-analyzing at all.
  • "No lasting impact" per the WP:EFFECT part. Please can no-one suggest that a disagreement over US travel advice counts as lasting impact, with, to quote the article heading "Political ramifications".
  • Next is WP:GEOSCOPE: "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group." Comes down to impact again. Where are the sources that suggest this had a big impact - has tourism in Eilat and Aqaba fallen? Are people leaving the towns?
  • Still with me? Depth of coverage now, "An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable." Missing in-depth again. It also says "Reporting with little thematic connection or contextual information, is often considered to be routine reporting" - I would classify all the reports here as routine in terms of rocket attacks.
  • Nearly there. WP:PERSISTENCE says coverage going on after the event could indicate notability, but this GNews graph suggests this isn't the case. This article is interesting - if there was a source that said the talks actually were derailed by this attack I would be interested to see it.
  • Last one! WP:DIVERSE, the easy part here is that the sources are diverse but fail WP:NOTNEWS.
  • I am always keen to see new sources which would change my mind and make this article compliant with WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT, but at the moment they're not here. From searching, I think this is because they don't exist. It would help to discuss any issues you have with my individual points below here, rather than inserting them into the middle of my argument. Ta. Bigger digger (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since it is clear from the sources that the events directly involved three countries and caused a stir among the politicians of two or three others, since the sources are by your own admission diverse, and since your own news graph shows that none of these events have ever stopped receiving coverage, I fail to see what set or nature of sources could possibly change your mind. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A source that repeats what AMuseo writes below would do nicely. At the moment there are lots of sources that say "there were some rocket attacks on two towns" but none (so far, to my knowledge) that say "there were some rocket attacks on two towns because... which means that..." Show me those and I'll happily reconsider my vote, but note that the tourist notification brouhaha doesn't sway me. Bigger digger (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources added. Do reconsider.AMuseo (talk) 02:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request to editors: This is a relist, so there are already similar recent discussions available. I would like to ask anyone with a new or policy-improving level view to mark that as such. That would help me greatly. Re other posts: to help those of you who wish to copypaste the same arguments, here are the five previous discussions (mind you, they didn't produce a thing, so beware before you copy): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Further, this time I do not take WP:DRAMA and such lightly. If you can't discuss on topic or without typographic effects, you should not write here. -DePiep (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to assume that was aimed at me, I was the only one using typographic effects - I was attempting to copy the formatting as it occurs in the guideline. I think my !vote is more useful than the single line efforts, and apologies if you feel it's just an echo! Bigger digger (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What has previously gone unsaid in these debates is that these attacks and the repeated "alerts" of possible terrorist rocket attacks are linked by more than the fact that they have occurred. Eilat and Aqaba share a special geographical situation. They are cities located near enough to vacant, desert areas in Egypt, Israel , Jordan and Saudi Arabia the remote emptiness of which enables terrorists who can access these regins to set up rocket launchers, launch, and depart before security forces can locate them. The distances accommodate fairly primitive short-term rockets. So primitive, that it is hard to know afterward whether the terrorists were aiming at Eilat, at Aqaba or at both. Eilat is Israeli, which makes it a target. Aqaba has been a port of call for American warships, which makes it a target. And Jordan has suffered terrorist attacks in Amman, so it is clearly a target too. The targeting of these two cities is an interesting phenomenon in its own right. And God speed the efforts of the Egyptian security forces to locate the militants who are thought to be preparing another such rocket attack even as we quibble over the previous ones.AMuseo (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rightly it went unsaid. It is original research. (are you serious? ... all cities near a desert are targets ... Israel, Egypt, Jordan, US visited harbour is a target ...". Covers about everything, and everything. And you have tied a knot in the timeline). Last: as we squibble - who is? Please mind your language. -DePiep (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. It was mere laziness on my part. The sources were certainly there. As you could easily have discovered if, after reading my comment, you had looked for them. Instead of dismissing my remarks as unfounded. The sources are now in the article. The terrain od Sinai and lack of control of the population by the Egyptian government have made it a base of convenience for terrorism. I could add more, but this is only one of many articles that need work. And articles are not deleted for being inadequate, but for not being notable. this topic is notable.AMuseo (talk) 02:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In these debates, you wrote. Then, you are lazy you say, and I am supposed to solve that? Next, the part re the Egyptian security services. This you did introduce introduce in these debates and I have read. But that story is based on a story in an Egyptian state newspaper, told to them by that same Egyptian ss. So it's not just OR, it's also not RS. The moment of these publications was at the end of the second debate, so it's very understandable they were not discussed at the time. -DePiep (talk) 06:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC) ch fmt, adding last sentense-DePiep (talk) 06:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources on this date back to the attacks on Taba and Sharm elSheik. You can find them, they're out there. I found and used recent sources. But talking to you is useless. No matter what sources and facts and arguments in conformity with WP:Event and WP;Notability are presented here it is apparent that your mind is made up and does not change in response to reasoned argument or even the presentation of the very new sources you have demanded.AMuseo (talk) 11:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another personalized attack, AMuseo. Stop that. I responded here on what you wrote here. If you can't stand being quoted - not my problem. -DePiep (talk) 11:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kavas, please do us all the courtesy to read articles before voting to delete, as pointed out below, your assumption that these attacks ere "apaestinian" shows that you commented without reading the article. I do understant that it takes a lot of your time to follow me here form another debate wherey ou and I disagreed. But having followed me, you owe it to yourself to read the article before embarrassing yourself with arguments that make it obvious that you voted without having done so.AMuseo (talk) 02:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These are different in the sense that they come not from Palestinian controlled territory but from the territory of nations with which Israel has peace treaties. They're not even necessarily Palestinian attacks, at least one is claimed by Al-Qaida, while Bedouins in the Sinai have apparently taken part in others. Poliocretes (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess, there is not a list of Al-Qaida attacks on Israel. Right? Kavas (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jalapenos do exist wrote: I fail to see what set or nature of sources could possibly change your mind.
You respondedA source that repeats what AMuseo writes below would do nicely.
So I wrote a full section detailing the manner in which the ungoverned deserts of Sinai are a launching base for terrorists. And it turns out that that is not enough for you. You find something else to quibble about. I no longer believe that yours in a mind capable of changing in response to rational argument and fact.AMuseo (talk) 11:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AMuseo, again you use "quibble", and a personalisation: "... is not enough for you". That is degrading the discussion, and not necessary. Again I ask you to stop that. -DePiep (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can see no cogent reason for deletion. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Misapplication of NOTNEWS policy. Clearly not the "news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities," which NOTNEWS intends to exclude.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The matter seems quite notable and NOTNEWS is not applicable as this is not routine news of a mundane kind. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just the same as AfD #1 which unfortunately was brought to DRV for "I disagree with the result" reasons". This is WP:NOTNEWS|news]], this is not a significant or historic event. Maybe it's a sad commentary on the state of world affairs that such attacks are considered almost routine news, but that's the way it is. The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle to prop up importance of one's personal causes and interests. Elevating this event to an article does exactly that. If appropriate, reuse/recycle some of the sources in a larger article on Israeli-Palestine conflicts. Tarc (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Brewcrewer. Jclemens (talk) 05:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Political and military attacks in Palestine are notable - clearly, such a topic will receive many hits by those researching the Israeli-Palestine conflict. The article is well-referenced. BlueRobe (talk) 09:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I accept all thing Bluerobe said and article has very good References like bbc and jpost.--YOSHImitsu 09:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a messy article that lacks a focus. I see no need to have separate articles on every town or couple of towns that have been rocketed, it would make much more sense to take any legitimate info here and centralize into a "Rocket attacks on Israel" article or something similar. These piecemeal articles just create a mess, making it more difficult for people to find useful information. Gatoclass (talk) 10:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With the number of news sources cited from different countries, ongoing coverage over several months, and especially the piece in time this is a clear keep per WP:EVENTS.Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep was publicized internationally as an event by itself, and then referred to widely in related 'secondary' articles/ --Shuki (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just to deal with 2 of the objections: "this is just another set of rocket attacks" -- and all of them are notable. Like saying, this is just another invasion, or war, ; " International Impact? No, just reporting from the NY Times and BBC," That pretty much is basic evidence for international impact. Some of the opposes seem to be based on the person wish that this was not significant, or the personal feeling it ought not to be. DGG ( talk ) 22:24, 27 September 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/August_2010_rocket_attack_on_Eilat/Aqaba_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1072123825"