Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli military order 1650

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. Shimeru (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli military order 1650

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

This topic is not notable and the article is being used as an attack against Israel. Nearly all of the information in the article is in violation of WP:NPOV, down to the very name given for the IDF (changed to IOF). Furthermore, nearly all of the information in the article is WP:OR with no WP:RS. Even if the topic were notable, by the time we removed all the violating text there would be no article left. Breein1007 (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Breein1007 (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nominator is incorrect when he/she says the page has no reliable sources. Page has 4 at the present moment. Yes, the page needs more sources, but not grounds for deletion. I also see no POV statements in the artcile as well. Nominator needs to re-read the policies he/she is quoting as I am afraid they are misinformed about them. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this user has a vendetta against me based on past events. This user is incorrect in saying that I said there are no RS, which I clearly didn't say. Furthermore, anyone who says there are no POV issues with this article clearly is not well enough informed about the article to make such a judgment. Calling the IDF the "IOF" is the tip of the iceberg in this article. The user needs to reread comments more carefully because there is obviously an issue with comprehension. Breein1007 (talk) 00:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I am not getting in a pissing match with you. You want that, go bother someone else. I can comment on any AfD I wish whether you are apart of it or not. Move on. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whatever the WP:POV issues, there are a lot of solid references; I've added three.

On the contrary. There are hardly any sources at all. You added some, but they all deal with reactions. All of the information that the original editor created the article with (ie: everything except the reactions section) is unsourced. Let's not forget the big problem that this topic lacks notability. Breein1007 (talk) 04:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huuh? If Amnesty International and Haaretz think it worth their attention, that looks like notability to me. Lack of sources for the first part is not a valid reason for deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously notable, though not always referred to explicitly as "1650" (just a few examples of coverage: Euro-Med Human Rights Network, BBC, Xinhua, Amnesty International, Haaretz, Gulf Times). Tiamut^talk 08:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to Tiamut: If you would please (if you haven't already) please add those sources to the sections needed for them on the page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 14:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hey there NeutralHomer. I'll add the articles not already cited in the article to the talk page for now, as I don't really have the time to get into adding details from them myself right now. Tiamut^talk 16:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although it is more of an effort to avoid POV when talking about an order that has a legal effect on a particular class of person (for instance Executive Order 9066), POV problems can be fixed. The order itself is certainly notable. Mandsford (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. Sources indicate notability, and plenty have been added during this debate. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a reasonable topic for an article and POV/RS problems are fixable. Zero^talk 08:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reasons in the deletion request were given as lack of notability and POV. Since the order has been covered quite extensively in RS, the notability reason clearly fails, IMO. As to POV, it's routine editing to make sure all significant viewpoints are represented, no deletions are needed. Breein doesn't identify which viewpoints wouldn't be represented in the article, the correct place to discuss POV issues is the talkpage. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ONEVENT, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NN and speculation. Is WP a dumping ground for every military order? This seems like one of those things that people hear about and comment, but don't really know what is inside. In this case, an NGO did a press release, some news organizations picked up the story, some VIPs commented about it and then it went away. Only valid article if future events show it to be relevant. --Shuki (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is true that most orders given anywhere are, indeed, one event which quickly expires upon the report that the assigned task has been carried out, what is referred to in this case is what would be described as a "standing order" similar to a change in regulations. Mandsford (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some WP:RS that discuss the order: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. See e.g. the last two, Le Figaro has returned to the same topic which makes it already less of a one-off. --Dailycare (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's clearly notable and it's been covered extensively by RS. I added a bit of information about it to the HaMoked article last month when I saw the article in Xinhua so I'm pleased to see someone making an effort to create a detailed article. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY - it is not inherently a POV fork, and it is, at least now, well-sourced with continuing coverage. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 10 May 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.