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. The consensus is that this topic satisfies the criteria for a stand-alone article. Possible merger to Operation Protective Edge can be discussed in the appropriate forum, perhaps when the events have receded a bit further from current news reportage. Deor (talk) 09:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shuja'iyya Incident (2014) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:EFFECT, and WP:PERSISTENCE. I don't see how this one battle in Gaza is any more notable than the myriad of others in the region. Many sources exist covering it, but nothing pointed out here show any sort of lasting impact. If an event is to warrant an article, generally it has to have wide coverage and lasting impact, and frankly I don't see that here. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 05:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - This information, while not to be discarded, is a part of the larger story of Operation Protective Edge. It should be included in that page. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep...for now, at least. This incident (battle?) is all over the media, called a "massacre", etc - and might be important for the opinion in the west, and perhaps even the outcome of the war. It's probably more notable than the myriad of others, since it appears there was actually some real fighting, and it resulted in many Israeli casualties. Better to collect details here for now, and merge/delete later. Ketil (talk) 05:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One side calls it an operation, the other a massacre, battle/incident/etc any could apply here. But per that argument, I wanted to point out WP:NOTNEWS ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 05:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This was also neither a Massacre nor an Incident. This was a Battle, with soldiers fighting soldiers, and descriptions of it as being otherwise are coming from highly biased sources that, while are worth mentioning, shouldn't be cited in terms of naming. They could be in the body text of the article (and I think that's a good idea, myself), but this is just a mistake. It's rather like renaming the article Homosexuality as Sodomy or Buggery. At any rate, it's pretty sad and regrettable that you have both Palestinian and Israeli fighters showing such disregard for civilians-- the mere 'thick cheese' to them (as their slang that I guess Hamas uses goes). God bless the victims. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now - This article fails WP:NOTNEWS to the same degree that Operation Protective Edge fails NOTNEWS because it is essentially a WP:CONTENTFORK of a current event. It's not possible to make an evidence based statement about WP:EFFECT, and WP:PERSISTENCE at this stage. The event is clearly notable from a standalone perspective and within the context of Operation Protective Edge based on RS coverage. Building the content in a dedicated article is a practical solution. As Ketil says "Better to collect details here for now, and merge/delete later". Regarding the 'massacre' label, it's not important but it is something that editors must deal with. Many years of editing in the ARBPIA topic area tells me that this will only be a contentious issue for supporters of the belligerents and there's really nothing unusual about a significant proportion of RS and commentators applying a massacre label to an event in this conflict (see List_of_massacres_in_Israel for example). Sean.hoyland - talk 06:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per comments by Sean.hoyland. --NSH001 (talk) 07:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable event based on significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Maybe it will require merging in the future but for now it should stay as a standalone topic, albeit with a heavy injection of neutrality.  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions.  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:DIVERSE and WP:GNG. Many sources discuss it.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per above. RWCasinoKid (talk) 09:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sean Hoyland. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable enough. Sinai Horus ^〉〉〉 17:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as a WP:CFORK of the parent article. It recieved a news spike, as does every day's battle. It is not of particular not as compared to any other battle during the ongoing conflict. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Operation Protective Edge or delete. This article fails notability WP:NOTNEWS WP:NOTMEMORIAL etc. and seems to fit into many categories of what Wikipedia is not. Propaganda. Memorial. News. Yet another battle in the middleeast. There were reports of more people being killed in Libya, Syria, and Nigeria on the same day that this took place and I don't see articles about any of those incidents. It's tragic. But not notable on its own. And the WP:RS on the page or Google show a battle took place not a massacre. --Jersey92 (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Multiple 'Keep's above note that there is coverage in reliable sources. But those sources are news reports. Will any of those sources be covering this in a year or two? This is WP:NOTNEWS...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jersey92 (talk • contribs)
• Comment Yes, books and notable magazine, do cover mention such incidents. 39.42.33.6 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge - This article can esaily fit into the main operation article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Sufficiently well sourced, notable, relevant, and won't be forgotten inside the Arab world at least. If 14 civilians murdered on Bloody Sunday is worth an article over 40-years later, then this one definitely is. D Dayus (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Important, is being mentioned as massacre by many media outlets. Important event in the history of Palestinian conflict. 39.42.33.6 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC) — 39.42.33.6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete. No secondary sources, and there can't be: it's all of four days old, so the context is ongoing. Read Secondary source#Humanities and history if you think that it's possible for secondary sources to exist at this point. "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable". You can't verify your speculation that secondary sources will be produced, that anyone will be paying attention to this after more than a few days have passed. Come back and write an article if secondary sources are produced that cover this incident. Nyttend (talk) 11:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This argument also applies to the main article Operation Protective Edge (and Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 and countless others). It doesn't work. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend, that's an extraordinary comment, and I could only find a correspondence to your odd belief that an event which occurred 4 days ago is an 'anticipated event' in A.M.Dale's commentary to Euripides, Alcestis (OUP) 1954 p,57 lines 74-8, where it is used somewhat catachrestically, and as bizarrely as you do in this screwball 'logic'. I'd advise you to save editors of the embarrassment of having to read barrel-scraping specious arguments that fly in the face of all wiki practice on writing current articles. Nishidani (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable, indeed mentioned all over the place. JJ Goldberg in Forward even called it the turning point in media coverage of the war here[1]. Whether that is right or wrong (I am dubious about it), but still important event. Kingsindian (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can all who comment about this appearing all over the news please see: WP:NOTNEWS . Should the article for this particular battle be separate from the one for the main operation -- think about someone reading this in the future, not when it is news... --Jersey92 (talk) 02:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTNEWS: Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. Well, how can we do that on an event that just happened? -- Kendrick7^talk 05:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL says don't make the article until we find out. Doing it in reverse would mean you could not ever delete an article, because it always could become important in the future. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL says no such thing. That's about unknowable future information. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The false premise of the last three comments has already been disposed of. And as Dannydays says, whatever Western media say or pass over saying, the 'incident' will remain notable in the Arab world, recalled with particular intensity in Palestinian society, and, in their histories, which are rarely translated, detailed meticulously. It will also enter into IDF operational histories, which invariably cover all incidents in which Israeli troops die. This is not a prediction, but simply a known fact of regional historical practice. Already the lead has been thickened with details outlining the steps in Israeli military calculations that led to the escalation. This is a global encyclopedia catering to all communities and nations, and what they West might ignore is not a justification for eliding what the large communities outside customarily remember. If anything objections above smack of WP:systemic bias.Nishidani (talk) 13:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The exact opposite is true. On the same day as this incident, more people were killed in several countries around Israel/Gaza than in at Shuja'iyya. Have you looked at the numbers from the recent killings in Syria, Iraq, etc. Why are those battles and massacres, in which far more people were killed, and, in the case of the massacres, clear massacres that nobody disputes, not notable and this one is? --Jersey92 (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. They are not notable because they are not reported, except by cursory allusions en passant. 600,000 people are abducted or kidnapped every year, and by your 'logic', this means every listed article in List of kidnappings should be deleted, as relatively unnotable, to cite one of several dozens immediate answers to your poor analogy. The subtextual or interlinear innuendo in this kind of objection can often strike a reader like myself as suggesting there is something unusual (Israel-obsessed = antisemitic) in focusing on anything Israel does, when it is nothing in regional terms. It is a dismissive device in official government handouts to raise precisely this objection (meaning, go away and look at what is happening in Sudan if you find killing Palestinian children every other week objectionable and wish to maintain your credibility as impartial). In simple analogical terms, it's like saying: 'Hey, why print that I shot someone? Tens of thousands of people are shot everyday all over the world'. All things that are extensively covered by RS, like the 2014 Chibok kidnapping are written up here, in the face of the fact that, say in Kyrgyzstan, one half of the female population is subject to abduction and forced marriage, making it a massive daily event, but hardly ever reported, and therefore not RS unless the phenomenon becomes the subject of international attention and journalistic/academic study.Nishidani (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I never made any personal allegations. The way I heard about Syria and Iraq was by watching the news as they are reported. Still not notable. And this isn't an issue of "all over the world" this is next door to the subject. --Jersey92 (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep although I am in no way an expert or even an enthusiast of military history, I know it is one of the most popular fields in nonfiction, and that the amount of nonfiction output is proportionally large. As this incident had 13 Israeli military fatalities and is a part of a longish military action, I have nodoubt it will receive attention in that field as long as that field exists, and the size of that field to my outsider eyes effectively guarantees this will be regularly studied for years to come. John Carter (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable battles have articles despite being, obviously, parts of larger campaigns (or operations if we prefer). Those are not WP:CFORKs, but rather sensible applications of the Wikipedia:Summary style policy. So it is here. If it seems like there's a paucity of sources via the "find sources" link above, that's only because Arabic names are spelled dozens of ways by English media, as I noted especially in this case prior to notability being raised as an issue. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as extensively covered battle in an extensively covered conflict it easily passes GNG. I'm perplexed at it even being nominated. GraniteSand (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm going to withdraw my nom for this. Since I requested this based on a discussion on the talk page, this article has clearly fleshed out and come to a good fruition and the policy questions I raised with the nom have been answered. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 19:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per others. EkoGraf (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per others. It's obviously notable. -- Hroþberht - picture yourself in a boat on a river... (gespraec) 04:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per others. --علي سمسم (talk) 07:57, 30 July 2014 (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.