Deletion of The Bloody Day in Jaffa

Comment: I withdraw my objection to this article. It clearly meets . One has to simply fix its name and POV problems
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Writing crappy, shitty, context-free "articles" does nothing to honor the memory of Jews who suffered from Palestinian violence. In my view, these articles risk appearing to perhaps do more to dishonor, reduce and cheapen the memory of the Jewish people's suffering by potentially seeming to associate their real pain and anguish with third-rate, distorted, twisted, |NPOV-policy-violating "articles" that could likely come across as lazy, crude pieces of cheap propaganda. Regards
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: A number of  refer to the Bloody Day in Jaffa, including The Nation on its June 3 1936 issue.  Entire Wikipedia articles have been written on less (and this one is additionally backed by references to 2 books and at least 2 scholarly journals).  I see nothing wrong with this article, which, being young, will probably be developed in future, but since when is Wikipedia in the business of deleting young articles before a chance is given to develop them?  Now, some people say "merge," but then, once merged, others may fairly complain that this one event's section on a long series of events is oversize respect to the entirety of the 1936-39 Arab revolt article, and then, well, we'd be back to square one.  Kingsidian's comments and Zero's are nothing but ad hominem's on EMG's; they seem to not like the Wikipedia articles EMG apparently chooses to edit (his "stock in trade", they say).  I say, judge this Bloody Day article by its merits, and not by EMG's other articles. Cheerio
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)