Deletion of List of Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2012

Comment: Per - "Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2012" is not a group or set discussed as such by independent reliable sources. Plus this is largely original research, the sources mostly do not say "violation of the ceasefire
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTESAL)

Comment: per  and more importantly many of the websites used as references do no appear to be Wikipedia:RS|reliable sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Other editors have pointed out that most of the sources provided in the article do not refer to these incidents as "violations" and that their inclusion constitutes #OR. As a side note, I don't consider this article comparable to the lists of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, as they are all supported by reliable sources that describe the incidents as what they are - rocket attacks
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Unsalvageable. I've reviewed the sources and content. Some references could be reused in other pages, but current list format is a recipe to create another virtual plaza for POV pushers' entertainment. Why do we want to provide an opportunity for them to say in neutral Wikipedia voice what is actually reported as an opinion by reliable sources? To the point of policy, the subject of this list fails notability, see  per
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTESAL)

Comment: per ; the only RS seem to be the ''New York Times'' and NBC News, which is insufficient for an article of this type
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTSOAPBOX)

Comment: along with the other mentioned timeline article (which maybe should be merged in), it's a good balance to List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2012 and List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2013 to avoid  BIAS. I agree with nom that this doesn't really meet article standards, though; all of these articles need to be cleaned up
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:SYSTEMIC)

Comment: You are all refusing to answer the noted contradiction. This is sourced exactly as the Israeli-victim pages, and therefore the objections are spurious, examples simply of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: per , , etc
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:LAUNDRYLIST)