Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tali Hatuel (2nd nomination)
because the nominator should have sought greater  such as at the obvious places like at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel and Wikipedia:Notice board for Israel-related topics or perhaps even at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Middle Eastern military history task force to get some professional editorial input before nominating articles such as these that are literally from the hottest of war-zones the Israeli-Palestinian conflict where every edit has the potential to stir up edit wars and bitterness, as a move that is bound to be disputed and cause controversy. This nomination was hasty and flies in the face of the recommendations at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list multiple related pages for deletion and Template:AfD footer (multiple)|AfD footer (multiple) such as: (a) "... for group nominations it is often a good idea to only list one article at afd and see how it goes, before listing an entire group." (b) "If any of the articles you are considering for bundling could stand on its own merits, then it should be nominated separately." (c) "... to put it more succinctly, if you are unsure of whether to bundle an article or not, don't." Finally, the nominator is grievously overlooking something very important, that in this age of close media scrutiny of events, victims take on far more symbolic value, and it is not the same as making "#MEMORIALS" because just as Rachel Corrie, Brian Avery, Tom Hurndall, James Miller (filmmaker) get their own articles (and no-one calls them "MEMORIAL articles") because they are symbolic of far greater political, military, ethnic and religious issues, so too do the others. Perhaps there may be better ways to gather up and regroup such articles, but even when soccer teams get articles, all their players and even their managers get their own articles as well, so this is no different, and there are far fewer victims of this war than there are soccer players in the world! But to repeat, the nominator should have sought out greater consensus ''before'' wading into this area of hot dispute which he must have known would not be well-received with the potential for violating  and #BATTLEGROUND. Let's take these articles off the table and talk a lot first to build consensus. Thank you
— User:IZAK, 09:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:CONSENSUS||WP:NOT||WP:POINT||WP:NOT (Wikipedia:Consensus)