Jump to content
Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Palestine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel
Points of interest related to Palestine on Wikipedia:
Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Stubs – Assessment – To-do
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Palestine. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Palestine|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Palestine. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd }} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded }} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Middle East.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Palestine

[edit ]
Potential American ownership of the Gaza Strip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL )

Violation of WP:G4; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States proposed takeover of the Gaza Strip. I'm not going to PROD it because it might be controversial but I don't see why this article shouldn't be speedy deleted. DecafPotato (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Keep Page describes a widely reported on event that may affect millions and millions of people and push the Middle East into a new epoch of conflict. The fact that such proposals are being seriously suggested by the president of America makes it noteworthy. If we are not miring ourselves in controversy over the existence of the Proposed United States acquisition of Greenland there is no reason to delete this. Genabab (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Speedy keep. When the original article is (very likely) restored it will make sense for this to be merged into it. We don't want to lose this before that can happen. No objection to it being draftified in the meantime, so long as it isn't lost. I do not believe that there is any conspiracy to delete articles on this 100% unarguably valid subject but the number of AfDs is sure giving conspiracists a lot of ammunition that we didn't need to give them. Please can we just stop punching ourselves in the face? BTW, there is absolutely no reason to believe that this article was created with intent to circumvent the AfD. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Delete with same arguments as I (and others) expressed in the other AfD and at the deletion review. To summarize, there is no secondary coverage of this proposal at this point. All the coverage amounts to "Trump said this, other people said this in response", or small bits of "context" (such as what some random "expert" said about international law). Per WP:NEWSPRIMARY, this is not secondary coverage, nor should it be considered secondary coverage at this time. The article can be recreated in the future if the proposal progresses to a point where there is actual secondary coverage of it, rather than just breaking "Trump said this" news reporting. -bɜ:rkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    No secondary coverage? It's getting wall-to-wall secondary coverage from the media. It is destabilising the whole middle-east. There is extensive analysis of the humanitarian, legal and political ramifications, none of them good. Sure, the takes are still somewhat hot but lots of reliable sources are covering this as far more than a one-off news event. Believe me, I'd love nothing more than for this to all melt away like a bad dream but that's not going to happen. The article is a little scrappy but maybe it would have a better chance to mature if we didn't keep on trying to delete it. DanielRigal (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    Please review the link I posted. Merely reporting on the news is not secondary coverage. Merely repeating/parroting what "experts" say is not secondary coverage. Secondary coverage requires actual analysis and commentary by the source, not just collecting what Trump said and how people responded to it. The wall to wall coverage amounts to "Trump said this, this is what others said in response". That is not secondary coverage. -bɜ:rkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    And it is very clear that if that is the case, it is because of how the page is formatted. That is not grounds to delete it but to revise it. Genabab (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    This isn't about the page. It's about whether the references count as "secondary" for the purposes of GNG. They do not, because those references are all "Trump said this, others said/did this" - primary reporting. -bɜ:rkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Speedy keep - it might just be an assorted Trump utterance but if we have an article about Covfefe, surely a potential plan to take over the Gaza Strip that has received significant secondary coverage and comment from locals and governments / organisations all over the world is worth keeping around. Meets and exceeds WP:GNG, besides. Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Delete until when/if official government plans begin. Did we not learn from the Vietnam War that the only thing likely to happen, is involving a generation of Americans (and other nations) in an armed conflict over something that was never our business in the first place. — Maile (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Reluctant keep but rename Proposed American ownership of the Gaza Strip. It's never going to happen, unless Mexico has promised to pay for the enormous cost of relocating MILLIONS of Gazan residents, Atlantis is going to provide the land, and magically construct hundreds of thousands of houses, schools, hospitals, workplaces, etc. and Gazans actually want to move, but it has gotten media coverage from people who should know better. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    "Ownership" is a word to avoid. The legality of any alleged "ownership" is going to be very widely disputed and our title should not implicitly endorse it. The previously deleted title was better although I'm not saying that it was the best possible. I suspect that it will require further discussion. DanielRigal (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Keep: The event has received sustained coverage so far, and very likely it will continue to be referred in the future in various documentaries, yearbooks etc. The title may need to be changed, though. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • delete In the first place, the article title is blatantly non-neutral, and it's also now a fork given that the previously deleted article points somewhere else where the matter is treated succinctly. This does not manage that; Wikipedia needs actual editors who can cut these things down to size, not just writers. And yes, there is the WP:RECENTISM issue of whether this is going to be something that festers for a long time, for the US actually does something concrete about, or it's simply another off-the-wall Trump thing which can take its place in the ever-lengthening list of off-the-wall Trump things which came to nought.

Deletion Review

[edit ]

Proposed deletions

[edit ]

Templates

[edit ]

Categories

[edit ]

Redirects

[edit ]

These are obviously not agreeing with each other, and I believe they are both in need of retargeting to Casualties of Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip. That is the most logical article for where all the killings over the long history of the Gaza conflict are encapsulated. List of massacres in the Palestinian territories is not specific to Gaza and Gaza war is just a holdout from when all of this referred only to Gaza War (2008–2009), which is obviously only one of the possible meanings. Having it pointing to the current war, while plausible, might be falling afoul of WP:RECENTISM. Havradim leaf a message 08:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /