Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Palestine

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel

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:

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.
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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Palestine/archive

Purge page cache

watch

See also: Wikipedia:Notice board for Palestine-related topics

Palestine

2023–2024 Gaza Strip preterm births

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

This seems to be an overly specific and redundant article given the Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) which already exists and provides key context needed to cover this topic. Very limited coverage on this singular issue as a standalone topic exists with such coverage normally being mentioned in passing as part of the greater crisis. Originalcola (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted as WP:G5; only significant contributions are from two sockpuppets. BilledMammal (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Medicine, Israel, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG with flying colours. If anything, it should be expanded using the many RS that cover the subject. M.Bitton (talk) 13:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’d strongly argue that this is not the case. Outside of regular news reporting on the crisis where passing mention is given to preterm births there isn’t any coverage of this topic as a standalone, much less significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Originalcola (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily passes GNG, beyond that Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) sits at 89 kB and 14,335 words of readable prose, making it WP:TOOBIG to absorb all this material and this an appropriate WP:SPINOFF for size reasons. And no, this does not qualify for G5, as I myself have a non-trivial edit there. Last I checked I am not a sock of a banned user. nableezy - 18:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did I miss something? As far as I can tell, the only edit you have is reverting a sock? BilledMammal (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is still a substantive edit. nableezy - 13:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misinterpreting the intent of the rule there, although there are other non-sock editors who have made substantive non-revert posts. Originalcola (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A merger would probably only add 100-200 words to whatever article it’s merged with. It might make more sense to merge it with Effect of the Israel–Hamas war on children in the Gaza Strip if size is still too great a concern. Originalcola (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you figure that unless you gut the entirety of what is merged? nableezy - 13:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a guesstimate but when merging you'd probably not transfer the lead and background. Both articles have a section or a decent amount of information on Gaza preterm births already, so you wouldn't have to copy all 797 words on this page over. Originalcola (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don’t really care if the article is deleted or merged, but I removed several sources that were either live updates from news liveblogs or Tweets. So I think the article needs cleaning up. Also I think it is written in news reporting style: on November 12, X happened, then on November 13, Y happened, etc…. I don’t think Wikipedia is supposed to have so many articles written like this unless I am misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS. More experienced editors may be able to help improve the article and sourcing. Wafflefrites (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:G5. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a raft of relevant coverage from aid agencies, rights groups and all the major newsorgs (just search premature babies Gaza to see) so GNG is easily met, passing mention is simply untrue. The article does need improvement but that's not a reason to delete, I already restored one item adding a secondary to deal with a "newsblog" complaint (these sources are already used in other related articles, btw). G5 was already tried twice and successfully challenged leading to this AfD so "per WP:G5" is not a reason to delete either. Selfstudier (talk) 12:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to another experienced editor on here, “No pages should really be using live blogs long-term as sources. This is a WP:NOTNEWS issue as much as anything else. Because yes, live blogs are just a stream of off-the-cuff news and unredacted commentary.” Per WP:NEWSBLOG, they should be used with caution. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's "unredacted commentary"? Anyway, I added a secondary to the restored material so not a problem. Just some work to locate secondaries, that's all. Selfstudier (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to be honest. Everything that CarmenEsparzaAmoux touched leaves a sour taste in my mouth. When we're crying out for neutrality and independence in this contentious area, the consequences of their actions are so destructive and this isn't about sides. It would be similarly damaging if they were making pro Israel edits. Sticking to the facts about this article - I have to agree with the citing of WP:G5 MaskedSinger (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as noted above, G5 alone is a good reason to delete, as is WP:SOAP. I’m entirely sympathetic to the issues - I created Palestinian law - but we are also primarily a news organization. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've already restored most of the deleted content, it wasn't hard to find proper sources to back it up, and I've also added more information. The topic is notable. I don't fully agree with WP:G5 - being a sockpuppet doesn't necessarily means all your edits are trash. We should keep what is salvageable, and in this case, I don't see any significant issues with the existing article, which can certainly be expanded. - Ïvana (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos to you for doing that, but there's still a complete lack of secondary sources on this page, with non-routine news coverage on the topic of this article not existing. I don't think this is the right venue to talk about the merits of the G5 rule. Originalcola (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Routine news coverage is about announcements and scheduled events. All of the sources in the article are secondary and all of them are non-routine. nableezy - 01:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm going to ignore the completely reasonable "I don't think this is the right venue to talk about the merits of the G5 rule". My view is that the G5 condition "...and that have no substantial edits by others not subject to the ban or sanctions" is a mistake. It's a self-defeating strategy that rewards and incentivizes ban evasion by over-estimating the importance of preserving content and under-estimating the importance of having effective ban evasion countermeasures. I think articles created by people employing deception in contentious topic areas where socks are common should be deleted even if there are hundreds of 'substantial edits' by other editors, even if there are tens of thousands of daily pageviews, and even if the article has attained featured article status. If the subject matters, other people, not employing deception, will have the same idea at some point and create it again. There's no deadline for content or need to take a short-term view. Anyway, having got that futile rant out of the way, I don't know what "substantial edits by others" actually means in terms of quantities, but here are the quantities in the form of token counts for the content of the current version of the page.
CarmenEsparzaAmoux 67.3%, Ïvana 15.3%, MWQs 8.9%, Wafflefrites 4.2%, with Nableezy, Pincrete, טבעת-זרם each having less than 1%.

Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved admin note, G5 had been brought up and the tag has also been declined twice. Rather than continuing to litigate that procedural element, please focus on whether the subject is notable and/or if it should be merged. The decision will be made on community consensus and not speedy grounds. Star Mississippi 21:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review

Proposed deletions

Templates

Redirects