Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Palestine

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Jordan–Palestine relations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Palestine[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

As discussed on the talk page, fails WP:SIGCOV, with no reliable sources addressing the topic directly and in detail. The topic as written is mostly WP:OR, as many of the key sentences are not supported by the citations given. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jordan–Palestine relations which has ample space to cover this topic. By this I mean that the topic can be covered in Jordan–Palestine relations, not that many of these cherry-picked bits of fluff (letter to a student conference, oh my) deserve to be in the encyclopedia at all. Zero^talk 11:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion. As mentioned by nominator, there are no significant coverage, not even one RS addressing the topic directly. The body is incoherent and filled with contradictory and unrelated pieces of information. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Palestinian irredentism or the Jordan Option as agreed in the talkpage. Palestinian claims are unambiguously established in discussions among PLO leaders and speeches. Just as we have the Greater Israel article, which is based on a book that is not known to be 100% reliable, the Palestinian demands in Jordan are real. Golda Meir implicitly stated that Jordan was part of Palestine. We also have the outcomes of the Palestinian National Council in March 1971, after the bloody events, which rejected the distinction between the West and East Banks ("Palestine" and Transjordan). If we rely on the argument of Makeandtoss, this would attribute all the concepts of irredentism around the world, such as Greater China, Greater Serbia, and Greater Azerbaijan. I understand there is a problem with the title. Sakiv (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Jordan–Palestine relations - there is no standalone subject here. The page name itself is sourced to a single, one-off quote that carries little weight alone, let alone justification for a standalone page; the rest is OR and has no place anywhere. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What should be covered in that "diplomatic relations" article? Is this (https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/denilp10&div=21&id=&page=&t=1557137677), (Mitha, Farooq. "The Jordanian-Israeli relationship: the reality of" cooperation"." Middle East Policy 17.2 (2010): 105-127), (https://www.palestine-studies.org/ar/node/35431) OR? What we are seeing now is a charade. I have offered a middle ground but there seems to be something to hide. Sakiv (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Something to hide", eh? Do you think that impugning the motives of other editors helps your case? Zero^talk 03:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you leave me alone? The intentions are not 100 percent correct. There are dozens of articles about unionist tendencies, and the facts prove that the Palestinian demands extend to Jordan: what proves this are the statements of the leaders of the Liberation Organization, research centers, books, and political parties. Can you respond with a convincing argument instead of making accusations? Sakiv (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you respond with just one secondary RS that says these demands and claims are related to Greater Palestine instead of you acting like a researcher and drawing conclusion from primary sources like statements? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mish mash of Israeli propaganda probably intended as a response to Greater Israel. No serious basis for an article.Selfstudier (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jordan–Palestine relations because there is more space to cover the topic. — Sadko (words are wind) 22:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Selfstudier and if not, then Merge per Zero. Nishidani (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand the merge/redirect to Jordan–Palestine relations. Why not to Palestinian nationalism as the most prominent usage, or possibly a disambig with some selective merging to those and Binational Solution and Greater Israel [1]? Ok, after looking more at the content and talk page i think i see why that suggestion, but really i think a disambig is probably more useful for the reader at this title. fiveby(zero) 01:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.