Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian freedom of movement

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. There's a consensus that any WP:COAT or WP:SYNTH issues can be corrected through the normal editing process. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian freedom of movement[edit]

Palestinian freedom of movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'd say this article meets WP:COAT. The major issue is that we already have so many articles for Israel/Palestine and these sorts of issues are heavily covered in Palestine, West Bank, Israel and the apartheid analogy, West Bank security barrier, Human rights in Israel, 2007–2010 blockade of the Gaza Strip, and then explained further in the "aftermath" sections of latest Israel/Palestinian battles. In other words, it seems like a regurgitation. Also, as I mentioned in the talk page, the title is rather confusing. What is Palestinian freedom of movement? Are we referring to the Palestinians born in Lebanon and Jordan who are denied access into the mainland? I've heard "freedom of movement" mentioned in editorials and rights studies but I can't find a comparable article that says anything about "freedom of movement." That would just classify easily under Israel human rights, no? It doesn't seem particularly notable from my POV - and we all know where I stand on this topic. :D Anyways, I really don't care much either way but I think a lot of Israel/Palestine articles could use a lot of delete/merges. Way too many articles. Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notable and useful. Ian Pitchford (talk) 05:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable, WP:COAT is grounds for editing, not deletion. The number of articles probably reflects the number and complexity of issues and the increasing attention it is getting from the media and the public sphere. Unomi (talk) 05:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable, well-researched and sourced and very relevant. More could be added about restrictions on Palestinian freedom of movement, in Israel, the 1967-occupied territories and elsewhere; this is an argument for improving this article, not deleting it. RolandR (talk) 08:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple sources about the specific topic mean it's notable in it's own right. The fact that it's mentioned in, or partly overlaps with, other articles is surely only an indication of the topic's importance. Misarxist (talk) 10:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Important topic. If the article doesn't meet encyclopedic requirements, edit it, don't delete it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a bad start for an essay, but clearly a violation of WP:SYNTH. This is a novel synthesis of disparate bits of information. IronDuke 23:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The article does not violate SYNTH because the expression and concept of "Palestinian freedom of movement" is used in sources. Some of the information may be be "disparate bits" but it does not appear to me to be a "novel synthesis". Others are already doing this in the literature. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is B'tselem an anti-Israel organization? Unomi (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because its sole purpose is to single-out and berate Israel for any wrongdoing and alleged wrongdoing. Btselem, like many other 'pro-Palestinian' organizations, is more interested in only attacking Israel than actually helping Palestinians or showing some credibility by attacking the many other countries that are in wrongdoing or alleged wrongdoing of these people. A real pro-Palestinian organization would build hospitals, fund university scholarships, create work opportunities and export markets. Not Btselem. --Shuki (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stating that defense of human rights is inherently incompatible with being 'pro-Israeli' ought to be a rather anti-Israeli comment, right? --Soman (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
defense of human rights is the defense of all human rights, not just one side. Picking sides is anti-humanist and hypocritical to a 'human rights' organization. --Shuki (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What actually applies is POV fork. - 173.52.124.223 (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This may or may not be a POV fork, but calling it such is meaningless unless you specify which article you think this this is forked from. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is topic that of itself that is often discussed in scholarly literature. Sources such as
    Halper, Jeff (2000). "The 94 Percent Solution: A Matrix of Control". Middle East Report (216). Middle East Research and Information Project: 14–19.
    Katherine Wing, Adrien (2002). "Healing Spirit Injuries: Human Rights in the Palestinian Basic Law". Rutgers Law Review. 54: 1087–1096.
    Hass, Amira (2002). "Israel's Closure Policy: An Ineffective Strategy of Containment and Repression". Journal of Palestine Studies. 31 (3). University of California Press: 5–20.
    show that this is a notable, and encyclopedic, topic. nableezy - 21:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is an important topic and existing problems are fixable. Zerotalk 14:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Take a day-trip in the West Bank, and see for yourselves. The AfD nomination is, imho, done in bad faith with the direct purpose of whitewashing Israeli abuses. This behaviour needs to be addressed further within the Wikipedia community. --Soman (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did yesterday and today. I saw some roadblocks and they inconvenienced me just as much. Some prevented me from making a ten minute drive and relegating me to take the long way of about 40 minutes, most of them are for safety reasons preventing access to a main highway (Route 60), and some are to prevent Israelis from travelling on Palestinian only roads. An hour ago, I passed by the car of someone who was injured and hospitalized when he was stoned for no reason at all except for having a yellow license plate. A roadblock would not have prevented that crime, but at least they did prevent crimes using guns in the past. --Shuki (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't soapbox. Tiamuttalk 21:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, whatever :-) --Shuki (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and per WP:SNOW, close this AfD. Tiamuttalk 21:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The term is notable. The article needs major improvements as most of it is sourced to primary sources. I'm not ruling out a merge in the future, but wp:not#essay, wp:synth, and wp:coatrack should be resolved more by editing colloborativly then by deletion. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:11, 1 April 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Palestinian_freedom_of_movement&oldid=1079653284"