Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Palestine (phrase)

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 delete‎ per WP:SNOW. I'm not usually a fan of cutting AfD discussions short but there has been unusually heavy participation and consensus is overwhelming. No need to keep this open just to rack up the pile on !votes. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Free Palestine (phrase)[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)

An article about two words sometimes used together. Even ignoring the transparent editorialising in the article, Wikipedia is not a platform for documenting the conjunction of words. We already have articles (probably too many) on movements, organisations individuals etc that may have used the phrase, where the context is explained, and the intent clarified. This article does the opposite - it purports to demonstrate that the phrase has some sort of independent notability, while citing sources (poor ones) that instead amply illustrate that two words (neither of which is well-defined) can be used to describe almost anything vaguely related to Palestine, past, present, and future. This is a thoroughly misguided exercise in polemic, not even approximating to anything that belongs in an encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Middle East, Israel, and Palestine. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Useless article. Asserts that it is a commonly used phrase without any evidence and sources its origin to some pre 1948 committee no-one ever heard of. Assume the basic intention is to suggest that it was Zionists who originally wanted Palestine to be free (they did, of British rule, but the locals (Palestinians) also wanted that, so that's irrelevant).Selfstudier (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (note I am the creator) - The article more than easily meets the criteria for WP:GNG. If you think its is WP:NPOV than you are welcome to edit it, although I disagree with that. Just because Selfstudier never heard of a committee, and their mission, from 80 years ago, does not mean it is not notable. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 19:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Palestinian nationalism Delete. NPOV issues & poor sourcing aside, the phrase itself isn't notable enough to have its own article, and a paragraph about the slogan can be created in the target article. sawyer / talk 19:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Those two words can mean many different things to different people holding up signs. One deleted claim was that it meant the mass murder of Jews, suggesting the article exists to push a political narrative and bordering on G10. A two-state solution isn’t even mentioned, likely the most desired by Palestinians. Instead, it states the modern day meaning is the elimination of Israel or Hamas, bordering on G3. If this belongs anywhere, it’s in a relevant current article(s) in the context of that article. Meanwhile this article is insulting and provocative to some. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be a random collection of trivia instead of a coherent article. Different uses of a single phrase in over a century of a region's political history. And no historical source indicating this is a distinct topic from the various political movements in Palestine. Dimadick (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly, I just received a Wiki-mail stating:

Hi - A group of us wrote an article that is now up for deletion and we are asking that seasoned users who know the importance of Wikipedia will vote to keep a neutral, well-researched article that gives context to global political events as well as is likely to prevent people from killing one another as they will see they are asking for the same thing.
Please vote in the name of peace, knowledge, and neutrality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Palestine_(phrase)".

I have no opinion on the issue itself. BD2412 T 20:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: It seems the person who wrote that also wrote the same thing on the Israel wikiproject, but has since been indefinitely blocked - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 20:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. — mw (talk) (contribs) 20:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the numerous others above. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 20:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It feels like the entire purpose of the article, as it exists today, can be summarized in one sentence: "Free Palestine" used to mean something else before 1948. Yes, we get it. If redirecting, then to what target? Palestinian nationalism only covers the post-1967 sense of the phrase. Turning the page into a DAB seems silly, but is the only alternative to deletion I can think of. Owen× ☎ 20:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @OwenX: From the river to the sea is used similarly and often together, could redirect there - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 20:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article's content is not policy compliant. In reality the sources do not speak about the phrase as a phrase so WP:WORDISSUBJECT as in the phrase "free Palestine" being a viable topic is not fulfilled. The sources only contain the sequence of words "free Palestine". This is WP:OR. I will begin removal of non-compliant content to alleviate confusion. —Alalch E. 20:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nom, this is not an encyclopedic topic. A phrase being used does not make it meet GNG, nothing shown that there is WP:SIGCOV about the phrase. Agree with above on the eval of AtDs. // Timothy :: talk 20:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note There has been a confirmed effort at canvassing by email in an effort to preserve this article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have received the same email as noted above. —Alalch E. 20:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Helpful hint: If you are going to try and canvass for some outcome at a community discussion, don't email your plan to administrators. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was also canvassed to this discussion by @Raconcilio, with them requesting that I vote keep, which I obviously won't be doing. TarnishedPath^talk 05:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The very first sentence ("The phrase Free Palestine is a commonly used phrase which has had different meaning throughout the years") makes it clear that this is an attempt at a dictionary entry, not an encyclopedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT and while there could be a WP:WORDISSUBJECT article about the phrase "free Palestine" were this a notable phrase, the subject of the phrase itself is a non-notable subject because the phrase has not received significant coverage in reliable sources as a phrase.—Alalch E. 21:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing neutral about it. WP is supposed to be dispassionate and neutral. Atsme 💬 📧 22:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This deletion discussion can either be about the article as it was when it was nominated for deletion at 1832 GMT, 7 December, or at it is at 2232 GMT, 7 December. The current version does not have enough information to be encyclopedic and is not even a dictionary definition. The version as nominated is non-non-neutral, but cannot be made neutral, at least not long enough to avoid causing dumpster fires. That is, the main purpose of any substantive version would be as a vehicle for conflict. The canvassing email says:
Please vote in the name of peace, knowledge, and neutrality.
Yes. Unfortunately, that requires deleting the article, because it is flamebait, but nothing more. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per pretty much everyone else. Salmoonlight (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I disagree, we might as well WP:SNOW close it. While not exactly the same, I would propose redirecting to From the river to the sea. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 23:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can withdraw your filing if you wish and it would save editor time and will be snow closed soon if you don't. But semi-equating "Free Palestine" with "From the river to the sea" is a suggestion that has zero chance. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Plain DICDEF. I also strongly oppose a redirect to From the river to the sea; we ought have no hand in conflating Palestinian nationalism with the destruction of the state of Israel. Ravenswing 00:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Phrases need to be the topic of extensive bibliography. Not debated or mentioned just a bit. Also, objecting to the suggested redirect as that is another slogan or chant. If any ATD is relevant, then just maybe a disambiguation page. WP:SNOW. gidonb (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Give me liberty, or give me death!, Bread and Roses, They shall not pass, Don't Tread on Me, Viva la revolución, Don't Mess with Texas, Inquilab Zindabad, Death to fascism, freedom to the people etc political slogans are completely appropriate topics for this encyclopedia, moreover, that political slogans might be used in different contexts with different meanings over time, is precisedly of encyclopedic concern. So this is not a case of WP:NOT. However, this might be an WP:OR / WP:SYNTH issue... the test here needs to be whether or not there are sources which explicitly discuss the slogan in and of itself, rather than different sources indicating its use in different contexts that are agglomorated into an article (hence SYNTH). I wouldn't classify a disambiguation page as necessarily "silly", we do have Live Free or Die (disambiguation), for example. Agree that redirect to From the river to the sea is inappropriate. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion as it has some sigcov as a phrase [1], but a merger with from the river to the sea may be ideal. Mach61 (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what, exactly? The article is a single eleven-word sentence. Ravenswing 02:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Obviously a consensus exists to delete, and I'm not going to try and change that. That said, I think that it is possible we can have an encyclopaedic article on this topic, essentially covering the history of its use by various organisations no matter how unsavory or otherwise, without attempting to define the "correct" use of it. However, it is very obviously implausible that such a thing will ever happen. It suffers from the chronic problem that WP:NODEADLINE applies while virtually any omission of information is automatically a massive NPOV issue. Anyone motivated enough to delve into the cesspit and create the article will have a POV, and express it. Therefore, if (when) the article is deleted, I would suggest an IAR salt along with it. Fermiboson (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Prior to the article getting a heavy haircut it was a mess of WP:OR, which is what happens when you try and cobble together stuff which isn't notable to start with. Also as mentioned by another editor WP:NOTDICT. TarnishedPath^talk 05:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per complaints above. WP:NOTDICT. Although it is commonly used in protests, it should better be at an article about protests supporting Palestine. Toadette ^{(Happy holiday!)} 05:53, 8 December 2023 (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.