Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli–Palestinian history denial

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. Consensus is that combining these topics into one article is original research. Sandstein 05:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli–Palestinian history denial[edit]

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

Article is a collection of a number of different topics tied together by the fact that they relate to Israel/Palestine. It's possible that each of them (Nakba denial, denial of the existence of Palestinians as a people, etc.) could be a separate article (and a couple of them already are), but as it is the sourcing for most of them is inadequate (for example, we would need sources commenting on Palestinian denial of a Jewish connection to Israel, not examples of Palestinians who deny a Jewish connection to Israel), and grouping them all together this way is in any case inappropriate. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When I saw the deletion nomination, I was ready to fight tooth and nail for it not to be deleted, but Roscelese makes some valid points. --GHcool (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Controversial doesnt equal non-notable. Notable subject.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who cited "controversial" as a reason for deletion? The argument I provided was that "Israeli-Palestinian history denial" isn't actually notable - some of the specific forms of denial may be, though the article doesn't bear that out, but the general topic, no. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Ross has said several times that what really sunk the Camp David talks in 2000 was that Arafat refused to make a specific counteroffer to the detailed Israeli proposal, but instead went around mumbling about how there was never any Jewish temple in Jerusalem. Such issues may often be buried in the western press under more dramatic stories, but they're as much of a continuing irritant to Israel-Arab relations as the Japanese textbook controversies are on the other side of the world... AnonMoos (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Original essay, plain and simple, as the lead more or less declares. Carrite (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Carrite. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The bar for inclusion is supposed to rest on Wikipedia rules, not raised far above the head of the nominator standing on tiptoe on Wikipedia rules. The criteria for inclusion is less than "sources commenting on Palestinian denial of a Jewish connection to Israel", and the article contains more than just "examples of Palestinians who deny a Jewish connection to Israel", for instance Golda Meir's comments and the commentary on her words by James L. Gelvin: The Israel-Palestine conflict: one hundred years of war

The content needs work; the article can be WP:SPLIT when there is sufficient. Anarchangel (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A mishmash of criticisms from both sides of the conflict slapped together does not make for an actual article. Most of these, i.e. Nakba, Holocaust denial already cover the individual subject matter adequately. Tarc (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is some pretty significant material. Official spokesmen for the [[[Palestinian Authority]] denying that the Holocaust happened, that the Jewish people were in the land in ancient times, and, pretty nearly that the events in the Bible happened. I came here trying to figure out who several editors who have written here were fighting so hard for what seemed to me an unsubstantiated argument on another page. However that may be, this article is about real and significant material and should be kept.I.Casaubon (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I agree that the topic of Holocaust denial within the PA is important, but the topic is covered adequately in the main Holocaust denial topic. --GHcool (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A bunch of disparate quotes mashed together to make an article. If any of this is relevant to a different article, it can be included there, but there's no way to salvage the article as a whole.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The cited sources establish significant notability. Marokwitz (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV essay. Agree with Tarc that this is a mishmash of synthesis. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete each of these topics may be notable on its own (albeit perhaps best dealt with as a section of another article) but lumping these seemingly disparate topics together seems like original synthesis. GabrielF (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno where people got the idea that article subjects can be SYNTH or OR, but it is mistaken; article subjects are either notable or not. If scholars have written about the subject, then it can be the subject of an article. If what you mean is that the article shows scholars speaking on subjects other than the subject covered by the title of the article, then I suggest you bring some examples, rather than assertions. Anarchangel (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And have scholars written about "Israeli-Palestinian history denial"? Or have they written about individual topics like Nakba denial and Temple denial? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article subject can absolutely be both notable and original synthesis. An example is Anti-Iranian sentiment, specifically as it existed before Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Iranianism. Nobody was denying that discrimination against Iranians was not notable, but the article at that point was lumping together everything from Genghis Khan to the ancient greeks to Saddam Hussein under the title of Anti-Iranianism and attaching such a headline to such disparate things clearly constituted original synthesis. Ultimately the article only survived because something like 75% of it was eliminated and the topic was narrowed, although editors have suggested that it could still benefit from being split or renamed. GabrielF (talk) 04:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is clearly not an actual topic but a forced combination of separate topics. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2011 (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.