Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of 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 keep. Deville (Talk) 20:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of Palestine[edit]

This article is apparently modeled after the various "Outline of <Country>" articles. However, it does not actually deal with any specific country. Instead, it is a hodgepodge if information about Palestine (the historical geographic region), the Palestinian National Authority, the State of Palestine, the Palestinian territories, and possibly a few others. It is important to stress that none of these entities is widely considered to be a country (although some of them have some country-like characteristics), and anyway, the fact that the article doesn't even attempt to focus on one of them makes it confusing and unhelpful. The opening paragraphs attempt to handle this problem by providing an overview of the Palestine-related terms mentioned above. However, this is completely redundant given that we already have Palestine (disambiguation) and Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian. I propose either deleting this page (preferred), or renaming it (and modifying its content drastically) to apply to just one of the entities mentioned above (Palestine excluded). -- uriber (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but I agree with your second suggestion, I think it should be moved back into the WP:WPOOK project-space to be worked on to solve your issues Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 20:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I discovered this article about a week ago. I agree it needs more work, but that is not a reason for deletion. Whatever what thinks about the State of Palestine, it is an entity recognized by the United Nations and over 100 countries. Palestine is also represented at the Olympics, in the world of cinema, etc, etc. I think Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian is redundant and OR. Outline of Palestine is not. It could be very useful if it were improved. I plan to be doing that in the days and weeks to come. Tiamut^talk 22:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would also note that Outline of Ireland discusses both the island and the state. Yes, the page is better organized and it is clearer which one is the focus, but its not wrong for a page on a state to reference the wider geographical region in which it is located and where its history took place before its creation. Tiamut^talk 22:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you wouldn't object to renaming this "Outline of the State of Palestine", similarly to Outline of the Republic of Ireland (which "Outline of Ireland" redirects to)? -- uriber (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a discussion for the article talk page. Tiamut^talk 12:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —Tiamut^talk 22:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the poetic name, anyway. "Master Plan of Pakistan" and "Rough Sketch of Bangladesh" would be good too. Mandsford (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The US has diplomatic relations with the Palestinian Authority. The Congressional Research Service reports the US has spent over 4 billion in aid on the West Bank and Gaza since 1993 harlan (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And how are these facts relevant to this discussion? -- uriber (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment that this outline isn't about any specific country is incorrect. The State of Palestine is an established person of international law. Most countries today have a policy of only recognizing states or countries. They no longer recognize governments at all. see [1] Over 100 countries have legally recognized the State of Palestine. They don't question the conflicting or overlapping legal roles of the PNC, PLO and PNA - and there is no legal requirement for them to do so. They simply carry on business with the local governing bodies of the Palestinian Authority.

The United States legally recognized the West Bank and Gaza Strip as a country in 1997 at the request of the Palestinian Authority. At that time it asked the public to take notice of that fact through announcements it placed in the Federal Register.[2] Many US government agencies, such as USAID West Bank/Gaza, have been tasked with projects in the areas of democracy, governance, resources, and infrastructure. Part of the USAID mission is to "provide flexible and discrete support for implementation of the Quartet Road Map".[3] The Road Map is a internationally backed plan which calls for the progressive development of a viable Palestinian State in the West Bank and Gaza as the second phase of a three-part final settlement.[4] The EU has announced similar external relations programs with the Palestinian Authority which envision it as a Palestinian state.[5]

The Palestinian Authority has asserted its jurisdiction as a legal state on several occasions already.[6] Many countries recognize the sovereignty of the State of Palestine over the natural resources of its territories. Under international law, Hague IV, sovereignty is not effected by occupation of territory. See for example: [7] The Israeli Supreme Court has acknowledged that Israel's rights as an occupying power are limited to usufruct.[8] In any event Israel announced it was going to withdraw from Gaza and it claims that it no longer occupies that part of the territory. Some states have entered into bilateral diplomatic and trade agreements on the basis of that understanding. In at least one case, the Palestinian Authority signed an agreement with Egypt to construct a pipeline from a gas field on the Gaza coast to El Arish. The PA signed an oil and gas lease with a British-owned company, BG, to develop that offshore field.[9] Egypt and the Arab League countries recognize the State of Palestine. Great Britain has a longstanding diplomatic practice of granting retroactive de jure recognition to other states in order to establish the legal basis for claims filed on behalf of British-owned companies.[10] [11] harlan (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. I also suggest adding this discussion to the list of Israel-related articles for deletion, like the pro-Palestinians like to do with any article that has something to do with Israel which they don't like. I'd do it myself but I don't know how. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Surely the whole point of this article is that it helps readers navigate around the various definitions of Palestine, so it is actually part of the solution to the problem presented by the nominator, rather than part of the problem. Yes, to answer No More Mr Nice Guy, it's true that this is relevant to Israel, because there is plenty of overlap between the territories described as "Israel" and "Palestine" both historically and in present claims, so I'll make the effort to work out how to list this as an Israel-related discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's surely not the whole point of this article. Other "Outline of" articles serve as a list of links about a specific, well-defined entity (e.g. Outline_of_Bulgaria), and do not deal with differing meanings of the term. If this article would be about various definitions, it should not include things like a flag (calling it "Flag of Palestine", where that only applies to a specific "definition" of the term (and hardly the most common one). -- uriber (talk) 09:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, harlan's comments above (and perhaps Tiamut's too) indicate that they, unlike you, view this article as being specifically about the State of Palestine, rather than the other entities I listed. The fact that different editors have radically different perceptions regarding what this article is actually about means that this has little or no chance to become a coherent or useful article int he long run (at least under its current name). -- uriber (talk) 09:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)\[reply]

Since you mentioned my name and ascribed a position to me, I should perhaps explain: I do not view this article as being solely about the State of Palestine. I thought that the Outline of ... articles (based on your explanation in the nom) were restricted to states and was willing to narrow the scope of the article if that were indeed the case. However, given the examples of other Outline articles listed by other editors here which cover a vast array of subjects, its not necessary to confine Outline of Palestine to discussion only of the State. I am very glad for this since my original intent when I discovered the article was to provide liks to all relevant articles dealing with Palestine, both as a state and a region, with a history and people. I'm sad to see that you are not withdrawing your nomination in light of the overwhelmingly negative response to it thus far and in light of the fact that your nom argument is inaccurate given that Outline of articles can in fact deal with subjects other than states. Tiamut^talk 10:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said "outline" articles were restricted to states. I just said that the structure of this specific article was modeled after outline articles concerning states. Palestine is not "both a state and a region". You might as well say it's "a state, a region, and a city in Texas". In fact, these are totally different entities which happen to be called by a similar name. When we have an ambiguous term, it makes sense to have one disambiguation page, and then other pages that deal with each of its meanings. You wouldn't include information about Palestine, Texas here, would you? Just as an example of the confusion that might arise: what exactly is the flag displayed on the top-right corner? Certainly it's not the flag of Palestine (the region), but a naive user will naturally assume it is from just a glance at this article. -- uriber (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the issue as being as clearly different as you do, and neither do many of the sources. The region of Palestine was home to the Arab people who today identify as Palestinian people long before the creation (or non-creation) of the State of Palestine. I agree that the flag should not be at the top of the page if the article is going to cover all aspects of Palestine but I don't share your belief that Palestine and the State of Palestine are as different as Palestine and Palestine, Texas. That's a comparison too far for me at least.

Anyway, all this can be discussed on the article talk page, where it should have been discussed in the first place. Given the emerging consensus here regarding the appropriateness of the existence of the page, would you like to withdraw your nomination? Tiamut^talk 17:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I still believe that this article, under this name, has no place on Wikipedia, I'm not withdrawing the nomination, although I sadly acknowledge that it has no chance of passing, much due to people reacting semi-automatically to different concerns than those I have raised. -- uriber (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel that way. Automatism isn't quite the adjective I would have used given the diversity of opinions and arguments put forward in the keeps. Anyway, to each his own. Tiamut^talk 00:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Personal feelings on the existence of the state of Palestine are irrelevant here, it is a state recognized by a number of countries. And my understanding of the Outline articles is that they are redundant to the articles covered and provide an outline of those topics with links to the main articles. nableezy - 21:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - legitimate list of links and summary. This is not an endorsement of sovereignity or independence. Bearian (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems in keeping with other topical outlines; regardless of what the status of Palestine is, it's certainly a topic like Outline_of_industrial_organization and Outline of Africa. Last I checked Industrial Organizations hadn't achieved independence yet either. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - outlines are being constructed for political divisions of all types. We have them for sovereign states, dependencies, federal states (such as the U.S. States), provinces, etc. Palestine is identified in the outline as a " state with limited recognition". Outlines are also being constructed for any subject that has enough articles about it to justify an outline. See Outline of sharks and Outline of anarchism for a couple examples. There are a lot of articles about Palestine and its people on Wikipedia. Outline of Palestine is a "structured list" of them. See WP:LISTS and WP:OOK. The Transhumanist 02:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nableezy-- penubag (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. Transhumanist put it well. Regards, Huldra (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2009 (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.