Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramallah pornography controversy

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. Sandstein 16:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Ramallah pornography controversy

Ramallah pornography controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS, no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, lack of WP:INDEPTH, and no WP:LASTING. What we basically have here is a single day news cycle item (a minor aspect of the takeover of Ramallah in Operation Defensive Shield) - a Palestinian allegation, and an Israeli denial - which wasn't all that widely covered even at the time (this was a "side item" covered for its novelty in the midst of more notable events (casualties, change of control of territory, etc.). Subsequent to the single news cycle, this appeared as a one sentence mention in a yearly state department report (which compiles just about all media mentions from the year), and some very sparse similar one-liner coverage elsewhere. Icewhiz (talk) 06:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

*Keep Well sourced article mentioned in numerous reliable sources. However I would not be opposed to a Merge with Operation Defensive ShieldApolloCarmb (talk) 07:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC) Struck iVote per ARBPIA 30 day/500 edit rule.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV - there has been neither widespread nor in-depth coverage of this alleged "controversy" either when it occurred during fighting in Ramallah in the Second Intifada or since. All that has ever existed is a brief report in AFP: Porn upsets Palestinians, "irate residents... have told AFP." "The Israeli military denied that it had anything to do with the pornographic programming and instead blamed the Palestinian leaders." And a 2-sentence report in the New York Times: "Palestinians accused Israeli forces..." "The Israeli Army said soldiers interrupted the station's broadcasting but had not substituted pornography for the usual programming." The mere handful of subsequent "reports" merely echo the original AFP claim that local residents claimed that this occurred. But little notice has been taken since, none INDEPTH and some misleadingly cited. For example, one mention is cited in a collection of essays edited by Philip Seib, but the allegation ought to be cited to the even less notable author of the essay in question, Orayb Aref Najjar. A source that throws real light on this AfD is "Lies and Disinformation as a Palestinian Weapon", published by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA,) two weeks after this alleged event; the MFA enumerates 14 alleged occurrences in the same disturbance, describing them, including this one, as "a few examples of fabrications disseminated by the Palestinians." This certainly fails WP:EVENT, and, given that we have only allegations made during a moment of violent unrest - and no evidence that it became a "controversy" - it should not be on Wikipedia at all.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

  "A source that throws real light on this AfD is "Lies and Disinformation as a Palestinian Weapon", published by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA,)"

.... I'm sorry, but this sentence betrays a clear bias. What you're saying is, we're supposed to discount the mainstream media reports, discount what the Palestinian residents have said and discount what the U.S. government have said about this incident and just sweep it under the carpet because we have the IDF's word for it? (a report which, I might add, is included within the article as well, so that all sides, including the Israelis, have their viewpoint on the controversy clearly stated). Sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Claíomh Solais (talk) 02:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The context in which this source "throws light" is that this is only one of many unsupported allegations made that spring.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• I want to note that regardless of whether the allegation is correct or not - this is still a completely non-notable incident (event) either way. The coverage of this (possible) event simply isn't there.Icewhiz (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Delete, per WP:NOTNEWS. What amazes me is that it's not even clear whether this happened, and if it did who was behind it. The entire article seems to be based on rumors. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Isn't it a WP:COI for an editor who has served in the Israeli Defence Forces to vote on an issue like this which involves a controversy surrounding the conduct of the Israeli Defence Forces in the West Bank? Genuine question. Claíomh Solais (talk) 02:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• No. It's not a COI. I suggest that you give WP:COI a more careful read.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Delete, as clearly demonstrated above, the sourcing for this article is insufficient for our guidelines. --Calthinus (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - apologies for the delay in replying to this, being very busy. The article is referenced from reliable sources, including mainstream media publications (Agence France-Presse and New York Times), as well as quotations from the U. S. Consulate and the subsquent Israeli official response to the case. The topic is also covered in reliable academic sources, such as the Journal of Palestine Studies of the University of California and a work published by Springer Publishing (published from a significant time after the incident, proving a lasting notability). Not only is the article covering a notable incident from the Second Intifada (it has some 23,000+ hits on Google for example), but it is also a notable incident in the history of pornography, due to its use in warfare (if the information was just on the Second Intifada article, it would miss this broader significance, relating to pornography in general, waranting a stand alone article). Claíomh Solais (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

  Following small mentions on the day-two of the alleged incident, all of the very few other mentions are passing one line mentions.Icewhiz (talk) 06:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• And one of those one-line mentions is sourced, it looks like, to to another. --Calton | Talk 07:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't see any coverage that I'd call significant. That, and the (frankly) bogus arguments for inclusion means "no". --Calton | Talk 07:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. That thing is really of very minor significance/notability compare to many other events that had happen in the same area and at the same time. My very best wishes (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
• Delete minor news glorified through synthesis of various news pieces to put up picture that never was. I actually also concur with what Ynhockey said above, a reader cannot even really understand what this rumor screed is all about or certainty of its happening. It is all media hype with no encyclopedic significance. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
• Delete as no significant coverage, As noted above it all seems based on rumours and as such the article doesn't really make that much sense, nothing of value will be lost. –Davey2010^Talk 18:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

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.