Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A History of the Palestinian People


 * 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 no consensus. The issue is whether this book (whatever its merits may be) is notable as measured by its coverage in reliable third-party sources. There is no clear consensus here, although a majority of opinions would keep the article. The article can be renominated after some time when the lasting importance of the book, if any, can be better assessed.  Sandstein  10:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

A History of the Palestinian People

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an old joke, which has been tried many times before, see .....all blank books. And all, AFAIK, self published. Wikipedia doesn't need to put up with every silly joke, Huldra (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The Great Book of Lesbian Humor, 1960s
 * Everything Obama Knows About the Economy, 2011
 * Reasons To Vote For Democrats: A Comprehensive Guide, 2016


 * Pr WP:Not notable, Huldra (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * .....and Pr WP:NOTNEWS, Ok, so I'm not accustomed to the alphabet soup used for AfD, to editors voting here: please use your heads, Huldra (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not applicable here. Even if we apply GNG, this has received several bursts of coverage (in multiple RS): the initial release and criticism/activism/support, Amazon ban, Knesset sppech, and throughout the period multiple in depth reviews in the English, Hebrew, Arabic and other languages covering the book itself and the claim therein (both positive and negative). Books, howver, are typically seen as a persistent object, and in particuar this book amply passes WP:BK(1) with much more than 2 independent reviews (Around 20 or so. Even if we are exceedingly selective it is more than 10).Icewhiz (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that WP:Not notable is a subhead on page Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Nom fails to exhibit evidence of WP:BEFORE. Nom fails to provide a policy-based reason for deletion.  Personal opinions are neither a valid reason for bringing an articl eto AFD, nor is WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT a valid argument for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep Nom hasn't even bothered to cite an actual single policy in bringing this Afd. Article uses 38 separate references. Easily fulfills WP:GNG. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep (creator). Easily passes WP:GNG and the book specific WP:NBOOK(1). Major coverage (multiple outlets) in English, Hebrew, Arabic, as well as some coverage in multiple Latin script (easy to find, might extend to non Latin) European languages (beyond what is reffed - which excludes pieces that were distributed via wire or pieces that added little information). Coverage is sustained - e.g. added this week refs to a Bosnian piece and coverage of an Israeli pol waving the book in a Knesset speech (and using it as a rhetorical prop in the speech). Few Israeli (or non Arabic for that matter) books get reviews in multiple Arab newspapers which this title did (highly scathing and critical). While this may be an old ploy as well as an old arguement (famously dating back to Golda Meir denying Palestinian existence a few years after the formation of the PLO) - it is a notable instance of said ploy. And as a weak OTHERSTUFF arguement (this book clearly passes on WP policy), Reasons To Vote For Democrats also has an article (which the nom also nominated). Many books are "old" or "recycled", our question at Wikipedia should be if they are notable.Icewhiz (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC) Bears mentioning that 4′33″ has an article as well, and is deemed notable.Icewhiz (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Also this. Dahn (talk) 06:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment It's part of a wider debate on whether Palestinians have a history and are an independent ethnic group, but I'm struggling to find a specific discussion of this controversy on WP. Since most of the article is about the wider controversy rather than the literary merits of the text, I suspect a merge might be a better option if there is a suitable target, else keep (for now). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. I had been considering nominating this article for deletion myself but might as well comment here instead. While the nominator has not given a valid reason for deletion, (nominator has since updated nomination with valid criteria) I think there are applicable policies. Firstly, this is a self published book and per WP:BK, "Self-publication and/or publication by a vanity press do not correlate with notability". Secondly, per WP:NOTNEWS, Wikipedia articles should be on topics with "enduring notability" and per WP:SUSTAINED, "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability". That this book has already been delisted by the world's two largest online booksellers only a few days after going on sale speaks volumes about its lack of enduring notability. That the book has also been described as a racist prank is another reason not to reward it with an article here. It's basically nothing more than a blip in the news cycle. Gatoclass (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1. Being a self-published book does not correlate with notability - but nor does it preclude notability. This particular book was covered in-depth (with lengthly analysis on the merit of the claim (either agreeing or disagreeing) with some outliers going as far as to call it "History of the Palestinian People is explicitly intended to reinforce the dehumanization of an entire people in order to grease the machinery of subjugation and ethnic cleansing" )) - by over 20 different sources independent of the author/publisher (and possibly more) - clearly surpassing the requirement in WP:BK(1).
 * 2. Coverage is sustained - persisting from immediately following publication to this week (e.g. Bosnian newspaper, Knesset speech ) - calling SUSTAINED here amounts to saying articles can't be made on new books. SUSTAINED isn't a criteria for WP:BK.
 * 3. Banning from Amazon (B&N may be due to print run selling out - it is not clear this was actually banned there) - following a wide pro-Palestinian campaign to ban (which included claims that an empty book is a call for ethnic cleansing)- only confers notability, to wit the coverage in WP:RS following the banning increased significantly (and on a personal level - got me interested).
 * 4. Prank? Much of the coverage in WP:RS has taken this book seriously. Dead serious - including said claims that this is a call for dehumanization/ethnic cleansing/subjugation, as well as in-depth analysis of the merits of the claim that there is no Palestinian people or Palestinian history.Icewhiz (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Daily Wire says the book has been "banned" by Barnes & Noble, and the B&N website no longer has a page for the book, so clearly it's been delisted by them. As for sustained coverage - the book basically got a few gleeful endorses from pro-Israel websites when first published and a couple of disapproving mentions on pro-Palestinian media, then got a second blip of coverage about a week later due to it being delisted on Amazon. That hardly qualifies as sustained in my book. Who will care about this book six months from now? Gatoclass (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1. I've seen the oneliner (at the end of a substansive article) in dailywire (and reffed it in the article) - still not sure (from what I see from other sources) that it actually was banned in B&N and not end of print run - but it doesn't really matter either way until it gets real coverage regarding B&N issues (I will note that if it was actually banned - this increases significance).
 * 2. Coverage: A. The book got enraged counter-responses after publication (in addition to endorsements) + calls for action against Amazon. B. Additional coverage after banning (late June). C. Trickling coverage in July from several sources (including some that are in-depth analysis of the claim) -   . D. Coverage following Hotovely's speech with the book:   (mondoweiss has an in-depth counter response, others really just carry what she said - a number of these (in Hebrew & English )). So that's 4 distinct phases of coverage in approx. a month or so - which is definitely WP:SIGCOV. The book definitely has, if we're looking at WP:BK(1) more than two in-depth reviews.
 * 3. Who will care six months from now? As the book has been called on the one hand "History of the Palestinian People is explicitly intended to reinforce the dehumanization of an entire people in order to grease the machinery of subjugation and ethnic cleansing", and on the other hand we have a freedom of speech / commercial dispute / taking sides on politics by Amazon - we will probably see more coverage and mentions in the coming months (as an example for a call for ethnic cleansing, hypocrisy calls regarding other amazon sales, and probably legal action vs. Amazon (seems there is also a question of proceeds)). Frankly - if it wasn't banned and if pro-Palestinian/liberal outlets had chosen to ignore it at the time - I wouldn't have written an article (I started on 27 June - after the ban and coverage wave following it, though I was aware of the book from the initial coverage wave) and it would've been less notable (maybe still notable, maybe not). The banning/censorship + extremely detailed responses (positive & negative) to the thesis laid in the book (in a blunt fashion) - is what really makes this notable.Icewhiz (talk) 12:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's quite disturbing that you would describe a collection of blank pages as a "thesis". Other than that, it's hyperbolic to describe what happened to the book as a "ban", or "censorship" - it's simply been delisted by the major online sellers. As for the responses, they have mostly addressed themselves to the topic of what might be called "Palestinian denialism" rather than the book itself, which is just treated as the latest example of the phenomenon - what, after all, can be said about an empty book? As Colapeninsula noted above, there is a case to be made for an article on the broader topic, but hardly I think on one particular example of it. Gatoclass (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Voll has said he looked for sources for Palestinian existence prior to the modern time - and found none - thus his thesis (in the sense of a statement or theory that is put forward as a premise to be maintained or proved.) is that there is no history - and his blunt presentation of said thesis, offensive to some, and even described as as a means for "subjugation and ethnic cleansing" - is an empty tome. This is a serious claim - perhaps wrong and offensive - but serious. I stick to the sources - for instance professor Steven Weitzman treats Voll's thesis in one breath with Sand's: In one chapter, I look at a book entitled The Invention of the Jewish People by Shlomo Sand which provoked controversy a few years ago because of its critique of Zionism. Sand makes his argument against Israel by trying to disprove the origin story which he believes underpins Zionism’s claim to the land of Canaan and justifies Israel’s mistreatment of the Palestinians. I subject Sand’s approach to critique, but it should be noted that the right has produced its own share of origin stories that can be critiqued on the same grounds. I just read a report about a book called A History of the Palestinian People that was a best-seller on Amazon last week before it was removed from the site. What was offensive about the book is that it is completely blank, the author’s way of arguing that the Palestinians are not a real people and have no real history—an argument that other scholars have made in more conventional ways. This is Sand’s argument in reverse, applied to the Palestinians instead of the Jews, and it is wrong for very similar methodological and historical reasons even though it is coming from the other side of the political spectrum and makes its argument in a different way.. The book hasn't been "simply delisted" - it was banned for sale on Amazon, which may be described as a "common utility" due its monopolistic or near-monopolistic status (not my words:, - One might further argue that whereas a private, independent bookseller with a specific inventory must decide which books fit the shop’s criteria and deserve to occupy shelf space, Amazon is in reality a common utility, a portal for anything published and available.). The Amazon ban followed an activist campaign to ban the book (on and off the Amazon site, ). All this while Amazon continues to sell, as has been noted by some sources, books and merchandise calling for the genocide of Jews or the erasure of Israel. The book is notable - as it meets WP:BK(1) and WP:GNG. While "Historicity of the Palestinian people" might be notable in and of itself - so is this book due so coverage in the sources.Icewhiz (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm still not persuaded. But I think I've made the points I wanted to make, so I will endeavour at this point to step aside and let others have their say. Gatoclass (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - even if it is a joke, which isn't the exact definition in this case, best selling jokes are notable. The book has a clear thesis presented thunderingly by the sound of silence, and answered by dozens of writers. DGtal (talk) 11:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I hardly think a book that was on sale for barely a week can be described as a best-seller. Gatoclass (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Here: is a gNews search on "A history of the Palestinian Poeple" + bestseller.  Gato, AFD is about sources, not opinions. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was reportedly listed as a bestseller on Amazon in a couple of narrow categories for the few days it was on sale there, which would not be difficult to achieve over such a short timespan. However, that has no relevance here, since WP:BK states that Bestseller lists in retailer or e-commerce sources like Amazon or self-published sources like personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, wikis, and similar media are not considered reliable. Gatoclass (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So what? Deletion is not cleanup take this to talk. You are in WP:BLUDGEON territory on this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Two responses from you to me, two comments on contributor. Thank you for reminding me why I rarely bother contributing in this topic area. As for BLUDGEON - not even close, I have responded to exactly one !vote on this page, all my other posts have been in response to posts addressed to me - and I already withdrew from the exchange with my principal interlocutor, no prompting required. Gatoclass (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep because sourcing suffices to pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- plenty of reliable sources mention the book, as farcical as it may be, and in fact the sources added to "improve NPOV" do the job of highlighting that the controversy, and hence the book, were notable enough. The nominator seems to be confusing various policies, amounting to theory that "neutral coverage of an idea that I find distasteful (and racist and so on) violates NPOV". Basically, this is an attempt to make the ever-stretching rules of PC pass for a wikipedia policy. Dahn (talk) 06:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment If I were to support deletion, I'd cite WP:NOTNEWS. But Wikipedia rejects that argument when it wants to. If I were to support a keep outcome, I'd point to WP:GNG. I wish would have made a competent nomination. Her mistake is probably going to result in a keep outcome.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS; essentially, an unremarkable prank which has been done before. No societal impact or long-term significance; just 15 minutes of fame. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Funnily, that's not how you saw it in the AfD I referenced above. Please tell me about the lasting impact of Khizr and Ghazala Khan. So is it deletion-worthy when the subject criticizes the Left but keep-worthy when it criticizes the Right? Your stance seems hypocritical to me. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I still consider Khizr and Ghazala Khan to be a notable topic. Any editor is welcome to test the consensus by renominating the article; perhaps it has changed. The event we are dealing with in this article is an insignificant publicity stunt, IMO. Hence my vote for deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:GNG.WP:NEWS cannot be applied here as it not an an event and even if we apply it it should be kept per WP:RAPID--Shrike (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

*Merge and Redirect Someone should create an article about all these blank page books and this can redirect to that. 16:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgolden (talk • contribs)
 * I don't know why it wasn't signed... I added the four tildes. Anyway, I'd like to add that these books are not all *individually* noteworthy. Mgolden (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)  The user cannot participate in AFD per WP:ARBPIA3--Shrike (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not all are notable. This particular book, per the sourcing in the article, is.Icewhiz (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - This book might be the same joke as done before but this one got big press and definitely meets WP:GNG -  Galatz Talk  15:11, 24 July 2017 (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.