Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A History of the Palestinian People (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Tone 15:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

A History of the Palestinian People
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A non-notable self-published book book which fails WP:NBOOK, The book temporarily received publicity as an insult to Palestinian people. The joke is that most of the pages in the book are blank. Wikipedia should not be a tool which is used to assist one side of the conflict by giving article space to this book which fails WP:N. Additionally the article's creator was perma-blocked by the WMF, Lightburst (talk) 13:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: The article has sources with significant independent coverage, including the Jerusalem Post, Haaretz and the Jewish Journal. I agree that the book is inflammatory and insulting to the Palestinian people, but the discussion of it reflects the complex history of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The article has extensive coverage of both the "positive" and "negative" reaction to the book, and it is not a one-sided tool to assist either side of the conflict. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Is 42 sources no good enough?? Some of them are pretty good as Toughpigs has pointed out. I fail to see why this is at AfD. Govvy (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I will expound. As a book this self-published empty book does not pass any of the five points outlined in the WP:BKCRIT guiedline. FYI: all 120 of the book's pages are blank. If we consider this book an event it is not WP:LASTING, it made a splash in Israeli publications (toughpigs included a few) as joke and probably because Amazon pulled it from their site. The book made news for those reasons, yet we are WP:NOTNEWS. Additionally two of the !voters in the first AfD were socks and another one is a WMF blocked editor. Lightburst (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that the relevant policy is WP:GNG; there was significant discussion about the book in reliable news outlets. I agree that as a work of literature or history, this obviously fails, because, as you said, it's blank, self-published and essentially just a hurtful joke. But the quality of the work is not relevant for determining the notability of the subject, if it's had significant coverage. Also, your two comments about the creator and AfD participants being socks/banned are not relevant to the notability of this subject. The contributions of individual banned editors are not a "poison pill" that makes the article subject less notable. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes and No, but you seem to forget the concept of the art form here. Although I personally think it's kinda disgusting. It has provoked reactions and that is what the article shows, this is not just a book it is also a piece of art. The reaction to this art is evident enough to have multiple sources and this seems to pass GNG to me. Govvy (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes GNG based on coverage presented by Toughpigs. Wikipedia does not delete articles because their subject is offensive/insulting/etc.★Trekker (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear you advocate keeping a book with all blank pages based on RS? Yet the only RS involves the same story over and over... "Amazon got duped". Look over the references and the ones provided by Toughpigs above - they are about Amazon getting fooled - not about the book. The empty book was trolling, and a joke and in no way notable as art, an event or a book. The only sources to be found center around Amazon. The joke is long over but we are keeping an article based entirely on RS that repeats the same story over and over - and it is about Amazon not the book. Lightburst (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Pass WP:GNG. Discussed in numerous WP:RS --Shrike (talk) 06:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Received significant coverage in several RIS. As long as this is the case, the article should be kept in spite of the offence it may cause to some readers per WP:CENSOR. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2020 (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.