Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bab al Shams


 * 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. There's no consensus about whether this event is significant enough for coverage in a separate article or whether it should be covered as part of related articles such as E1 (Jerusalem).  Sandstein  11:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Bab al Shams and Babalshams village

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No RS. Not news. No substance in the article. Scarletfire2112 (talk) 10:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: parallel discussion at Articles for deletion/Babalshams village. A redirect now. -DePiep (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Babalshams village has been merged into Bab al Shams and now is a Redirect.The AfD for that page nowis idle I'd say. -DePiep (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment to nom: "no RS" was already untue when you nominated. Anyway, it's sourced now. "No substance" - please be more specific (in case you still think so for the current version), or retract the word (written this way, it doesn't sound like an argument to me). As for "no news", that sounds like a misunderstanding (or a too easy usage) of WP:NOTNEWS. It does not mean that WP should not report news facts (or: when some topic is in the news, WP:NEWS does not say it is delatable for that reason).


 * Delete—maybe in the future we will see some kind of long-term significance for this, in which case I'll advocate for an undeletion, but so far it seems like a tent camp set up and evacuated after a couple days. It definitely doesn't satisfy the notability requirements for populated places. Regarding other notability guidelines, it might just barely satisfy GNG, although then it walls under WP:NOTNEWS. —Ynhockey (Talk) 13:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * On notability: before and after your post there were developments and additions, like the High Court involvements, notable persons spoke out, and the notings that this is a combination of special or first-of aspects: a "counteroccupation" (New York Times), varying reports (evacuation or eviction), involvement of High Court, Israeli PM, Palestine Authority. Your description is missing all of the aspects that do make it remarkable. You say it's only a "tent camp set up ... and evacuated": maybe you did not get the issue (can happen), but one can not conclude "insignificant" or anything else. -DePiep (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment- 7,000 plus hits on google, 600 plus in google news . It has certainly received significant coverage in international news media. I guess the main question is whether the topic will continue to have enduring notability.
 * If the article is deleted we could always use the sources for E1 (Jerusalem), and break out a spin off article later if the topic continues to receive coverage in RS. Dlv999 (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - bab al shams refers to many things, not just the few tents set up for a day or two. it should be part of the E1 article. Soosim (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your first sentence contradicts the second. The first sentence points to the many aspects that argue for a stand-alone article. -DePiep (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Rename First note Babalshams has been redirected to Bab al Shams. Rename to something more appropriate like Bab al shams protest or Bab al Shams tent protest or Bab al Shams camp protest. An actual link to news sources shows more than enough stories to illustrate it is a notable protest. CarolMooreDC 19:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to E1 (Jerusalem). While parts of the article are clearly POV-pushing, the basic facts which are not in dispute are still very relevant. I'm not sure this has enduring notability, and I doubt it will unless something happens in the future to bring it back into the news. For now it's really just a part of the debate surrounding E1 - I don't see it as newsworthy on it's own. --Bachrach44 (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of that article and have included ref'd material there from article. That also is acceptable. CarolMooreDC 19:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The location may be within E1, but that does not define it as a "E1" topic. Really, it is not subjugated to nor derived from E1. -DePiep (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: The event has received massive international press coverage. Currently 21,400 google hits for search term: "bab al shams" e1 west bank . 1,400 on google news for the same term. . The event has received extensive coverage in the Israeli press:-
 * Jerusalem Post, Ynet , Haaretz , Times of Israel


 * In Arab/Palestinian sources:


 * Palestine Chronicle, al Jazeera , Hürriyet Daily News ,Al Arabiya


 * International Sources


 * New York Times ,Washington Post, BBC , AFP , Reuters , The Guardian , The Independent , The Financial Times , Sydney Morning Herald , Globe and Mail


 * I am only scratching the surface here in terms of sources covering the topic to try and give a feel of the breadth and depth of coverage this topic has received. the UN secretary General, the Israeli prime minister and Palestinian leaders have all commented on or given statements about the event as have academics such as Majid Suweilim, a professor of political science at Al Quds University,.
 * WP:EVENT states that "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards."
 * The event has certainly had widespread national and international RS coverage in diverse sources. Articles such as this have begun to analyze the event in retrospect. I believe the topic clearly meets notability requirements for an article. Dlv999 (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * These sources used and added. -DePiep (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's a terrible article at the moment, but that is not cause for deletion.  As Dlv999 shows, there is extremely wide coverage from reliable sources, both in terms of factual news reporting and of citable opinions of notable people.  Besides that, tiny Israel settlement outposts get articles with even much less notability. Zerotalk 12:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete— No long-term significance demonstrated for this. ' Ankh '. Morpork  15:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, because demonstrating long-term significance would in fact be impossible since the event only occurred 6 days ago. What we have demonstrated is that the topic has received massive national and international coverage, and has lead to comments by heads of state and academics. The topic is still receiving fresh coverage as of today. . Your comment is indicative of the systemic bias issues we face in the topic area. Impossibly high standards are often placed on sources/topics/significant viewpoints that do not chime with Israeli Foreign Ministry narrative of events in the conflict. Dlv999 (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - time and again it has been demonstrated that "articles" on news events that are covered by the international press are "notable". In fact, many of those people voting to delete this article are among the people who have succeeded in making that the case (eg Articles for deletion/Deaths of Asher and Yonatan Palmer, Articles for deletion/Bat Ayin ax attack). If those are notable because, to quote from somebody who has voted to delete this article but keep those, other aspects of WP:EVENT are satisfied, like global coverage and diversity of sources, then so too is this. I dont particularly agree with the idea that anything that is picked up by international news organizations is "notable", but thats the precedent that has been set, and its been set by a number of the users who are oddly voting the other way now.  nableezy  - 15:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The arguments of "no RS" and "POV", posted by the nominator here before the template of "stub" was dry (and reused by others), are not deletion arguments at all. They are reason for a tag+talk, not deletion. Anyway, they are improved or even undone already by regular wiki editing process. -DePiep (talk) 08:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sources added.
 * Notability of the village and the protest is clearly high, based on the sources: high profile people spoke out (PM Israel, UN leader Ban Ki-moon). Major institutions are involved: Israeli PM, High Court, Palestinian Authority). Most newspapers have follow-up stories even within days, and various first-of aspects are pointed out multiple places (especially the "occupation"-mirror comparision). -DePiep (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge into E1 (West Bank) - Jonathunder (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Apart from the fact that it is in E1 space, what else does it have to do with E1 at all? How is it E1 based or related? -DePiep (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge into E1 (West Bank) - Seems to pretty clearly fall under purview of the E1 article. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Again: Apart from the fact that it is in E1 space, what else does it have to do with E1 at all? How is it E1 based or related? (For example: why not merge into West Bank?) -DePiep (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Commenet - based on what i am reading, it only exists because of E1. it is E1, body and soul. Soosim (talk) 08:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not 100% sure what that comment means, but E1 is a location. Bab al Shams was a notable event that occurred within the area known as E1. Dlv999 (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Soosism: it only exists because of E1. Well, please read some more sources. It is not a protest against E1 per se, it is protest against occupation of Palestinian land. Without any idea of E1, it would still be a notable protest. Without occupation, it would be a non-notable camping site. -DePiep (talk) 11:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: In a new development Bab Al Shams has set a precedent for a new form of protest against Israeli settlement in the Palestinian Territories. A new protest camp has been established in East Jerusalem with all RS citing Bab Al Shams as the precedent.,,  . This shows the the lasting significance of the event. It also shows that merging the article with E1 is not appropriate as Bab Al Shams set a precedent for a new form of protest against Israeli settlement in general, not specific to the E1 site. Dlv999 (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and there's not enough to say about this event to justify an article. There are better locations for what little content is currently present in this article. The Editorial Voice (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Several editors, including me, above have pointed to noteworthyness with arguments. Also the "notnews" arguments have been discussed. Could you at least react to these? Just throwing out guideline links is not an argument. -DePiep (talk) 03:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to misunderstand the purpose of my !vote. I'm not here to argue with you. I just don't think there's an article here, much as I don't think that every single 'Occupy X' occupation (many of which lasted significantly longer than two days, and received significantly more press coverage) should have an entire article devoted to it. The Editorial Voice (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not ask to argue with me. I asked what your boilerplate remark says wrt other arguments already made. I could repeat them here to the same effect. The comparision you added hints that you have not taken a look at the notability points available. -DePiep (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How can I be more clear? I'm not here to make an argument. I'm here to express my opinion that the article under discussion should be deleted, for the reasons I identified. I've read your opinions, and I'm not swayed by them. The Editorial Voice (talk) 05:10, 21 January 2013 (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.