Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goods allowed/banned for import into Gaza (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. There is no clear consensus to delete this article, however there are concerns about it which need to be addressed. The table itself does not meet Wikipedia polices regarding Copyvio and Primary source so would need to be removed entirely. The BBC list may be linked to rather than copied, while the BBC article mentioning the list may be used for content for RS commentary on the list. The gisha list declares that it is unverified, so is speculation, and the organisation is promotional so should be used with care per WP:POORSRC. I am minded that people have commented that they find the list useful because it encyclopedic to know what items have been banned or permitted, however, as the sources are speculative and state that Isreal deals with matters on a case by case basis, the list is misleading. The article should reflect what can be verified, and make clear what is speculation. A list makes things appear more certain than they are.  SilkTork  *YES! 13:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Goods allowed/banned for import into Gaza
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I am nominating this page for deletion in accordance with Deletion policy's point 4 (Content forking. Almost all of the text is already presented at 2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip. That article is not over the limit laid out at Article size with 7845 words and less than 52kB. It is getting long but another paragraph or two won't hurt it. And it could be argued that some of the other stuff there could be trimmed. So what is the purpose of the article? The actual list itself is the strongest reasoning. It was originally a list. If it was still a list I would support its inclusion but there was not enough support for that on the talk page. It was originally heavily biased. Most of that has been taken care of but it still seems like a potential coatrack with some soapboxing that already gives undue weight to the Gisha Center for Freedom of Movement. Please again see WP:DEL where the final point is What Wikipedia is not. User:Kasaalan has put enough effort into this that I actually think the list could turn out well. But with editors insisting that it needs to be an article we just have a redundant page with some tables added to it.Cptnono (talk) 02:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions.  —Cptnono (talk) 02:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1st AfD Articles for deletion/List of commercial goods allowed/banned for import into Gaza


 * Keep or Merge The table is definitely something to be kept whether as a standalone article or may be merged into main article. Some user created article, but the data was essential for other articles so I converted the list data to a sortable table. Some other users added background information from other articles, and some new information. I prefer table based article with new information, but I also respect other editors opinion. Gisha is an internationally credited HR and the main Israeli Human Right Organization that took the banned items to Israeli court , Israel state did not reveal full list, but removed the ban over basic supplies (mainly food/health care/daily care) after Gisha case because the ban over items like chocolate had no logic or standard in the first place. [Gisha and the ban is quoted by multiple international RS media sources] There is also another independent and comprehensive BBC study, and other partial item lists by RS that supports the banned item list of Gisha and BBC. For FORK issue, only 1/4-1/5 is repeating text from other articles, and the list is mainly focused on stricter ban after 2009 and gisha case. If standalone article is not wanted I can merge the data with main article. But the main article is a bit long. But I also agree the article text has some visually distracting parts. Kasaalan (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To follow up on your comments. "table based article with new information" is essentially what Featured lists are. Check out some of those. IT might be a good direction. And our math is not coming to the same thing with how much is duplicated. Last time I did a ctrl+f through the main article, almost all of it was at least mentioned. And there is some room for expansion. And the lead of a list can go into some detail so don't think it will be empty. And nothing wrong with Gisha having a mention in the lead here maybe but for sure over at the other article.Cptnono (talk) 09:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. --Shuki (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - the topic of what was banned by Israel from being imported into Gaza is a notable topic of its own as shown by the sources specifically discussing the materials that Israel banned. This is a notable, encyclopedic topic of its own and merits its own article. The BBC even hosts a list of the items banned by Israel.  nableezy  - 20:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I have not seen the page or read any comments here, but to have such a list here is weird. It just needs to be summed up elsewhere. Chesdovi (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay so was toilet paper permitted or not?! Machlokes tanoi'im? Come on. Chesdovi (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In the future, please familiarize yourself with at least the article being discussed, if not the discussion itself, before offering opinion. Otherwise, the opinion is of little value. --Atypeoferror (talk) 06:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really called for and doesn't add anything of value to this discussion. Agree with the sentiment bur it is rude for you to assume he did not.Cptnono (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I took "I have not seen the page" to mean that (s)he has not read the article. I was also driven by having found the description of the list's presence here as "weird" to be entirely unhelpful;  but perhaps you are correct, and I should allow the admin to make these determinations. My apologies for any rudeness. --Atypeoferror (talk) 06:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am of the view that toilet paper should have been allowed, but concur with the claim of AFP that it was banned. Chesdovi (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a notable and very interesting list. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a content fork that properly belongs as a brief section of 2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip.AMuseo (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - It does not seem that the closing admin's sentiments from AfD #1 have been addressed adequately. As before, we don't need to see a laundry list of every single item that has been banned; the ban itself is what is notable, not the items, and it should be addressed in the appropriate article.  This has been an ill-conceived, un-encyclopedic concept from the outset. Tarc (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you proposing that a ban be described without an explicit statement of what, actually, is being banned? Do you not at all find that notion to be self-contradictory?  Also, when you say "we don't need to see a laundry list", who do you purport to speak for?  The blockade is clearly a topic of great interest to many people, and a more precise description only serves to enrich WIkipedia. --Atypeoferror (talk) 05:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're way off the mark, and a bit hysterical about it to boot. The ban can be described along with a few details of what goods are on the list.  But to make an encyclopedia article out of the entire 200-odd list itself is just ridiculous, and goes against WP:INDISCRIMINATE to boot.  An encyclopedia is not a repository of statistical minutiae. Tarc (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Simply because a list is long, does not mean it is overly specific. One of a possible litany of examples, the List_of_current_United_States_Representatives_by_age_and_generation is much more "long and sprawling" (as WP:INDISCRIMINATE puts it,) and certainly is less exciting reading and less "encyclopedic," yet WP:INDISCRIMINATE is applied neither there nor to a plethora of other such lists - why should it be applied here?  --Atypeoferror (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, this topic is highly encyclopedic (with particular usefulness as a Wikipedia article, in that it is so easy to update it), and it is clearly notable given coverage in reliable sources. Meets WP:GNG quite easily, in my view.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This wasn't put up or deletion based on notability. Care to respond to the given reasoning?Cptnono (talk) 03:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I would agree that there is some redundancy with the blockade article.  I believe the proper resolution is actually to expand this article, by merging the contents of 2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip into it.  There may still be some repetition (dates, for example), but it is far from unreasonable to include a brief historic summary with the list, and falls squarely within WP:CFORK usage.  Actually, this article is exactly the way content is meant to be forked, per WP:CFORK: "... new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage."; and I think we can all agree that the blockade article needs some managing.  This proposed merge will
 * - Eliminate the redundancy.
 * - Result in a more logical organization.
 * - Prune the sprawling monster that the blockade article has become, instead of worsening the situation.    --Atypeoferror (talk) 04:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I almost love that idea and even considered retracting my request. However, my concern with it is that the goods blocked should be part of the primary scope of that article. That article failing should not mean we run and start a new one. That article should be fixed. And since no one has put in any effort to fix this article, I have little hope it will succeed. An RfC on how to fix that article and a separate merge(or split if this is deleted) discussion are options option.Cptnono (talk) 04:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Including the list in the blockade article seems like a logical approach. However, upon reading it again, the level of historical detail in that article is so great, it seems quite reasonable to split out things that can at all be presented as tangential.  Also, because the blockade is still happening, that article is bound to only get longer, so any logical splitting that we can do now seems like a good thing.  I agree with you that the blockade article needs to be fixed - and I prefer to think of keeping this page as a step towards fixing it.  Now we have a place for banned-item-specific information, so the main page can focus on past and currently developing political and social aspects, without getting especially bogged down in the minutia. --Atypeoferror (talk) 10:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - useful and educational, and notable. Kingturtle (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC) P.S. this survived an AfD less than two months ago.
 * Keep Notable, sourced, and informative. The ban is independently notable, hence not a CFORK. Asummary and link should appear in related articles. Verbal chat  07:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or Marge to 2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip. Unneccessary Content forking. Marokwitz (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is to long for a merge with 2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * He is the one who constantly added content to the article so that "it would be worth keeping" Altough nominator, me and some other users prefer the article as a table. If it is fork why did he expanded it, yet voted for delete both in slim and expanded version of the article. Kasaalan (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Adding content to articles so that they are worth keeping is sort of the point of editing Wikipedia. Having introduction and background are appropriate when the details of the list are in question, as in this case.Andrew Keenan Richardson 19:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The table should be deleted since it is a duplication of a primary source - this is not Wikisource . And it is not a useful table since it lists allowed items with blocked items in a very confusing way, in what seems to be an attempt to hint - based on no evidence - that these items are blocked (the source doesn't say so). After removing the table, this article will be short enough to merge. Marokwitz (talk) 08:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment First of all this is a nice AFD unlike the first one. Nominator properly notified users, comments are generally about the debate etc.
 * It is not illogical or WP:INDISCRIMINATE to make an article about the indiscriminate ban of a state which violates Human Rights of 100.000s of people as a collective punishment and self-admitted economic warfare. Most of the banned items [food and household items] has no relation to security whatsoever. That is why the Israeli court decided to lift the ban over nutrition and household items like chocolate or razor.
 * Try to think what would you do if you had no razor, soap, blanket, baby wipes, toothbrush, chocolate, biscuits, jam, fruit, agriculture material/farm animal/fishing supply etc. etc. at your home. Palestine cannot produce such things because of the war, and if they cannot import such items, they cannot accomplish their basic human needs. The table is important to understand the scope of the ban that affects basic human needs.
 * Also article is improved . Building such a categorized sortable table costs countless hours. 26 June 2010Change between 2 AFDs Goods allowed/banned for import into Gaza Kasaalan (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Because the list itself has a noteworthy history involving lawsuits, legislation, and multiple concerned parties, it seems to be a notable topic on its own. Also the list itself is useful and it's keeping with policy to keep the list at a separate article. Andrew Keenan Richardson 18:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The exact details of what is and is not a part of the blockade is important, and yet too large to be merged onto the 2007-present blockade of the Gaza Strip article. Also there is lots of text repeated many times on Wikipedia, like every country's main page is merely a summary of indepth articles on the country, so that it shares some text with another page is no reason to delete the page. Passionless (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I almost feel bad voting delete because I actually find the list interesting, but that's not a good argument for retaining it. Unfortunately this page is dominated by the truly impressive table, the rest is nothing that should not be contained under the page for the Gaza blockade.  Sadly I do not think the table alone merits its own article, however interesting it may be.  It would be nice if the table were able to be retained somehow but it's too cumbersome for the blockade article and isn't an article all on its own. - OldManNeptune⚓ (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems the table has been able to mislead you. If you read carefully you would see it is actually a list of ALLOWED items, which proponents of keeping are deliberately trying to confuse the public, to think that they are BLOCKED items. Marokwitz (talk) 08:22, 22 August 2010 (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.