Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamastan


 * 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   Not-delete. Discussions on whether or not to merge the article can be taken up on its talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hamastan

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

"Hamastan" is a WP:NEOLOGISM absent from all reliable dictionaries and encyclopedias. The term has been used, always incidentally and in passing, by many commentators and in a large number of media reports. However, I am unaware of a single reliable source that is actually about the word "hamastan," as opposed to simply using or mentioning it. Certainly, no such source has ever been mentioned in the article. In fact, the article has systematically over-stated the influence and relevance of the term "hamastan." For instance, a single off-hand comment by a senior Hamas politician has become the sole basis of a section called "Hamas response," and the crucial phrase, "Since 2007, the term has been used to refer to its 2007 victory in Gaza over Fatah in the inter-Palestinian conflict," is sourced to a brief AP wire story recounting comments by an Israeli politician who incidentally used the term "Hamastan." The article definitively fails Wikipedia's basic notability standard, in that it cites no sources about the term "Hamastan." WP:NEOLOGISM, which explicates this basic standard, could have been written with "Hamastan" specifically in mind:Created terms that add common prefixes or suffixes (such as non– or –ism) to existing words can add clarity, and this may be acceptable in some cases. If not done carefully, however, this practice can result in new terms that are misleading, ambiguous, offensive, or that lend undue weight to a particular point of view. (For instance, adding –ism to a word can sometimes be offensive, implying a belief system or political movement. It may also lead readers to believe there is an established school of thought on a topic where there is not.) Where editors disagree about the use of these neologisms it is best to err on the side of not using them.[...]Articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet—without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use.The salvageable content of this article (ie, the material that does not misrepresent its sources in order to puff up the term "Hamastan") should be merged to Hamas, Governance of the Gaza Strip, and whichever other articles could stand it. The article itself should be deleted as a pointless violation of numerous WP policies. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 01:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * AGREE/CONCUR/SUPPORT If it was in a dictionary, then I would have to (grudgingly) accept it; but it isn't, so I don't. --NBahn (talk) 02:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Heyo Nathan, There's actually a good number of articles for terms that don't appear in dictionaries (Sample: ) and this is a very new term as well. I think you need to review the policies as there's no mention that a term must be in dictionaries before its allowed to write an article about it. I've just come to the belief that the article should probably stay, give my reasoning (a bit lower) a look. Warm regards,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  12:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Condense and merge to Hamas. I couldn't find any sources with in-depth coverage talking about the term "Hamastan" as opposed to using the term, although I didn't look through all 2300+ Gnews hits. If someone can come up with significant coverage of the term itself, I'll change to a keep. But for now, this needs to be condensed to a paragraph and merged. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  03:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Another target for merger might be Palestinian territories. Apparently, "Hamastan" is an alternative, pejorative term used by Israeli and other media to refer to the Palestinian territories (Gaza strip and West bank) (See page 7 of this). Just because there are two or more commonly used names for the same geographical location doesn't mean we should have more than one article.  Wikipedia covers topics and mentions all alternative names in one article. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk </b> 04:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Hamastan is mostly used with the intention of having a useful shorthand term for "Hamas controlled Islamic state in Gaza". It's common usage (and subsequent notability) is based on just that as the ease of use has found its way to all types of sources. The term has numerous favorable or benign context appearances and it has become quite common with it's original "place of" (-stan) context. Sample:  - Hamas's takeover of Gaza, which yesterday seemed closer than ever, is destined to split the territories into two entities that are politically and even culturally separate: Hamastan (the Gaza Strip) and Fatahstan (the West Bank). --  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  09:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP -- This is a handy term for referring to a current (partially-realized) or possible future Palestinian Islamic state which has been use for about four years now, and has appeared in a number of articles in "mainstream" media. Note that this word is not a synonym for Gaza (as both some who want to delete the article and some who want to keep it appear to believe); it was coined in response to the results of the Palestinian_municipal_elections,_2005 and then Palestinian legislative election, 2006, when Gaza and the West bank were not divided as they are now, and it can be used to refer to various scenarios of a possible future Palestinian Islamic state (not necessarily confined to Gaza). AnonMoos (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - AnonMoos is correct that the term, which applies to any territory controlled by Hamas or a Hamas equivalent (Islamist organization), could indeed refer to more than just the Gaza strip and many concerns have been raised that Hamas would try a military coup over the West Bank as well as it did in Gaza.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  15:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Both of you have said that the term has appeared in a number of articles. Given that I have already stated this fact, and that the quoted policies clearly state that just having appeared in a number of sources is not sufficient for an article, why do you keep bringing up this point? How about instead you cite even one source that actually covers the term nontrivially, rather than just using or mentioning it? &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 16:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment My first thought is that it refers to a country which is all about Ham. Edison (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * HA! :-) --NBahn (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The AfD was opened shortly after an RfC was started for resolving on whether the term should be described first and foremost as a 'pejorative'. Current article version is not a consensus one (see: Talk:Hamastan).  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  07:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge as per nomination, merge to Hamas. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> pedrito  -  talk  - 21.04.2009 09:17
 * Comment - shouldn't it be Occupied Hamastan ?...just kidding. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I wasn't sure so I took some time and thought it over and came to the following conclusion: besides how common the term has become in mainstream media, there is no way that it could be explained, along with the two/three possible uses (pejorative and standard), within the context of the Hamas article without becoming undue. I can also see it mentioned on numerous articles that relate to the Gaza strip as it's become the most common terminology for the "Hamas Islamist state in Gaza".  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  12:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with Hamas. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Condense and Merge per LinguistatLarge, splitting material between Hamas, Gaza Strip and/or Palestinian Authority where appropriate. Hamastan is just a word with pejorative connotations for the Gaza Strip under Hamas control.  T i a m u t talk 18:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or (in the least) Merge Topic has become mainstream and recognized by a high-level Hamas official and major media. I certainly would not endorse a delete with that kind of support, but a merge seems like a "reasonable", though unnecessary compromise. However, I cannot picture implementing a merge into Hamas without consequently removing much of the source material other than the quote(s) and basic background. I can't say I'm comfortable with that. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep—notable neologism. Neologisms can have articles. The nominator's argument doesn't stand because Hamastan is well-sourced and used by many notable figures. It is not something that we invented on Wikipedia, or something that was used by a fringe blogger. —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - examples of people using the word isnt enough to have an article on the word, its enough to use it in other articles. Nableezy (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to Wiktionary. As a somewhat notable neologism, it would be useful to have a definition, but that belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. — BQZip01 —  talk 03:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The multiple sources discussing the term indicates that the term is notable. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- One will find another 702,000 hits  if one spells it "Hamas-stan" instead.  Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2009 (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.