Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Israel (1948–present)


 * 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 (WP:SNOWBALL). (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī   (talk)  18:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

History of Israel (1948–present)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Duplication of History of Israel. Recently, the page creator already tried to split the main article, but there was no consensus to do that, because there are already more than enough of WP:CFORK on this topic (History of Israel, History of Palestine, History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel). So he just went against the RfC results, anyway. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 08:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep: A bizarre request to delete an article that quite clearly deserves to exist. Most countries have an article for their history since their independence/contemporary-ear founding through to present, or some sort of other article focused specifically on their contemporary history, not least History of India (1947–present), History of Pakistan (1947–present), History of France (1900–present), History of modern Greece, History of modern Egypt, History of modern Tunisia, History of modern Mongolia, History of modern Serbia, etc. This is due to the obvious interest to readers in specifically reading about a country's formation and/or contemporary history in its own right, as well as it being an obvious wiki platform-friendly point for the division of content. The content here is already at 70kB, which rather proves the point that it is a substantial body of content in its own right, and there is plenty more than can be expanded upon; it is possible that further child articles created from this content may also need to be created. The page has already drawn in additional material from other relevant child pages that the body of content would not have been able to absorb in its existing format as a sub-section of an already grossly overlength parent article. In the absence of a consensus in the aforementioned split discussion, the WP:SPLIT guideline notes: "Failure to reach a consensus, whether the result of a split discussion or a bold split that was contested, usually results in the article remaining whole. A contested bold split may be reverted; however it is not always appropriate to redirect the new article to the old as the new article may stand on its own, even if the main article that it came from is not split." (my emphasis) - i.e.: exactly the situation we have here. This article has every right to exist, regardless of the material not yet being removed from parent article due to lack of agreement over how to deal with it. The page has already been edited by 6 other editors, none of whom have raised even a murmur of objection to its validity - a situation already constituting a significant WP:SILENTCONSENSUS on this. I, obviously, also do not agree with you. Other editors have already actively reverted your attempts to delete the page, another has stated "good article", and yet another has posted on my talk to congratulate a job well done, so to say that you are already obviously in the minority on this is an understatement. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It was all discussed at length in the RfC two months ago, and was agreed against to. So you just decided to ignore it? Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing was agreed. A discussion reached a no consensus, inconclusive outcome, and the means by which to best go about rationalizing History of Israel remains unresolved. It remains an issue. You are welcome to make further suggestions to that end. That does not preclude page creation elsewhere for reasons that quite obviously abide by WP:SUMMARY. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Israel.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep the is a DE nom. Nomination rationale is ridiculous and show no understanding of policy and guidelines. Triggerhippie4 behavior on the page that led to this nom need to be examined.  // Timothy :: talk  09:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What "policy and guidelines" are you talking about? Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep: As someone who voted against the split proposal in the past, now I see it's much better to have a more specialized article for post-1948 history, provided the original article on History of Israel also has some summarized content on this period, albeit in a reduced form. Plus this would solve the extra size issue in the larger article. For the record, History of Germany has far more than 140kb, but even in that case they made separate articles to deal with different periods specifically. Dovidroth (talk) 09:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - On WP:TOOLONG grounds if nothing else. FOARP (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not denying that the parent page is too long. A better way to deal with it would be shortening pre-1948 part there, so there would be no need to create this new article, otherwise History of Israel (1948–present), History of Israel and History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel are WP:CFORKs. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Timothy has already explained WP:SUMMARY quite clearly on the child's talk page. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems an entirely sensible way to proceed in all the circumstances.Selfstudier (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I wanted to wait a bit to see the opinions of some of those who had participated in the previous split discussion. My initial reaction was that the article focusing on modern history of Israel post-Israeli Declaration of Independence should exist on its own, so I am glad to see a lot of other editors express the same sentiment. I think this is a good example of a logical split and it is clear the previous "no consensus" discussion was leaning toward some kind of solution, so to accuse the author (who has clearly put a lot of work into this page) of going against consensus does not seem very constructive. As for the nominator, I can't help but wonder why you are so determined to eliminate this article? You have not refined your argument since CSD request, which multiple editors having already objected to your line of reasoning on the talk page. To be honest, your actions are becoming disruptive and I think WP:DROPTHESTICK is the best route to follow.  Ppt91    talk   16:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 'Keep There's enough here to support a separate article.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2023 (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.