Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic Association of Palestine


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. I see a consensus among participants that this is not a POVFORK and this article should be kept but could probably use additional sourcing if there is a bias present. Liz Read! Talk! 06:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Islamic Association of Palestine

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

Very obvious WP:POVFORK of Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, spends much of the article talking about the trial and the same people from a very biased POV. Not certain if there are notable differences from the HLF article User:Sawerchessread (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Some Info:
 * Initial Merge Discussion
 * I've been trying to solicit advice about Islamic Association of Palestine and merging it into Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. I don't want to force a WP:SILENCE on this, as I assume this may be contentious and relate to WP:ARBPIA, but it seemed noone was interested in a merge discussion after a month.
 * Information about the trial
 * The IAP article is a POVFork about the same trial as the HLF, with the same individuals and facts of the trial, and the original version of the article IAP last month went really deep into various conspirary theories linking IAP to every other Muslim organization in some grand "Jihad" terrorist ring. Particularly egregiously, the support for the conspiracy theory was from a source that was attempting to debunk it. The sourcing for HistoryCommons.org is a deadlink. And a source from Matthew Levitt is used more than ten times to make up most of this article, a person from the very pro-Israeli Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and a key witness for the trial. Relying so heavily on sourcing that is intrinsically related to the trial seems like a good argument to suggest this is an article about the HLF trial and not the IAP as an organization.
 * Information about what the IAP
 * I can't seem to find anything specific about the IAP from a lot of searches that doesn't immediately reference the HLF trial, and some of the sourcing on this that seemed to talk more specifically about the IAP is from deadlinks. If the only thing notable about the IAP is the HLF trial, then the article should be just merged into the HLF trial page.
 * I cleaned up some of it, but there is not enough differences between the two versions I think to justify making a new article.
 * The HLF article makes more sense and seems more objective without having to go full "Civilization Jihad." User:Sawerchessread (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike   [Talk]  22:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 22.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 19:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  22:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. Not seeing how it's a purported POVFORK. Per sources, the Islamic Association of Palestine is a separate organization from the Holy Land Foundation, so they should not be in the same article. An editor's perception of bias is not a reason for AfD, which is determined by coverage in WP:RS. Levvitt is a scholar and reliable source. Affiliation with an organization perceived as bias does not affect whether the source is credible and a reliable source of facts. Lots of coverage in source across the ideological spectrum that clearly establishes WP:GNG:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Significant coverage in scholarly work The Muslim Brotherhood and the West by scholar Martyn Frampton and published by Harvard University Press
 * in scholarly work by scholars Thomas. M. Pick, Anne Speckhard, and Beatrice Jacuch. Longhornsg (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * First article seems fine.
 * Second, third, fourth article is about the HLF trial.
 * Fifth source mentions IAP for one paragraph, and includes HLF.
 * 6th source uses a scratch note from one Muslim Brotherhood guy that was never accepted by any other muslim brotherhood. This 1991 note became the basis for the Civilization Jihad conspiracy theory in the 2000s to 2010s.
 * matthew Levitt was the key witness for HLF trial, and his work is entirely about proving financial connections between groups. His writings are about the holy land 5.
 * i argue that if this article is mostly about the trial to convict the 5, and the IAP is not sufficiently notable by itself except in context of the trial, it should be merged (maybe keep as a subsection in HLF what it did). User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that a passing mention (one word mention) in three of these sources also suggests it is a passing reference as part of discussion for the HLF trial.
 * I want to find more sourcing beyond the HLF trial and its repercussions, that there is enough info besides just the HLF trial to suggest it warrants an article User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That Matthew Levitt source is used 11 times throughout this article, when in the Holy Land article, his sourcing is used only once suggests a POV Fork.
 * A review of his work on NYTimes
 * "Similarly, to judge from his acknowledgements and his notes, Levitt depends heavily on analyses from the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center of the Center for Special Studies — an Israeli nongovernmental organization created "in memory of the fallen of the Israeli intelligence community" and staffed by its former employees... None of this would matter if Levitt used the center's analyses critically, but he doesn't appear to. As a result, there will be readers of this book who will see it as fronting for the Israeli intelligence establishment and its views."
 * Not arguing he's not academic, just biased (As is every source on Israel/palestine), and that citing him heavily about the trial and the evidence tying the defendents together in one article, and not citing heavily in another suggests a POV fork. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So add more sources. This is not what a WP:POVFORK is. Longhornsg (talk) 04:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla  Ohhhhhh, no! 06:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Islamic Association of Palestine is a different organization from the Holy Land Foundation. How is this a POV fork of the Holy Land Foundation - the article does not exclusively rely on Levitt's writings, directly cites an FBI report, and refers to a different organization from the HLF. Both were convicted of providing material support for terrorism and were proven to be fundraising arms for Hamas, alongside the Quranic Literacy Institute. All three organizations are notable as per the general notability guideline as per the sources Longhornsg provided. This article could easily be repaired by bringing in sources from the other two articles about the Holy Land Foundation case, so that the article is not largely reliant on Levitt, given possible concerns of bias. In order for something to be a POV fork, it must be on the same topic as another article. The Holy Land Foundation article is about the Holy Land Foundation, whereas this article is about the Islamic Association of Palestine.
 * TL;DR: No, this is not a POV fork because it simply isn't on the same topic as the Holy Land Foundation article and the Islamic Association of Palestine clearly meets WP:GNG. » PKMNLives  🖛  Talk   04:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It discusses the same trial to the same five men for 95% of the article. The suggestion to bring it into line by including sourcing from the other article would be to keep discussing the trial.
 * There is not enough about the organization by itself, outside of the context of the trial, and it is not notable except as part of the HLF trial. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.