Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of commercial goods allowed/banned for import into Gaza


 * 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 are some extremely unpleasant aspects to this AFD. The canvassing and battleground attitude to delete votes by Kaasalan were wholly unnecessary and tainted the whole discussion. On the one hand the delete side rightly say that this is an indiscriminate list and the significance of the information is unclear - even some keep vote acknowledge that it is not clear what the list is about. There are also claims that this is a POV fork and a coatrack. On the other hand, the keep side cite sources that discuss the banned items - the list is even hosted on the BBC website. The issue is clearly that we have an article masquerading as a list and the scope and purpose of that article hasn't been agreed. I'm going to close this as no-consensus but with a clear requirement that the list is moved/merged into an article and properly expanded to put the list into context. If this doesn't happen in a reasonable timescale then I can see another AFD on the horizon and that will be harder for the keep side if this doesn't get better in the meantime. Spartaz Humbug! 04:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

List of commercial goods allowed/banned for import into Gaza

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Trivial errata that serves no encyclopedic purpose at all. Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Note that the ban itself is noted in 2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip. There is no encyclopedic value in a table detailing the entire list itself. Tarc (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Not encyclopedic material. Clearly does not need an article. Alio The Fool 22:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is definitely encyclopedic material. It sure can be impoved, because it may not be clear what this list is about. The fact is that the only goods which have been allowed for import into Gaza are those on this list. Any and all other goods were banned for no comprehensible reason. There is a lot of talk about the blocade of Gaza, but it is quite difficult to understand how severe the blocade actually is. This list goes a long way to explaining what this particular blocade means. GastelEtzwane (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Aliothefool. Who can vouch that this is an updated list? If a list can be provided, it would not be encyclopedic, but who will monitor the article to make sure that it is always updated? --Shuki (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The list only needs items from Gisha list, which is updated recently anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/05_05_10_gazaimports.pdf
 * http://www.gisha.org/UserFiles/File/publications/Products060610_Eng(1).pdf
 * If we add 2 lists. No more major update required. Kasaalan (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, in expanded form Change from "List of commercial goods allowed/banned for import into Gaza" to just "Commercial goods allowed/banned for import into Gaza" and have the List itself, be a (major) section of that (slightly re-named) rticle, giving the most up to date version possible. Other sections will include history, when the list/banned item started (linking to other Wikipedia articles for details) and include history like a few items being allowed (or crossed off the list) after the assault on the Gaza flotilla. Gisha.org a reputable (and Israeli by the way) group keeps a list that is the most accurate widely publicly available. The section of the article covering "list" could state "as of [date]" what that list is (and of course include links to Gisha.org et al. Other statements may include recent statements by politicians from all sides, and human rights, concerning efforts to resolve the issue in the future, etc. Harel (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion I should not have used the word List when I started the article, it seemed appropriate at the time. But the article should be expanded to include other information as you suggest. GastelEtzwane (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I fail to see how this list merits an article of its own.  Enigma msg  18:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong arguments again Very specific verifiable information Nothing related with WP:INDISCRIMINATE at all. Information is very specific, detailed, factual, verifiable official. The list is needed in most Gaza blockade related articles like Gaza flotilla raid. It clearly shows what Israel bans or allows. Kasaalan (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No list has ever been published or recognized by the Government of the state of Israel. As such, No list published on Wikipedia can ever be properly sourced. some lists are available online, these are written by different NGO and other organization and all vary greatly in content. Keeping this list will be a sure source of online debates, and completely useless. nothing more. I suggest writing a new page as soon as the Israeli government publishes a list. Then it will merit a page as it can be used as a journalistic source. Raisescale (talk) 07:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong arguments The offical list is relesead after Gisha take the case to the court. Read article. Kasaalan (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, not because it's not an encyclopaedic topic, but because there is no confirmed list of what is and is not allowed. All that is left is speculation, which fails WP:V.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC).
 * You are wrong list is officially confirmed by Israeli court by Israeli Human rights group Gisha. Kasaalan (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply, the list from Gisha explicitly says "It is not possible to verify this list with the Israeli authorities because they refuse to disclose information regarding the restrictions on transferring goods into Gaza". This is from June 2010.  In other words, its based on hearsay and observations (which change from time to time), and therefore is not verifiable.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 21:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC).
 * Keep I agree with editors such as Harel. The material is encyclopaedic in my opinion. It is very relevant to the subject of the Gaza blockade. And it is non-trivial. I also think that the article should be developed beyond a list. I thought that this article was worth a read: The Economist - Trade Off, What goods does Israel bar from the Gaza Strip, 1 June 2010.     ←   ZScarpia  17:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Not encyclopedic material.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Official response by Israeli courts against the file suit by Israeli Human rights organisation Gisha
 * http://www.gisha.org/index.php?intLanguage=2&intItemId=1217&intSiteSN=143&OldMenu=143
 * http://www.gisha.org/index.php?intLanguage=2&intSiteSN=119&intItemId=1798&OldMenu=13
 * http://www.gisha.org/index.php?intLanguage=2&intSiteSN=119&intItemId=1795&OldMenu=13
 * Extended List of Banned/Prohibited Goods confirmed by Israeli courts by Israeli Human Rights Organisation Gisha.
 * http://www.gisha.org/UserFiles/File/publications/Obstruction_and_obfuscation.doc

The list was unconfirmed until the Gisha filed a court case and the list is official by Israeli courts. Kasaalan (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely no encyclopedic relevance or importance to what is in the list, regardless of who officially recognizes it or not.  Mention that there is a list of banned goods in a relevant article, that's fine.  List this gisha place in an "External Links" sub-section, that's fine too.  But we're not here to serve as a repository for what is little more than an excel spreadsheet of data. Tarc (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a blockade in Gaza if you are aware. Read 2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip So the blockade is rationalized by weapon smuggling of Hamas. True. But why there is a ban against chocolate. Or what is even banned. It was uncertain until Gisha made a court case and clarified what is banned or not in 2009-2010. Now the list is official by Israeli courts. Certainly encyclopedic, very specific list, verifiable, factual, official. Kasaalan (talk) 13:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Who gives a fuck why chocolate is banned? Encyclopedias are not the venue in which to speculate.  You confuse notability of the blockade and the ban on goods themselves with notability of the individual items.  As I said, place a link in 2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip to somewhere off-site that has the list, that is fine.  The list itself has no place in this project. Tarc (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you swear or who cares your opinion. But for the people interested in international politics, human rights, wars, Israel-Palestine conflict it is important what is banned or not. As you can tell Israeli HR group made a court case about it, Israeli court accepted it and made a decision to the exact list to be revelaed, RS news/media sources published it. BBC So your opinion doesn't matter at all. You just try to delete the article. Kasaalan (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also the very fact that even chocolate is banned clearly shows the ban even includes basic food supply items. Read collective punishment Kasaalan (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * List of banned item/people articles in wikipedia
 * List of books banned by governments
 * List of banned films
 * List of banned video games
 * List of banned writers
 * List of air carriers banned in the European Union
 * List of authors banned during the Third Reich
 * List of people banned from Major League Baseball
 * List of websites blocked in the People's Republic of China
 * List of films banned in Iran
 * List of drugs banned from the Olympics
 * List of books banned in Iran
 * List of songs banned by the BBC
 * List of individuals banned from entering the United Kingdom
 * List of cricketers banned for match fixing
 * List of smoking bans

There are even more. Kasaalan (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Your analogies miss the mark by a wide margin, the proverbial apples and oranges. A better comparison would be to note that we have an article on the Cuban embargo, but not a List of American goods restricted by the Cuban embargo. Tarc (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What a failed argument. You may create the page with multiple RS if you put effort, there is no such page or example AFD for it. You are just mading up a red link that never existed.
 * For specific embargoes like Arms embargo you don't need lists because all arms are banned. Yet a non-clearly defined embargo like 2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip you need specific items over what is banned or not. If anything is banned or the list is too short you don't need an article, if the item list is long and there are too many mixed items/details you need an article per WP:TOOLONG and WP:SPLIT. Since the ban covers basic human needs and even includes food items like chocolate, there needs to be a clearence. Israel claims they ban arms against armed attacks, yet they ban chocolate. Can Israel explain why they ban chocolate, no, so they had to lift off that ban after court. Israel even held ban list as a secret, and rejected to reveal its list. After court decision they had to release the list by official court ruling.'' Kasaalan (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Specific items are not notable, and you have yet to demonstrate a single shred of evidence to the contrary. Again, stop conflating the embargo itself with the items embargoed.  The link I put above is a deliberate redlink because it was a demonstration of an absurd, ridiculous idea for an article that will never exist in the Wikipedia. Tarc (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe you fail to read the article. Details of Gaza blockade revealed in court case by Tim Franks, BBC News, Jerusalem Full list (pdf) of commercial items allowed by BBC Source: Confidential information from international groups, compiled by the BBC. (The list refers to goods brought in by commercial importers. Kasaalan (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I prefer listing multiple RS media sources about the case instead personal arguments. There are even more in related articles, including UN reports. Kasaalan (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Multiple RS news coverage on Banned items and Gisha
 * Details of Gaza blockade revealed in court case by Tim Franks, BBC News, Jerusalem
 * Full list (pdf) by BBC via
 * Gazans get halva, but not cookies by Amira Hass, Haaretz
 * Israel's Gaza blockade baffles residents by Diaa Hadid, Associated Press
 * Israel lifts ban on some foods for Gaza By Diaa Hadid, The Associated Press
 * Israel eases Gaza blockade, but withholds details By Sheera Frenkel, McClatchy Newspapers
 * Stephen Lendman, Al Arabiya
 * Destination Rafah by Amira Howeidy, Al Ahram
 * Flotilla heading to Gaza Strip not first time Free Gaza Movement's targeted blockade by Barry Paddock, DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
 * Officials: Israel to Significantly Ease Gaza Blockade Associated Press


 * Keep Just because the Israeli government has not published an official list, that is no reason to delete this article. The list was compiled and confirmed by numerous NGOs, UN officials, and other international organisations. It was published by numerous high-profile news sources all around the world. It has also been confirmed by Israeli courts. It provides vital information in understanding the Gaza Blockade and the arguments behind the reactions to it. I cannot think of a single reason for it to be deleted. --386-DX (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable article subject, covered by many, many international media outlets. --Soman (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Verifiable, Notable, Factual, Specific and Detailed List based article. By the way the AFD nominator didn't show any effort in notifying the page creator and recent contributor (me) about AFD. I notified by the article creator after 3 days. Another good example case for WP:GOODFAITH in AFDs. Kasaalan (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge with the Gaza Blockade article. It might be a good list to put at the very end of the article so that it doesn't interfere with readability.  But I don't think it makes sense as an article on its own.  And it definitely isn't encyclopedic content.  This is a list that is constantly updating and may have some major changes in the near term future.  But the content itself IS the kind of thing that people might look for and having it as a part of the Gaza Blockade article just seems to make sense.  Zuchinni one (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete These details are in no way encyclopedic per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --Kslotte (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note to closing administrator There was canvassing related to this AfD here.  Enigma msg  23:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: Which is a page on the watchlist of quite a few of the pro-Israeli editors at Wikipedia. As for canvassing, posting a notice there goes both ways. --Soman (talk) 00:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's canvassing also because it was not posted neutrally. Notifying a Wikiproject can be acceptable if it's just posted there without an opinion. That was not the case here, and it was a clear violation. He got what he wanted, as shortly after, you and others showed up to vote keep.  Enigma msg  01:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The user could have been more courteous for sure, but I don't think it's a grave violation. The editors supporting the deletion also showed up after seeing the same message. The message was written openly, the notified editors were not cherry-picked, and there wasn't a mass posting. --386-DX (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like more showed up to vote keep. Look at the time stamps. Naturally, most of the people actively participating in Wikiproject Palestine want it kept, so a pro-Palestinian editor went and posted it there, indicating they should go and vote keep. I think it's problematic to only notify the Wikiproject that represents your POV, let alone to write what he did.  Enigma msg  14:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The "admin" claiming canvas has a personal grudge against me, since I proved he become admin without any major content creation effort in wikipedia. He is refusing he has pro-Israel state bias. Yet he always voted "delete" for many Israeli-peace activist or related AFDs that I contributed, though he claims he isn't interested in Israel Palestine related topics. When I stress that fact, he claims there is personal attack against him, and deletes whole of my comments. He didn't even show the courtesy to notify me about AFD before, that is why we harshly argued in my talk page just recently. He fails to even get I posted same notice in Wikipedia_talk:Notice_board_for_Israel-related_topics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Middle Eastern military history task force or Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid where both Palestinian, Isareli and 3rd party users like me are present. [Try not to delete messages this time or I fully revert] Kasaalan (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also an AFD without any related WikiProject users is a failed and underhanded AFD. If the AFD nominator didn't showed the courtesy, then I notify the related project users. Kasaalan (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As the AfD initiator, I am under no obligation to notify any wikiproject. I am a member of none of them, and will not seek out such groups to leave notifications.  If other users such as yourself wish to, that is fine, but where you erred is that you left non-neutral and biased notices.  WP:CANVAS is a behavioral guideline, broadly accepted by the Wikipedia community.  You flaunted that, and continue to do so as you disparage other editors who point our your wrongdoing. Tarc (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You came out of blue, do not seek any consensus, first PROD then AFD, do not show the courtesy to notify only 2 page contributors, then start talking about bias and wiki etiquette. People are even claiming they are not obligatory to notify article creators, contributors or related wiki project users about AFD nowadays. What if I was not even around in wikipedia. Why should the article contributor put all the efforts while some random non-contributor starts an AFD while you are not around in wikipedia. You waste my time without putting any effort in Afd. Seriously you should before any AFD. Kasaalan (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No one needs consensus to initiate a PROD or an AfD; if they see an article they feel violates Wikipedia policy, then they act as they see fit. I have nothing more to say on this tangent. Tarc (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that user Kasaalan has personally attacked me on multiple occasions, including in this AfD, and constantly makes unfounded accusations against me if I dare to comment on an issue that involves him, and even attacks me here in several places. He, without question, was canvassing, and left biased notices at places where he knew he would get support, thus swaying the community participating in this AfD.  Enigma msg  00:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I left notice in all related channels including Israel, Palestine and Israel/Palestine boards along with Gaza Flotilla talk page exact same notice one after another. All 3 boards has mixed contributors Israeli/Jew, Palestinian/Arab and other 3rd party. So you either know that fact and hiding it, or don't even make any research before accusing me. You try to AFD without notifying related project users, you don't show courtesy to notify contributors, then trying to accuse me. Didn't you recently AFD another page I contribute [a Jewish peace camp list] without notifying me or other page contributors in May/June with 5-6 users. So why do you insint on AFDs without related users? Then trying to blame me when I notice my frustration over unnecessary/extremely fast PROD-AFDs without any proper pre-AFD steps like debate/consensus/research. If Noticeboard for Palestine-related topics is canvas, why do I bother doing it openly and along with Noticeboard for Israel-related topics and Middle Eastern military history task force or Gaza flotilla raid where opposing views watch, participate and debate. You just try to waste my time with POV arguments, while do not bothering any effort in improving the related article at all. Kasaalan (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in improving the article because it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. You clearly canvassed by leaving biased and POV messages instead of leaving a proper and neutral notice, and this has been noted by others. "You try to AFD without notifying related project users, you don't show courtesy to notify contributors, then trying to accuse me." I don't even know what this means. I didn't start this AfD. I merely commented on it.  Enigma msg  23:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So are you interested improving other articles? Can you provide a good long list of articles you created/majorly contributed so we can witness your vast editing skills and be amazed against your content creation efforts for wikipedia. No? You started an AFD for another list article we had a conflict without noticing me in May, you clearly remember it. So why did you mention Palestine notification board notice but not mention exact same notice in Israel notification board or Middle East notification board or Gaza flotilla talk while blaming me for Canvassing.
 * There are multiple issues with the AFD process as usual. Some user created article in 14.06.2010 and added it on a related main article. [It was a necessary article being discussed but personally I didn't have enough effort to create it myself] AFD nominator put PROD in 25.06.2010 with a trivial reason so I removed PROD and updated table on 26.06.2010. AFD nominator started an AFD a couple hours later I finished my edits, he didn't notify me or article creator or any main article user about AFD. I was away from wikipedia, not watching or contributing pages so I wasn't aware of AFD. Article creator notified me in 01.07.2010 and added multiple RS [5 days were already gone with some random and not-so-random user opinions]. I debated in AFD and only found time to improve the article second time on 04.07.2010 atfer other users spent time adding Gisha's information on 03-04.07.2010. And if I even would have notified some users who might care improving the article, since there is an AFD going on it would be count as "Canvassing". Yet why should we have a rushed PROD-AFD with random/non-random AFD list watchers, while the article is being developed without any CONSENSUS/DEBATE/NOTIFICATION process with Fork page/Main page contributors then? Kasaalan (talk) 23:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. An article already exists on the topic: 2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip The list's lead is imbalanced enough that it looks like a WP:POVFORK with a touch of WP:COATRACKiness for its prominent mentions of criticism without discussing Israel's reason. The list isn't really needed but it would work fine in the article or as an external link to the source.
 * And in the future, write requests for other editor's thoughts in a neutral tone if you don't want to be accused of canvassing.Cptnono (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No. AFD without any debate in talk is already POV in my view. There was a demand in Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid in the past, so I also helped improving article after someone created it. 2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip is already WP:TOOLONG. Kasaalan (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand TOOLONG correctly. It is readable prose not total size that applies. 6551 words at less than 43KB is fine. And the table (if it is really needed at all) isn't readable prose anyways is it? An external link to that BBC article would certainly not be. Cptnono (talk) 06:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no encyclopedic value in a table detailing the entire list. Marokwitz (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Some users are arguing that the article should be deleted because the lead looks bad. If any part of the article could be made better, the action to take is to make it better, not delete the whole page. The list is not hearsay or speculation; the items were confirmed by numerous international organisations. The list of banned items was published by numerous reliable sources around the world. The list is crucial for discussions related to the legality of the blockade, as well as for understanding the international reactions. It does have encyclopedic value, and it is certainly notable. --386-DX (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep If it needs work then work on it. This is notable and has value.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin - This is about due for a close today, and I;d like to urge the closer to look at whether or not reliable sources confer notability on the specific list of goods or is the notability conferred on the general fact that there is an import/export ban. Many of the keep calls see no difference between the two.  I feel it is the later, and note the analogy to the US' Cuban embargo above; the embargo is notable, and examples of what is banned are cited by RS in support of that notability, but to put an exhausting list of what is banned is clear-cut WP:INDISCRIMINATE IMO.  We are not a repository for spreadsheets, and the full laundry list of info could either be accessible via an external link or perhaps if it is published by an NGO, it can go to wikisource. Tarc (talk) 11:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I would say that what is notable is what is banned. Most embargoes seem less arbitary then the Gaza blockade, and knowing what Israle considers millitary items will help put that embargo into context.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that most of the article, including the list, is of goods which are allowed to Gaza, and not banned. Marokwitz (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We have RS for banned goods too, if you like to update table. Also allowed goods are banned at least since 2007, and are allowed in 2009/2010 after Gisha took the case to the Israeli court. Kasaalan (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep All entries are confirmed by NGO's and as stated above an article needing work is not a reason to delete. Mo ainm  ~Talk  15:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not believe anyone has argued to delete because it needs work, have they? I see delete opinions that cite established editing policy and guidelines above, that believe the subject matter of the article is unencyclopedic for several reasons. Tarc (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep because:
 * 1) The lists themselves are notable.
 * 2) The article discusses the lists, it is not merely a copy of the list. (Currently it does not even include all the list.)
 * 3) the list information does not seem overly long, in the event that it ran to thousands of items there would be a case for summarising and moving to Wikisource (which is not to say that mere length is a reason to repudiate lists - simply that it would be in this case).
 * Rich Farmbrough, 18:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC).
 * Note this addresses the point above "specific items are not notable" - notability is not the criteria to be included in the article, significance is. Rich Farmbrough, 20:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC).


 * Delete It's not even a list of banned items, it's a list of permissible items, which sheds rather little light on the status of Gaza as a result. I would be interested in this if it showed information that could be interpreted in a useful way.  I see little value to Wikipedia from this list. - OldManNeptune (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As has been said an article needing work is not a reason for deletion. As a side question to those who edit the page why does it not list banned items dispite its title?Slatersteven (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have now added a list of items that Gisha have alledged are banned.Slatersteven (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (Not that I edit the article particularly.) It might benefit from another rename later, as Harel said above. The article is to some extent about the lists, and how hard they are/were to obtain, rather than about the goods and the effect the blockade or otherwise of them has.  It also covers lists put together by third parties, and, of course there is massive RS about the putative governmental lists, commentary by parties to the dispute, NGOs, international organizations, journalists etc.. Rich Farmbrough, 20:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC).
 * So the "list" has now turned into an article? My reasoning for delete up above is now even more valid.Cptnono (talk) 07:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I would have thought that would make a rename more valid.Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It being a list made some sense according to the "keep" arguments even though I still believe it was unnecessary. Now it really is just a second article on the same subject. Cptnono (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Forgive me but this not an artciel about the blockade but about what items Israle has (and has not) allowed in. Now if it has expanded from just a list (and I am not sure it has that much) then we can re-work it. None of this measn it should be deleted. What inseatd is needed is a duscusioin about what this page should be, and how to achive it. For example,we now have a list of banned items this was not in the articel but now is (so now any votes for delete based on lack of list are now invlaid). yes th8is needs work, but so do a lot of articles.Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes it is an article about the blockade. That is why it is a POVFORK.Cptnono (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * So if this page is deleted then this material would have to be put ijnto the Gaza blockade articel, correct?Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A quick ctrl+f on both articles shows that most of the prose already is.Cptnono (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * But not the lists, so do you think that the material (prose asside) should be merged with the Gaza blockade articel?Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As discussed above, the table might OK placed in the article. The BBC article could also be used as a reference or an external link instead.Cptnono (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What about the list of banned items, should that be in the Gaza Blockade articel?Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If it is modified to meet MoS it also might work. Some editors believe it is INDISCRIMINATE and not necessary at all so it again could instead also be used as a reference or an external link.. Does the full list need to be provided on Wikipedia? Do editors in favor of it actually want the list or is their main goal to make a point with the prose?
 * The problem is that this list/article looks to only be created to make a point. Cherry picked unbalanced quotes push a POV in what could have been a lead and a list. Here are two snippets from WP:LIST that were ignored:
 * "However short or schematic a list description, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view applies..."
 * "Lists should not be used to create content forks between a topic that has a separate wikipedia article..."
 * But since this is now an article, it is clearly duplicated information that is not neutral. This makes it a POVFORK that needs to be deleted. If editors attempt to create an actual list, then the arguments of if it is indiscriminate or not need to be concluded. I doubt there would have been so much opposition to the list if it had initially adhered to Wikipedia's standards. So a discussion if the list is recreated might yield less knee-jerk bickering.Cptnono (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It does not contain duplicate information, the information provided in the two lists does not appear in the other articel. Whilst the prose may duplicate that is justg antoehr example of this page needing work, not deletion. Also how is the information not neutral? I again say that if this needs work thyen we work at it, we do not delete it. Perhaos you could also give some examles of were the text matches the text of the otehr articel.Slatersteven (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A POV list would be something like "List of Israeli crimes against humanity" or "List of innocent people killed by Israel". There is nothing POV about this one. It provides material information which has been reported by numerous high-profile RS, and it is certainly notable enough to have its own article. --386-DX (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So you only addressed one issue. There are three issues:
 * Was a POV list that does not follow MoS and needs to be gutted to even be considered viable.
 * Indiscriminate. A simple lead with the lists might work but enough editors have expressed that it looks like a collection of unecyclopedic information that that should not be ignored.
 * It is currently not a list. Therefore it is a second article on the same topic. It was a list at first but is now not.Cptnono (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I created a table for banned items [contains items permitted in 2010] by Gisha's list. After we merge the tables, it will reflect complete information. The items in the permitted list were also banned before 2009/2010 so all items are already banned at least for a period. Kasaalan (talk) 22:38, 4 July 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.