Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian Bedouin


 * 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. North America1000 04:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Palestinian Bedouin

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

This article appears to be a POV fork of Negev Bedouin, to push the POV that these Bedouins are an organic part of the Palestinian people. Virtually all the contents there appears in the original article, with less POV terminology. A redirect to Negev Bedouin had been made by several editors previously, and reverted each time, with a suggestion to take it here. Inf-in MD (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not a POV fork. I wrote the Negev Bedouin article with the intention of covering the Bedouin inside the borders of Israel (1967 borders). 14 years later, Bedouin inside Israel is still the focus of that article. This article attempts to also cover Bedouin outside of the 67 borders (eg West Bank Bedouin). That's not a WP:content fork. One could argue that the scope of Negev Bedouin should be expanded to include Bedouin outside the 67 borders (and perhaps moving Negev Bedouin to something else that indicates the expanded scope), but I don't see consensus for that either.VR talk 15:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 95% of the Palestinian Bedouin article is about Bedouin inside Israel, not those outside of the 67 borders and overlaps what you wrote (albeit in a more POV manner), and the 5% that is about them added just last week, after I raised my FORK concerns. Do you support removing those parts that overlap (replacing them with a "See main article Negev Bedouin)? Inf-in MD (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a good idea. Imagine arguing that the article Palestinians should have nothing on Arab citizens of Israel because the latter article already exists. The 95%/5% issue sounds like a WP:WEIGHT problem and I agree it should be fixed.VR talk 16:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - this article covers more than Negev Bedouin, and the editor who created this AFD earlier acknowledged that with the material on West Bank Bedouin that this article should be kept. Seems odd to then nominate it for deletion. But Palestinian Bedouin is not a POV fork as it covers material totally unrelated, the West Bank Bedouin being very much not in Israel, very much not in the Negev, and very much Palestinian. Not getting his way on content in the article, and being unwilling to pursue DR as one normally would do if editing in good faith, is not a valid deletion reason. This deletion request appears to be a a classic case of forum shopping - they didn't get their way in the talk page discussion, so took it to AfD on spurious grounds.  nableezy  - 15:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am ok with the article being kept, if its scope excludes the overlapping areas (currently 95% of the article), but as my attempts to reduce that overlap were reverted, here we are.  Inf-in MD (talk)
 * So because you are unable to "win" a content dispute you nominate the article for deletion? And you describe that exact MO as a classic case of forum shopping elsewhere? Huh.  nableezy  - 16:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have explained my position clearly: I am fine with having one article for Bedouin inside Israel, one for those outside. I am not fine with having two articles with 95% overlap, which is the current situation. There are multiple ways to resolve this - one is a merge+redirect, which you oppose. Another is to remove the overlapping content, which you also oppose. I will leave to others to see who is trying to win a dispute here.Inf-in MD (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have explained that due to being unable to prevail in a content dispute you nominated this article for deletion. WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP, and per your own words this is a a classic case of forum shopping.  nableezy  - 16:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest a merge, you removed my merge tag and suggested I take it to AfD . I do that, and now you accuse me of forum shopping? Don't you get tired of playing these tendentious games? Inf-in MD (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Your merge tag at Negev Bedouin is still up so you are simultaneously proposing a merge and deletion as well as talking about a redirect.Selfstudier (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think these things are mutually exclusive - a common result of AfD discussion is a merge or redirect, and I would be okay with either Inf-in MD (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Then close the merge discussion.Selfstudier (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Why? as I wrote, these outcomes are both acceptable to me. Inf-in MD (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Because of the theoretical possibility of contradictory outcomes in separate discussions.It's a matter of process.Selfstudier (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a real problem. If this AfD ends in 'Delete', you could still merge whtever non-overlapping content into the original article. Inf-in MD (talk) 13:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems you have no intention to follow process, I haven't expressed an opinion here until now but you have managed to convince me.Selfstudier (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That is an interesting framing. Considering that you later admitted the topic is not covered by Negev Bedouin with the inclusion of material on West Bank Bedouin. If you feel that the content of the article now is in some way lacking, then, again, WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. If you are upset that what you admit is a discrete topic from Negev Bedouin includes material you do not want included, then you can make that argument. What you are doing here however is, exactly as you claimed elsewhere to be a classic case of forum shopping, is deleting an article due to being unable to prevail in a content dispute. But no, I am not accusing you of anything tendentiously or otherwise. I am noting that your own words indict your actions as forum-shopping. And you admit to doing exactly what you criticize others for doing. Tendentious game playing indeed.  nableezy  - 18:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am following the exact process you suggested, only to have you accuse me of forum shopping. Tendentious game playing is exactly what you are doing. Inf-in MD (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That was prior to the inclusion of material that you yourself admitted makes the subject not a POVFORK lol. You can pretend that the passage of time is theoretical, but now, with the inclusion of material you yourself admits does not fit in Negev Bedouin and you yourself admits should be kept in an article on Palestinian Bedioun, are nominating said article for deletion because you have been unable to prevail in a content dispute on other material. And you have several options there, such as an RFC. Bad faith nominations of articles you know are not POVFORKs because they include material wholly unrelated and cannot be covered in the supposed forked from article, in ways that you yourself describe as a classic case of forum shopping is what is now, at this time, occurring. And once again, I am not accusing you of anything. Your own words indict your actions. Not mine.  nableezy  - 20:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - I agree with the keep arguments. Palestinian Bedouin is not a POV fork. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  02:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Nom is adopting a singularly unhelpful approach to the case per above. This should be kept and any content issues resolved in the customary fashion.Selfstudier (talk) 13:44, 27 November 2021 (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.