Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro Palestinian


 * 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   delete. The first part is a polemic essay, the second part is dicdef quotations--if the term isn't in Wiktionary it would be ok to transwikify the 2nd part there.  DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Pro Palestinian

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

article about a term "yet not defined in any encyclopedia"....'Nuff said! Wuh Wuz  Dat  19:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You cannot simply delete the article because it is not mentioned in any tertiary source. I used secondary reliable sources that shows that term was defacto used worldwide. Hence, you cannot simply ignore these facts. Wikipedia might be a better encyclopedia than the other slow ones! Therefore, I suggest to re-establish the definition of the term.  Can I revise the process of deletion? Also, I appreciate you identify yourself as what area of administration at Wikipedia you do, appreciated. Thanks. Bill (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yes we can. We are not necessarily administrators to nominate here or !vote here, but it is an admin that closes the debate (unless it is a totally clear-cut consensus for keep). We are identified here by our usernames (and whatever other info we choose to give on our userpages). We are not confined to any areas. Peridon (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. At the moment, this is nothing more than an unsourced dictionary definition. Yes, the term appears in print, but what's present does not make this an encyclopedic article. Also, the definition as given in the The Difference to anti-Zionism section needs to be cited; otherwise, it is original research and/or speculation that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. -- Kinu t /c  20:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete There are several sources cited which use the expression, but little evidence that there is substantial coverage of it as a concept. In addition, the article tells us nothing except what the term means, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Original essay. Carrite (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Yes, there is a bit of work on this article required. A substantial coverage on a concept will be provided soon. Therefore it will not be a dictionary term only, I agree on this point. Bill (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC), I will merge with Palestinian people until profound evidence is provided.
 * Merge to Palestinian people. Term is of course used, but like most words with "pro" or "anti" in the name, the definition flows from the main word, in this case, Palestinian. wp uses the phrase here and here and notably here, but i dont think the phrase is significant enough, and it doesnt vary from the precise meaning of "supporting the palestinians", unlike Pro-life or Pro-choice, whose meanings are not obvious from the names. there is debate, of course, as to whether all pro palestinian activism is also anti zionist, as this article attempts to point out. I dont think that highly notable debate, again, requires that this phrase get its own article. Anti Zionism, again, gets an article at least in part because the term zionism is not explicitly obvious, and needs parsing (like "national socialism" is not considered a form of socialism by most historians). "Pro abortion" redirects to Abortion debate. "Pro-Nazist" also redirects, as does "Pro-democracy". I definitely see a pattern where the words pro and anti are not used in article names when not absolutely necessary, as they are obviously POV, and terms like "debate" are preferred. This could be at wiktionary, though. Please note: the examples given here are about linguistic problems, and are not meant to imply ANYTHING about the actual value or meaning of pro palestinian or any other concept here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Mercurywoodrose I agree that the word pro-Palestinian might be conclusive being supporting Palestine. But it is not. usually, when thinking of supporting Palestine it has the negative direction. This is what we read everywhere. Negative direction means either wars, terror, bombings, suicides, fights, conflicts and many more. The Pro-Palestinian direction that is sensed in 2010 has really nothing to do with the established negative common image or understanding on Palestine or supporting Palestine. the new direction to be sensed through the media and many other secondary sources including websites facebook etc..., is a positive actionism for example under www.runforpalestine.com. I understand that there is substantial coverage required still to differentiate between Supporting Palestine in traditional understanding and being Pro-Palestinian. It seems that the term Pro-Palestinian is the exact counter term to Zionism, where in a nutshell Zionism means friends of Israel and Pro-Palestinian means friends of Palestine. There is still work required on the article. as mentioned earlier I will work to provide within next weeks some profound findings that will justify to be a Wikipedia article. Bill (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: please only !vote once in the discussion. Additional comments should be indicated as such without a !vote. -- Kinu t /c  20:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete "The term "Pro Palestine" is yet not defined in any encyclopedia" - I wouldn't really be surprised at that. I would expect it to be in Wiktionary if anywhere - but is a definition even needed? Both words are fairly obvious - and if there is a 'new' and disputed take on the phrase, this isn't the place for it. Another thing: is the article about 'pro Palestine' or 'pro Palestinian? The two are not the same thing. When all comes to all, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" - and it's not a soapbox either. Peridon (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete but explicitly not for the reason in the nomination. Wikipedia is, as has been previously stated, not a dictionary, and there's not enough of value here to justify cluttering the Palestinian people article with it. Let's get a move on. Chromancer (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary and is a non-notable neologism. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  01:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs work. Tangurena (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how the majority of !votes at the moment are for deletion, could you please provide some justification based on policy/guideline as to your recommendation for keeping? -- Kinu t /c  16:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this deletion request is itself a WP:Coatrack. Currently, in the US, the only words permitted to discuss the Israel vs Palestine situation is "pro-Israeli" and "anti-Israeli." I contend that someone could be "pro-Palestinian" without necessarily being "anti-Israeli." This isn't like the abortion issue where one is either for one side or the other. There used to be people who were neither for nor against abortion, but political and scial pressures have forced everyone to take sides. Doing so in this situation sets Israel up for failure: requiring there to be only for or against Israel means that there will come a time in US politics when the pendulum swings against Israel. When that happens, Israel is fucked. I don't want to see that happen, but I predict that continuing to head down this road will make it happen. Tangurena (talk) 02:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you explain why you think this nomination is a WP:COATRACK? The nomination and discussion so far seem to address guidelines without making any sort of political overture. On the other hand, the majority of your statement seems to do so... I fail to see how any of the statement you provided is indicative of whether this article meets standards for inclusion. -- Kinu t /c  06:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep.Note that the starting editor (signing as "Bill" above, and see User talk:ME202012) has started several articles recently, six of which have so far been speedily deleted. A seventh, MV Mariam was nominated for deletion but has since been worked up quite well it seems by a number of other editors.
 * As to the objections above to keeping, just search wp for "Pro-" to get some precedents. The purpose of the article is to describe a concept that is related to but importantly distinct from eg. "anti-Israeli". I would prefer to see the title with a hyphen, and someone needs to help get the content to bare-minimum acceptability, but I think having the article itself is worthwhile.  Wikiscient  (talk) 04:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but I feel the difference between other "pro-x" labels and this particular discussion was mentioned by User:Mercurywoodrose. The articles that do exist seem to be cited and seem to be more substantiated with WP:RS that flesh out the definition, as opposed to this one whose definition does not appear substantiated. Also, I don't think WP:BITE applies in this case... the deletion discussion to date seems to be based solely on the merits of the article. (Personally, I was not even aware of the creator's history of having articles speedied until you mentioned it. Regardless, if those articles were justifiably speedied, then their merits are irrelevant to the matter at hand here. Indeed, it would seem like good faith to have brought this to discussion first.) -- <strong style="color:blue;">Kinu <sup style="color:red;">t /<sub style="color:red;">c  05:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, for the most part. And the reason I'm chiming in at all here is because I started zapping this user doing vandal-patrol before suspecting that there was something good faith and of contributable value going on (see User talk:ME202012).  I wasn't sure, though, so I've been looking in on how things have been going subsequently.  And I certainly think there is something good faith (and inexperienced) going on now, and also a bit (at times a lot) of a foreign-language problem,  but I still sense that this user is capable of contributing in a valuable and constructive way -- although perhaps, I concede, not in this article.  I'd say it's worth waiting a bit to see how this article develops over the next few days before deleting it -- but if it doesn't develop well and with respect to all the criticism above then, yeah, I retract my "keep" vote.   Wikiscient  (talk) 06:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete It's just a definition of a term that is self-explanatory. as to the outsourced assertion that it is about building Palestinian culture as opposed to opposing Zionism, there are existing articles on Palestinian nationalism, Palestinian cuisine, Palestinian art, Palestinian literature, Palestinian people, Music of Palestine, Cinema of Palestine and so forth, not to mention the many articles about various aspects of Palestinian politics.  The creator is badly in need of mentoring.  He is obviously hard-working, but he does not understand what kind of material can be made into an article and he is wasting the time of other editors with an incessant flow of AFD's.  All of the energy he put into this article could be harnessed productively.AMuseo (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete for all the sources included, there is nothing to the article that shows that this is a notable topic. The quotations simply use the term without providing any additional context above and beyond conntaining the words "pro" and "Palestinian" in some combination. Alansohn (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:DICDEF — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTDIC: as long as the article became now, it says nothing except the basic idea that being pro-palestinian is being pro-palestinian, and any attempt to add meaningful content to the article will end up with WP:OR for no notable sources are existing. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 06:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:DICDEF. Marokwitz (talk) 15:44, 4 September 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.