Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UNRWA Reform Initiative


 * 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. I have reviewed the arguments and found several !votes to focus on the political argument rather than the article itself. Article itself does not have any mentions in the RS references on page despite editors claims to put them in over a week ago, therefore notability and RS concerns remain unaddressed despite considerable amount of time. In addition, article contains POV issues which have not been resolved. Furthermore, major concerns with possible COI editing on page. Tawker (talk) 06:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

UNRWA Reform Initiative

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Pr WP:DIVERSE, I don´t see any secondary sources here; nothing to indicate that this is significant, Huldra (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.99.193 (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You are saying that the article serves an important political purpose. Sorry but you are in the wrong place as we don't do that here. Zerotalk 13:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete On closer look all the refs do refer to the organization itself. I did find an article in Jerusalem Post by its director which was only news source I could find in a quick search. Unless someone wants to do a lot of work and probably make it about the institute itself. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep <although more sources need to be added, quick search has show that this information is relative. Its now been three times UNRWA facilities have housed rockets, and that makes it three individual war crimes according to the definition by the UN. People need to know if UNRWA is helping to perpetrate war crimes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.99.193 (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your words actually support deletion, see WP:NOTADVOCATE. Zerotalk 07:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete This articles seems to be a advertisement for this initiative but it doesn't rely on several secondary sources. It is also heavily oriented and again, without secondary sources it will be hard to make it neutral. Pluto2012 (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Highly POV article about non-notable initiative of non-notable "research centre", based entirely on partisan and primary sources. RolandR (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * On further investigation, it appears that a large part of the article (in fact, all of the article as originally submitted on 20 July) is a copy, or extremely close paraphrase, of an article in the Jerusalem Post of 298 January 2014 by the director of this project. RolandR (talk) 11:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The above description of the research center as "non-notable" is based completely on the editor's opinion and is highly POV. By just doing a quick internet search, it is evident that the Center for Near East Policy Research has produced a significant amount of noteworthy material, and its works are referenced by other news organizations. The article does not seem like an advertisement, but an accurate description of the initiative (URI) it has launched based on significant research, as noted by the various sources provided in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.155.41 (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is not about CNEPR, it is about URI. Show us secondary sources about URI. Zerotalk 13:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Designed like a home page for this "initiative" instead of being article about it. Improper use of Wikipedia for political promotion. Zerotalk 22:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete While some of this information might be appropriate to add to the UNRWA article, this page is promotion and the effort is not notable (at least not as of yet). Delete. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: Despite the references to the organization mentioned in the previous delete comment, NBC, Sky News, Kuwait News, Times of Israel, and Jerusalem Post all have articles pertaining to this direct topic- as new as from this morning. This page needs additional citation, including the above mentioned Jerusalem Post, NBC, Sky News, Kuwait News, and Times of Israel articles. It is as simple as searching for UNRWA rockets on Google quick search.
 * Can you provide the URLs of those articles that refer to the "UNRWA Reform Initiative" for editors to evaluate ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * More importantly, can you insert such info in the article? Adding sourced info is what it is all about. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (deliver)  @ 17:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)




 * Comment Note that every "keep" above is from ÌPs with few or no other edits. Also this IP voted "keep" twice. And all the IPs belongs to the same service provider: Bezec International. Draw  your own conclusions. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete This is not an article, but an advert for a partisan think tank. The creator is a WP:SPA. Someone should ask the editor if they work for the organisation which is the subject of this page. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The article needs considerable work and some pruning, but the initiative is noteworthy, has been referred to by multiple secondary sources, and is in response to longstanding concerns about the need for reform in UNRWA. I have added references in the article.Cpsoper (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

6 Relations with Israel 6.1 1 October 2004 incident 6.2 Peter Hansen 6.3 6 January 2009 incident 6.4 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict 7 Investigation by the United States Congress 8 Kirk Amendment to investigate number of refugees 9 Loss of Canadian support 10 Problems with Hamas Dian_Kjaergaard(talk)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.49.173.182 (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)  - Sorry, I forgot to login and sign the preceding. Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes, it needs pruning and I will do something during the next couple of days - at least references. In order to get it linked to, the reform initiative could be linked to from the UNRWA page, which already has a number of discussions of criticism.


 * Delete outrageously polemical  POV article, with an intrinsic bias that cannot be corrected; it's not about a "reform"--it's about an attack by[ the CNEPR on another organization.  The UNRW 's actions in the area have indeed been in the news lately, and are noteworthy enough for a section in the article on that group, where it already is--as  recognizes. An attempt at this additional coverage is so inappropriate that I am tempted to use G11, as I  would if it were an attack by one company or another.   DGG ( talk ) 21:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per DGG.  It appears that the Center for Near East Policy Research is not an unbiased group, and that it has serious axes to grind.  It is very difficult to achieve NPOV when dealing with politics in the Middle East.  This article appears to violate WP:UNDUE and WP:CONTENTFORKING. --Bejnar (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete This seems like an ad for a certain cause. --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Monty  845  01:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Surely a consensus has been established here. There have been five Keep !votes, four of them from IPs with no other edits, and nine Delete !votes from experienced editors. All that relisting (for a second time) will do is attract more random IPs. RolandR (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with RolandR that a consensus for deletion is very clear. Zerotalk 12:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite, agree with you both. I have never seen an AfD like this, note that the IPs seem to come from the same service provider, too. Huldra (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I would urge a modicum of further patience, this is a strongly divisive issue, and both sides of this debate ought to be heard before an axe falls, the article has already been modified substantially to address some of the issues that have been raised, and there may yet be other opinions (I have not canvassed any, directly or indirectly, and I hope others here can say the same). I agree it is still in need of radical reform to be encyclopaedic. As to the issue of notability, there are clear secondary sources. Cpsoper (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There are no secondary sources. The 2 press article given in the articles are not enough to assess any notoriary but they don't even mention any "UNRWA Reform Initiative". They just report unfamous propaganda around the refugees and the right of return :
 * "The United Nations Relief and Work Agency is the only UN refugee agency dedicated to a single group of people. It is the only agency that designates individuals as original refugees if they lived in the area for a minimum of two years, that acknowledges the descendants of original refugees as refugees as well, and the only one that actively encourages its clients to act on their “right of return.”
 * This has no notoriaty among scholars. For an organisation more than 60 years old, that's what we would need to keep this article.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 09:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I have now re-organized the article on UNRWA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Relief_and_Works_Agency_for_Palestine_Refugees_in_the_Near_East. I have not removed any content, but tried to show a clean, clear structure throughout. I have changed two or three wordings to make them more neutral and added a bit of material and references. The next step will be to merge any useful UNRWA criticism points from this page (U.R.I.) to the UNRWA article. Then I will re-write the U.R.I. so that it describes the focus and results of the initiative rather than the broad background which has now been clarified in the UNRWA article. The U.R.I. article will also include some references to documentation, publications, etc, instead of including a huge list. I need a for more days to do this. Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * what I think you may have done is add a somewhat disproportionate amount of negative material to that article. I remind you about the need for cautious editing in in this area.  DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

DGG: I think if you look carefully, I have actually added to the UNRWA article many positive things and acknowledgement of how difficult UNRWA's work is.

I think the reason you think there is more negative material is because I have used structure to reveal clearly what was already written in the article! Please re-read in the light of this information. And if you have specific suggestions for trimming, let me know. I fully support the need for dispassionate care.

Note also that the article has a very large amount of neutral and positive information about UNRWA which editors (not sure who) have pointed out is poorly documented. I would be willing to help clean that up, too!

Finally - please check the URI stub.Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes,some of it is in the presentation. including the wide spacing of the material and the breaking of related material into separate paragraphs. But some of it is also in the wording, and in reporting such things as investigations by the US Congress as if they proved the facts alleged, and using an excessive number of quotes from those taking one side of the issue,and including sentences and words of evaluation ("However, there seem to be some serious problems". There are also some selective presentations of facts: "Pinner wrote in 1959 that the number of refugees...."); Pinner is not a neutral source, but a committed advocate, and the data he asserts is half a century old, yet presented in the article as part of the analysis of the current situation. As for balance, sections 6, 7, sand 8, almost all of which is negative, occupy about 70% of the article in length (not word count).  I give the same advice as I give  with my usual area, commercial COI: minimize adjectives.
 * I think your work does have considerable merit, and I offer these as suggestions on what to look at. I hope you will do some appropriate editing at integrating the material. Further discussion does not really belong here--I have copied our exchange over to the article talk p.,  DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you DGG - let us continue on the URI page itself - and on the main UNRWA page itself. I think our collaboration could be very fruitful. 87.49.173.182 (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll comment a little on the main article page, but I generally try to avoid controversial political subjects. (For one thing, I generally want to retain the ability to use admin actions if needed). However, I think there is no reason for a separate page and no reason to comment there. It's as if we had separate pages for for the various individual initiatives of particular pressure and advocacy groups. The information belongs in two places only: First, the article on the group, if it is one of their major initiatives, and then the focus is on their participation, not the general issue--a link to it is normally sufficient. Second, the article on the matter at controversy, if they are one of the major participants as judged by people external to the group, and then only in proportion to the amount devoted to other participants in the debates. If groups A B, C, D .... Z all support or oppose something, we don't report separately in individual sections on what each of them have to say, nor do we necessarily include quotations from all of them--only from those that, based on outside comments, seem to be paid the most attention to. Anything more than that amounts to advocacy, not  encyclopedic reporting.  DGG ( talk ) 16:13, 17 August 2014 (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.