Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-10/21


 * 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 speedy keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. It's snowing. (non-admin closure)  Satellizer el Bridget (Talk)  05:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-10/21

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

Non-notable UN resolution that is unlikely to be WP:ENDURING. There are a number of UN resolutions concerning the Israel-Palestine conflict that are lasting and impactful, such as 67, 194, 242, etc.

A more appropriate place for this is a bullet or two on List of United Nations resolutions concerning Palestine. Longhornsg (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep It is literally the only UNGA resolution regarding this issue, it is important to keep so that people can see how the conflict has affected the UN. Scarlet Strange (talk) 04:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep If it was important enough for a Czech minister to consider leaving the UN, it is important enough to keep. Zagothal (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. How can you say it is non-notable? There are various reliable sources showing it is notable. A bullet or two for this resolution would NOT do this subject justice. This nomination is wrongheaded in more ways than one. Historyday01 (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: @User:PatrickJWelsh, @User:Toadboy123, @User:Rwendland, @User:Omnipaedista, @User:Barzamin, and @User:Tony24644 this discussion may be of interest.Historyday01 (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. 1. As stated above, there are various reliable sources showing it is notable; and that is my main argument. 2. We have a List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel and it features many articles about relevant resolutions that are far less notable than this one. Note: we also have articles about United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-10/19 and United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-10/20 that are fairly related to this one. --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a good point as well. There more than "routine news coverage" and considering the resolution is relatively new, how can "enduring notability" even be assessed? Historyday01 (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. The cited sources appear to constitute WP:SIGCOV, and UNGA Resolutions become part of the permanent record, affect UN policy, are an indicator of international consensus, and influence international law, so this has lasting significance. The sum of the article already seems to transcend news reporting in my opinion, and can’t be compared to anything else listed in ENDURING. The argument that this is fundamentally different than articles about some other UNGA and UNSC resolutions should explain how, in relation to our guidelines. —Michael Z. 18:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I actually have a long-term plan to go through ALL the UN resolutions and add context to them. And having a page for such resolutions will undoubtedly help anyone who is doing research on this in the future as well, especially since the UN site is a bit confusing to navigate (and use). Historyday01 (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. This will literally be mentioned in history books. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. The resolution has received widespread media coverage and academic interest. It should be seen as equivalent in its power, effect, and gravity as the UN Special Emergency Session resolutions on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which have their own dedicated pages. Cscescu (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article has more noteworthy content than 2 bullet points. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Related to a major ongoing international conflict and we have articles about UN GA Resolutions related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and other standalone articles on GA and SC Resolutions related Israel and Palestine (such as Resolution ES-10/19) and this is more detailed than most articles on GA Resolutions and features citations from a variety of news sources.--AXEdits (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep (endorse speedy close), good faith nom, but clearly a pass on GNG.  // Timothy :: talk  01:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Don' t be absurd bro, This is the first time I see someone claimed UN Assembly Resolution is not notable. I highly doubt your motive @ Someone97816 (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, me too. I don't get how a UN resolution is NOT notable. I have some sinking suspicions about the OP as well, to be perfectly honest. Historyday01 (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notability is blindingly obvious. Zerotalk 10:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Deleting this resolution on the list of resolutions concerning (the state of) Israel would make Wikipedia as partisan as it would be, if we deleted the same/similar from the list of resolutions concerning (the (proposed) state of) Palestine. Jaap-073 (talk) 10:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep since widely reported on by RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep, at least for now, reliable sources have covered it and the nom’s rationale lists 67, 194 and 242 as examples but looking at them they have developed enduring notability. Somewhat sympathetic to the idea of a merge but it’d just be the case that it’d get spun out again as the parent article would get too lengthy.  Agree nomination is in good faith but speedy closure may be inadvisable as others may wish to disagree.    SITH   (talk)   16:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep, but not speedily. The discussion of the AfD nominator's good faith is immaterial; this AfD does not really fulfill the requirements of WP:KEEP. However, I heavily disagree with the nominator; I do think that this article has enduring notability. As a rough proxy measure of current notability, the stub article originally only cited a single UN press release. Within a few days, the article has 30 citations, the majority of them secondary WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources, and is linked to by quite a few other pages. The current Israel–Hamas conflict is inarguably of enduring notability; transitively, given that pages related to it are frequently linking to this resolution, I don't think a bullet or two on a general page about UN Israel–Palestine-related resolutions is sufficient. Barzamin (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Extremely notable and relevant. 67.252.8.78 (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep: It is the first UNGA resolution regarding the ongoing conflict. Bit strange even to delete it by claiming UNGA resolutions are not notable. Toadboy123 (talk) 12:35, 1 November 2023 (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.