Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian solidarity organizations

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'm discounting the delete opinions by Malik Shabazz and Sreifa (WP:PERNOM) and Gelobet sei (opinion does not make much sense) as well as the keep opinion by CarolMooreDC (WP:WAX). Among the other contributors, the principal argument for deletion is not that the list is a POV fork (of what? as many point out) but, as many others note, that it is unsourced, which is contrary to our core policy WP:V because it does not let readers determine whether any of the listed organizations is indeed a "Palestinian solidarity organization" as described in the lead (although for most that's pretty clear from the name); or whether the very concept of "Palestinian solidarity" organizations - note the red link - in the way it is defined by the lead is our own invention (WP:NOR) or is based on reliable sources. Because the minority of remaining "keep" opinions does not address this core problem, but rather makes arguments in the vein of WP:ITSUSEFUL, I find that there is a consensus to delete this list in this form. It can be recreated if the scope-defining concept of "Palestinian solidarity organization" and the list itself is reliably sourced. Sandstein 16:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Palestinian solidarity organizations

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Many of those organizations are not even Palestinian solidarity organizations (such as B'Tselem). It seems to be a catch-all for any organization that even casually criticizes Israel or its policies. This is a POV fork. GHcool (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced wiki-taxonomy. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - List without scientific and encyclopedic imprint, also the data coined from this list was obtained within Wikipedia, which requires a external source to sustain its relevance and notability. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this is a good list, in that the inclusion criteria is clearly defined, it is finite, it has a logical connection, and it serves a valid useful function as a navigational device. This is gonna be an WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:ILIKEIT extravaganza, as is true with virtually everything dealing with the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian civil war . Still, if this were something like List of French animal welfare organizations or List of Scottish historical societies, I don't think anyone would batt an eye, let alone haul the thing to AfD for annihilation. Look at the structure and function here. i think it passes our usual inclusion standards. Carrite (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if Wikipedia can have an articles called List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel which lists the following articles: List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2001–2006, List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2007, List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2008, List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2009, List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2010, List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2011, (not to mention List of Palestinian suicide attacks), without anyone declaring POV fork, it can have one on Palestinian Solidarity groups. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I do not see the relationship between rocket attacks on Israel and a synthesized collection of "solidarity" movements and organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
  Comment Note there is an article called: Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. So creating an article about lists and then the lists themselves is like a double fork, if it be a fork. At Wikimania 2011 Jimmy Wales said about "Topics relating to Israel and Palestine": they're in the group of articles that are always heavily edited, heavily discussed, heavily debated,” says Wales. “They get a lot of attention from a lot of different people, and of course it will happen every day that someone will come in with an agenda, in any direction, trying to push that agenda, but the community is quite vigilant about trying to be neutral, trying to follow reliable sources, and I think in general we succeed... About the 2010 effort by the right-wing group Israel Sheli (My Israel) to insert "Zionist" editing into Wikipedia he says: Yet while the campaign featured heavily in the press, with the group issuing open calls for seminars on how to proceed, Wales says the battle seemed to have been in vain. I feel any deletion of this article would dramatically disprove his point. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment Off-topic. What you say has nothing to do with this article. The list articles you cite are supported by multiple-reliable sources, this list article is not supported by a single RS. A collection of so-called "solidarity" movements, many of which aren't entirely exclusive to Palestine, doesn't belong on wikipedia. There is no list article of Israeli solidarity activist organizations. Wikifan^{Be nice} 13:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Comment - I disagree Carol. It think deleting it would prove that when people create articles like this that are within scope of the discretionary sanctions and they don't do it in a way that complies with policy and the sanctions i.e. "the article's content severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies" to quote Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Alternatives_to_deletion, the article will be deleted. It probably is possible for someone to create a properly referenced list of organizations that self-identify as Palestinian solidarity organizations from scratch so an article like this could be reduced to a stub but I think giving articles like this a pass in the topic area without any evidence that they will be fixed any decade now is inconsistent with the sanctions and sends the wrong message. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Comment Well, it did occur to me in this case I didn't have energy to beef up the article properly myself. It's just that I have some vague memory of a similar article (not a list) with sufficient WP:RS being deleted in the past. But maybe I'm wrong. So one more thing to put on my To Do list! CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:ITHINK, WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:LIKE are non-factual/invalid arguments to prevent article's deletion. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 23:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - obviously List of Palestinian organizations designated as terrorist also must be deleted under these various rationales. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and/or turn into a category (there is no currently existing category on this topic). Topic is useful and defining. Organizations that don't belong here should be removed - that's not a problem that should be solved by deletion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the listed organizations are not particularly notable. Not a single reference in the article. IMO many of the organizations in the article should be put up for deletion as well, like Women for Palestine. Wikifan^{Be nice} 03:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A "POV fork" has to be a fork of something; what is this a fork of? It seems to be a pretty harmless article that serves a useful purpose. However, it needs to be sourced. Zero^talk 05:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one has suggested this article is causing harm. Wikifan^{Be nice} 07:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced wiki-taxonomy. --Kylfingers (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Not a "POV fork" as described under Content_forking#POV_forks. The minimal text complies with teh advice there: "regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view." "Palestinian solidarity" is notable and discussed in various places. Otherwise, I cannot understand the relation of the arguments for deletion to any agreed deletion criteria.--Carwil (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some lists such as List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel group certain articles by obvious characterizations. However, grouping this set of organizations and calling them "Palestinian solidarity organizations" constitutes original synthesis, which is something we have to be careful about. IMO, this broadly termed category fullfils what the list sets out to do. —Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 06:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—unsourced list of loosely related organizations. There are no clear criteria for inclusion in the list, and therefore it is inherently WP:OR. It is also unclear what the minimum notability requirement for the list is. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-It is original research to bunch these distinct organizations, each having a separate agenda, as having a single goal. Could be kept only if a reliable sources are provided to back this categorization. Even then, it would probably be more useful, and easier to maintain, as a category. Marokwitz (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-Notable list of Non-Notable organizations. --Gelobet sei (talk) 11:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er, what? Most of these are bluelinks. If you think the organizations lack coverage in reliable sources, feel free to nominate them for deletion individually, but "It's just not notable," without any sort of argument or evidence, is unlikely to be weighed too heavily as an argument for deletion. Do try to come up with an actual rationale, please. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per GHcool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sreifa (talk • contribs)

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.