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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hafrada[edit]

Hafrada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The topic of the article is a Hebrew word meaning "separation". A Google News search gets 0 hits ("Did you mean Hafada?"). A Google Books search gets 82 hits, most of which refer to the early 20th Century concept of separating the Jewish Agency Executive from the Israeli Govenment, a concept not referred to in the article; most of the rest are miscellaneous incidental uses. A regular Google search brings up this article followed by a large group of partisan blogs. The article's sources are mainly blogs, partisan political groups and opinion columnists, and any discernable facts or notable opinions in it would be at home in Two-state solution or Israel's unilateral disengagement plan. It's very hard to determine what exactly the article is supposed to be, but judging by the lede, it seems to be a POV fork of Two-state solution, aimed at creating an article for the fringe opinion that the two-state solution is something Israel is doing to the Palestinians.
Thus, Delete. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Google news search only returns results from the past month. Google news archive search gives about 50 results. (the search link is w/o the word "forest" as apparently there's a place called "hafrada forest" which has nothing to do with Israel or Palestine) Rami R 16:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, I didn't know about that service. I went through the 50 hits and could not find a single source from an actual media outlet that referred to hafrada in the sense the article does. Those that did were from partisan websites: electronicintifada, dissidentvoice, etc. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep / Move to Separation program (Israel). I agree that the Hebrew term isn't appropriate, and I'd proposed a move. Searching for "Separation program" + Israel in Google News turns up mostly stories in the 2001-2004 period, when this was part of Ariel Sharon's political platform. Israel's unilateral disengagement plan is close to this article, but dated. The same idea keeps coming up in Israeli politics, with a new name each time. --John Nagle (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Since, according to your google findings, Separation program (Israel) is simply a less common name for Israel's unilateral disengagement plan, wouldn't moving this article to the former make it a content fork of the latter? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 09:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually, if we say the disengagement plan is an example of this policy, aren't we just talking about an implementation of the old "land for peace" concept, set forth by UNSC 242 after the Six-Day War, which served as a basis for the peace treaty with Egypt, and all further peace talks? In Egypt's case, Israel removed all Israelis from Sinai, separating the populations - a necessary step in returning the land. In the disengagement case it removed Israelis from Gaza (and 4 settlements in the West Bank), and returned the land to the Palestinians, which is what they, and most of the international community, want. Removing settlers and giving back land can be seen as a sort of "separation" of the populations, but is obviously at the basis of the calls for a Palestinian State, and essential for the "land for peace" idea. This is why settlements (causing mixing of the populations, which furthers Israel's control over the territories, and reduces chances of a viable Palestinian State) are seen as so damaging to the prospects of peace. So, how is this a separate policy? What evidence is there of this being a separate concept, rather than a simple consequence/pre-requisite of "land for peace" (and so, in this case, an obvious detail of the Two state solution)? okedem (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This does seem to keep coming around, each time with a new name. Two-state solution says "currently under discussion by the key parties to the conflict, most recently at the Annapolis Conference in November 2007." Israel's unilateral disengagement plan is from Sharon, in 2004-2005. "Separation program" seems to date from the Rabin period, around 2002. Then there's West Bank closures and Separation wall, which are more about the mechanics of the process. Plus, of course, Israel and the apartheid analogy. Maybe we do need some consolidation. We might use "Separation program (Israel)" as the generic term, and do some merging and linking with the other articles. (There are even people talking about a "three-state solution", since Hamas (Gaza) and Hezbollah (West Bank) don't get along.) --John Nagle (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off - 2002 is Sharon's period, not Rabin (who was PM 1992-1995); Hezbollah is in Lebanon, not the West Bank (which is controlled by Fatah).

You don't show that such a program (separation) exists, and don't address my points at all. "Two-state solution" is the long-standing name for this idea. Has been for many, many years. I've seen no mention of this so-called "Separation program" in Israeli or international media (and I read enough of it), whereas the "Two-state solution" is used extremely often, and is clearly the ruling concept. The point is - separation isn't the goal, and there's no program for it. Two states are the goal, and steps like the disengagement are partial realizations of it. "Separation program" isn't a new name or anything. It simply isn't used, whereas "two state solution" has been used for years, and still is (you can search for it in google news, for instance, to see that). A google news search for "two state solution" israel yields a lot of results, whereas the same search for "separation program" israel yields zero results. okedem (talk) 05:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Seems to be a classic case of applying a private/fringe interpretation to disparate issues. First off, there's no "program" by that name or to that end, as a quick search will reveal, either in English or in Hebrew. As a politically aware, newspaper reading Israeli, I can attest to encountering no use of this term or concept in Israeli media or political discourse. The only uses I've seen were with regard to specific issues, like the separation fence, or the disengagement. Never as a concept or program. Second, there's nothing unique or worthy of mention in the actions described - the fence isn't because Israel "doesn't like Arabs" or anything, but for security. Leaving Gaza is a part of returning occupied territory to the Palestinians (as they demanded). The article can't even seem to decide what its talking about - separation from Palestinians? From Israeli-Arabs? Inside the West Bank? Between Gaza and Israel? Between the West Bank and Israel? The article takes a simple Hebrew word, which doesn't imply anything, and tries as hard as it can to equate it with "apartheid" (as the quoted Palestinian, Mazin B. Qumsiyeh, a supporter of the One-State "solution" is trying to do with regard to Olmert's plan to withdraw from the West Bank). At most, "hafrada" is a term used by some political activists, mostly Palestinian, with unclear meaning. okedem (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per okedem. This seems like a POVfork on the topic of disengagement. If anything, It's is certainly not an Israeli plan but rather it is a racist policy of segregation by the world (Obama pushing hard lately), the Arabs in general, and the Israeli left.) The current article is WP:SYNTH --Shuki (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Separation program (Israel) per Nagle, and make any necessary adjustments pertaining to the dated nature of the discussion. CJCurrie (talk) 03:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  First you would need to prove such a program exists, which would be difficult, as it doesn't. okedem (talk) 05:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are explicit references to that phrase.[1]. Also try looking for "separation" and "Israel", which will bring up material on the subject, plus some other stuff. Yitzhak Rabin's slogan "Us Here, Them There."[2] also expressed the concept. --John Nagle (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two problems here. One is that you're advocating creating an article on a word-pair because you found the word-pair in a single non-RS and because you interpret a phrase by Yitzhak Rabin to refer to it. The second is that you assume, without explaining why, that the content currently in the article Hafrada would be the proper content with which to fill such an article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per users Okedem and Shuki.Historicist (talk) 23:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Move to English title as the Hebrew term doesn't appear to be used enough in English to have that as the name of the article, but the sources show the notability of it so the article should be kept. Nableezy (talk) 00:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—no clear evidence that this exists as a known concept. The article appears to be a collection of synthesized indiscriminate information, consisting of loosely-related incidents and statements. Parts of the article could be merged into the Israeli West Bank barrier article or the Israeli unilateral disengagement plan article. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This term is hardly ever used in English, and even in Hebrew it is not something specific to the topic of the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is probably salvageable material here, but this is not an actual concept. - Epson291 (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As a general rule, we shouldn't be creating articles using foreign language words on the English wiki, unless those are nearly universally used. This one clearly is not. It may be appropriate to create an article named Israel's Separation program, and some of the content here might be useful in that context, but a simple rename/move is not appropriate, per the arguments put forward by Jalapenos do exist, above. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.