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 keep. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One Million Plan[edit]

One Million Plan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The page is an interesting case of topic created by a single editor out of just a couple of sources mentioning the (never executed) plan. Since i've proposed merger into Aliyah Bet to expand the target article with relevant issues (mostly not dealing with One Million Plan itself), not much has been added on the topic but rather much of WP:SYNTH going around it and trying to link various events of the period to that (never executed) plan. I don't think that a never executed plan with one work of Bar Ilan university dealing with it specifically warrants inclusion of a stand-alone article. Convince me otherwise.GreyShark (dibra) 21:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder of this thread. As previously discussed, your merger idea is based on a mistaken idea that the One Million Plan proposed illegal immigration (which is what Aliyah Bet was). You have brought no source for this claim. Forum shopping is not an appropriate response.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to remind you - you refused considering the image on the page (not related with One Million Plan). With no images, no extended overview of generally unrelated Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries and no Aliyah topics, this article becomes a tiny stub. The topic of 1944-45 one million plan in notability is somewhat similar to Proposal for a Palestinian state in Sinai (see [1]) or Al-Rafidain Autonomy for Iraqi minorities (see [2]) - we can create articles on those topics, but is there notability to the (never-executed) plans? Certainly not. With 2 editors supporting merger into Aliyah Bet and your refusal, i guess deletion is an option on the table; i'm still considering to keep this as redirect to section of Aliyah Bet article.GreyShark (dibra) 06:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am having real trouble understanding this. The article is impeccably sourced, with quotes provided throughout the sources to make it easy to verify. This appears to be a content dispute; if you don’t agree with the sources it would be helpful if you could be specific. It’s worth remembering that wikipedia does not allow original research, so your idea about Aliyah Bet needs sourcing if it is to have any relevance to this discussion.

You did a very bad or deliberately WP:SYNTH job in sourcing. Why is there no mention the plan was shelved? why do you connect it with later events (Maabarot)? while the plan was obviously not related with those?GreyShark (dibra) 07:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those would at best be arguments for clean-up, not for deletion. Zero^talk 07:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Separately, I was wondering if there is any connection between your proposal and this article being put up for WP:GAN just a week earlier?

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The fact that the plan was never executed does not make it non notable. It would be helpful if the nominator could explain in some detail what is wrong with the current sourcing. Thanks. Mccapra (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The notability of the topic is richly supported by the multiplicity of high quality sources. Greyshark is correct that two editors (including his/herself) supported the merge proposal, but might have mentioned that two editors (including Once) also opposed it. Now there are three opposed (I don't think I noticed the merge proposal until now, thanks for letting me know). There is always room to discuss how topics are distributed around articles, but there is no case provided here for deletion. Zero^talk 03:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - another issue is that "One Million Plan" on google is giving anything except the topic of One Million Plan article - [3]. The topic is practically unrecognized by Google. The article also fails to mention it was shelved and actually was one of several plans (not "the plan").GreyShark (dibra) 06:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greyshark, the point as to whether or not this was a shelved plan is irrelevant to the fact that it was the catalyst and precursor to the massive airlifts from Yemen and Iraq that occurred in the early 1950s, which had far-reaching effects on the entire region. Although the plan did go through some changes, the article description is mirroring the research; the plan itself is crucial to understanding how the later events came about. Havradim (talk) 06:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: There's no compelling rationale to support deletion of an extensive, well-sourced article. Event notability does not depend on the event having occurred; it's more related to lasting impact and coverage, both of which are obvious from the article as it exists now. Zerach (talk) 06:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep: Google put this article at the top of its list when I searched for 'Million Plan'. The plan sheds useful light on the thinking of Ben Gurion and leading Yishuv Zionists in the early 'forties. I would not have searched for 'Aliyah Beta' so why hide an important article on a specific topic there? If anyone takes issue with the author's ignoring firm evidence that the plan was somehow abandoned, perhaps talk might deal with this claim in his article? Overall the article is meticulously researched and well supported by respectable references. Definitely needs to stay in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzabbit (talk • contribs) 07:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. This is, as one has come to expect from its main editor, an impeccably sourced article. The editor proposing deletion has given no cogent reason for either its deletion or merger. Aliya Bet is a different kettle of fish.Nishidani (talk) 09:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Two of the apparent arguments given for deletion, that the article was created by a single user and the the topic is a plan which was never implemented, are immaterial. The third argument, akin to notability, that the article had few cited references, is no longer true.     ←   ZScarpia   16:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – meets WP:GNG, the WP:THREE are: Ari Barell, Meir-Glitzenstein, and Gil Eyal. (There may be even better sources than those, but those three at least count as three GNG-satisfying sources.) – Levivich 17:00, 6 October 2019 (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.