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 redirect to Proposals for a Palestinian state. bibliomaniac15 03:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

State of Palestine[edit]

State of Palestine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Duplicated entry with unsubstantial claims (should be redirected to Proposals for a Palestinian state).

There are several problems with this page:

• All the information appears already on the article Proposals for a Palestinian state. The entry "State of Palestine" should redirect to "Proposals for a Palestinian state", since the proposed state is just one of the proposed solutions.
• The list of supporting countries is based on a dead link (and I found no suitable replacement).
• In fact, there is no such state. Posing the proposal as a fact is misleading. A redirect to "Proposals for a Palestinian state" is more accurate.

-- Gabi S. (talk) 13:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - to Proposals for a Palestinian state due to duplicate info. and no current sources demonstrating fact of this state. If/when a solution is found, the article can be split off at the appropriate time. Actually, care should probably be taken to merge in some of the references, which are different. ◄Zahakiel► 15:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep regardless of the technical existence or otherwise of the state, it is recognised by a lot of other states (I have added a ref since the other one is flaky). There is definitely a case to be made for rationalizing Proposals for a Palestinian State and Palestinian state together as they duplicate a large amount of information, but I would be slightly wary per NPOV about including this article in that. ELIMINATORJR 16:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The reference that you added is very flaky too, pushing a POV and full of inaccuracies (bordering on lies). -- Gabi S. (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes; I relied on the source more than the article, so I've removed it. However, the fact that whether it is 20, 50 or 100 countries (some are sourced in Diplomatic missions of Palestine), this is an entity that has some recognition, and my comment above stands. ELIMINATORJR 17:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect for reasons #1 and 3 given by the nominator, which are the same reasons (especially #3) why I have been advocating the same thing on the article's talk page for the past year and a half. The "State of Palestine" is a proposed state, not a state, and therefore should be in the "Proposals" article, where it already is. The fact that many nations "recognize" it is irrelevant. As I have said on the article's talk page, it is not quite clear what many of these nations actually "recognize", but it is clear that there is no state. 6SJ7 (talk) 03:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect It does not exist and the article is based on speculation. In fact, the current situation in which two very different organizations are ruling both parts of these areas seems to push off any state being formed in the near future, if at all. --Shuki (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. IZAK (talk) 06:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. Attempts to preclude negotiations, in direct violation of WP policy. Tomer^talk 11:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Oops! I meant WP:CBALL, but WP:CB is just as fitting, in this case... Tomer^talk 11:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or delete. Misleading title of a fcitional entity. --Redaktor (talk) 12:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. There has never been a Palestinian state, and there are suitable merge candidates. Palestinian statehood would have been a more suitable title, but other articles cover what is necessary. JFW | T@lk 12:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per all of the above. Nahum (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as per all of the above.--YoavD (talk) 14:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/merge Gzuckier (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Per 6SJ7 Avi (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per all above. There is no need for this page. Yossiea ^(talk) 16:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• merge and redirect per above. Yahel Guhan 22:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the State of Palestine was declared, the fact that it doesn't hold de facto control over the areas in question doesn't make it less notable. 'Proposals of Palestinian state' is much broader, and has a scope that can include many many more concepts of Palestinian statehood. --Soman (talk) 10:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps that article requires a renaming consideration. This article, however, is about a non-entity. A declaration does not make something exist. Even if it did, "State of Palestine" is still at the very least in need of renaming, itself, and once a proper name is given to the article, it will become clear that it belongs within the scope of the aforementioned "Proposals" article, how ever renamed. Tomer^talk 17:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The State of Palestine is an established concept, and should be used as the proper name for the article. The intro of the article should be informative of what the State of Palestine is and isn't. Just because we have an article at Democratic Kampuchea doesn't mean that Wikipedia endorses the notion that the Khmer Rouge rule was democratic, nor should the existance of the article State of Palestine not be interpreted as a political standpoint on behalf of wikipedia. --Soman (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was about to say that the "established concept" of a non-existing "notable" state called as a "state" for political purposes is misleading, but then I turned to your user page and found that you have user pages in 77 languages and Hebrew is not one of them, which I interpret as a political standpoint. I would rather assume good faith. -- Gabi S. (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • he:מיוחד:תרומות/Soman. I edit across a lot of wikipedias, mainly connecting interwikis for categories. The lack of editing in hebrew could be due to a) political bias or b) difficulty in reading hebrew script. your choice. --Soman (talk) 09:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      And also a bunch of pictures from "Palestine", some of whose captions very clearly endorse a specific political viewpoint, see here. That's alright tho. There's no requirement that a person not have a POV, although using a person's political POV as a basis for a !vote on an AFD is not in the best of form. Tomer^talk 21:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      In which case the user pages of many of the editors who have !voted Redirect or Delete also make interesting reading. Such is what happens when an AfD is posted to a WikiProject (my fault, I admit).ELIMINATORJR 22:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      I assume you include mine in that statement. I think you'll find that none of the people who have !voted delete or redirect would similarly !vote for deletion of the Proposals article. This article, however, unnecessarily duplicates material in other articles, in an apparent acceptance of a proposed country as more than a declaration, more than a proposal, instead as a fait accompli. The other articles which this one duplicates may need reconsideration in the realm of name choice, but that discussion doesn't really belong in this AfD. In any case, "State of Palestine", as a declaration (alone), is far too insignificant a concept (especially since it does not exist and never has, at least not as anything other than a declaration), to warrant its own article. Tomer^talk 02:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      No, that wasn't aimed at you, because you gave a good reasoning with your !vote, unlike many of the others. I think the problem here is that we have four articles; this one, Palestinian state, Proposals for a Palestinian state and Palestinian homeland all of which have useful and verifiable information in, yet much is duplicated across some articles. It is a shame that some editor's political objection to the article name are obscuring the fact that some excellent articles could come out of this, especially when you factor in that the pre-1947 history could be merged in to produce a good over-arching article, rather than be fragmented as it is now. ELIMINATORJR 07:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Proposals for a Palestinian state. The information is way duplicated and there are actually no sources demonstrating the existence of this state as a fact. If a long-term solution is found, the article should be split off then. --JewBask (talk) 10:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or delete. Misleading title. Danny-w (talk) 06:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or delete. The title is very misleading.--Brad M. (talk) 04:14, 23 November 2007 (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.