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 no consensus. There are some extremely unpleasant aspects to this AFD. The canvassing and battleground attitude to delete votes by Kaasalan were wholly unnecessary and tainted the whole discussion. On the one hand the delete side rightly say that this is an indiscriminate list and the significance of the information is unclear - even some keep vote acknowledge that it is not clear what the list is about. There are also claims that this is a POV fork and a coatrack. On the other hand, the keep side cite sources that discuss the banned items - the list is even hosted on the BBC website. The issue is clearly that we have an article masquerading as a list and the scope and purpose of that article hasn't been agreed. I'm going to close this as no-consensus but with a clear requirement that the list is moved/merged into an article and properly expanded to put the list into context. If this doesn't happen in a reasonable timescale then I can see another AFD on the horizon and that will be harder for the keep side if this doesn't get better in the meantime. Spartaz Humbug! 04:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of commercial goods allowed/banned for import into Gaza[edit]

List of commercial goods allowed/banned for import into Gaza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trivial errata that serves no encyclopedic purpose at all. Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Note that the ban itself is noted in 2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip. There is no encyclopedic value in a table detailing the entire list itself. Tarc (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Official response by Israeli courts against the file suit by Israeli Human rights organisation Gisha

The list was unconfirmed until the Gisha filed a court case and the list is official by Israeli courts. Kasaalan (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no encyclopedic relevance or importance to what is in the list, regardless of who officially recognizes it or not. Mention that there is a list of banned goods in a relevant article, that's fine. List this gisha place in an "External Links" sub-section, that's fine too. But we're not here to serve as a repository for what is little more than an excel spreadsheet of data. Tarc (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a blockade in Gaza if you are aware. Read 2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip So the blockade is rationalized by weapon smuggling of Hamas. True. But why there is a ban against chocolate. Or what is even banned. It was uncertain until Gisha made a court case and clarified what is banned or not in 2009-2010. Now the list is official by Israeli courts. Certainly encyclopedic, very specific list, verifiable, factual, official. Kasaalan (talk) 13:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who gives a fuck why chocolate is banned? Encyclopedias are not the venue in which to speculate. You confuse notability of the blockade and the ban on goods themselves with notability of the individual items. As I said, place a link in 2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip to somewhere off-site that has the list, that is fine. The list itself has no place in this project. Tarc (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you swear or who cares your opinion. But for the people interested in international politics, human rights, wars, Israel-Palestine conflict it is important what is banned or not. As you can tell Israeli HR group made a court case about it, Israeli court accepted it and made a decision to the exact list to be revelaed, RS news/media sources published it. BBC So your opinion doesn't matter at all. You just try to delete the article. Kasaalan (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also the very fact that even chocolate is banned clearly shows the ban even includes basic food supply items. Read collective punishment Kasaalan (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of banned item/people articles in wikipedia

There are even more. Kasaalan (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your analogies miss the mark by a wide margin, the proverbial apples and oranges. A better comparison would be to note that we have an article on the Cuban embargo, but not a List of American goods restricted by the Cuban embargo. Tarc (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What a failed argument. You may create the page with multiple RS if you put effort, there is no such page or example AFD for it. You are just mading up a red link that never existed.
For specific embargoes like Arms embargo you don't need lists because all arms are banned. Yet a non-clearly defined embargo like 2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip you need specific items over what is banned or not. If anything is banned or the list is too short you don't need an article, if the item list is long and there are too many mixed items/details you need an article per WP:TOOLONG and WP:SPLIT. Since the ban covers basic human needs and even includes food items like chocolate, there needs to be a clearence. Israel claims they ban arms against armed attacks, yet they ban chocolate. Can Israel explain why they ban chocolate, no, so they had to lift off that ban after court. Israel even held ban list as a secret, and rejected to reveal its list. After court decision they had to release the list by official court ruling. Kasaalan (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Specific items are not notable, and you have yet to demonstrate a single shred of evidence to the contrary. Again, stop conflating the embargo itself with the items embargoed. The link I put above is a deliberate redlink because it was a demonstration of an absurd, ridiculous idea for an article that will never exist in the Wikipedia. Tarc (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you fail to read the article. Details of Gaza blockade revealed in court case by Tim Franks, BBC News, Jerusalem Full list (pdf) of commercial items allowed by BBC Source: Confidential information from international groups, compiled by the BBC. (The list refers to goods brought in by commercial importers. Kasaalan (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple RS news coverage on Banned items and Gisha

I prefer listing multiple RS media sources about the case instead personal arguments. There are even more in related articles, including UN reports. Kasaalan (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And in the future, write requests for other editor's thoughts in a neutral tone if you don't want to be accused of canvassing.Cptnono (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that what is notable is what is banned. Most embargoes seem less arbitary then the Gaza blockade, and knowing what Israle considers millitary items will help put that embargo into context.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that most of the article, including the list, is of goods which are allowed to Gaza, and not banned. Marokwitz (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have RS for banned goods too, if you like to update table. Also allowed goods are banned at least since 2007, and are allowed in 2009/2010 after Gisha took the case to the Israeli court. Kasaalan (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The lists themselves are notable.
  2. The article discusses the lists, it is not merely a copy of the list. (Currently it does not even include all the list.)
  3. the list information does not seem overly long, in the event that it ran to thousands of items there would be a case for summarising and moving to Wikisource (which is not to say that mere length is a reason to repudiate lists - simply that it would be in this case).
Rich Farmbrough, 18:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Note this addresses the point above "specific items are not notable" - notability is not the criteria to be included in the article, significance is. Rich Farmbrough, 20:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
As has been said an article needing work is not a reason for deletion. As a side question to those who edit the page why does it not list banned items dispite its title?Slatersteven (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added a list of items that Gisha have alledged are banned.Slatersteven (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Not that I edit the article particularly.) It might benefit from another rename later, as Harel said above. The article is to some extent about the lists, and how hard they are/were to obtain, rather than about the goods and the effect the blockade or otherwise of them has. It also covers lists put together by third parties, and , of course there is massive RS about the putative governmental lists, commentary by parties to the dispute, NGOs, international organizations, journalists etc.. Rich Farmbrough, 20:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
So the "list" has now turned into an article? My reasoning for delete up above is now even more valid.Cptnono (talk) 07:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought that would make a rename more valid.Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It being a list made some sense according to the "keep" arguments even though I still believe it was unnecessary. Now it really is just a second article on the same subject. Cptnono (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me but this not an artciel about the blockade but about what items Israle has (and has not) allowed in. Now if it has expanded from just a list (and I am not sure it has that much) then we can re-work it. None of this measn it should be deleted. What inseatd is needed is a duscusioin about what this page should be, and how to achive it. For example,we now have a list of banned items this was not in the articel but now is (so now any votes for delete based on lack of list are now invlaid). yes th8is needs work, but so do a lot of articles.Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is an article about the blockade. That is why it is a POVFORK.Cptnono (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So if this page is deleted then this material would have to be put ijnto the Gaza blockade articel, correct?Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A quick ctrl+f on both articles shows that most of the prose already is.Cptnono (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But not the lists, so do you think that the material (prose asside) should be merged with the Gaza blockade articel?Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed above, the table might OK placed in the article. The BBC article could also be used as a reference or an external link instead.Cptnono (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about the list of banned items, should that be in the Gaza Blockade articel?Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it is modified to meet MoS it also might work. Some editors believe it is INDISCRIMINATE and not necessary at all so it again could instead also be used as a reference or an external link.. Does the full list need to be provided on Wikipedia? Do editors in favor of it actually want the list or is their main goal to make a point with the prose?
The problem is that this list/article looks to only be created to make a point. Cherry picked unbalanced quotes push a POV in what could have been a lead and a list. Here are two snippets from WP:LIST that were ignored:
  • "However short or schematic a list description, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view applies..."
  • "Lists should not be used to create content forks between a topic that has a separate wikipedia article..."
But since this is now an article, it is clearly duplicated information that is not neutral. This makes it a POVFORK that needs to be deleted. If editors attempt to create an actual list, then the arguments of if it is indiscriminate or not need to be concluded. I doubt there would have been so much opposition to the list if it had initially adhered to Wikipedia's standards. So a discussion if the list is recreated might yield less knee-jerk bickering.Cptnono (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does not contain duplicate information, the information provided in the two lists does not appear in the other articel. Whilst the prose may duplicate that is justg antoehr example of this page needing work, not deletion. Also how is the information not neutral? I again say that if this needs work thyen we work at it, we do not delete it. Perhaos you could also give some examles of were the text matches the text of the otehr articel.Slatersteven (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A POV list would be something like "List of Israeli crimes against humanity" or "List of innocent people killed by Israel". There is nothing POV about this one. It provides material information which has been reported by numerous high-profile RS, and it is certainly notable enough to have its own article. --386-DX (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you only addressed one issue. There are three issues:
  • Was a POV list that does not follow MoS and needs to be gutted to even be considered viable.
  • Indiscriminate. A simple lead with the lists might work but enough editors have expressed that it looks like a collection of unecyclopedic information that that should not be ignored.
  • It is currently not a list. Therefore it is a second article on the same topic. It was a list at first but is now not.Cptnono (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created a table for banned items [contains items permitted in 2010] by Gisha's list. After we merge the tables, it will reflect complete information. The items in the permitted list were also banned before 2009/2010 so all items are already banned at least for a period. Kasaalan (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2010 (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.
More