Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian revolving door policy

Palestinian revolving door policy

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Palestinian revolving door policy

Palestinian revolving door policy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The phrase "Palestinian revolving door policy" is an WP:OR hodgepodge that utterly fails WP:N. It receives zero scholarly references and was not an official policy of the Palestinian Authority, but rather an accusation levelled against them by the Israeli government under Netanyahu. The title is misleading, the subject non-notable. Merging of a couple of lines of the content into articles related to Benjamin Netanyahu or the Palestinian Authority might be possible, but as a standalone article?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiamut (talk • contribs)

• Notice: Article has been restructured and re-edited with some content adding at 08:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC) [1]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 18:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep Term appears to be used by FOX news [2], Haaretz[3] & the israeli government [4]. I think it's possible to have a neutral article here. --neon white talk 20:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete It is an allegation against the PNA by one government. Maybe in the Netanyahu article we could have passage or possibly a subsection discussing this as his view. I don't think it belongs in the PNA article though and it certainly does not need its own article. --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Now that it has been restructured and is on its way to be NPOV, I think we should keep the article. However, I think the Usage section should be expanded to include exactly when and why the British and US governments used the term. This won't get it deleted though. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Seems to be an "allegation" only rather than based on pure fact. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not a reason for deletion. We are not here to decide whether the allegations are correct but whether the subject is notable. --neon white talk 18:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable term, there is no significant coverage from reliable sources to warrant an article. --J^mundo 20:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Change to Keep per the sources. --J^mundo 13:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - as a separate article, this has serious POV issues, and its existence isn't justified by the limited sources that have been provided. This could be covered in less detail as a subsection of a related article, but it doesn't deserve its own one. Robofish (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The article's sources and the sources provided above by User:Neon white indicates that the concept and term are notable. The fact that it is an allegation is irrelevant. God is also an allegation. According to WP policy, notability is decided by substantial coverage in reliable sources. Same with allegations. Allegations are notable when the allegations have received significant coverage in reliable sources. If there are POV problems with the article, the solution is never deletion, it's editing. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Significant coverage? The sources only mention the term. Can you offer specific examples of significant and independent coverage?--J^mundo 17:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Highly notable. It only took me 20 minutes to find a dozen references in the scholarly books, and reports. Here are just a few of them:
  • Defending the Holy Land: a Critical analysis of Israel's security & foreign policy By Zeev Maoz University of Michigan press pg 471. ISBN978-0472115402 [5] " 'revolving door policy'wherein they captured terrorists only to release them ..."
  • Human Rights Watch Reports-- here: [6] "'revolving door policy' of arresting alleged members..." here, [7], and here [8]
  • The other side of despair: Jews and Arabs in the promised land - Page 37 by Daniel Gavron -Rowan & Littlefield 2003 - ISBN0742517527, ISBN 9780742517523 "Israel justifiably complained about the 'revolving door' policy of arresting terrorists and releasing them after a few weeks or even days. ...
  • Building a successful Palestinian state RAND Palestinian State Study Team Jerrold D. Green & others 2005 - "Are individuals being jailed or is there a revolving-door policy?" [9] pg 59
  • Plenty more where that came from. Highly notable. Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep—was going to say delete, but then read Tundrabuggy's post above. Basically the reason I was going to say delete was because of lack of personal knowledge here, and it appears now that the term is used in a lot of places, by notable persons, and therefore appears notable enough for its own article. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Tundrabuggy. I can understand why pro-Palestinians claim POV and would object to this term in that they might not see anything wrong with the policy at all. They (and the P.A.) specifically reject being Israel's enforcer of Israeli Jewish law and do not see anything wrong with releasing 'militants' who have carried out missions 'against the occupation'. So for them 'revolving door' is really NN, but in otherwise 'international' law, releasing suspects of violent crimes is not acceptable. --Shuki (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Just thought I'd add a few more since I had made note of them.
  • The Oslo Accords: international law and the Israeli-Palestinian peace agreements - Page 225 by Geoffrey R. Watson - 2000 -[10] "Israel has charged that the PA has adopted a 'revolving door' policy of detaining and then releasing known terrorists. "
  • Israel's foreign relations: selected documents, 1947-1974 by Meron Medzini, 1976 Pg 262 - "The US has also committed to Israel that there will be special arrangements to prevent a 'revolving door' policy in relation to these prisoners..."
  • [11] pg 7 Testimony for Congress The Roadmap to Middle East Peace: Can it be Restarted?" Boaz Ganor, Ex Dir International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism. "Sometimes they would put up a show arrest apprehending the terrorists and let them go free after a short while through the infamous 'revolving door' policy."

I think readers who come across this term might want to know what it means and look to Wikipedia for an answer. And lo! we have one. ;) Perhaps these extra refs will help to expand and improve the article. Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete As per Tiamut's filing. pedrito - talk - 27.04.2009 06:35

• Notice: Article has been restructured and re-edited with some content adding at 08:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC) [12]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: I know this term was highly common in use about a decade ago but I wasn't sure if it deserved its own article as I falsely figured it to be more of an Israel-only terminology. A review upon relevant English news sources though, gave out the appearance that it caught foreign media attention to a degree where I believe an article would benefit the project. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  p.s. Article does need a couple of Palestinian/Arab official responses/perspectives though, for neutrality's sake. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per Tundrabuggy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. The phrase "revolving door policy" is of course a very common and standard - but nonetheless informal and colloquial - phrase, frequently applied to all sorts of situations. The sources cited appear to show that the PA policy on prisoner releases has occasionally been described, in passing, as an example of a "revolving door policy". Are we suggesting here that every time we can find a few instances of the use of the phrase by a politician/government or in a piece of commentary, in respect of situation or actor xxx, that we should then create an entire WP page with the formal title "xxx revolving door policy"? Unless there is actually serious evidence in serious sources that this is a commonly used, notable and formal phrase in its entirety, readily understood to refer specifically to this policy, this is pretty obvious POV forking and WP:SYNTHing. What next, "yyy hare-brained scheme", "zzz cunning plan"? --Nickhh (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• ps: call me thick, but I have only just noticed that this article has been renamed - since this AfD was opened - by User:Brewcrewer from "Palestinian revolving door policy" to simply "Revolving door policy". Forgive me, but this is doubly problematic - 1) is this kind of thing actually appropriate in the middle of an AfD?; 2) as I have noted, the more general phrase "Revolving door policy" is used to refer to many other things besides this supposed example of Palestinian duplicity, such that the general wrongness of this article is even more exposed now. --Nickhh (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You're making a good point. But as outlined at Talk:Revolving door policy#Article name, the previous name was vague and derogatory. Maybe a better name would be Palestinian Authority revolving door policy or Revolving door policy (Palestinian Authority).--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)