Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupied Palestinian territories

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Occupied Palestinian territories}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Occupied Palestinian territories}})

This is a POVFORK of the Palestine article and I do not see why it should be kept. In all contexts, "Palestinian territories" refers to the State of Palestine or the Israeli occupation of it. Most of the references in this article either refer to the West Bank, Gaza Strip or State of Palestine. I support converting this page into a disambiguation or redirect. One view that I had seen from my discussion of a merge on the talk page was that this page should be kept because some countries do not see the State of Palestine as a sovereign country. I agree. However, I believe we should be creating a Legitimacy of the State of Palestine similar to the Legitimacy of the State of Israel page. We should choose the title for the page which WP:ASTONISHES the reader least. If a reader clicked on an article called the Occupied Palestinian Territories, they wouldn't expect to see an article about whether or not the State of Palestine is legitimate or not. Easternsahara (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Israel, and Palestine. Shellwood (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:Delete per nom. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 10:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to Palestine. Almost everything in this article is duplicated from that article and related ones, except the part about how some organizations use the term "occupied Palestinian territories". And that alone is not enough for an independent article (see the paragraph about the "use-mention distinction" at WP:NEO). Astaire (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect - per above. Indeed, I do believe almost everything is duplicated. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 07:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Palestine. This article is entirely redundant.

:Squaremoose (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to Palestine as a FORK, POV and REDUNDANT. gidonb (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep This article talks about an important and specific part of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict that is not covered in Palestine. "Occupied Palestinian Terrtories" is also a notable and widely used term by the UN [https://www.unocha.org/occupied-palestinian-territory] and many media sources which refers to different things from just "Palestine". Some parts which is repeated from Palestine and off-topic can be fixed but not by deleting it. Hitomi (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
• :What are the different things from just Palestine? You just contradict me, with no evidence. Organizations use it when they won't or can't recognize the state. Also you don't have enough edits so you can't participate in this debate Easternsahara (talk) 02:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:Keep : I respectfully disagree with the assessment that this article is merely a POVFORK of the "Palestine" article. While related, "Occupied Palestinian territories" serves a distinct and necessary purpose, focusing on a specific legal and political concept that warrants its own detailed treatment.

:Here's why I believe it should be kept:

:# Distinct Scope and Terminology: The term "Occupied Palestinian territories" (OPT) is a widely recognized and specific legal term used by the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, numerous international bodies, and a significant number of states. This article is dedicated to explaining the status, legal implications, and on-the-ground realities of these territories under occupation since 1967. This is a specific focus that goes beyond the general history, geography, or political aspirations covered in the broader "Palestine" article.

:# International Law and Scholarly Focus: The article delves into the application of international humanitarian law, UN resolutions, and the opinions of international legal bodies regarding the occupation. This level of detail on a specific legal and political status cannot be adequately integrated into the "Palestine" article without making it unwieldy or diluting the specific focus on the occupation itself.

:# Navigational Clarity: A reader specifically searching for information on the occupied status of these territories, the legal framework surrounding them, or the administrative divisions (e.g., Areas A, B, C) would naturally expect to find a dedicated article. Redirecting or disambiguating "Occupied Palestinian territories" would force readers to sift through a broader article to find this specific information, which violates the principle of least astonishment (WP:ASTONISH).

:# Notability of the Concept: The concept of "Occupied Palestinian territories" is independently notable and verifiable through numerous reliable sources. It represents a significant ongoing geopolitical situation with specific legal and humanitarian dimensions.

:# Complementary, Not Redundant: The "Occupied Palestinian territories" article complements the "Palestine" article. The latter describes the overarching entity, history, and aspirations, while the former provides critical detail on a specific, legally defined aspect of its current situation. This is akin to having articles on "Israel" and "Israeli-occupied territories" (should such an article exist and be deemed distinct).

:# "Legitimacy" Page is a Separate Topic: While a "Legitimacy of the State of Palestine" page (similar to "Legitimacy of the State of Israel") could be a valuable addition, it addresses a fundamentally different question: the international recognition and sovereignty of the State of Palestine. This topic is distinct from the status of territories under military occupation, which is the core subject of the current article. The existence of one does not negate the need for the other.

:Therefore, I advocate for the retention of this article as a distinct and necessary resource that addresses a specific, notable, and internationally recognized concept. Beautifullifepl (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{Tq|Therefore, I advocate for the retention of this article as a distinct and necessary resource that addresses a specific, notable, and internationally recognized concept}} That is not how Wikipedian users reach a consensus. This is indeed, a FORK of Palestine and for some reason I find that your response looks like one from ChatGPT. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 05:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Note: @Beautifullifepl Only has two edits and is therefore invalidated from the discussion. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 05:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep I agree with Hitomi --Shujen Chang (talk) 00:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:*Many of your very edits seem to be very minor and in quick succesion: trying to game the system. I will later investigate this. Easternsahara (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to Palestine. Indeed a POVFORK and the content would fit well within that article as a sub-section with appropriate sources for weight and placement. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• WP:POVFORK is not WP:RM. There is only one subject. Redirect, and, if there is still good faith debate, have it on the talk page there. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - Useful encyclopedic topic just like Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine --DinoGrado (talk) 05:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - The nominator seems to be pushing his own point of view a bit too strongly and even dismissing other users' comments, which is not really his role. The term "Occupied Palestinian Territories" is widely recognised in international discourse, including by the UN and many governments, so it's not just some vague or misleading title. Instead of deletion, improving the article with balanced sources would make more sense than removing it altogether. Arbaz Thakur (talk) 08:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: Per WP:ARBPIA, only extended confirmed editors may participate in this AfD. I've added a relevant template and struck some non-XC !votes above. [​[User:CanonNi]​] (💬 • ✍️) 12:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.