Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023–2024 Gaza Strip preterm births

2023–2024 Gaza Strip preterm births

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This seems to be an overly specific and redundant article given the Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) which already exists and provides key context needed to cover this topic. Very limited coverage on this singular issue as a standalone topic exists with such coverage normally being mentioned in passing as part of the greater crisis. Originalcola (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted as WP:G5; only significant contributions are from two sockpuppets. BilledMammal (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Medicine, Israel, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG with flying colours. If anything, it should be expanded using the many RS that cover the subject. M.Bitton (talk) 13:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’d strongly argue that this is not the case. Outside of regular news reporting on the crisis where passing mention is given to preterm births there isn’t any coverage of this topic as a standalone, much less significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Originalcola (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily passes GNG, beyond that Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) sits at 89 kB and 14,335 words of readable prose, making it WP:TOOBIG to absorb all this material and this an appropriate WP:SPINOFF for size reasons. And no, this does not qualify for G5, as I myself have a non-trivial edit there. Last I checked I am not a sock of a banned user. nableezy - 18:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did I miss something? As far as I can tell, the only edit you have is reverting a sock? BilledMammal (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is still a substantive edit. nableezy - 13:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misinterpreting the intent of the rule there, although there are other non-sock editors who have made substantive non-revert posts. Originalcola (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A merger would probably only add 100-200 words to whatever article it’s merged with. It might make more sense to merge it with Effect of the Israel–Hamas war on children in the Gaza Strip if size is still too great a concern. Originalcola (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you figure that unless you gut the entirety of what is merged? nableezy - 13:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a guesstimate but when merging you'd probably not transfer the lead and background. Both articles have a section or a decent amount of information on Gaza preterm births already, so you wouldn't have to copy all 797 words on this page over. Originalcola (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don’t really care if the article is deleted or merged, but I removed several sources that were either live updates from news liveblogs or Tweets. So I think the article needs cleaning up. Also I think it is written in news reporting style: on November 12, X happened, then on November 13, Y happened, etc…. I don’t think Wikipedia is supposed to have so many articles written like this unless I am misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS. More experienced editors may be able to help improve the article and sourcing. Wafflefrites (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:G5. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a raft of relevant coverage from aid agencies, rights groups and all the major newsorgs (just search premature babies Gaza to see) so GNG is easily met, passing mention is simply untrue. The article does need improvement but that's not a reason to delete, I already restored one item adding a secondary to deal with a "newsblog" complaint (these sources are already used in other related articles, btw). G5 was already tried twice and successfully challenged leading to this AfD so "per WP:G5" is not a reason to delete either. Selfstudier (talk) 12:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to another experienced editor on here, “No pages should really be using live blogs long-term as sources. This is a WP:NOTNEWS issue as much as anything else. Because yes, live blogs are just a stream of off-the-cuff news and unredacted commentary.” Per WP:NEWSBLOG, they should be used with caution. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's "unredacted commentary"? Anyway, I added a secondary to the restored material so not a problem. Just some work to locate secondaries, that's all. Selfstudier (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to be honest. Everything that CarmenEsparzaAmoux touched leaves a sour taste in my mouth. When we're crying out for neutrality and independence in this contentious area, the consequences of their actions are so destructive and this isn't about sides. It would be similarly damaging if they were making pro Israel edits. Sticking to the facts about this article - I have to agree with the citing of WP:G5 MaskedSinger (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as noted above, G5 alone is a good reason to delete, as is WP:SOAP. I’m entirely sympathetic to the issues - I created Palestinian law - but we are also primarily a news organization. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "we are also primarily a news organization" That is news to me. Since when are we supposed to simply offer news coverage instead of being an encyclopedia? Dimadick (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've already restored most of the deleted content, it wasn't hard to find proper sources to back it up, and I've also added more information. The topic is notable. I don't fully agree with WP:G5 - being a sockpuppet doesn't necessarily means all your edits are trash. We should keep what is salvageable, and in this case, I don't see any significant issues with the existing article, which can certainly be expanded. - Ïvana (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos to you for doing that, but there's still a complete lack of secondary sources on this page, with non-routine news coverage on the topic of this article not existing. I don't think this is the right venue to talk about the merits of the G5 rule. Originalcola (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Routine news coverage is about announcements and scheduled events. All of the sources in the article are secondary and all of them are non-routine. nableezy - 01:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why I mentioned WP:ROUTINE, I meant to say sources that weren't news articles or similar primary sources. Originalcola (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
News articles aren't primary sources unless they are about the news organisation itself.

You mentioned routine coverage because you appear to look for ways to discredit the sourcing, switching arguments whenever someone points out that your arguments are flawed. Cortador (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm going to ignore the completely reasonable "I don't think this is the right venue to talk about the merits of the G5 rule". My view is that the G5 condition "...and that have no substantial edits by others not subject to the ban or sanctions" is a mistake. It's a self-defeating strategy that rewards and incentivizes ban evasion by over-estimating the importance of preserving content and under-estimating the importance of having effective ban evasion countermeasures. I think articles created by people employing deception in contentious topic areas where socks are common should be deleted even if there are hundreds of 'substantial edits' by other editors, even if there are tens of thousands of daily pageviews, and even if the article has attained featured article status. If the subject matters, other people, not employing deception, will have the same idea at some point and create it again. There's no deadline for content or need to take a short-term view. Anyway, having got that futile rant out of the way, I don't know what "substantial edits by others" actually means in terms of quantities, but here are the quantities in the form of token counts for the content of the current version of the page.
CarmenEsparzaAmoux 67.3%, Ïvana 15.3%, MWQs 8.9%, Wafflefrites 4.2%, with Nableezy, Pincrete, טבעת-זרם each having less than 1%.

Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved admin note, G5 had been brought up and the tag has also been declined twice. Rather than continuing to litigate that procedural element, please focus on whether the subject is notable and/or if it should be merged. The decision will be made on community consensus and not speedy grounds. Star Mississippi 21:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Effect_of_the_Israel–Hamas_war_on_children_in_the_Gaza_Strip#Premature_babies where this is already covered at the appropriate level of detail. We are an encyclopedia, not a news organization, which means that it is inappropriate to cover a current event at this minute level of detail. Being created by a blocked sock does not help. Sandstein 19:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ -After looking at the arguments, I still think that deletion is the best approach. There's no significant coverage on pre-term births that could meet the standards of notability as per WP:GNG. At present, all the sources on the page are primary sources (predominantly news reports) and there does not exist secondary sources focused mainly on the topic of this article. Even if such coverage did exist, which is doubtful, no editor has made a convincing reason as to why the content of this article would not be better served as part of another larger article as per the reasons I stated when initially proposing this page for deletion. Originalcola (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Double vote Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I didn't mean to double vote there and shouldn't have used a bold heading. Originalcola (talk) 03:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Whatever is relevant to the topic can be cited in existing articles on the conflict. It seems totally problematic in WP:BIAS and full of WP:OVERKILL, not to mention being a specific theme just to a small niche. Svartner (talk) 04:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 10:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:G5 and redirect to Effect_of_the_Israel–Hamas_war_on_children_in_the_Gaza_Strip#Premature_babies.4meter4 (talk) 10:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G5 is no longer a reason to delete and redirect is effectively a merge? Selfstudier (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G5 is absolutely a reason to delete. That editor's edits should be completely stripped from the article history and entirely removed from view/access. I support a redirect. Not a merge.4meter4 (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made edits to that article, G5 does not apply. nableezy - 17:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An admin has already stated that G5 won't apply here. Besides, someone already tried to do a speedy deletion and it was contested. Originalcola (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG with plenty of coverage in academia [1] [2] [3] [4] and news media [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Topic could be broadened to not just focus on 2023-2024, but Gaza overall, as this has been the subject of WP:SIGCOV prior to the war [11] [12] [13]. I'm not seeing any persuasive argument for merging this with parent articles. Levivich (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the academic sources cited seem to include more than a single sentence mentioning premature births. [2] doesn't even include a sentence on premature births, just having the word prematurity in a list. This is clearly trivial coverage in articles in which preterm births are not the main focus. The issue with using news articles is that this article assumes that much of the coverage is in relation to individual events like the raid on Al-Shifa last year and thus don't actually say much about preterm births. These events may or may not be notable, but there still remains a clear lack of depth and duration of coverage of increases in pre-term deaths, premature births or anything similar. With regard to the claim that preterm births in a specific area of a country, I would also disagree, especially since all 3 of the sources are masters theses. These are not only unreliable sources by the standards of Wikipedia but also don't seem to have any reason to be linked to what's going on in Gaza right now. Originalcola (talk) 04:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we forget about all the academic sources, it still meets GNG based on the news media sources, and those are appropriate sources for a current event such as this war. The news RS don't just focus on one event/hospital (and the selection I posted aren't all of them; more are in the article). Levivich (talk) 07:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think an article on a topic like this should be comprised mostly or in whole by news articles without a good reason. GNG states that secondary sources should be used, which none of the cited news media articles are; you can't establish notability with just primary sources. The appropriateness of news articles as sources for an article doesn't mean that they themselves form the basis of notability without reliable secondary sources. It also seems that every source currently in the article is a news article and that there are no secondary sources included in the article at present.

I also don't agree with your assertion that the articles "don't focus on one event/hospital". Sources 6,7,9 and 10 are also covering one hospital, those being al-Nasr for 6, Al Shifa for 7 and 10 and Emirati for 9. As it stands the article is currently split up into different sections on different hospitals and as such the news articles cited are predominately focused on each individual hospital or event as opposed to the wider topic of the article. In all articles premature births and deaths are mentioned as part of the wider context of the effects of this war on children in the Gaza Strip rather or individual hospitals. This is mostly the case for the news articles cited as well. Originalcola (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
News articles form the basis of notability for all notable current events topics. You can disagree with it if you want to, but it's still Wikipedia policy that news articles are RS. Levivich (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
News articles do not necessarily form the basis of notability for current events for a variety of reasons I hope are fairly obvious, and there is no indication that this event is notable in the articles. My issue is not that I disagree that news articles are reliable, but that the articles included lack sufficient depth and duration to establish the topics' significance. Many of the sources are reliable without doubt, but for the purposes of WP:GNG there needs to exist secondary sources of reliable nature, not just news articles which in this case are predominately primary sources. That's why I put so much weight into the fact that there isn't any academic coverage of this topic, as those are generally the highest quality secondary sources.

TL;DR:Lack of secondary sources, overreliance on primary sources in news reports. Originalcola (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist for more commentary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FOARP (talk) 12:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Effect_of_the_Israel–Hamas_war_on_children_in_the_Gaza_Strip#Premature_babies. Per nom, this article is overly specific and redundant, since the topic is adequately covered in other articles.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Effect_of_the_Israel–Hamas_war_on_children_in_the_Gaza_Strip#Premature_babies. This is article count bludgeoning: yes, it's a humanitarian crisis but writing an article on every aspect when in an actual encyclopedia a sentence at most would be required is quite WP:UNDUE. Mangoe (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe you'd look at this article and conclude that a sentence is the most that would be written in an encyclopedia to cover this topic. How could you possibly condense it all into one sentence? What would that sentence be? Levivich (talk) 03:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to note that this is the only article on Wikipedia on preterm births for a given country, region, and/or time period. Whilst only a sentence might be cutting back too much, it seems quite much without some kind of special assertion of notability, unless one were to make the argument that there should be more preterm birth pages. Originalcola (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or not) is not a valid reason to delete, just whataboutism. Selfstudier (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just mean that an aspect of a conflict as specific as preterm births should not have its own independent article without a good reason; there is no presumption of inherent notability for preterm births in a conflict. It's certainly true that it's not enough to say that because other articles don't exist, then this article shouldn't. Conversely, there is no special reason why, in this specific case, preterm births are more notable as to warrant it's own article. Giving this topic its own page gives undue weight to this aspect of the conflict in a way that potentially breaks NPOV, which is what I was trying to get.

Also, a small technical/semantic issue but I'd like to note that this was a comment on merging, not deleting this page. Originalcola (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the WP:GNG reasons listed by others and because of WP:PAGEDECIDE - if we are trying to decide how to present information so that readers best understand it, then merging it into an already huge article seems like it would have the opposite impact. The issue in question has global attention and as others have so capably shown, RS (both academic and journalistic) cover it as a topic in its own right, so I don't see why we wouldn't do so, also. There is research from before 2023-24 that indicates that this is part of a WP:SUSTAINED issue as well. Smallangryplanet (talk) 06:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, children doesn't fit. There is also a woman in every pre term birth. So, it could go there or in the page on women. The ambiguity is a reason to do neither. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree on your point on WP:PAGEDECIDE. IMO in order to appropriately cover this topic, you need to include the wider context of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The article proposed to be merged into by others(Effect of the Israel–Hamas war on children in the Gaza Strip) isn't currently that large as it stands. Originalcola (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I'm trying to WP:AGF but I'm not sure how you can believe this ('wider context') at the same time as you unilaterally blanked a section on embryos, which provided necessary context within the article – one of the things we're supposed to consider for PAGEDECIDE. If anything, this is a sure sign that the article is necessary - it contains separate and important context for a notable issue covered extensively by RS, and merging it with another page (let alone deleting it) does a disservice to the topic and to readers, which, again, is what we're meant to consider. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Topic is too specific for a standalone article. redirect to Effect_of_the_Israel–Hamas_war_on_children_in_the_Gaza_Strip#Premature_babies as suggested above by Sandstein. Whizkin (talk) 08:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Topic is too specific for a standalone article Which policy argument says that? GNG is clearly established. Selfstudier (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did reference the policy he's likely referring to in my original nomination:WP:NOPAGE. There are other similar policies that could also be argued for or against, but it does seem kind of silly to demand policy rules for every little argument. GNG hasn't been clearly established or disestablished through consensus, if it had, then this deletion discussion would have been resolved. Originalcola (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that you have exceeded the 1000 word limit mandated by Arbcom for contributions to formal discussions. Selfstudier (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: Are you saying that rule applies to AfD? jlwoodwa (talk) 06:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PermanentLink/1257490232#Motion_2c:_Word_limits "All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict..." Selfstudier (talk) 10:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then this page needs to be expanded to cover the whole topic. Not squeezed into a huge page that only covers half of it. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That a page needs improvement is also not a reason to delete. Selfstudier (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was saying we should keep it. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There are already articles about the Effect of the Israel–Hamas war on children in the Gaza Strip, Women in the Israel–Hamas war, Timeline of the Gaza Strip healthcare collapse, Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) and attacks on individual hospitals like Al-Shifa Hospital siege. The topic is not in itself more notable than the death of other babies or children in Gaza, especially because it is incidental to the general attacks on hospitals and not a specifically targeted operation that would need its own coverage. This should be merged into the relevant articles, with some more detail included in the article about the specific hospitals. Compare this to the article Child abductions in the Russo-Ukrainian War, which was a specific operation not part of the combat itself. If it were to come out that Israel was specifically targeting palestinian children for demographic reasons (compare Ethiopian Jews in Israel#Birth control) that would maybe make it deserve a separate article. We also don't have an article about the destruction of oncology departments in Gaza because that comes with the destruction of hospitals in general, and those are already covered in articles about the hospitals themselves, in the article on healthcare and the article about humanitarian crisis. This really is not distinct enough to get its own article. Not everything has to get the same level of granularity as the hundreds of "Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on X" articles. — jonas (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be mentioned on all of those pages, but the intersection of women + children + health + humanitarian crisis is an independently notable topic with hundreds of sources. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the topic is fairly specific, it has also received fairly broad coverage over and extended period of time, including some coverage by academics. Merging this with the article on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is not reasonable as that article is already huge. If anything, more topics should be forked from it. Cortador (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete per above. Interpretations of GNG that rely excessively upon news reporting are iffy IMO. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]