Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestine and weapons of mass destruction

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 delete. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:07, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine and weapons of mass destruction

[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 appears to be a WP:COATRACKish article. It doesn't especially cover the State of Palestine possessing weapons of mass destruction - because it doesn't; it merely notes that they signed treaties against their proliferation. Most of the remainder of the article is about either Palestinan attacks on Israel damaging Israeli WMD-related facilities, or Israeli use of weapons regarded as WMDs against Palestine. Neither of these topics is related to the possession or use of WMDs by Palestine. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Middle East, and Israel. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All of the other "X and weapons of mass destruction" articles appear to be about countries that are known or suspected to have (or previously had) WMDs, and Palestine has never had any. Most of this is actually about Israel's WMDs and is already covered at Israel and weapons of mass destruction. I₂Overcome ^talk 05:08, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or redirect to Palestinian space lasers). No need for articles about things states don't possess (e.g. Coast of Bohemia). Clarityfiend (talk) 12:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "It's not known to possess any", then goes to describe how it doesn't have any, and how others have used some on the territory of Palestine... Akin to making an article about me not having any red apples, then using sources to show I don't have any, but others do... What's the point? This is just an odd mix of SYNTH and a non-sensical article... Hamas isn't Palestine, Israel isn't Palestine. Israel already has an article about these types of weapons, I'm not sure this even makes sense. This would be akin to having an article about "US occupation of Iraq and weapons of mass destruction". Just cover the subject in the article about the country that has them, not where they've invaded. Oaktree b (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most WMD articles are for countries that currently have no possession. Others using some on the territory of Palestine is legitimate substance of an article with the title "Palestine and weapons of mass destruction", which would have information about the relationship between the two, not exclusively possession. I didn't write that Hamas is Palestine, but I think allegations of its attempts at chemical weapons usage belong on this page and on the Israel WMD page. Non-state actors are already mentioned with an Islamic State WMD page. I agree a US occupation of Iraq WMD page would be silly, but it would not be silly to include the use of white phosphorus in Fallujah on the page Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. Doeze (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have since made some significant additions to the page. I initially published the article without them because I wanted to find higher quality sources. The title "Palestine and weapons of mass destruction" does not require discussing possession or use; it is about the relationship between the two. The WMD pages for Algeria, Canada, Mexico, Netherlands, Romania, Philippines, and others do not cover possession or use, or even particularly development. That said, I also don't think you can conclude there is no possession (see below). I think an article on this relationship warrants a page, as it is the most appropriate place for the following points:

Palestine is occupied in its entirety by a country which manufactures and (and in some cases tacitly threatens to use) nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and biological weapons
- Secrecy of above programs makes it currently non-determinable the Palestinian territories have or have not been used for storage or assistance in above programs
- Storage and assistance forms the basis for a significant fraction of Wikipedia WMD articles.
- Palestine is one of the few states that cannot guarantee compliance with its WMD treaty obligations due to occupation
Palestine makes diplomatic efforts on WMDs, including with Middle Eastern countries to establish a Middle East weapons of mass destruction free zone
Palestinians and Palestinian Arabs, represented by the State of Palestine, have been victims of historical chemical and biological attacks
These attacks have influenced Palestinian culture

I think the above points are notable enough to be included on Wikipedia but should not reasonably all be added to Israel and weapons of mass destruction. Further, a country's victimization as well as perpetration of WMD attacks is consistently a part of Wikipedia WMD pages, see Japan, Iran, United Kingdom, France, Germany. Doeze (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of those points are relefvant to Palestine and WMDs. They are relevant to Israel and WMDs, as they all apply to Israeli WMDs. As for 'other articles cover this', WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you not propose a merge? All of those points are relevant to Palestine and WMDs. We are just disagreeing about what "and" means in establishing article scope. I agree they also apply to Israeli WMDs, and that would largely create a duplicate article, but I think articles of this kind should be created in the WMD template to avoid bias. I really don't see how a line can be drawn between articles where victimization is some fraction of the page and the entire page. Doeze (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Articles like this should be restricted to nations that have/are suspected to have/previously had WMDs, otherwise we'd have an article like this for every nation just to state what treaties they've signed & any nations they've interacted with that may/or may not have WMDs. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This would not require an article for every nation because most can guarantee their own compliance with the treaties they have signed. Palestine can't for all three WMD categories. I don't see why a for lack of a better word non-WMD country's diplomatic responses to relations to WMD programs, and cultural responses to WMD attacks, are not more relevant to an article under the title of the non-WMD country than the WMD one. Doeze (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content related to use by Israel or attacks on Israeli facilities to Israel and weapons of mass destruction or Nuclear weapons and Israel. Delete the rest. EvansHallBear (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Agnieszka653 (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- You do realise that's an argument to avoid, right? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:19, 12 November 2025 (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.