Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (8th nomination): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:05, 9 June 2008

Allegations of Israeli apartheid

Posting on behalf of another user as follows: 1)Article fails to deliver the political neutrality championed by wikipedia. That in itself should be more than enough reason to delete. 2) It is politically biased. Article is thoroughly sourced, but article is overly-dependent on biased sources (like Uri Avnery). Article fails to deliver the balance necessary to be hosted on wikipedia. 3)The article has been in clean up limbo for more than a year, but nobody has made any real attempt to do a write-up. 4)The whole concept of an Apartheid regime in Israel is flawed. The Arab minority in Israel are full citizens with voting rights and representation in the government. In the apartheid regime in SA, blacks could not vote and were not citizens of the country in which they are the overwhelming majority of the population. The article has no room for this fact. 5)Segregation is debatable, but Allegations of an Apartheid is far too sensational. 6)Unfair voice. There is no "proponent" section. The article is one big slant and has no balance. I cannot emphasize this more. 7) Some of the original authors have been banned or disciplined for wikipedia violations, though I'm not sure how relevant that is. 8) The most recent nomination had a majority delete, though the consensus was none. Not sure how important that is, but thought I'd mention it. 9)All in all, I think it is a perfect candidate for deletion. I can't think of any other reason why it should stay other than the potential to be cleaned, which as far as I can tell won't happen any time soon. If I see some pursuit by other members to fix this article, I'll gladly drop my want to delete this article. thanks for the quick response. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC) — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral – I'm remaining neutral on this issue. My only involvement is to properly post the AfD request for Wikifan12345. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: There are two Arbitration cases that are relevant here as well: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid & Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nobody's worked on it, but that alone is no reason to delete. Neither is a PoV dispute. This article has gone through seven AfDs and was kept each time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Seven AfDs strikes me as resolving the issue for a good long while. People need to stick to working on the content of the article. Thetrick (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it's POV, change it, it's not a valid reason to delete it. Nominator tries to explain why the allegations are invalid, but that's irrelevant to such a nomination, since the allegations have already been made, are citable, notable, and it's not up to us to decide whether they're right or wrong. FunkMonk (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Re: seven prior AfDs. This is a valuable article and your argument basically amounts to "it needs to be fixed, so delete it." -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Seven prior AfDs and two arbitrations. --John Nagle (talk) 04:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly notable subject. Many readers will search using the terms "Isreal" and "apartheid" to read more about this perspective. Content cleanup is not a reason for deletion. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment having read the article, I'd now say that the nominator's description is completely inaccurate. The article appears very well balanced and is an appropriate discussion of a modern debate. So ignore my "content cleanup" comment, this article is not in need of cleanup. The POV tag on it is mistaken, as they so often seem to be on contraversial subjects. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I disagree. The neutral tag had been on for several weeks with no prior edits. Today it was removed, and I put it back on. I've listed some very good reasons why the article is not neutral. Please give reasons for your findings. Also, I'll like to add that those who say keep, please review the reasons i listed why the article should be deleted. this isn't just a quality standard, there is something intellectually wrong with this article. plain and simple: it's biased, and blatantly. i dont see how you guys can shrug it off with "cleanup isn't a reason to delete". there is something more to this and i really wish some of you would accept that. pov isn't the only issue. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - PoV is not a reason for deletion. Period. --Thetrick (talk) 05:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is propaganda not a reason for deletion? Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are you saying the article is propaganda? FunkMonk (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm saying it possesses qualities that could be considered propaganda. Using Uri Avnery as a credible source is VERY alarming. But I'm guessing you guys just brush that off in the POV pile...right? I'm going through the article right now. I've already found one source that was used incorrectly.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That's exactly what you should be doing instead of dragging out the debate here. --Thetrick (talk) 05:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Doing what? Shifting through sources?? Tell me, if this article is so reliable, so factual, so non-propaganda, why is it still rated in the start class? Clearly something is wrong here. Wikipedia is hosting a very flawed article, and nobody cares. It's loaded with fallacies, and on top of that, many of the sources don't even connect with the paraphrasing. What do we call that again? This is ultimately turning into my view verse your view, which is unfortunate considering the influence this awful article has on the internet. If only wikipedia wasn't so political, perhaps quality would top partisanship. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Has anyone made protests against your edits on the article? No, so instead of complaining, go and edit it so it isn't POV anymore, that's how Wikipedia works. FunkMonk (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Wow, way to miss the point there. Didn't you just say the article was full of reliable and well-sourced material in the talk page? Nice. I see you belong to the Arab world wikiproject. Now I get it. Thanks!Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 *********Doing what?  Shifting through sources??  Tell me, if this article is so reliable, so factual, so non-propaganda, why is it still rated in the start class?  Clearly something is wrong here.  Wikipedia is hosting a very flawed article, and nobody cares.  It's loaded with fallacies, and on top of that, many of the sources don't even connect with the paraphrasing.  What do we call that again? This is ultimately turning into my view verse your view, which is unfortunate considering the influence this awful article has on the internet.  If only wikipedia wasn't so political, perhaps quality would top partisanship. [[User:Wikifan12345|Wikifan12345]] ([[User talk:Wikifan12345|talk]]) 05:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 **********Has anyone made protests against your edits on the article? No, so instead of complaining, go and edit it so it isn't POV anymore, that's how Wikipedia works. [[User:FunkMonk|FunkMonk]] ([[User talk:FunkMonk|talk]]) 06:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
-***********Wow, way to miss the point there.  Didn't you just say the article was full of reliable and well-sourced material in the talk page?  Nice. [[User:Wikifan12345|Wikifan12345]] ([[User talk:Wikifan12345|talk]]) 06:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
+***********Wow, way to miss the point there.  Didn't you just say the article was full of reliable and well-sourced material in the talk page?  Nice. I see you belong to the Arab world wikiproject.  Now I get it.  Thanks![[User:Wikifan12345|Wikifan12345]] ([[User talk:Wikifan12345|talk]]) 06:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)