Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (8th nomination): Difference between revisions
Comment |
Ecoleetage (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 109: | Line 109: | ||
** '''Comment''' [[User:Wikifan12345|Wikifan12345]] is actively recruiting (pro-Israeli) voters to this page; by last count he had left messages at around 14 different user-pages. Regards, [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] ([[User talk:Huldra|talk]]) 01:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC) |
** '''Comment''' [[User:Wikifan12345|Wikifan12345]] is actively recruiting (pro-Israeli) voters to this page; by last count he had left messages at around 14 different user-pages. Regards, [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] ([[User talk:Huldra|talk]]) 01:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
***'''Comment''' Here is the [[WP:CANVAS]] policy and the [[Special:Contributions/Wikifan12345|contribs]]. --[[User:Thetrick|Thetrick]] ([[User talk:Thetrick|talk]]) 01:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC) |
***'''Comment''' Here is the [[WP:CANVAS]] policy and the [[Special:Contributions/Wikifan12345|contribs]]. --[[User:Thetrick|Thetrick]] ([[User talk:Thetrick|talk]]) 01:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''' This enervated propaganda is not an encyclopedia article. Hell, even the United Nations reverted its emetic resolution equating Zionism with racism -- we should follow their lead. [[User:Ecoleetage|Ecoleetage]] ([[User talk:Ecoleetage|talk]]) 01:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:54, 10 June 2008
- Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid
- Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (2nd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (4th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (5th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (6th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (7th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (8th nomination)
- Allegations of Israeli apartheid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Speedy keep Seven prior AfDs and two arbitrations. --John Nagle (talk) 04:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- PoV is not a reason for deletion. Period. --Thetrick (talk) 05:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Is propaganda not a reason for deletion? Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Are you saying the article is propaganda? FunkMonk (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- That's exactly what you should be doing instead of dragging out the debate here. --Thetrick (talk) 05:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- It is, but that doesn't mean there aren't unreliable ones, That should be beyond obvious. FunkMonk (talk) 06:11, 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.Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:04, 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. FunkMonk (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- That's exactly what you should be doing instead of dragging out the debate here. --Thetrick (talk) 05:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- Are you saying the article is propaganda? FunkMonk (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Is propaganda not a reason for deletion? Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- PoV is not a reason for deletion. Period. --Thetrick (talk) 05:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Your "very good reasons" that the article is not neutral have no basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines, so they are not good reasons at all. Your reasons show no understanding of the neutral point of view policy. Please read the policy, and learn than it is appropriate for contraversial subjects to have an article on Wikipedia, so long as all perspectives of the discussion are represented. "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors." That is done in this article. It is desirable for well-sourced opinions to be presented on Wikipedia, and for opposing well-sourced opinions to be presented where they exist, as this article does. This article shouldn't have a NPOV tag, let alone be up for deletion. The fact that some people would like to bury or discredit this subject does not make it any less suitable for an article, but it does explain the many failed AfDs, the incorrect tags, and the "start article" status. Contraversial subjects should be covered in full, with all sides discussed, without all the attempts to bury it in tags and meta-discussion, so that interested readers can become informed and draw their own conclusions. That it what Wikipedia is for. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sigh. Israel's self-appointed defenders on Wikipedia have been hammering away at this article for years; the resulting edit wars, often involving newbie single-purpose-accounts, have degraded its quality. Now the degraded quality is being cited as a reason for deletion. It's very tiresome. Anybody who thinks that we can't cite a veteran Israeli journalist and commentator because he's a post-Zionist leftie ought to explain why it's totally acceptable to cite lesser-known figures who are on the other side, or partisan advocacy organizations funded by the Israel government and aligned with radical Israeli nationalists. There may be good reasons to remove advocates from both sides from the article's citation, but that's another debate entirely. This looks an awful lot like somebody just trying to get rid of opinions that he doesn't like.
- Edit conflict: See above comment of 06:04 GMT; he's actually trying to exclude entire ethnic groups that he doesn't like. Somebody speedy-close this debate, it's going nowhere. And ban the troll while you're at it, too. <eleland/talkedits> 06:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Good catch. --Thetrick (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hah, racial profiling. FunkMonk (talk) 06:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know what you're talking about Eleland. I'm honestly too tired to fight this. Clearly you guys want this more than I do. This isn't about opinions. This is about deeply flawed article that shows no signs of up. Most of you seem to agree that there is a problem, but don't really care enough about it. Perhaps because it satisfies your politics, or maybe you don't want to take the time. But this article isn't going anywhere, and you have just proved that. Thank you! And btw, I don't appreciate being called a troll. If anybody is a troll, it's you. Don't bate me next time dude. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Wow Eleland, your user page speaks volumes. Appreciate the hate, man. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Good catch. --Thetrick (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Now Wikifan has resorted to personal attacks two times in a row, not much left to discuss here I'm afraid. FunkMonk (talk) 06:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous. I'm responding to attacks against me. How am I attacking? Wait, I get it. You're doing this to distract from the problem. Bate me and then spin. Wow, you're all just full of fallacies to do now aren't you? Funkmonk, Eleland, I appreciate your political affiliation. I understand. But let's keep this discussion on-topic, ok?!
- [1][2]. Ad hominem attacks. FunkMonk (talk) 06:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ok lol. I think we know this isn't going anywhere. I would like to see this discussion stay open but I'm not expecting a delete. You guys are too devoted in maintaining this article no matter how terrible it is. XD Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Once again, no one has contested your recent edits on the article in question, so go ahead and edit it until it pleases you, and quit wasting everyone's time. FunkMonk (talk) 06:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Whoa, way to double back there. Making baseless claims and then telling to be basically get out. Wikipedia at its finest. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yawn. FunkMonk (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Shweet. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yawn. FunkMonk (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Whoa, way to double back there. Making baseless claims and then telling to be basically get out. Wikipedia at its finest. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Once again, no one has contested your recent edits on the article in question, so go ahead and edit it until it pleases you, and quit wasting everyone's time. FunkMonk (talk) 06:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ok lol. I think we know this isn't going anywhere. I would like to see this discussion stay open but I'm not expecting a delete. You guys are too devoted in maintaining this article no matter how terrible it is. XD Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- [1][2]. Ad hominem attacks. FunkMonk (talk) 06:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous. I'm responding to attacks against me. How am I attacking? Wait, I get it. You're doing this to distract from the problem. Bate me and then spin. Wow, you're all just full of fallacies to do now aren't you? Funkmonk, Eleland, I appreciate your political affiliation. I understand. But let's keep this discussion on-topic, ok?!
- Speedy keep Here we go again; it seems that some editors are so determined to remove this article, that they will constantly tie us up in meta-discussions rather than get on with the task of improving Wikipedia. This is a balanced article on a notable subject; the objection is apparently to its very existence, rather than the content ("The whole concept of an Apartheid regime in Israel is flawed"). The proposal is accompanied by racial stereotyping ("I see you belong to the Arab world wikiproject. Now I get it.") and baseless BLP smears ("Using Uri Avnery as a credible source is VERY alarming"). Avnery is a leading journalist and political activist in Israel, a long-standing editor of one of Israel's major magazines, he was for many years a member of the Knesset. You may not like what he has to say, but you can't simply dismiss him with a snide sneer. Is there no way to protect an article from this constant vexatious disruption? RolandR (talk) 07:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Appeal to authority much? Wikipedia is not about opinion. Whether I agree with his views or not is irrelevant. It's the fact that the author uses Uri Avnery as a balanced source is alarming. You say the article is balanced, which it blatantly isn't...it wouldn't be in start class if it were otherwise. You say it's balanced because you agree with, I say it isn't because I don't agree with. Get it? I've listed specific reasons why it isn't balanced. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a voice of partisan politics. This is just another wikipedia-sanctioned stab at Israel and is not encyclopedia appropriate. Perhaps in blog, maybe a biased newspaper, but not on wikipedia. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- A little off-topic, I'm having trouble fixing the ref for the Nelson Mandel update (see SA views of Israel Apartheid). I have the source listed and it checks out, but I can't seem to fix the text correctly. Any help will be appreciated, thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Response to last point: the memo is a myth, based on a journalistic satire. I've removed the text from the article, and explained this (with source) on the talk page. RolandR (talk) 08:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The article is now and always has been a POV-fork. The article itself barely addresses the subject - it is not a description the allegations but rather a list of them used to circumvent the undue weight section of the neutrality policy. We should not permit our policies and customs regarding the treatment of fringe perspectives to be undermined by the obfuscating expedient of prefixing article titles with the words Allegations of .... CIreland (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all articles like this that present a POV as an encyclopedic topic... inherently problematic. I am no expert on middle east affairs so I can only argue by analogy... but I don't create articles like Allegations that Senator Barack Obama is unfit to be elected President... yes it's a topic with sources and notability... but sheesh.--Rividian (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep as repetitive nomination covering no new ground, to the point of filibustering. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - My my, It's like déjà vu all over again indeed. Let's go point-by-point;
- #1 - What is "political neutrality", and where is this a Wikipedia policy? Such a prohibition would gut pretty much any article on any controversial subject. If this was a kludgey reference to WP:NPOV
- Are you asking what political neutrality is? I think it's pretty self-explanatory. Th article is slanted. Both sides are stated, but their is more emphasis on the opponents than the proponents. If you look at the introduction, it basically reads out why Israel is NOT an Apartheid state. But further reading is nothing but repetition. Overwhelming the reader with this ridiculous fallacies and absurd amount of sources (many of which don't connect with the source material...paraphrasing from no source is not wikipedia appropriate) 70.181.148.148 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- #2 - The article is balanced by text from those who reject the analogy. Even if it wasn't, this is not a valid reason for the deletion of an article. See #1
- This article goes beyond the analogy. It draws from mostly critics, while ignoring the many sources who disagree. We might as well have an article that says "Allegations of why Israel is not an Apartheid state. 70.181.148.148 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- #3 - The clean-up was reached a long time ago, just that the tag was never removed. the sections and paragraphs ans such are much more orderly and coherent than they were in the past.
- I just spent 10 minutes browsing and found several critical errors. Most of you obviously agree with the article, so of course you don't look at the errors. And why is it still in start class? Read the talk page for more criticisms. 70.181.148.148 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- #4 - Article content is irrelevant to an AfD rationale. Take it up on the talk page.
- How so? 70.181.148.148 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- #5 - See #4
- #6 - A completely untrue assertion. There are numerous parts of the article that contain counter-arguments of those who reject the analogy, and why they do so.
- I'm not debating that parts of the article contain counter-arguments, but it ISN'T BALANCED. See #2 See #1 & #2. 70.181.148.148 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- #7 - An attempt at well-poisoning by casting aspersions on the article on the basis of who has created or edited it in the past.
- Wait so now you're accusing me of fallacies? Whoa there. 70.181.148.148 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- #8 - The previous AfD was aborted after less than 24hrs, as there was an ongoing ArbCom case regarding editor behavior and the pointy creation of counter-allegations of... articles. The conclusion drawn that the previous AfD was a "majority delete" is a misrepresentation of the 7th discussion.
- Wikipedia is very political. Many users aside from myself have expressed their disgust over this unnecessary article. It is pure speculation and is far from concrete. As I've said, it would be fair to have a "Why Israel is not an Apartheid State" because it would be in the same bounds as this one: Not neutral and not necessary. Do you agree? 70.181.148.148 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- #9 - All in all, these are the same arguments tried in previous AfD and associated discussions, and they didn't work then either. The subject matter is notable and verifiable, and those are supported by reliable sources. That a controversial subject draws, well, controversy is not at all a reason for deletion. Tarc (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've already stated why the sources aren't reliable. And not only that, but many of the sources no longer work, some are dated, and some don't even connect with the paraphrasing. Meaning the author practically made up some of the info. Which is not surprising considering he was banned, so I'm he had a history of violating wikipedia rules. I'm not poisoning the well, I'm stating facts. 70.181.148.148 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- What you are stating, both in the initial rationale and in these piecemeal responses, is your own opinion. Not a single deletion rationale is based upon an understanding of actual Wikipedia policy. Tarc (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've already stated why the sources aren't reliable. And not only that, but many of the sources no longer work, some are dated, and some don't even connect with the paraphrasing. Meaning the author practically made up some of the info. Which is not surprising considering he was banned, so I'm he had a history of violating wikipedia rules. I'm not poisoning the well, I'm stating facts. 70.181.148.148 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep WP:SK #1: nominating on behalf of someone else while not advocating the nomination. I know we're not a bureaucracy, but the SK1 rule exists for a reason. (I take no position on any other issue raised by this conversation.) Townlake (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Are we going to have to do this every time someone new comes along who doesn't like the article? CJCurrie (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well obviously something is wrong if people are having issues with the article. You can't possibly think that the article is perfectly neutral (as you guys are portraying it has) while many people say nay. It's your political relationship verse ours. 70.181.148.148 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- From my experience, most of the problems that people have identified with this page tend to revolve around WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than serious discussions of its encyclopedic merit. CJCurrie (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Check the Notability fallacy listed on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Notice that nominator is more than eager to expand the equally controversial, but pro-Israeli and far less notable, Pallywood article[3], which represents a clear double standard. FunkMonk (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Nothing significant has changed since the 7th nomination, which decided to keep. 82.35.100.21 (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment some serious refactoring has been happening on this page. Interested parties should check the history. Basically this whole discussion is a clusterfuck and should be terminated rapidly. <eleland/talkedits> 20:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
&CommentI do not appreciate your language Eleland nor your personal attacks against me. Check the history for all you want. All I did was correct a source in the citizenship section. SORRY! XD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Strong keep As much as I support a speedy keep, I would like to point out that today and tomorrow are a religious holiday and observant Jewish editors will not be online until sundown on Tuesday (at the earliest). I think closing this nom early would result in valid complaints that the process was faulty. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 21:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I understand your concern, but I do not believe religious concerns have a role in this discussion at all, any more than the suggestion that the discussion of an Islamic-related article should be suspended during Ramadan. We shouldn't take holiday around religious observances. Tarc (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm only suggesting that the discussion not be closed early so we can try to avoid a second round at WP:DRV. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 23:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 21:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 21:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Rividian is right. Just because something is notable and has sources doesn't prevent it from being a POV fork. Obama analogy was nice. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- If a number of notable individuals (including James Carter and Desmond Tutu - both Nobel Peace Prize winners) have referred to Israeli policies as "apartheid", it is an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia - regardless of whether or not you agree with them. An obvious keep. (Merge somewhere at worst, but don't delete under any circumstances.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Appeal to authority much? Who cares if they're nobel prize winners. I'm sure you can some equally "awarded" individuals who say differently. I will that if this remains I'll be pursuing to create a separate that counters this one, because this clearly is an unnecessary an wikipedia-sanctioned political statement aimed at Israel. After all, it's only fair. 70.181.148.148 (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. The article is one big ad hominem argument against Israel. There are plenty of better articles that touch upon the real issue and this one is just a pov form from those (such as Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, Zionism and racism allegations, Human rights in Israel, etc.). --GHcool (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Neutral, but I feel it's worth pointing out that the nominator (Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs)) has been a registered user for only two days and has only edited one article - namely Allegations of Israeli apartheid. With all due respect (not biting the newcomers and all that) I'm not convinced that he has had enough exposure to Wikipedia's policies and practices to make an informed judgement about the merits of this article. I don't think I've ever come across a two-day-old editor nominating an article for deletion before (and I've been an editor for five years).-- ChrisO (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- 'COMMENT ChrisO, I've told you, and many others, that I've been editing for over 6 months. Only recently did I register an account. Check my I.P. I would appreciate it if you would stop bringing this up. thanks! Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I hadn't fully appreciated that. Apologies. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Regardless of how long the nominator has been editing Wikipedia, the point that their reasons for deletion don't display any understanding of the WP:NPOV policy remains. See my discussion above. "I don't think this should have an article because I think the argument is flawed" is not a valid reason for deletion. The debate is a highly notable social phenomenon, so it should have an article wherin the merits and flaws of both sides of the debate are be presented with reliable references. That's what the article does, and that's in keeping with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- 'COMMENT ChrisO, I've told you, and many others, that I've been editing for over 6 months. Only recently did I register an account. Check my I.P. I would appreciate it if you would stop bringing this up. thanks! Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep, but rename to "Israeli apartheid analogy". Frank Pais (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Comment I agree with Frank. A renaming is a reasonable compromise (if this ends to keep). Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I would strongly support renaming this article as "Israeli apartheid analogy". Would enough people support this as a compromise? CJCurrie (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Renaming is a topic for another venue, but on the face of it I think that title is equally valid to the existing title and may somewhat pacify the people who see red whenever the word "allegation" is used in a title. It's unlikely to satisfy the "defenders of Israel" though, as they don't want an article with both "Israel" and "apartheid" together. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Defenders of Israel? What is your problem Paddy? You offer nothing to this article (as shown in the TALK and previous confrontations). Please stop with your personal attacks and hate. THANK YOU Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Strong delete the article is Wikipedia's best known POV push. It's evident that two arbitration cases have not helped to clean the content up, neither have the seven AFDs. I think two years is enough to make WP:HOPELESS a suitable reason for deletion (even more so as the article is, and I quote ATA, "so blatantly biased that it's an embarassment". Sceptre (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment WP:HOPELESS is part of an essay, and highly contentious. WP:NPOV is fundamental policy, and clearly overrides it. The article appears to cop a lot of flak despite being in a good state in terms of neutral presentation, hence the AfDs etc. To remove it would be censorship to appease people who don't want a notable subject described on Wikipedia because it offends their sensibilities. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- We got images of Muhammad and the Pallywood article, what exactly makes this article different from those cases? FunkMonk (talk) 01:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment WP:HOPELESS is part of an essay, and highly contentious. WP:NPOV is fundamental policy, and clearly overrides it. The article appears to cop a lot of flak despite being in a good state in terms of neutral presentation, hence the AfDs etc. To remove it would be censorship to appease people who don't want a notable subject described on Wikipedia because it offends their sensibilities. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No noticable loss of notability since the last AfD. Nomination for an 8th time simply seems to be a clear and disruptive violation of WP:POINT. --Ave Caesar (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Notability is irrelevant. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Notability is the principal Wikipedia guideline used to determine whether a subject should have an article. Please read the guideline, it was written by editors like you and me and represents that current consensus on how Wikipedia should be edited. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Keep reading buddy, you're using notability as a fallacy. Just because it's notable does not mean it's valid, unbiased, fair, or balanced. I'm really getting tired of you.
Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep As they say: "It's déjà vu all over again". If anything the expression/allegations have just become stronger in the 2 years since this article was created. Regards, Huldra (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Wikifan12345 is actively recruiting (pro-Israeli) voters to this page; by last count he had left messages at around 14 different user-pages. Regards, Huldra (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Here is the WP:CANVAS policy and the contribs. --Thetrick (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Wikifan12345 is actively recruiting (pro-Israeli) voters to this page; by last count he had left messages at around 14 different user-pages. Regards, Huldra (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This enervated propaganda is not an encyclopedia article. Hell, even the United Nations reverted its emetic resolution equating Zionism with racism -- we should follow their lead. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)