Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood libel (novel usage)

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. Sandstein 07:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blood libel (novel usage)

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

Original research/synthesis. Honestly not sure if it's intended to be a dictionary definition or a list of appearances in political commentary, but either way it's not an encylopedia article. Kolbasz (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Article is not unencyclopedic. Meatsgains (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely the double negative was unintended.
  --Jerzy•t 03:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think "Charles Koch and Sarah Palin independently misused this phrase" is enough to say that there's a new meaning for it that needs to be documented in Wikipedia. DS (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is this the "Blood libel in popular culture" fork of Blood libel? I'll revisit it during the week this AfD is open to see if it's improved upon, but right now it's an essay, not an encyclopedia article. (Did Mark Twain use the expression "blood libel"; no, it's just fun to quote Mark Twain.) I'm not familiar with the secondary analysis, but there might be an encyclopedia article to be written about the use of the expression "blood libel" in modern politics. If there is, this article will never serve as its foundation. A good candidate for some WP:TNT. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not foolish enuf to expect a decent interval for enhancing what started out as an irrelevectomy on Blood libel, so here's the thumbnail response to DS:

1. As always with natural languages, presuming "independen[ce]" would be not just dubious but naive. In Palin's case, one must suspect deliberate misuse; she disavowed having come up with the phrase, citing a WSJ journalist (who could not be proven to be writing at her campaign's behest). (That makes not two, but three usage-participants).
2. User #2 is Palin, (Koch -- another right-wing political activist -- is, chronologically, #4 in my personal count) while #3 is the ever-unpredictable lawyer/scholar/activist Alan Dershowitz, who seemingly went out of his way to speak up for her -- consistent with his always-a-new-surprise semi-pro-Israel liberal contrarian role -- with an essay or interview advocating tolerance for what many who are Holocaust-aware would call poisonous misappropriation and trivialization of the original blood libel usage.

I'm answering (not endorsing) the criterion of usage count, and my group of 4 is not twice the supposed mere 2. I put far greater significance in the chain of 3, suggesting that the phenomenon is not a handful of 2 (or many more) instances, but part of a largely neglected but demonstrable trend of discourse. I dunno if Palin's usage is a dumb (or a dumb-like-a-fox) effort by her or her Svengalis to stir up controversy between her and the liberal Jews whom her constituency love to hate, but i think there's evidence of a new but verifiable trend in usage, and sufficient reason to support further research by compiling the info i've just stumbled on.
--Jerzy•t 03:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per my preceding bullet point.
--Jerzy•t 03:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. However, I want to keep or extend the "traditional usage" in the original blood libel article: all the cases where a group accused another group of (mis)using blood for political reasons. See its page history, where my proposal was rejected. Zezen (talk) 07:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is about as classic a content fork as I've seen in 8 years. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2016 (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.