Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel-South Africa relations

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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israel-South Africa relations

This an unnecessary page created by User:Deuterium due to his edits on the Foreign relations of Israel page being reverted. And for good reason. Along with Israeli Apartheid articles, it just another attempt to place anti-Israel bias on Wikipedia Evolver of Borg 11:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, of course. The material is factual, balanced and extremely well sourced by Wikipedia standards. The fact that Evolver of Borg sees it as "anti-Israel propaganda" and wants it deleted speaks volumes of his own attitudes and standards. Deuterium 11:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge back to Foreign relations of Israel. While I agree it is well-referenced and it is not blatantly POV pushing, it also looks to be an exercise in WP:POINT due to reversions of Deuterium's changes in the Foreign relations of Israel page. I'd strongly disagree with Evolver of Borg's reasoning after the first sentence though: although some of the revisions made by Deuterium were unnecessary and not NPOV, a number of them provided clarity and references to the article and actively removed POV. Yomangani^talk 11:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't make this article because I was being reverted on Foreign Relations of Israel, but because the South Africa entry on that page had grown much larger than the entries for other countries, even the Soviet Union! Even Venezuela gets a Israel-Venezuela relations page, so I don't see this page's existence as being inappropriate. Deuterium 11:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Changed to Keep - I apologise if I unfairly characterized your actions. I took a good look at the article and the South Africa section of Foreign relations of Israel and its history, but didn't check the comparative sizes of the rest of Foreign relations of Israel. Considering almost every other country has their own page, there's no reason why this shouldn't be split off as well (though obviously the South Africa section on the main article needs cutting back in that case). I suggest any objections of bias be addressed in on the article's talk page. Yomangani^talk 12:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem and thanks for the support. I agree that the South Africa section in Foreign relations of Israel does need cutting back in size, I'm just cautious about doing so due to the inevitable POV accusations in summarizing a great deal of facts in a few paragraphs. Deuterium 12:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: economical relations are absent, as well as the information on pre-1970. Pavel Vozenilek 15:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This is a quite well written article that would be useful to users of Wikipedia. It covers major events, and documents serious episodes in history. If Deuterium's edits have been unneccesarily reverted on other pages, maybe that speaks to a clear Pro-Israeli bias by other contributors. Given the size of the material, this clearly warrants its own article. Evolver of Borg has unnecceasrily asked for deletion here. Please be careful with these in the future. Nlsanand 19:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This article is an obvious pov fork created by a user who was unable to introduce inappropriate material on another article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. POV fork. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

So what is supposedly POV about this rigorously sourced article? Deuterium 04:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The article clearly follows the precedent established by Iran-Israel relations, Germany-Israel relations, Israel-Venezuela relations, Israel-Japan relations, and Israel-United States relations. --Ben Houston 04:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ben Houston. --physicq210 05:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep on conditions that the article should describe its subject in an encyclopedic manner and that reliable sources should be quoted and not misquoted. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per NlsanandBakaman _Bakatalk 22:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all bilateral relations are notable, and a user tries to use the article to push POV, there will be editors to revert it, and eventually admins to block him/her. POV in a valid topic is not criteria to delete the topic; edit it. Carlossuarez46 01:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Standard mainstream topic. Piccadilly 13:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ben Houston and User:Humus sapiens. (→Netscott) 20:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ben Houston and User:Humus sapiens —Ashley Y 22:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep please it is sourced and a mainstream topic no reason to erase Yuckfoo 01:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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.