Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Policide

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 speedily kept ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Policide

Extremely POV article on the Arab Israeli conflict that is beyond repair Count Iblis 12:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment:I'm now satisfied that the article can be maintained in a NPOV state. User:TheronJ has done a great job rewriting the article. I trust that this article will continue to be improved by editors like User:TheronJ and others who are interested in this topic and who don't have an agenda in the Israeli-Arab conflict or some other POV motive. Count Iblis 15:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Seems like a WP:POV nomination without any reasoning. The article is well sourced and very encyclopedic. Speedy keep. Amoruso 12:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Since when is the Urban dictionary a reliable source? The other sources you quote don't support the content of the article at all. The article gives a very narrow view on the Arab-Israeli conflict. I won't call such articles pro-Israel, because these sort of extremist/paranoid viewes are hurt Israel too. Count Iblis 12:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Since always, policide is a generally used word [1] common and encyclopedic. It has nothing do with paranoia and in fact doesn't focus only on the Israeli Arab conflict, and there are other examples and historic ones which can be expanded. It's a scientific definition. The comments all support what policide is - destruction of a state - all very explicit and WP:RS, WP:V + WP:CITE. You seem to have no wikipedia argument here. I would have liked to assume WP:AGF but it seems Count Iblis has went around to recruit notorious WP:POV pushers [2] [3] to try to censor this well sourced article. Amoruso 12:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Then why does the article only mention an alledged intention to destroy the state of Israel and not the many cases where this has actually happened? I'm sorry, but if I write a new article on the Atomic bomb and only write about Iran's (alledged) intentions to use it against Israel (e.g. "An Atomic Bomb is a powerful weaopn under consrtruction in Iran with the purpose of wiping Israel off the map...")then that article should be promptly deleted. The fact that there exists such a thing as an atomic bomb and that it is encyclopedic etc. is then not relevant. Count Iblis 13:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing "alleged" about this intention as the WP:RS show. The destruction of Israel is of course the classic modern example of intended policide - note that this policide might be justified per other arguments, this is not a POV statement but a factual one. Article was just created and other examples can be added. Amoruso 13:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, Israel hasn't been destroyed. Tibet, perhaps has been destroyed. If this article were made NPOV, then the Arab-Israeli conflict would become a mere footnote. You'll get an article that you didn't intend create. Articles should be on specific topics, not as tools to be used to promote propaganda on other articles as you did on the Hezbollah and Hamas pages. Count Iblis 13:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Amoruso. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Article needs to be expanded, but not necessarily unencyclopædic Avi 13:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and clean up. Per Wikipedia's guidelines on neologisms, articles about neologisms must be able to show, at a minimum, that (1) reliable secondary sources discuss the usage of the term, rather than simply using the term, and (2) that use of the term is sufficiently wide-spread as to render it notable. Google books shows 29 published books using or discussing the term,[4], almost all of which are the use currently discussed by the page, and google scholar show 39 hits,[5], about 2/3 of which refer to the term in an engineering context, and 1/3 are the polysci. Give me an hour or so, and I'm confident I can edit the current article to meet WP:NEO. Thanks, TheronJ 13:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I've substantially rewritten the page, and encourage people to take a look at the current version before voting. It's not a great article yet, but I think I've established notability and added verifiable sources. Thanks, TheronJ 15:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep there are many instances were governments attack other governments to undermine their functioning. It is clear that this has been done by both sides in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. I think the article will be valuable. --Ben 16:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Seems like a pure POV nomination with little attempt at good faith editing. Now that another editor has stepped in to make such edits, even the nominator agrees this can be NPOV - he should change his vote above or try to withdraw this from AfD.--csloat 17:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Not the nomination but the creation of the article was POV. The VFD was necessary to solve the problem, as I've explained on TheronJ's talk page. Also, note that I didn't vote, I only nominated the article for VFD. Count Iblis 20:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The article has now been expanded to include other usage and even more sourcing. Any of the problems that might have existed at the opening of this AfD have since been dealt with (which the nominator has acknowledged). Tewfik^Talk 17:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. All problems seem to have been addressed. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the article remains primarily an attempt to apply the term to the Israeli-Plastinian conflict. I would support a keep if the focus was on the concept rather than the application, or if the application examples were balanced, but this still reads as a POV article. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 19:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and remove all the POV whenever found. As per BHGirl, the article should cover everything. -- Szvest 21:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}
• Keep Benjamin Netanyahu has used the term to refer to arab attempts to destroy the state of israel (cnn transcprit), the article is not "unbalanced" simply because there aren't any arabs using the same term. Jon513 21:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Shouldn't there be two different articles here, one about the poly sci term and one about the engineering term? --Aaron 21:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• At this point, I would recommend not splitting them, because (1) per wikipedia's length guidelines the combined article isn't very long; (2) frankly, unless there is better sourcing, the engineering term isn't sufficiently sourced to survive an AFD vote on its own, because I couldn't find a reliable source identifying when and how the engineering term was coined; but (3) I think the existence of the engineering use is relevant and relatively notable within the context of an article about the poli sci use; and anyway (4) the paragraph about the engineering use doesn't make the article distracting or confusing, and it adds some verifiable and encyclopedic information. If future editors expand one or both sections to the point where the article gets too long, however, that would be a good place to split. TheronJ 22:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and edit if some feel langauge is POV Elizmr 22:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep its good. --Shamir1 22:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Count Iblis has proposed this article for deletion due to POV issues. According to Wikipedia policy WP:DEL this is NOT an appropriate reason for proposing deletion. The policy states:

"Using XfD as a "protest strategy" in an editorial or NPOV debate is generally an abuse of process and the article will usually be speedy kept". I am assuming that the Count did not read the policy fully before posting the article for deletion, but would request that he do so in the future and avoid frivilous and politically motivated requests.Elizmr 23:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. There is nothing political about this AFD. The article in its original version was so nonsensical that it should have been speedily deleted. I did mention POV issues but actually the core of the problem was something else. As I mentioned above, the problem was related to POV issues on other articles about the Mid East.

It's like someone starting an article on an in principle legitimate topic like the Atomic bomb for the sole purpose of making propaganda by writing that "an atomic bomb is an extremely power full weapon that the Arabs want develop in order to wipe Israel off the map". Putting such articles on AFD is not an abuse of wiki policies at all. Such articles are sort of "POV Forks" that according to wiki policies can be speedily deleted. In this case the situation was more complicated because the the topic itself in in principle legitimate but it was used as a POV FORK nontheless.

Anyway this AFD nomination has led to the problem to be rectified. So, it was the right thing to do. Count Iblis 23:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Count, please refer to Wikipedia policy WP:DEL. It says specifically that AFD should not be used for NPOV disputes. I'm not making this stuff up. Elizmr 00:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I know but this wasn't a mere POV case as I explained in detailhere Count Iblis 00:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep: POV (while needs to be fixed) is not a valid reason for deletion, according to Wikipedia:Deletion policy. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:16, 25 October 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.