Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Right to exist (2nd nomination)

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 of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Right to exist

Snowspinner restored this but neglected to list it on AfD, as the discussion on WP:DRV clearly mandates. It has had a previous AfD. -Splash^talk 17:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I created this article because I feel that it is an important concept that needs to be included on Wikipedia. Much of the widespread controversy in the Middle East revolves around certain nations denying Israel's right to exist, and that exact phrase is indeed very widely used, as Google will demonstrate. I certainly do not deny that my article needs some work and improvement, but that is what the collaborative Wikipedia process is for. I don't know what was there before when it was deleted last time, or how bad it was, but I deliberately tried to include arguments for both sides and include sources, because of the rules specified on Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If the article is badly flawed in some way, please let me know and I will try to fix it. Crotalus horridus 04:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Delete - No hope of there ever being a NPOV article. "Right to exist" is merely a simplification of the Zionism issue and wikipedia doesnt need to have articles on simplifications. Put it on wikitionary. jucifer 00:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I could list a hundred articles with even less hope of ever being NPOV. Marsden 17:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Wikipedia cannot take a POV on articles (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view), but we can point out that claims denying the right to exist (such as the French ambassador's claims, and the Iranian Prime Minister's recent statements about wiping Israel off the map) have met with widespread international outrage. Of course, all this must be cited. Crotalus horridus 17:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A shitload of Google hits, and this is always a flashpoint in I/P negotiations. If the article is badly written or POV, then rewrite it; that's not a reason for deletion of something this prominent. Firebug 18:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Juicifer. Phrase is significant, even if the debate it suggests is marginal and extreme. Xoloz 18:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - This article documents a key point in the issues around Zionism and modern anti-semitism. The article is at great risk of becoming a home to slanted, POV coverage, but the risk goes with the territory and has the potential to help divide up better this difficult-to-get-right topic. I think that the key issue in this AfD should be whether the article is intrinsically POV or not.--- Charles Stewart 19:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Even if the phrase was not in common usage, the concept is obviously of great weight, so the question would be "should this be renamed" rather than "should it be deleted." Christopher Parham (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep until such a time as someone who actually wants to delete this article presents themselves. Phil Sandifer 00:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The deleting admin, Jayjg presumably wanted to delete it. Listing it here is a simple courtesy to him. -Splash^talk 00:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - although I would like to note that this can also be a philosophy to refer to life in general. i.e. this should probably be renamed to Right to exist (Israel). Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Is "right to exist" really the best name for the article? Unless the mention of the phrase "right to exist" is always a reference to this thing, wouldn't it be better merged with Israel or Zionism? - Hahnchen 01:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Always? No, I've heard it used about South Africa. But by an overwhelming majority, I think it is used about Israel, and if any other possible applications are considered encyclopediac, then we can always add a disambig comment in the lead section. --- Charles Stewart 03:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    • We have other articles on political buzzwords and the context they are used in. Compare Family values and Christian right or Ivoirity and Ivorian Civil War. Merging might be a good idea, though. Pilatus 12:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Why does Wikipedia reward rogue admins with "courtesy" instead of penalty? This article was speedy deleted by a rogue admin. Then it was listed here as a "courtesy" to the rogue admin. Mirror Vax 10:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I suggest you rescind that comment. The admin was quite right to delete it as it had been deleted overwhelmingly before. jucifer 01:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Re-created articles that are substantially the same as deleted ones are speedily deletable. And personal attacks are against policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Prove it. The author says he has no idea what was there before. He's not an admin, so he doesn't have access to the deleted version. It is vanishly unlikely that he managed to independenty create a deleted article. If your interpretation of the rules is that any article on a similar topic can be speedy deleted, then you are, as I said, a rogue admin - one who willfully abuses his authority. Mirror Vax 14:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I note with some bemusement that you have called Jayjg a "rogue admin" on his userpage[1] in reference to this deletion debate and challenging him into undeleting the previous version. The relevant version has already been undeleted by Snowspinner. Please remain civil. JFW | T@lk 14:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
          • I think you're confused. Snowspinner undeleted the *current* version, not the AFD'd version. (Unless I missed it - please provide a link if so). So far, nobody has provided a shred of evidence that this article is a re-creation of a deleted article. I'm asking for some proof. Mirror Vax 14:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Confusion or not, you should not call someone a "rogue admin". Period. JFW | T@lk 17:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• While the use of the phrase "right to exist" has been cited, the current contents of the article have not. The contents appear to be original research. Unless verifiably cited from independent sources, I have to argue for deletion. If the contents can be cited, I would argue that the topic is better discussed in Anti-Zionism. In that case, I would suggest "merge and redirect". Rossami (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The article uses a Guardian article [2] and a Horowitz's Front Page magazine [3] as sources. The sourcing could be better, but it's surely enough for the purposes of this AfD. --- Charles Stewart 19:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Not for me. Those two cites show merely that the phrase is in use in something approximating this context. They do not sufficiently substantiate the contents of the article. They do not document who holds the arguments for and against or provide evidence that all the described elements of the beliefs are held. Tony's cite (below) may be more reliable but he only cites it as evidence of the title. Without reading the book, we still don't know if the contents of the article are original research. Rossami (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The title of the article is not original research. "Right to Exist : A Moral Defense of Israel's Wars" by Yaacov Lozowick, Doubleday, ISBN 0385509057. Any original research in the article can be removed; it seems to be salvageable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete previously deleted by AFD. Stifle 14:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion applies to specific articles, not to anything that might someday be created under that title. Why do you think that this article can't be cleaned up and fixed? Crotalus horridus 17:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• The article, as it stands now, consists of two paragraphs, saying that Israel should exist or should not exist. It is unsourced, unreferenced drivel that flies straight in the face of WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:NOR. Delete, unless someone reworks this into an article that shows how the catchphrase Right to exist is thrown around in Israel political discourse. Pilatus 16:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Huh? I must say I'm a bit dumbfounded by this statement. I did cite specific sources for the claims listed in the article. Crotalus horridus 17:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I do apologize for the rude words, I didn't notice it was a re-write by a single person. Pilatus 17:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I removed a couple of uncited claims and weasel words that were added by other editors. As far as I can tell, all of the information in the article currently is sourced. Crotalus horridus 17:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks for improving the introduction. If we have instead direct references where politician so-and-so used the phrase to support such-and-such an action it will be a good article. (Note: this is not about the question whether Israel should exist, it's about the phrase and its use in politics. Pilatus 17:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Let the edit wars begin. -- JJay 17:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per JJay. Unbehagen 18:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you suggesting to keep an article for the sole purpose of getting into a fight? This is an encyclopedia, not a boxing arena. Pilatus 17:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Interpret my suggestion and vote any way you want. -- JJay 18:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per User:Pilatus. DES ^(talk) 17:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - stub cannot be stand-alone article as-is, and the out-of-context name of the article can be misleading. After all, the phrase could also be used in abortion discussions (and not just "right to life") and in discussions involving the death penalty. Could this phrase turn up in a discussion of Taiwan or Kurdistan? If this article is kept, I see the need for disambiguation in the near future. B.Wind 00:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per User:Pilatus, User B.Wind, and original AfD discussion. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - why is this being resurrected, anyway? --Leifern 18:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this one on the basis that it was already decided to delete this topic, see [4]. This "right to exist" notion can be merged with Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism. IZAK 19:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Arab-Israeli conflict, Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism as appropriate, Delete and Recreated as a redirect to Self determination. Tomer^talk 19:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sovereignty. gren グレン 20:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Could you clarify this, please? Crotalus horridus 07:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, past AFD appears quite valid. It was also pointed out in the first one that the concept within (concept, not content, mind) could be said elsewhere. Why was this undeleted anyway? Garrett^Talk 01:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • AFDs apply to articles, not concepts. I never even saw the infamous previous version; it antedates my time on Wikipedia. I don't take these debates personally, but I'm curious why so many people are saying "refer to previous AFD" when that was for a completely different article, even if it was under the same title. Crotalus horridus 07:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect per Tshilo12. It's a key part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but the title is a loaded term and inherently POV, regardless of how correctly it describes the situation. - Bobet 14:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Recreation of article recently deleted as per AFD. A good AFD addresses whether a concept has article potential. JFW | T@lk 14:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete There are better places to discuss this and the "right to exist" is hardly an exclusive predominant political meme in the context of Zionism. This should not have been relisted. Eusebeus 14:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm not sure why this was undeleted. The previous AfD was valid and any information on this concept could be included in another article. Carbonite | Talk 14:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - Several participants asked why we need a new AfD. The DRV discussion is here. There was a majority of particpipants in that DRV discussion who thought that the article this AfD treats, which is a new article broadly taking the shape of the old article, was sufficiently different from the article previously deleted that the new article could not be speedied and so needed a new AfD. The main argument for the article's difference is that the new article has credible sources that the old article lacked. --- Charles Stewart 15:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The issue with the old article was with the topic, which was deemed un-encyclopedic. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • This was not my understanding of the prior AfD. Some delete votes attacked the topic, but most attacked the particular article. --- Charles Stewart 17:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Marsden 17:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I see no way to NPOV this. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 17:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Dont see this as an article in its own right, although it obviously fits in a more general article. Should every argument in different disputes have its own article? Merge and/or redirect seems like solutions. --Cybbe 17:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Those who don't study Wikihistory are doomed to repeat it, it seems. Gzuckier 19:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep If the topic attracts the attention of politicians and historians enough to write about it people should be able to write about it on wikipedia. --Vizcarra 20:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Izehar (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not much chance of this becoming encyclopedic, it'll be a POV magnet, and the information already exists elsewhere. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The existence of fuckheads is not a deletion crtierion. Phil Sandifer 23:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "Querulous users", dahling - David Gerard 23:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Problem children don't mean it isn't encyclopaedic - David Gerard 23:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because of the dissonance between the title and the content. What is the use? The reasons why Israel was established are discussed elsewhere, as where its struggles since. If this article is changed to include all peoples - many of them indigenous - and states that struggle or have struggled for their right to exist in hostile environments, I will change my vote. gidonb 23:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment If as some claim the information exists elsewhere, then that is an argument for keeping and turning into a redirect. It is emphatically not an argument for deletion--rather, it's a very good demonstration that the topic is encyclopedic. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, the comment that it is found "somewhere" reaffirms the idea that this is the best "somewhere" for this information to exist in. --Vizcarra 00:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Out of 666,000 occurrences of "right to exist" [5] 374,000 make a reference to Israel (56%) in some way. This may still be to a person whose name is Israel, to another struggle or what have you. [6] Wikipedia suffers from an overexposure of Israel and Palestinians, as does the web. I say the right to exist is much broader than Israel and the Middle East, it is about the right to eat, its about the right not to blown by up terrorists (Israel may be included in the article), school kids or grownups with guns, or be depressed by a totalitarian government. The right to exist belongs to everyone, let’s not tie it exclusively to Israel! Against a redirect. gidonb 01:06, 16 December 2005 (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.