Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (Fourth nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid

	Israel Portal Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (Fourth nomination) is part of the WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu): edit purge watch Here are some tasks you can do: Copyedit: Yossi Sarid, Havlagah, Palestinian views of the peace process Cleanup: Israel Export Institute, Agricultural Research In Israel, Israel lobby in the United States Expand: Category:Companies of Israel, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Category:Israeli songs, Port of Haifa, Allon Plan, Israel Antiquities Authority, Secular Jewish culture#Dance, Carmel Winery, Goldstar, List of Egged bus lines, Cellcom, Bezeq, Diamond industry in Israel, Geneva Accord, Zman Tel-Aviv Stubs: Israel stubs Update: National Religious Party NPOV: Israel and the UN, Israeli military action in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict Other: update WP Israel banner to include rating scale Translate from Hebrew: Yuval Steinitz, Women in governments of Israel [1] Translate to Hebrew: Gemara, Chief Rabbi, Palestinophilia, David Gans, Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, David Bar Hayim, Jacob of Lissa, Nosson Zvi Finkel, Bezalel Ashkenazi, Solomon Schechter, Av Beit Din, Howard Fast, Guardian of Zion Award, Martin Gilbert, Hasbara, Israeli wine, Pierre van Paassen, Uri Davis
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid

Note: The first two AfD nominations of this article were straw man nominations made by sockpuppets of now-banned editors.

Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete Clear violation of WP:SYNT. Contains large amounts of OR. Jtrainor 23:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The "Israeli apartheid" analogy has become the subject of extensive discussion since the release of Jimmy Carter's "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" last year. This is clearly a relevant subject. If the article is flawed, our solution should be to fix it. CJCurrie 00:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep - entire books have been written on these allegations.--Urthogie 00:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not aware of any WP:SYNT or OR issues with the article. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The article is obviously having problems right now but that doesn't make the subject itself non-notable. I've heard the allegations mentioned in mainstream media quite a bit. Also, have you heard of Jimmy Carter? The Behnam 01:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - A bad faith nomination without a leg to stand on, as there is an abundance of sourced material in the article. The problem is POV-pushing, which in itself is not a reason for deletion. Tarc 02:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Move to WP:Sandbox - This article must be made NPOV before being published to the public. As it is now it fail to meeet WP:NPOV for a year. I am not advocating a full delete just that it is removed from the main wikipedia name space and will be worked on (in a WP:Sandbox) until it reach a stable and NPOV version - At that point a stable version of the article can go back and be published to the public. Zeq 05:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Clearly, even those who support keeping this article complain about the POV pushing in the article - surly it violates many policies in it's present form including a violation of WP:SYNT. Zeq 05:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Legitimate subject, term used often, with plenty of reliable sources including South Africans and anti-apartheid figures themselves. POV is mostly from those who wish to deny the analogy outright, or hide or diminish the reliable sources/quotes/uses of the term in the article.Kritt 08:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I object to four nominations for deletion, and think the previous votes should be respected. --BozMo talk 10:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  See note above; the first 2 nominations were straw man nominations. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and start again. Far too much push-pull between the competing factions. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Article and discussion is well sourced to reliable sources. Mackan79 13:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close as keep per this AfD and this AfD and this one too. When an article reaches its fourth nomination, it becomes increasingly difficult to assume good faith. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  See note above; the first 2 nominations were straw man nominations. In fact, the first nomination was by a sockpuppet of the person who created this article, almost immediately after he created it. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  Just to add, for whatever it's worth, that the third nomination was terminated prematurely and in a disputed manner. I don't believe this article has ever had a valid AfD discussion, and now, because some people see this as a "fourth" nomination and oppose it on that basis, this one is tainted as well. Everything about this article, or associated with it, is now inherently corrupted and I don't think there is any way to fix it. 6SJ7 14:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Huge amount of references backing up the statements, so the nominator will need to point out some examples as to why everything is SYNT or OR. If there is some SYNT or OR, we solve that by editing the article, not deleting it. Let's face it, the term "Israeli apartheid" is common, whether we like it or not, and whether we agree with the term or not. A quick search from my country of Norway produced this article (UN accuses Israel of Apartheid) from a mainstream newspaper (albeit one with a pro-Labor Party point of view). Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Sjakkalle in this, its fourth nomination. I disagree with "pitch 'til you win" tactics where an article is nominated over and over for deletion, and urge the principle of Stare decisis. Edison 20:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I find allegations of bad faith on my part rather disgusting considering I have never been involved with this article in any way before. The number of AfDs an article has survived has no bearing on it's validity for deletion in future AfDs-- I advise you to go ask around about the GNAA article, which survived -14- AfDs, but eventually was deleted anyways. Jtrainor 20:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete POV fork--Sefringle 01:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)