Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durban Strategy (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 was

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. Avruchtalk 23:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Durban Strategy

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

"Durban Strategy" refers to an alleged strategy of alleging Israeli apartheid, so this page is a POV fork of Allegations of Israeli apartheid. The only sources are opinion pieces, and almost all uses of the term come from Gerald Steinberg and others of NGO Monitor. It's not even notable as a neologism, as there are no reliable secondary sources for the phrase per WP:NEOLOGISM —Ashley Y 03:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per a lengthy article from an article entitled "The Centrality of NGOs in The Durban Strategy" from the Summer, 2006 issue of the "Yale Israel Journal": http://www.yaleisraeljournal.com/summ2006/steinberg.php, as well as many other articles found when googling for "Durban Strategy". Mh29255 (talk) 03:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • That and almost all the other articles come from Steinberg and others of NGO Monitor. —Ashley Y 03:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment The term "Durban Strategy" has an encyclopedic definition at http://www.reference.com/search?q=durban%20strategy. While I understand there are strong political views surrounding the article, I am not convinced that the term is a neologism as described in WP:NEO and the number of references on the Internet, IMO, make the article notable per WP:N.Mh29255 (talk) 03:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
      • The "reference.com" article is a word-for-word copy of the Wikipedia article as it was then. It even says "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Cite This Source" on it. —Ashley Y 03:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Have a look at references on the internet. They're almost all Steinberg, with the occasional one by Sarah Mandel, also of NGO Monitor. —Ashley Y 03:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment The decision to keep or delete the article is not mine alone; it is based upon consensus. Since I am not convinced that the article should be deleted based upon the arguments for deletion at the present time, my vote remains as "keep". Mh29255 (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
          • That's fine, I'm just addressing the issues you raise. —Ashley Y 03:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, subject is notable and not a POV fork. It certainly is not a POV fork of Allegations of Israeli apartheid, which did not exist until several months after this article was created. I notice, however, that this Durban Strategy article doesn't even really exist at present; it has been moved to a different title, and the "strategy" is not even mentioned until the third paragraph. Sort of a self-help deletion, it would seem. 6SJ7 (talk) 05:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The page move to World Conference against Racism 2001 was done after I created this AFD. I think it's irregular to do that? —Ashley Y 05:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    • It sure seemed irregular to me. That is why I moved it back to Durban Strategy but the move was almost immediately reverted. 6SJ7 (talk) 05:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    • No, it isn't. Read the Guide. This is a discussion, not an election. Articles aren't frozen in order to hold a vote on them.

      Note that you could have fixed the article yourself. The roadmap was laid out for you in the last AFD discussion. All that it took was hitting the rename button and the edit button, both of which tools every editor with an account has. AFD is not a hammer that editors get to repeatedly hit articles with, as a replacement for actually editing them themselves, nor is it the only tool in the toolbox. Uncle G (talk) 05:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

      • What "road map"? There was a comment by one editor (you), over a year ago, suggesting this. Others simply voted "keep" under the existing name. Even now the move is contested. —Ashley Y 06:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
        • False. At least one other editor wanted a move. Read the discussion again. And no, no-one has given an actual reason for contesting the move. No consensus formed on the article title at the last discussion, although at least three editors thought that the article should be renamed or refactored somehow. 6SJ7 only moved it back, as xe explained in as many words immediately above, because xe didn't understand that renaming and refactoring articles during AFD is allowed. Uncle G (talk) 06:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Actually, I do disagree with the move, so now it is contested. And I am a "he", by the way. 6SJ7 (talk) 07:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
            • Comment I also disagree with the move because consensus was not achieved. Mh29255 (talk) 07:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Query Who had the authority of removing the "Durban Strategy" page? The only votes on this page were both for "keep", but the page is now nothing more than a redirect with zero content. (Nothing to undo.) Administrative assistance please. Mh29255 (talk) 05:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Somebody moved it while the AFD is going on. Not me. —Ashley Y 05:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Mh, you may not get administrative assistance in a timely manner if you only ask for it here. You might try WP:ANI. (Of course, you might not get assistance there either, but that's a different subject.) 6SJ7 (talk) 05:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    • You've already got it. I'm showing you how to fix the article, the same way that I showed how to fix the article the last time around. Uncle G (talk) 05:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, Uncle G, what you are doing is move-warring, making a contested move without following proper procedures, and short-circuiting an AfD. 6SJ7 (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
        • False. The move wasn't contested. The reason that you moved it back wasn't because you actually disagreed with the move. It was, as you stated above, solely because you didn't think that articles could be renamed during AFD. I'm here to tell you that they may be. As I said, read the Guide. AFD isn't the forum for discussing page titles (because it doesn't involve an administrator hitting a delete button to rename an article), and it isn't "short-circuiting an AFD" to rename an article whilst it is being discussed. Indeed, if one can rename or refactor an article during an AFD discussion to address concerns, one is encouraged to do so. This, too, is stated in the Guide. It's there to explain all of these things. Please actually read it. It's linked to by the AFD notice and by every AFD page for a reason. Uncle G (talk) 06:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Actually, procedural issues aside, I do disagree with the move. So now will you move it back so you can make a proper move request? And by the way, your condescending attitude is not really helping anything here. 6SJ7 (talk) 06:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
      • To Mh: Actually, at the moment it appears that you could just move it back, as I did, without administrative assistance. However, Uncle G moved it again. If you would like to give him another opportunity to move-war, be my guest. 6SJ7 (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment I have no interest in getting into a "war" over this article, but I do believe that moving the article while it is under consideration for deletion defeats the purpose of the AfD, especially when the two people who actually voted both voted to "keep" the article. What is important here is the notability & verifiability of the article; not whether the article is offensive. The administrative move of the article (which effectively deleted its contents) was done, IMO, before an adequate consensus could be achieved. Mh29255 (talk) 06:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment moved by Uncle G Dlohcierekim 05:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Please. Does it matter what the article's name is? Please don't start an edit war over the name of the article. Assuming it survives the AfD, then you can seek an RfC on what the name is o be. And may I be so bold as to suggest saving this page for the deletion discussion and discussing the article's name on its talk page? Apparently feelings run high here, and it may be best for everyone to step back a bit and work on something else for a while. Hope that helps. Good night. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 06:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with 6SJ7 and Mh29255 above that moving the article to a rather different name while it is under AFD is inappropriate. Nevertheless I am not against redirect to World Conference against Racism 2001 (which I consider to be a new article) as an outcome, though I would prefer delete or redirect to Allegations of Israeli apartheid. —Ashley Y 07:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Mooted Since all the content was kept, and a lot of extra work was done, and the new article is an acceptable title, I see no objection to the rename/swallowing. Someone searching for "Durban Strategy" on Wikipedia will find as much on it as existed before, and if someone wants to develop the subject further there is no obstacle to their starting a new Durban Strategy article. Andyvphil (talk) 09:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• comment - I don't even know what this discussion is about anymore. The original article titled Durban strategy was indeed notable, as is - clearly - the infamous World Conference on Racism. I propose that this AFD be put on hold as an administrative matter, and then we can actually start a productive discussion. --Leifern (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Mooted by expansion to broader topic This should be WP:SNOW closed at this point. If the material is re-split out later to it's own article, this can be re-nominated. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:23, 27 December 2007 (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.