Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews Against Zionism (book)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Article is no longer a copyvio and initial good-faith efforts to show notability have been offered. Closed pending further justification with no reservations against re-opening should notability not be further established. Avi 14:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jews Against Zionism (book)

Jews Against Zionism (book) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Book does not seem to pass Wikipedia:Notability (books). Author is not historically significant, no multiple non-trivial' discussions, etc. Avi 05:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Also, the creator of the article has an extensive history of ignoring wikipedia policies and guidelines with the motive of pushing a distinct point-ov-view vis-a-vis Jews and Zionism, one that has, in the past, been challenged and removed by the wikipedia community. For further reference see:

  • Delete Clarifying opinion. -- Avi 05:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Avi 05:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep The article is less than one day old. The article asserts the notability of the book and it already has two non-trivial references. Wikipedia suffers from WP:Recentism, and an article like this may help readers understand that prior to 1948, Zionism did not enjoy majority support among Jews (granted, most were not anti-Zionists, like the subject of this book). Keep this article in spite of the editor who created it. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it may be less than a day old, Malik, but it is a WP:POV fork created by the author to try and "save" his other POV forks as listed above. The two references in the article are trivial. One is a paragraph, the other a passing mention. -- Avi 09:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I didn't realize that the text was cut-and-paste, but the subject of the book is notable and the book was published by an academic press. Given a little time, I'm sure I can find some book reviews and other articles about the book and help write a decent article about the book. While I agree that the motives of the editor who created the article likely were WP:POINTy, I don't see how an article about a book can be a POV fork from another article. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 17:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete One of the "sources" in the article is clearly written by the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested party. The second source is not about the book at all; it is about its publisher, the book is only mentioned in passing. If sources can be found that it made a controversy when it was published I would consider changing my opinion, but as it stands now it doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (books). Jon513 08:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I have added additional references to support notability by way of peer reviews in respected journals and the article satisfies criterion 1 of WP:BK. → AA (talk) — 08:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comments The article was a word-for-word copy of http://www.temple.edu/tempress/titles/717_reg.html, a blatant copyright violation. I have blanked out the text. Either replace acceptably, or it is a Speedy due to WP:CSD G12! -- Avi 10:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes - hadn't noticed that when I added the link :) → AA (talk) — 11:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep This Book passes and flies by easily the first and most important criteria of Notability: The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles and other books--יודל 12:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
P.S. The nominator attacks me personal by labeling me as ignoring policy because i am writing about Jews against Zionism. Let me make this very clear: never ever was this a consensus decision not to write on the subject. Fact is the opposition of Jews to Zionism is documented in wikipedia in numerous articles for a very long time. The privies discussions he links to, are about drive by attempts of long gone users who wrote about one organization without proper sourcing of its Notability claim, which I have not written in the first place yet, I only recreated it as a stub after a suggestion of an other Admin, and it was deleted indeed by this nominator. I have nothing more invested in this issue than the nominator himself, only we are opposed on it as you can easily see. --יודל 12:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. To User Yidisheryid (talk · contribs): You know, why should I be surprised that on one hand you attack Reform as being far more removed from Judaism than Christians [1], and then you go ahead and create an article attacking Zionism based on the views of Reform rabbis: "In 1942, a number of dissident Reform rabbis founded the American Council for Judaism, the first and only Jewish organization created to fight against Zionism and the establishment of a Jewish state. [2] -- but it's no surprise that you come down on all sides because this is all a game to you, of "tricks" to disrupt Wikipedia, like workings of a typical Troll (Internet) (see also WP:TROLL) because you will never hold to one line of reasoning but you will pick and choose to fit the moment or your mood, so that if the situation is a toss up between Christians and the Reform you will choose the Christian side and if the toss up is between the Reform and Zionism you will choose the Reform! So are you with Reform or aren't you? And even with the the Orthodox Jews you will attack some and edit and vote first to create and then to delete. This is yet another sign of WP:DISRUPT. Very bad. IZAK 13:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I addressed this personal attack on my talk page.--יודל 14:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
      • It is not a personal attack at all. It is a summary of your highly problematic flip-flopping editing and POVs that I document for your benefit. IZAK 16:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Thanks i will let others decide if taking a personal opinion from a talk page and comparing it to my edit pattern is an attack or not. which surly i do thank you if it was meant for my benefit. Thanks a million--יודל 16:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
So far as the general Wikipedia community is concerned, articles are not intended to reflect only ones personal viewpoints, so including material from different and contradictory points of view is not generally considered a problem. See WP:NPOV. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and Izak. Yossiea (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletions. -- → AA (talk) — 13:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- → AA (talk) — 13:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it can be sourced. The sources are all either obscure (a review of a book in an academic journal does not establish notability) or trivial mentions (basically, simply citing the book rather than talking about it). Wikidemo 16:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • And what do you consider book reviews in the most prominent newspapers?--יודל 16:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • The non-trivial reviews (i.e. where the book is the subject of the review) in multiple peer reviewed journals (the most reliable of RS's) establishes notability. Additionally, it is used as a reference by other authors ([3]). → AA (talk) — 16:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The book is published by a recognized University press and the publisher cites reviews in major, well-recognized publications like the New York Times Book Review. This is easily sufficient to meet standard notability criteria. This doesn't seem to be a difficult case. --Shirahadasha 16:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: I see nothing wrong with the article. It looks like a healthy stub.--SeizureDog 21:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep seems like any other stub to me....It can always be expanded. —Signed by KoЯnfan71 My Talk Sign Here! 00:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete certianly not notable. No evidence of any notability. Also unsourced. Yahel Guhan 03:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per aa.--Mostargue 07:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per User:aa. --Kitrus 08:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per MalikShabazz and Shirahadasha. I don't see what the problem is with this article at all. The author's intentions which are mentioned by the nominating admin are irrelevant to this discussion. The book is written about by reliable third-party sources. It's a stub in need of expansion and should be expanded, not deleted. Tiamut 11:39, 12 October 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.