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

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 delete. --Coredesat 03:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jews Against Zionism (disambiguation)

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

This "disambiguation" page was the subject of a prod. Its talk page reflects solid proof why it does not deserve to exist because it does not "disambiguate" between any articles but only links to outside dubious websites, violating WP:NOT#LINK and WP:NOT#WEBSPACE and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. It also seems to have been created to get around deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Torah Jews. See Talk:Jews Against Zionism (disambiguation) for full discussion about problems, especially as noted by User:MPerel that "jewsagainstzionism.org is registered to Roland Rance and is a small secular group. The registration gives a contact address in London. It redirects to Jews Against Zionism. jewsagainstzionism.com is registered privately and anonymously via 3rd party GoDaddy.com and its ownership is therefore unknown and unverifiable. The unverifiable and anonymous jewsagainstzionism.com site is often confused with jewsnotzionists.com, the latter which is registered to Yisroel Weiss." And User:zzuuzz has stated: "This page was recently prod-deleted and restored. Until very recently it would have been a speedy deletion candidate, and it probably still is. Disambiguation pages serve to disambiguate between articles with potentially the same name. Here, there are no articles, not even one. I have no doubt this page would be deleted at AfD, and I'm slightly bemused as to why a restoration was requested. Is it going to start disambiguating articles, or shall we take a waltz through AfD?" This also violates WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. It is also bound to be a POV magnet. IZAK 08:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete for above reasons. IZAK 08:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 08:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete A disambiguation page which doesn't "disambiguate" anything at all. Nick mallory 08:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I created this disambig page in order to remove a clear ambiguity. IZAK is mistaken in his assumption that the page was "created to get around deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Torah Jews".The problem is that there are several groups, both religious and secular, using the name Jews Against Zionism. A number of other articles refer to the secular group Jews Against Zionism, but before the disambiguation page was created links on the pages were redirected to the article on the religious group Neturei Karta (which does not actually use this name). This was clearly inappropriate, and it was necessary to clartify this. I believe that the individual groups are notable enough to merit their own articles, and I could write one on the secular group. I am reluctant to do so because I am a leading activist in the group, and this could be seen as self-promotion; but, if other editors agree that this could be acceptable, then I will produce a draft, in as NPOV a way as I can. in the hope that others will amend and improve it. Given the background, I think that it would be a mistake to delete this page, and to further the ambiguities. RolandR 08:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Hi Roland: While your edits may have gone in one direction, the recent edits by Yidisheryid (talk · contribs) [1] [2] were clearly meant to lead back to the "True Torah Jews" issue. Also, you seem to miss the reasons behind this AfD, nothing has been mentioned about anyone's POV or NPOV, so why do you bring that up? This AfD is because it does not meet the requirements of a Wikipedia:Disambiguation page, see also Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links and Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/Guide that make it quite clear that disambiguation pages are for Wikipedia articles and not for external websites of a dubious sort. Thank you, IZAK 10:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
      • It clearly now meets every requirement since it has a main page and many other links that a few are now deleted speedily and it will no doubt re-surface in the future as too many users think it should not be erased, this one article was already recreated by users over 5 times i know so i dont think in the long term it will be a non existing article. Yes the satmar users are not so much as the Zioinists but they are alive and are not going anywhere, while Zionists do indeed diminish they are busy having 12 kids and are multiplying and spreading their cause so it will eventually reach Notability standers by every singe estimate.--יודל 17:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Umm, what does having 12 babies have to do with this discussion? Maybe 12 babies is not enough come to think of it when the rest of the world population is now 6.7 Billion and it will be they who take over Wikipedia, don't you think? (They do so already in any case!) This is also not about Satmars vs. the world. There is no such competition going on here except in your head it seems because you always insist on bringing this up. Wikipedia has nothing against Satmars or anyone else as long as everyone keeps in mind WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. Those are the basics, and nothing else, not Satmar, not you not me. But that is not what is being discussed here. Until you made the recent edits [3] to Jews against zionism and thereby restored an article that had been previously deleted TWICE, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews against zionism (2005) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews Against Zionism (2007). You thereby did not follow the correct procedure by submitting this to Wikipedia:Deletion review for recreating an article and topic that has been twice deleted. IZAK 03:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes you are right. It is not Satamr vs the World, it is indeed Satamr vs. the Zionists, as many times you will delete it, it will more times be created. and this was never ever created without posting the debate on the so called Jewish Wiki-Project, lets face it, this article has all the right sources and citations to establish its Notability, but as the users who delete always say, AH Satamr they are fringe POV. Sorry this isn't a reason to delete, and it wont stay deleted with this bias, but only time will prove me right, this discussion was already gone for now the other way.--יודל 16:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and write the articles quickly including a serious attempt by a neutral party at replacement of the previous deleted article with real sourcing if it exists. Stub articles would do, as long as it is clear there are sources. DGG (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I did so but it was deleted speedily. [4]--יודל 14:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep the Satmar group should never had been deleted since it is real and alive with weekly citations in the Yiddish media. I am a user who reads Yiddish and can easily provide you with those much needed sources. Please keep in mind that this org is nothing more then a think thank to spread Satmar Rebbe's view on Zinism, all they do is take money from Satamr Hasidim in order to make radio and Newspaper ads and pay for a website and publish books and leaflets, they have 9 respected board members but their website is not like any other website since their rabbis are opposed to internet, so they do not list an address and telephone number, just the bare minimum. The Satmar community today is divided in 2 parts, this org is the only org that has the backing of both party's. I already work on a article with citations and sources to establish its notability.--יודל 12:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    • If it's indeed a "Satmar" group then it can easily be redirected and become part of the Satmar (Hasidic dynasty) article (but maybe most Satmar's would be too ashamed to be openly associated with such a group, just give them money and hope they stay away, as is often the case.) The group is not a "think tank" (maybe it's a "thing tank" as you often mix up the words "think" and "thing") and Hasidim do not subscribe to or ascribe any importance to "think tanks" or any such gimmicks. They are taught by their rebbeim, they don't need "think tanks" thanks. No doubt all sorts of people give money to all sorts of crazy causes but that does not mean that those causes should be worthy of articles in an encyclopedia. Orthodox Jews and Haredim give huge sums to better things (not "think") such as to poor and sick people, sums that would astound people, in the hundreds of millions, but noone is running to make noise about it on the Internet or to create all sorts of articles about that. Funny that the fanatical groups that support the Jew killers and antisemites want to get noticed online and in the media, isn't it? True Hasidim are usually to modest to brag, so to depict them here as being a media savvy bloodthirsty lot is an insult to them as Jews and to their humanity. So, to repeat, if something really belongs to the Satmar topic, make it part of the Satmar article, otherwise what you are doing is engaging in Wikipedia:No original research and violating WP:NPOV rules because that in turn violates WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, WP:NOT#BLOG, and more, especially WP:POINT (Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point) and wasting your and everybody else's time. Thank you, IZAK 03:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Izak i need you to calm down first of all about your innuendo that this particular group has met with the Iranian leader is false, You actually took that out of your but. This group was opened and founded for the reason alone to take away the Satamr mission from Neturei karta and satmar has squarely condemned globally those Jews who met that Arab. Now that this is cleared up, let me tell you that they are indeed a respectfull Think thank about the teachings of their Rabbi, You are right once their Rabbi was alive there was no need to spread and further his mision, he was Holy and even the Zionist jews had the utmost respect for his word, now that he is dead, The satmar Hasidim have decided its time to act, and see ways how to spread this mision. Is it notable yes, and the article did have claims with proof to that effect. Is it fringe POV i dont care. If it is out there it has its place in wikipedia, and no user can sensor it because he does not like what they do.--יודל 16:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per my talk page comments above. There are no articles even linking to this page except a redirect from Jews against zionism (and that has nothing linking to it either). Unless someone quickly writes another article to disambiguate on this page, and it can exist without any external links (see MOS:DAB), in which case set up the disambiguation at Jews Against Zionism, but only if there are Wikipedia articles to disambiguate. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Please look back in the history and on its talk page and see that those who want to dleete have asked to block a user simply for qouting this site, so he was forced to change his link, and it does have an atrticle leading to neturei karta--יודל 13:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless disambig. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 13:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Useless disambig attempting to use wikipedia as a vehicle to push various points-of-view. Avi 14:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete: Agree with above, this is a useless disambiguation page. Doesn't help anything. - Rjd0060 14:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This page does not disambiguate any Wikipedia articles, neither currently nor when it was first created. --Shirahadasha 14:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I see many articles, Natrina Neturei karta and more that were already speedily erased while you were writing this, with utterly disregard for conflict of interest here[5].--יודל 14:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Natrina was created with extreme disregard for wikipedia policy. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Torah Jews and WP:CSD, focusing on G4. Neturei karta was not, and will not, be deleted, speedy or otherwise, as the group is sufficiently notable to warrant a wiki article. Please restrict yourself to facts and not suppositions, unjustified accusations, or misrepresentations of wikipedia policy. Thank you. -- Avi 14:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I see only one user going personnel here and everybody sees whats his name. But now that it was asked i will answer it: This was deleted by a user who has voted to delete in his words POV pushing while he himself goes ahead and deletes the article so his POV should win. This is a perfect example of a conflict of interest here. and its not the first time those sysop tools were used in such a way, this issue suffered already before of this while the article Haredim and Zionism was blocked for a week with unsourced slanderers line. So lets straitened out the FACT: The article Natrina was re-established as a stub as other users have requested here, and it was deleted here by a deleter vote!--יודל 15:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Once again, please read WP:CSD section G4. The article in question was not significantly different from the one deleted, and as such was a classic speedy candidate. Your near-constant resorting to ad hominem attacks when you lack any other support for your arguments, such as wikipedia policy or facts, is becoming more and more of a hindrance. So is your penchant for changing headings (as you still do after nearly being severely sanctioned for it) as well as your propensity to push specific points of view. It is in your best interest to review the discussions that occurred on WP:ANI and see how you can continue to contribute gainfully without disrupting process or policy. -- Avi 15:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
This Admin should not be an issue here, but I think asking to delete something while saying that your concern is POV while using some tools that other do not have to delete something else to win your vote against others, is not a personal attack, it is simply a way how to put an editing history in focus. This is a real conflict of interest here and i hope everybody can understand why, if not i am mistaken and i would apologize.--יודל 15:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I am uncertain how you can view a clear-cut case of upholding a wikipedia policy as a "conflict-of-interest"? If anything, your editing history demonstrates a significant propensity towards a point-of-view and a disregard for wikipedia policies? -- Avi 15:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Conflict of interest means that even though policy says that the article must be erased or even though some user must be blocked, the Admin who had his conflict on the matter cannot do it because of conflict of interest.--יודל 15:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
And being that this was a clear-cut case of a wikipedia violation, and being that I have no personal or professional relationship with any organization pro- or con- Zionism, there is no issue. Now please stop trying to create issues where there are none and restrict yourself to content and policy, and not people. -- Avi 15:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Being that you have declared this issue a POV Pushing and being that u used some tools that others dont have to win this debate i ask other Admins to restore the artice in question since it is being rather drastically improved by me and it was addressed successfully all the issues raised in the initial deletion. It is still a stub and most users have declared it fine if effort is being put into it to establish notability which i will do. Everybody has his POV mine is clear and yours is also clear so lets have a chance to make our views reach some consensus and not use one stronger hand against the other to win the issue.--יודל 15:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The place to request that a deletion be overturned is WP:DRV. -- Avi 15:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks please dont make work harder then needed, you erased this article clearly agaisnt the rules and polices of an Admin, You were clearly invoved here and have already expressed your desire to delete it, be so kind and give it to me i will not make it into an article i will simply put it in my sandbox to work on it until its perfect. I know you have already said that you wont bock me becaouse you don't want to use your sysop tools in a way to win discussions, please do the same here and undo your actions if you are right why win it with tools that others don't have? let the system of consensus building play out its role. I don't beleave it should be put back as a stub now since you don't want it but i promise you i will work on it to perfect it i have already experience with fixing deleted articles trust me--יודל 15:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Once again, I suggest you carefully review wikipedia policy and guidelines. Making improper and unfounded accusations of impropriety is considered a personal attack, of which you have made a number on this page already. Those kinds of edits are not allowed on wikipedia, of which you have been informed a number of times already. -- Avi 15:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
For the 5'th time i do not see where pointing out a conflict of interest is a personal attack, i see you have said this about me endless times but i am still waiting for third opinion here to see if i was wrong. so please do not repeat yourself against my actions, becaouse you and i aren't the issue here. 2 users, DGG and i have thought it proper to re-esteblish the articles as stubs, you have done what you have done against us, now lets wait for others to express their opinions here--יודל 15:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you that one of the three isn't Notable but the purpose from this disambiguation wasn't for that alone we need here to make a page to list all subjects who use this header. And when including them we must first include everything that is Notable for the user, then another editor can come and take out all the subjects he deems not notable but to delete the whole page because one link isn't the way.--יודל 17:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • delete it is not a disambiguation page at all. Mukadderat 18:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is not a disambiguation page. --Malcolmxl5 18:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes right now it isnt becouse an Admin used his tolls to make it like this. I asked to re-edit it, i myself wont do this since i do not want to disrupt wikipedia. But the chronicle of events must be clear. now it is rightfully destined for deletion. i guess th system works somehow, only if the Admins play by the same rules as a the other normal users--יודל 19:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Yossiea (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. 6SJ7 06:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Disambiguation pages are only supposed to provide disambiguation between articles. There is no need to refer to groups whose notability has not yet been clearly established anywhere in wikipedia. When and if such articles do exist, then things would be different. John Carter 14:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Please note that those articles u r referring to were indeed wikipedia established articles, it was deleted only because of more votes to delete, but in no way does it reflect the real wikipedia process. It will be re-created in no time, and it will be again deleted by those Zionist wikiProject users who evidently have the more votes here, this happened until now every month this was re-created a new because it is notable and real subjects to the minority of people in the world, we should not make wikipedia into a demcartecy of majourety rules, we are a consensus based project, the anti Zionist Jews are indeed a fringe group, but we cannot therefore delete them as a subject, I know i am one here against twenty but i feel i am right.--יודל 14:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, I tend to agree with RolandR on this as far as the purpose of this disambig page being to help alleviate some confusion and ambiguity between a few groups (including an anonymous website) lumped under the same name. I'll have to think more on this before I can sway one way or the other. --MPerel 16:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Nowhere in Wikipedia:Disambiguation is it stated that disambiguation pages cannot disambiguate titles that don't have articles; the only requirement is that potential for confusion exists when typing the name into Wikipedia. At least one of these entries is clearly notable; a book which has been reviewed in International Journal of Middle East Studies and The Observer among others. At the same time, the websites and advocacy groups are probably much better known than the book, so the potential for confusion exists. Jewish anti-Zionism is maybe a 4 or 5% viewpoint within Judaism, and was a >50% view prior to 1945. In other words, it is not a fringe viewpoint, and its various organizations and outgrowths can be documented on Wikipedia. Policy is being ignored here in favor of unwarranted assumptions (and uncivil attacks on those who vote to apply policy). <eleland/talkedits> 20:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep As Eleland notes, disambig pages don't always link to articles, although admittedly external links seem odd to me. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews against zionism (2nd nomination), I propose replacing that article with one about the British group Jews Against Zionism discussed above by RolandR, which would alleviate some concern about this page not linking to articles. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 06:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - if we delete JAZ or it's disambiguation then it will appear that Wikipedia prefers hate-sites to sources preaching tolerance between religions - since Jew Watch is one individual's web-site (perhaps specialising in copyvio?), yet it has a substantial article. There are a number of groups actually using the JAZ title (I think I counted 4), and there is at least one other significant group using a closely related title (JewsNotZionists.org which should probably be linked from the same page). At the present rate, at least two of these 5 groups will have articles, with likely more to follow. As to notability (as I said on the AfD for JAZ.com), I've never Googled for Haredim let along Haredim and Zionism, but I've Googled many times for "Jews Against Zionism" (and the older? "Jews Not Zionists" over the last 10 years). These people have a major web-footprint, surfers such as me are almost certainly searching for them constantly. They would be notable even if they were "only a web-site", and I'm pretty sure they're not. (More on this subject, including membership figures at my entry here. PRtalk 12:40, 11 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.