Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Semitic in effect if not in intent

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. Tim Song (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Semitic in effect if not in intent

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a phrase, which makes no attempt to establish that the phrase is in common usage (it has about 100 Google hits), or to establish its notability. RolandR (talk) 08:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick glance, it seems to have more than enough reliable sources. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 10:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 10:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 10:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious WP:COATRACK. As Tarc points out correctly below, an article which is just a list of uses of a phrase does not count as an article about the phrase. Clearly it would be WP:SYNTH to portray it as such. So the question becomes whether a list of uses is worth an article, and the answer is no because the notability of the phrase has not been established. Zero^talk 11:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It does seem to be well sourced, but perhaps there is not enough here to warrent its own articel. It might be better to merge this.Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is dumb, in effect if not intent are just...words. You're taking a rather common way of phrasing or describing a matter and building it into something more than it ever was, i.e. WP:SYNTHESIS. To justify an article, there would need to be sources that discuss the notability of the phrase itself, not just a collection of quotes on where it was used. Tarc (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I say Merge (into say Anit-semitism. Ther is clearly here a case for saying that the phrase is used, and as such the idea it expresses has a place in the appropriate articel. In a sence this is about a form of Anti-semitsm, not how its expressed by its critics.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usage does not equal notability. Show a source that discusses these 7 words specifically; not a source that shows the words being used. Tarc (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because this article constitutes original research via synthesis. All it includes are examples of where this specific wording was used, so it is basically just a list of trivia. There is no evidence that any reliable sources have actually discussed the phrase itself, its origins, the manner of its use, etc. By doing so where they have not, we are engaging in synthesis. *** Crotalus *** 17:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Original research of a politically tendentious sort. Carrite (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Everyone else has said it, but I agree that it is synthesis, and there do not appear to be any sources discussing the phrases usage. Quantpole (talk) 09:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced, POV, OR, etc., as stated above. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Tarc. Also, it is a POV fork. Bearian (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.