Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masada2000

Add links
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 keep. Stifle (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Masada2000

[edit]
Masada2000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This entire page is simply WP:Original research claims. The page does not appear to use any reliable secondary sources, instead applying only primary sources and blogs.

Given that no reliable secondary sources appear to be used, it does not seem WP:Notable enough to merit an article. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If those are considered actual reliable secondary sources a keep seems reasonable, but is the subject still actually notable? And even so, more than 3/4 of the articles is original research. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. The article is heavily sourced. You've been caught out lying twice now, what's your agenda here? Factsontheground (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What, well sourced with primary sources, resulting in WP:OS and WP:SYN? And regarding the other secondary sources, I was not familiar with them and they did not seem particularly notable. You should really stop violating WP:Assume good faith already. It's getting tiresome. I could care less whether this article on an extremist Kahanist website stays up or not, but it shouldn't need to rely on original sourcing. Plot Spoiler (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Malik Shabazz. The article should be improved, especially its references (there are a lot of primary sources and blogs here, and probably some original research), but there are enough independent secondary sources to justify having an article on this topic. -- Avenue (talk) 07:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Rewriting seem like a better option.--Gilisa (talk) 07:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think my comment implied some rewriting would be useful. But a need for some rewriting is not grounds for deletion, which is what we are discussing here. If you are arguing it would be better to rewrite it completely from scratch, I disagree. -- Avenue (talk) 09:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not from scratch, but to the extent that OR will not take significant part of it.--Gilisa (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No argument from me there, unless it's to say you don't go quite far enough. OR should not form any part of it. --Avenue (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject is clearly notable. —Guy Peters Talk • Contributions • Edit counter 08:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly a notable subject. There are many more reliable sources, and I will try to add some. RolandR (talk) 09:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are plenty of secondary sources about this website and its vile "S.H.I.T. list", among them The encyclopedia of the Arab-Israeli conflict: a political, social, and military history. Vol. 2. ABC-CLIO. 2008. pp. 669–670., also this piece in the Guardian, also "Jewish Wolves on the Web". Haaretz. May 18, 2001. nableezy - 14:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly noteable. So thinks Fallows, in his "The Atlantic", June 2003, -piece-- Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Food for thought Normally, this type of NN initiative/website would not be worthy of an article, and me thinks that all those who choose to 'keep' it here (who are against its message) are actually giving it legitimacy and bringing more attention and publicity to it AND no less including raising it's google ranking which having a page on WP does almost instantly. Is that the intention of the 'keepers'? --Shuki (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More food for thought, who exactly is not against the "message" of a website that has advocated the raping and murdering of Jewish women who dare fall to the left of Meir Kahane? nableezy - 22:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another view: often the best disinfectant is sunlight. (Not quite a direct quote from Louis Brandeis.) --Avenue (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That may be a byproduct of Wikipedia, but it is not criteria for an article. It's not about some extremism you judge necessary to "reveal" to the world, but it is based upon whether this particularly site is notable. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was not made as an argument for keeping the article, but merely as a response to the inquiry above about our motivations. As long as we follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, our motivations for editing are somewhat beside the point, and both the inquiry and the responses are off-topic in an AfD. Feel free to remove or strike out mine if you think it is inappropriate. --Avenue (talk) 00:39, 26 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Masada2000&oldid=1138060664"