Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (4th 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 keep. Bucketsofg 01:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid[edit]

Note: The first two AfD nominations of this article were straw man nominations made by sockpuppets of now-banned editors.

Delete Clear violation of WP:SYNT. Contains large amounts of OR. Jtrainor 23:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The "Israeli apartheid" analogy has become the subject of extensive discussion since the release of Jimmy Carter's "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" last year. This is clearly a relevant subject. If the article is flawed, our solution should be to fix it. CJCurrie 00:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - entire books have been written on these allegations.--Urthogie 00:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not aware of any WP:SYNT or OR issues with the article. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is obviously having problems right now but that doesn't make the subject itself non-notable. I've heard the allegations mentioned in mainstream media quite a bit. Also, have you heard of Jimmy Carter? The Behnam 01:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - A bad faith nomination without a leg to stand on, as there is an abundance of sourced material in the article. The problem is POV-pushing, which in itself is not a reason for deletion. Tarc 02:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to WP:Sandbox - This article must be made NPOV before being published to the public. As it is now it fail to meeet WP:NPOV for a year. I am not advocating a full delete just that it is removed from the main wikipedia name space and will be worked on (in a WP:Sandbox) until it reach a stable and NPOV version - At that point a stable version of the article can go back and be published to the public. Zeq 05:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, even those who support keeping this article complain about the POV pushing in the article - surly it violates many policies in it's present form including a violation of WP:SYNT. Zeq 05:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Legitimate subject, term used often, with plenty of reliable sources including South Africans and anti-apartheid figures themselves. POV is mostly from those editors who wish to deny the analogy, or hide or diminish the reliable sources/quotes/uses of the term in the article.Kritt 08:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I object to four nominations for deletion, and think the previous votes should be respected. --BozMo talk 10:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See note above; the first 2 nominations were straw man nominations. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and start again. Far too much push-pull between the competing factions. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article and discussion is well sourced to reliable sources. Mackan79 13:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as keep per this AfD and this AfD and this one too. When an article reaches its fourth nomination, it becomes increasingly difficult to assume good faith. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See note above; the first 2 nominations were straw man nominations. In fact, the first nomination was by a sockpuppet of the person who created this article, almost immediately after he created it. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add, for whatever it's worth, that the third nomination was terminated prematurely and in a disputed manner. I don't believe this article has ever had a valid AfD discussion, and now, because some people see this as a "fourth" nomination and oppose it on that basis, this one is tainted as well. Everything about this article, or associated with it, is now inherently corrupted and I don't think there is any way to fix it. 6SJ7 14:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Huge amount of references backing up the statements, so the nominator will need to point out some examples as to why everything is SYNT or OR. If there is some SYNT or OR, we solve that by editing the article, not deleting it. Let's face it, the term "Israeli apartheid" is common, whether we like it or not, and whether we agree with the term or not. A quick search from my country of Norway produced this article (UN accuses Israel of Apartheid) from a mainstream newspaper (albeit one with a pro-Labor Party point of view). Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sjakkalle in this, its fourth nomination. I disagree with "pitch 'til you win" tactics where an article is nominated over and over for deletion, and urge the principle of Stare decisis. Edison 20:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find allegations of bad faith on my part rather disgusting considering I have never been involved with this article in any way before. The number of AfDs an article has survived has no bearing on it's validity for deletion in future AfDs-- I advise you to go ask around about the GNAA article, which survived -14- AfDs, but eventually was deleted anyways. Jtrainor 20:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete POV fork--Sefringle 01:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article is presently a patchwork, but it covers a legitimate subject. Could use a more NPOV title. GregorB 19:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not per the above nom; rather per all of the many comments I have made on the talk page over the past year. I hesitate to participate in this AfD because it is clear that the snow is falling and, as I mentioned in a comment above, I think this process is inherently corrupted by the three "previous" AfD's that should not "count" because they were bogus. I also think it's interesting that of the "four" AfD's, none have been nominated by anyone who was really involved with the article, except for the first one which was basically a forgery by the person who started the article, using a sockpuppet. On the other hand, there is no way around the fact that I have said on the talk page, about 50 times, that the article should not exist, so in order to be consistent I must, again, support deletion. 6SJ7 03:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Idiotic bad faith nomination. Subject is the subject of numerous works. If you don't like the content, edit it. Andyvphil 13:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as deleting it would be a violation of the NPOV the zionists claim they care oh so much about. --Nyp 21:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ummmmmmm Jtrainor 02:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a very notable topic (as indicated by a lot of coverage over the years), which deserves a Wikpiedia article. If there are issues with its content, AfD is not the way to go. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep.The subject has been defined, discussed, and debated by numerous prominent scholars and public figures, most recently a former president of the United States. There are many good reasons to delete certain articles; that the subject matter is provocative is not one of them.--G-Dett 16:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. This article is incomprehensible!!! The topic is a valid topic for a wikipedia entry. However, it looks like the article has been edited and re-edited in a tug of war that left the article in such a state that any decent copyeditor would reject it from any decent publication. It should be started again and written by an unbiased expert in a NPOV and not by a person looking to make political points on either side . -- msalinasphd 14:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, unfortunately the article has been in extra-heavy-edit mode the last two weeks after being essentially stable for months now. I would be happy wholesale reverting to this version, because I don't believe the new approach has been sucessful. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The version that Kendrick7 proposes is much better; cleaner and more balanced. It would be helpful if it is also limited for edition under Wikipedia:Protection policy because of the controversial nature of the topic. -- msalinasphd 15:20 EST, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Add my voice to the chorus. In the past two weeks the article has been rapidly transformed, many would say disfigured, by an ardent and irrepressible editor. He means well, but that is sadly beside the point.--G-Dett 20:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per all the keep votes above.cs 19:50, 3 April 2007 (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.