Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (2nd 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 speedy keep; nothing has changed since the recent AfD; also I have concerns about personal attacks and POV pushing in this AfD debate. David | Talk 23:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of Israeli apartheid[edit]

This article is arab propaganda filled with lieas and distortions - so it doesn’t (and will not ever) fulfil Wikipedia’s goal of Neutral Point Of View. It’s nothing but hateful original research. Especially now after the Hizb'allah Mooselimbs has cowardly attacked Israel and killed innocent lives. This and other Islamofascist propaganda needs to get NPOVed or AFDed ASAP. SoCalJustice 23:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

previous AfD (from June).--Chaser T 23:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Well written, sourced, and NPOV article. As for the nominator, he seems to have a strong pro-Israel anti-Arab stance, blanking criticisms of Israel. [1] [2]. In one case he changed the number of killed Palestinian villagers from 107 to 17, without giving any reason in the edit summary. [3] Dionyseus 23:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - new (sockpuppet?) account did the delete nom [4]. Survived an AfD in early June. Its too early for another one. --Ben Houston 23:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW what are "Mooselimbs"? --Ben Houston 23:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - previous AfD result from a few weeks ago was "keep", and out-of-policy move is in arbitration. --John Nagle 23:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This article is one of the most sourced of any I've seen on WP. The OR charge appears to be made in bad faith. According to deletion policy, POV is not a valid deletion reason. This article is probably just as incredibly controversial as it was during the previous AfD.--Chaser T 23:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Are you kidding me? This SoCal kid has the gall to insult well over a billion people with his "Mooselimbs" comment while he whines about an article not being NPOV (even when the article openly states that it is documenting an allegation)? If he wants to be a dick, that's his prerogative. Regardless, allegations have historical value, especially allegations which are widely supported by one side of a major conflict. This is an encyclopedia. This article has a place here. SoCal will just have to learn how to deal with it. --(Mingus ah um 23:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Speedy Keep ...and the drama continues. JChap (Talk) 23:49, 15 July 2006 (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.