| Revision as of 03:36, 9 June 2008 editThetrick (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users7,590 edits reverting to original nomination text as posted by The Hand That Feeds You← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:57, 9 June 2008 edit undo70.181.148.148 (talk) Undid revision 218095982 by Thetrick (talk)Next edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| :{{la|Allegations of Israeli apartheid}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | :{{la|Allegations of Israeli apartheid}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | ||
| Posting on behalf of another user as follows: | Posting on behalf of another user as follows: | ||
| 1) |
1)Article fails to deliver the <b>political neutrality</b> championed by wikipedia. That in itself should be more than <b>enough reason</b> to delete. 2) It is <b>politically biased</b>. Article is thoroughly sourced, but article is <b>overly-dependent</b> on <i>biased</i> sources (like Uri Avnery). Article <b>fails</b> to deliver the balance <b>necessary</b> to be hosted on wikipedia. 3)The article has been in clean up limbo for more than a <b>year</b>, but nobody has made any real attempt to do a write-up. 4)The whole concept of an Apartheid regime in Israel is <b>flawed.</b> The Arab minority in Israel are <b>full citizens</b> with voting rights and representation in the government. In the apartheid regime in SA, blacks <b>could not vote and were not citizens of the country</b> in which they are the overwhelming majority of the population. The article has no room for this fact. 5)Segregation is debatable, but Allegations of an Apartheid is far <b>too sensational</b>. 6)Unfair voice. There is no "proponent" section. The article is one big slant and has <b>no</b> balance. I cannot emphasize this more. 7) Some of the original authors have been <b>banned</b> or disciplined for wikipedia violations, though I'm not sure how relevant that is. 8) The most recent nomination had a majority delete, though the consensus was none. Not sure how important that is, but thought I'd mention it. 9)All in all, I think it is a perfect candidate for deletion. I can't think of any other reason why it should stay other than the potential to be <b>cleaned</b>, which as far as I can tell <b>won't happen any time soon</b>. If I see some pursuit by other members to fix this article, I'll gladly drop my want to delete this article. thanks for the quick response. ] (]) 02:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC) — <b>]</span>:<sup>]</sup></b> 02:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Neutral''' – I'm remaining neutral on this issue. My only involvement is to properly post the AfD request for ]. — <b>]</span>:<sup>]</sup></b> 02:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC) | *'''Neutral''' – I'm remaining neutral on this issue. My only involvement is to properly post the AfD request for ]. — <b>]</span>:<sup>]</sup></b> 02:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| **Addendum: There are two Arbitration cases that are relevant here as well: ] & ]. — <b>]</span>:<sup>]</sup></b> 02:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC) | **Addendum: There are two Arbitration cases that are relevant here as well: ] & ]. — <b>]</span>:<sup>]</sup></b> 02:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 03:57, 9 June 2008
Allegations of Israeli apartheid
AfDs for this article:- Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid
- Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (2nd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (4th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (5th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (6th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (7th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (8th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (Fourth nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (fifth nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (second nomination)
- Allegations of Israeli apartheid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Posting on behalf of another user as follows: 1)Article fails to deliver the political neutrality championed by wikipedia. That in itself should be more than enough reason to delete. 2) It is politically biased. Article is thoroughly sourced, but article is overly-dependent on biased sources (like Uri Avnery). Article fails to deliver the balance necessary to be hosted on wikipedia. 3)The article has been in clean up limbo for more than a year, but nobody has made any real attempt to do a write-up. 4)The whole concept of an Apartheid regime in Israel is flawed. The Arab minority in Israel are full citizens with voting rights and representation in the government. In the apartheid regime in SA, blacks could not vote and were not citizens of the country in which they are the overwhelming majority of the population. The article has no room for this fact. 5)Segregation is debatable, but Allegations of an Apartheid is far too sensational. 6)Unfair voice. There is no "proponent" section. The article is one big slant and has no balance. I cannot emphasize this more. 7) Some of the original authors have been banned or disciplined for wikipedia violations, though I'm not sure how relevant that is. 8) The most recent nomination had a majority delete, though the consensus was none. Not sure how important that is, but thought I'd mention it. 9)All in all, I think it is a perfect candidate for deletion. I can't think of any other reason why it should stay other than the potential to be cleaned, which as far as I can tell won't happen any time soon. If I see some pursuit by other members to fix this article, I'll gladly drop my want to delete this article. thanks for the quick response. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC) — The Hand That Feeds You: 02:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral – I'm remaining neutral on this issue. My only involvement is to properly post the AfD request for Wikifan12345. — The Hand That Feeds You: 02:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Addendum: There are two Arbitration cases that are relevant here as well: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid & Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. — The Hand That Feeds You: 02:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Nobody's worked on it, but that alone is no reason to delete. Neither is a PoV dispute. This article has gone through seven AfDs and was kept each time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 02:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep Seven AfDs strikes me as resolving the issue for a good long while. People need to stick to working on the content of the article. Thetrick (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep If it's POV, change it, it's not a valid reason to delete it. Nominator tries to explain why the allegations are invalid, but that's irrelevant to such a nomination, since the allegations have already been made, are citable, and it's not up to us to decide whether they're right or wrong. FunkMonk (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep Re: seven prior AfDs. This is a valuable article and your argument basically amounts to "it needs to be fixed, so delete it." -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)