Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies related to Israel and Zionism

: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. Shimeru (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

=[[Controversies related to Israel and Zionism]]=

:{{la|Controversies related to Israel and Zionism}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies related to Israel and Zionism}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{Find sources|Controversies related to Israel and Zionism}})

WP:NPOV, WP:COATRACK, violates WP:LISTS by not having a lede, and many more. Yossiea (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete Since everything related to Israel is controversial to somebody, the list is potentially endless. Why not include every Israel-related article? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

:If there are news sources and books published calling each item on the list a controversy, then isn't that enough? Dream Focus 03:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete per above. This list is at best useless (per Malik), at worst a POV-push (per Avi and Yossiea). Rami R 21:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:ATTACK. Poliocretes (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NPOV. Breein1007 (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - While the subject matter may have merit, there is nothing to salvage from a bare-bones list of other articles, a template that will also soon meet its demise, and an awkward title. Tarc (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per Tarc and Malik Shabazz. I'm not convinced that an article of this kind is an unsalveagable coat-racking attack job. Let's face it: Israel is a controversial country. But the qualification criterion for inclusion on this list - "controversial" - makes the inclusion of material almost impossible to verify. Open to changing my mind if someone can produce something better out of this. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

:How about calling it notable aspects about Israel which have gotten a lot of negative press? Or Wikipedia articles concerning aspects that have gotten much negative press, thus making them controversies? Dream Focus 03:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator, Avi and Malik Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete as this list topic or a definition for this list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete—the article, like the template that was created at the same time, is inherently WP:OR and WP:NPOV, not to mention WP:ATTACK. What are the inclusion criteria? Why does there need to be a list of controversies related to an entire nation? "Articles" like this must be removed immediately from Wikipedia, and I believe it even fits WP:CSD as an attack page. —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. No articles on countries I checked had a Criticism section, including Israel. There must be a way to organize such information. Countries' governments will never be accountable without organized information on their controversial activities. -12.7.202.2 (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Keep !votes miss the point. Yilloslime TC 01:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Complicated, weak keep. While I think such a list or template could be useful, a country recognized internationally can not be inherently controversial. On the other hand, there are clearly related articles dealing with critics of Israel, its foreign policy, and Zionism. Furthermore, I do not think the consensus here is that WP:ATTACK would apply to a nation or concept; we typically only cite it for BLPs or institutions. WP:LIST is still evolving; it has been more strictly interpreted than it was 3 years ago. WP:CSD does not exactly apply either. So you have a really hard case here. Bearian (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

: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.