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. Closing as SNOW. Apparently the intention was a merge and AfD is not a place for those. Tone 15:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Israel and the apartheid analogy[edit]

Israel and the apartheid analogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I say that this article should be merged into a "racism in Israel" article, because much of the stuff on that page is the same as here, and after all, this page's material is part of the debate, which it is. There is no full page for a "Palestinians and the Nazi Analogy" despite the huge amount of anti-Semitic stuff in their media and society and the history of Al-Husseini, there is no "Putin and the Communist analogy," or for that matter, a "Bush and the Fascist Analogy" despite that those three comparisons have been made just as widely in media. Also, most of the stuff in this page is people saying the same thing, or opinion and it is overly long. The comparison is only accepted as valid on one side, and in political circles elsewhere.Tallicfan20 (talk) 04:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since I've already spent a lot of time working on the article I don't think I can support a delete again. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be outraged if the article suddenly disappeared, but right now there is no chance in hell it will be removed after 6+ failed AFDs. There are simply too many editors that want the article and no reasonable argument can defeat so many users. I do believe much of the information should be removed entirely, especially the disturbing amount of attention given to non-notable opinion, as well as cutting out the blatant OR. In its current state the article doesn't pass basic standards aside from the introduction and a few body paragraphs. IMO "start-class" is way too generous. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep This isn't the place to bring a suggestion to merge articles. Start a discussion on the article's Talk page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Malik and the 8! failed AfDs that came before. un☯mi 05:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Israel has been charged with the crime of apartheid in international forums and courts, and in its own Supreme Court. The article is full of references to well-known public figures on both sides of the debate. It is obviously a notable topic. harlan (talk) 08:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per WTF? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Not an informed or really good-faith nomination. Article is well-sourced, subject matter is well-known and notable, and it is quite balanced overall despite the protests by partisans seeking to gut it from the inside out. Not that it matters much, but this AfD is a big mangled; no header, no links to past AfDs, etc... Tarc (talk) 12:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Balanced? Is that why the article has been stuck in start class for so long? Have you even read the article? Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I see you harping on the "start" class quite a bit, but IMO that is a typical red herring kind of argument. I've honestly never really paid much attention to such things, but looking now at the "start" entry at WP:ASSESS, which states "An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources", that is not even remotely applicable to the current status of the article. When was the last time this article was assessed? Who decides such things? Tarc (talk) 13:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  This article has been developing for ages and has gone through however many numbers of AFD. Virtually all of the article has been crafted and designed by specific editors - the style, the placement of sources, excessive reliance on non-notable material and basically copying and pasting entire pages from the favorite books of wikipedia editors. I literally had to remove 3 whole paragraphs of information that had absolutely nothing to do with apartheid or racism, or comparisons between israel and south africa. 3 paragraphs that sat in the article for more than a year. I find it hard to believe any member of Israel/Palestine project could honestly place the article above a start class. In any case, this should be closed because a delete simply won't happen. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for completely failing to address the question. I'll look elsewhere. Tarc (talk) 13:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you serious? - I think Seb az86556 sums up the argument against this nomination nicely. keep in case it wasnt obvious; if in case you dont succeed, try try again is not a commendable course of action in AfDs. nableezy - 13:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• keep personaly I think this's a rather silly article but to the troll who nominated it: if you're nominating an article for it's 6th deletion attempt you probably need wonder whether you should be editing wikipedia. Misarxist (talk) 13:36, 21 August 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.