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.. Ghits - 73 [1]. GoogleNews - 1 hit (and that an opinion piece) ([2]). This is a neologism and the article is synthesis, throwing together passing references to the word. Black Kite 23:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinophilia[edit]

Delete: WP:NEO, fails WP:N. The term has no significant coverage in third party reliable scholarly sources. A google book shows 8 ghits, [3] but all are passing sound. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added note: The article has several original synthesis. For example the quote by V.A. Dymshits, "As for Jewish Nationalism, having come into existence at a fairly late stage, it took at once the shape of Palestinophilia, and then Zionism, i.e. it was built around rejecting the nation as it was in favor of the nation as it should be, as well as rejecting Yiddish in favor of Hebrew" only mentions the term "Palestinophilia", but does not discuss it elaborately. [4]
- "Today, the term is used by supporters of Israel to explain the blind support for the Palestinian Arabs that some are alleged to offer" This is original research. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did not notice there is already a discussion in talk page. Talk:Palestinophilia#Proded_again. So there is no need of AfD, as it will be merged with another article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see anything worth merging here. Fails WP:N and WP:NOR. csloat (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Major problems with OR and synthesis. As discussed on the article talkpage and User talk:Keyed In, I intended to redirect or merge this to History of Zionism#Pre-Zionist Initiatives 1799 - 1897 which is basically the only context in which the term is used in reliable sources, with reference to that component of pre-Zionist pan-Jewish movements that believed in returning to Israel. Otherwise its just another neologism used half-a-dozen times with reference to how those leftwing liberals just love the Palestinians. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject lacks notability. Luk suh 03:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article seems to be notable based on the sources taht are currently present in the article. Yahel Guhan 07:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly has importance from an historical prespective. This is what encyclopedias are for... Zeq (talk) 07:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Clearly has importance from an historical prespective" - you need to prove this. Just throwing a note of this kind in an AfD debate is doing no help. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The support to the Palestinian Question is important for many political parties in Europe so I think that wikipedia requires to have an article about Palestinophilia. The article requires to contains also information about european situation. (User:Lucifero4)
Delete: This is clearly WP:NEO. Imad marie (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2008 (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.