Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No War For Israel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. May be restored for a merger if anyone feels like it. Sandstein 21:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No War For Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
I added a PROD tag, but the author removed it. I do not believe this meets WP:N, as it has virtually no coverage from independent reliable sources. Enigma message 18:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fringe website, doesn't meet WP:WEB. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Merge to David Duke, per discussion below. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - a link from the KKK doesn't indicate notability --T-rex 20:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepMerge It's been covered in Front Page magazine. I'm willing to bet that it may be dealt with by SPLC or ADL, too. More research to follow. Jclemens (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- WP:WEB requires that the website be "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". One article isn't enough. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an organization (or at least, a rallying cry) with a website, not simply a website. Google "No war for israel" and "david duke" and you get [1] [2] [3] [4]. It's clear the Israeli press takes the phrase and association seriously. Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The threshold for including slogans hasn't been met either. Just because David Duke says it a lot isn't sufficient reason to devote an article to it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a special guideline for slogans? WP:slogan is certainly not it. Still, I see significant coverage in multiple RS's independent of the subject--that would meet WP:GNG, the way I see it, even without mining Google for more sources. Jclemens (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Passing mentions of the slogan aren't sufficient to support the notability of the website. t=This article isn't about the slogan. References need to be about the website. It appears that only person who uses the slogan is David Duke, who is also the owner of the website. Perhaps this should just be merged into his bio. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree that merging into Duke's article would make sense. Enigma message 22:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can live with a merge, too. It does feel more like a chapter in his story than a separate article. Jclemens (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree that merging into Duke's article would make sense. Enigma message 22:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Passing mentions of the slogan aren't sufficient to support the notability of the website. t=This article isn't about the slogan. References need to be about the website. It appears that only person who uses the slogan is David Duke, who is also the owner of the website. Perhaps this should just be merged into his bio. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a special guideline for slogans? WP:slogan is certainly not it. Still, I see significant coverage in multiple RS's independent of the subject--that would meet WP:GNG, the way I see it, even without mining Google for more sources. Jclemens (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The threshold for including slogans hasn't been met either. Just because David Duke says it a lot isn't sufficient reason to devote an article to it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an organization (or at least, a rallying cry) with a website, not simply a website. Google "No war for israel" and "david duke" and you get [1] [2] [3] [4]. It's clear the Israeli press takes the phrase and association seriously. Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WEB requires that the website be "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". One article isn't enough. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because it violates WP:NPOV; WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and even, strangely, WP:CIVIL in its tone and stridency to advocate its own POV. IZAK (talk) 07:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NPOV is not a reason for deletion, but rather for cleanup, although I'm not seeing where it's POV. I'm unsure how WP:CIVIL or WP:NOT#SOAPBOX could be improved here--every epithet and label seems to be used in a completely neutral and descriptive way. If racists hate Israel, how can you report that without saying "racists hate Israel"? Jclemens (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The creating editor should also be taken to task for numerous grossly biased and politically extreme edits elsewhere. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Without disputing (or even examining) the claim, comment on the article, not the author, please. Without a dispassionate examination of the merits of controversial topics, Wikipedia is lessened. Jclemens (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. NN. --Shuki (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable from what I can see. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:18, 5 July 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.