Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3D Test of Antisemitism


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

3D Test of Antisemitism

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This article about a purported social phenomenon is almost entirely unsourced, except for one citation which does not refer to the subject of the article. It is very poorly written, possibly a translation of an original elsewhere. It does not establish the notability of the subject, and does not even show that the term exists outside the writings of the term's originator RolandR (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This could eventually be notable once there are sources to cite that aren't original research... Delete. 81M (talk) 12:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. It is one person's opinion of antisemistism and nothing else.  If the folks at Natan Sharansky and Antisemitism haven't seen fit to mention it, I don't see why it deserves its own article. Zerotalk 15:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Zero, your assertion that "If the folks at Natan Sharansky and Antisemitism haven't seen fit to mention it, I don't see why it deserves its own article" is utterly absurd and disingeniousness because as you well know, WP articles are not "born" 100% perfect, but rather they grow and improve as more information and facts are added in relation to or about that subject. Hundreds of thousands of articles have been written by later editors and contributors about related topics to subjects long after the creators of the original topics, who did not commit to writing as a first or last draft material connected to their original articles, as you well know. IZAK (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Since I am not like you, I will not state my opinion of your response. Zerotalk 09:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Still no reason has been provided for making this a separate article rather than an addendum to another. What other examples are there in Wikipedia where an opinion of one person gets such royal treatment? Zerotalk 09:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Numerous - According to the standared suggested - special theory of relativity, photoelectric effect and general theory of relativity should be merged with Albert Einstein. Just because an idea originates from one individual does not mean it cannot become notable on its own merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrenBochman (talk • contribs)
 * Wow, you really need to adjust your significance meter. Zerotalk 01:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep There are plenty of sources that discuss or use the test ,,, and many more.--Shrike (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. For the moment, I just want to note that a less restrictive search string yields potentially significant examples of others using and discussing this concept. For example <"3D Test" Antisemitism> yields Google, GNews, GBooks, & GScholar that appear to include a number of journals and other potentially reliable sources mixed in among the many non-reliable sources. I haven't had time to sort through these yet, but based on the first few pages, something about the concept may belong in the main article about Sharansky, if not in a separate article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added a few citations to the article--Shrike (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to the Natan Sharansky article because it's something important attributed to him that is quoted in WP:RS and fulfills WP:V. IZAK (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable and deserves its own article, as evident by multiple reliable sources listed above. It's in its initial state, and may be expanded as most WP articles do. Noon (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge content to Antisemitism, Redirect to Natan Sharansky. Both the term and the ideas are good but they fit better into a larger context then to stand alone. Joe407 (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Noon. ' Ankh '. Morpork  18:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge what is retrievable. Wikipedia has numerous articles on antisemitism, most of them poorly written. Rather than endlessly forking out more themes, it would be advisable to select the central ones, work intensely on them, with an eye to a uniform GA and eventually FA quality. Proliferation is not encyclopedic, and distracts from our primary obligation to write strong reliable and comprehensive articles on core subjects like this.Nishidani (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. With the sources that have been brought here, and the rest that are out there, I am not seeing a reason to delete or merge. Wikipedia should not be suppressing information on an interesting topic (this poignant test) that meets the requirements for having an article. Сол-раз (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Enough sources are provided to show that the topic is notable. Kitfoxxe (talk) 07:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The claims made by the Nom do not hold water. For example being poorly written is not agrounds for deltion, but for compy editing. The lack of creditable sources now appears more like a lack of WP:Before or worse. The problem of sourcing does not require deletion/merge as its remedy. It should be handled by tagging the disputed facts, and since the article does mostly deals with defining the 'test', this is again does not hold water. BO &#124; Talk 12:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable article and subject. Quality sources, such as those from Cambridge University Press are utilized. If an article is poorly written as the nom states, the correct course of action would be to improve the grammar or spelling and not to nominate the article for deletion. Sourcing issues, if any exist, can be addressed by requesting citations for disputed or questionable facts. The delete nomination is therefore without merit.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: The primary reason for the nominator's request was lack of adequate sourcing. My prior response to that was that if sources were lacking, citation tags could be added. However, it appears now that the article is robustly sourced with high quality, reliable and verifiable sources. I believed that the initial request for deletion was erroneous and continued retention of the deletion request by the nominator is somewhat disingenuous given the quantitative and qualitative improvement in sourcing.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment If you're using google, adding the space in Anti semitism will yield many more results. --Bachrach44 (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I'd been doing some research and waffling back and forth between keeping and doing a marge and redirect per IZAK till I came across this sentence in the Washington Post: ... the accepted definition of Jew-hatred (authored by Natan Sharansky and adopted by the State Department as U.S. policy). Being adopted as official US policy kinda cements it for me as a keep. I'll add that info to the articles lead in a few minutes. --Bachrach44 (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * also Also see Criticism_of_the_Israeli_government where it was used on the house floor. I'm also seeing lots of references in books. I'll admit that the version that was initially brought here left much to be desired, but with some work, linking, and better citations this should be a perfectly good article. --Bachrach44 (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The article seems to meet the minimum requirements for WP:NOTABILITY as it has at least two WP:RSs (Judaken and Marcus). According to Judaken, it is the most well-known test of its kind. I do not know whether this is a mainstream view or not, as I lack the required expertise. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2012 (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.