Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged United Nations bias in Israel-Palestine issues


 * 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. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Alleged United Nations bias in Israel-Palestine issues

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

This page was created by a newcomer from text cut & pasted from Israel, Palestine and the United Nations, without discussion. Emmanuelm (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment from the creator This article is not a fork. I created it by splitting a big article per Summary style, but the split in the original article was reverted, thus creating an illusion of fork. Yceren Loq (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Fixing malformatted nom; nominator hardcoded it into the log. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  --  Jujutacular  talk 04:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  —Shuki (talk) 06:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions.  —Shuki (talk) 06:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment BOLD FORKing. Undecided at this point. --Shuki (talk) 06:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete This article may make sense if turned into a sub article of the original article, and the original article changed to summary style. Marokwitz (talk) 07:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That was exactly the idea. A huge article was split in two. And I requested someone savvy to write a summary section in the parent article. Yceren Loq (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on your clarification I withdraw my !vote. I find it very strange, to say the least, that the nominator didn't mention the revert. The fact that you are a newcomer that made a bold edit is no reason for deletion. Marokwitz (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. A very much legit splitting of a clearly defined topic from a HUGE parent article per "summary style" mentioned above. Yceren Loq (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as a very bad and blatant POV fork attempt. Having this as a standalone article gives way too much weight to a fringe criticism, work the subject matter back into the parent article and condense as necessary. Tarc (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you see fringe criticsm, just delete it. But there are quite a few separate "Criticism" articles in wikipedia. Yceren Loq (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I believe that the article creator acted in good faith by boldly splitting an oversize article per Wikipedia guidelines. While editor consensus should ultimately determine whether or not the split is warranted, I don't believe it should be deleted at this time. I would also humbly suggest that the nominating editor assume good faith, particularly on heated topics relating to Israel/Palestine. Uncle Dick (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per Uncle Dick. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Uncle Dick. JuJubird (talk) 03:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Good faith is not the issue here. Reading its title, this article doesn't bring anything more than a potential pov-fork. Noisetier (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I find the article helpful and to the point, on a stand alone basis, and as such will encourage other users to expand the contents. Davshul (talk) 10:09, 10 November 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.