Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-globalization and antisemitism (5th nomination)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 17:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Anti-globalization and antisemitism
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Violates practically every Wikipedia rule in the book, particularly (but not limited to) WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV, WP:OR. This article has been nominated for deletion several times in the past, and each time, the deletion has been defeated by a well-organized cabal of ideologues who are apparently alerted and rounded-up via IRC, etc. J.R. Hercules (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, per user:SlimVirgin's 22 February 2007 comment on the 2d nom. To the extent there are problems with the article, WP:SOFIXIT. I hesitate to add (since I don't know the position of your tongue relative to your cheek when you wrote of a "cabal" opposing deletion of the article) that you may also want to review The Truth: "If you're trying to bring The Truth somewhere, then clearly it doesn't already exist there. And if it doesn't exist, then there must logically be a cabal obstructing it. ... [A]nyone who opposes The Truth is unreasonable or part of a cabal, and both groups of people can safely be dismissed." - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: It Violates WP:NPOV. Waterjuice (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I don't like the article at all (too much prose), and the suggestion made a few nominations ago that this is one of the better articles on WP is silly. That it would violate WP:NPOV can only be if the article substantiates the tendentious claim made by those referred to in the article, and that it does not do, in my opinion. I see plenty of problems, and one of them (that there is no clarity very early on about what the anti-globalization consists of) does lean towards POV, but that could and should be edited. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a perfectly legitimate topic, it's been well documented by scholars and and this article easily meets WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. - Epson291 (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Before (in the second nom), I voted "weak keep," but this article has become stronger in the interim. I still see no serious POV problems (and if there are any, point them out please so that they can be fixed). As for WP:SOAP, this is not an opinion piece. It is to some extent an article about opinions, but it is about notable opinions. Some of the weasel words are gone now. It was okay before, as evidenced by the consensus in the 3rd nom, and so it's certainly okay now. Incidentally, I'm not part of any cabal. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 05:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Can you specify precisely which changes made to the article that cause you to now label the piece "stronger"? J.R. Hercules (talk) 05:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. First of all, the lede has become better (although there is definitely room for improvement); at the time of the last nom, it was highly weasel-worded. Now it cites some names. The organization at that time was strange as well; since then it has become more straightforward. Also, criticism of the various points of view has been added, and brought closer in the article text to those points of view. More sources have been added (right now I am noticing Larry Summers, Maude Barlow, and Walter Laqueur), which backs up the assertion that this is a widespread point of view and also damages my earlier concern that "I'm not sure this needs an article." --N Shar (talk · contribs) 05:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: The topic seems a bit WP:SOAP to me. It is evident that the article intends to push the idea that the two are connected, and while there may be credible sources arguing that the connection is valid, it seems that the discussion belongs in the anti-globalization article. Mrathel (talk) 06:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:SOAP and WP:SYN. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Massive WP:SYN violation.  While there are some sources that connect these two concepts, there is not a body of scholarship or other published work recognizing this as a single concept or distinct category, and certainly the phrase "anti-globalization related antisemitism" (as used in the info box) doesn't appear anywhere outside Wikipedia.  There might be some quotations here that belong on other articles such as new antisemitism, but it seems particularly bizarre to treat this as a separate category. csloat (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Query: The issue of WP:SYN was raised and specifically addressed in the third nomination. A user there rejoined: "It's definitely not a SYN violation as someone suggested. When I last checked, the sources specifically discussed anti-globalization and antisemitism" (SlimVirgin, 01:36, 11 March 2008). What has changed since then to make that response unsound? And could you give one or two specific examples of the article's supposed syns? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing "changed" that I am aware of; it's just that Slim's response was unsound then too. The point is that this is not a coherent concept in the published literature; the fact that a few articles in the popular press talk about two different things in the same article does not change that fact.  This is at best a sub-topic of antisemitism or perhaps new antisemitism; what makes "anti-global" antisemitism qualitatively different from other forms of anti-semitism?  I don't see accusations of antisemitism in the anti-globalization "movement" as inherently any more notable than accusations of antisemitism in the U.N., the Communist movement, or the GOP.  There are plenty of published articles discussing such things, but we don't have a new encyclopedia entry every time someone calls someone else who is part of a particular movement or organization a Jew-hater. csloat (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, clearly it wasn't unsound enough, because the consensus then was that the article didn't fail WP:SYN. If nothing significant has changed, this question has already been argued and decided. The critics lost. Unless you have more basis for WP:SYN than was present at the previous noms (and you've conceded that you don't, as I understand it), or some other issue that wasn't fully discussed and rejected in the previous noms, I don't understand why this nomination shouldn't come out any differently than its predecessors. Is there a good reason to depart from the existing consensus? It seems to me that the people who keep relisting this - one of whom is a self-confessed anarchist - may benefit from reviewing STICK, WP:IDL, and WP:SOFIXIT. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to point out that WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST isn't a reason for deletion. If there's a body of scholarship on antisemitism in the United Nations (and I'm sure there is), then maybe it's time to create an article on that as well. Articles like this one (already cited) certainly aren't just "talking about two different things in the same article." --N Shar (talk · contribs) 23:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No; I never "conceded" anything. If your argument is that consensus can never change, then you're wrong.  If your argument is, "some editor made a comment a year ago and that invalidates everything you say," that's just not convincing to me.  The way I see it, this article is a complete WP:SYN violation, for reasons that I explained pretty clearly.  The article Shar links really doesn't do anything to further establish notability of this as some kind of independent phenomenon.  You putting words in my mouth or making personal attacks on your fellow editors isn't helping to convince me otherwise.  Cheers, csloat (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I made no personal attack on you. You may not have meant to concede anything, but you responded to my question about what has changed since earlier nominations by saying you weren't aware of any. That's a concession that there is no more (or, in terms of the article standing alone, less) basis for the WP:SYN charge now than there was then. Whether that concession matters depends on the weight (if any) one accords to the failure of the WP:SYN charges to garner consensus during earlier nominations. If one thinks that the earlier consensus for keeping the article is irrelevant, as I take it you do, then one will think it's little concession to say that the article seemed WP:SYN then and remains the same. I would give a little more deference to the community than that, given that this is a repeat nomination premised on the same arguments about the same material - arguments that have failed to gain traction during three previous nominations.
 * Consensus can change, yes, but this article has been nominated for deletion five times (twice each by two users, and an outlier), and twice in the last twelve months. At a certain point, repeated nominations of an article by the same people starts to look less like a search for consensus than its manufacture. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you didnt attack me; you attacked those who created the AfD, and I still don't find those attacks helpful or convincing. Although it is fascinating that the same guy who warns people above against conspiracy theories about "cabals" is now offering his own conspiracy theory about a cabal of deletionists.  And please stop misinterpreting my words; that's not helpful either.  I explained the SYN violation, and if the previous AfD inaccurately ignored that violation, well, it's a good thing we can have this discussion again.  But simply citing previous deletion discussions from a year ago and claiming that nothing has changed is not convincing in the least. csloat (talk) 07:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, the links to previous deletion discussions were useful; I didnt participate in those discussions myself. The first two are actually one nomination; there have only been four total, not five as you claim.  The first one led to a clear majority supporting deletion, but the result was "no consensus to delete."  The next two deletion votes are also very close although keep is in the majority.  So there is a pretty clear lack of consensus in all the previous discussions -- which means the default was to keep the article, but for you to imply that these issues have been settled by an overwhelming consensus is incorrect.  It doesn't surprise me that the article was suggested for deletion once again, and the canvassing issues mentioned in the previous deletion discussions do suggest that a more thorough discussion would be helpful. csloat (talk) 07:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a "personal attack" or a "conspiracy theory" to point out that if this isn't precisely what WP:FORUMSHOP ("repeatedly asking for additional outside opinions until you get an opinion you like") and particularly Consensus ("Editors can easily create the appearance of a changing consensus by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people discusses the issue") describe, it looks a lot like it. Consensus went against the nomination last time, implicitly rejecting the WP:SYN theory as either wrong or insufficient basis for deletion, and either way works). Now the same critics are back for yet another go, and what has changed? Not the article, you've conceded. Not the standards of WP:SYN. The only variable that may be different is who shows up - precisely Wikipedia's definition of forum shopping. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "No consensus to delete" is not the same as "consensus to keep." Especially when there are repeated procedural irregularities in an AfD, which is what I believe is at stake here.  "Forum shopping" implies using different forums.  And once again I would really appreciate it if you stop misrepresenting my words - I have not "conceded" anything about changes in the article or about previous AfDs (and, in fact, I haven't participated in them or followed the article's previous incarnations closely enough to have an opinion about the matters you falsely accuse me of "conceding").  And, frankly, a difference in "who shows up" may be important, when there were canvassing violations that brought a particular group to the AfD a couple of times previously.  In any case, I think when you have this significant of a lack of consensus in either direction, the article will continue to be suggested for AfD until an actual consensus emerges one way or another.  When there is no consensus, Wikipedia default is to keep, which is what appears to have happened in previous AfDs (although the first AfD leaned more heavily towards delete). csloat (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) Forum shopping certainly involves multiple fora; your error is in assuming that forum is coterminous with venue. Two debates may be held on different nights in the same venue, and one of the speakers may even be the same, but whether they are the same forum depends on whether the same people show up. So it is here. Consensus plainly contemplates that forum shopping can occur in the same venue: editors may seek to "create the appearance of a changing consensus by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people discusses the issue." (2) I'm not misrepresenting your words in the slightest - like it or not, you conceded that the article hasn't changed since the last nomination, and it's no less a concession because you don't think it's of any relevance. Anyone who doubts that need only scroll up. At any rate, we're just spinning wheels at this stage, and I've made my point(s), so I will drop the stick and back away from the dead horse. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're being civil so I probably won't respond to anything further you have to say about this matter. Despite your false claim to the contrary, I have not conceded that the article hasn't changed.  I'm not sure why you keep lying about that - I actually haven't checked the article history but it is easy to tell whether or not it has changed without making up phony allegations about concessions made in an argument.  And if you're right that the article hasn't changed, that is even more reason that a new AfD was necessary, as most of the people who voted "keep" in the previous AfD said that all the problems requiring deletion could be fixed by editors of the article.  If those problems still haven't been fixed a year later (or two years after the one opinion you have cited here), they are possibly endemic to the article itself, suggesting that it is a good idea to relist the article. csloat (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep- The fact that there are reliable sources out there that address this topic means there's notability. If there's problems with it being NPOV, that can be dealt with by cleanup, deletion is not necessary. (And for the record, I don't belong to any cabals). Umbralcorax (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep a valid topic, and i agreewith those who think it's not all that bad an article. DGG (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep while the article more choppy than optimal, the topic is certainly encyclopedic and a good many of the chops have references - a rarity in AfDland. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - the topic seems to be notable and the article is well referenced Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * keep The primary argument for deletion is issues of synthesis. This isn't very persuasive since much of the article uses secondary sources talking about the claimed connection. If this used primary sources to show that anti-globalists were being anti-semitic there would be much more of an issue. As this stands I don't see a problem. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're misinterpreting the SYN violation. It's not that people are citing primary or secondary sources; it's that none of these sources, primary or secondary, discuss "anti-globalization and antisemitism" as an independent phenomenon of study. csloat (talk) 07:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? The Mark Strauss piece for example does so pretty explicitly. In the title in fact. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * keep - valid topic and might I add that a 'cabal of ideologues' is the best (read: worst) argument I've heard thus far for deleting encyclopedic content. There are off course some really bad articles out there (I'm not sure this one fits the bill) but certainly, issues can and should be addressed. Actually, the article is quite well written and relies on secondary sources so I don't see any synthesis.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  05:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC) strike 05:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable topic and has reliable sources. Anti-globalization could better defined within the article. It meets WP:NPOV and WP:NOR . Also, I am no cabal member.—Sandahl (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Possibly uncomfortable but verifiable. Those concerned about NPOV should aim to rewrite those sections deemed to be biased (after forming consensus). JFW | T@lk  17:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, but prefer Merge into New antisemitism. I'm not entirely convinced that those two articles are on different topics (surely anti-globalization-related-antisemitism is new antisemitism?), and while I don't think this article is a POV fork as such, I don't see the need for both. Terraxos (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Observation - AFDs are kept open for at least five days. Minutes away from five days after the nomination, it seems to me that there is overwhelming consensus to keep this article, measured against the standards of other recent decisions to keep, even if there is disagreement as to the precise form in which it should be kept. The latter question, however, is beyond the scope of AFD, so I propose that the nomination be closed, and its result be announced as keep, by consensus. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:04, 3 February 2009 (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.