Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azzam Pasha quotation


 * 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.  Sandstein  09:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Azzam Pasha quotation

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete. This quote is not notable for a separate and unnecessary article.  brew crewer  (yada, yada) 16:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Multiple WP:RS:s discuss this very subject. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Abundant reliable sources referring to this subject (and one of the most useful little articles I've come across on Wikipedia). --NSH001 (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The references in the article very clearly show notability. Dingo1729 (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Searching for "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre" Pasha in Google books indicates that it is very notable.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Any outsider looking at the voting at this afd please note that all the above !voters are heavy partisans [involved] in the A-I conflict and their !vote is predictable .-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 18:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * um...I'm not a heavy partisan in the A-I conflict. I find that rather insulting but nevermind. It's still an obvious keep based simply on evidence...which is how everyone is obliged to make decisions.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Likewise. Check my contributions if you don't believe me. Dingo1729 (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @brewcrewer: WP:KETTLE. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Malik...—Biosketch (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Satisfies WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep - what an interesting, effective and well-written article. I'll use it as a model of clarity. The citations are both plentiful and robust. Contrary to nom, the article is exceptionally obviously notable, and the quote absolutely requires its own article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Chock full of reliable sources. Just because you can't google it in 20 seconds, doesn't mean it's isn't a realiable source. -- Ritchie333  (talk)  19:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Read this article a few weeks ago and it's quite interesting. The controversy and debate surrounding the quote and the numerous reliable sources used are sufficient evidence that this article is notable. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge with article on Azzam Pasha. This is an interesting issue and this article contains very useful information, but it probably doesn't need to be a stand-alone article. It actually would be more useful to note the controversy in detail on Pasha's page.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty of merging most of the information, with a few modifications, to the article on Azzam Pasha. That article is only about 25 KB long so we really don't need this article here. We should make it a redirect to the section I just created for the quote on Pasha's article.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, and disagree with Devil's proposal (though Devil has done a good job). In the English polemic history of the Arab-Israeli conflict (though interestingly not in the Hebrew polemic history), this "quotation" must be the single most well known sentence, and is the only thing most people "know" about Azzam Pasha. Its appearance in several hundred books and many academic papers doesn't sit well with a claim of non-notability. Zerotalk 10:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt the notability would justify having its own article. However, if a subject can be covered comprehensively in one single article it is better to do so. Unless the material about the quotation becomes too big for the article, or the rest of the article on Azzam Pasha becomes too big, I see no reason for having a separate article on something Azzam Pasha said.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to disagree that Devil's Advocate did a good job in his edits to Azzam Pasha. Highlighting the distorted quotation and deleting the actual, and much more complicated quotation is seriously unfair to Azzam Pasha. Dingo1729 (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You could have taken bold action like I did to improve the section, the only reason I hadn't made more changes was because I simply wanted to have the material merged over to try and resolve the dispute to the satisfaction of both parties.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately my bold action would have been simply to revert all your edits because I believe that there really should be two articles. Merging this information into Azzam Pasha isn't completely unreasonable, but to do it justice I think we would need to add the full actual quote and much of the other information here too. Doing so would unbalance that article. How about waiting to see whether your suggestion for merger gains traction and then after this AfD is closed we can either expand the section in the other article if people want a merge or reduce it if they want two separate articles? Sorry if my previous comment sounded a bit snarky. Dingo1729 (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I support the merge to Azzam Pasha. Clearly the most reasonable thing to do under the circumstances. Like we would do for any notable person who said something memorable. Insisting on an entire separate article would be........what's the word I am looking for.........oh, right "Partisanship."-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 01:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Brewercrewer, your accusations against me are tedious and false. Dingo1729 (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that is not necessarily so, e.g. Ich bin ein Berliner (and others). Also, the sources in the article are about the quote, not about the person so it's not unreasonable for an article to exist framed to match the way sources treat the subject.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 19:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the quotation is brief enough to present in full, but maybe that would be excessive for Azzam Pasha. Therefore I think a separate article is appropriate. Zerotalk 13:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is something I considered, but my thought was that if someone familiar with Arabic could provide a complete translation of the interview maybe it could be uploaded to Wikisource. It would be public domain would it not?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Our policy requires that the actual quote should be moved to Wikisource, regardless of whether this is deleted or merged.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Which policy is that ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 19:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For one it should be removed a copyvio.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 00:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep (as separate article). Agree with Zero. A very well written article, and nice to see how good work on wikipedia can find its way full circle into an WP:RS. On the discussion above, this quote is very well known and therefore worthy of a separate article. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't get the insistence on having a separate article anymore. We can easily link notable mentions of the quote in other articles directly to the section in the Azzam Pasha article dealing with the quote. Right now there is no compelling reason to have a separate article for it.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * DEfinite keep -- It might be merged, but we certainly need it in WP, expecially after some one has verified its source and shown how it has been misquoted. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment (still a Keep Separate) I've looked again at the article, and at the Azzam Pasha page which The Devil's Advocate has updated. I still feel that the article is worth keeping, and the amount of attention that can be given it on its own page is more than justified: to avoid WP:UNDUE we can't have all of it in a merged article, and frankly it's so compelling on its own that it should stay as it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment only on copyright issue. I've nominated the image File:AzzamInterview.jpg for deletion at Commons solely because it is still under copyright in the U.S. and so cannot be hosted there. Because the interview was published in 1947, it misses the 1946 cut-off date. If the article is retained, I believe that the extensive quotation section under translation will need to be diminished in keeping with WP:NFC and WP:C. I've explained my concerns at the talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the quotation is the focus of the article and not just a quotation in support, this is a clear example of fair use "for the purpose of comment or criticism". Zerotalk 13:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about the single sentence. I'm not talking about the over 300 words in this section. This is substantial; see the talk page of the article for more. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: Moonriddengirl arrived here due to canvassing by at the request of Brewcrewer here. --Frederico1234 (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You'll note that I haven't expressed any opinion on the retention of the article. My sole concern here is as an administrator who works copyright problems. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You'll also note that COPYVIO is more serious then the silly pov-pushing by creating entire articles over a quote. MRG is not considered non-neutral on A-I matters, as far as I know, so I don't know how your canvassing attack is in any way relevant except for its ad hominem.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The canvassing accusation was not valid. My apology. --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This quotation is very notable, and has been the focus of commentary and analysis for a long time. Add to that the story of its origins and it clearly deserves its own article. I could see making this a subarticle of Azzam Pasha, but there are too many (important) details about this quote for it to be fully contained within the main Azzam Pasha article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsolinsky (talk • contribs) 13:56, 11 January 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.