Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood Libel at Deir Yassin


 * 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   merge to Uri Milstein. No real arguments against merging presented, per WP:ATD Courcelles 00:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Blood Libel at Deir Yassin

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Reason: lack of notability Ravpapa (talk) 06:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

This article is about a self-published book by an historian associated with the Revisionist political movement in Israel. The Jabotinsky society, associated with the Likud party, granted the book a prize for representing its political viewpoint. The book was not reviewed by any major newspaper in Israel or abroad, though its publication was reported in two newspapers. It was never available in any of the major bookstores in Israel, and is unavailable today.

The author is an historian who achieved some renown for his iconoclastic views, particularly on the 1948 war of independence. However, this historian is largely eschewed by the academic community, and does not hold a post in any leading academic institution in Israel or abroad.

I am the principle author of the article in its present form. The article was created by a supporter of the Revisionist movement, in my opinion largely because the title of the book associates the words "blood libel" with the highly disputed military action in the Arab village of Deir Yassin in the 1948 war. Pro-Arab historians contend that the incident was a massacre, a claim hotly denied by Revisionists. Ironically, though, the blood libel in the title does not refer to the pro-Arab charges of massacre, but to the position of contemporary Israeli government spokesmen, who supported the pro-Arab view that the action was a massacre.

As with every discussion on Israel-Palestine matters, partisans will no doubt leap forward to defend the notability of this virtually unknown tome. To those eager debaters, I ask this: have you actually read the book? Have you actually seen the book in a bookstore or a library? Have you ever read a review or a scholarly reference to this book? If it weren't for this Wikipedia article, would you even be aware that this book existed? --Ravpapa (talk) 06:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I expect that at any moment we'll see users leaping forward to claim that any anti-Palestinian book is inherently notable and that we need to act as an advertising agency for these books in order to avoid systemic bias, but nonetheless, this book was not reviewed or even mentioned in reliable sources, nor cited in Google Scholar, nor won any real awards (the made-up "Order of Jabotinsky" notwithstanding; it's not the same thing as the Jabotinsky Medal), etc., meaning that it plainly fails WP:NBOOK. No debate to be had on this point. User who dePRODed this should be ashamed. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 07:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Giving a full article to what is clearly a partisan book smacks strongly of POV-pushing. There would need to be clear evidence of its notability. PatGallacher (talk) 10:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I have read this book, but probably that is not sufficient proof of its notability ;). It might possibly be citable as a source for Milstein's opinion in some other article, but it doesn't deserve an article of its own.  We don't aim to write articles about every polemic book. Zerotalk 13:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete A mention in the bio of the author is sufficient.  DGG ( talk ) 19:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge with Uri Milstein. Its pretty well sourced and can be incorporated into his article.--Metallurgist (talk) 01:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It should be described at Uri Milstein. However, we already have an article where notable argument on Deir Yassin can go, so the report at Uri Milstein should not be in the form of an extended presentation of Milstein's argument; just the basic gist of it is enough. Zerotalk 13:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 05:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  — —Tom Morris (talk) 09:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect to Uri Milstein, per above.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 19:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge. Seems appropriate here.  It is real, and can be mentioned there, but I'm not sure it requires an article.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am being bold: There appears to be consensus for at least merging this article, if not deleting it entirely. I have therefore added a brief synopsis of the book to Uri Milstein and am changing the article to a redirect. If someone objects strongly, they can always revert. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:32, 12 October 2011 (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.