Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of panarabism


 * 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   delete and salt. One (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of panarabism

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is essentially a remake of previous deleted material, see Articles for deletion/Anti Jewish Arabism, created by banned sockpuppeter. User:DGG found this article sufficiently different from the original to be speedy deleted, but it has the same massive WP:SOAP issues as the old one, and various other similar fork articles that keeps on popping up at wikipedia, see Racism within Arabism, User:Pan_arabism, Intolerance in arabism, etc. Soman (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC) 
 * Delete, per WP:SOAP.DonaldDuck (talk) 15:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete and salt, and ban the sockpuppets that keep popping up to re-post diatribes like this. This article qualifies for speedy deletion under Criteria for speedy deletion. =Axlq 20:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment In asking that it be sent here I did not necessarily mean I thought it should be kept; just that it might be well to have a new discussion, as I did find that some of the more problematic portions had been removed. DGG (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: Why can this not link to a Critisism section in Pan-Arabism? Answer: Because it should redirect to panarabism, yet another incarnation of the same noncontent. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge useful information into Panarabism, viz. Panarabism. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ? Merge what and where? --Soman (talk) 15:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  Aitias   // discussion 00:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:SOAP, looks like an essay. If any information can be salvaged, however, go for it. Bsimmons 666  (talk) Friend? 17:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Good, very valid info.Olivasin (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please disregard. Obvious SPA sock. This was the editor's first edit. Toddst1 (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. though one might edit some of the details, by in large it's all positive Diletodo (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that has only six edits, and was started 30 minutes before editing this afd.  Has also voted in another Middle East-related AfD, Articles for deletion/New holocaust.  It seems there are sockpuppetering going on here. --Soman (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would you accuse me of such things? you can check my IP, thanks you and have a happy new year.Diletodo (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Panarabism is a notable subject. Criticism of panarabism too. The article is well sourced. It does not matter who created it and why. No valid justifications for deletion was provided here.Biophys (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:SOAP is justification enough, no matter how it's sourced. =Axlq 04:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you explain please why this article qualifies as WP:SOAP? Biophys (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See Shawn's comment immediately below. =Axlq 07:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'd call it WP:ATP, WP:COAT and WP:ESSAY, too. The article makes no pretense whatsoever of being NPOV. The author(s) summon an impressive knowledge of events, large and small, from around the world to paint a sweeping portrait of Arab violence and racism. I suspect one could do this for just about any race or group -- sew together a compendium of awful words and deeds and call that encyclopedic. But is that what we do here? That said, many of these references could well find their way into pertinent articles. But it's just an attack page, in my view. Shawn in Montreal (talk)
 * Reply. Flatly telling: "this is an attack page" is only another way to tell: "I do not like it". Sure, this article is POVish. But how can we distinguish a legitimate criticism/debate from am "attack"? Many articles in WP look biased, for example Lynching in the United States. Certainly, it paints Americans in a very bad light. Should we delete it? No. Same thing is here.Biophys (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your argument above is more an argument to delete, not keep. Calling it an attack page isn't the same as saying "I don't like it," it's a recognition of what it is. Lynching in the United States isn't a valid comparison because that article doesn't cherry-pick its references to promote a one-sided point of view. That's why it shouldn't be deleted. It isn't the same thing here; in fact, cherry picking facts to collect in an article separate from Pan-Arabism constitutes a policy violation known as a POV fork. That simple fact should be obvious to everyone. We already have an article on Pan-Arabism. whatever can be salvaged from this article should be merged there. =Axlq 15:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's at all the same as the Lynching in the US story. A better parallel would be an article that skims the globe, combining major and minor events -- lynching, apartheid, the KKK, the Holocaust, etc., along with local news items on violence from white youths/skinheads -- into an anti-white polemic entitled "Criticism of white people", or something. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Biophys, who is an experienced wikipedian, should know better than to defend the rantings of a banning sock/meatpuppeteer. This is not a pov issue, but a seemingly random collection of quotes and links, all with the purpose of portraying arabs as generally bad people. Does Biophys consider that the passage "In 2006 Arab "Youths" Kick Man to Death on Crowded Bus in Antwerp Belgium" constitutes an encyclopedic presentation of criticism of Pan-Arab nationalism? --Soman (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As you point out, the article is a largely word for word recreation of a previous version from a banned sock. Why could this not have been speedied? I think DGG erred in declining it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree DGG erred in declining the speedy. It should be deleted on grounds, as I suggest above. =Axlq 19:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that article is biased, just as a lot of other articles here. But this is not a valid reason for deletion. Fix it.Biophys (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, this is not a cleanup issue. This is not just biased, the entire article is created with the sole purpose of projecting Arabs as bad people. The methodology of gathering material solely stems from that intention, and there is no structure that can be reformed into a legitimate article. The article presents criticism against Arabs in general (sometimes remotely touching on the issue of pan-Arab nationalism), and isn't an encyclopediatic article discussing existing scholarily criticism of pan-Arab nationalisms. --Soman (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What you are talking about is called Anti-Arabism. We have an entire Category:Anti-Arabism. However, Panarabism is something different. This is a political movement and an ideology. Sure, one can criticize it, just as anything else. We have Criticism of Zionism, for example.Biophys (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as soapy fork.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:11, 4 January 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.