Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essay:Israel vs genocide


 * 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 per WP:SNOW & CSD:G12 -- Versa  geek  23:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Essay:Israel vs genocide

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

Contested prod, endorsed twice. This is an essay which fails WP:NPOV, makes unsupported accusations againsed societies, and was copied from Conservapedia essay. With emboldened unsupported accusations such as "CLEAR GOAL OF GENOCIDE CAMPAIGN SINCE THE 1920s", this is unencyclopedic, opinionated and unworthy of Wikipedia. Strong Delete – Toon (talk)  19:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete quickly and without hesitation. §FreeRangeFrog 19:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox, see WP:SOAPBOX, about the most flagrant case I have seen yet. PatGallacher (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete- I see its up for speedy deletion. If that, for some reason is denied, I still want to make sure my vote's heard so this garbage can be snowballed out of here.Umbralcorax (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * as for my reasons, its unencyclopedic, a really big freakin' coatrack, and possibly verging on an attack page. I'm assuming conservapedia has a GFDL license or something similar, otherwise, it'd probably be a copyvio too. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete – More war propaganda. – RJH (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete bias one sided propaganda Dream Focus (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete G4 - this is not the first afd discussion on this article - see WP:Articles for deletion/Israel vs Genocide. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - definitely just an anti-jew screed Aurush kazeminitalk 20:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - propaganda, against not one, but some tens of wikipedia rules (I would grow tired invoking them, but let's start with WP:NOT, WP:NPOV and WP:RS). Dahn (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I checked on Conservapedia, and while I don't claim to grasp all the subtleties of the GFDL, they appear to allow the unattributed reuse of their material on other sites.  This page may be a malformed attempt to resubmit this screed as a Wikipedia essay, in which case it's not an article.  It probably would be deleted at WP:Miscellany for Deletion in any case, because it's not about Wikipedia, editing philosophies, or anything else.  It may not "belong", but might be tolerable, in someone's user space, for whatever reason they chose to upload it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete G4 per Beeswaxcandle, or regular delete per any number of policies starting with WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP (and quite likely, if a closer look was given, WP:OR and WP:SYN). - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete (G4, G10, G-everything)—the person putting up the speedy said it best, "flagrantly contrary to Wikipedia guidelines". Strongly consider sanctions against the article's creator. MuZemike 23:02, 5 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.