Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evacuation (Israeli politics)


 * 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 no consensus. Krimpet (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Evacuation (Israeli politics)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Nominating for deletion as attempts to turn it into a redirect have been repeatedly reverted. This is a heavily POV stub (self-hating Jews as a See also?), which even if fixed to NPOV status would still be largely pointless as it is already covered by Israel's unilateral disengagement plan, Yamit, etc. Number   5  7  13:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - are you kidding? This is a huge political issue in Israel, with a wide range of views and opinions. It certainly needs expanding and improvement, but this is patently not a POV fork and certainly notable. --Leifern 13:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But this article is about defining the term not explaining the action or theory - that is covered by Land for peace. Number   5  7  13:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The article refers to the policy of forcibly (if necessary) evacuating Jews from certain areas. I don't know what you mean by "action or theory," but it is entirely possible to have one without the other. People can be forcibly evacuated for other reasons than "land for peace," and "land for peace" can happen without forcible evacuation. --Leifern 18:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand. Land for peace is an Israeli-Palestinian topic whereas Evacuation has an Israeli-Israeli scope. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 13:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is a singular phenomenon in world history let alone Jewish history. The article does need to be expanded though. Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost 15:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Leifern and others; sourcing and expansion needed, but the basis for a full article is there.  6SJ7 15:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, obvious POV fork.-- Nydas (Talk) 19:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Nydas. --GHcool 20:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Nydas. --Regan123 20:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: why an article summarizing and systematizing Israel's internal issues related to Israel's unilateral disengagement plan, realignment plan, Land for Peace, Population transfer, Yamit, etc. is automatically called POVFORK? Are we getting rid of all articles dedicated to internal politics throughout WP, or only those related to Israel/Jews, or only those that some editors are uncomfortable with? ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As someone who cares about this issue, I don't think this article presents it neutrally. NPOV is a cardinal principle in Wikipedia, and the only way to adhere to it is to scrap the article and find a redirect target. Placeholder account 23:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * POV is not a valid reason for deletion. Besides, we are talking about a short stub. A full article is yet to be written. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep a POV-pushing article, but it just needs editing. No reason why useful article cant be written, as it's a notable subject and there are certainly enough sources of all POVs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
 * Delete; this is a blatant POV essay and there's nothing here worth keeping. If someone wants to write a neutral article at this title, the current contents won't help them at all. *** Crotalus ***  12:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as unsourced POV. Someguy1221 18:56, 11 May 2007 (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.