Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Letter of British Jews on 60th anniversary of Israel


 * 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. If further coverage occurs, WP:DRV may be a valid option. &mdash; Scientizzle 15:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Letter of British Jews on 60th anniversary of Israel

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:OR, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, and WP:COPYVIO. Non notable letter/one time advertisement in one British newspaper. No different from any other open letter in the paper all the time, for all sorts of political views, it should not have an article. Notability is not attested. The article claims "the letter stirred much controversy in Israel and in Jewish communities worldwide" but the source for that is just an article discussing what the letter is about (WP:OR). There are almost no sources on Google News other then from the actual newspaper (The Guardian).

Wikipedia is not a news site or a place for soapboxing one's political views. The article goes on to show the entire letter (WP:COPYVIO), and then link to several unrelated anti-Israeli articles at the bottom.Epson291 (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as nominater, per above, and fails notability, it is a insignificant editorial/ad - Epson291 (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It received significant press outside of just the placement of the letter itself, as a google news search can demonstrate. The government of Israel made an official response to it. The entire news cycle with respect to the issue may not have even completely played out yet. The WP:COPYVIO issues are easily resolved short of deleting. There's definitely enough here for at least a stub article. Let's look at it in another 6 months or a year and we'll have a better perspective on whether it is worth keeping or not. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It did not recieve significant press coverage which a Google News search can demonstrate. Notability is not temporary (WP:NTEMP), "articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future" Epson291 (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Week Keep: Due to press coverage. Copyvio issue needs rewriting.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 11:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article seems an effort to use Wikipedia to promote a very minor news item to soapbox political views. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to add (to my short comment above) that out of the "more than 100 prominent Jews" who signed this letter, twelve are have Wikipedia articles (and if I had the time I would nominate some of them for deletion because their notability seems doubtful), and of those not as single one has qualifications to be used as a source on the subject of this letter in a WP article. Not only that, it is claimed that these signers are all Jews, a statement that is unsubstantiated, and probably could not possibly be substantiated, and even if it could be substantiated seems devoid of meaning because there is no reason to think any of the signers would be more inclined to celebrate the 60th anniversary of Israel, just because they might be Jews, than any other English citizen (if indeed they all are British citizens). The whole article amounts as nothing more than blatant political advertising for a document that has no notability. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:COPYVIO and WP:NOTABILITY Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's notable because 1) the event discussed - the 60th anniversary - was all over the press and was widely reported, and 2) the letter is surprising and newsworthy in that it runs contrary to the official Israeli line that the State of Israel somehow represents all Jews worldwide, and that all Jews are proud (or should be proud) of what it's doing today and what it did in the past, and 3) it's signed by more than 100 prominent, well-known Jews who have achieved significant accompolishments and are public personalities, and 4) Israel's most widely read newspaper online - YNET - published a whole article about it, and interviewed one of the initiators of the petition, and 5) the Israeli government itself thought it significant to justify issuing an official government response, and 6) in general it represents a trend of Jewish voices today expressing independent, criticial views on the subject of Zionism (virtually unheard of in the past). Accordingly, the links at the end of the article are related (they certainly have merit as Further Reading on the subject). No copyright problem of quoting the petition because it's a fair use of an open letter intended by the drafters to be shown and quoted all over the web. It's balanced and neutral because the WP article does not endorse, reject, or opine in any manner of form on the ideas quoted in the letter. Finally, there are many open letters and demonstrations, representing minority views, that have articles on WP. See, e.g., A Common Word Between Us and You, The Blood of the Hungarians, J'accuse(letter), Open Letter to Hobbyists, March 17, 2007 anti-war protest, and more. Why is this article singled out for deletion? SelfEvidentTruths (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment to SelfEvidentTruths Because it fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:OR, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, and WP:COPYVIO, therefore it goes against wikipedias policies. Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment to SelfEvidentTruths Those points do not make it notable
 * 1) Yes, the 60th anniversary of Israel, was all over the press and widely reported. This editorial was not.  Notability is not transferable.
 * 2) Saying the letter is 'surprising' is WP:OR.  There needs to be WP:RS saying this, which I doubt exists.
 * 3) The fact that it was signed by "more than 100 prominent English Jews", 88 of them which don't have articles, why should these English Jews be more inclined to celebrate an Israeli holiday any more then any other English citizen.
 * 4) Yes, YNET wrote one article on the editorial. That does not satisfy notability.
 * 5) Yes, that YNET article has a quote from Israel's Ambassador to England on the editorial.
 * 6) WP:OR, Do you have any WP:RS saying this is part of a general trend of "Jewish voices today expressing independent, criticial views on the subject of Zionism (virtually unheard of in the past).", Again I doubt it.  You cannot just form your own conclusions. Epson291 (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(UTC)
 * 'Weak Delete Notability is too marginal to justify its inclusion here. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, I am not confident of this event's notability without more comprehensive sourcing. --Dhartung | Talk 21:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOTABILITY. Time will tell if this letter will be as important as J'accuse (letter) or A Common Word Between Us and You.  But at this point in time this Letter is not important and does not deserve its own article on Wikipedia.  Jason Schwartz (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2008
 * Comments to Jason Schwartz and Epson291 ***Comments to Epson291 What is your definition for notability? Apparently, reporting in two main newspapers with millions of readers, both in Israel (YNET) and worldwide (Guardian), is not notable for you. Do you see the absurdity of your reasoning? Editors in respected journalistic entities whose very job is to decide what is notable and what is not have decided this was notable enought to publish in respectable venues. But for you, with (probably) minimal experience in journalism - it's not "notable enough"??? Are you pretending not to understand why Jews have a special relationship to Israel? And why Jews who are dissenting from the official view that Israel "represents" the Jewish people and is the homeland for Jews all over the world are representing an opinion that is worth reporting about? You must be living on some other planet...Truth be told, it seems that you would like to censor this article precisely because of POV reasons (namely, nobody is allowed to hear about the internal debate Jews have about Zionism and the State of Israel, the Nakba, etc.) And I ask: Why is it that some editors on WP cannot stand to read about events or ideas concerning Israel which they find personally offensive, and cannot respect the fact there is an intense debate out there? Why concoct ridiculous reasons, using WP policies as excuses, to suppress truthful reporting? What was notable enough for  millions of British readers of the Guardian and millions of Israeli readers of YNET and for the Israeli Embassy itself is not notable - in your own personal opinion - for WP readers? Who are you to be the gatekeepers? Why this intimidation and suppression? You are clearly motivated by ulterior motives. The same way I support reporting about this, I support inclusion of articles about celebrations of the 60th anniversary or organized statements of support by world Jewry! As long as it's true that the statement was published and it ties in to an important issue, I do NOT think it's right to suppress the reporting of such an event. Unless, of course,  I had a political agenda to hide from the general public that such an event concerning Israel has occurred. And this is precisely what supporters of deletion have - a political agenda. Do not turn WP into a front for your political opinions. To be objective and trustworthy, WP must report about the ''marketplace of ideas" and this is a significant idea, expressed by well-known people, concerning a well-known event, tying in to a larger, intense debate about one of the major conflicts of our time. It certainly seems to have at least the same, if not more, importance and significance than March 17, 2007 anti-war protest.SelfEvidentTruths (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments to SelfEvidentTruths If you think we are censoring you, then maybe you should write your OWN webpage. This is wikipedia it is an enclopidia, for inclusion in wikipedia articles need to be notable for more people then just you. I have been following this article since it has been created and every attempt to improve your article was reverted and every critisim was followed by an angry rant at the critic.  Please have a cool head and stop attacking people.  Jason Schwartz (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment to SelfEvidentTruth You must be able demonstrate notability though, that it is an encyclopedic event, which has not been done, that is Wikipedia policy. Just because it was in The Guardian does not necessarily mean there should be a Wikipedia article on it. Epson291 (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence of actual lasting notability. The list of signatories shows the true nature of the article. Merge somewhere perhaps, without the list. DGG (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral on deletion but if kept, move to We're Not Celebrating Israel's Anniversary, the title under which the letter was published. Epson has already responded to SelfEvidentTruths' points but I have an additional comment on point 2. The idea that "the letter is surprising and newsworthy in that it runs contrary to the official Israeli line that the State of Israel somehow represents all Jews worldwide, and that all Jews are proud (or should be proud) of what it's doing today and what it did in the past" makes it seem that Jews who are critical of Israel are normally unheard of and thus the open letter is something nobody would have expected. This is hard to believe given that Category:Jewish anti-occupation groups has 22 entries (including this article). As to point 3, "it's signed by more than 100 prominent, well-known Jews who have achieved significant accompolishments and are public personalities" is belied by the fact that so many of the signatories are not actually that prominent or well-known. In fact, for some of them, a large number of their Google hits seem to come from their association with this letter. Finally, the article may purport to be "balanced and neutral" but the article seems to give undue weight to the letter by quoting from it, then reprinting the entire letter, then reprinting the entire list of signatories. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Minor blip in the grand scheme of things. Do we actually need an article on every skirmish about Israel in the public domain? This belongs on WikiNews, if at all. JFW | T@lk  06:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Please. This is a letter to the editor that got a little notice elsewhere. It'll be forgotten in a month if it hasn't been already (except on this page). It apparently only attracted notice in an online newspaper, and Wikipedia is not news.
 * "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article."
 * Does anyone honestly believe that this will have a notable impact on history, comparable to J'accuse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven J. Anderson (talk • contribs)


 * Delete, it could deserve space on 60th Anniversary of Israel or some article like that--which very well could be notable with hundreds of articles about the 60th anniversary.... but we don't even have an article about that in general. gren グレン 08:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Widely reported event (In the Jerusalem Post and ידיעות אחרונות among others. The full text can be moved to another wiki media project.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by גרב (talk • contribs) 09:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment this user's first edit was on May 25 and has since only made a couple unrelated edits and participated in two deletion discussions regarding Israel. Just to note, "ידיעות אחרונות", which he/she mentions, is the exact same thing as the YNET article menionted above. Epson291 (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Doesn't warrant its own article. A mention in Yom Ha'atzmaut will be sufficient. -- Nudve (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - copyvio removed, but nonetheless, WP:RECENTISM and NN letter to the editor by self-righteous ignorants not a representative cross-section or a significant/notable organization. May they one day realize the error of their ways. Don't even think worth a mention anywhere else. The 60th anniversary is also not notable event, no where as significant as the 50th anniversary (anyone remember it?). Just as notable as George W Bush speech to the knesset. --Shuki (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - at least two users, Al Ameer son, and SJP, were asked to vote keep here as well as gather up other users to vote keep in clear violation of WP:CANVAS by SelfEvidentTruths here and here. Now neither of those users have voted here yet, but nonetheless, I would not be surprised if others were canvassed as well. Epson291 (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In another message, canvasing a third used, SelfEvidentTruths has clearly gone outside the bounds of civility (WP:CIVIL) by writing "...Letter of British Jews on 60th anniversary of Israel has caught the ire of some WPians who want to delete it and control what people are allowed to read...", implying that all the problem is with biased opposing editors, and that none of the problem is with the article. SelfEvidentTruths' claim also reinforces my contention that the article is, by intention, blatant (political) advertising, which is in itself grounds for deletion . Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. This should be part of a series on "Dissenting Jewish Voices." There are several such viewpoints which are generally ignored by English-speaking corporate mainstream media which are every bit as authentic and legitimate as the censored version of history which Americans are normally fed. Neturei Karta should be linked, for example,  as well as Anna Baltzer. Wowest (talk) 06:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 07:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. Culturalrevival (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2008 (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.