Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism


 * 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 keep John254 05:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Most books do not merit separate articles devoted to them. An individual essay being more slight than a monograph, it would, a fortiori, be the rare essay that is sufficiently influential or widely commented-upon or in some other way exceptionally noteworthy to merit a separate article. This essay falls below that threshold, and moreover fails WP:N --Rrburke(talk) 19:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope it's acceptable to clarify my reasons for nominating this article, as many of the straw-poll responses suggest I haven't made those reasons clear. I should also probably declare that my Wikipedian orientation lies somewhere between deletionism and mergism


 * Some of the comments refer to the importance of the subject, but by subject these comments appear to mean the new antisemitism and not the essay entitled Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism. However, the subject of the article is the essay, not the new antisemitism: an essay on a given topic cannot borrow the notability of its subject-matter for purposes of determining whether the essay qua essay is notable and worthy of a separate article.  That the topic of an article is notable is irrelevant to whether the essay itself is notable.  Were that not the case, any first-year essay on A Midsummer Night's Dream might qualify to have a Wikipedia article devoted to it because A Midsummer Night's Dream is notable.


 * Moreover, some of the claims of notability seem to rest on a confusion between what is notable and what is newsworthy. I agree the essay is newsworthy; I disagree that it's notable, because notability refers, as the guideline states, to a quality that is relatively permanent.  This distinction divides what belongs in an encyclopedia from what belongs in a newspaper.  Confusing the two is an example of a defect some Wikipedians have dubbed recentism.  As a rejoinder to WP:NOT I offer WP:NOTNEWS.  For myself, a rough guide to whether an essay merits a separate article would be the answer to the question Is it an exceptional example of the genre that will continue to be read when the events or conditions it refers to are no longer current?  If the answer is yes, perhaps it deserves its own article; if the answer is no, it probably doesn't: for example, Burma is no longer a province of British-controlled India; however, people still read Orwell's Shooting an Elephant as an exceptional example of the essay genre.  Shooting an Elephant, then, merits an article.  If I apply that question to Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism, I'm almost certain the answer is no.


 * As the Recentism makes clear, "recentism" is not an argument for article deletion. In fact, if you read it, the essay makes a good case for keeping articles on newsworthy topics. &mdash;Ashley Y 20:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I was using the term in this sense: "The tendency by Wikipedians... to create new articles which inflate the importance and effect of an issue that has received recent media attention." --Rrburke(talk) 20:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Much of the commentary in support of keeping the article refer to the accomplished quality of its writing and its other excellent qualities compared with many Wikipedia articles. These qualities are not in doubt, but they're moot.  Citing them as a reason for keeping an article puts the cart before the horse: no well-written, well-conceived article merits retention if it treats a subject that falls below the threshold of notability, an issue which ought be treated as prior.


 * Finally, I want to point out again that this essay is not even cited in the article New Antisemitism, save in further reading. If it is indeed sufficiently notable to merit its own article, wouldn't one expect the essay to occupy a prominent place in the article devoted to the subject of the essay -- as, for example, an article on the Dreyfus Affair would have to include a section on Zola's J'accuse?  If it doesn't occupy any place in an article on the topic, how can it be considered notable?


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions.   IZAK 12:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep very significant discussion in the American Jewish community e.g. Suddenly, little-noticed essay is focus of debate on Israel criticism with crossover into many mainstream secular newspapers and magazines. --HistoryBuff1983 19:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:NOT. This day-old article looks more scholarly than many other articles a few years-old. It talks about a recent publication whose notability can be seen from the refs. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, well written and referenced, which is better than most wiki articles, about a notable subject Alf Photoman  01:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The book is notable, but in my opinion the article is an over-detailed summary of the 22 page long book. As it stands, it does appear questionable, and the nomination was very reasonable. I hope it will be edited by the end of the AfD. Shorter quotes would make the points just as well--or better. DGG 01:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep following the precedent set by The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy &mdash;Ashley Y 04:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notwithstanding any disputes concerning content, this is clearly an article worth keeping.  CJCurrie 05:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep because it meets WP:FACT and it's an important document. IZAK 12:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * KEEP: It is a historical document. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Urthogie (talk • contribs) 03:32, 3 March 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.