Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racism and Zionism


 * 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. Tan     39  02:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Racism and Zionism
It's taken a while for me to reach this conclusion, but I now believe that the article on Racism and Zionism serves no useful purpose and should be removed from Wikipedia. Much of the article's content is encyclopedic, but the page itself is little more than a hodge-podge of definitions, quote-farming and tangentially-related sub-topics. Much like Allegations of apartheid, this article seems fated to remain a WP:SYNTH violation even if the actual content is significantly improved.

We already have articles on United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 and United Nations General Assembly Resolution 46/86. Any other encyclopedic information that currently exists on this page can surely be moved elsewhere.

This article was nominated for deletion once before, but I believe the circumstances were somewhat different at the time (for one thing, the article had a different title). In any event, I'm not convinced that the decision made by the closing admin was an accurate reflection of the discussion. CJCurrie (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC) -
 * Keep - Speedy at that, this is a very common political science, sociology and psychology topic that a university student may investigate and expect to find in any comprehensive encyclopedia such as ours. It is a notable topic that is verified with reliable sources, it may need some work, but that may be said of every Wikipedia article and this one is in the middle when it comes to its level of being well written or not.MY♥IN chile 22:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - While this article needs a lot of reference work, as Myheartinchile has said, every Wikipedia needs a degree of work to it. Also, I see no reason why this should be deleted beyond that - CL — 00:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - This article is nothing if not [more] demonisation of the Jewish state. It, like similar pages ie Israel and the apartheid analogy -- Allegations of apartheid -- Anti-Zionism as simply a WP:POV_FORK, ie "...another article on the same subject...created to be developed according to a particular point of view."  It is un-encyclopedic, WP:NOT, does not reflect the WP "spirit of mutual respect."  Content is clearly WP:OR "arguments, speculation, and ideas; and ... unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position."  Any one of the above ought to be sufficient but one could also add: Overcategorization "... not every..... intersection of two or more such facts.... in an article requires an associated category."  Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep a good general article. The other articles mentioned are focused on very specific aspects. Like all articles on such subjects, it needs more careful editing. We could solve many problems of POV by deleting all the articles about ethnic conflicts and pretending they didnt exist in the real wold, but w would be much use as an encyclopedia. 01:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)DGG (talk)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions.   — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.   — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete A good encyclopedia article could be written on the subject, but this certainly isn't it. This is an essay. I think the current article is so hopelessly bad that it should be deleted. Maybe other editors, with appropriate WP:RS, can create a good article without relying on WP:SYNTH. Until then, it should be deleted. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Subject matter is clearly notable, as evidenced by the many sources cited. That the article needs work is not a reason to delete. DickClarkMises (talk) 02:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This isnt' an article. It's a group of unrelated sections and therefore merely a big pile of WP:SYNTH and an embarassment to Wikipedia. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  08:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Malik Shabazz. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 08:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep That an article is not well written is not a reason to delete it but to improve it, something which some editors seem to have overlooked. The article could most definitely be improved, and should be done so in a NPOV way, but we cannot disregard the fact that the topic is both verifiable and notable, as it is regularly used both in debates and in news coverage. Please note that this is not a comment on whether it is correct to make the connection, it is a comment on the notability of the issue. JdeJ (talk) 11:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The fact that the article may or may not demonise Israel is not material to whether the article should be deleted; clearly an article of this title could be written either way or neutrally: if it demonises Israel, it could be edited to make it neutral. However, there are several good reasons to delete the article: First, the presumption of Wikipedia is against "and" topics. There are potentially endless "and" articles on topics like these. Second, the topic of the article is extremely vague, and potentially huge. There are currently three main topics the article addresses: 1) The racist attitudes or otherwise of the early Zionists. (This would be better covered in History of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, Old Yishuv, First Aliyah, etc.) 2) Whether or not Zionism - the idea of a Jewish state - is necessarily racist. (This is already addressed at [|Zionism] and Anti-Zionism, as well as Right of Return.) 3) The question of whether Israel discriminates. First, discrimination and racism are different, so this shouldn't be even addressed here. Rather, this could be dealt with adequately at the Israel article, as well as articles like Human rights in Israel, Arab citizens of Israel, Politics of Israel, Israeli-occupied territories, Political status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Demographics of Israel, Israeli law. It is significant that the last time the AFD was made, there was not really strong consensus: I think 8 keep, 6 delete, 5 merge/redirect. Most of the keepers, and other comments, said the article needed massive overhaul, but it hasn't got it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Per DGG's argument. Notable topic it just needs to be fleshed out for POV concerns. --Ave Caesar (talk) 12:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I just looked at what links to the page. As far as I can tell, only redirect pages link here. Another reason to delete!BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This article's subject matter does not completely fit within that of any other article, even the one on the UN resolution which maintained for 16 years or so that "Zionism is racism" until repealed in 1991. Discussion of the topic has continued since 1991. It is not identical to the question of whether a system like apartheid exists in Israel or the occupied lands. As seen in the U.S., racism is in no way synonymous with apartheid. It has references to substantial coverage of the topic in numerous reliable sources, satisfying WP:N. Many Wikipedia articles have need of editing to improve the writing quality, but that is not a good ground for deletion. Edison (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete the article's title is prima facie evidence that it's a POV fork of the article Zionism Sceptre (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, but needs work and a good dose of neutrality. AfD is for deletion, not cleanup.--Dmol (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per BobFromBrockley and Number57. Article is sourced essay. --Shuki (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete per Tundrabuggy --Avi15 (talk) 07:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as the article is in fact an essay, not an article about a specified subject. Novidmarana (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, but needs major work. BillyTFried (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a truly awful piece of work. Not even close. IronDuke  23:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Of no academic value whatsoever. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, The topic is clearly one that has generated enough notablility, however this article needs to have its NPoV squareed away Advocate (talk) 05:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's well-sourced (to a point), obviously notable: an important and well-known topic in Academia. (I happen to disagree with the allegations, but note that it's important). However, it is a hot mess and serious attention must be made to clean it up. I'm busy with another related project more in my ken of knowledge - Law of Palestine - so I can't add much to this article. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 6 August 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.