Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rejectionism


 * 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. No consensus about deletion, but consensus that if kept it should be moved to Arab rejectionism, which is what it is (now) about. Can be renominated after the move.  Sandstein  14:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Rejectionism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A dicdef / original research for an '-ism' based on occasonal usage of this noun derived from "rejection" and says nothing beyond the literal meaning of the word "reject" something. Basically a WP:SYNTH of examples of random usages of the term. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Retracted after recent expansion of one special subject.Staszek Lem (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Alternative solution: Move to Arab rejectionism and turn this title into dab page. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Will you agree with speedy non-admin closure and implementing the alternative solution above? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In light of the work E.M.Gregory and you have done to improve the article per WP:HEY, I think keeping and renaming to Arab rejectionism, with Rejectionism becoming a DAB page, is a good solution and I support it. --Mark viking (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I was looking around and there is the article International recognition of Israel. As this article is about recognition/non-recongition of Israel an at most the content here amounts to about two paragraphs. It can be transferred there with a redirect of Rejectionism for that article. That is a better solution than here. This term rejectionism is a neologism anyway mainly used by some proponents of the Israeli side of the conflict interpreting the Arab/Palestinian position. In many other conflicts around the world there are sides who "reject" certain things however the term rejectionism is not used. Having this article on its own goes more on the POV side as its infers that rejecting something is an Arab thing. Having a article called Arab rejctionism also would be problematic too and have a POV-ish slant to it. Unless the term rejectionism has wide ranging currency and use for other conflicts then i would change my stance and say to keep this article. Best.Resnjari (talk) 04:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The article is now strongly sourced to peer-reviewed academic journalists, and to bluelinked scholars and diplomats who have written about Arab rejectionism in a serious way, defining it and discussing its political impact. While there undoubtedly are a number of articles form which this term can be  usefully linked,   I do not  see a policy-based argument for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per reasons outlined by editor Staszek Lem. Resnjari (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I also wonder if it's basically WP:COATRACK to largely address Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel. It sure seems that way. I've tagged this for both the Israel and Palestine discussion pages, accordingly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, possibly rename. A simple WP:BEFORE search shows that rejectionism as a political concept has existed for decades. There are books devoted to it, such as The Deadly Embrace: The Impact of Israeli and Palestinian Rejectionism on the Peace Process, 1997 and The Search for Peace: Peace Proposals and Rejectionism in the Arab-Israeli Conflict : a Handbook of Selected Documents, 1983 and articles such as Dateline Israel: A New Rejectionism, Foreign Policy, 1979. GScholar shows more than 2,100 hits, so there is more sourcing available. There are political groups such as the Palestine coalition Rejectionist Front. Hence the topic of Israeli/Palestinian rejectionism seems notable. Given a notable use of this concept, the synth stuff can be cut and the article is salvageable and should be kept. I would have no problem with renaming the article to something like Palestinian and Israeli rejectionism to reflect that this is about the more specific concept. --Mark viking (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please find sources which talk about "rejectionism as a political concept". There is Palestinian rejectionism and Israeli rejectionism, and many other kind of rejectionism. The fact there are two-word terms does not imply there is a concept for a single-word term beyond its dictionary definition.  There should be two separate articles (may be more)  and this one a disambig page.. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S., after reading a bit around, I see that "Palestinian rejectionsm" is is fact "Arab rejection of the Israel state", and I am pretty sure there is a good redirect target without actually writing a WP:FORK. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. I also looked thru philocophical books which use the term "rejectionism". In most case these are ad hoc usages. E.g. here 'r-ism' is a shorthand for "Foucault's rejection of humanism" whateber it is. and here the author gives his own definition of r-ism as "the approach that takes the ostensible results to be interpreted to be so unacceptable as to constitute a signal to reject something that led to these results." Also, Holocaust denial is also called "r-ism" by some. Etc. etc. Basically, any kind of rejection (disambiguation) of anything may be dubbed "rejectionism". Staszek Lem (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that there don't seem to be sources on the general concept of rejectionism and the article as it stands has problems with synthesis. A DAB page for a general concept seems like a reasonable solution to me, if there are good targets. In the spirit of salvaging what we can, there is a particular use of the concept associated with the Arab-Israeli conflict that seems notable and so could have an article devoted to it, or separate Palestinian and Israeli articles. The current article mentions the Palestinian-Israeli use, but doesn't have a lot on it. If there is a good redirect target, I would be happy to consider it. Rejectionist Front is not a good redirect target because it is too specific. --Mark viking (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It being described as a "political concept" is found in some sources relating to the Israeli side regarding their interpretation of the Palestinian view. More on the wp:POV and wp:fork side, with a dose of wp:OR in the way it is written here. The suggestion by editor Staszek Lem on a redirect within the article about recognition/non-recongition of Palestine is apt here. Still stand by the view this article ought to be deleted. Resnjari (talk) 02:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect term to Arab rejectionism, a term that has been in wide use for decades, with some minor uses of "Palestinian rejectionism" and the inevitible tit-for-tat introduction of "Israeli rejection." I have already sourced this WP:NEO, although it's not exactly NEO, even this article has been around for years and years. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:HEYMANN; I did a minor expand, source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You really should have started the new article, Arab rejectionism, rather than expanding this one, doomed to be a disambig page. (also it oud be good to summarize it in Foreign_relations_of_Israel. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It is, in fact, quite ordinary to find a poorly-sourced article brought to AFD by an editor who found only "random usages of the term". Then to have another editor realize that there is a coherent topic, bring  specific and reliable sourcing for the term, and propose a rename as the outcome.   It's not only quite usual, it's pretty much win-win.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It became coherent only after I deleted various other fluff and you added more content to a single subject of many conflated here. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2017 (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.