Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Right to exist

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. &mdash; Xezbeth 18:27, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Right to exist
Summary to help guide admin decisions:
 * 24: Delete - Humus sapiens, Pluvius, Master Thief Garrett, Guy Montag, RJH, Leifern, Klonimus, humblefool, AlanK, Jayjg, Wile E. Herresiarch, Viriditas, MPerel, Carbonite, Thryduulf, Zscout370, Carnildo, Chammy Koala, gren, Megan1967, Radient, Stereotek, Woohookitty, IZAK
 * 1: Either turn into an article on the general concept of a national "right to exist" or delete as redundant. - Charles P.
 * 3: Merge with Sovereignty, Self determination or Zionism and Redirect - Helpful Dave, Tomer, Mustafaa
 * 4: Keep - LevelCheck, DeirYassin, Firebug, Blackcatsm

24/32=75%, 24/33=73%, 25/33=76%

Very few changes since nominated:

COMMENT: User:Helpful Dave and I, who rarely agree on anything, both voted "merge and redirect". That's hardly a glowing "keep". My recommendation was redirect to self determination. Helpful Dave's was to to Zionism. I don't pretend to understand his rationale, but in neither case do I think these votes can legitimately be regarded as keeps. Tomer TALK  20:05, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Please doublecheck/fix the update of the voting record I've just made.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 22:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

So when does voting end and the vote takes effect? Guy Montag 23:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd like to ominously whisper "seven days!" like on The Ring, but no, it's only five. After that a decision is made. It's not necessarily simply "majority rules", if there's a roughly even proportion of votes on each side then the closing decision is "no consensus" and the article stays. Master Thief Garrett 23:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the information.

Guy Montag 19:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

It seems it was created solely to question Israel's right to exist. We already have Arab-Israeli conflict reflecting major views in an encyclopedic manner, Jewish state, Anti-Zionism, New anti-Semitism, etc. There have already been articles created(Anti-Arabism). In anycase, this is not the place to discuss the subject, so take it somewhere else both of you. Guy Montag 07:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Doesn't it seem a bit unbalanced that we have an article on New anti-Semitism but no articles on New anti-Arabism or New anti-Palestinianism?
 * Go make them, Klonimus 00:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No, we shouldn't make them. See WP:POINT.  It would be bad to write more articles as bad as New anti-Semitism just to make a point.   &mdash; Helpful Dave 22:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes we should, New anti-Semitism has been the subject of several recent books. Klonimus 06:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 08:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge any NPOV content that isn't already in Anti-Zionism into that article and *delete. -Pluvius Talk
 * Merge any salvageable content into Anti-Zionism and Delete. Master Thief Garrett 09:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete This article is too POV and isnt fit to be in wikipedia.Guy Montag 14:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete agitprop. &mdash; RJH 14:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - the article begs the question and is discussed (at great length and subject to endless edits) several other places --Leifern 15:20, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
 * Either turn into an article on the general concept of a national "right to exist" or delete as redundant. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 16:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Anti-israelcruft. Klonimus 19:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Not really sure how I should vote on this. Klonimus -- help me out. Perhaps Wikipedia does not exist to pass judgement, but rather to document, eh? Perhaps our objective should simply be to document the claims that surround the useage of the term "Right to exist," without passing any judgement over its existance or nonexistance, pejorative nature, the moral value of those who use the term, its history of use, etc. etc. Haven't made up my mind yet, I'm sure you've got some consistent insights to share, though. BrandonYusufToropov 17:23, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, as I see it the extant article doesn't cover anything encyclopedic except for a bunch of anti-israel ranting disguised as NPOV. However an article on "Right to Exist: A Moral Defense of Israel's Wars" by Yaacov Lozowick (ISBN 0385509057) would certainly be encyclopedic. Personally I think you should vote Redirect to Self determination Klonimus 17:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is a balanced article which explores both sides of this contentious issue. Some Wikipedians seem to feel that only pro-Israeli views should be permitted. LevelCheck 21:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep agree with above commentDeirYassin 21:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. There seem to be wikipedians who feel that there must only anti-Israeli POVs should be permitted. humblefool&reg; 23:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete It appears to be a debate. Nothing wrong with that, but this is not a forum for debates.  Parts of it may belong elsewhere as others have stated, and it may be news, but it's not encyclopaedic. AlanK
 * Delete. Appears to be original research. Jayjg (talk)  02:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, and keep a close eye on it to make sure POV axe-grinding (from both sides) stays out. The phrase "right to exist" garners approximately 249,000 hits on Google, most of which do refer specifically to the Israeli/Palestinian situation. Furthermore, in virtually every negotiation between the Israelis and Palestinians, the "right to exist" is mentioned in some way, and often plays a critical role in the negotiations. It is an important concept that deserves a Wikipedia article. The existing article isn't terrible, although it could stand some improvement. Firebug 06:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research. --Viriditas | Talk 10:42, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this diatribe. IZAK 12:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete after merging anything salvageably NPOV into Anti-Zionism. -- M P er el ( talk 15:37, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inherently POV and unencyclopedic. Carbonite | Talk 19:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, unsalivably POV (and for the record I would vote the same on an article with the opposite POV as well). Thryduulf 20:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete since it filled with POV, original research and with unfair comparisons (Israel compared to the Union of South Africa, no way). Zscout370 (talk) 20:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This argument is specifically attributed to "Opponents of the right to exist"; it is not stated in the article as objective fact. LevelCheck 21:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The original text states "Just as there was no right for South Africa to exist as an Afrikaner state, there is no right for Israel to exist as a Jewish state." The leaders of the Union of ZA made separation of the races with laws. The Israeli Government is trying to bring people in, making Israel a diverse nation. Zscout370 (talk) 23:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Improperly titled -- the title seems to be about a generic "right to exist", while the article seems to be about Israel's right to exist -- and it looks like it's redundant with a number of other articles. --Carnildo 21:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Protect from ever being re-created. --Chammy Koala 22:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. This is a valid term which is often bandied about in this particular conflict.  However, we don't need an article at this location.  The content is dealt with in several other articles.  This should be a redirect to Zionism, unless someone can think of some other uses (perhaps some philosophical right to live), in which case it should be a concise disambiguation page.  NB: the article (if it were to stay) needs cleanup and references, but isn't really that bad.    The fact that some are capable of seeing this relatively balanced text as a one-sided attack on Israel reveals... well, I won't say.   &mdash; Helpful Dave 22:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Beautifully (and surprisingly) NPOV article, but a non-subject. While supporters of Israel love to use the term "right to exist", there is no such thing as a right to exist, and to the best of my knowledge this remains nothing more than a political slogan used to put down supporters of one-state solutions (rather than some kind of international law concept which would merit its own article.  So redirect somewhere - maybe Arab-Israeli conflict. - Mustafaa 22:55, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Gren makes a good point - maybe merge with sovereignty or diplomatic recognition? - Mustafaa 02:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: seems like Israel's right can be spoken about somewhere else... and the issue as a whole is akin to sovereignty gren 23:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV, original research. Megan1967 06:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above. Radiant_* 09:17, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Self determination...and we can worry about cutting out or neutralizing the POV content there. Tomer TALK  09:21, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. I would recomend retitling though, perhaps "Israel's right to exist."  The term "right to exist" is used in a number of other contexts.  --Blackcats 17:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. POV. Stereotek 07:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV. --Woohookitty 18:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.