Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Um-Shmum


 * 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. Merging is possible but there appears to be stronger support for a separate article. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Um-Shmum

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nonnotable Israeli political pun. Tagged since October 2018 Staszek Lem (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Definitely notable, indicative of a widespread attitude. Suggestion to delete as non-notable shows lack of knowledge about Israel and Israeli culture.--Geewhiz (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, well-known phrase in Israel. Tzahy (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Highly notable phrase. Coined by Ben-Gurion in 1955. The UN itself has related to this - Kofi Annan himself in 1998 claimed that "Um is not Shmum". In wide use in popular culture. Beyond copious sourcing in Hebrew, there is quite a bit in English on this phrase - e.g. -, Avnery, Uri. "UM-Shmum, UM-Boom." Counterpoise 13.3/4 (2009): 16., Cohen, Amichai, and Stuart A. Cohen. "Israel and International Humanitarian Law: Between the Neo-Realism of State Security and the ‘‘Soft Power'’of Legal Acceptability." israel studies 16.2 (2011): 1-23., Adler, Emanuel. "Israel’s unsettled relations with the world: Causes and consequences." Israel in the World. Routledge, 2012. 11-33.. Icewhiz (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Those sources seem the same as this NYT piece: a particularly poignant anecdote that is frequently used to add color to a very real discussion. Those books aren't covering the phrase, they are noting its existence and usage.  If it were a biography, it'd be a "passing mention." ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 02:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per . Also, is the WP:OR tag really justified in this article? Seems a pretty simple article on a phrase for which there are solid RS on its WP:GNG notability? Perhaps this OR tag could be fixed using the refs quoted above? Britishfinance (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I created this article since it is the most known quote of David Ben Gurion. --Midrashah (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. This could be adequately covered by one sentence in an article on the relation of Israel to the UN. Zerotalk 11:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep A.Jacobin (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per Zero. This could be covered at Israel and the United Nations in a couple of sentences. Having a standalone article is ridiculous. Number   5  7  18:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - notability seems fairly clear from the in-article sources (and only the original Nom takes that deletion argument). While it could be merged, I don't believe it is in violation of REDUNDANTFORK, so a Keep is a logical route, followed by a merge discussion (as the merge is not necessary). Nosebagbear (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete/Redirect per Zero and N57. This "article" is six sentences, and even that is too many.  This is a perfect candidate for the content to be merged into Israel and the United Nations with a simple redirect left behind.  It's clearly been used but I don't see this as meeting GNG — it has been frequently noted but that doesn't make it notable in its own right. ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 02:26, 16 March 2019 (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.