Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zionist Occupation Government


 * 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.  Glen  11:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Zionist Occupation Government
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Organization is not notable, and content is redundant Tarinth 17:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Additional information:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is not a neologism, because it is not in common use outside of certain anti-semetic groups, and fails to cite any reliable secondary sources that meet the standards of Wikipedia's "Reliable sources for neologisms." At best, the subject appears to be a protoneologism, in which case it should be deleted because this article appears to exist only to promote the use of the term (despite that the article mostly contains critical discussion of the term, and many Wikipedians have attempted to correctly portray it as a fringe-term, they are merely playing into the hands of the individuals who wish to promote its usage.) In fact, the article has existed for several years and has neverbeen edited to include any references of sources.

If one considers the subject to refer to an actual organization, it should be deleted because it does not meet the criteria for the notability of organizations. Unlike significant items of historical interest, such as the Elders of Zion conspiracy-hoax, this "organization" is not notable; again, its presence as an article merely acts to ascribe notability to something nonexistant and invented by certain groups with ulterior motives.

Redundant: this subject is adequately dealt with as part of List_of_conspiracy_theories and therefore does not require more extensive coverage (and debate) here. If there is any content in the article that is additive to the subject of Jewish world domination conspiracy theories, it should be dealt with there. If it is determined that there should in fact be a separate page on Jewish conspiracy theories, it should be relocated to there.


 * keep It is notable, has been discussed in the New York Times, has other sources such as the ADL and SPLC. JoshuaZ 17:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is there some sort of general antisemitic conspiracy article this can be merged with? --- RockMFR 17:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

There are pages for Antisemitism and List of conspiracy theories that would be more appropriate for this. Also, the page Jewish conspiracy currently redirects to this page. I'd suggest that when/if the content is merged elsewhere, that that page redirect to the new page (Jewish Conspiracy is clearly a larger subject than one particular acronym that hasn't met widespread usage.) Tarinth 18:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, too much information to merge elsewhere, and mentioned at length in multiple sources. Kavadi carrier 18:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I am undecided, but I have added some potential references to the talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 18:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Article decently sourced (could be better). Too long an entry to be folded into another article. IronDuke  19:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and Comment The term, despite its dubious merits, is notable. We aren't going to start deleting neo-Nazi terms like 88 next are we? ZOG is referenced constantly on supremacist websites, forums and propaganda. Comment though, can we clean up the talk page and keep it only to the article content? The tit-for-tat jokes and assorted silliness is not what talk pages are for. They are for discussing the current, past or future content of the main article. Thank you.--Son of More 00:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"
 * Keep &mdash; The article is appears nicely neutral in its current form, and this is a frequently used propaganda term of bigots and hate groups. It's a fine example of what's wrong with some members of the human race, and it's definitely encyclopedic. &mdash; RJH (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions.   -- Shuki 22:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC) "
 * I don't think the article has anything in the world to do with Judaism. Suggest removal. - crz crztalk 22:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Those who choose to refer to a so-called "Zionist Occupied Government" are almost all the basest and vilest bigots on earth. That this so-called organization does not exist does not detract from its widespread use and notability. I don't see the unidentified flying object article being deleted, despite the paucity of little green men (another non-existant entity) detected by the folks swarming around our nation in black helicopters under the direction of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy (ditto). Let's devote efforts to stamping out anti-semitism, not information. Alansohn 23:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Agree with JoshuaZ that like it or not, the term meets WP:N and WP:V. It's been used by enough notable extremist groups that a number of major publications have reported on it. --Shirahadasha. Could possibly be Merged as part of the articles on Neonazism, Antisemitism, etc. 03:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable topic, properly sourced. It's a shame it has to exist, but the world is what it is. Jayjg (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and cleanup. Needs more secondary sources, though. If there are no such sources, it should be stubified. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 20:41, 6 November 2006 (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.