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. Sandstein 21:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism in the 21st century - the Netherlands

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:TNT. This article is a complete copy-paste of a chapter in History of the Jews in the Netherlands and there is absolutely no need to include exactly the same text twice in Wikipedia. Why delete and not merge? In order to merge something (name as redirect or some portion of the text) needs to be salvable. As I mentioned, the text is equal to the 1980s onward chapter into the article from where it has been copied. The only thing that is salvable are a few minor improvements made here by ~~fellow~~ editors upon the new scrutiny. I suggest copy paste instead of the original text in the original article so these will not get lost. The title is not salvageable as redirect because there is an error in the title. By WP standards the country name of the relevant country is Netherlands. Therefore the name of the article should have been Antisemitism in the 21st century - Netherlands OR Antisemitism in the 21st century in the Netherlands but NOT as created! Even the pic -copy paste from the article on Rabbi Arie Zeev Raskin- is not of Rabbi Benjamin Jacobs but of Rabbi Binyomin Jacobs, the distinguished Chief Rabbi of IPOR Netherlands and not of the entire Netherlands. In short, there is nothing here except for copy paste work, and a little labor of colleagues, and the article should be entirely deleted even though under sharply different circumstances the topic and execution could have been defendable. gidonb (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed-Dan Eisenberg (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would have WP:A10 speedied it at first, but the article used to include a long list of (non-notable) anti-Semitic incidents. We are of course not a newspaper and what is left is just a content fork as nom has said already. - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HyperGaruda, thank you for pointing all this out. I had researched the edit history but the nomination was already quite wordy as it was, so kept this out. Now, in WP:NOTNEWS I do not see that we cannot have a timeline of antisemitism in the Netherlands. For example, we do have it for antisemitism in general. Even a timeline for antisemitism in the Netherlands (or in general) in the 21st century could be justified IF the amount of content in a comprehensive timeline article hits major problems of recentism. But here the execution was so problematic that all this becomes irrelevant. It started from the end -as you note- probably to create a content fork. When justified, such articles evolve out of a need. gidonb (talk) 10:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you start with an article History of the Jews in the Netherlands. When the focus becomes too much that of antisemitism, one creates an article Antisemitism in the Netherlands (right now redirected to a section of Antisemitism in Europe). When the specific events overtake the discussion, an article Timeline of antisemitism in the Netherlands becomes justified. And only after that article concentrates unevenly on the 21st century a 21st century timeline of antisemitism in the Netherlands can be justified. gidonb (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.