For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
- 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 merge to 2010–11 Stevenage F.C. season. Does not have coverage that would not fall under WP:NOTNEWS. As for the rivalry, there is insufficient coverage demonstrating its notability. However, the match may warrant inclusion in Stevenage's article as an important event in their history. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Stevenage F.C. 3–1 Newcastle United F.C.[edit]
- Stevenage F.C. 3–1 Newcastle United F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable football match. Yes, it was a cup shock, but nothing too out of the ordinary (see Shrewsbury 2 Everton 1 for another example of a Premier League team losing at fourth tier opponents), and despite the claims of the IP that deprodded the article, it is not the first time a fourth tier club has beaten Premier League opposition by two goals - this happened when Brisol Rovers beat Derby 3-1 in 2002. Number 57 22:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)). |
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Number 57 22:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep it's probably the most significant match in Stevenage's history. Also the link to the match 13 years ago makes it particularly noteworthy - perhaps that element could be expanded; the article could even be about the two ties. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:RECENT. A surprising result, but games like these aren't that uncommon - League Two Notts County defeated Premier League opposition just last year. J Mo 101 (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOT particularly WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Wikipedia is not an almanac, nor a collection of statistics, nor a news source. This has attracted a lot of media attention and maybe passes WP:GNG because it's a football game not just the result, so you could end up having an article on any major sporting match because of the thirst of modern media. But at the end of the day, it's just a cup game between two league sides - there were about 40 such at the weekend - which ended up with a surprise result - note the difference between positions of Crawley-Derby on Monday night was just the same. There would be scores of similar results every season. At this moment unlike the Hereord-Newcastle game which has an article, it doesn't stand the test of time, since it was just a few days since the game. At this moment in time, delete. Brad78 (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Saw this was up for deletion, so created an account as it would be an absolute travesty if this got deleted. Completely agree with 'ArtVandelay' in that the match 13 years ago goes some way to making this a very notable article. The history between the two teams has been noticed as well, which makes it even more impressive. Given the history and the huge attention both sets of games have got, this is definitely an article to be kept. Anyone who knows anything about football would know this article has more to do than just the 2010–11 match, the rivalry has gone on for years. Footgreb (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- — Footgreb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- The rivalry hasn't gone on for years. Stevenage have only met Newcastle in first-team competitive action three times - twice in 1998, the first game and then the replay and once in the game above. There are countless real rivalries across world football and each game doesn't get an article because "the rivalry has gone on for years". Brad78 (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- The rivalry has gone on for years, you just have to ask Stevenage and Newcastle fans about the feeling between the two clubs. Teams don't have to have met 100s of times for it to be a rivalry. Anyway the rivalry is an "undercurrent" that adds to the match and article imo. Abatar (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not many years, let's face it. And fans of neither club are reliable references. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- The rivalry has gone on for years, you just have to ask Stevenage and Newcastle fans about the feeling between the two clubs. Teams don't have to have met 100s of times for it to be a rivalry. Anyway the rivalry is an "undercurrent" that adds to the match and article imo. Abatar (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. This match isn't unusual enough - fourth tier clubs defeating top tier clubs is rare but not notably so. There are many examples of this kind of thing, and the history between the two teams is frankly almost insignificant - they've only met three times. Such "rivalries" number in the hundreds. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Plus it's a score, not a title. How many games between the two teams have finished with the same scores?--70.80.234.196 (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Decent article. Don't think we can ever have enough articles like this, clearly referenced and a very notable match with an ending that won't happen again for years and years. A squad costing £20,000 beating a multi-million pound team 3-1...wow. Should be kept. Abatar (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- — Abatar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- By those standards, we would have literally thousands of similar articles, and yes, that is too many. It being a "decent article" does not make the match notable enough. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: The Keep arguments are not remotely persuasive. There's no "rivalry;" the teams play every rare once in a while. The alleged importance in Stevenage's history notwithstanding, that's a reason nowhere found in inclusion criteria, nor is it anything that is impossible to include on Stevenage's page ... why, look, it already is. Nor are results like this unheard of in sport; somewhere in the world tomorrow, some heavy underdog is going to paste a frontrunner in some sport somewhere. (Let's leave aside the two SPAs who "just happened" to see this was up for deletion.) This is a complete recentism argument, pure and simple. Ravenswing 02:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleteper WP:NOTNEWS and failing WP:Sports event. While you may try and argue it fufils the 4th criteria ("a game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable"), the vast majority of the coverage cited is the sort of routine coverage of any match with the minor history this one has every time the first or second weekend of January rolls around. It certainly is not the Battle of Santiago nor even Hereford United v Newcastle United 1972, not yet at least anyway. - Chrism would like to hear from you 02:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)- Merge to 2010–11 Stevenage F.C. season as per Oldelpaso's suggestion. - Chrism would like to hear from you 17:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Firstly, the top of the page tells users to "assume good faith" - something that 'Ravenswing' has clearly failed to do. I think it's quite telling that three different people have made Wikipedia accounts to comment on this article deletion, but there we go. I think it'd be rude not to say well done to the user who has spent time working on this. For all of its proclaimed rights and wrongs, someone has spent a decent amount of time on producing this article, which should be applauded. As for the article itself, I think the two separate cup ties have been not only significant for Stevenage F.C., but also for the FA Cup, both times the clubs have played have produced notable outcomes. Those who have chosen the option of 'delete' only have "clipboard answers" – there's no common sense in it at all I'm afraid. The article should stay, it's notable to the two clubs, English football, and to the world's best football cup competition. Kleek Thorpe (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- — Kleek Thorpe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment: Our overwhelming experience is that accounts created specifically to dispute AfDs - especially where they differ dramatically from consensus of more experienced editors - are done so at the behest of a single editor, which is a serious violation of the rules. That being said, a very common mistake with newcomers is to mistake "notable" for "I think it's important," rather than "notable according to the pertinent policies and guidelines of Wikipedia," as we mean it here. Do you have any arguments founded in Wikipedia policy or guideline to proffer? Ravenswing 12:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Ah, the Gas beating Derby. What sweet memories! And that match was even more remarkable than this one because Rovers were the away team, although it probably isn't their most remarkable cup result. Anyway, I digress.Wikipedia is not a news service, and there's no indication that this result is as memorable as, say, Hereford-Newcastle or Sutton-Coventry.Bettia (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Merge to 2010–11 Stevenage F.C. season - Oldelpaso's suggestion below is a sensible one. Bettia (talk) 09:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Another giant killing and example of recentism. Delete per WP:NOTNEWS Spiderone 11:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I originally thought delete per WP:NOTNEWS. But I'm reconsidering. One criterion we often apply is "Would this article receive detailed mention in a reasonable history of one, or both, of the two teams?". I'm thinking this might be a "yes" for Stevenage, but I'm unsure. If Stevenage were non-league, I'd say a definite "keep". If a more prominent team, it'd be a clear "delete". But with the team's lack of much glory to write about, this may well be a prominent result. It may be too soon to say. I'll ponder and return. --Dweller (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. There is potential here for a Stevenage - Newcastle rivalry page covering both games, 1998 and 2011, and this would be a valid redirect to that page. WP:PRESERVE therefore indicates a keep outcome, seeing as that rivaly page does not yet exist, and much of it's content could come from this page. There is adequate coverage (example) of this as a rivalry to meet WP:EVENT's requirements for GNG level evidence of lasting, in-depth coverage. It's not routine for sports media to devote whole pieces about past matches as pre-match coverage, unless there is a notable rivalry already, so it also meets WP:Sports event too. Given that the actual result of the 2011 game was clearly a major cup upset on its won, as per the sources already in the article, this only adds to the case of the likely enduring notability of the rivalry, should they ever meet a third time (which is not exactly an impossiblility). Granted, a Newcastle Stevenage rivalry page will not receive as many page views as England Germany, but as an issue for Afd, that's completely irrelevant, as is the fact that the rivalry would obviously mean more to Stevenage than it would to Newcastle, in a history of the respective clubs. MickMacNee (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Your argument boils down to a large WP:CRYSTAL violation. "Potential" for a rivalry? "Evidence of lasting" coverage? "Should they ever meet a third time"? Nor does WP:PRESERVE indicate anything of the sort; this is not a matter of a problem article calling for improvement - the article is as long and as heavily footnoted as the article for either team, itself something of a WP:UNDUE issue - but one that ought not exist in the first place. Ravenswing 16:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Boils down to CRYSTAL? I referred to the future in one out of five sentences of my post, and in a quite plausuble way. And why you've included the word 'potential' with that view, I have no idea - there is a 'potential' rivarly article here, based on already extant sources and events. No crystal balling there. And from PRESERVE: "Instead of deleting text, consider....moving text within an article or to another article (existing or new)....merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect". Instead of deletion, I am proposing creating a new article, using some of the text and sources already present here, and redirecting this title to that article. So it seems like a relevant policy to cite to me. As for UNDUE, it's irrelevant, I am not proposing keeping this article, so it's current size relative to others, is neither here nor there. MickMacNee (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- How about the merge suggested? Bettia (talk) 11:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think it's very sensible. The enduring notability here is the rivalry, and that covers at least two season articles. Even if there was a general History of Stevenage F.C article, I doubt it would be sensible to merge the details of a two club rivalry, to just one club's articles. No, there is either a standalone rivalry article to be salvaged here, or there isn't. MickMacNee (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- But do two cup matches a decade apart constitute a rivalry? Bristol Rovers have played Man United 7 times but no-one would ever consider that a rivalry. I doubt Newcastle fans would consider Stevenage as rivals, certainly not as much as Sunderland or Middlesbrough, as there's no real history between the two teams. And do Stevenage fans even consider Newcastle as their rivals? As far I know, they'd name Luton in that respect. Bettia (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Was there anything about the previous meetings of Bristol Rovers and Man United that was similar to the 1998 game here? Would the coverage before any of those games have referred to the previous ones in the way sources did with this one? This was not just two football matches, like any other routine but infrequent cup-pairing pairing, read the article or the sources if you're not clear on that score. And nobody has ever suggested that this is seen in the same light as a Tyne-Wear derby, that's just ridiculous. MickMacNee (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Considering the last meeting was a run-of-the-mill league match almost 40 years ago, the previous matches wouldn't have had the same amount of media hype. However, if they were to be drawn together again, Rovers' 4-0 win over the Busby Babes in the 1956 FA Cup would probably get more than a fleeting mention. Bettia (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Was there anything about the previous meetings of Bristol Rovers and Man United that was similar to the 1998 game here? Would the coverage before any of those games have referred to the previous ones in the way sources did with this one? This was not just two football matches, like any other routine but infrequent cup-pairing pairing, read the article or the sources if you're not clear on that score. And nobody has ever suggested that this is seen in the same light as a Tyne-Wear derby, that's just ridiculous. MickMacNee (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- But do two cup matches a decade apart constitute a rivalry? Bristol Rovers have played Man United 7 times but no-one would ever consider that a rivalry. I doubt Newcastle fans would consider Stevenage as rivals, certainly not as much as Sunderland or Middlesbrough, as there's no real history between the two teams. And do Stevenage fans even consider Newcastle as their rivals? As far I know, they'd name Luton in that respect. Bettia (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think it's very sensible. The enduring notability here is the rivalry, and that covers at least two season articles. Even if there was a general History of Stevenage F.C article, I doubt it would be sensible to merge the details of a two club rivalry, to just one club's articles. No, there is either a standalone rivalry article to be salvaged here, or there isn't. MickMacNee (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- How about the merge suggested? Bettia (talk) 11:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Boils down to CRYSTAL? I referred to the future in one out of five sentences of my post, and in a quite plausuble way. And why you've included the word 'potential' with that view, I have no idea - there is a 'potential' rivarly article here, based on already extant sources and events. No crystal balling there. And from PRESERVE: "Instead of deleting text, consider....moving text within an article or to another article (existing or new)....merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect". Instead of deletion, I am proposing creating a new article, using some of the text and sources already present here, and redirecting this title to that article. So it seems like a relevant policy to cite to me. As for UNDUE, it's irrelevant, I am not proposing keeping this article, so it's current size relative to others, is neither here nor there. MickMacNee (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well ... to those who insist that two games a decade is a "rivalry," I have a suggestion: go to any of the sports Projects and make that assertion. (Cue the raucous laughter.) Heck, if we stick to soccer, every team in the FA (as is the case for many national leagues) plays all the teams in their respective leagues not twice a decade, but twice a season. Does anyone fancy that there's a noteworthy "rivalry" between Aston Villa and Manchester City? Between Crystal Palace and Ipswich Town? Between Leyton Orient and Bristol Rovers? Between the New England Revolution and Real Salt Lake? No, I rather expect not ... and if the "rivalry" here is all that "enduring" or notable, I challenge anyone to come up with a single reliable source saying so
before last Friday.Ravenswing 16:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)- Hmm. 'Just don't look after Friday.' I really can't think why you included that caveat. It's probably a stupid question to ask if you've even looked. MickMacNee (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Why, funny that you ask. Yes, as it happens, I did. I hit up UK Google News for "Stevenage" + "Newcastle" + "rivalry" and came up with eight hits [4]. Not a single one of them asserts that there's any rivalry between those two clubs; what almost all of them DO reference is the rivalry between Newcastle and Sunderland, Newcastle's next match, and whether NU is up to snuff to hold up their end of the rivalry after the loss to Stevenage. So you're partially right, come to that ... why did I bother with a caveat? I'll correct that now. Ravenswing 18:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm. 'Just don't look after Friday.' I really can't think why you included that caveat. It's probably a stupid question to ask if you've even looked. MickMacNee (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well ... to those who insist that two games a decade is a "rivalry," I have a suggestion: go to any of the sports Projects and make that assertion. (Cue the raucous laughter.) Heck, if we stick to soccer, every team in the FA (as is the case for many national leagues) plays all the teams in their respective leagues not twice a decade, but twice a season. Does anyone fancy that there's a noteworthy "rivalry" between Aston Villa and Manchester City? Between Crystal Palace and Ipswich Town? Between Leyton Orient and Bristol Rovers? Between the New England Revolution and Real Salt Lake? No, I rather expect not ... and if the "rivalry" here is all that "enduring" or notable, I challenge anyone to come up with a single reliable source saying so
- Keep Further to my comment above, I think this is indeed a historic match for Stevenage - the club's official website doesn't even possess a history section. That it's not significant in FA Cup history or in the history of NUFC (both of which I agree with) is therefore irrelevant. --Dweller (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -Yes it's well written but it just isn't notable in wider football terms. The fact that it is notable for Stevenage seems to imply that games with shocks, scoring records etc. for all clubs deserve articles and I don't believe Wiki needs that.--Egghead06 (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Merge to 2010–11 Stevenage F.C. season. The match is of far more importance to Stevenage than Newcastle. There no guarantee that this match will be talked of outside Stevenage for anything beyond the next round of the competition. However, including it in the season article — where it would go alongside details of another significant event for Stevenage, their first league season — would allow it to be covered in reasonable depth without issue. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: Notable match in the history of Stevenage F.C., seems to have enough sources to make a decent article, and plenty of context when the previous tie is taken into account. The BBC did a pre-match article focusing exclusively on the rivalry between the sides so if the match itself isn't kept, a Restructure might be an option? - JVG (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - yes this has coverage, but not "substantial" coverage - most of the reports seem to regurgitate the same old nonsense about "giant-killing", "old rivalry" etc. when anyone with a decent understanding of the sport knows that this simply isn't the case. Maybe (maybe) it'll prove itself to have a lasting impact in the future, but we don't have crystal balls that see into the future, so can't make that assumption. GiantSnowman 19:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- "when anyone with a decent understanding of the sport knows that this simply isn't the case" – Christ, you really know nothing about football do you? As a Stevenage fan I can tell you there is very much bitterness and rivalry there, and I think a League Two side beating a Premier League team 3–1 can be described as a giant-killing, which is why it has been. SBFCEditSBFCEdit 21:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment The idea that the match is notable in the history of Stevenage FC is irrelevant. By that token, all notable clubs could have a few matches notable in their histories, all of which could have articles. Thousands of new articles on fairly minor football matches. That's not what an encyclopedia needs. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Merge to 2010–11 Stevenage F.C. season. The match might be notable in time, but it only happened a few days ago, and the contents though well-sourced are basically routine reporting; assuming lasting significance would IMO be WP:CRYSTAL. It's clearly a major event in Stevenage's season, and a significant event in their history so far, and a giant-killing. But as yet, we just can't tell if it will have any lasting and substantial coverage once the novelty wears off. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - relevant information should be included in the season article. Just another Cupset. --Jimbo[online] 13:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - just an average match, albeit one with an unexpected (but not unbelievable) scoreline. Merge relevant parts to Stevenage or 2010–11 FA Cup. Bazonka (talk) 13:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Merge with either 2010–11 Stevenage F.C. season or Stevenage F.C.. This isn't notable enough to have it's own article but it seems a shame to get rid of the info since it appears to be a pretty well put together article. BUC (talk) 10:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as per WP:RECENTISM. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:56, 19 January 2011 (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.
- 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.
It seems this article was subject to puffery orchestrated by its PR department and repeated here on wiki, whether intentional or not. After weighing the strength of the various positions it seems fairly clear that consensus is to delete the article at this time. Before I go, here's a little something for User:AkankshaG for adding a massive wall of text which I just had to read in order to close this, only to find that it was largely unrelated to the discussion of the notability of this company and the suitability of this article on Wikipedia:
Plip!
Ciplex[edit]
- Ciplex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article was created by Ciplex executive for promotional purposes. Recommended deletion per wp:coi wp:npov wp:soapbox Phearson (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- The following was refactored into a collapsible by Tedder, who has voted, and is therefore not a disinterested party. Furthermore, the edit that did so was accompanied by a warning of false choices "Don't uncollapse or reply; either remove it or leave it be". Anarchangel (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- That's fine, but note it's an unrelated soapbox/pasted wall of text that has been posted on several other forums: COIN, ANI, SPI, and again on ANI. But hey, good times. tedder (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is yet another attempt to intimidate me because of an editing dispute with User:Cutno/User:Phearson at Vector Marketing and attempted WP:OUTING
- I have been editing here since 2006, and have edited over 1,000 articles. I have no history of blocks or bans.
- What User:Phearson has failed to disclose here is that he and I are in an editing dispute over at Vector Marketing, which is owned by Cutco Cutlery. If you click on User:Cutno, it resolves to User:Phearson. See this diff where he states: “Hello, I'm Phearson, I originally came to Wikipedia to patrol a very disputed article relating to the Cutco Corporation (formally Alcas) and its Marketing arm "Vector Marketing". Needless to say, if you understand what Multi-level marketing is, and what Scientology is. You probably will know what I'm talking about.” Phearson/Cutno provides in this diff: “I disagree, Vector marketing when I worked for them told me not to say that I worked for them and that I was an "independent contractor." User:Cutno|Cutno (User talk:Cutno|talk) 19:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)”
- Phearson/Cutno has apparently been locked in a fierce and protracted battle with the forces of evil over the Vector article, where one side wants a decidedly positive piece, and the other side apparently wants a decidedly negative piece. The primary contention seems to be the characterization of the company as a direct sales company vs. a characterization of them as a multi-level marketing company, and questions about whether the representatives are employees or contractors.
- I’ve been watching the article for awhile, and left a message on the talk page Dec 11th indicating that I thought the article was unbalanced, and needed to look more like a regular company article does on Wikipedia, citing the Apple, Inc. article as one that contains historical, organizational, marketing, outside activities and critical information about the company. I didn’t get any response from Phearson/Cutno, so on December 27th I uploaded a new version of the article, which included a controversy and criticism section. I didn’t include the materials from the SAVE site or the Consumeraffairs sites, as that material is from the Anti-Cutco SAVE organization, which isn’t WP:RS. Rather than any discussion at all, Phearson/Cutno immediately reverted back to his version. On Dec 27th I asked Phearson/Cutno to revert to the draft plus add back the entire controversy and criticism section that he authored, which I again asked him to add back his version of the controversy & criticism section, and again. Rather than respond to these requests and include his version of the controversy and criticism section, he reverted everything back to his previous negative version of the article. As I said in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vector_Marketing&diff=next&oldid=404417728 this comment, I think a complete article needs to have a controversy and criticism section, it just shouldn’t be the whole article. My last correspondence on the talk page was a request to Phearson to wait until the New Year’s weekend to allow me to address his issues, as I needed to do actual work work during the week and nut be futzing around with Wikipedia. Rather than trying to work through the editing issues with me and waiting for the weekend as I requested, Phearson/Cutno launched a series of attacks on me and articles I’ve edited, apparently believing that the best way to maintain his version of the article is to crush any editor who challenges it. And now we’re here.
- User:Phearson/User:Cutno didn't get the result he wanted in one ANI, then another ANI, and a sockpuppet investigation, and now he's WP:Forum shopping and trying to get a different result here. He's also tried to OUT me, which he was cautioned against by an WP:OVERSIGHT administrator. Not satisfied with that, User:Phearson/User:Cutno has tried to intimidate me from editing the Vector article by going around and nominating my work for deletion.
- I don’t work for mywikibiz, viziworks, ciplex, scientology, vector, or cutco (all theories offered by Phearson/Cutno at one time or another). I do work in the video game industry, beyond that, I’m not willing to say more, as I’m greatly concerned that there are some editors in our community who have lots of time on their hands and would take that information and track me down in RL. Our WP:OUTING policies are here for a reason, and that is to discourage intimidation tactics, and I hope you all will respect that and remove any theorized ruminations about my RL identity.
- Lastly, I’ll say this. Wikipedia has been mostly a happy and safe place for me over the years, someplace I can relax to and have fun with. Bizarre as it may seem to an outsider, I enjoy taking a craptastic article like Vector and completely redrafting it, tracking down every last little bit of information I can find and turning it into something worthy of an encyclopedia. Disagree with my approach to drafting or my edits, fine, let’s work it out on the talk page, but going after me personally both on Wikipedia and off-Wikipedia: That’s just not cool. AkankshaG (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Is the subject notable? If so, it might be better to look the article over very carefully and rewrite/remove any material that is disingenuous then delete it outright. Although I oftentimes advocate deletion in cases where promotional editing is obvious, the company would have to be at least borderline notable if not nonnotable for me to do so. I'll look over the references and do other research on the subject to see how notable this agency appears to be. ThemFromSpace 02:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm not sure any of those is "disingenuous", and it clearly meets V. What is obvious, however, is the references padding, which I guess is a way to drive up the google rank. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Note: Wouldn't surprise me, given that Ciplex does marketing for their clientèle. Phearson (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Weak Delete - Article appears to be well references, but when looking at those references I have doubts that they meet WP:RS. Needs improvement to survive this AfD. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. The references aren't very thorough. Things like press releases and linkedin profiles are not reliable sources. Other than that, let me break down the more reliable sources used:
- "h monthly" - who or what is this? A style magazine? It's hard to judge reliability of something that doesn't have an "about us" page and/or wikipedia article.
- Various "Inc. 5000" spotlights and listings. Does not establish notability, though helpful for filling in an article.
- Articles talking about "first multi-touch website using Silverlight". Many, many articles linked. These are all syndicated copies of a TechCruch article or reblogs about the article. This is the what comes closest to satisfying WP:ORG and WP:GNG in my mind since the Washington Post syndicated the TechCrunch article. But it's hardly sufficient, and "first X of Y in Z" is pretty threadbare- by way of analogy, I could have been the fastest 3rd grade runner under 65 pounds at my school, but that's hardly showing a depth of continued coverage.
- Likewise, winning many various small awards doesn't hold any weight. Might be worth mentioning.
- Finally, running Von Dutch's website might hold merit, though nobody (in journalistic circles) is talking about that being a big deal.
- tedder (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Ciplex is described substantively in The Washington Post, H-Monthly, in Inc. Magazine as a Top 500 Company, Business Week, Engadget, and has received International Academy of Visual Arts recognition, and several Communicator Awards, all of which are reputable sources under WP:RS describing Ciplex. That's more than enough to get by the general notability requirements cited in WP:GNG. AkankshaG (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - This subject is covered in major publications such as The Washington Post and Tech Crunch. Subject is also covered in the Inc. Magazine and is recognized across multiple reputable award sites. This meets the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:Notability, as all of these sources are credible sources WP:RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woody5683 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC) — Woody5683 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep - found enough coverage in Businessweek Magazine, Techcrunch, Washington Post, Inc. Magazine, Designflavr and multiple industry award websites for WP:NOTE. KVIKountry (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per tedder. ThemFromSpace 05:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - I think the subject has been covered extensively by well respected journalistic resources and authorities, thus meeting the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:Notability, as all of these sources are reliable sources WP:RS under our rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msginsberg (talk • contribs) 20:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 12:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- None of the decent sourcing mentioned here is referenced in the article so the sourcing is by assertion and therefore a weak argument. Please can someone voting keep list the sources they are referring to so they can be evaluated? Thanks. (This is an alternative to it being deleted for unverified sourcing and then undeleted and relisted once someone dumps them on my talk page :-) ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartaz (talk • contribs) 13:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)}
- Delete. This is an interactive agency that provides creative, technology, and marketing services. Ciplex specializes in web design, web development, branding, search engine optimization, social media and custom marketing campaigns for businesses. Inclusion in "top 500" lists and the like obviously does not confer notability on a business; nor do trade awards, given their proliferation. A large number of the "separate" references in "multiple" sources appear to be the same story. The rest of the sources would appear to be trade blogs, online profiles, and other self-published or low circulation sources. The bottom line is that there's no showing of historical, technical, or cultural significance; building the "World's First Multi-Touch Website Using Silverlight" does not cut the mustard, no matter how mightily Microsoft's publicity department has labored to promote Silverlight, and that appears to be what we're looking at in that coverage. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I fail to see how this meets WP:CORP at the moment, because the only significant reliable coverage are about the first multi-touch website (whatever that is) but I can't find anything actually about the company. People are correct to say it has been mentioned in multiple RSs but, they don't directly discuss the company and therefore we should not have an article on the company at present. SmartSE (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete unable to find any RSs discussing this company. most of the sources used to reference this article are actually just one piece that was written in the tech section of the washington post and subsequently linked or copied around to various sites. and the washington post article gives nothing but a passing mention about the company, rather focussing more on the "multi-touch" technology. don't see any other RSs justifying this articles existence presently, most other references given are user generated websites. WookieInHeat (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2011 (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.
- 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. I won't bore you, it's fairly obvious on reading this which way it has to be closed. We can always discuss this again later, but this debate has failed to reach any consensus. Courcelles 23:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Criticism of Israel[edit]
- Criticism of Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. WP:POVFORK from the already povforked Anti-Zionism. Don't need another WP:COATRACK for everyone to hang their preferred antisemitism anti-israel, anti-zionism, etc. Notice of course that we don't have Criticism of Saudi Arabia, Criticism of Sudan, Criticism of South Africa, Criticism of Germany, etc. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Just noticing that the person recommending deletion made other articles one of his main arguments. So it seems relevant to note that there are BOTH a Criticism of Islam and a Criticism of Islamism article and neither has been suggested for deletion. That easily could be seen as a POV fork of Islam. Do you see this deletion as a precedent for those? Let's at least be consistent. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Carol, you are surely aware that you are comparing a religion, a theologically inspired political movement and a sovereign state? In other words, there are no forks, and the articles are not epistemologically related. Although the scope of the later article is yet to be clearly defined, so there may be some analogies as it develops Koakhtzvigad (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- The fact that wikipedia defines Israel as "a Jewish and democratic state" also makes the religious angle relevant. However, to make another argument using article comparisons, if those two criticism of Islam articles exist, plus Criticism of Judaism and Criticism of Christianity articles, how can there not be an article criticizing this or any other state, assuming sufficient WP:RS? CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- What are you trying to say? You suggested that a deletion of this article should be a precedent for deleting articles criticising Islam and Islamism. At that rate there will be established an effective regime of censorship against any criticism of anyone and anything.
- Now you are arguing that there should be articles offering criticism of any other state, and for that matter political philosophy or religion?
- Aside from the controversial nature of the assumption there are "three Abrahamic religions", there should not be any impediments to articles describing valid criticism of anything, provided logical approaches and methods (criticism is a form of logic) are used; for example Criticism of MacDonalds Corporation, or Criticism of Hollywood film content, etc. The Arts has a slew of such articles under Arts criticism: Architecture criticism, Visual art criticism, Dance criticism, Film criticism, Literary criticism, Music journalism, Television criticism, and Theatre criticism. Then there are more intra-disciplinary articles such as Criticism of American foreign policy, Criticisms of Salvador Allende. Which is why I find the attempt to delete this article rather strange Koakhtzvigad (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry if I was confusing. Just making clear that using the lack of other criticism articles to excuse deleting a criticism article ridiculous, when there are criticism articles about more sensitive topics (with obviously overlap with Israel in the Criticism of Judaism case). And looking at Abrahamic religions, I see there are more than three; my error. Yeah, wikipedia for teaching me something everyday!! CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- The fact that wikipedia defines Israel as "a Jewish and democratic state" also makes the religious angle relevant. However, to make another argument using article comparisons, if those two criticism of Islam articles exist, plus Criticism of Judaism and Criticism of Christianity articles, how can there not be an article criticizing this or any other state, assuming sufficient WP:RS? CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Carol, you are surely aware that you are comparing a religion, a theologically inspired political movement and a sovereign state? In other words, there are no forks, and the articles are not epistemologically related. Although the scope of the later article is yet to be clearly defined, so there may be some analogies as it develops Koakhtzvigad (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Just noticing that the person recommending deletion made other articles one of his main arguments. So it seems relevant to note that there are BOTH a Criticism of Islam and a Criticism of Islamism article and neither has been suggested for deletion. That easily could be seen as a POV fork of Islam. Do you see this deletion as a precedent for those? Let's at least be consistent. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Criticizing Israel isn't equivalent to thinking it shouldn't exist, for God's sake. If you think there should be articles for criticism of Saudi Arabia, Sudan, et al., create them. Roscelese (talk) 21:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- not entirely sure what god or arguing for the non-existence of Israel has to do with anything. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- You claim that it's a POV fork of Anti-Zionism, but they're not the same thing. Read WP:POVFORK - a POV fork is "another version of the article (or another article on the same subject)...developed according to a particular point of view." Your claim that it is one only makes sense if you believe that any criticism of any Israeli government policy is equivalent to suggesting that Israel should not exist, which is patently ridiculous. Roscelese (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- i never claimed Criticism of Israel is a POVFORK because its the same thing as Anti-zionism and i still have no idea what you're talking about regarding the non-existence of Israel.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yup, you sure didn't advocate for the deletion of Criticism of Israel as a POV fork of Anti-Zionism. How could anyone even imagine that you would do that?
- I've voted; I'm done here. Good luck. Roscelese (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- i advocated for the deletion of of Criticism of Israel as a POV fork of Anti-Zionism, but not because they are the "same thing."--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- i never claimed Criticism of Israel is a POVFORK because its the same thing as Anti-zionism and i still have no idea what you're talking about regarding the non-existence of Israel.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- You claim that it's a POV fork of Anti-Zionism, but they're not the same thing. Read WP:POVFORK - a POV fork is "another version of the article (or another article on the same subject)...developed according to a particular point of view." Your claim that it is one only makes sense if you believe that any criticism of any Israeli government policy is equivalent to suggesting that Israel should not exist, which is patently ridiculous. Roscelese (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- not entirely sure what god or arguing for the non-existence of Israel has to do with anything. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Redirect to Anti-Zionism, simply because this article is pretty one-sided and violates WP:SYNTH. BTW, Brewcrewer, you don't have to wikilink to Strawman for every single one of your comments. Erpert (let's talk about it) 22:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - it is a content fork and synth, and also an unprecendented article, insofar as the same kind of article could as well be made for most countries in the world. Avaya1 (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - WP:Attack, one grows tried of political advocacy masquerading as "encyclopedic content". Any issue worthy of criticism already has its own article dealing with the specific issue at hand. Poliocretes (talk) 10:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - The Anti-Zionism article is a mess as it includs a vast amount of material that should be in this article - the clearest examples are the 6 references to "criticism of Israel" within the AZ article. Anti-Zionism is about the ideology supporting the existence of the country, this is about the criticism the country has had to face in relation to policy decisions. This criticism is highly notable - as shown by ghits and all the facts shown on the page such as disproportionate UN criticism, PR against criticism a big political focus within Israel, innumerable WP:RS books and media articles written on the topic. The facts that other countries do not have such articles, that the article doesn't already exist, or that the article 'could' be used for advocacy are not valid arguments. WP has "Criticism of" articles for the three major Abrahamic religions - editors have worked hard and these have not become coatracks. This topic is highly notable and is needed in order to house a lot of information incorrectly placed within Anti-Zionism.Oncenawhile (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ghits, using the examples suggested by brewcrewer and the "find sources" tool at the top of the page, gives the following for {"Criticism of [ ]" -wikipedia}: Israel 2,260,000 / Saudi Arabia 30,900 / Sudan 4,940 / South Africa 37,000 / Germany 36,100. In other words, Criticism of Israel is twenty times more ghit-notable than the other four countries combined.
- The clearest examples of WP:RS confirming this are the first three references in the article - the relevant quotes are shown clearly in the footnotes. The notability of the criticism is indisputable.Oncenawhile (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- In case helpful, here is another WP:RS - the American Jewish Committee called the term "criticism of Israel" a "ubiquitous rubric" - see the WP article which includes the quote here Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism Oncenawhile (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- If the Anti-Zionism article is a mess, then fix it. We don't need two articles about the same topic. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 18:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- To be clear, there are three distinct topics - Criticism of Israel, Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism. They overlap like A, B and C in the picture on the right, but they each have enough content which doesn't overlap to be distinct topics.Oncenawhile (talk) 05:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Response to Keep To be clearer, the title, Israel, represents a country, which means a region within a sphere of influence of a government. If the government is wrong, then, criticizes the ruling party such as criticism of Israel government. If the practice of people in Israel is wrong then, criticize the practice. There is by far, no way to criticize Israel which is far more general term. Soewinhan (talk) 09:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Soewinhan, that is incorrect - the article title uses Israel in exactly the same way as the Israel article - i.e. as the commonly accepted shorthand for State of Israel. As you will no doubt be aware, a State is defined in WP as the formal institution on which a political community is organized under a government. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Re It is a state, but a state has many variations. Not only a government represents a state, but also people, culture, and so on. The title is not clear about what the article is criticizing. I will agree with Criticism Of Israel Government. For example, if you want to criticize Military Junta of Burma, you can't title criticism of Burma of course.Soewinhan (talk) 10:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Responded to this below Oncenawhile (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- To be clear, there are three distinct topics - Criticism of Israel, Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism. They overlap like A, B and C in the picture on the right, but they each have enough content which doesn't overlap to be distinct topics.Oncenawhile (talk) 05:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I basically agree with Oncenawhile aboutthe nature of the topics. There is sufficient justification for this article also. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Concur with Oncenawhile. On the other hand, I do see the point of the "oppose" editors, namely that this is a POV fork of the Israel article (I'm not why someone suggested that it is a POV fork of Zionism .. they are not even close). And in an ideal world, perhaps they would be merged. But the Israel article contains no mention whatsoever of alleged discrimination, racism, apartheid, or human rights issues. None. Yet criticism of Israel is a very, very widely discussed topic - both by primary sources (critics) and secondary sources (Dershowitz, et al). So the absence of "criticism" material in the Israel article is a significant oversight. That oversight, as a practical matter, cannot and will not be remedied by a merger. Therefore, an independent "criticism of" article is appropriate. The existing articles Anti-Zionism and Human rights in Israel are not replacments for a broader "Criticism of .." article, because they focus on narrower sub-topics. --Noleander (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - essentially Criticism has been around since ancient times as a discipline at one time taught as Rhetoric. I took the liberty of moving the article to International criticism of Israel, lest it require disambiguation from prophetic criticism of Israel provided in Tanakh. I'm not sure why Anti-Zionism got mentioned because that pre-existed the state of Israel. However, anyone who has access to the mass media, and Internet (a must for editing Wikipedia!) would be aware that criticism of Israel, and other states around the globe, is a fact. That no articles have been written for other states is perhaps indicative of the reception such articles are likely to receive from editors representing the states being criticised. I'll say nothing about criticism of Saudi Arabia, but criticism of Sudan has been so obvious, that to miss it would be inexcusable. South Africa has been criticised before and after the end of South Africa under apartheid, while Germany certainly had its share of criticism last century, and this, if only for its economic policy during the global economic crisis. Its just that these issues have not been brought together under same rubric because criticism of Israel has been so wide-ranging, and directed from so many different quarters. One can say that there is even an Israel-bashing industry.Koakhtzvigad (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment
As per above, I am strongly supporting keep, andI agree with Koakhtzvigad's improvements to the article. However, I was just checking the 'what links here' to the article, and noticed that on 23:34, 29 December 2006 a previous version of the "Criticism of Israel" article was deleted by Mel Etitis (see [21]), but no further information is available and I cannot seem to find a copy of the deleted article or the AfD discussion. Can anyone provide further info here, as might be useful to ensure that when this discussion is closed, it really is closed. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)- Note: Double "keep" !vote struck out. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 08:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have received an answer to this: "The page was a word-for-word copy of this revision of Allegations of Israeli apartheid and was prodded and subsequently deleted with the rationale "unneeded fork of Allegations of Israeli apartheid". As such, there is no unique content to look at". The current article is clearly a different kettle of fish, being clearly focused on the criticism as a phenomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oncenawhile (talk • contribs) 15:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. This is a very clear case of a POV fork, created following this discussion where a majority of editors felt that a similarly-titled article section was inappropriate. There does not appear to be any purpose to this article other than to give a different slant on information that is either contained or could be contained in the other two articles on the same topic (if you don't feel that this is the case, then please give an example of the type of information you think needs this article to exist). On top of which, the article would be an obvious drama-magnet. Keep votes here seem to be based simply on WP:ITEXISTS or on the argument that related articles are not good enough but for some reason can't be improved, which seems tanatamount to saying that you want to a new space to push a POV that has not so far prevailed elsewhere. Sincerely hope that a closing admin will see through this.--FormerIP (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Consensus is based on strength of arguments, not number of editors. Your comment looks more like gaming than logic - with respect to your challenge in brackets, many examples are cited above - as a dissenting editor you are welcome to provide specific examples of how the core info in the article could fit in to the other articles you reference. Your disparaging of the keep votes is absurd in light of the detailed commentary from supporting editors above - all the arguments have been set out clearly and are based on WP:N, and you have not attempted to counter any of them (nor have any of the other opposing editors). Your reference to the parallel discussion is helpful - there is consensus from both sides in that discussion that the topic is notable - the only (and ongoing) debate is with respect to how much focus it warrants within the main Israel article. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete While I agree that Israel is often criticised in various documents, we have articles for the real substance of those arguments already - we have Human rights in Israel, Israel and the apartheid analogy and other places where these topics are covered in quite some detail. I don't see why "criticism" would be notable independently of the policies being criticised. --Dailycare (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Daily care: Yes, you have a good point there - there are already three articles in WP that do describe the vast majority of criticism: Human rights in Israel, Israel and the apartheid analogy, and Anti-Zionism. But there are a few reasons why a dedicated article would be useful to readers: (1) the Israel article has no mention whatsoever of those topics; (2) there is no "criticism of Israel" category to link those various articles; and (3) there are several other topics that are not yet present in any article in WP, such as (a) Distinguishing legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism; (b) Criticism of Israel, manifested as comparisons with Nazi Germany; (c) Criticism of Israel regarded as antisemitism (outside of New Antisemitism context); and (d) Criminalization of criticism of Israel. What article would those four topics go into in WP, if not this article? I supposes they could all be shoe-horned into the New Antisemitism article, but that seems like a stretch. --Noleander (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- To add to this, there are at least 15 articles which contain information relevant to this page: (1) Anti-Zionism; (2) Human rights in Israel and Human rights in Israel#Human rights record in the Occupied Territories; (3) Relationships between Jewish religious movements; (4) Israeli Settlements; (5) Economy of the Palestinian territories; (6) Israeli-occupied territories; (7) Palestinian refugees; (8) New antisemitism; (9) Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations and List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel; (10) Public diplomacy (Israel); (11) Loyalty oath#Israel; (12) Israel and the apartheid analogy; (13) International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict; (14) Boycotts of Israel; (15) Disinvestment from Israel
- There is no article which connects them despite the fact that the sources provided prove the notability of the Criticism of Israel beyond any doubt (no editor has questioned or provided a challenge to the sources). Therefore there is no article which states that Criticism of Israel is a highly important topic, important to academics, the government of Israel and the people of Israel - as shown in the WP:RS, and not disputed by any editor. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think creating the category to link those pages together sounds like a fair idea. As to Noleander's specific questions, I'd say that a) belongs to Antisemitism, b) may not be notable, c) is the same thing as a), and d) is not notable or (if this is the case in Israel) goes to Human rights in Israel. User Oncenawhile doesn't need to reply to every comment in this discussion (see WP:BLUDGEON) as editors' arguments can speak for themselves. (don't take this in an unkind way, I also occasionally have that tendency) --Dailycare (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Daily care: Yes, you have a good point there - there are already three articles in WP that do describe the vast majority of criticism: Human rights in Israel, Israel and the apartheid analogy, and Anti-Zionism. But there are a few reasons why a dedicated article would be useful to readers: (1) the Israel article has no mention whatsoever of those topics; (2) there is no "criticism of Israel" category to link those various articles; and (3) there are several other topics that are not yet present in any article in WP, such as (a) Distinguishing legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism; (b) Criticism of Israel, manifested as comparisons with Nazi Germany; (c) Criticism of Israel regarded as antisemitism (outside of New Antisemitism context); and (d) Criminalization of criticism of Israel. What article would those four topics go into in WP, if not this article? I supposes they could all be shoe-horned into the New Antisemitism article, but that seems like a stretch. --Noleander (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 04:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Strong DeleteMove to Criticism of Israel Government No country has article about criticism. People need to see Israel and Zionism are different. I mean Israel does not represent Zionism nor any other country does. If the practice is wrong, criticize the practice rather than a country. If the government is wrong, then, criticize the ruling party. Please note that by titling this article as criticism of Israel, you are criticizing not only a particular practice, religion, government or race, you are criticizing everything about Israel as a whole. Soewinhan (talk) 09:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- "No country has article about criticism" - see discussion above, this is not a valid argument, and even if it was, WP:RS suggest Criticism of Israel is highly notable compared to other countries
- "People need to see Israel and Zionism are different" - agree, hence Anti-Zionism is just a subsection in this topic
- Re the rest of your comment, see above - the article title uses Israel in exactly the same way as the Israel article - i.e. as the commonly accepted shorthand for State of Israel, and a State is defined in WP as the formal institution on which a political community is organized under a government. The 20 million ghits referred to above confirm this is standard practice. More importantly though - no one is criticising anyone - the article describes the criticism as a phenomenon and no more. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Response. See above. You need to take note that the term State (Israel) is vaguely defined as ruling body. For example, if you want to criticize Burma junta, you can't title Criticism of Burma ,of course. Soewinhan (talk) 10:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- The 2 million ghits (now 2.5m if you hit the findsources button) would disagree with you. But since consensus is about compromise, perhaps your suggestion above is the right thing to do, but we would need a redirect from "Criticism of Israel". Oncenawhile (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Soewinhan: I agree that Criticism of Israeli government would be an okay title. It is certainly better than the current International criticism of Israel, because many significant critics are within Israel (peace movement, etc). Another variant would be Criticism of Israeli government policies, but maybe that is too verbose? --Noleander (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think if we add "policies", "government" is unnecessary since it is clear that a policy is from a government. How about Criticism of Israeli policy on Palestinian issues? Maybe it's much more verbose :) Or simply, Criticism of Israeli policy on Palestinians? But, 6 words. Soewinhan (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Noleander, Israelis criticize the Israeli Government for all the same reasons that any other citizens criticize their governments, but by far the greatest volume of criticism is international. However, since Israel is also a name of a people, and they are also criticized, it seems to me that there is no need to add government, but simply reflect this in the article. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Every nation state should have such an article. It could use some cleanup, but a noteworthy topic that can't be adequately covered just as a small section of the larger article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Strong Keep With so much criticism of Israel appearing in so many articles it is very useful to have a page which organizes it all in one place. I see it like a disambiguation page in that it can and would be used to help people find all the other less formal criticism of Israel pages like, the 15 pages that Oncenawhile listed just above the relisting line.
Also, I agree the title should change to simply 'Criticism of the Israeli government'. Passionless (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - Please note that the purpose for criticism in any case involving rights or property is a search to establish basis for accusative case, in this case against Israel as a legal person, by accumulation of evidence for initiating legal proceedings in the various international judicial procedural institutions. It is therefore not a trivial article of refuting what appears to both sides to be propaganda, but one that seeks to delegitimise some or all authority of the government of a sovereign nation. One such case is in arguing the case for Israel and the apartheid analogy, with apartheid being a recognised crime against humanity.
In a legal sense Israel has the same identity as Wikipedia, Federal Reserve, Jehovah's Witnesses (as a corporation), or any number of public personalities which at national levels are represented by the statutory corporation. By allowing the article, Wikipedia therefore seeks to allow a public setting out of the facts and legal reasons (see: cause of action) in any such process
That so few such articles exist in Wikipedia may suggest that although it is open for editing by anyone, the available material is not open for anyone to read, being subject to Wikipedia's own censorship Koakhtzvigad (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as per Dailycare--just about every possible criticism of Israel's policies and history already has its own article. Why not a category or list to link them, if that is desired? There are very few "Criticism of xx"" articles in Wikipedia, although I notice that Criticism of Islam and Criticism of Islamism both exist. No Criticism of Iran exists, no Criticism of China, none for Libya, Saudi Arabia, or the Sudan; Criticism of the United States redirects to Anti-Americanism... If we are going to endorse creating articles about criticisms of all the world's nations, why start with Israel? betsythedevine (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Betsy: Those are good points you raise. The essential problem is that the article Israel does not (and - as a practical matter - will never) include a summary of the vast amount of criticism (human rights, etc). Becuse the Israel article will not contain such a summary (there was one once, but it was deleted from the article) the second-best alternative is a stand-alone article such as Criticism of Israel. You mention the possibility of creating a new category "Criticsm of Israel", and that is not a bad idea. However, there is a large amount of textual material on the topic, such as Distinguishing legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism, Comparisons with Nazi Germany, and Criminalization of criticism of Israel. If Criticism of Israel were deleted, into which article should that material go? And (whatever the answer is) is that best for the readers? --Noleander (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- In case helpful, attached[22] is a list of the currently existing articles entitled "Criticism of". Given the high notability (as set out with sources above and not challenged), "Criticism of the Israeli Government" would not be out of place amongst the existing precedents.Oncenawhile (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Betsy: Those are good points you raise. The essential problem is that the article Israel does not (and - as a practical matter - will never) include a summary of the vast amount of criticism (human rights, etc). Becuse the Israel article will not contain such a summary (there was one once, but it was deleted from the article) the second-best alternative is a stand-alone article such as Criticism of Israel. You mention the possibility of creating a new category "Criticsm of Israel", and that is not a bad idea. However, there is a large amount of textual material on the topic, such as Distinguishing legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism, Comparisons with Nazi Germany, and Criminalization of criticism of Israel. If Criticism of Israel were deleted, into which article should that material go? And (whatever the answer is) is that best for the readers? --Noleander (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Move to Criticism of Israel Government --Guerillero | My Talk 18:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Minor usage note: There are three similar terms, and their usage (ranked form most-used to least-used) is: (1) Israeli govenment; (2) Government of Israel; and (3) Israel government. I think the latter is discouraged because Israel is primarily a noun, not an adjective. (PS: I would not object to the rename, as detailed above in the identical rename proposal by user Soewinhan). --Noleander (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. International criticism of Israel is not the same as Anti-Zionism. Biophys (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep but Noindex/Nonsearchable until issues are resolved Really, something of the sort needs to exist, and admittedly, the deleting of an article with this name will make both Wikipedia and Israel look really bad (the media will eat this up.) That being said, the article is a mess, there are allegations of large sections being word for word copies (made at the undeletion request page,) and the article suffers from NPOV and organizational issues as well. Getting rid of this is bad, leaving it as is is just as bad. What I say we do find a couple of neutral editors with track records in good content creation, have them fix this mess, and in the mean time, noindex this so that it's not the top hit in a google search (as this clearly isn't up to Wikipedia standards.) Sven Manguard Wha? 06:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sven: I think the "undeletion request page" you are talking about is here. That discussion is about a 2006 version of an article with the identical name "Criticism of Israel". That previous version was, apparently, a duplicate of some other article, and so it was deleted. The comment about "large sections being word for word copies" is referring to that 2006 article, not to the current article being discussed here. I don't believe this article has any duplicate text. That said, I agree with your suggestion that this article would benefit from improvements to its content and organization. --Noleander (talk) 07:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- This article is less than a month old, of course it needs alot more work done, but I'm sure the article will grow quickly with all the interest in it. Passionless (talk) 08:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The article "will grow quickly" as POV-pushers from both sides descend, and any reader who stumbles upon it at moment X is likely to find it in some jumbled state with unbalanced WP:POV for one side or the other and content FORKs galore, since most sections of this article cover material already addressed at length in other places. This article should be dis-aggregated to existing articles; the SYNTH POINT of creating one humongous "criticism of israel" is to point fingers at how much criticism exists, not a valid Wikipedia goal. To clarify, I am NOT saying that is the goal of any people voting "Keep" here, but I fear that SYNTH will be the result of keeping this article. betsythedevine (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Betsy: You write "most sections of this article cover material already addressed at length in other places". However, there is quite a bit of material in this article this is not covered in any other WP article, such as: Distinguishing legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism, Comparisons with Nazi Germany, and Criminalization of criticism of Israel. If this article were deleted, which articles would that material go into? And would spreading the material across several articles be better than a centralized article that follows the WP:Summary style guideline? And how can SYNTH be a concern, when notable authors such as Dershowitz explicitly discuss all of these topics in their widely read books on Israel? --Noleander (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- The Anti-Semitism and Human_rights_in_Israel articles seem a much better home for the material you mention instead of creating a FORK with some stuff there and other stuff elsewhere. I would also urge interested editors to read the very thoughtful essay WP:CRITICISM. It is easy to find reputable authors writing in WP:RS who are strongly arguing for some particular POV, for or against Israel, so just about any laundry list can probably be found out in the wild. Just from my experience here in Wikipedia, it seems to me this article will be a WP:BATTLEGROUND, an embarrassment to the project, and a source of endless ANIs, SPIs, and other trainwreck wasting of the admins' time. Anyway, I respect your different opinion Noleander and I am grateful for your WP:CIVIL expression of your arguments too. betsythedevine (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Betsy,
- In the WP:CRITICISM essay, there is an example provided relating to the 2008 Summer Olympics - this situation is a good corollary of that (albeit more extreme since no mention in the main article - see Noleander's comment at 02:02 / 2 January 2011 above), and therefore this article is required according to the essay
- With respect to your use of the emotive word "embarrassment", the point that Sven Manguard makes above about this situation being interpreted as a whitewash poses a much bigger risk of embarrassment to us all
- I would appreciate your views as to where explanation of the overall phenomenon of Criticism of the Israeli government would go without this article (a topic highly notable and important to academics / Israel Government / Israelis, as shown in the WP:RS, and not disputed by any editor)
- Thanks also to you for your consistently WP:CIVIL and nice tone. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Just a quick reply since I've already said so much -- I'd prefer a list. By the way, I came here via a link from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Animal_conspiracy_theories_involving_Israel, in my opinion a POV problem of opposite sign--I'm also voting to delete that one. Funny, I see myself as an inclusionist more than a deletionist but what I like to see included is more information and less argumentation. betsythedevine (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Betsy,
- The Anti-Semitism and Human_rights_in_Israel articles seem a much better home for the material you mention instead of creating a FORK with some stuff there and other stuff elsewhere. I would also urge interested editors to read the very thoughtful essay WP:CRITICISM. It is easy to find reputable authors writing in WP:RS who are strongly arguing for some particular POV, for or against Israel, so just about any laundry list can probably be found out in the wild. Just from my experience here in Wikipedia, it seems to me this article will be a WP:BATTLEGROUND, an embarrassment to the project, and a source of endless ANIs, SPIs, and other trainwreck wasting of the admins' time. Anyway, I respect your different opinion Noleander and I am grateful for your WP:CIVIL expression of your arguments too. betsythedevine (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Betsy: You write "most sections of this article cover material already addressed at length in other places". However, there is quite a bit of material in this article this is not covered in any other WP article, such as: Distinguishing legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism, Comparisons with Nazi Germany, and Criminalization of criticism of Israel. If this article were deleted, which articles would that material go into? And would spreading the material across several articles be better than a centralized article that follows the WP:Summary style guideline? And how can SYNTH be a concern, when notable authors such as Dershowitz explicitly discuss all of these topics in their widely read books on Israel? --Noleander (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The article "will grow quickly" as POV-pushers from both sides descend, and any reader who stumbles upon it at moment X is likely to find it in some jumbled state with unbalanced WP:POV for one side or the other and content FORKs galore, since most sections of this article cover material already addressed at length in other places. This article should be dis-aggregated to existing articles; the SYNTH POINT of creating one humongous "criticism of israel" is to point fingers at how much criticism exists, not a valid Wikipedia goal. To clarify, I am NOT saying that is the goal of any people voting "Keep" here, but I fear that SYNTH will be the result of keeping this article. betsythedevine (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- This article is less than a month old, of course it needs alot more work done, but I'm sure the article will grow quickly with all the interest in it. Passionless (talk) 08:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sven: I think the "undeletion request page" you are talking about is here. That discussion is about a 2006 version of an article with the identical name "Criticism of Israel". That previous version was, apparently, a duplicate of some other article, and so it was deleted. The comment about "large sections being word for word copies" is referring to that 2006 article, not to the current article being discussed here. I don't believe this article has any duplicate text. That said, I agree with your suggestion that this article would benefit from improvements to its content and organization. --Noleander (talk) 07:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep: and create articles on criticism of all sovereign nations. --Neptune 123 (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Just trying to think how that would work...wouldn't it be more manageable to have separate articles on specific policies being criticized? Such as "US policy on immigration", "US policy on nuclear weapons", "US policy on capital punishment", etc. with each article explaining the policy and also including criticism of the policy. (I use the US not Israel as an example because I know more about my own country's policies.) If you do the thought experiment of cobbling together the criticism sections of all the very different criticisms people make of US policy in just those 3 very different areas, it seems to me the result will be a less encyclopedic and less useful article. By analogy, the criticisms people make of Israel's policy on settlements are very different from the criticisms people make that Israel should not have been created in the first place. Surely it would be more informative to put the former criticisms into an article that discusses Israel's policy on settlements, and the latter into a different article that discusses the reasons Israel was created where and when it was. betsythedevine (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Neptune is the second person in this AfD that has suggested that it is a good idea for all countries to have a "Criticism of.." article in WP. That particular suggestion is interesting, but should probably be discussed at a more prominent location (village pump?) than this AfD. Personally, I see some merit to it, because (1) WP's indexing/searching capabilities are very limited, and "Criticism of" articles that follow WP:summary style can help readers navigate; (2) Although categories and lists could provide a similar service, they do not provide for textual explanation, detail, or context; and (3) the main country articles should contain an overview of the criticisms, but instead tend to be puff pieces that read like Chamber of commerce brochures. For those reasons, Neptune's suggestion is sensible. --Noleander (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Note there is Category:Israel and Category:Politics_of_Israel one of which - whatever happens with this article - probably needs a "Criticism of Israel" subcategory for all criticism, external and internal. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Neptune is the second person in this AfD that has suggested that it is a good idea for all countries to have a "Criticism of.." article in WP. That particular suggestion is interesting, but should probably be discussed at a more prominent location (village pump?) than this AfD. Personally, I see some merit to it, because (1) WP's indexing/searching capabilities are very limited, and "Criticism of" articles that follow WP:summary style can help readers navigate; (2) Although categories and lists could provide a similar service, they do not provide for textual explanation, detail, or context; and (3) the main country articles should contain an overview of the criticisms, but instead tend to be puff pieces that read like Chamber of commerce brochures. For those reasons, Neptune's suggestion is sensible. --Noleander (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep - I'm looking forwards to Criticisms of Saudi Arabia and Criticisms of Syria. I might decide they're all cruft and vote to delete them all. Not for the moment, though. Templar98 (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- I see no reason for the creation of criticism pages for other nations, the case of a criticism of Israel page is akin to pages such as Common misunderstandings of genetics and Objections to evolution. These pages were created, and kept, because of the need for a page solely devoted to it. While the average scientific theory, such as gravity, may have objections/criticism the extent is not great enough to warrant a seperate page, though certain theories, like evolution do garner enough criticism to warrant a seperate page for criticism. As mentioned by Oncenawhile previously, criticism of Israel recieves a massively amount of ghits compared to similar searches of other nations. The extent of criticism of Israel certainly warrants its own page, while most other nations criticisms are either much smaller, that the page would be a stub, or a majority deals with one specific area, like the US and Criticism of American foreign policy. Israel has a large number of pages on specific criticisms of it, and does require a page to link them together in the same way that Objections to evolution is mostly just a collection of summaries of pages which criticize evolution. Passionless (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- And just so no one retails with this, I am not saying that the criticism of Israel article should exist because these others do, I'm just saying this article has the same function as these others. Passionless (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- I see no reason for the creation of criticism pages for other nations, the case of a criticism of Israel page is akin to pages such as Common misunderstandings of genetics and Objections to evolution. These pages were created, and kept, because of the need for a page solely devoted to it. While the average scientific theory, such as gravity, may have objections/criticism the extent is not great enough to warrant a seperate page, though certain theories, like evolution do garner enough criticism to warrant a seperate page for criticism. As mentioned by Oncenawhile previously, criticism of Israel recieves a massively amount of ghits compared to similar searches of other nations. The extent of criticism of Israel certainly warrants its own page, while most other nations criticisms are either much smaller, that the page would be a stub, or a majority deals with one specific area, like the US and Criticism of American foreign policy. Israel has a large number of pages on specific criticisms of it, and does require a page to link them together in the same way that Objections to evolution is mostly just a collection of summaries of pages which criticize evolution. Passionless (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Courtesy Break and Reslist[edit]
We are nowhere close to a consensus on this as far as I can see, so I'm breaking and relisting. Let's see if we can come to a conclusion this go around.
- So why not just close as "no consensus"? Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 18:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 07:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Strong keep - I feel that this article is very warranted, given the amount of controversy surrounding Israel. There is absolutley no good reason why an article of this quality should simply be deleted.--Metalhead94 T C 14:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep—The article as it stands has a lot of problems to resolve before it reaches a satisfactory standard, but I think it is a valid topic that can be maintained separately from Anti-Zionism. The lack of existence of comparable articles is no reason to delete this article; it is a reason to create those other articles. Every country has some dirty laundry that needs airing, including those opposed to Israel. See also Category:Criticisms.—RJH (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Merge Put individual criticisms into articles where they are in context, so that for example arguments against Israel's settlement policies are in context with Israel's position supporting those policies. Create a list article Controversies about Israel to link to those criticism sections. Note that a list article can have introductory material to clarify what is in or out of it, but I believe doing it this way will create less of a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Also, we will avoid future problems of WP:FORK. Note, I changed my !vote, which was "Delete" above. betsythedevine (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Strong keep-for my reasons given just above the relist line, and the numerous other arguments in favour of the article given by others. Passionless (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Request for Admin to Close Debate This debate has run out of steam. I'm not sure there are any meaningful new arguments either way - there has been substantive debate, with 22 editors presenting disparate opinions supported by policy:
- First listing votes: 5 keep vs 6 delete/redirect
- Second listing new votes: 8 keep/rename vs 1 delete (since changed to merge)
- Third listing new votes: (so far): 2 keep
- This is as close to consensus as we can ever hope to achieve on such a sensitive topic. And anyway, a quick look at the the other AfD discussions for "Criticism of" articles here[23] shows whilst many such discussions have a mix of votes, no such "Criticism of" article has ever been deleted if it was well sourced with notable substance which could not all fit in the parent article (in this case Israel).
- A second relisting is wasting time, and more importantly the AfD tag on the article is discouraging improvements - the article was only 10 days old when it was nominated for deletion and needs more work.
- Oncenawhile (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I second the motion to close and keep. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2011 (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.
- 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
1saleaday[edit]
- 1saleaday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Why This article does little more than promote H66666666 (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Weak Keep Article in its current form has loads of POV problems and runs a foul of WP:SPAM, but some of the references given do hint at at least borderline notability. 2 says you, says two 15:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Everything in this article is sourced by major news outlets. It is not slanted toward the company in any way and keeps a very neutral point of view. I don't see how this page would be considered any different than that of Woot! Woot or Groupon Groupon, two similar sites to 1SaleADay.com. Please keep in mind the second half of G11: Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion. Mordechai10 (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Aside from what has already been written, several other editors have contributed to the article including an edition to the Trademark Dispute section, which is a part of the notability of the article. Mordechai10 (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- — Mordechai10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 17:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I did have thoughts of tagging it for spam, but thought again as it didn't fully meet the requirements. There's always the possibility that it was intended as spam, but it looks well enough referenced - just about. There's quite a few refs, but some aren't exactly indicators of notability. The wording is fairly NPOV. Should be OK so long as someone keeps an eye on it. Peridon (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment With the marketing section deleted by OSborn, this article is well sourced and has a NPOV. Seems mostly factual. The WIPO trademark dispute section certainly has significant notoriety and independent interest to the legal community - that is why I added to that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.151.100 (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:55, 12 January 2011 (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.