Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline relating to allegations of Israeli Apartheid

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 as an original research POV fork. --Core desat 01:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline relating to allegations of Israeli Apartheid

A db-nonsense tagging which got complicated. See long discussion in Talk:Timeline relating to allegations of Israeli Apartheid. Anthony Appleyard 21:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As background, this timeline started in the article Allegations of Israeli Apartheid, and sparked a revert war for several days, in which one faction deleted the article and another restored it. After a few days of this, I moved the timeline to a separate article, the one we're now discussing. The subject is controversial and editing has been contentious. --John Nagle 21:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The article looks like a timeline of the Arab-Israeli conflict/Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with a few items related to people referring to Israel or its policies as apartheid. Appropriate portions of the the article should be merged with Allegations of Israeli apartheid and Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment. Indeed it does look like "a timeline of the Arab-Israeli conflict/Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with a few items related to people referring to Israel or its policies as apartheid," but this is because bad-faith editors hoping for a merge/delete have intentionally loaded it with irrelevancies, original research, and WP:POINT violations in order to create the appearance you're talking about. The "few items" you refer to were the ones added by good-faith editors, and constitute the raison d'être of the article. Keep/delete recommendations should not be based on a vandalized version of the timeline.--G-Dett 19:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is utterly false. Even if you eliminated the WP:POINT violations, the article is still WP:OR: you cannot possibly make a timeline of a debate or idea. Its illogical.--Cerejota 02:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can have a timeline for a debate or an idea.--G-Dett 13:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Merge with Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be acceptable to me.--Cerejota 06:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete (in fact, isn't POV-forking Speedy Delete???) - this is a POV fork. Instead of debating the contentious inclusion of this timeline in the appropriate page, editors who disagree with not including it have created this page.--Cerejota 06:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Two votes by same user. Please change one to "Comment". Thanks. --John Nagle 21:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote.

In fact, people who only put a vote-like comments get generally ignored.

This is a discussion to seek consensus. Please readWP:AfD. You have much to learn, little padawan...

The point of my comments is that this AfD should not be about the notability, verifiability, or otherwise the quality of the material, but the fact that presenting it in a timeline and under a POV fork makes no sense. So its either delete or merge with the only possibly non-pov place these things fit...a merge basically means a delete that keeps the information somewhere else. --Cerejota 01:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's just back door point of view pushing. Nick mallory 07:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a merge of anything unique and sourced per Cerejota. Carlossuarez46 17:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a POV fork and original research (which includes "any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position" per: WP:OR). ~~If "merger" is really an issue I support that as well (with deletion of this article), but I believe that all of the information is already in one or both of the articles mentioned by Malik Shabazz.~~ The material in this timeline/article can be considered for inclusion in the Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. No new timeline should be created in Allegations of Israeli apartheid. 6SJ7 18:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until trolling/disruption/vandalism etc. dies down, then merge with Allegations of Israeli apartheid.--G-Dett 19:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until trolling/disruption/vandalism etc. dies down, then merge with Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Best idea I've heard so far. This thing needs to settle down a bit. --John Nagle 19:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is trolling and vandalism is because this page, an obvious POV fork (as you admit in here), practically invites the practice. I am not excusing the obvious trolling and vadalism, however, you cannot possibly expect to disrupt wikipedia with a POV fork and then everything be calm.--Cerejota 01:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete shameless prejudice drivel - the sort of thing that makes it hard for sensible people to take wikipedia seriously. Kuratowski's Ghost 20:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this POVFORK of Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV fork and OR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The timeline is indeed beset by a great deal of original research, but almost all of it has been inserted by Jayjg in an obvious violation of WP:POINT. As the apparent goal of thus defacing the article was to influence an AFD, it would be helpful if editors would make an effort not to go along with the ploy.--G-Dett 22:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This particular timeline is inherently OR. 6SJ7 19:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The items I added were obviously more relevant to this topic than the nonsensical or irrelevant trivia on G-Dett's "approved" list, such as a polemic by the Soviet ambassador to the U.N. during the height of the cold war, or the founding of the State of Israel, or the Yom Kippur war. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment While it is true that Jayjg is doing WP:POINT, the very existence of this article is [[WP:POINT]. To evils do not make one good. The reason this AfD will succeed is because this article has no reason to as per the explanations given in Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid.--Cerejota 02:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hardly WP:POINT; the items I added were infinitely more relevant to the evolution of the current situation than most of the nonsense on the list as originally created by John Nagle. I admonish you to assume good faith; I was actually turning the list into something meaningful and relevant, before it was brought to AfD. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please. I admonish you to show respect for WP:AGF by not demanding such credulity from your fellow editors. None of your two-dozen some additions are cited to sources relating them to Israeli apartheid. They are brazen violations of WP:NOR. Not borderline, not iffy. Just totally brazen. If they were plunked down by a three-week-old newbie editor, it would be important to assume good faith and patiently explain the rule against original research. For an editor/admin of your experience, and one moreover who prides himself on being an OR strict constructionist, the violation of WP:POINT is undeniable. If you have specific complaints about the items that have been added to this list in good faith, then articulate them specifically, but don't make vague attacks to deflect from your own disruptions.--G-Dett 22:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Please see my Delete statement below, where your comments (past, current, and future) are fully addressed. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        My comments focused on your apparent violations of WP:POINT and WP:NOR. You do not address this "fully" or even in part – here, below, elsewhere, anywhere. And on the talk page of the article we're discussing you have categorically refused to cite any of your two-dozen-plus additions to any sources that deal with allegations of Israeli apartheid, or to say how you feel they could be in compliance with policy.--G-Dett 15:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per Malik Shabazz. CJCurrie 03:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove entries not relating to title (about here is good) and Merge back into Allegations of Israeli Apartheid. —Ashley Y 06:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletions. --Cerejota 12:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV fork, inherently OR. No "Timelines of Israeli apartheid" exist in the verifiable, non-original research real world, only in that rarefied Wikipedia world where the usual suspects POV-push, and their abettors and co-dependents whine on Talk: pages and AfD discussions. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an original research aimed at pov-pushing. creator should be sanctionned. Alithien 20:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What's the point? This "article" hasn't a hope of ever conveying any useful information to the reader. Too many broken articles like this on the Is/Pal conflict already, do we really need another one? Gatoclass 11:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this nonsense and Wikipedia's disgrace. Beit Or 19:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comment. Roughly two-thirds of the items on this timeline were intentional violations of WP:NOR, added by an editor who opposes this article on grounds of original research (not an unwitting irony but rather a deliberate WP:POINT). Editors should have a look at this version before voting; though arguably flawed, it reflects the good-faith version of the timeline.--G-Dett 19:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the entire timeline is an intentional violation of WP:NOR, created by an editor who deliberately and openly created a POVfork. The issue is compounded by G-Dett's persistently bad-faith focus on other editors, rather than article content, and by G-Dett's persistent attempts to keep the POV in the article as one-sided as possible, not permitting any opposing views into it. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, unequivocal delete - this is nothing but original research, an attempt to retrofit carefully selected past events to fit a point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leifern (talk • contribs)
Delete - This bizarre list was not allowed into the main article because of WP:OR concerns and wide opposition, so it is now POVforked into a new article, hoping that in this new form it'll survive. Sounds very illogical to me. Noon 22:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per G-Dett; too many messes trying to convey this or that point of view instead of neutral, quality entries. Any events that are objectively related to Allegations of Israeli apartheid are already discussed at length in that entry, and any synthesis of a timeline is only bound to offend everyone and accomplish nothing. Tewfik^Talk 00:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to it being a POV fork and Original Research. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.