Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-globalization and antisemitism (4th nomination)

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 except signature updates.

The result was Keep. The trend generally seems to be swinging this way, and there is rough consensus that the article should be kept, considering its adequate sourcing, when contrasted with the length of the content, which to some extent diffuses the supposed issues of POV. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-globalization and antisemitism

The whole article is an amalgamation of anecdotic, irrelevant, false and confusing material. It looks like blatant propaganda for most of its extension. It confuses icons accusing Israel of being Nazi with pro-Nazi ones, it casts anecdotes of some individuals apparent anti-semitism as something widespread, it begins with declarations of neonazi militants that make no sense, it confuses once and again anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, it casts ignorance as anti-semitic slur, etc. Overall it seems to have been created in bad faith, as nearly nothing in it is salvageable. The proponent: --Sugaar (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Correcting nomination, was attached to another AfD. I am not expressing an opinion on this discussion at this time. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried to fix it just as you fixed it too. Sorry for the confusion! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmm The material is obviously valid; the name is perhaps questionable. I cannot address issues such as OR given that the article is too big for more than the most cursory reading. I would note that this article is three years old; one would think someone would have noticed the problem earlier. I would suggest that deletion is probably the wrong venue. Mangoe (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being much ado about nothing - this smells like a coatrack article and seems to be placing undue weight on the issue. The article's text seems to confuse conservatives with globalists and basically states that a person who opposes globalisation and zionism is a anti-semite, which includes accusing at least one indivudal. --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This has been through the wringer before (2005 VFD, 2007 AFD (and what a confusing mess of AFD names we have now), but it hasn't really improved its balance or analysis. It's a vaguely-organized laundry list of alleged associations, but there isn't very much material to give context or rebuttal, or it isn't properly highlighted (for example, the lead is pretty one-sided). We must fix this. --Dhartung | Talk 08:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:SOAP. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is fundamentally problematic because it takes a variety of disparate comments and lumps them together under the rubric of "anti-globalization and antisemitism." That is a clear example of original research by synthesis. Any worthwhile material in the article can be incorporated into Antisemitism and New antisemitism, but this article in itself is simply soapboxing and is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. It should have been deleted long ago. *** Crotalus *** 15:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. It shows certain voices in the cold light of day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.25.12 (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to a more user-friendly name Carter | Talk to me 16:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: Per nom, it is WP:SOAP full of WP:SYN. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the article could be fixed up a bit, I strongly disagree that this is soapboxing. The growing acceptance of "unspoken" antisemitism in anti-globalization and leftist circles is something that has been noted by several scholars, including leftists such as Naomi Klein, and is the subject of much debate among academics. This isn't a nonissue being soapboxed through wikipedia. --Telecart (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Telecart expressed it well, it is a well sourced phenomenon noted by scholars. --MPerel 19:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete - this execrable article is an obvious bad-faith attempt to smear a particular group as "antisemitic". Clear violation of WP:SYN. What little there is of value in this article can be treated better in new antisemitism or antisemitism. NSH001 (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I will reconsider as soon as the 90% of WP articles which have way fewer sources and are terribly written are deleted/improved. Also, I would urge whomever closes to ignore the delete arguments that rely on variations of "Well, the people who are conflating AG and AS are wrong." They may well be, but these are not judgments we're supposed to be making. It's all about sources (and this article is quite nicely balanced on that score, I might add). IronDuke 23:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Good sources, well written, well-balanced. More than satisfies the requirements WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Objections appear to be based on a misunderstanding of policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's definitely not a SYN violation as someone suggested. When I last checked, the sources specifically discussed anti-globalization and antisemitism. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic is very notable and article is well sourced. Yahel Guhan 02:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Anti-Zionism has a tendency of using anti-semitic iconography. I've recently read a book about this, which includes sections about people who support the anarchist anti-globalization movement, and am planning on adding this source into the article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a pretty obvious case. The phenomenon the article addresses is well documented among notable scholars and is discussed among an increasingly large percentage of the literate public. That ones favorite cause, anti-globalism, includes antisemitic themes may be viewed as unfortunate by some, but not the least bit surprising to the student of antisemitism. No reasonable basis has been brought forward for deletion that has not already been refuted. The article's compliance with WP policies is better than most. Regards,Doright (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm. For five days, the discussion has very low traffic, and then within five hours, tons of "Keep" votes all flood in at once from participants with a particular POV — most of whom are friends on IRC, and one of whom has previously been caught running a secret, POV-pushing mailing list. I smell canvassing. *** Crotalus *** 05:43, 11 March 2008 (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.