Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews sans frontieres

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the nomination was delete. Mackensen (talk) 02:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jews sans frontieres

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. 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 by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Not notable as defined in WP:WEB#Criteria_for_web_content William Avery 17:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

  • The above remains true, but I acknowledge that there is no consensus, and I am liable to criticism under WP:WL. Therefore...
  • Delete, nn notable per nom.--John Lake 17:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 20:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as it fails WP:WEB but props for having a cool name. GassyGuy 22:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:WEB,WP:VER,WP:NOR Ste4k 22:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This blog has engaged with many mainstream media figures in the UK (such as Nick Cohen and Linda Grant), is reasonably well-visited, and has won some notability on account of it. Please keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.236.207 (talk • contribs)

I think this blog is well worth reading, and having an article on it on wikpedia is a good idea - it is fairly well visited, and noteworthy.

Comment added by new user user:Greg Potemkin. (Since you only registered today Greg we forgive you for not signing your comment). Congrats on finding your way so quickly to AfD. William Avery 07:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Some examples of engagement with media figures: Nick Cohen; Linda Grant; Engage. Also worth noting that the blog was referenced in the Jewish Chronicle (ordinarily very hostile to anti-Zionist output). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.175.35 (talk • contribs)

All references back to the blog itself, which doesn't make it notable, just proves he likes to tilt at windmills; just as he writes to the Guardian regularly. William Avery 07:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete Jewssansfrontieres has been the subject of complaints re libel. The blogger has accused Guardian journalist of inventing material in a national newspaper, for which he has supplied no evidence. Violation of copyright laws. Frequently throws around accusations based on speculation. Unreliable material based on pursuit of personal vendettas. WP:VER Rob Foster

Welcome to another new user, Robfoster. The question at hand is really one of notability, rather than trustworthiness. William Avery 13:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I just don’t think the argument that the site tilts at windmills is fair or accurate. Jews sans frontieres criticises and exposes the arguments of prominent political, media and academic figures : E.g. Prof Dershowitz, The Jewish Chronicle, Nick Cohen, Jonathan Freedland and David Aaronovitch. Some of the posts are extremely well argued and not found elsewhere. The post on David Aaronvitch’s column on Galloway's libel trial for example identifies what can generously be described as a series of mistakes, distortions and omissions. I think the site is polemical and sometimes hits hard and could be more charitable to some of its targets, but I think the Guardian columnist seemed to be practising a bit of dishonesty. Personally I think generosity to opponents is important, but not everyone shares this view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickmurphy (talk • contribs)

Another new user joining the debate. William Avery 18:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
'Tilts at windmills' was out of order, and I have apologised to Mark Elf. William Avery 07:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's a noteworthy blog since it has been cited many times. It passes the "Search engine test" and Alexa internet shows it to have a high traffic rank [1]. If it's to be deleted, then so should some of these blogs Lordb 19:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • "Traffic Rank for jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com: 1,314,683" i.e. not in the top million. William Avery 20:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Clearly there are some people who wish to see the Jewsansfrontiere blog deleted, not it isn't newsworthy, interesting, provocative etc. but because a Jewish anti-Zionist perspective is unacceptable to them. What they are seeking is censorship of views unpalatable to themselves. Hence the reference to libel, designed to scare the children but a nonsense nonetheless. If the site was libellous it would already have been sued.

My understanding is that the Wikipaedia site is going the same way as most media in the United States or affected by the latter. That is why Noam Chomsky can't get a hearing in US papers but is feted in Britain or why the NYT praises veritable forgeries, Dershowitz (Case 4 Israel), Lynn Peters (From Time Immemorial) and then refuses any response, so these forgeries are exposed in Britain and, yes, Israel. The deletion of this page, which is acknowledged as a place where healthy debate takes place, will be at the urging of those to whom censorship is second nature. In Israel they'll lock you up for it, on Wikipaedia they'll only delete what you say. The principle remains the same.

And yes, if Wikipaedia is going to fulfill its function it has to take on board different perspectives including an anti-Zionist Jewish perspective, which Jewssansfrontiere does very well.

Tony Greenstein —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonygreenstein (talk • contribs) users third edit [2]

    • You seem to be under the misapprehension that it is deletion of the blog itself that is being debated here. The question is whether it is sufficiently noteworthy to have an encyclopedia article of its own. The blog will still be referenced as an external link in the article Anti-Zionism. William Avery 07:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Sufficiently noteworthy. --Daniel575 12:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm researching Israel-critical Jewish groups in Britain. This blog is a central jumping off point to many of the debates within British Jewry, and a useful distillation of media on the issue.David L 13:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC) users first edit [3]
  • Delete per nom. I'm glad the blog is useful to those readers, but it's not notable enough for an article in an encyclopedia. Tychocat 14:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleting this page would mean another blow to democracy and freedom of speech. Mark Elf's website is a lighthouse of unbiased and honest news. There is a bunch of zionists who want his blog and hence this WIKI entry removed to shut people up. This is called censorship! Kotovasii 17:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • If you come to the Wikipedia interested in Anti-Zionism you look at that article and will find a useful external link to the blog there. Nothing is being censored. William Avery 15:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
      • William, I am referring to Internet freedom of speech not WIKI’s. But I think that given the amount of hits his web site generates it is very much noteworthy, especially when compared to the amount of rubbish which gets through to the WIKI. Kotovasii 18:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, but this debate about the desirability of having a dedicated article in Wikipedia seems to be turning into a "mini-marathon" (see It's a Knockout). William Avery 19:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It would be a great pity if this blog were deleted, particularly when others equally 'un-noteworthy' remain listed. As a comment states above: the blog has definitely been acknowledged by the Jewish Chronicle and (I believe) the blog round-up in the Saturday Guardian. I think this qualifies it as noteworthy. - John E Richardson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.110.86 (talk • contribs)
      • Mere acknowledgement or inclusion in round ups of what blogs are saying doesn't make it notable, See WP:WEB. If substantial articles had been written about about it or it were carried in full that would make it notable. As the recent additions have shown, this article consists of a pointlessly thin portion of factual content (author, raison d'etre) which can all be seen by going to the blog itself, and a poisonous cloud of unencyclopaedic POV from Zionists and Anti-Zionists. William Avery 17:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The most recent remarks on Mr Elf's site confirm my earlier comments: 'Frequently throws around accusations based on speculation. Unreliable material based on pursuit of personal vendettas' - Rob Foster

OTOH at least we know in "Mr Elf"'s case who is throwing around accusations, whereas you are less forthcoming
Keep -- significant and much-linked to blog that provides useful coverage of a controversial and endlessly-proliferating subject. (Arguably the explosion of debate here itself demonstrates noteworthiness in some ways.) But the article itself needs serious improvement. Dogville 07:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


Delete -- It's not notable, it has never been of notice to me until now and that article was simply some mewing about a wiki reference being up for deletion. Keeping an article on the merest of weblogs such as this one would merely stand as another testimonial as to why wikipedia is an inferior reference source on the web. --Blue Spider 05:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it has never been of notice to you until now is surely of zero relevance, unless every single one of the subjects of every other one of the million-plus entries on WP have been.
I think there's a serious question here re WP:WEB, which is that, inasmuch as those guidelines (and they are guidelines, not policy, as far as I'm aware) highly privilege citation in the mainstream media, then any blog which is devoted to examining what it sees as a serious consensus, and silencing of voices against that consensus, in said media, is unlikely if that central hypothesis is right to benefit from the citations that WP places such emphasis on. Dogville 14:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep - This particular blog is noteworthy by virtue of its uniqueness and originality. Viande hachée 12:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep - The fact that this entry has elicited such violent and abusive responses (on the discussion page) from Mark Elf's political opponents is itself clear evidence of its notability.R Bartholomew 19:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. Clear error in reasoning. That wikipedians (possibly viewers of WP:AfD, rather than political opponents or supporters) believe the article should be killed is no evidence of notability at all. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply I suggest you look over the nature of the comments before diagnosing "clear error in reasoning". I'm not refering to the discussion above, but to the comments which appear on the discussion page of the "Jews sans Frontieres" entry itself. It's clear that some of these are motivated by extreme political hostility, expressed in vulgar and slanderous terms.R Bartholomew 09:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply The hostile comments on the discussion page all appear to be from one individual, of a rather demented type. I think the content and style of his remarks have ruled him out for any serious attention on the Wikipedia project. They are nonsense from beginning to end. But there the fact that Mr Elf is being persecuted by an evident nutjob does not mean that on this basis he merits inclusion under the grounds of notability (this date stamp reflects the fact that I've just worked out how to sign my name!) --Robfoster 06:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Rob Foster
  • Delete Can't see how the site passes any of the 3 criteria of WP:WEB. I can't see any calls to keep that argue on the basis of those criteria. --Dweller 10:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep -- if information on the article is correct and un-biased I dont see why we should delete it. Luka Jačov 16:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

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