Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durban Strategy

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 KEEP. -

• Weak Keep Some of it is true. In the 1970's and 80's Israel used to have close ties with the apartheid regime of South Africa even if the rest of the world boycotted it. Still not sure, if to keep this article or put it in 'Foreign relations of Isreal' and then as a sidenote, put this article in it. --Ageo020 00:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• move to
  Durban Conference and expand, since that's where this allegedly originated. -Steve Sanbeg 00:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Making
    The Durban Declaration and Plan of Action) a sub-article of World Conference against Racism#2001_conference, in Wikipedia:Summary style, and merging there would probably be better. Uncle G 01:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Weak Keep and Strong Cleanup mostly because it's at the very least well referenced (at least one reference even has "Durban Strategy" in the title). However, the text needs to conform to NPOV and simply report on the research it's based on, not state that the strategy absolutely exists. Wikipedia doesn't state that anything is true, it asserts that X source has proposed the opinion that Y is true -Markeer 01:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and I did some cleanup. The Durban conference already has
  Zionism and racism and there is quite a few sources out there, I believe it is worthy to stay around. Mceder 12:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Durban International Convention Centre has hosted more than one conference. ☺ Uncle G 15:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oh what controversy we have stepped into. If it is true that there is a "Durban Strategy" it long predates the Durban conference; remember the "Zionism is racism" resolution? Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
    • I think that we can steer clear of becoming embroiled in the controversy. Wikipedia isn't an arbiter of whether it is true, and the question here, as per the nomination, is whether this article is capable of addressing the controversy from a NPOV. My opinion is that it is really the title that is problematic. Although we can certainly discuss the idea of a Durban Strategy that some commentators have propounded, we should do it within the context of a larger article that discusses the 2001 WCAR conference as a whole, and the reactions of all sides to the events therein. Merging and renaming solves this, though. Uncle G 00:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a valid term, the stub is properly sourced, and it was nominated for deletion by an obvious sockpuppet as his second edit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I resent your allegation, SlimVirgin. I have been editing wiki for a long time now. The fact of the matter is I created this account BECAUSE I needed to in order to put this article up (unbeknownst to me at first). Not that I care what you think (personal attack removed), I just don't appreciate being defamed.--AlmostFree 00:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then don't defame others yourself, please. Uncle G 00:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an editor who was anonymous for a long time before I created an account, I ask that you assume good faith and see this edit. Uncle G 00:17, 26 August 2006 (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.