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. Whether to redirect, and where to, is not clear from this discussion.  Sandstein  17:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Israelophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wasn't merged into Anti-Zionism because it had no content deemed appropriate for that article. Deferring here as the participants in the merger proposal wanted the article redirected. This is a procedural nomination, I'm neutral. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think there is a difference in definition. Israelophobia is much like Anti-Americanism in that it is a form of national discrimination. Anti-Zionism however is seen more as a criticism of the state of Israel and would be more related to on article on criticism of American existence. Another example is criticism of Judaism or Islam and Antisemitism and Islamophobia respectively. I am personally of the opinion that unlike the other anti-national sentiments Anti-Zionism is not betrayed fairly. It is used as a far more neutral term than and does not show the many different views on the subject. You could argue the equating of it with Antisemitism is like that but not only is that coming up with unsourced opinions based on linking one thing to another but its also a controversial link in itself. The point is that I feel that this article should exist to address the negative sentiment about Anti-Israeli feeling because that Anti-Zionism is not neutral nor does it show both sides.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If this article stays, I think the name should be changed to "Anti-Israeli sentiment" to follow the precedent of a similar article, Anti-Americanism. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection. Israelophobia only needs be to be mentioned once in the article as a synonym.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect At first, I was wondering if the term is a neologism. It may be, but I do see its use in MSM. What bothers me is that the term is a loosy-goosey. Can you be a supporter of Israel and still have israelophobia? Fearing that they may nuke Iran or something? I'll concede that it's a valid term, but the connotations of the term are not clear. Roodog2k (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A minor neologism used in non-notable blogs, nothing more. Nothing worth redirecting, no content that cannot already be found at Anti-Zionism. Tarc (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOTNEO. It's a neologism and there's no justification for inclusion. Ducknish (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Tarc and Ducknish. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Just a neologism used as a platform for a particular point of view. bobrayner (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Its seems peoples main objection is the neologism argument. So why not suggest a redirect. "Anti-Israeli sentiment" is clearly not a neologism and could easily be used to encompass this entire article. Also people keep stating that all this information is covered in anti-Zionism tell me once where anti-Zionism talks about discrimination or anti-Arab sentiment. I heavily suggest we think about a redirect which would solve all problems therefore the neologism argument is no longer valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.76.149 (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- We already have too many articles covering the same topic and rehashing the same arguments (. None of the articles are good quality or comply with WP:NPOV. We should concentrate on improving the extant articles instead of keep creating new ones just to push the opinions of one side of the issue. Dlv999 (talk) 08:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- not a real word, thus subject to WP:NEO, which it clearly fails. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Antisemitism. Subject of this AfD has appeared to be used an adjective since at least 2000. Therefore, I am not sure a decade plus old term falls under WP:NEO. That being said, the subject of this AfD does not appear to have received significant coverage in any one source, but multiple reliable sources have given the subject more than just a passing mention, therefore it can be argued that if added up those mentions could total a significant coverage single source. Therefore, as this appears to fall within the scope of the article of Antisemitism, I say a redirect to that article would be the best compromise at this time.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could agree with that if the term is mentioned at least once in the antisemitism article. I think that would be a fair comprimise. To you all who are still arguing the neologism argument you do realize the article could easily be changed to Anti-Israeli sentiment which would invalidate over half the arguments for deletion.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 01:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't your call to "invalidate" anyone's arguments, I'm afraid. We already have an article that covers this topic area; Anti-Zionism. The project has no need for this fork that veers into personal opinion and bias. Tarc (talk) 03:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, anyone who can point out solutions or use wikipedia guidelines can "invalidate" anyones opinion. Second of all I have already pointed out that Anti-Zionism refuses to even address discrimination. Its not about reflecting one's bias its about reflecting all sides of the conflict which I don't believe Anti-Zionism is doing. Unless anti-zionism even states that it includes discrimination it dosn't even encompass the subject of this article. Even most anti-zionist will state that their beliefs arn't discrimanatory. So if anti-zionism is the article that covers this it is unfairly biased towards one side of the issue anyway. The article dosn't once mention discrimination against the Israelis. As a matter a fact it defines itself as "Anti-Zionism is opposition to Zionistic views or opposition to the state of Israel." I won't even bother adding information about discrimination against Israeli people because I'm sure it will be deleted.-98.247.76.149 (talk) 09:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, they cannot invalidate any such thing; they can offer their own opinions, but such things will be judged at close by an admin. As for the rest of your rant, I already addressed that, really, with the "veers into personal opinion and bias". Your opinion re: discrimination is just not terribly relevant to the article, if you're so sure that it will be deleted then hat should be a pretty big red flag that it is inappropriate. Fringe points-of-view do not get equal weight alongside the mainstream ones. I a sure you are well-aware of that though, given your familiarity with the topic area and the AfD process, you certainly edited under another name at one time. Tarc (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a fringe point of view. If people didn't feel that Israelophobia could be discrimination there wouldn't be any comparison of it to antisemitism. The fact of the matter is that the article Anti-Zionism is being treated unfairly when compared to Anti-Americanism or Anti-Canadianism or Anti-Italianism. Anti-Italianism mentions stereotypes of connections to the Mafia and Anti-Americanism mentions the September 11 attacks. All other anti-national sentiment articles mention it so if Anti-Zionism is to be the ONLY article on Anti-Israeli sentiment it should fairly address what every other anti-national article expresses. The lack of such shows a huge bias in wikipedia. Albanophobia mentions discrimination and sterotypes, so does Anti-Arabism, Anti-Australianism mentions hostility, Anti-Canadianism mentions hostility etc. The fact of the matter is that there are many sources which talk about Israelophobia and even more that talk about Anti-Israeli sentiment. If you're not allowed to invalidate anyones opinion that I hold the opinion that the root of this argument is deligitimization of Israel and Israeli people and singling out Anti-Zionism to be the only anti-national article that isn't allowed to be considered discrimination.-98.247.76.149 (talk) 00:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dosn't anyone who wants the article deleted want to come up with a solution to the problems I just listed. Does no one else think that it needs improvement.-98.247.76.149 (talk) 06:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have reverted the attempted pagemove by Rainbowofpeace, as it is extremely bad form to rename an article in the middle of a deletion discussion. Calling the article something else doesn't make the neologism argument magically go away, but arguments for deletion do not rest solely on "not a neologism" anyways. It is tending towards delete for simple lack of notability. Tarc (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and then redirect to Anti-Zionism. This doesn't appear to be a separate topic. If it were something different from Anti-Zionism, there would be lots of sources about it, because opinions about Israel, both positive and negative, are not hard to find. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2013 (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.