Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli theft of Arab cuisine

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. SNOW applies here... Tone 18:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli theft of Arab cuisine

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

The article as stands isn't NPOV; with a title like that I'm not sure it's likely to become so. The synthesis of the article reads like original research. Pseudomonas_(talk) 16:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:OR with a side dish of WP:SOAP. Favonian (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Pseudomonas, can you please point out exact what is not npov and what is OR, and I will try to correct it. Its a serious subject and I don't think it should be deleted. Please edit the article yourself if there is something with it that is not following wikiepdia rules. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Title itself is tendentious and soapboxing, content is defamatory, slandering living persons ("Israel and the Israeli people"), in potential violation of WP:BLP restrictions. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The title is intrinsically un-neutral. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — the whole thing is biased and quite silly. ... discospinster _talk 17:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just about everything in this article is WP:POV and WP:SOAP. While assuming good faith, the creator of this article has had a contentious relationship[1] with a number of articles that mention Israel. --Nsaum75 (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree, based on the title of the page there is no way this article can appear unbiased. While good faith is assumed, in my opinion the article violates WP:POV in its very nature. --mwilso24 (^Talk/_Contrib) 18:19, 25 September 2009 (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.