Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pallywood (2nd nomination)
A number of editors above argue that Pallywood is not about a film or a neologism, but rather about the ''phenomenon'' of alleged Palestinian media manipulation; they claim "pallywood" is an acceptable, encyclopedic term for this, one widely used by reliable sources.  This argument seemed so self-evidently false to me that I didn't even think to address it in my nom – which focuses solely on notability issues regarding the film and the neologism.  ''Of course'' "pallywood" is not an acceptable term for the alleged phenomenon: besides violating , '''not a single reliable source anywhere ''uses'' this term for it.'''  The few reliable sources cited by this article mention, in passing, that Landes and some bloggers use the word, but they don't ''themselves'' adopt it.  And for each of these reliable sources that mention the word in passing, there are dozens that don't mention it at all. To argue that "pallywood" is the accepted term for this is like arguing that "Zionist entity" is the accepted term for Israel, on the basis that some reliable sources mention the use of the phrase by non-reliable sources.  I would hope – and did hope, when writing the nomination – that this argument would be readily understood to be fallacious, even ridiculous.  Secondly, I am troubled by the recurring strawman argument that this is an |IDONTLIKEIT nomination.  Assuming that those advancing this strawman argument are "voting" in good faith (that is, not simply throwing a thin disguise over their own |ILIKEIT argument), they do not appear to have understood or engaged the policy and sourcing issues involved.  If this is an article about a phenomenon, it needs a title accepted by the reliable sources who have covered it; and no reliable source uses "pallywood."  If it's an article about the movie and/or neologism, on the other hand, it needs reliable sources attesting to the notability of either the one or the other.  The very small handful of reliable sources that mention "Pallywood" (movie or neologism) do so in passing, in a way that  explicitly defines as "plainly trivial."  As for what I like and don't like: I like that Wikipedia includes information about Landes, about the film ''Pallywood'', about the protologism "pallywood" (and who uses it), and about alleged Palestinian media manipulation.  I like that a reader who types "pallywood" into our search bar can get to this information.  I like that |Wikipedia isn't censored.  What I don't like is a path to these ends that egregiously violates , , CON, EO, and .  Information about the movie, and the blogslang it created, can be moved to Richard Landes, with "Pallywood" as a redirect.  Information about alleged Arab/Palestinian media manipulation should be presented in an article of its own.  It can mention "pallywood" in passing (like the reliable sources do) and provide a "see also" link to the Landes article.  Having a neutral title for the media manipulation article will be a good in its own right, but it will also enable it to grow and become more encyclopedic, since it won't be restricted to sources that happen to mention an obscure slangword in passing
— User:G, 19:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:NPOV||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:ILIKEIT||WP:N||WP:CENSOR||WP:NPOV||WP:UNDUE||WP:NCON||WP:NEO||WP:N (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)