Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 22

< May 21	Deletion review archives: 2007 May	May 23 >

22 May 2007

Zionism and racism allegations

Delete, becausee the vast majority of the people either wanted this article deleted or merged per previous Afd. The result certianly wasn't keep. Sefringle 06:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am the closing admin. I did not count "votes" and AfD is not a vote. The Delete arguments were a good deal less cogent than the Keep arguments, is what it comes down to. "Delete - no way can a NPOV article ever be written here - so let's not try" is not a strong argument. "Delete. This article is ridiculous..." is not a strong argument. "Delete per nom" is not a strong independent argument. There were several "per nom"s , throwing a lot of stress onto the nomination. And what does the nomination say? "Clear POV fork, no sources. This page attempts to prove that zionism is a form of racism, which is a clear anti-Israel POV. Also the entire page is origional research." It does not appear to be a POV fork as it has existed since the fall of 2005 and it is not specified what the fork is from. "...attempts to prove that zionism is a form of racism..." seems untrue; the article if anything tends toward explaining why Zionism is not racism. Lack of sourcing is not a deleteable offense when the subject is notable, which I think it surely is; no one is making the argument that the subject is so obscure or marginal that no one would likely look it up... The only argument that doesn't fall apart at once is the claim that it is original research. I found this to be not proven. Herostratus 06:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I question your neutrality on the subject, Herostratus. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The votes for deletion was basicly WP:IDONTLIKEIT. // Liftarn
The article is a POVFORK of UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 and should be merged. There is no need to duplicate the content: the allegation entered the mainstream with the UNGA Res 3379 and was revoked (even by the unreformed UN) by the UNGA Res 4686 and belongs in the history's dump, together with other old Soviet propaganda junk. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree with merging, but why are we discussing a merge on the board for deletion review? >Radiant< 08:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CyberPower PCs

Deleting admin deleted based on WP:CORP, but based on the state of the article at the time, not whether the subject actually met the criteria, and with gazillions of G-hits I suspect the subject would indeed meet the criteria. Votes are roughly evenly distributed, meaning no consensus seems to have been present. Morgan Wick 04:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. If you can demonstrate that it does meet the criteria, I might change my opinion, but we can't undelete things because it might be possible to create an article that is allowable. -Amarkov moo! 04:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (or if non-admins have a say, overturn closure(s) and continue AfD(s)): I wrote the following comment on Blnguyen's talk page:

I was wondering if you would consider taking a second look at some of your AfD closings from 16 May. I am not sure that some of them reflect community consensus. For CyberPower PCs, for instance, another administrator KrakatoaKatie relisted to get a further consensus--three further arguments were given, two for keeping and one against, I am not sure how this could have resulted in a consensus to delete. I think your argument [there] is a good one, but I think that arguments like this should happen in the AfD and not in the closing, where they can't be disputed by other users. Similarly, for Cec Cinder, two other admins felt that the discussion did not reflect consensus; after four more voices were added--two for and two against--you closed as "spam" based on a low alexa rank, which no voice had the opportunity to dispute. Finally, for Titus North, the only AfD I participated in (where I suggested Neutral, leaning delete), you stated "Does not pass the PROF or political guidelines; no reasons given as why this person is an unusual case. As pointed out, he was the second of two candidates, so he was the only outlet for dissent." No one argued that he passed PROF, so that seems uncontroversial, but whether the community felt that he passed the political guidelines had not been concluded--it seemed like a relisting to get further consensus was in order. Thanks for considering these ideas.

My comments don't have to do with the outcome -- I think that I would lean toward recommending deletion in all three cases -- but with the process. I don't believe that closing admins should express new arguments which have not been yet raised in the AfD in the closure comments--it gives others no voice to contest these statements. From what I've seen elsewhere, Blnguyen is a great admin and contributor, and it could be that I, with much less experience, have missed something. But I don't feel like voices (even those of Admins asking for further comments to find consensus) were listened to in these AfDs. I haven't looked earlier than May 4, but the fact that Blnguyen has only closed deletions (>10) with one redirect, at least gives the appearance that these closures are not considering a balance of opinions. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 06:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]