discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review. See #Purpose.
please check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.
List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.
The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.
Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by non-admins. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.
A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Wikipedia:Deletion review discussions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate. Deletion review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest DRV log page, if the closing admin thinks that consensus may yet be achieved by more discussion.
If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a prod, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead.
1.
Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the closing admin as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page.
Follow this link to today's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the deleted page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page, and reason with the reason why the page should be undeleted. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example:
{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
4.
Inform the administrator who deleted the page by adding the following on their user talk page:
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
6.
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion. Use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=೨೦೨೪ ಡಿಸೆಂಬರ್ ೨೫}}</noinclude>, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, and use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=೨೦೨೪ ಡಿಸೆಂಬರ್ ೨೫|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is different than the deletion review's section header:
Jews and Communism – No consensus, meaning that the "no consensus" closure is maintained by default. About 17 editors, going by the bolded labels, would endorse the closure, and somewhat fewer - 14 by my count - would prefer to overturn it in favor of deletion. Numerically, that's no consensus to overturn the closure, so let's examine the arguments to determine whether we need to discount a sufficient number of "endorse" arguments or give the "overturn" arguments more weight. I find that this is not the case, but rather the opposite is. Many arguments for overturning the closure (but only a few for endorsing it) are based on the merits of the article - in other words, they are repeating arguments from the AfD, which is not what deletion review is for. Whether the article is unredeemably deficient (which it may well be) is a question better suited to be determined at AfD, rather than here. This means that we're stuck with a no consensus outcome of this DRV discussion. A relisting would not be appropriate because the AfD discussion and closure was relatively thorough. As such, the closure is maintained by default. However, as in all cases of "no consensus" outcomes, the article can be renominated for deletion after some time if its problems can't be editorially remedied. – Sandstein 12:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The vote for deletion was 22 in favor, three to merge into other articles, and 14 to keep, The administrator closed the discussion with "no consensus". The administrator erred in dismissing the consensus that the lack of neutrality in the article was irreparable and erred in saying no one could say the topic was not notable. In fact sources were provided that no comprehensive study of the subject had ever been undertaken. The administrator also said that there was no consensus that the article was a POV fork, although many editors said it was, and few disagreed.
The way this article was originally constructed in tone and purpose it read, and essentially still does read, more like an "indictment" and "blame sheet" that would make the Jew-hating Jew Watch proud, rather than as a well-balanced presentation of a factual why and how things came to be. Having been one of those that suggested this article be merged into History of Communism, in light of the recent surprising "no consensus" decision I have recently tried to edit certain sections for a better historical balance and perspective, more objectivity, and adherence to core WP:NPOV. It is not an easy job! That being said, User TFD has a very valid point: It is unfair and very strange that with 22 votes in favor of deletion, three to merge (meaning also opposing the retention of the article) versus 14 keeps, therefore the keeps are outnumbered almost two to one, that that is somehow "no consensus". Simply based on the recent vote the article should have been deleted as User TFD requests. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
EndorseWP:DELPRO#Consensus explains that "Consensus is formed through the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of each side's arguments, and should not be calculated solely by the balance of votes." The close was a model of such careful consideration and the finding that there was no consensus seems quite reasonable. The complaint that achieving a simple majority of !votes for deletion did not result in deletion seems to misunderstand the nature of consensus which requires broad agreement. Andrew (talk) 06:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose No evidence has been furnished that the "delete" arguments were not firmly based on well-established policies and guidelines. Andrew Davidson correctly points out that a simple vote count is not the proper method for decision. But when the Ivotes in favor of deletion are so overwhelming, it is incumbent on the closer to explain why so many good faith votes, seemingly based on policies and guidelines, have been discounted. Cullen328Let's discuss it 06:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
@TFD "The administrator said that there was no consensus that the article was a POV fork, although many editors said it was, and few disagreed." Actually, many disagreed - including yourself, TFD. Since The Four Deuces insists on pushing this line of argument, I will point out again he has removed the subject from the Jewish Bolshevism article on grounds that it is a separate topic. To quote exactly: [೧]
"The fact that some Jews became Communists and the conspiracy theory are two separate topics." --TFD, 11 September 2013
He then posted an RfC to show that the Jewish Bolshevism article is indeed solely about the conspiracy theory [೨]. Having succeeded in deleting the sourced info through said argument, he nominated the new article for deletion - on grounds that its a POVFORK of Jewish Bolshevism. As incredible as that may sound. Having failed that, he now proceeds to bother people here on WP:DELREV. Presumably if the article had indeed been deleted on grounds of being a FORK, he would then claim its a "separate topic" once more (or whatever might serve to keep it out).
This is little more than WP:WIKILAWYERING to push a distinct agenda, namely deleting the text from Wikipedia. The arguments, from the alleged POVFORK (rendered nonsensical by TFD's own consensus [೩]), on to the WP:BATHWATER claims that the article is "unsalvageable" - are spurious and biased. Most "delete" votes were hysterical WP:IDONTLIKEIT exclamations instigated by TFD's own inflammatory presentation of the article as "attempting to justify a Nazi conspiracy theory" (which imo constitutes a particularly heinous personal attack as well, against a long-time contributor). As regards claims that "no comprehensive study of the subject had ever been undertaken", they are manifestly untrue. Though I suppose one could theoretically extend the definition of "comprehensive study" far enough to delete this entire project.
In short, RoySmith perceived the situation very accurately: the basic deletion rationale was manifestly absurd (with a contradicting consensus established by the nominator himself), and the rest of the arguments amount to a hill of beans as far as our policy is concerned. -- Director(talk) 08:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I genuinely don't understand what is TFD trying to do. RoySmith's rational went above and beyond the call of duty explaining exactly his logic for closing it as no consensus. At this point I honestly believe this is a very WP:POINTY attempt to get rid of this article at all cost (even after he himself formed an RFC explicitly eliminating that content from the article; now claiming it's a fork?). --CyberXRef☎ 10:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Yah. He's directly contradicting his own position and the talkpage consensus he pushed through. He refuses even to offer some sort of explanation. Not that I myself believe there's any mystery as to what is being attempted. Its just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. He thinks the research is "antisemitic", views Producer is some kind of Nazi (which is ridiculous), and wants his work deleted from the project by any available means, policy be damned. -- Director(talk) 19:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
What TFD said or did is irrelevant for this discussion. Otherwise the article should be delete because TFD proposed so.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Of course its relevant: TFD established a consensus on the Jewish Bolshevism article to the effect that the relevant data is not part of its scope. Hence the article is manifestly not a FORK. Its also relevant as it demonstrates bad faith. Much like its relevant that you, Antid, are merely doing your usual business of following me around and opposing whatever I say as a sort of petty revenge for opposing you on previous discussions.. -- Director(talk) 19:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
@Antidiskriminator: Actually, it absolutely does in this case. The AfD nominator initiated this RFC where a consensus was reached that this article's material is out of scope in there (as the Jewish Bolshevism deals with the conspiracy theory only); it's therefore by definition no longer a fork. --CyberXRef☎ 16:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Incorrect. Just because this is "out of scope in there" does not mean it is a notable topic for another article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
That's a separate argument, however, it's not a fork. Which was the single biggest argument. --CyberXRef☎ 22:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment which makes it easy to see that KEEP position was based on two fallacies:
Affirming a disjunct: Almost all editors who proclaimed that this article is not a POVFORK explained their position with: "a consensus was reached that this article's material is out of scope in"Jewish Bolshevism. So what? Almost all POVFORKs are out of scope of the Jewish Bolshevism but that does not make them less POVFORKish. To make matters worse, based on this fallacious position, closer of the AfD discussion mistakenly concluded that there was no consensus about POVFORKish nature of this article.
False dilemma: Based on irrelevant and wrong conclusion about the lack of POVFORKish nature of this article's material closer concluded that it should not be deleted. Again wrong conclusion. Hundreds of articles are deleted every day although they are not POVFORKs.
The situation here is simple. Regardless if this article's material is POVFORK or not (and I agree with those editors who believe it is) this article should be deleted simply because nobody presented any proof for any meaningful connection between particular ethnicity and Communism.
As others and myself have pointed out to you: we are discussing the claim of POVFORK here. You are voicing a completely separate argument. Do you understand this? An argument which is just silly, and isn't even worth discussing - considering the article is packed with sources explicitly describing a "meaningful connection between Foo ethnicity and Communism". Because of that, practically noone supports your argument, not even TFD (though he could contradict himself again, who can say..). -- Director(talk) 05:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
No doubt you know that what you wrote here is incorrect. I can't see other reason for you to write this comment other than to sidetrack discussion in your desired outcome in the absence of valid arguments.
The subject of discussion is not POVFORK position here, but decision of closer to keep article. POVFORK was only one of arguments.
More than one editor based their delete !votes not on POVFORK position but on other arguments including argument I presented.
Oh go away Antidiskriminator... how many times must people explain to you that these posts are about the POVFORK claim?! Do you understand that? Seriously, do you? Your own personal "impressions" and assessments re the sources are a separate topic. They do not concern me at all, not least because I'm certain you didn't read a word of any of the refs. Do please stop cluttering the page with red herrings. -- Director(talk) 08:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
WP:POVFORK is continuously being put forward by the nominator as the primary reasoning for deletion. I am responding to that. I do not claim that an article that isn't a POVFORK must be kept solely by virtue of not being a POVFORK. That would be a false dichotomy. I am saying the article isn't a POVFORK. Period. That is not a false dichotomy. Either you do not understand what's being said, or you don't understand what a false dichotomy is. You also don't understand what WP:CARCASS is about, since you're quoting it about an active discussion.
It does appear you've discovered logical fallacies and find them interesting, but please try to read a few examples before claiming others use them. -- Director(talk) 09:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Endorse The closing rationale provides a good summary of the "discussion" and no consensus looks entirely appropriate to me. Many thanks to Roy for taking this on. Thincat (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose per Cullen. GabrielF (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
In a moment I'm going to argue that we should overturn to delete. But before I do, I want applaud Roy Smith for that excellent close. We have far too many sysops who, faced with that debate, would have used some quite forced reasoning to get to a definite conclusion. Roy Smith avoided this and did exactly what sysops are supposed to do. His closing statement is very good. It shows a thoughtful and impartial analysis of the debate. With the vast majority of articles, I would have been wholeheartedly endorsing it. (I've had occasion to analyse a few of Roy Smith's closes at DRV lately and I'm starting to find that he stands quite high in my esteem.)
But. The history of anti-semitism is one of those fraught topic areas that Wikipedia's consensus-seeking processes don't handle very well. What can arise in a fraught topic area is a "first-mover advantage", where one faction, clique or splinter group, genuinely believing themselves to be in the right, writes something that suits them, and then an opposing faction, clique or splinter group that also genuinely believe themselves to be in the right can never quite muster enough voting accounts to remove it. This is not a good way to write an encyclopaedia, leading as it does to different pages, paragraphs or sentences belonging to, and being defended by, opposing sides in an environment where no consensus is possible and the best we can manage is a long-term standoff. In such cases it is, very occasionally, in the encyclopaedia's best interests to eliminate the first mover advantage, and to reach a decision rather than a compromise. How can we do that? I think that DRV is the right mechanism because (as it would amaze most people to learn) Wikipedia's most robust content management tool is our deletion process. DRV supervises this process so as far as content is concerned, DRV is the "highest court in the land".
As the "highest court" we're normally very procedure-focused here----we often take the view that it matters that we get to the right result, but it also matters that we get there in the correct way. And I'm often a procedure-focused man, and I often want to ensure that nothing is decided until interested parties have had every opportunity to be heard. I'm not a deletionist, and I'm not a particularly pro-Jewish man either----I'm British, and I'm alert enough to British history to have quite a lot of sympathy for Palestine.
But contrary to the view I often take, in this particular case I think it's in the best interests of the encyclopaedia to delete this irretrievably antisemitic and POV content. It should not be visible in the history. Of course, as Roy Smith correctly says in his close, Wikipedia should cover the subject of Jews and Communism, but this particular content needs to be nuked.—S MarshallT/C 12:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
If you believe "this particular content needs to be nuked", then please present a proper argument for that. As I'm sure you're well aware, we generally don't "nuke" reliably-sourced, notable information from this project. And I must say your position falls well withing the topic of WP:ZEAL:
"So an article is not perfect. It is tagged for multiple issues. Its notability is in question. It has few if any references. It has some inaccurate or questionable information. It had loads of original research. But still, it has just the little spark of hope of being a viable article. Well, if this is the case, the deletion process is not the route to take to solve the problems. That's what the talk page is for."
You are certainly correct in pointing out cliques often form on articles and control content. Deletion however, is not a get-out-of-discussion-free card. Its not an alternative to consensus-building on the talkpage. If someone wishes to challenge the data in the article, they should do it properly - not make spurious and self-contradictory claims to try and get the thing deleted as a sort of scam. And that's what this is, really. A kind of "scam". The point of which is probably for TFD to regain the same advantage you speak of, one that he wields and has wielded with considerable effectiveness on the JB article. If he deletes, he can continue to suppress this entire topic by such means. That's really what this is about: apparently he'd rather delete whole articles than challenge standing data. No doubt that would be easier, but permit me to say - it would not be right. -- Director(talk) 20:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to DRV, Direktor, and thanks for the benefit of your opinion. I've considered it and I remain firmly of the view that this content is irretrievably POV and should not remain in the history. You are of course at liberty to differ.—S MarshallT/C 22:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, its a "free encyclopedia". Nevertheless, I thought it pertinent to point out the above does not represent a policy-relevant deletion rationale. -- Director(talk) 23:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The relevant policy is, of course, NPOV. Given the way this discussion is trending, I would also accept (as a poor second best) "keep the title but completely rewrite the content from scratch" per DGG. I suspect that in practice this would be a rather more difficult task than most rewrites, involving as it would negotiations over each and every sentence with vocal editors who have strong opinions.—S MarshallT/C 12:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I understood you were referring to NPOV, which is why I pointed out POV is not a valid reason for deletion. Even were we all unanimously agreed that the article is antisemitic trash (which we are not), as long as the topic itself is notable - its not a reason to delete the entire article. I am also continuously astounded at how openly folks push for deletion on grounds that discussing the article's issues would be "too much work". Yes. Negotiations. Negotiate; that's what the talkpage is for. Its a difficult subject, but one that seems universally acknowledged as notable and relevant. Though I'm not at all certain there will be some sort of talkpage armageddon: it seems to me there isn't a single user that opposes a rewrite of the article. Producer included. -- Director(talk) 12:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
No. There are times when negotiation is appropriate. This isn't one. As any mathematician or scientist will tell you, sometimes any compromise between the right answer and the wrong answer is another kind of wrong answer. This is one of those clear-cut cases. If Wikipedia was a democracy then that debate would have been a landslide "delete" and I see no reason why the "keep" side should be allowed to mire the whole thing in endless talk page negotiation. Keeping this material is wrong, and compromising on keeping some of this material is wrong. Compromising on keeping it in the history is wrong. This really is so antisemitic and so POV that blowing it up and starting again really is the simplest and best answer. Do feel free to add another post below so as to get the last word, though.—S MarshallT/C 01:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
@S Marshall. (I'm not trying to get the "last word", I'm really not.) In the above terms, my reply is that its not been shown there's a "wrong answer". It does not appear any of the sources presented by Producer are unreliable or biased in any way, in spite of pretty rigorous scrutiny, nor that he has presented them inaccurately. How is deleting reliably sourced, accurate information the "right answer"? If you wish to challenge data - the place for that discussion is the talkpage. Though, imo, all the article requires, really, is some context.
If Wikipedia were a democracy, I'd quit. And as for "endless talkpage discussion", that's entirely unavoidable on this topic. In this, and any other hypothetical incarnation. -- Director(talk) 17:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I feel that you haven't fully understood what I've said, because you're arguing about points I didn't make. I have said that Wikipedia should cover the subject of Jews and Communism. I have not challenged Producer's sources, nor anyone else's. Therefore, supporting Producer's sources doesn't refute what I've said. I have said that this particular iteration of the article should be deleted on the basis that the content is a massive NPOV violation that's neither useful nor fit for publication. Your counterargument has been that this is fixable and we don't delete content that's fixable. I'm afraid that's inaccurate, because yes, in some situations, we do. Content can be so racist, sexist, or (as in this case) antisemitic that we simply obliterate it and start again. Shall I cite examples, or are you prepared to accept that this does genuinely happen?—S MarshallT/C 19:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
@S Marshall It does seem I didn't quite grasp your position. You seem to hold that text, perfectly fine in terms of sourcing, can and should be deleted from this project by users simply stating an opinion that "its massive POV!"? That's pretty much the "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" of an experienced Wikipedian. I would argue that an article that presents reliable sources accurately and in an unbiased manner, and does not selectively represent the position of scholarship - can not be POV by definition, as defined by WP:YESPOV. In light of that, could you please clarify how exactly is the text biased, per the relevant policy? And so biased as not merely warranting tagging and repair - but immediate, wholesale deletion, before it even has a chance to be fixed? -- Director(talk) 15:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
No, Direktor: given how vocal you are about this subject, and the sheer quantity of comments you've made over the course of the AfD and this DRV, I really don't think I can explain my position in a way that you would be prepared to accept. We're dealing with a matter of opinion, on which yours is different from mine, and a question of editorial judgment, on which we disagree. I think further discussion will be unproductive and I suggest we leave it at that.—S MarshallT/C 22:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Endorse, as bulk of the deletion votes were literally "I don't like it", "not encyclopedic", and "you're just being antisemitic". The Israeli-Palestine, Jewish-Muslim topic area is fraught with ugliness, bad faith, underhanded tactics, and one of the characteristics of BOTH sides of the POV-Warrior camp is that neither like articles that are critical of their side. It is neither antisemitic nor Islamophobic for the encyclopedia to host articles that may be critical of Jewish and Islamic issues, as long as the critical eye is reliably sourced and adheres to NPOV. The other potentially legitimate argument made was that it was a pov fork of Jewish Bolshevism, but it was pointed out in the AfD that that article's focus is more on the conspiracy theory angle, while this is historical/fact-based. I do not see that argument refuted. Tarc (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Ick. This reads like a hit piece and feels more than a bit like it has WP:SYNTH issues. I think a good article could (and should) exist here and much of the data in the article could be used to do so. But they way it is written feels quite wrong. If there was a clean way to get it to a NPOV that would be great, but given the numbers of editors involved, it seems unlikely. I've got to give a weak endorse here. The closer explained things well and their reading of the discussion is certainly reasonable. That said, I'd have endorsed deletion per WP:NUKE and the !vote count. I think that would have been a better outcome. I do hope that clueful folks can put down the sticks and improve this article so that it provides context (both before and after the revolution). Hobit (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Endorse the administrator was right to close the discussion and accurately summed up the deletion debate that had taken place to reach the decision of "no consensus". 23 editor (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Hmm shouldn't it be Endorse not Oppose? The instructions say "Endorse the original closing decision"? --CyberXRef☎ 18:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, my bad. 23 editor (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Endorse I !voted for keep in the discussion, though with several qualifications that almost made it mean delete and rewrite. The one thing from the entire discussion which was really clear, was that there was no consensus about what to do with the article. There was not consensus to do what I wanted to do, nor was there consensus for anything else. The only thing I can suggest is that those interested should try to rewrite it, and in a month or two if some people are still dissatisfied, they can bring another AfD. DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Endorse. I think the whole premise of the article is silly, and makes about as much sense as Red haired people and Communism or Left handed people and Terrorism would be. The motives behind some of the editors that have expanded the article are clearly antisemitic. Had I been involved, I'd have had no hesitation in asking for deletion. With that said, given what he had to work with, I think that User:RoySmith made an excellent call in a difficult situation. There is quite clearly no agreement on whether the article is in fact a POV fork, and as the answer to such a question is inherently subjective, a clear consensus is the only real way to proceed. Not having a clear consensus, the discussion should have been closed as no consensus, as it was. Lankiveil(speak to me) 00:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC).
Endorse basically per Lankiveil. I would have opined for deletion had I seen the AFD but I didn't. Both sides fundamentally disagreed with the arguments being put forward by the other to the point where no clear consensus was reached. RoySmith did what he could with what he had been provided by the community. Nothing in his close suggested the article can't be nominated again. Stalwart111 05:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment, because, AFD is explicitly not a vote and for good reason. Lankiveil(speak to me) 12:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC).
Overturn to delete - As explained by multiple editors: "reliable sources do not support any meaningful connection between Jewish ethnicity and Communism". That is why I !voted for deletion of this article. Not because it is maybe a POV fork. Whether there is a consensus about this article is POV fork or not is irrelevant. As explained by another editor above, this article "makes about as much sense as Red haired people and Communism or Left handed people and Terrorism would be" --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
At this point I'd be surprised if I didn't see Antidiskriminator arrive to oppose anything I say whenever I happen to join a discussion :) -- Director(talk) 14:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Incorrect. Your accusation is unjustified. Take for example this comment "I support DIREKTOR's basic position here." (diff) I wrote in another discussion that you also participated. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Note that Deletion review are for discussions about the closer, not if you are in disagreement with the article. (WP:DRVPURPOSE)--CyberXRef☎ 16:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely uncalled for, but I can't say I'm surprised as this the same type of incivility I faced at the AfD. Frustrations at failing to come up with policy backed arguments is no excuse to personally attack other users. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 19:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
CommentWikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus says, "If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the decider is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not select himself which is the better policy." Editors and administrators who close discussions are not like judges who decide which arguments they like or dislike." However the closing administrator said that there was only one valid reason for deletion - POVFORK which he considered not proved. Effectively he has chosen to base his decision on his own interpretation of policy for the reasons for deletion rather than rely on the "predominant number of responsible Wikipedians." I would point out that closing a discussion is not like being a judge where one may decide which arguments one likes or does not like, but is supposed to be supported by the discussion. TFD (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
First of all, its kind of obvious you're trying to misquote WP:CLOSE, by manufacturing a policy conflict that wasn't there. The conflict did not center around a dispute over the prevalence of one policy over another. There is no other policy "that some people thought is controlling". Its just your POVFORK nomination, and those who disagreed. Now you're just latching on to a non-applicable quote.
As regards said POVFORK, perhaps the closing admin noticed the fact that there is an explicit consensus on Jewish Bolshevism for keeping this topic outside the scope. A notion which you yourself brought forth, supported strongly against opposition, and finally pushed through, deleting the text from the article.
You've still not accounted for your conduct in any way. Which is it, TFD? Does the topic belong in Jewish Bolshevism or doesn't it? But if you're challenging the text itself, I suggest you do so in the proper manner - on the talkpage of the article. -- Director(talk) 18:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree wiith TFD here. Closing administrator based their closing statement on false dilemma:
False dilemma: Either "this article is POV fork" OR "it should not be deleted".
POV fork position was not the only argument for deletion. There was another, I believe much more important, position supported by multiple editors who explained that "reliable sources do not support any meaningful connection between Jewish ethnicity and Communism". This article "makes about as much sense as Red haired people and Communism or Left handed people and Terrorism would be".
The real dilemma here is actually: Either "reliable sources support a meaningful connection between Jewish ethnicity and Communism" OR "this article should be deleted".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Antidiskriminator, please read this carefully: the deletion rationale is POVFORK. My post is (obviously) there to address that rationale, which is still being brought forward and pressed repeatedly. In that regard, the standing consensus on Talk:Jewish Bolshevism is relevant. Not whatever it is you wrote up there. Now, I know you're just here to harass me as per usual, but could you please do so without clogging the talkpage with vain attempts at basic logic? -- Director(talk) 19:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
What part of "my post is there to address the POVFORK" do you find difficult to understand? -- Director(talk) 20:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Endorse per Andrew and Tarc. IZAK and Yambaram are wasting no time unscrupulously calling on preferred editors with selective delsorting [೪] and pinging of users who voted delete in the previous AfD. [೫] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 19:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Producer: Using the word "unscrupulously" about me is not nice! It is a violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA, it degrades you and WP. I know that pushing this topic gives you and Director great joy. So be it. I am trying to work with you to edit the article so that it becomes a good WP:NPOV article and not a pathetic diatribe and screed. That being said, I have placed a notice of only oneWP:DELSORT page on this page, period, and that is not "unscrupulous", while you and Director think its kosher to put such notices on eight pages at a shot, both on this page and at the original Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism. FYI: There is a direct connection between any topic that has to do with Jews/Judaism and WP:DELJEW, while you and Director placed such notices on multiple (8) countries' WP:DELSORT pages. By your logic, if placing one notification on a single WP:DELSORT page is "unscrupulous" then doing so on 8 such tangential pages is "unscrupulous x 8"! Cool it 'cause as I said previously, you and Director have long ago entered into the WP:SPIDERMAN zone and that is not a good thing for either of you. Today is Purim so Happy Purim to all! IZAK (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete: Per Antidiskriminator. The fact that over 70% of the votes said delete but it was dismissed is shocking. What are deletion proposals for then?Evildoer187 (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Still more shocking is the above math. You're off by a couple dozen percentiles. Or maybe they just misinformed you in the WP:CANVASS? -- Director(talk) 19:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
If the numbers at the top of this page are correct, it was 56% delete, 8% merge, and 36% keep. Your math doesn't seem to strong either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I went into medicine to try and avoid math :). But no, see: he said "over 70%". -- Director(talk) 20:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
It would've been funny if this whole thing wasn't so sad. The numbers speak for themselves, and injustice was done here. Like 'Antidiskriminato' and others, I want to see reliable sources that support any meaningful connection between Jewish ethnicity and Communism, and I'm dropping this case now. Yambaram (talk) 10:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
The numbers?? What's "sad" is that you still don't understand there is no WP:VOTING on this project.
As for your bold demand, its nothing but an arbitrary phrase: you can always say "they don't". What does "meaningful" mean? Sources quoted in the article state outright that there is significant disproportionate representation. Is that "meaningful"? If I were you, I wouldn't try copying "Antidiskriminato" too much. -- Director(talk) 11:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose, as per Cullen328 and AndyTheGrump. Had I known of it, I would have registered a delete vote. Aside from the incompetence, it's antisemitic. 'Communism' = Jews was a meme all over Eastern Europe (one of the reasons the British Army opposed Zionism is that the equation 'Jews'/'Zionists' = Communism meant for them that Zionism would have opened a door to Communism and destabilize British Imperial interests in the ME). It's rather like the moronic equation of finance with Jews, which I vaguely recall some previous editor trying to slip in here. Jews were prominent in numerous professions, arts and social activities, which doesn't mean we should have Jews and Medicine, Jews and The Atomic Bomb, Jews and Psychoanalysis, Jews and the American novel. Set this precedent and you set up Jews and Wall Street, Jews and money-running, Jews and the mafia -there's no end to it. It's unbelievable how this ever got into wikipedia. Nishidani (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Endorse. In the XfD, as here, I read strong opinions and no consensus. I recommend Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion, with particular attention to a comprehensive next nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. I voted to delete, as did an overwhelming majority of those who commented at AFD. I really don't understand why the closing admin felt there was no consensus. Hot Stoptalk-contribs 04:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, guys. But considering all the WP:CANVASSING going on.. -- Director(talk) 05:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
May I ask why you wrote "Sorry, guys."? Is it because you acknowledge that this deletion sorting pages are not appropriate? It's a legitimate question, I have no intentions to start another heated debate here. Yambaram (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Saying "Sorry guys" and what followed can only be interpreted as a clear violation of WP:POINT and WP:BATTLEGROUND. IZAK (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Really? That's the only way it can be interpreted? WP:AGF? One could easily interpret it as he is suspecting some form of canvassing took place and the "sorry guys" was a general response to that before he posted it on a number of deletion sorting articles in order to bring people who were not previously involved and could judge the situation with a fresh pair of eyes. --CyberXRef☎ 05:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi CyberXRef and thanks for the joke. Let's see now, Direktor can himself violate WP:AGF when he has no provable grounds to prove that, as you state by "suspecting some form of canvassing took place" and then "respond" to that "suspicion" (!) by making a move that he preambles with "Sorry you guys" indicating that he knows he is going to upset other users and may be in violation of WP:CANVASS himself. This is just a hot potato topic that will always attract attention and it is simply paranoid for anyone to think that it gets attention because there is canvassing going on. Very poor and illogical defense on your part and a clear violation of WP:LAWYERING. Let's all stick to arguing the merits and demerits of this serious topic and the admin's rationale/s and decision/s, or lack thereof, please. IZAK (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Endorse: It is time to respect the intelligent decision made by RoySmith. Article seems much healthier than it was before. No offense, but I condemn the uncivilized behavior of Yambaram, linked people who supported the deletion. While ignoring those who have opposed the deletion. And alleged Direktor/Producer to be sock puppets. Noteswork (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Neither I nor 'Galassi' made an accusation of sock puppetry as you falsely claim, and I left a message on the main Jews and Communism article talk page asking "Everyone who participated in that deletion discussion" to participate in this current deletion review discussion. Not only "people who supported the deletion". Also, of those 12 users who voted to keep the article, a few had already commented on this deletion review discussion before I even wrote that comment. I selected them quickly without much attention and as you can see even "picked" at least one editor who voted to keep the article. Yambaram (talk) 09:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
People are not stupid, Yambaram. -- Director(talk) 11:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Note to Noteswork: Your statement that: "No offense, but I condemn the uncivilized behavior of Yambaram, linked people who supported the deletion" is most uncalled for, and by accusing 27 serious and sincere users, in this case a two to one majority, who voted to either delete or merge the article, of being "uncivilized" puts you in violation of WP:AGF x 27 and WP:CIVIL x 27, many of them long-time WP editors and including some admins that you are cynically labeling "uncivilized", and you therefore owe each of them an apology. If you wish to resort to citing WP policies and guidelines then do so, but you have shamelessly clearly failed to avoid WP:NPA in this instance. IZAK (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, I think that there is some error in terms of understanding, especially of Yambaram and IZAK. Yambaram denies alleging other user to be sock puppet, IZAK is trying to make up that I've called everyone uncivilized. My message was about Yambaram, not anyone else. Noteswork (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Noteworks, which part of your original statement that "No offense, but I condemn the uncivilized behavior of Yambaram, linked people who supported the deletion" says that I am "making up" anything? What does it mean to be "linked" with Yambaram? (or is that a new kind of conspiracy theory?) and which "people" are they? Speaking for myself I have nothing to do with Yambaram, but you on the other hand want to lump everyone who may have voted like him or said something that supports arguments he makes as a negative thing, feel free to disagree in a civilized way, but after all name-calling others by saying they are "uncivilized" could get a user blocked for violating WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. IZAK (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Endorse and in case of overturn Weak keep because of these sources that can be found in the article. Pluto2012 (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Deák, István (2004). Frankel, Jonathan (ed.). "Dark Times, Dire Decisions: Jews and Communism". New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 38–61. ISBN9780195182248. {{cite web}}: |contribution= ignored (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)
Schatz, Jaff (2004). Frankel, Jonathan (ed.). "Dark Times, Dire Decisions: Jews and Communism". New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 13–37. ISBN9780195182248. {{cite web}}: |contribution= ignored (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)
Your opinion has merit, but we're not really here to re-argue the deletion discussion; this is to review whether the closing admin acted properly, i.e. endorse it over overturn it. Tarc (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
This vote should be dismissed, right? If so, please delete it. Yambaram (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the mistake. I corrected my option. Pluto2012 (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. You have got to be fucking kidding me. A terrible article from the first paragraph, a dog's breakfast of an AFD debate, and a wishy-washy, handwringing disgraceful non-decision of a close. Kill it with fire. --Calton | Talk 16:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Just wow. One sentence, so many insults. Your total lack of WP:Civility is worthy of absolutely no reply. As a side note, if you've bothered to read the most recent version of the article you'll notice that some people have been working hard to fix the POV issue. --CyberXRef☎ 06:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Endorse. I voted to delete the shitty article but I can see how the closer weighed the various points and arrived at a decision. Now that the article is being kept, it should be eviscerated and fixed. Binksternet (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Overturn. RoySmith had to make a difficult call, and I commend him for stepping up to do it. However, I strongly disagree with his decision here, and unfortunately I think he may have overstepped his role slightly. He lists arguments made both for deleting and keeping. But then for reasons that are not clear to me, he dismisses three of the reasons to delete, and instead decides that "what this really comes down to, is this a POV fork of Jewish Bolshevism". Unfortunately, this seems to be a judgement call, rather than an objective assessment of editors' consensus. My second reason for voting for overturn is that he says that he "doesn't see a clear enough consensus." To me, when an article is voted on at a 2 - 1 ratio for deletion, that is about as clear a consensus a controversial AfD will ever see. In this case, a finding of no consensus is essentially a permanent keep vote, because there will always be vigorous debate from those in favour of keeping. I also will point out that the reason much of the AfD discussion seemingly lacked consensus was the outsized number of postings and arguments from two editors who had heavily contributed to the article in question, which is against WP:COI and thus should be an important consideration in whether or not there indeed was consensus. mikeman67 (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
For now I'm Overturn and delete, but RoySmith, I think it would be helpful to have some clarification on how this article is neither a POV fork nor an endorsement of the view that there is something specifically Jewish about Communism. Communist movements in Africa, China, India and elsewhere of course suggest otherwise, and there are already numerous country-specific articles on Communism. Once one ceases to omit discussion of the German Peasants' War or The Paris Commune the notion that revolutionary communism is a Russian/Jewish innovation loses credibility. Aside from selectively-chosen statistics on Communist communities with high percentages of Jews, this article doesn't contain information that can’t be found elsewhere on Wikipedia. It might be useful to re-write this as an objective examination of the Communism-is-a-Jewish-movement canard, but ultimately I think S Marshall is correct: that process would definitely not be pretty. Something that touches on Communism and Judaism and Conspiracy Theories/Antisemitism, with two committed camps of editors whose motives are diametrically opposed, probably can’t be revised without endless arguing and complaints to admins. If the only new information this article contributes are stats selectively chosen to advance what to so many is a tendentious, deeply offensive POV, I agree that it’s probably a bad idea to put people through this.--Atlantictire (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Overturn and delete Sometimes Admins make mistakes. The consensus to delete was overwhelming, and to claim that there was "no consensus" is clearly a mistake. USchick (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment - deleting the article or re-listing it for deletion are the only logical solutions. If the previous discussion had 2/3 in favor of deleting the article but ended with "no consensus", then a tie here shouldn't be regarded as no consensus which would mean keeping the article. Yambaram (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
So you can presumably more effectively votestack another time? --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 22:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
You allow yourself to say this but then accuse me (and others) of personal attacks, wow. Yambaram (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
There was clearly no consensus to delete, just like there was no consensus to keep. There's no consensus here about whether there was a consensus there. What a surprise. DRV is not designed to be "AFD, Take 2" but there are plenty of people who seem to want to re-make the arguments they made there or !vote directly for deleting or keeping the article. The focus here should be on whether or not the admin accurately determined consensus. People seem to be getting hung up on the "default to keep" part of a no consensus close. But equally important is the "no prejudice against re-nomination" part. All "no consensus" means is that in this particular instance, community consensus wasn't strong enough for a clear outcome either way. For subjects like this, that's a good thing. Just f**king nominate it again. Seriously. Stalwart111 23:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Overturn and delete. The article is not salvageable.--Galassi (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
And for the 400th million time, this is not a second AfD and any repeated argument about the article simply doesn't belong here. --CyberXRef☎ 22:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Endorse Having read the AfD carefully, I believe the close was appropriate and certainly within discretion. (I have waited to respond to this discussion for quite some time as I'm enormously sympathetic to S Marshall's views, above, they are an first-class example of IAR. However, to the extent that we are going to establish protections to mitigage the first mover advantage, I believe that we require broader discussion of the reach of any such policy change, or for that to evolve out of a series of AfD results. I realize this sounds awfully procedure-bound, and perhaps it is too much so, I don't know, but I think this example highlights a weakness in our policies and guidelines, and I would rather address that weakness broadly.) --j⚛e deckertalk 16:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I would, for the record, allow immediate renomination following closure here. --j⚛e deckertalk 20:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
There seem to be a quite a number of people here who, whilst completely endorsing this AFD close, also wish the AFD discussion had gone differently. However, I think it would be a bad mistake for DRV to take on a role of IAR deletion (or restoration). DRV is to examine procedure, although we may apply some common sense and decide some AFD arguments were unreasonable. Are you suggesting we try and find some new way of invoking superior editorial judgement? – I fear that a rabble might turn up to contribute to such a judgement just as sometimes happens at AFD or DRV. However, and as you also suggest, at present the forum for deleting any unsatisfactory articles still lingering after AFDs and DRVs is yet another AFD. Maybe suggest something at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)? Thincat (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Nope, I'm not suggesting that DRV be considered a "better editorial judgment", I agree with your concerns about that. My other thoughts have little to do with DRV per se, and, well, let's not derail this already badly derailed discussion. I'll give my views appropriate air in good time, I promise! --j⚛e deckertalk 00:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Endorse I originally voted keep (and cleanup) on anti-censorship grounds and because I have argued that over-representation of any group in any area where there are lots of WP:RS on the effects may be a good reason to keep an article. But seeing a few good arguments, and fearing yet more harassment on the topic if I didn't change my "vote", I changed to "keep info and merge elsewhere." Looking at article since it was cleaned up, it clearly is getting into my "may be a good reason to keep" category. (And if it weren't for past and ongoing harassment on a similar article, leading even to a block of one harassing editor, I might be tempted to improve it myself.)
Also, I think in "counting numbers" we really have to look at the influence of Systemic bias here. While the discussion was listed in Politics-related deletion and 8 nation-related deletion lists, I am sure we had far more participation from those who saw it at Wikproject Jewish history and Judaism-related deletion discussions and were highly motivated to opine to delete it for emotional rather than rational reasons. Thus it's fair to say no consensus and fair to give it another couple months before people try to delete it again. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment: User: Izak changing name without discussion/consensus on talk page vs. policy (not to mention this deletion review) and he should revert it, as I wrote on talk page. (FYI, I have no opinion on that name, not having seen alternatives.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Note: I just noticed there is an existing category ವರ್ಗ:Jewish communism created Nov. 2012 and I don't see a drive to delete that or the several articles in the category. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Endorse I agree with the Admin's rationale in deciding on no consensus. This article is tricky because I think the article has a lot of useful and interesting information that totally belongs on Wikipedia, but in its current form it really doesn't seem to provide a balanced views of Jews and Communism. Regardless, I still agree with the admin. Orser67 (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment Much of the data for this article is taken from a book called The Jewish Century. From the few reviews I’ve read, it’s a quite complex examination of how Jews both shaped and were shaped by the socio-political forces of “modernity.” What’s happened here is that events from the book have been selectively chosen, completely stripped of their historical context and reduced to an ahistorical pile of raw numbers of Jews.
It’s easy to plunder a source for data to use for tendentious ends. Getting the historical context right—especially with a subject this controversial—is extraordinarily difficult. Since this article was originally written without expertise or even genuine curiosity in the history of Jews and Communism, it should never have been created in the first place. It definitely should have been deleted. But now that it’s here, I would say the editors who elected not to delete or overtune the "no consensus" decision have an ethical obligation to fix it. It’s a tremendous task, and it’s not fair to make a malicious mess somebody else’s problem. None us who voted to delete it f'ing wants to do this *shoots self.*--Atlantictire (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, what I say to that is is "Welcome to Web 2.0, to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit!" This is what you've bought into in this project, that everything can be edited at anytime by virtually anyone. The flip-side of the Web 2.0 miracle is that is the possibility that articles will not be updated or watched. Obscure WP:BLPs contain over-hyped, salacious bits that are never corrected, data for athletes career statistics are not up-to-date, and articles like this remain in a neglected and un-maintained state forever. You cannot compel people to watch pages or to edit content, it's just not how it works here. Tarc (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Really, everybody has the expertise and time to transform a gross distortion of Jewish history into an even-handed treatment of Jews and Communism? Hey man, baseball stats, malicious stereotypes: same dif.--18:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
This is what you signed up for; just because anyone can edit doesn't mean that anyone will maintain it once it is out there. Enjoy your Wikipedia experience. Tarc (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh is it? Complacent whatevs about tendentious distortions of Jewish history? Maybe that's what you signed up for, so thanks for being honest.--Atlantictire (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
This is Deletion Review, not My Personal Ideological Opinion Review, sorry. Tarc (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
My Personal Ideological Opinion is that it serves no encyclopedic purpose to turn a complex history into a misleading pile of cherry-picked facts, regardless of whatever religion or ethnicity the group being misrepresented happens to be. That is my Personal Ideology here. Full disclosure. Anything else?--Atlantictire (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Endorse (Keep). In 2009 I voted to delete Communist genocide by an argument similar to Antidiskriminator's up above. But I don't think that applies here because this article isn't just a list of Jews who were communists. It's meaningful as a topic in and of itself. I generally avoid even mildly controversial topics lately, but in this case I want my opinion to be weighed. —Soap— 18:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Beer Auction Game – Listed at AfD. Opinions are divided between overturning this speedy deletion because it doesn't meet the scope requirements of WP:CSD, and endorsing the deletion because the article would have no chance to be kept at AfD. Given that we have no consensus, the prudent thing to do is to send the article to AfD and find out. – Sandstein 11:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Permit me to disagree on the Speedy Deletion of the Beer Auction Game. You refer to A7, which explicitly excludes educational institutions when using A7. I therefore would like to state that you used A7 incorrectly for Speedy Deletion of a University content output. Also I disagree to Speedy Deletion which would not have been the proper way anyway in this context.
Therefore please reinstateBmwtroll (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I could have also tagged it under category a11, something recently made up. Before I reinstate for what would almost certainly be a deletion at AFD, do you have any reliable independent sources that show the notability of this game? NawlinWiki (talk) 14:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
without being to harsh, I understand what you say, but a quick excuse that you did not pay attention to the educational institution issue in A7 would have been a nice sign as well. Now you bring A11 and later in your sentence you talk about proven sources about notability. A11 has nothing to do with notability but only significance or importance (clearly either of them). Notability is explicitly put at a higher level. Why are you bringing in levels personally which are not in the guidelines? When you look at Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance and read 1-6 it contradicts what you are writing. Therefore please reinstate Bmwtroll (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Not without sources other than the school that created this game. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
A7 does not apply and A11 does not require sources. Nevertheless two separate sources have been included from the very beginning at the bottom. Permit me to say, I still believe this is acting outside the boundaries of Wiki rules. Please reinstate and still you can propose it for deletion in the proper way where I believe your arguments do not hold up Bmwtroll (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The first source is a blog (yours?) that describes the game. The second is the university's own site. Neither satisfies WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The first Website is a cooperate website of a 500 Mio. Euro company with an editorial desk where such topics are regularly published. And yes, certainly I have access to this company. But it passes the editorial desk. Nevertheless this does not justify that you apply A7 and A11 incorrectly in my eyes. So please give a final yes or no to my original request - Please reinstate and still you can propose it for deletion in the proper way where I believe your arguments do not hold up - so I can place my complaint through the alternative channels Bmwtroll (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Not going to reinstate. Try Wikipedia:Deletion review. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
It's a downloadable game (thus subject to category a7, regarding web content), created in 2014. The two sources cited were a blog entry that the article author apparently wrote (see above) and the website of the university that developed the game. There's no assertion of notability per a7, and no citation of independent or reliable sources per WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
A7 does not apply to educational institutions and its output. It is an academic topic similar to Beer distribution game by the MIT. So the argument of application of A7 does not hold. Additionally, although not required the university should hold as a either independent or reliable source. Additionally the publication on the second source PowerGuru with editorial desk of a large multi-national should also be evaluated. For the rest, consider original discussion because: all is said, but not by all Bmwtroll (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
A7 doesn't apply to educational institutions, but nothing says it can't apply to its output. That a game was written at a school doesn't protect it from an A7. If there was a reasonable claim of notability, things would be different. But I've not seen any in the discussions. So Endorse speedyHobit (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is correct and I was clearly mistaken. This doesn't qualify under A7--I was reading it way too broadly. So list at AfD. Hobit (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Bmwtroll, there's no real chance of you getting what you want from DRV unless you can show us an independent source.—S MarshallT/C 17:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Undelete and List at AfD. If an A7/A11 or several other non-offensive CSD deletions are contested, it means someone wants a discussion, so list at AfD and let the discussion happen in the appropriate place. A7/A11 does not mean that the article MUST be speedily deleted. There is no shame in the deleting admin listing the article for discussion. Reversing a reasonable speedy deletion so that an occasional contributor can benefit from a discussion is not a mark against the deleting admin. Clearly, Mmwtroll wants, and will get his discussion. Here is the wrong place. AfD is the right place. NawlinWiki, please just agreeably list contests at AfD so that we don't have to host this here. No, on the face of things, it will not pass AfD, but at AfD we can discuss the requirements for sources, while at DRV we find ourselves non-productively discussing the nuances of CSD criteria. Bmwtroll needs to learn about source requirements, not CSD nuance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
List at AFD. I think that the speedy deletion was valid according to the specific WP:CSD criterion. However, this turns out to not be one of "the most obvious cases" for deletion[೬] – we have an appeal and also a selective merge (or, conceivably, adequate referencing) isn't out of the question here. I agree with SmokeyJoe that it would be far better to discuss this at AFD rather than discuss here whether it should be discussed. We need to change the formal process for handling non-offensive appeals against the speedy deletion of non-offensive articles. Thincat (talk) 08:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm generally in favor of overturning speedy deletions on reasonable requests and sending them to AfD. But A) the speedy (as you note) was applied correctly and B) there isn't even the beginning of a valid argument that this meets inclusion guidelines. If either A or B weren't true, I'd favor listing, but if we relist for any objection, it feels like our speedy and prod process are basically the same thing. Hobit (talk) 09:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I am really at a loss with what I read because in the end, I want do things right and not provoke - and I often think that my English is not that bad :) When I read WP:CSD it says: 'It is irrelevant whether the claim of notability within the article is not sufficient for the notability guidelines. If the claim is credible, the A7 tag can not be applied. Often what seems non-notable to a new page patroller is shown to be notable in a deletion discussion.' Since there is a referral to the University Page (www.fau.de) and a online magazine with editorial desk (www.powerguru.org) first I believe it is credible (obviously not invented) and carries two separate sources. Therefore I assumed - obviously wrongly but I still want to understand - that speedy deletion is wrong. And a normal AFD would have also given time either to improve the article with more sources and/or content or have at least a proper discussion before establishing facts. This is not a student's work project but a professors research work. Bmwtroll (talk) 09:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I think technically the article (here) had no claim to importance although "The learning effect ... is considerable" comes close and a credible claim could easily have been added. However, and more importantly, this material was not suitable as a stand-alone article because it lacks multiple independent reliable sources (but that is not for CSD or DRV). Perhaps if you ask the deleting admin to WP:Userfy the article or move it to WP:Drafts he would agree and then you could try to strengthen it. Thincat (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Endorse games which are purely digital can qualify for A7, and in any case it has absolutely no chance at AFD, so sending it there would just be a week-long waste of editors' time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
This is a week long waste of editors' time, not well suited to educating Bmwtroll. It should have been immediately listed at AfD, where it would much less likely to be a waste of Bmwtroll's time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Huh? Since when is the purpose of DRV (or AFD) about educating users? It looks like NawlinWiki told Bmwtroll the basics of why it was deleted, Bmwtroll simply disagreed. I'm not sure why you think AFD would "less likely to be a waste of Bmwtroll's time"--I've seen editors waste many hours expanding articles that were obviously destined for deletion, when a speedy and a link to WP:42 would have been much kinder. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
List at AfD or move to WP:Drafts. Depending on how you squint while reading WP:CSD, you could make an argument that A11 applies, so I'm not going to go so far as to argue that the speedy deletion was wrong. I'm pretty sure this will be a snow delete on AfD, but that's a better outcome than, as has been pointed out, spending a week here arguing the nuances of WP:CSD (and if it really does get closed as snow, it'll be faster too). -- RoySmith(talk) 12:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Added later: modifying my opinion to include draft, per @Bmwtroll:. -- RoySmith(talk) 15:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I think that proposal is the easiest solution: 'WP:Userfy the article or move it to WP:Drafts' until the independent sources are up. With a speedy deletion there is no chance to react to anything Bmwtroll (talk) 07:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Endorse A7. As this doesn't seem to stand a chance at AfD, it would be a waste of time to list it there. If the article creator thinks reliable sources that verifynotability, then I would have no problem with userfication, as long as the article creator understands that substantial improvement is needed before the article can be restored to mainspace. --Randykitty (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Endorse - find a couple sources, and I or someone else in ವರ್ಗ:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles can restore it to your userspace to be made suitable for the mainspace, at which point it can be moved back (and no longer A7-able). Without 'em, AfD is just going to delete so, so a trip there is pointless. WilyD 17:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Endorse as a valid A7 (as web content), but without any great enthusiasm allow it to a list at AFD. It has virtually no chance of surviving that, and in a week we'll all be back where we started, which leads me to conclude it's pure process wonkery. But if it makes the article creator or any other editors feel happy I don't see why not. Lankiveil(speak to me) 01:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC).
Endorse as per WP:IAR I think the case has been made that best practice here is not to enforce the speedy deletion. However, I can't get past the username here, and the highly competent application of Wiki policy with no edits to explain the mastery. Unscintillating (talk) 06:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
@Unscintillating: yes, I know already that the combination for my user name was not smart. When I first registered I did not actually know for what Troll is used in the Internet and BMW is my interest. My knowledge of Wiki comes from my writing and use mainly in the German Wiki (see my contribution list since 2009 ). If I consider something valuable in the German Wiki then sometimes I create an English version. Bmwtroll (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Endorse. Admin's actions were valid. "explicitly excludes educational institutions when using A7" means exactly that: Institutions. We are not writing articles for every dorm of every school and for every MS thesis. Notability is not inherited.- Altenmann >t 05:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Overturn speedy, list at AFD. The OP's argument is utter nonsense, but this "game" is downloadable software, not web content,and therefore expressly not eligible for A7 deletion. It may be "purely digital", but so are e-books and Itunes-exclusive releases. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Overturn and list. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has it right, the "game" is in a downloadable compressed archive containing of a number of files I don't usually think of executable (PNG, PSD, DOCX, PDF, XLS, etc.), but a narrow construction of CSD critieria probably excludes it, and if it didn't, it wouldn't exclude eBooks etc. either. Considering this "not web content" leaves us with a more consistent policy. --j⚛e deckertalk 01:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The discussion resulted in one merge (i.e. keep) !vote and one comment leaning towards keep. Despite the complete absence of support for deletion, the closing admin declared consensus to delete this page and five related pages. I asked the admin to reconsider on his or her talk page. The admin declined to reverse the decision, explaining that "I had a bit of trouble seeing just what, exactly, was merge-able." This statement, and the admin's other disputed closes, seem to indicate a misunderstanding of his or her role in the AfD process. Pburka (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
...orrrr, you coulda just gone for uncontroversial undeletion like I suggested and endorsed, but needless bureaucracy works, too, if that's your thing. Commenters should note that, again, as I said on my talk page, I had trouble seeing how the content could be merged, no changes to meet WP:V/WP:N were made to the article despite that final comment on the AfD, and I was more than happy with it being undeleted due to WP:QUORUM issues. Relisting a clearly stale AfD didn't seem appropriate, however. As for my role in the AfD process, I should note that all of my closes are coming from heavily-backlogged WP:OLD AfDs, several of which are tough or DRV-ripe closes. Cheers =) --slakr\ talk / 03:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Overturn Nobody agreed with the proposal and so there was no consensus to delete. Per the emphatic guidance of WP:DGFA, "When in doubt, don't delete." Andrew (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Overturn although this hardly needs to be said. The consensus was not delete. Also, the closer seems to seriously misunderstand WP:UNDELETE (which can't be used after AFD deletion). This type of close is very unhelpful. Thincat (talk) 10:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment Not to wikilawyer, but WP:UNDELETE: "or in 'articles for deletion' debates with little or no participation other than the nominator," and WP:QUORUM (part of WP:DELPRO): "If a nomination has received no comments...(or few in the case of AfDs), the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgment...[which includes]...closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal." I'm just saying I genuinely believe that my actions were in-line with policy as I understand it, but I've done a {{TempUndelete}} on Embassy of Tanzania, Stockholm to help show why I had difficulty seeing the content to merge, given the merge target, but had and still have obviously no problem with just flat out undeleting it (as I said before). --slakr\ talk / 12:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
So do you have a problem with changing the delete to soft delete? Unscintillating (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually, if anybody would simply read what I've said numerous times both here and on my talk page that's exactly what was intended. No worries; you're not alone: apparently nobody else did, either, which is sort of ironic given both the situation, the venue, and the allegations being made. --slakr\ talk / 10:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Overturn I created this article(s) as a stub and believe that it can be expanded in the future. Ali Fazal (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Relist. Insufficient debate to form a consensus. -- RoySmith(talk) 14:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Overturn to speedy keep NPASR I notified slakr on 28 February that for "a WP:NOQUORUM...a hard delete was an incorrect closure", so he can't say he wasn't aware of how to interpret the guideline. WP:NOQUORUM limits deletions to soft delete, which are the equivalent of WP:PROD. Unscintillating (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I am amending my bolded summary based on review of the AfD nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I see no evidence whatsoever of a consensus to delete in that discussion. In the absence of a community consensus, Slakr has exercised his own judgment. I'm sure this was done in perfectly good faith, but at DRV we use the word "supervote" to refer to that outcome.
The community is generally very sensitive to use of the "delete" tool. Sysops are entrusted with the power to delete, on condition that it's used only in certain rigidly-defined circumstances:- either in accordance with one of the criteria for speedy deletion, or when there's been an expired PROD, or where there's a community consensus to delete. I'm afraid that none of those conditions obtained, so DRV doesn't really have any discretion in the matter. We've pretty much got to overturn. In my view the correct close would have been "no consensus to delete".—S MarshallT/C 12:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Overturn and relist. No consensus to delete present, although one might develop if given enough time. ✄ (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Overturn and relist, you can't say there's consensus to do a thing when nobody actually agrees to do that thing! Lankiveil(speak to me) 13:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC).
Overturn. Reasonable admin discretion here could cover "keep", "no consensus" or "merge". Closing the AfD backlogs is no excuse for a close that doesn't reflect the discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Overturn, close not indicidative of actual discussion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
