Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zionist Domination of Wikipedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zionist Domination of Wikipedia

Wrong namespace, PoV, essay. -- Hoary 08:09, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)

• Delete. Probably could be speedy delete. Evil Monkey∴Hello 08:10, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Patent nonsense. Speedy deleted. --Slowking Man 08:10, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment In the future, I would recommend not speedying articles that criticize Wikipedia. It seems perverse, but speedying just gives the conspiracy theorists more ammunition. LizardWizard 08:12, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Not giving conspiracy theorists ammunition isn't a reason to change Wikipedia procedures. Conspiracy theorists have all the ammunition they need, in any case -- since they just make shit up. --BM 12:42, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I don't see how this is an appropriate title for an article. If the allegations should be made anywhere it should be through the e-mail or on the Wikipedia article. I'd like to see the alleged evidence.Capitalistroadster 11:13, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I'm sorry but I had to restore it. This is not Patent nonsense in the very specific way we use that term. It is a personal rant that is clearly inappropriate for the article space (and not really appropriate for the Wikipedia space either) but those are judgment calls that have to be made through the full VfD process. I don't believe this met the criteria for speedy deletion. (In case it wasn't clear, delete.) Rossami (talk) 22:32, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Curps 22:46, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Since this seems to be part of the concerted attack by Stormfront, it seems like we should simply Speedy Delete it as a form of vandalism. --BM 22:48, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is open to everyone.. (and sad if this is a NAZI INSERT); there's no zionist domination of wiki. However if Pro- or Anti-Zionist administrators are RVing articles they should declare that they are of the relevant persuasion. max rspct 23:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: It was speedy deletable as vandalism. Restoring content that can never be part of Wikipedia is a very bad move. We don't permit such "meta" articles here (essays about ourselves): this has no chance of remaining, and dealing with it is a waste of the time of all concerned. - Nunh-huh 23:52, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Both part of the stormfront 'attack' and utter and complete nonsence. humblefool® 00:03, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The cabal made me do it, and then they stole my foreskin. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 00:06, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Should have been speedy deleted because of the self-reference, whether good or ill. Delete. Now it sits for five days and gets mirrored all over the Internet. RickK 00:14, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
• I would have speedied it too. Delete anyway. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 00:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Completely agree with RickK. Regarding stolen foreskins: Blame the GNAA.  :^) - Lucky 6.9 00:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Follow-up comment: Many kudos to Slowking Man for initiating a one-day block of the IP. Great move IMO. - Lucky 6.9 00:31, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Rhobite 00:48, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Tried to clean it up but it still seems somewhat non-encyclopedic. hydnjo talk 01:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, should be speedy deleted not necessarily due to patent nonsense, but because it's part of the planned Stormfront neo-nazi attack on Wikipedia, and therefore vandalism/trolling. For more information, see the Administrator's noticeboard at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents or the original thread at Stormfront http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=173563&page=4&pp=10 (note: neo-nazi site, may be offensive to some). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:41, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • With this additional evidence, I now understand the argument for speedy delete - not as patent nonsense but as confirmed vandalism. I know a lot of people think I'm a jerk for insisting on such a strict interpretation of WP:CSD and for careful documentation of those decisions but I remain convinced that it's an important control for Wikipedia and the community's credibility. Rossami (talk) 14:59, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Tried to clean it up a bit more, but I'm not too happy with it being mirrored even in this form. Its almost better to leave the rabid original, which nobody would take seriously. --BM 02:21, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:25, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Moved to Wikipedia namespace, vote delete. silsor 03:46, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. At least it's in the Wikipedia namespace now, but I don't believe it belongs on WP at all. Carrp | Talk 03:51, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- couldn't it be speedied because it's from an apparent Alberuni sockpuppet? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -Sean Curtin 04:29, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as abuse. Szyslak 08:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme delete, as comical as it is. —RaD Man (talk) 09:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, preferably speedy. Ideological advocacy, definitely intentional abuse of WP VFD policy. - Skysmith 10:22, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--Pharos 10:31, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No proof for accusations provided. Abusive. Mgm|^(talk) 11:21, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Antandrus 02:27, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted per overwhelming consensus. No reason to keep vandalism for a week. Neutrality^talk 02:37, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.