Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 26

United States military aid to Israel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

• See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive235#User:Jayjg and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States military aid to Israel.

AfD was originally closed by Doc glasgow as a "keep". [1]. Shortly thereafter, Jayjg reversed the decision, and deleted the page, calling the previous close "nonsense" [2]. I believe both the decisions and the appropriateness of the reversal should be examined here. (For what it's worth, I strongly disagree with the unilateral reversal, and the discussion looks like a no consensus to me.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Could it be undeleted for the DRV so I could actually see it? --Iamunknown 06:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. WjBscribe 06:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you. --Iamunknown 21:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: I just restored the AfD back to Doc's original closure and was about to place this on DRV before I saw that I was beaten to it, hehe. I just wanted to note that the AfD back to its original version, so it appears that the primary decision being discussed is Doc's, as Jay's edits should be rendered null and void gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 07:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Uh, I dunno, maybe overturn and delete? I don't see an obvious consensus in AfD, but its very hard to see the article as it stands in the final version as having slight OR issues and it isn't clear to me how listing weapons systems given to a country is somehow encyclopedic, so it isn't even clear to me that there is much worth merging to the main article. The article does also have a strong whiff of POV fork. If I had been the closing admin I probably would have closed it as delete. JoshuaZ 06:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete. Unilateral overturning of close should be reverted. Discussion looks like it reached no real consensus. The best result is probably to merge some of the better content to Israel-United States relations but for that we need to preserve the history at United States military aid to Israel by turning it into a redirect for GDFL compliance. WjBscribe 06:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• I would say Merge. As WJBscribe said: "The best result is probably to merge some of the better content to Israel-United States relations but for that we need to preserve the history at United States military aid to Israel by turning it into a redirect for GDFL compliance."--Aminz 07:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redir. No need to have a WP:POVFORK. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to Delete. Since WP is turning into a battleground, I'd rather be counted as a "usual suspect". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• It should be Deleted (along with redirect and merge as appropriate) according to the clear consensus. Jayjg was correct that Doc Glasgow was mistaken to conclude the consensus was "keep" when there was a 70% consensus to delete. There were only 9 keeps against 21 deletes (this includes 12 "delete", 1 "redirect"--which is form of delete, 3 "delete and merge", 4 "redirect and merge", and 1 "delete, redirect and merge"). --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • People who want things "merged" do not want them deleted, they want the content retained in another article. Apart from that, blind counting of votes in a fairly messy debate with several arguments such as this one is a poor way to close a decision. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Jay, Endorse Doc Glasgow. GFDL concerns have been raised; also, it appears to me to be a no-consensus keep, although I generally think those are cop-outs. Note, I love Jay's edit summary. Also the fact that overturning another admin's decision unilaterally is an edit marked 'minor'. Hornplease 08:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn -- just another sad example of Jayjg's sometimes destructive, irrational, and wayward editing habits. Also, it might be worth noting that not only does the U.S. have sway over questions relating to Israel's military, but sometimes the Israelis call the shots regarding the weapon systems in the U.S. For instance, Israeli military officials are trying to prevent the U.S. from selling armaments to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States -- see the NY Times abstract "Israel's Protests Are Said to Stall Gulf Arms Sale". --Wassermann 09:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per User:Aminz.--MONGO 10:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Doc Glasgow's closure of keep (or "no consensus", it has little bearing). The article is not in great shape but the bulk of it is well-sourced so there was no need to try to overrule consensus or the lack of consensus in this case on the basis of WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV (since facts and statistics are not inherently biased in an obvious manner). Several people argued for merging, several argued for outright keeping, several argued for deleting, but there was no clear conclusion from the debate. I cannot see that the debate could have been closed in any other manner, and calling the close "nonsense" is nonsense. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion, endorse no consensus closure per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion, rename and rewrite article. A patently irregular deletion, as documented above. I'm disappointed that nobody seems to have thought of a more creative solution. I believe this article would be better recast as US-Israel military relations, as a content fork of US-Israel relations, within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. There is certainly scope for a series of articles on bilateral US military relations with a whole range of countries, covering military alliances, military cooperation, military aid and so on. For instance, US-Iraq military relations could cover the US DOD's efforts to train and equip the New Iraqi Army, the ongoing military aid programme, the ground-level cooperation in building security and so on. In the case of US-Israel military relations, the existing article would have to be expanded to cover other issues such as joint technology development (e.g. Tactical High Energy Laser) and joint exercises such as the biennial JUNIPER COBRA exercises. I'm sure there's plenty of well-sourced material that could be added. -- ChrisO 11:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This would be a good idea if done systematiclly. JoshuaZ 13:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep The delete votes generally came from the usual suspects who have for years engaged in biased editing with respect to Israeli issues. The merge and keep votes combined have much the better arguments. I think this subject is important due to the legal implications of the United States aiding actions by Israel which may violate international law, particularly the requirements for belligerent occupation. Fred Bauder 12:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not sure that it is really fair to label editors as "the usual suspects", especially when the same concerns exist for many of the keeps as well. Tewfik^Talk 16:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Fred, let's not pretend you are being neutral. This is not the first time you turn WP into a battleground. You convinced me to change my vote. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - There's a lot of confusion here. Some people are saying "overturn", meaning overturn Doc's "keep" decision, and others are saying "overturn", meaning overturn Jay's "delete" decision. Some are using this as an opportunity to censure Jay, but this is not the appropriate place. Others are maligning the opinions of anyone who disagrees with them politically, but that's not appropriate on Wikipedia at all. Many are commenting more on the political situation ("Should we over/under-emphasize U.S. military support for Israel?") than the merits of the deletion, but I suppose that's inevitable. Also, alleged GFDL concerns are silly; there are no copyright issues with merging articles. It would be most helpful if commenters could comment solely on whether, based on the comments in the original AFD, the article should be deleted or kept. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I beg your pardon- whose GDFL concerns are silly? The concern is that Jayjg's close (which was orginially being discussed) calls for the merging of deleted content which we cannot do. There is only no problem with merging if the history of the page merged remains visible- usually done by redirecting it to the destination of the merge with the page history intact. WjBscribe 16:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with WJB here. Delete & Merge is not a tenable outcome for any debate, per GFDL concerns. Also, "Delete and suggest merging" is even worse: if the article is deleted, how can we expect that someone else will merge as was "suggested"? Mangojuice^talk 18:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I agree confusion is being created. I believe this "Delete & Merge" and "Redirect & Merge" controversy is bogus. All that one need do is read what the editors wrote starting at the top of the AfD page. The first occurrence of "Delete & Merge" makes it clear that "merge" is not being used in any technical sense of the word; rather it means put any useful content from this article into the other.[[3]] Subsequent editors expressing merge & delete, redirect & delete, Redirect and Merge then either explicitly or implicitly reference this original expression of the idea. "Delete and merge anything useful into Israel-United States relations. The article is mostly a list of donated weapons and a couple of tables; there is not enough cited text to justify the existence of a separate article. Beit Or" -Doright 23:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Any useful information belongs in US-Israel relations, or perhaps a new United States military aid which could describe U.S. military aid to various countries. (Note that the military aid article is currently in awful shape.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep, as it was a notable subject matter with sources to verify it. I also sincerely hope that there is an investigation into Jayjg's actions regarding this AfD. Tarc 13:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• endorse keep per above. I generally think the arguments for keeping were stronger (e.g. Mister.Manticore's). I strongly discount "delete and merge" comments as that's not really an option under current policy (edit history needs to be maintained), and that constitutes a LOT of the delete votes. The only other verbose delete vote is based on a false assumption of what keep voters would do in another hypothetical AFD. Closing this as a keep decision was the right call, and no meaningful reason for reversing that was given. It's also odd that an admin would suggest merging deleted content... just make it a redirect. --W.marsh 13:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I think when people say delete and merge, they generally mean redirect and merge or mean merge but want their merge to count more as a delete than a keep. In any event, since it is agreed that an effectively identical merger that is GFLD compliant can occur by leaving the redirect it isn't clear to me why we should discount the people who said merge/delete. JoshuaZ 14:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I know, I consider them more "redirect" supporters than people who want an outright deletion. But they probably don't consider themselves that so it's iffy. --W.marsh 14:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Information could be supplied in the yet to be started United States military aid Hughey 14:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. Keep is undeniably the incorrect result. However, there is enough argument here that I think a relisting and re-evaluation of community consensus is more appropriate than flat deleting. But there was a mistake in process here. -- Avi 14:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I have now started a United States military aid article that any useful information could be merged into. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep Fred Bauder said it better than I could. Also, reversing another admin's closing while calling it "nonsense" and marking it as a minor edit is disrespectful at best. Frise 15:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep - The United States' large and ongoing military support of Israel is eminently notable and certainly requires an article. This article may not be up to snuff yet, but it will get there. Deleting it won't help any. And I am really disappointed in Jayjg, not just for overturning Doc Glasgow's closure in an improper manner, but also for taking controversial actions in a subject matter he knows he doesn't have even the remote appearance of being unbiased in. --Cyde Weys 16:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep: The AfD was without consensus, so it should be kept. .V. _[Talk|Email] 16:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion with all due respect to Doc, 70% in favour of deletion, redirect and merge satisfies the rough consensus specified in the AfD guidelines. In response to the comments declaring the topic enyclopaedic, I don't think that anyone disagrees. The problem is that this entry is merely an unsourced list, whose minimal encyclopaedic information already exists in the section of the same name in Israel-United States relations. Such aid is treated that way for other similar cases like Egypt, and there is simply no precedent for singling out one case. Tewfik^Talk 16:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • A vote to merge is not a vote to delete... it's a vote to keep (the content). --W.marsh 16:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Considering all the delete & merges, it seems that the intent of the few redirect & merges to be the same. Tewfik^Talk 17:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
      • But the delete and merges are difficult to interpret since that's not a valid option. Nevertheless "merge" is interpreted as a keep vote at AFD... if people mean delete and leave a redlink where the article was, they need to say delete outright. --W.marsh 17:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Closing admin's comments - I am quite annoyed about being reversed without any discussion whatsoever here. I'm puzzled how any objective person could have thought my close "nonsense", and I have asked the editor concerned for an explanation [4]. I'm always willing to reconsider closes if asked, which I was not here. I am sometimes wrong, and happy to think again. However, on reconsidering, I recount: 14 deletes, 9 keeps, 4 merges, and 3 'delete and merge' (huh? can't do that!). 14 d v 13 k/m; that's clearly not a consensus to delete (even if we took the 'delete and merge' as straight deletes) which defaults to keep. For clarity, I have added the 'no consensus' rationale for my keep call. As I indicated from the outset, merge is still a valid option for consideration by editors. I've no objections to a relisting if anyone thinks a consensus to delete can be gathered, but a decision by anyone to relist needn't have involved a DRV.--Doc^g 16:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Further I've just noticed that one !voter chabged their vote after my closing [5]. So, my recount should have read 13 d vs. 13 k or m.--Doc^g 17:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I sympathize with the challenges you face as an admin. However, I believe you may have misunderstood what many of the editors were saying. Read what the editors wrote starting at the top of the AfD page. The first occurrence of "Delete & Merge" makes it clear that "merge" means put any useful content from this article into the other. Subsequent editors expressing merge & delete, redirect & delete, Redirect and Merge then either explicitly or implicitly reference this original expression of the idea: "Delete and merge anything useful into Israel-United States relations. The article is mostly a list of donated weapons and a couple of tables; there is not enough cited text to justify the existence of a separate article. Beit Or "[[6]] And, fewer than 1 in 3 editors expressed the view that it should be kept. -Doright 00:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid you misunderstand. It is not possible to delete and merge. The text of an article is copyright liecenced under the GFDL, the condition of the licence means that the edit history MUST be maintained if we keep the text. Thus, in order to "put any useful content from this article into the other" you need to keep the original article and make it into a redirect. That's why 'merge' must be understood as 'keep and merge'. There is simply no choice here. To try to interpret a merge vote as a delete vote is against policy. Meges don't require deletion and should be considered on the talk page not Afd.--Doc^g 08:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I’m afraid I must agree with Jayjg. You are not making any sense to me. For you to refuse to accept the editors’ statements, for example, ‘’Delete and merge anything useful’’,” as an expression of their view that the article should be deleted is extremely bizarre, IMO. Doright 09:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't know how much simpler I can make this. As an experienced editor like jay well knows, you CAN'T MERGE stuff from an article if you delete it. It isn't allowed. It violates copyright. Merge votes are always read as 'keep and merge', they always have been. Anyway, even if I take the 'delete and merge', mind read the votes to assume that the delete bit was more important to them than the merge bit, there is still no consensus.--Doc^g 09:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I'd like to point out that three of those merge & redirects (IZAK, Zeq, Number 57) which were assumed to have been keeps have clarified that they endorse deletion on this page, i.e. there seems to have been consensus after all. Tewfik^Talk 22:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
          • How many times must it be explained that merged pages cannot be deleted? Consensus isn't gauged by counting votes, let alone votes based on a misunderstanding of policy. —David Levy 22:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
          • It's certainly not the closing administrator's job to take notice of nonsensical opinions. It would have been better to ignore the "delete and merge" people altogether. The opinion of a clueless person is without value in the decision-making process. --Tony Sidaway 22:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
            • A vote for an invalid option is effectively a null vote. If this was a paper vote, it'd be the equivalent of spoiling your ballot paper. If users don't understand what they're voting for, they shouldn't be voting in the first place. -- ChrisO 22:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse original closure due to obvious lack of consensus. While I may have agreed with the delete !voters, any claims that the consensus was to delete are erroneous. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep as per Sjakkalle and Cyde Weys, V and Doc. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse original closure as No Consensus, which appeared appropriate based on the discussion. I have no qualms with a later merge and redirect, if a suitable target can be found, but as has been noted there's no such thing as "delete and redirect". JavaTenor 17:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep Most of the participants in this debate were voting, not discussing. As for the arguments, no one was ever able to really explain how this is a POV fork (needing deletion) as opposed to a mere topic fork (per WP:SUMMARY), which is appropriate. Other delete arguments amounted to trying to make precedent out of the existence of other articles, very weak. Merge opinions made sense & were justified, but AfD doesn't have to serve as a referendum on merging vs. keeping. And a reminder: here, we are discussing the closure of the debate, not the merits -- we can always have another AfD (and it seems to be headed that way). Mangojuice^talk 18:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Jayjg's spectacularly inappropriate closure, relist if necessary. When you want to challenge a result, you come to deletion review. You do not overwrite another sysop's opinions with your own. Picaroon 21:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn both and merge Although there was no consensus to delete, there was a consensus (between the deletes, merges and "delete-and-merges") that having a separate article is POV-pushing. In addition, many of the arguments were of type "The US gives massive military aid to Israel," which is not a valid reason to keep. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The vote was 21 who wanted the article gone versus 9 who wanted it kept, and the arguments in favor of deletion were, in my view, stronger in terms of policy. Marking this is a "keep", not even a "no consensus" was clearly some sort of error or oversight. Doc G had left for the day (and indeed did not return for another 12 hours), so I WP:BOLDly fixed the problem, though marking the edit as "minor" was accidental - I didn't realize I had done that. However, in hindsight my edit summary was aggressive and dismissive, and as a courtesy to Doc G, I still should have waited until he was back online and discussed it with him first. My apologies to Doc G for that.
  Regarding the various people who are hinting or stating outright that I have some sort of conflict of interest, or shouldn't be able to make administrative decisions on wide areas of article topics, or, most bizarrely, that I have in the past "illegally" deleted articles, I note the obvious bias that many (though certainly not all) of them have expressed in these areas themselves, and point out that an interest in a topical area is not a conflict of interest in that area. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Er, doesnt point two weaken point one - oh, never mind. Jay, the sooner you learn that someone with an explicit POV - which you have expressed yourself on talkpages and in edit summaries, as well as a dismissive attitude to discussants, should perhaps avoid major, controversial, administrative decisions that impinge on the issues for which that POV is relevant, the happier the community will be. Hornplease 21:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Every time someone closes an AFD differently than you would have it isn't automatically a "problem" or a mistake, it's life at AFD. I'll assume maybe you're just not familiar with the nitty gritty of AFD, but reversals like you made have been challenged in the past and as far as I know have never withstood that challenge... DRV and talk pages exist for a reason. --W.marsh 22:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Even if your interpretation of the debate was correct, unilaterally overturning another sysop's closure was not. That's what WP:DRV is for.
    Of course, there doesn't appear to be consensus that your interpretation of the debate was correct, and your "delete - with a strong suggestion to merge" wording simply doesn't make sense. —David Levy 22:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Using admin tools on topics you are interested in is not by itself a conflict of interest. However, when you have not only an interest in a topic but a dazzlingly obvious bias, using your tools in the direction of your bias is a bad idea. Kla'quot 05:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep, leave editorial discretion for merge, that's how it happened and how it should remain, I don't perceive faulty reasoning on Doc's part. --Iamunknown 21:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse original keep as no consensus and revert disruptive second closure. An admin should know that if one disagrees with a closure, one goes to DRV about it, and one does not simply overwrite the closure. What's next? Admins edit-warring over AfD closures? We don't need this silliness. Sandstein 22:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure by Doc glasgow. I haven't even looked at the article (so I have no opinion of it), but it's clear to me that there isn't consensus to delete it. "Merge" = "keep," and Jayjg's decision to lump such respondents together with the "delete" voters as people "who wanted the article gone" has no basis in policy, nor does his determination that we should strongly consider merging the deleted text. —David Levy 22:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Doc's original closure and consider merging as an editorial decision. There is simply no precedent on AFD or any other deletion process for considering merge and/or redirect discussion points as equivalent to delete. Furthermore, merge and delete is a violation of the GFDL because it eliminates necessary edit histories. I simply don't see any consensus to delete, and the "keep" arguments had substantial weight. Personally, I would have closed the discussion as a no consensus, but that makes no real difference since the result either way is the same. *** Crotalus *** 22:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Relist per Avi. Rather than guessing, we can simply ask the "mergers" to clarify their positions. <<-armon->> 23:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as "No Consensus" as there obviously wasn't any consensus. --Ezeu 23:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As an editor that did not have an opportunity to contribute to the AfD discussion before it was closed, I would like to point out that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information [7]. This appears to be a pov fork from Israel-United States relations and pointless by itself. I also note FEWER THAN 1 in 3 editors expressed the view that it should be kept, in the previously closed AfD. That does raise the question of whether the consesus view was recognized?Doright 23:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per MPerel, Quadell and Tewfik. (I am not sure which is "endorse" or "overturn" in this case so I am avoiding those terms.) I endorse Jayjg's action. I will resist the temptation to respond to claims of "bias", but I do not think it is helpful to throw those allegations around. I do think that Wikipedia is "broken" when it comes to articles about Israel and Israeli-Arab relations, and it is not going to be fixed on an article-by-article basis. 6SJ7 23:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep US military aid to Israel is a major and controversial issue. — MichaelLinnear 23:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Doc's closure - At best, it's a no-consensus - the unilateral switch to "delete" was completely inappropriate. I think there's plenty to be said in its own article about United States military aid to Israel, or to Saudi Arabia, or to South Korea, or to NATO countries, for that matter. There's nothing "POV fork" about it. FCYTravis 23:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep per Doc's closure. Someone has recently started an overall article called United States military aid. The article in question here, United States military aid to Israel, is already too long to merge with that overall article. It is also too long to merge with Israel-United States relations#United States military and economic aid. Doc's revised closing statement explains his original closing comment of "keep" better: "The result was No Consensus = default KEEP - merging is of course an editorial decision to be worked out on the talk pages" --Timeshifter 00:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The article is a POV fork, and the majority of !voters favor being rid of it in some fashion or other. I will also note that the loudest cries against Jay as a biased editor seem to be coming from editors with a pronounced (and in some cases acknowledged) bias of their own. "Usual suspects" indeed. IronDuke 01:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork and merge any useful material onto US-Israel relations and/or United States military aid. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Uh approximately 50% of this thread is explaining why we can't delete and merge. --W.marsh 02:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Why must so many Israel-related articles be up for deletion because pro-Israel editors might dislike them??? Allegations of Israeli Apartheid is another example up for deletion, whereas Allegations of Brazilian apartheid is supported by the pro-Israel editors? Seems duplicitous. The subject article's second sentence states: "Israel has been the largest annual recipient of direct U.S. economic and military assistance since 1976 and the largest total recipient since World War II." It deserves a separate article for those reasons. Please stand up against censorship. Thanks.Kritt 01:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep It was a travesty what happened here. Jayjg was completely out of line. MetsFan76 02:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep This may be a case of abuse of powers. There was no consensus to delete. Valid arguments were made to keep the article. Mayhaps Jayjg should exercise more Administrative restraint.--Agha Nader 02:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• It is quite telling about the atmosphere in which we edit that this has been allowed to turn into a venue for attacking Jayjg. Please exercise a minimum of civility and assumption of good faith. Tewfik^Talk 03:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • People are voicing their opinions here as is their right to. I fail to see how Jay is "getting attacked." You may think Jay's actions were fine and you are entitled to voice your opinion but others do not and if they wish to express their feelings here in a civil manner, then you are in no position to turn their opinions into "attacks on Jay." MetsFan76 03:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • This is deletion review, whose sole aim is assessing whether the AfD warrants a deletion or undeletion. It isn't the place for reviewing anyone's actions, and much less for leveling accusations of 'censorship' or 'abuse of powers' (or even for being "completely out of line", even if we think he was). Tewfik^Talk 05:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Jayjg's actions are relevant to this deletion review and should be discussed. It is clear that he was out of line (he even apologized to Doc), but I think it goes to show that maybe he shouldn't be partaking in any deletion reviews for quite some time now as he simply does not know how to behave and respect other editors. Calling someone's edit "nonsense" is completely uncivil and he needs to learn how to assume good faith on here if he ever wants to be a productive editor. I'm not sure if that's what he wants however. MetsFan76 05:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Just for the record, WP:DRV says: "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate itself was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the AfD debate. This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content." Jayjg's actions were an issue of process, hence the relevance of them to this deletion review. -- ChrisO 07:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
          • So you think allegations of "abuse of power" and "censorship" are appropriate here? Tewfik^Talk 22:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
            • I wouldn't have put it that way myself, but the characterisation is understandable: Jayjg's use of his admin privileges was clearly improper, and in the absence of a convincing rationale for the nomination I have to agree with Doc's comment that "the deletion attempt looks like blatant POV-pushing." I can see why some would see it as an attempt to censor Wikipedia to suit a particular POV. -- ChrisO 23:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep. What is up with Jayjg anyway? Anyway it was closed as No Consensus so it can be brought back to AfD any time. Herostratus 06:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Take into account that the AfD was first closed as "Keep"[8], the "no consensus" was a clarification added later. Consider also that there was obviously no clear consensus to keep, and if anything it was leaning towards delete. It was to this that Jayjg reacted. In my opinion, there was fault of judgement from both invloved admins. Since both have since reconciled, perhaps we too should move on, and instead discuss the merits of the AfD closure as it stands now. --Ezeu 13:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete it, it's not worth the bother and it reports nothing new. IZAK 06:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per IZAK Zeq 06:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. IZAK 06:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, article should be merged into Israel-United States relations. Number 57 08:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow. Have you read this discussion? Deleted articles cannot be merged. We can create a situation in which the content no longer appears as a separate article (because its title has become a redirect to the article containing the merged text), but we must retain the original revision history.
    I'll also note that we're here to determine whether the proper process was followed at AfD; this is not the correct forum in which to argue that the article should be deleted because of content concerns. —David Levy 09:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per IronDuke. ElinorD (talk) 08:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Doc's close looks fine to me. Keep this article and possibly merge to a suitable candidate. --Tony Sidaway 10:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse original closure. No consensus seems clear to me. Thincat 10:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse original closure. Doc's close was fine. A merge might also be appropriate, but then a merge is not a delete. To the deleters, how do you discuss Israel's military without discussing US military aid? Mackensen (talk) 11:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep or endorse original closure, however you want to put. Unilateral overturning of a perfectly straightforward close by a partisan editor? Not even close to proper, and IronDuke's clumsy ad hominem drive-by doesn't help. --Calton | Talk 11:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - the article is biased and largely unsourced. It needs to be rewritten from scratch starting with context. Total US military expenditures. US military industrial complex. Cold war and US global political objectives. Vietnam military costs. Oil and US. Israel/the second coming/Christian fundamentalism. US government and private money going to Muslim states and peoples in gifts grants and purchases. Context people, context. WAS 4.250 11:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

How is that relevant to my closure? We've got 1.7 million articles, why would you not expect that among the hundreds pokemon stubs there might be a few subjects that the pro-Israeli and US-right would rather censor? This particular subject is certainly noteworthy and potentially capable of factual documentation. However, if you think you've a strong case for deletion then re-nominate it and try to get a consensus this time. I'm afraid the deletion attempt looks like blatant POV-pushing to me.--Doc^g 12:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Doc, you are making it increasingly difficult to assume good faith about your misinterpretation of editors' views voiced in the original AfD when as the closing admin, you are clearly assuming bad faith on the part of those that voiced their opinion that the article should not exist. It is clear to me when you explain the current controversy as involving a subject "that the pro-Israeli and US-right would rather censor," you have allowed your own extreme bias to limit your ability to accept the obvious consensus. As an admin, you should now reverse your closure and participate as an editor not an admin. -Doright 01:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Doc's closure as within admin discretion. But, since this is at DRV now, I endorse keeping as well ... the subject is encyclopedic and a decent article could be written about it. As always, a merge is up to the editors involved. However, I note again that the topic probably deserves its own article. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse close as keep. I count 8 staight "keep"s, and 15 "delete" or "delete and merge" !votes, plus 5 versions of "redirect and merge". Now any merge really ought to be considered a form of keep, since the history dhould be reatianed for the GFDL. Indeed that makes the ""delete and merge" views soemwhat contradictory. I would have closed this as no consensus, and either merged it or stuck a merge tag on it, because clearly there was a consensus that this not remain as a separate articel in its current form. DES ^(talk) 20:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Original Closure If the article isn't good enough why not try and improve it instead of getting rid of a clearly notable article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment and question. In the original AfD (in which I didn't take part) I see a lot of people were claiming the article was a "POV fork". Similar claims have been made here. I'm genuinely puzzled about this: what exactly was the POV problem here? The premise for the original nomination seems pretty thin. -- ChrisO 23:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I really don't see that either, and I've not seen it explained yet. The article seemed a bit POV to me, but that's fixable, and certainly the subject of US military aid to Israel is neutral and verifiable, and I'd imagine there's a ton of information available to support an article on the subject. Perhaps people were confused as to what a POV fork is? It's not an article that is currently POV, it's an article title that is inherently POV. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Doc's closure as approproate 'no consensus" and keep the article. Edison 20:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• endorse deletion After I counted the votes from the Afd, the result was delete 15, keep 9, redirect 2. It seems consensus was to delete during the second Afd.--Sefringle 03:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm afraid your count is a bit misleading. The figures were (per MPerel's comments above): 12 "delete", 9 "keep", 1 "redirect", 3 "delete and merge", 4 "redirect and merge", and 1 "delete, redirect and merge". "Redirect" and "redirect and merge" are effectively a form of "keep" (as they preserve the article history and name). As already explained repeatedly above, "delete and merge" and "delete, redirect and merge" are invalid options - they can't be actioned. Invalid "votes" have to be discarded; there's nothing you can do with them. So, excluding them, you end up with 12 "delete" / 9 "keep" and 5 valid variants of "redirect". Clearly no consensus there. -- ChrisO 07:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is "delete and merge" mean they have to be discredited. It is pretty clear to me that that is a vote for deletion of the content, and moving whatever is salvagable to a better article. Merge is more like delete than keep, because it calls for the content to be removed from this page. That makes no sense why voting would result that way.--Sefringle 20:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll quote what Doc G said above on this: "The text of an article is copyright liecenced under the GFDL, the condition of the licence means that the edit history MUST be maintained if we keep the text. Thus, in order to "put any useful content from this article into the other" you need to keep the original article and make it into a redirect. That's why 'merge' must be understood as 'keep and merge'." Just to emphasize the point, 'delete and merge' is a self-contradictory option; if you delete, you can't merge. This is nothing new, but evidently a number of users didn't understand it. -- ChrisO 21:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Update - new article created

Following the AfD debate and this DRV discussion on United States military aid to Israel, I've created Israel-United States military relations in an effort to resolve the outstanding issues. Key points:

• The new article has a wider scope, covering military relations in general, military aid, procurement, joint military activities and significant controversies.
• The article is intended to be the prototype for a series of x-United States military relations articles; I've written it around a template that can be used for any article of this type. See Talk:Israel-United States military relations for an explanation of the template.
• The article parallels the existing Israel-United States relations article as a spinout and expansion of the military relations aspects.
• All the content is referenced. :-) It's a combination of expanded relevant bits from Israel-United States relations, merged content from United States military aid to Israel and a substantial amount of new content, mostly from Jane's.

I've proposed a merger of United States military aid to Israel into Israel-United States military relations (although I should note that I've already merged everything I feel need to be merged).

Please take a look at the new article and leave comments on the talk page. -- ChrisO 10:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• support merge less POV.--Sefringle 21:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Captain Cannabis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The policy cited as cause for deletion was that the article was not notable. The Wikipedia notability guidelines clearly state the basis for determining notability which the article met. It had multiple, non-trivial, arms-length citations. There were no arguments given, just "delete votes. The Administrator failed in their duty to assign proper weight in an objective manner to the issues as set out in the Wikipedia notability policy. Verne Andru 02:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Closer's response: Guidelines guide participants (guide not instruct) - consensus and strength of arguments guide admins - there was a consensus to delete. Guidelines are not policy. --Doc^g 02:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The "guidelines" state quite clearly that "votes" without any argument or reasons should not be considered when making a determination. As most of the "Delete" votes cited no reasons, they should not have been given any weight. When applying the guidelines in a fair and dispassionate manner, the "Delete" votes should not have been considered and the consensus was to "Keep" the article. Verne Andru 02:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, met standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Jeff, I'm finding that procedurally strange from you. Are you now arguing that the closing admin should ignore his impression of consensus - indeed the debate itself and apply the notability guidelines as if binding policy?? Looks to me like you are trying to re-run the DRV by placing an opinion here that is about your opinion of content not process. That's a move I'd expect from me and not you.--Doc^g 00:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I think we have a strong consensus as to what constitutes a notable foo, and that a single AfD discussion shouldn't be overturning that. Yes, it's a process issue - the closure failed to reflect consensus. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Can you point me to the policy that says the 'standards' now triumph over individual AfD discussion? Are the standards now policy? Seriously, I'm getting concerned that your once principled insistence on policy and process following is now degenerating into mere opportunistic inclusivism. Please explain per policy how 'met standards' is alone a reason to overturn. I think you are ignoring the real rules and applying what you'd like the rules to be. A lot like IAR, really.--Doc^g 00:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Jeff, which of the sources do you think establishes notability? I could not find any mention of the character in the ones I could access. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. Seeing as sources seem to have been added throughout the debate, and some people changed their mind, this deserves a run-through with all the information present, for the whole time. -Amarkov moo! 03:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
• Endorse deletion per Joshua. Plus the fact that the nominator has responded to everyone's opinion, and invoked "I'm a lawyer so I'm right"; that is a huge red flag. -Amarkov moo! 20:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• relist per Armakov. The stupidity of the subject aside, it does make a claim to notability with the sources and the situation changed midway through. This is why admins aren't supposed to be robots when closing AfDs. JoshuaZ 06:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC) endorse deletion Having now gone through the claimed sources, almost all of them dont mention the person in question, they are of questionable reliability and not a single one is both indepedent and non-trivial. A relisting will result in the exact same result. Let's not waste our time. JoshuaZ 06:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, several arguments to delete were made later in the argument, and at least one specifically addressed (and rejected as insufficient) the sourcing added. Correct read of consensus. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no matter how many times you say, "these are sources, you can't ignore them", if the sources don't mention the character, then they are simply insufficient for establishing the notability of the character, and that argument was definitely raised at the AfD. Notability is not contagious; characters don't catch it from their authors or from the works they appear in. However, a non-notable character may still be relevant to (and thus worth mentioning in) an article about the author or the work. And the sources presented at the AfD do suggest that the author or the work might be notable. And, having given that very broad hint, Verne, I do hope you will keep our conflict of interest goidelines in mind. :) Cheers, Xtifr _tälk 07:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion While sources were provided, the ones that were actually available did not mention the character, but mentioned other things we are told are in some way related to the character. Xtifr put it best when he said "Notability is not contagious". I see no fault in how this debate was closed. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Citation Rebuttal The High Times, Skunk Magazine article and QsHouse radio show all explicitly mention the Captain Cannabis character by name, which is the criteria for being "non-trivial" according to Wikipedia guidelines, as well as the 420 comic book. All sources are arms-length, independent and reliable - High Times and Skunk Magazine being two of the most widely circulated publications to the market segment. Just because a source isn't available on the internet does not mean it does not exist. Verne Andru 15:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I am not sure why you think simply mentioning something automatically makes it meet the definition of non-trivial, there are trivial mentions, and non-trivial mentions. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • RebuttalThe criteria for "non-trivial" as defined in the Notability guidelines you used to open the charge against the article states very clearly that the threshold test for "non-trivial" is that the name of the item be referenced directly. That article further states the there is to be no subjectivity allowed in the decision and popularity is not to be taken into consideration. The citations, in 2 of the most widely subscribed publications, about Captain Cannabis and the comic book fully comply with the Wikipedia criteria to be deemed notable. Verne Andru 16:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, the appellant has a clear conflict of interest, and the AfD looks valid, to me. Corvus cornix 15:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • RebuttalWhile HighInBC has opened a charge against me for "conflict of interest," [plus just about every other charge he has been able to think up] this is an allegation and has not been determined at this point so this argument should be dismissed. Wikipedia guidelines are quite clear in not precluding anyone from creating or adding to an article, as long as it meets the criteria of being written from a NPOV, is properly cited and is "notable" under the Wikipedia definition of those terms. I submit the article fully complies with Wikipedia standards and maintain I have no conflict of interest. Verne Andru 16:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as being well within guidelines and policy. Nom may stridently disagree with this assessment but that doesn't change the fact the consensus was to delete the article. I'd have agreed anyway, the sources were trivial at best. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Rebuttal My submission is that, had the deleter complied with the guidelines and not given any weight to the "Delete" votes without argument, the consensus was to "Keep." I further submit your allegation that the sources "were trivial at best" is a "subjective" determination, something specifically precluded from consideration under the Notability article. When the Notability guidelines are applied consistent with the way they are written, I submit the article and its citations pass the threshold tests with room to spare. Verne Andru 17:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Per the guidelines at WP:N - "Non-trivial" means that sources address the subject directly and no original research is needed to extract the content. It does not require that a topic be the sole focus of a source. I fail to see where, in the provided sources, "Captain Cannabis" was addressed as a subject directly and not as a passing mention. You may wish to read the footnote provided in the guideline, which makes it clear a one or two line mention does not qualify. No matter the reliability of the source if it does not amount to more than stating Captain Cannabis was a character in the comic, notability is NOT established. Please elaborate on your claim that the character passes threshold with room to spare. Arkyan • ^(talk) 17:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Elaboration - Citations Thank you for pointing out the guidelines and providing an opportunity to elaborate. I have been reluctant to post this for fear of being charged [by HighInBC] with bias and had hoped another editor would have undertaken to reference the citation. I submit the following which were copied from the source articles and invite Wikipedia editors to embark on their own due-diligence to verify the veracity of this information.
        • SENSI SUPERMAN - High Times – February 2007 - BUZZ section, page 13 <unlicensed copyright text redacted>
        • 420 – Verne Signature Series - Skunk Magazine – vol 2, issue 8 - COOL STUFF section, page 85 <unlicensed copyright text redacted> Verne Andru 17:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
          • I redacted unlicensed copyrighted text; if you wish to view it, then you may use the edit history. Please do not restore it. --Iamunknown 01:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. WP:N's wording is under dispute, for good reason -- the notability of a subject as determined by its level of sourcing is judged on a case-by-case basis, and there was a pretty clear consensus that this subject doesn't cut it. Something not explicitly stated here, but very clearly part of this debate, was the concern about WP:VANITY / WP:COI, which will taint things a bit. A topic that has borderline notability will often be deleted if it exists because of a COI. This seems like a normal outcome for the debate. Mangojuice^talk 18:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Rebuttal I submit none of the editors voting to delete have done any due-diligence on the citations. The consensus was - if they couldn't find it on the internet, it didn't exist, a position which is also in conflict with Wikipedia guidelines. Until the 17:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC) post above was made, none of these deliberations have had the benefit of full disclosure of all pertinent citation data. The article used as the basis for deleting the article was Notability, not Conflict of Interest. To argue that the decision was made on a criteria other than that stated in the charges, argues that the proceedings were unfair and a full hearing was not given and argues against deletion. The Notibility criteria are quite clear in stating no subjectivity must be used in making a determination. Until the outcome of HighInBC's Conflict of Interest charges against me are decided, they remain allegations only and must not be used in any way as a weighting factor in these deliberations. Verne Andru 18:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • What do you think this is, a criminal court? Innocent until proven guilty? Due diligence? Sorry, the "laws" of Wikipedia will not support you where consensus did not -- Wikipediea doesn't have firm rules and in any case, we ignore them when the spirit isn't being upheld. Mangojuice^talk 19:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, and it says right there in the nom that the article was created by the author of the book. WP:VANITY talks more about that issue, but the complaint is clear. Mangojuice^talk 19:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I have argued law before the BC Supreme and Courts of Appeal for 10 years and understand what comprises a good argument and a fair hearing. I also taught computer-sciences for 5 years in the College system, so I'm fully aware of what constitutes valid academic argument and procedures. What you're saying is "the rules are, there are no rules," which pretty much confirms my suspicions. It does a grave disservice to Wikipedia that such attitudes are allowed to prevail among it's editorial ranks. I have reviewed the guidelines on Vanity and Conflict of Interest and believe I have not run afoul with either. Everything I've written has been fully compliant with Wikipedia standards of being from a NPOV, properly cited and notable. The guidelines do not preclude anyone from providing contributions to Wikipedia as long as they are within the bounds of the guidelines. Verne Andru 19:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
        • No, what I'm saying is, the rules have enforceable spirit but no enforceable letter, and wikilawyering is not going to get you anywhere. You are arguing that we should nullify the entire debate because it wasn't fair enough because of a few minor points. As for these "attitudes," it's a good thing, because it allows us to ignore irrelevant crap and focus on the encyclopedia, which is after all the whole point. As for your own behavior, apart from the excessive wikilawyering, I see nothing wrong... and try not to take the deletion personally, it's not a referendum on YOU, just on the article. Mangojuice^talk 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per JoshuaZ. Plus the fact that the nominator has responded to everyone's opinion, and invoked "I'm a lawyer so I'm right"; that is a huge red flag. -Amarkov moo! 20:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I can't add much to what's already been said, but I would point out to the author that repeated argumentations where you have a self-evident conflict of interest is almost always counterproductive. Guy (Help!) 20:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Rebuttal I did not invoke "I'm a lawyer so I'm right," [because I am not] I merely noted I understand what a fair hearing is and what it isn't based on first hand experience, and this doesn't come close.
    Wikipedia has a systemic Conflict of Interest built into it that this case has been able to bring to light. Between your we ignore them rules and your Reward Board editors can be put in a conflict of interest by accepting monetary recompense for their actions that, in this case, go against the interests of Wikipedia establishing itself as a credible academic resource. As there appears to be a clear consensus against this case - not based on its merits, I would like to stress - I would ask that you delete my name space once you have finished here. Verne Andru 20:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty sure we don't intend to be a "credible academic resource" in any usual sense of the phase, and if we do, there are bigger obstacles to that than IAR and the reward board (which I agree is a bad idea). -Amarkov moo! 23:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, AfD was properly conducted, weighed, and closed. Rationales for upheld deletion arguments were based on policies and guidelines, such as WP:RS (the lack of non-trivial mentions) and WP:COI (creator of article is creator of subject of article). No evidence presented here that shows otherwise or that shows the rationale for deletion was based on misinformation or incomplete information. Process correctly followed in this case. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)