View source for Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 March 14

<noinclude>{{Deletion review log header}}</noinclude>
===[[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 March 14|14 March 2014]]===
<!--Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page.

Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:drv2|page=<PAGE NAME>|xfd_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>|reason=<REASON>}} ~~~~      -->
{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" |
* '''[[: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. – <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</span>]]</span></small> 12:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC) <!--*-->
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
:{{DRV links|Jews and Communism|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism|article=}}

I request deletion of this article.

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 [[WP:POVFORK|POV fork]], although many editors said it was, and few disagreed.

[[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 05:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jews_and_Communism&oldid=599376769 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 [[User:The Four Deuces|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 [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] requests. Thank you, [[User:IZAK|IZAK]] ([[User talk:IZAK|talk]]) 06:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism|list of Judaism-related deletion discussions]]. 06:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)</small> <small>[[User:IZAK|IZAK]] ([[User talk:IZAK|talk]]) 06:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)</small>

*'''Endorse''' [[WP: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. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]] ([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|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. {{U|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. [[User:Cullen328|'''<span style="color:green;">Cullen</span>'''<sup style="color:purple;">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:blue;">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 06:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
*@[[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] "''The administrator said that there was no consensus that the article was a [[WP:POVFORK|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: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJewish_Bolshevism&diff=572513368&oldid=572509951]
:{{quotation|"The fact that some Jews became Communists and the conspiracy theory are two separate topics." --[[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]], 11 September 2013}}
:He then posted an RfC to show that the [[Jewish Bolshevism]] article is indeed solely about the conspiracy theory [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jewish_Bolshevism/Archive_4#RfC:_Is_Jewish_Bolshevism_a_conspiracy_theory.3F]. 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jewish_Bolshevism/Archive_4#RfC:_Is_Jewish_Bolshevism_a_conspiracy_theory.3F]), 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. <span style="font-family:Eras Bold ITC;">-- [[User:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#353535">Director</span>]] <span style="color:#464646">([[User talk:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#464646">talk</span>]])</span></span> 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 [[Talk:Jewish Bolshevism/Archive 4#RfC: Is Jewish Bolshevism a conspiracy theory?|himself formed an RFC]] explicitly eliminating that content from the article; now claiming it's a fork?). --[[User:CyberXRef|<span style="color:#930014;">Cy</span><span style="color:#4a3f3f;">be</span><span style="color:#007d69;">r</span><span style="color:#05716e;">XR</span><span style="color:#0f5877;">ef</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:CyberXRef|☎]]</sup> 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. <span style="font-family:Eras Bold ITC;">-- [[User:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#353535">Director</span>]] <span style="color:#464646">([[User talk:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#464646">talk</span>]])</span></span> 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.--[[User:Antidiskriminator|Antidiskriminator]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:HOUND|following me around]] and opposing whatever I say as a sort of petty revenge for opposing you on previous discussions.. <span style="font-family:Eras Bold ITC;">-- [[User:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#353535">Director</span>]] <span style="color:#464646">([[User talk:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#464646">talk</span>]])</span></span> 19:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
::{{ping|Antidiskriminator}} Actually, it absolutely does in this case. The AfD nominator initiated [[Talk:Jewish_Bolshevism/Archive_4#RfC: Is Jewish Bolshevism a conspiracy theory?|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. --[[User:CyberXRef|<span style="color:#930014;">Cy</span><span style="color:#4a3f3f;">be</span><span style="color:#007d69;">r</span><span style="color:#05716e;">XR</span><span style="color:#0f5877;">ef</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:CyberXRef|☎]]</sup> 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. --[[User:Antidiskriminator|Antidiskriminator]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:CyberXRef|<span style="color:#930014;">Cy</span><span style="color:#4a3f3f;">be</span><span style="color:#007d69;">r</span><span style="color:#05716e;">XR</span><span style="color:#0f5877;">ef</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:CyberXRef|☎]]</sup> 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.
:::::Conclusion: <u>No meaningful connection between Foo ethnicity and Communism = No article on [[Foo ethnicity and communism]]</u>. --[[User:Antidiskriminator|Antidiskriminator]] ([[User talk:Antidiskriminator|talk]]) 23:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::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..). <span style="font-family:Eras Bold ITC;">-- [[User:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#353535">Director</span>]] <span style="color:#464646">([[User talk:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#464646">talk</span>]])</span></span> 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.
:::::::# "Sources say so!" No. No source support "meaningful connection between Foo ethnicity and Communism". Presenting sources about [[Red haired people and Communism]] or [[Left handed people and Terrorism]] or [[Foo ethnicity and Communism]] does not mean there is any meaningful connection between them.--[[User:Antidiskriminator|Antidiskriminator]] ([[User talk:Antidiskriminator|talk]]) 07:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::Oh go away Antidiskriminator... how many times must people explain to you that these posts are <u>about the POVFORK claim</u>?! 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. <span style="font-family:Eras Bold ITC;">-- [[User:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#353535">Director</span>]] <span style="color:#464646">([[User talk:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#464646">talk</span>]])</span></span> 08:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::: Although <u>you wrote 108 comments</u> (for now) at AfD and this page (75+33) solely based on [[False dilemma]] and [[Affirming a disjunct]] fallacies vast majority of editors support deletion. It is time for you to [[Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass|drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass]]. --[[User:Antidiskriminator|Antidiskriminator]] ([[User talk:Antidiskriminator|talk]]) 08:47, 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. <span style="font-family:Eras Bold ITC;">-- [[User:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#353535">Director</span>]] <span style="color:#464646">([[User talk:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#464646">talk</span>]])</span></span> 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. [[User:Thincat|Thincat]] ([[User talk:Thincat|talk]]) 08:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Cullen. [[User:GabrielF|GabrielF]] ([[User talk: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.)<p>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, [[WP:IAR|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".<p>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.<p>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.—[[User:S Marshall|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:maroon;">'''S Marshall'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 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]]:
::{{quotation|"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. <span style="font-family:Eras Bold ITC;">-- [[User:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#353535">Director</span>]] <span style="color:#464646">([[User talk:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#464646">talk</span>]])</span></span> 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.—[[User:S Marshall|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:maroon;">'''S Marshall'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 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. <span style="font-family:Eras Bold ITC;">-- [[User:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#353535">Director</span>]] <span style="color:#464646">([[User talk:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#464646">talk</span>]])</span></span> 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.—[[User:S Marshall|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:maroon;">'''S Marshall'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 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. <span style="font-family:Eras Bold ITC;">-- [[User:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#353535">Director</span>]] <span style="color:#464646">([[User talk:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#464646">talk</span>]])</span></span> 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.—[[User:S Marshall|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:maroon;">'''S Marshall'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 01:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::::@[[User:S Marshall|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:maroon;">'''S Marshall'''</span>]]. (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. <span style="font-family:Eras Bold ITC;">-- [[User:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#353535">Director</span>]] <span style="color:#464646">([[User talk:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#464646">talk</span>]])</span></span> 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?—[[User:S Marshall|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:maroon;">'''S Marshall'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 19:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::@[[User:S Marshall|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Tagging tagging] and repair - but immediate, wholesale deletion, before it even has a chance to be fixed? <span style="font-family:Eras Bold ITC;">-- [[User:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#353535">Director</span>]] <span style="color:#464646">([[User talk:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#464646">talk</span>]])</span></span> 15:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
{{unindent}} 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.—[[User:S Marshall|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:maroon;">'''S Marshall'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 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. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk: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).  [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk: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". [[User:23 editor|23 editor]] ([[User talk: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"? --[[User:CyberXRef|<span style="color:#930014;">Cy</span><span style="color:#4a3f3f;">be</span><span style="color:#007d69;">r</span><span style="color:#05716e;">XR</span><span style="color:#0f5877;">ef</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:CyberXRef|☎]]</sup> 18:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
:Yes, my bad. [[User:23 editor|23 editor]] ([[User talk: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.  '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk: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.  [[User:Lankiveil|Lankiveil]] <sup>([[User talk:Lankiveil|speak to me]])</sup> 00:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC).
*'''Endorse''' basically per [[User:Lankiveil|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. [[User:RoySmith|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. [[User: Stalwart111|'''Stalwart''']][[User talk:Stalwart111|'''<span style="color:green;">111</span>''']] 05:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

*'''Oppose'''. Per 'S Marshall' and 'Cullen' - the article is still a non-encyclopedic [[WP:NOTESSAY|essay]] attack and antisemitic piece and the votes that said this in the previous discussion cannot be dismissed. The article's very title is misleading and inappropriate. With as many as 24 votes in favor of deleting the article, an additional two in favor of merging it, and only 12 in favor of keeping it, it's an outrage that "no consensus" was reached. Why would the opinion of one admin be counted as 13 votes of other informed and reliable editors? Even though editors provided different reasons to delete the article, they're all valid, have equal weight to those opposing them, and need to be counted fairly. A disgrace has been done, and I urge other participants of the previous discussion to share their opinions as well, since serious injustice happened here. {{User|Carolmooredc}} {{User|Dougweller}} {{User|Antidiskriminator }} {{User|Altenmann}} {{User|Binksternet}} {{User|Steeletrap}}{{User|Marokwitz}} {{User|USchick}} {{User|Hot Stop}} {{User|AndyTheGrump}} {{User|Topdiggie}} {{User|Evildoer187}} {{User|AnkhMorpork}} {{User|Nomoskedasticity}} {{User|Dralwik}} {{User|GHcool}}  {{User|Anonimu}} {{User|Johnuniq}}  {{User|Galassi}}. -[[User:Shalom11111|Shalom11111]] ([[User talk:Shalom11111|talk]]) 12:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
**'''Comment''', because, AFD is explicitly ''not'' a vote and for good reason.  [[User:Lankiveil|Lankiveil]] <sup>([[User talk:Lankiveil|speak to me]])</sup> 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"'' --[[User:Antidiskriminator|Antidiskriminator]] ([[User talk: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 :) <span style="font-family:Eras Bold ITC;">-- [[User:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#353535">Director</span>]] <span style="color:#464646">([[User talk:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#464646">talk</span>]])</span></span> 14:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
:::Incorrect. Your accusation is unjustified. Take for example this comment ''"I support DIREKTOR's basic position here."'' ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADouble-headed_eagle&diff=567944125&oldid=567924908 diff]) I wrote in another discussion that you also participated. --[[User:Antidiskriminator|Antidiskriminator]] ([[User talk:Antidiskriminator|talk]]) 18:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
<s>*'''Overturn to delete''' Pretty bald faced anti-Semitism, no doubt created by some {{RPA}}.--[[User:Atlantictire|Atlantictire]] ([[User talk:Atlantictire|talk]]) 14:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)</s>
::Note that Deletion review are for discussions about the closer, not if you are in disagreement with the article. ([[WP:DRVPURPOSE]])--[[User:CyberXRef|<span style="color:#930014;">Cy</span><span style="color:#4a3f3f;">be</span><span style="color:#007d69;">r</span><span style="color:#05716e;">XR</span><span style="color:#0f5877;">ef</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:CyberXRef|☎]]</sup> 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. --<span style="font-family:xx-medium serif;">◅ [[User:PRODUCER|<span style="color:black; letter-spacing: 0.2cm;">PRODUCER</span>]] <small>([[User talk:PRODUCER|<span style="color:black;">TALK</span>]])</small></span> 19:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' [[Wikipedia: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.  [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|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 <u>there is an '''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jewish_Bolshevism/Archive_4#RfC:_Is_Jewish_Bolshevism_a_conspiracy_theory.3F explicit consensus]''' on [[Jewish Bolshevism]] for keeping this topic outside the scope</u>. 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. <span style="font-family:Eras Bold ITC;">-- [[User:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#353535">Director</span>]] <span style="color:#464646">([[User talk:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#464646">talk</span>]])</span></span> 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".--[[User:Antidiskriminator|Antidiskriminator]] ([[User talk: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? <span style="font-family:Eras Bold ITC;">-- [[User:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#353535">Director</span>]] <span style="color:#464646">([[User talk:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#464646">talk</span>]])</span></span> 19:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::Incorrect. Rationale presented to support deletion was not only POVFORK. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2014_March_14&diff=599712797&oldid=599712313 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.] No doubt that you know that. I think I gave a fairly clear explanation of my position and I don't have anything to add to it now. You are of course free to disagree. --[[User:Antidiskriminator|Antidiskriminator]] ([[User talk:Antidiskriminator|talk]]) 20:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::::What part of "my post is there to address the POVFORK" do you find difficult to understand? <span style="font-family:Eras Bold ITC;">-- [[User:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#353535">Director</span>]] <span style="color:#464646">([[User talk:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#464646">talk</span>]])</span></span> 20:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' per Andrew and Tarc. IZAK and Shalom11111 are wasting no time unscrupulously calling on preferred editors with selective delsorting [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Judaism&diff=prev&oldid=599546696] and pinging of users who voted delete in the previous AfD. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_March_14&diff=599712121&oldid=599682086] --<span style="font-family:xx-medium serif;">◅ [[User:PRODUCER|<span style="color:black; letter-spacing: 0.2cm;">PRODUCER</span>]] <small>([[User talk:PRODUCER|<span style="color:black;">TALK</span>]])</small></span> 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 ''one'' [[WP: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! [[User:IZAK|IZAK]] ([[User talk: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?[[User:Evildoer187|Evildoer187]] ([[User talk: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]]? <span style="font-family:Eras Bold ITC;">-- [[User:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#353535">Director</span>]] <span style="color:#464646">([[User talk:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#464646">talk</span>]])</span></span> 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. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 20:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
:::I went into medicine to try and avoid math :). But no, see: he said "''over'' 70%". <span style="font-family:Eras Bold ITC;">-- [[User:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#353535">Director</span>]] <span style="color:#464646">([[User talk:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#464646">talk</span>]])</span></span> 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. [[User:Shalom11111|Shalom11111]] ([[User talk:Shalom11111|talk]]) 10:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::''The numbers??'' What's "sad" is that you still don't understand there is no [[WP:VOTE|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. <span style="font-family:Eras Bold ITC;">-- [[User:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#353535">Director</span>]] <span style="color:#464646">([[User talk:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#464646">talk</span>]])</span></span> 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. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk: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.   [[User:Hot Stop|Hot Stop]] <small>[[User talk:Hot Stop|talk]]-[[Special:Contributions/Hot Stop|contribs]]</small> 04:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

*Sorry, guys. But considering all the [[WP:CANVASSING]] going on.. <span style="font-family:Eras Bold ITC;">-- [[User:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#353535">Director</span>]] <span style="color:#464646">([[User talk:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#464646">talk</span>]])</span></span> 05:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Austria|list of Austria-related deletion discussions]]. <small><span style="font-family:Eras Bold ITC;">-- [[User:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#353535">Director</span>]] <span style="color:#464646">([[User talk:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#464646">talk</span>]])</span></span> 05:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)</small></small> 
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Germany|list of Germany-related deletion discussions]]. <small><span style="font-family:Eras Bold ITC;">-- [[User:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#353535">Director</span>]] <span style="color:#464646">([[User talk:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#464646">talk</span>]])</span></span> 05:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)</small></small>  
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Hungary|list of Hungary-related deletion discussions]]. <small><span style="font-family:Eras Bold ITC;">-- [[User:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#353535">Director</span>]] <span style="color:#464646">([[User talk:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#464646">talk</span>]])</span></span> 05:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)</small></small> 
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Romania|list of Romania-related deletion discussions]]. <small><span style="font-family:Eras Bold ITC;">-- [[User:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#353535">Director</span>]] <span style="color:#464646">([[User talk:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#464646">talk</span>]])</span></span> 05:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)</small></small> 
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Russia|list of Russia-related deletion discussions]]. <small><span style="font-family:Eras Bold ITC;">-- [[User:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#353535">Director</span>]] <span style="color:#464646">([[User talk:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#464646">talk</span>]])</span></span> 05:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)</small></small> 
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Poland|list of Poland-related deletion discussions]]. <small><span style="font-family:Eras Bold ITC;">-- [[User:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#353535">Director</span>]] <span style="color:#464646">([[User talk:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#464646">talk</span>]])</span></span> 05:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)</small></small> 
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ukraine|list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions]]. <small><span style="font-family:Eras Bold ITC;">-- [[User:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#353535">Director</span>]] <span style="color:#464646">([[User talk:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#464646">talk</span>]])</span></span> 05:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)</small></small> 
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America|list of United States of America-related deletion discussions]]. <small><span style="font-family:Eras Bold ITC;">-- [[User:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#353535">Director</span>]] <span style="color:#464646">([[User talk:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#464646">talk</span>]])</span></span> 05:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)</small></small>
::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. [[User:Shalom11111|Shalom11111]] ([[User talk:Shalom11111|talk]]) 19:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
{{od}}
Saying "Sorry guys" and what followed can only be interpreted as a clear violation of [[WP:POINT]] and [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]. [[User:IZAK|IZAK]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:CyberXRef|<span style="color:#930014;">Cy</span><span style="color:#4a3f3f;">be</span><span style="color:#007d69;">r</span><span style="color:#05716e;">XR</span><span style="color:#0f5877;">ef</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:CyberXRef|☎]]</sup> 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. [[User:IZAK|IZAK]] ([[User talk: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 Shalom11111, linked people who supported the deletion. While ignoring those who have opposed the deletion. And alleged Direktor/Producer to be sock puppets. [[User:Noteswork|Noteswork]] ([[User talk:Noteswork|talk]]) 05:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
::Neither I nor 'Galassi' made an accusation of sock puppetry as you falsely claim, and I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jews_and_Communism&diff=599749116&oldid=599748568 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. [[User:Shalom11111|Shalom11111]] ([[User talk:Shalom11111|talk]]) 09:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
:::People are not stupid, Shalom11111. <span style="font-family:Eras Bold ITC;">-- [[User:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#353535">Director</span>]] <span style="color:#464646">([[User talk:DIREKTOR|<span style="color:#464646">talk</span>]])</span></span> 11:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
{{Od}}
Note to Noteswork: Your statement that: "No offense, but I condemn the <u>uncivilized behavior</u> of Shalom11111, 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. [[User:IZAK|IZAK]] ([[User talk:IZAK|talk]]) 21:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
::Honestly, I think that there is some error in terms of understanding, especially of Shalom11111 and IZAK. Shalom11111 denies alleging other user to be sock puppet, IZAK is trying to make up that I've called everyone uncivilized. My message was about Shalom11111, not anyone else. [[User:Noteswork|Noteswork]] ([[User talk:Noteswork|talk]]) 03:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
:::Hi Noteworks, which part of your original statement that "No offense, but I condemn the <u>uncivilized behavior</u> of Shalom11111, linked people who supported the deletion" says that I am "making up" anything? What does it mean to be "linked" with Shalom11111? (or is that a new kind of conspiracy theory?) and which "people" are they? Speaking for myself I have nothing to do with Shalom11111, 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]]. [[User:IZAK|IZAK]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Pluto2012|Pluto2012]] ([[User talk:Pluto2012|talk]]) 14:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
:* {{cite book
  | last = Deák
  | first = István
  | contribution = Jews and Communism: The Hungarian Case
  | editor-last = Frankel
  | editor-first = Jonathan
  | title = Dark Times, Dire Decisions: Jews and Communism
  | pages = 38–61
  | publisher = Oxford University Press
  | location = New York
  | year = 2004
  | isbn = 9780195182248
  | ref = harv
  }}
:* {{cite book
  | last = Schatz
  | first = Jaff
  | contribution = Jews and the Communist Movement in Interwar Poland
  | editor-last = Frankel
  | editor-first = Jonathan
  | title = Dark Times, Dire Decisions: Jews and Communism
  | pages = 13–37
  | publisher = Oxford University Press
  | location = New York
  | year = 2004
  | isbn = 9780195182248
  | ref = harv
  }}
:* {{cite web
  | last = Gutiérrez
  | first = Alberto
  | editor-last = Hilton
  | editor-first = Ronald
  | editor-link = Ronald Hilton
  | title = Russia: Jews and Communism
  | url = http://wais.stanford.edu/Russia/russia_JewsAndCommunism(110403).html
  | series = World Association for International Studies
  | newspaper = Stanford University
  | date = 4 November 2003
  | ref = {{harvid|Gutiérrez|4 November 2003}}
  }}

::*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. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 15:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
::::This vote should be dismissed, right? If so, please delete it. [[User:Shalom11111|Shalom11111]] ([[User talk:Shalom11111|talk]]) 19:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::Sorry for the mistake. I corrected my option. [[User:Pluto2012|Pluto2012]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk: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. --[[User:CyberXRef|<span style="color:#930014;">Cy</span><span style="color:#4a3f3f;">be</span><span style="color:#007d69;">r</span><span style="color:#05716e;">XR</span><span style="color:#0f5877;">ef</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:CyberXRef|☎]]</sup> 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. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mikeman67|mikeman67]] ([[User talk:Mikeman67|talk]]) 20:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
*For now I'm '''Overturn and delete''', but [[User:RoySmith|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 [[User:S Marshall| 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.--[[User:Atlantictire|Atlantictire]] ([[User talk: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.  [[User:USchick|USchick]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Shalom11111|Shalom11111]] ([[User talk:Shalom11111|talk]]) 19:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
**So you can presumably more effectively votestack another time? --<span style="font-family:xx-medium serif;">◅ [[User:PRODUCER|<span style="color:black; letter-spacing: 0.2cm;">PRODUCER</span>]] <small>([[User talk:PRODUCER|<span style="color:black;">TALK</span>]])</small></span> 22:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
:::You allow yourself to say this but then accuse me (and others) of personal attacks, wow. [[User:Shalom11111|Shalom11111]] ([[User talk:Shalom11111|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. [[User: Stalwart111|'''Stalwart''']][[User talk:Stalwart111|'''<span style="color:green;">111</span>''']] 23:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

'''Overturn and delete'''. The article is not salvageable.--[[User:Galassi|Galassi]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:DRVPURPOSE|simply doesn't belong here]].  --[[User:CyberXRef|<span style="color:#930014;">Cy</span><span style="color:#4a3f3f;">be</span><span style="color:#007d69;">r</span><span style="color:#05716e;">XR</span><span style="color:#0f5877;">ef</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:CyberXRef|☎]]</sup> 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.)  --[[User:Joe Decker|j⚛e decker]][[User talk:Joe Decker|<sup><small><i>talk</i></small></sup>]] 16:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
*:: I would, for the record, allow immediate renomination following closure here.  --[[User:Joe Decker|j⚛e decker]][[User talk:Joe Decker|<sup><small><i>talk</i></small></sup>]] 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? &ndash; 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)]]? [[User:Thincat|Thincat]] ([[User talk: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!   --[[User:Joe Decker|j⚛e decker]][[User talk:Joe Decker|<sup><small><i>talk</i></small></sup>]] 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 [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias|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 [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Jewish_history#Jews_and_Communism|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. <small>'''[[User:Carolmooredc|Carolmooredc]]  ([[User talk:Carolmooredc|Talkie-Talkie]])'''</small> 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.) <small>'''[[User:Carolmooredc|Carolmooredc]]  ([[User talk:Carolmooredc|Talkie-Talkie]])'''</small> 00:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
:::Note: I just noticed there is an existing category [[:Category:Jewish communism]] created Nov. 2012 and I don't see a drive to delete that or the several articles in the category. <small>'''[[User:Carolmooredc|Carolmooredc]]  ([[User talk:Carolmooredc|Talkie-Talkie]])'''</small> 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. [[User:Orser67|Orser67]] ([[User talk: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.*--[[User:Atlantictire|Atlantictire]] ([[User talk: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:BLP]]s 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. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:Atlantictire|Atlantictire]] ([[User talk:Atlantictire|talk]]) 18:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::This is Deletion Review, not My Personal Ideological Opinion Review, sorry. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk: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?--[[User:Atlantictire|Atlantictire]] ([[User talk:Atlantictire|talk]]) 20:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' (Keep).  In 2009 I voted to delete [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Communist_genocide|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. [[user:Soap|—]]<span style="background-color: #9ffff5; padding: 3px; border-radius: 6px 6px 6px 6px;"><b>[[user talk:Soap|Soap]]</b></span>[[Special:Contributions/Soap|—]] 18:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''.  There is currently a proposal (by me) for renaming and broadening this article, please see [[Talk:Jews and Communism#Alternative proposed move: Communism in Jewish_history]].--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] ([[User talk:Pharos|talk]]) 19:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
::Also a new one [[Talk:Jews_and_Communism#Proposed_move:_Jews_in_the_history_of_Communism]]. <small>'''[[User:Carolmooredc|Carolmooredc]]  ([[User talk:Carolmooredc|Talkie-Talkie]])'''</small> 14:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|}