| Revision as of 02:20, 7 August 2007 editChaser (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users22,935 editsm remove stray bit from top← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:23, 7 August 2007 edit undoChairboy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,155 edits →[]: RequestNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| I'm not even going to get into the very tired content dispute here, but it's hard to see how anyone can back this deletion. --] 02:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | I'm not even going to get into the very tired content dispute here, but it's hard to see how anyone can back this deletion. --] 02:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Comment''': Without any comment to the technical merits, the above nomination makes many assumptions of bad faith. I urge the nominator to re-write it without the insinuations or step back and ask someone else to write a DRV case for the article, a subject this controversial deserves better. - ]</small> (]) 02:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:23, 7 August 2007
Allegations of Chinese apartheid
- Allegations of Chinese apartheid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
This article and related articles has been subject to intense content disputes, replete with accusations, personal attacks, etc. It was nominated for deletion at 01:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC), and the nomination attracted at least as much controversy and discussion as the article itself.
^demon (who takes curious pride in deleting rather than creating things on Misplaced Pages) closed the nomination at a point where there were - by my rough count - 59 who wanted it deleted, and 45 who wanted it kept. Others counts showed slightly different results. demon justified the closure by determining that "consensus" was the side of the argument he/she found most persuasive, and later on his/her talk page that "It happens with every controversial AfD such as this, and nobody can deny it. I decided to read the debate, and close it, before any "impartial" admin could come in and pass judgment."
Clearly, there was no basis for consensus, and the closing admin misconstrued his/her role to be that of a judge in content disputes.
I'm not even going to get into the very tired content dispute here, but it's hard to see how anyone can back this deletion. --Leifern 02:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Without any comment to the technical merits, the above nomination makes many assumptions of bad faith. I urge the nominator to re-write it without the insinuations or step back and ask someone else to write a DRV case for the article, a subject this controversial deserves better. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)