Misplaced Pages

:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Cultural Marxism: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:57, 24 January 2015 editJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,070 edits →Draft:Cultural Marxism: reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 08:19, 3 March 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(50 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion|{{mfd top collapse|1=''']'''}}|}}<div class="boilerplate mfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #E3D2FB; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
__NOINDEX__
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
<!--
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to nominate a miscellany page for deletion, you must manually edit the MfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->


The result of the discussion was '''keep'''. ] (]) 19:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
====]==== ====]====
:{{pagelinks|Draft:Cultural Marxism}} :{{pagelinks|Draft:Cultural Marxism}}
Line 40: Line 46:
::::::Never mind, Rgloucester ] that the real reason for his crusade against "Cultural Marxism" has nothing to do with upholding process for its own sake, it's simply because the article is offensive to his own political views. This entire campaign has been a gigantic POV cluster fuck hiding behind Misplaced Pages processes. (Not that it didn't seem like that from the beginning, but Rgloucester kept saying that he had no opinion about the subject matter one way or the other; at least that charade is shot down. No one who doesn't care about an article writes, in many venues, "IT MUST BE DELETED ... IT WILL BE DELETED" and so on. POV-warrior, clearly.) ] (]) 05:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC) ::::::Never mind, Rgloucester ] that the real reason for his crusade against "Cultural Marxism" has nothing to do with upholding process for its own sake, it's simply because the article is offensive to his own political views. This entire campaign has been a gigantic POV cluster fuck hiding behind Misplaced Pages processes. (Not that it didn't seem like that from the beginning, but Rgloucester kept saying that he had no opinion about the subject matter one way or the other; at least that charade is shot down. No one who doesn't care about an article writes, in many venues, "IT MUST BE DELETED ... IT WILL BE DELETED" and so on. POV-warrior, clearly.) ] (]) 05:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::What "political views" are those? I said no such thing. I merely said that I feel sorry for people steeped in the liberal muddle, who have no sense of right or wrong. That has nothing to do with this article. I like how you invent things out of thin air, but that is to be expected from you. You will do anything you can to circumvent policy to maintain this article, as did Jimbo, as did others. No care is taken for sourcing, or for matters of OR, or for matters of sources that do not support the text, or for consensus driven AfDs that no one has the guts to challenged at deletion reviews. This whole thing is a farce. ] — ] 05:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC) :::::::::What "political views" are those? I said no such thing. I merely said that I feel sorry for people steeped in the liberal muddle, who have no sense of right or wrong. That has nothing to do with this article. I like how you invent things out of thin air, but that is to be expected from you. You will do anything you can to circumvent policy to maintain this article, as did Jimbo, as did others. No care is taken for sourcing, or for matters of OR, or for matters of sources that do not support the text, or for consensus driven AfDs that no one has the guts to challenged at deletion reviews. This whole thing is a farce. ] — ] 05:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' It is acceptable to have a draft article on a deleted article to make it better, Note that the nominee is a self described marxist who has Viciously campaigned for the deletion of this article --] (]) 02:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC) *'''Keep''' It is acceptable to have a draft article on a deleted article to make it better, Note that the nominee is a self described marxist who has Viciously campaigned for the deletion of this article --] (]) 02:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' The original article was deleted because it was made-up junk, not because of vicious campaigning by a self described marxist (hello—there was ]). Recreating the "draft" article is a work-around to avoid the deletion review process. Like ], it is just a place for people to explore an alternative universe. ] (]) 02:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC) *'''Delete''' The original article was deleted because it was made-up junk, not because of vicious campaigning by a self described marxist (hello—there was ]). Recreating the "draft" article is a work-around to avoid the deletion review process. Like ], it is just a place for people to explore an alternative universe. ] (]) 02:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' - This is clearly an encyclopedic topic as passing GNG. Here's a brand new source, published Jan. 18, 2015 in ''The Guardian:'' Jason Wilson, The crushing tactics being used by some against establishment of a neutrally written article on this topic — repressing an edit history and now attempting to snuff out a ''draft'' of a new article — are reprehensible. ] (]) 04:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC) * '''Keep''' - This is clearly an encyclopedic topic as passing GNG. Here's a brand new source, published Jan. 18, 2015 in ''The Guardian:'' Jason Wilson, The crushing tactics being used by some against establishment of a neutrally written article on this topic — repressing an edit history and now attempting to snuff out a ''draft'' of a new article — are reprehensible. ] (]) 04:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Line 46: Line 52:
**@Carrite: See my comment above. Rgloucester doesn't give a tinker's cuss about process, he just wants the article deep-sexed because it offends his political sensitivities. As pretty much everyone suspected from the start. ] (]) 05:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC) **@Carrite: See my comment above. Rgloucester doesn't give a tinker's cuss about process, he just wants the article deep-sexed because it offends his political sensitivities. As pretty much everyone suspected from the start. ] (]) 05:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
:::I have no "political sensibilities". I don't want any article removed. It has already been removed through consensus at an AfD. This is not an "early draft". This is the old edit history, revived sans a deletion review. A new draft can be created. However, the old edit history must be destroyed, unless a deletion review revises the AfD result to "userfy" or "convert to draft". Carrite, you cannot reargue the AfD here. If you want to do so, you need to go to deletion review. This is about the draft, and not about the GNG or the notability of the topic. Regardless, the source you provided is an ] opinion piece, and hence not RS. Sorry. ] — ] 05:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC) :::I have no "political sensibilities". I don't want any article removed. It has already been removed through consensus at an AfD. This is not an "early draft". This is the old edit history, revived sans a deletion review. A new draft can be created. However, the old edit history must be destroyed, unless a deletion review revises the AfD result to "userfy" or "convert to draft". Carrite, you cannot reargue the AfD here. If you want to do so, you need to go to deletion review. This is about the draft, and not about the GNG or the notability of the topic. Regardless, the source you provided is an ] opinion piece, and hence not RS. Sorry. ] — ] 05:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Keep but delete the edit history?''' Per NE Ent. From what I can gather RGloucester's issue is not with the fact that this draft exists but that all the old diffs exist (correct me if wrong). So if all the old edit history is deleted but the draft stays the same he should be fine with it? Either way it's just a draft. ] (]) 08:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC) *<s>'''Keep but delete the edit history?'''</s> '''Withdrawing vote'''Per NE Ent. From what I can gather RGloucester's issue is not with the fact that this draft exists but that all the old diffs exist (correct me if wrong). So if all the old edit history is deleted but the draft stays the same he should be fine with it? Either way it's just a draft. ] (]) 08:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
*:That's not possible as it will break the attribution requirement in our copyright policy. &mdash;] 10:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC) *:That's not possible as it will break the attribution requirement in our copyright policy. &mdash;] 10:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Correct. The edit history was deleted, and according to policy, can only be restored by a deletion review. Many people are treating this discussion as a deletion review, but that's inappropriate. It isn't. It is merely a request to delete the history that must remain deleted according to the policy. The edit history is destructive, and was deleted for a reason. It cannot be restored without a deletion review, as it says in the deletion policy. ] — ] 16:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC) :::Correct. The edit history was deleted, and according to policy, can only be restored by a deletion review. Many people are treating this discussion as a deletion review, but that's inappropriate. It isn't. It is merely a request to delete the history that must remain deleted according to the policy. The edit history is destructive, and was deleted for a reason. It cannot be restored without a deletion review, as it says in the deletion policy. ] — ] 16:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
::::I've withdrawn my vote on account of feeling a bit over my head. As it stands I think this is a bit of an Ignore all Rules situation. I dont think there's any point in not treating this discussion as a deletion review. Firstly if 100% proper protocol is followed and the draft is deleted, it would just be brought to deletion review anyway, so not having the discussion here is just a waste of time. Secondly, it's just a draft. It doesn't show up when you search "Cultural Marxism" and 99.9999999999999999% (a rough estimate) of people who visit wikipedia probably have no clue that it exists. I think ultimately the most important question to discuss here, is whether this draft is useful for the purpose of creating a new, deletion policy compliant cultural Marxism article, or if it would be better to start over from scratch completely. ] (]) 15:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', of course. This is draft article only. All nominations by RGloucester are destructive. ] (]) 12:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC) *'''Keep''', of course. This is draft article only. All nominations by RGloucester are destructive. ] (]) 12:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. I think this is ] AfD nomination of harmless text that may be useful for creating something reasonable in the future. The subject seems to be legitimate (per Carrite and some others). And, yes, please keep the entire editing history of the page because it may be useful for improvements in the future. ]. ] (]) 13:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC) *'''Keep'''. I think this is ] AfD nomination of harmless text that may be useful for creating something reasonable in the future. The subject seems to be legitimate (per Carrite and some others). And, yes, please keep the entire editing history of the page because it may be useful for improvements in the future. ]. ] (]) 13:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Line 79: Line 86:
::THE CONTENT WAS DELETED BY CONSENSUS. THE INCLUSION CRITERIA ARE IRRELEVANT. THE HISTORY WAS DELETEd. IT CNAJAETIASFISJGSDJGEJSTE BE RESTORED WITHOTU A GODAMNED DELETIO NREVIEWL. THERE WAS NO CONSEUSS TO MOVE IT TO A DRAFT.aFSFSFGHSGJSHDGHSHEGTJFE NOEN . ] — ] 00:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC) ::THE CONTENT WAS DELETED BY CONSENSUS. THE INCLUSION CRITERIA ARE IRRELEVANT. THE HISTORY WAS DELETEd. IT CNAJAETIASFISJGSDJGEJSTE BE RESTORED WITHOTU A GODAMNED DELETIO NREVIEWL. THERE WAS NO CONSEUSS TO MOVE IT TO A DRAFT.aFSFSFGHSGJSHDGHSHEGTJFE NOEN . ] — ] 00:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
::: I like this game. Let me have a go: IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW LOUD YOU SHOUT, I HAVE BEEN AN ADMIN SINCE FIVE YEARS BEFORE YOU MADE YOUR FIRST EDIT AND I SAY YOU'RE WRONG, AND INCIDENTALLY SO DOES JIMBO. Or, you know, you could ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 00:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC) ::: I like this game. Let me have a go: IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW LOUD YOU SHOUT, I HAVE BEEN AN ADMIN SINCE FIVE YEARS BEFORE YOU MADE YOUR FIRST EDIT AND I SAY YOU'RE WRONG, AND INCIDENTALLY SO DOES JIMBO. Or, you know, you could ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 00:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
::::YOU HAVE NO RANK. YOU ARE A DUSTMAN WITH A MOP, A MOP YOU DO NOT DESERVE. YOUR STATUS DOESN'T MAKE YOU IMMUNE TO POLICIES, NOR DOES JIMBO'S OPINION OVERRIDE COMMUNITY PROCESSES. ] — ] 01:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
::::: <big>THE POLICIES DON'T SAY WHAT YOU PRETEND THEY SAY, AS MANY PEOPLE HAVE TOLD YOU. </big> Your turn. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::<big>MANY PEOPLE ARE WRONG, OR DIDN'T YOU KNOW THAT?</big> ] — ] 22:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::: Sometimes when everybody with relevant experience tells you that you are wrong, it's because you are wrong. This is one of those times. Thus far you have succeeded only in persuading several of us that you are a zealot who cares only about having your belief reflected as fact, regardless of its objective merit. But I'm not inclined to discuss this further since you have very obviously lost this particular debate. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::You've got no experience with anything. You're wrong, and you're wrong. There isn't much to do about that. I don't need to persuade anyone. I simply need to be correct, which I am. I don't have any beliefs at all. I've won this debate, and that's clear. There is no chance for your position, which is simply unacceptable. ] — ] 15:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
Naturally using all-caps and larger font ensures that your opinions are more valid. However much you two may have enjoyed this dick-measuring contest, I suggest you take it to a more appropriate place so that others do not have to see it. Or you could stop acting like fucking children trying to get the last word in. &mdash;] 07:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per two different grounds, since it seems that common sense isn't appealing to RGloucester. First off, if the draft that uses portions of the original article exists, then we are *required* to keep the revision history, to stay within the limits of copyright law--remember, each revision is, technically speaking, copyrighted by the person who posted it, and merely ''licensed'' to Misplaced Pages for free use. And if compliance with US copyright law and the legal terms of Misplaced Pages's licensing isn't sufficient, then I simply point to the Fifth Pillar and say that this is a place where common sense says to ] that would indicate otherwise. When literally everybody who chimes in on this, except for one person, is saying that this is the case, perhaps it should be taken as such? ] (]) 01:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
::If they wanted to use that content, they needed to file a deletion review to have it undeleted. This is a flagrant violation of our policies. It was deleted because it is corrupting content that is both unsourced and conspiracy-laden. Allowing it to be reintroduced without community discussion is tantamount to throwing plagued corpses into our clean wells. ] — ] 01:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
:::That's quite the analogy. The debate on the intent of policy aside, what exactly is your worry? That someone on the internet might be pointed to this draft space and have their mind infected? That the article might be rehabilitated and put back into the main space? ] (]) 02:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
::::You can't "rehabilitate" a deleted article. You can either write a new one from scratch, or request a deletion review. Neither of these have occurred. The encylopaedia is being poisoned by these ongoing soap campaigns. ] — ] 02:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::I'm not familiar with the context you're referencing. I think having the original article to mend and work off of is a reasonable use of the draft space. I get that you feel that there's some end run being made here but I just don't see it that way. I'm also still not clear about what it is you're so worried about. I know from interacting with you in the past that you're a smart guy and a productive content contributor but you're coming off like you want to impede an attempt to create a demonstrably policy-complaint version of this article. ] (]) 02:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::A new article from scratch is acceptable. A deletion review is acceptable. Otherwise, no. It is very simple. It was deleted, and no one has challenged the deletion. ] — ] 02:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Seems like productive a productive and appropriate use of the draft space. As an aside, I'm happy to see progress being made on rehabilitating an article which was prematurely deleted. ] (]) 02:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
::Unsourced OR and misuse of sources is a "rehabilitation" of the article? If you want to challenged the deletion, file a deletion review. ] — ] 02:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' as the sources look fine, If the article was like that before than personally I don't think it should've been deleted but there we go. –]<sup>]</sup> 02:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
::FINE? None of them support the text. Others and I spent ages debunking all of them in the deletion discussion, and a panel of administrators agreed with that assessment. Now they're suddenly "FINE"? ] — ] 02:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Oh for fucksake give it a rest seriously!, Yes they look fine ... If you have an issue with that then good for you, Instead of badgering the keepers why don't you accept the fact everyone wants this kept and you're perhaps wrong here.... If you can't accept peoples opinions and consensus then you really shouldn't be here. –]<sup>]</sup> 02:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
::::Why don't you try reading them, and see if they are "fine"? If you don't make up statements about "fineness", I won't respond. ] — ] 02:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' if deleted via a AfD it should not be restored in Draft space. Use the proper process. ] (]) 02:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' This article is just a re-incarnation of the previous, deleted article and uses much of the same errant framework. It (currently) does very little in the way of highlighting that the academic use of the term is rarefied and limited in definition to POSSIBLE Marxist influences (The Frankfurt School is well known to have been critical of the soviet system), and makes no effort to outline the time period to which the claim of Cultural Marxism refers - it does even less to highlight the conspiratorial claims as unfounded - it in fact seems determined to legitimate the terms modern usage (which seems to suggest that wikipedia is fine with liable against feminism, gay and civil rights as well as against any number of other popular political movements the right include in the conspiracy )... and the modern usage is just that: A conspiracy, not that you'd know it from this current draft. I've outlined my extensive evidence and references for the modern usage being a conspiracy theory ] if anyone is interested in this ongoing effort to propagate a ] and engage in ]. --] (]) 08:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', the article in its current state is complete crap, but it's not in the mainspace where it can be confused for a real article or indexed by search engines. Either the "draft" will sit there for the rest of eternity, unread and unloved, the content will be improved to a state where it can be used somewhere, or it'll be moved back into mainspace without being improved and squished per CSD G4. None of those scenarios are particularly troubling to my mind. ] <sup>(])</sup> 09:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC).
*'''Keep''' Claims of consensus in this matter seem absurd; what we have here is obviously a polarised dispute. As the matter continues to rumble on, it's is helpful to have the original edit history preserved so that non-admins can see what all the fuss is about. ] (]) 10:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
::There is no fuss. The article and its edit history were '''deleted'''. ] — ] 15:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
{{hat|reason= This may be the greatest piece of performance art I have ever witnessed. But it's offtopic and clogging an already overclogged MfD discussion ] (]) 22:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)}}
:::How you can describe your behavior here as no fuss is beyond my comprehension. Would you please stop repeating yourself? Next time you post something ask yourself "'''Do I have anything new to say that has not already been said my me 5 times on this very page?'''" If the answer is no then just don't post, we have already read it. ] 18:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::You've not read it. If you'd read it, you'd not be obfuscating reality. ] — ] 18:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::For example we all know it {{tq|The article and its edit history were '''deleted'''}}. It is not that we have not read what you have written, it is that we don't agree with your reasoning. I know this is a subtle concept but please try to get it. ] 18:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::It is impossible to disagree. The reality is the reality. If you want to live the immaterial and ethereal, there isn't much I can do for you. ] — ] 18:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}
:But you are disagreeing right now, it is clearly not impossible. Frankly the whole "I am right and it is impossible that I am wrong and impossible that others are right" is so implausible it does not deserve consideration. Not just for you but for any human.

:Since Misplaced Pages works off of consensus and not who is right then you may find that your complete perfection in correctness to be a liability here. You may just be too perfect of a being to get along with us mortals on this collaborative project. ] 18:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

:Oh, and reality is not reality. That is a gross oversimplification of perception. Reality is something filtered through our perception and we each have of our own version of it. Otherwise each MfD would only take 1 person to resolve. ] 18:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
::No. It is defined by God, and set in eternal permanence. I do not disagree. I cannot disagree, because there is nothing to disagree about. ] — ] 19:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

:Okay well if your truth comes from god there is little I can do about that. Just know that religious beliefs are not valid deletion arguments. ] 19:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
::It is not "religion". It is reality. ] — ] 19:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
::: All religions believe they have the monopoly on truth. They can't all be right - though they certainly can all be wrong. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
::::I don't believe I said anything about "religion". There is one reality, and you may think you're part of some balkanised liberal phantasy, but you're not. There is only one true reality. Avert your gaze, for its light is ever-piercing. Nothing can ever be wrong, except that which is decreed by God. ] — ] 22:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::Sure sounds like a religion to me. Please don't use Misplaced Pages to profess your version of the ] and god. ] 22:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::The only truth is that there is no truth. That is why I'm well suited to Misplaced Pages. Regardless, I must take my leave. Enjoy this plate of poison! ] — ] 22:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
{{hab}}
*'''Keep''' I see future potential in the article, it should be readied for main space not deleted. - ] (]) 22:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>

{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion|{{collapse bottom}}|}}

Latest revision as of 08:19, 3 March 2023

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Cultural Marxism

Draft:Cultural Marxism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Content deleted by consensus at recent AfD. Restored with no consensus to do so, as no deletion review was filed to modify the result to "userfy" or "convert to draft". The result of the AfD was "delete", not "userfy" or "convert to draft". This flies in the face of the AfD. If someone wants to challenge the AfD, I suggest they file a move review. Delete. RGloucester — ☎ 19:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep Delete I am confident the proposer is acting in good faith. Moreover, I did vote to delete or redirect Cultural Marxism in its latest AFD. However, it is my understanding that nothing in that AFD nor in policy prevents the content from being further edited to (hopefully) result in a properly-sourced, policy-compliant article. Given the amazing amount of controversy (not due to incorrect or bad faith actions by User:RGloucester, in my opinion - rather, somehow, this article has been caught up in the Gamergate controversy), I'm not confident that a proper article will result, but, again, nothing in policy prevents editors from trying. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Carefully reading WP:DEL, Misplaced Pages:Deletion_policy#Undeletion and Misplaced Pages:Viewing and restoring deleted pages leads me to conclude:
  • The restoral was out of policy. Given the controversy surrounding this, perhaps further actions in response to misuse of tools should be taken - if nothing else, some trouts should be applied.
  • Deletion is of that restoral is not mandated by the policy (in fact, it is not even addressed), but if the action was unallowed, then undoing that action seems to be the correct action.
  • I am worried that this MFD is about to become a repetition of the prior controversies. If it were not for that, I'd prefer the non-bureaucratic solution I originally espoused.
JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Delete means remove from mainspace it does not mean the subject is banned. People are allowed to try and improve a deleted article to the point it passes inclusion criteria.
I agree draft space is not meant to be an end run around AfD. If the purpose of this draft is to make something that can fit into the project that is fine, if it is meant to just get the deleted version back then it can be deleted. Time will tell us which is the case. If this draft is not significantly changed from the deleted version in a couple of weeks I would support deletion then. Too soon. Chillum 19:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The above user is entirely incorrect, and has not read WP:DEL. From the lead of the deletion policy "Deletion of a Misplaced Pages article removes the current version and all previous versions from public view. Page blanking can be performed (or reverted) by any user, but only administrators can perform deletion, view deleted pages, and reverse ("undelete") any deletion". These versions are now in view, and hence, not "deleted" in Misplaced Pages terms. Such an undeletion of content flies in the face of the AfD decision, which was to "delete". A new article on the subject can be created, per WP:DEL ("If an article was deleted for lacking content or for having inappropriate content (this applies to most speedy deletions) and you wish to create a better article about the same subject, you can simply go ahead and do so, with no need for review"), but the old history must remain deleted sans a deletion review. RGloucester — ☎ 19:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
As an admin for over 8 years I can assure you that I have read WP:DEL. The article was not lacking in content nor was it deleted for having inappropriate content such that could result in speedy deletion. It was deleted for failing our inclusion standards and as such can be improved to meet such standard. My rank is irrelevant, my point is that I have some significant experience with these policies. Considering you just misapplied CSD#G4 to this draft I would say you have some more reading to do yourself. Chillum 20:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Your rank is of no consequence. You are wrong. The policy is clear, and so is the definition of deletion on Misplaced Pages. I applied G4 correctly. There was no consensus in the deletion discussion to "userfy" or "convert to draft", and hence, this is recreation of deleted content out-of-process, and must be deleted, sans a deletion review decision that decides to restore it. It was deleted for being WP:OR, unsourced non-RS bunk, and it will remain deleted until a deletion review decides otherwise. Your experience is of no consequence. RGloucester — ☎ 20:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, as I don't want to WP:WIKILAWYER on this topic (nor am I qualified to do so), if we assume you are completely correct, consider Chillum's comments, above: "...if it is meant to just get the deleted version back then it can be deleted". From a pragmatic perspective, the information found in the restored history is available elsewhere (at least one editor has posted it to a WP criticism site). So, whether the history is visible or not, anyone could create a draft, initially fill it with that undeleted text, and then edit it to attempt to make it better. If they publish it outside of draft space, it can always be deleted again. Doesn't WP:BURO also apply here? Let those so hung up on the topic (who knows why) toil away, then the community can assess and decide, yet again. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't care if anyone does that. I care that the edit history MUST BE DELETED per the AfD, and per policy. Its undeletion was out-of-process, wrong, and must be STOPPED, sans a deletion review. RGloucester — ☎ 20:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
But you see, that's where you are wrong. There is no "must be" about it, just as there is very little "must be" about most things on Misplaced Pages, nor does it get more imperative because it's written in capital letters. BMK (talk) 04:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Read the category you cited "Individual administrators may act on requests to restore your deleted userpage or to restore an article deleted via the PROD (proposed deletion) process. Undeletion requests for pages deleted in a deletion discussion or a speedy deletion should be made at Deletion review. Please read and understand the undeletion policy first". This was deleted by AfD, so that DOES NOT APPLY. There are no references in the old article, which is why it was DELETED. RGloucester — ☎ 20:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Undecided - Let's everyone calm down for a minute, and look at this logically. First, there was no draft request at the current location, right? There was, however, a request from this draft > Draft:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, correct? For the life of me, I cannot understand the actions by either admin, but I do believe they were acting in good faith. There was a reason the article was deleted at AfD, and blown up. The whole thing was an attempt to legitimize a known conspiracy theory, with scholarly sources that were not describing the content of the article. It was a complete and utter mess. So I suggest everyone just take a time out, sans a DRV. Move the history to the requested draft, allow editors who want to work on that to do so. Honestly, if there are sources that discuss the conspiracy theory that has turned into something of an internet meme, then perhaps that could turn into an article. I doubt it, because every time I search the term in quotes I come up with the same bs from White Power groups. But I think that is probably our best course for the time being. Dave Dial (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - trying to find out more about this subject I saw this from misadventuring on wikipedia - Paul Gottfried - says he doesnt see any Marxism in 'cultural marxism' any more, but lind doesn't agree with him, or something - denies they believe in a conspiracy also, because its all got so infiltrated - all seems a bit forlorn imo - anyhow I agree I think with Dave Dial above - see if a coherent and well sourced article can be re-formed in draft space . Sayerslle (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with a new article being drafted, per policy, but the old edit history must remain deleted unless a deletion review determines otherwise. RGloucester — ☎ 20:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
oh right - maybe rationalwikis version could be used to fashion a new article cultural Marxism Sayerslle (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there is anything useful in the history of the article that can help with a new article that may(or may not) be viable from Draft space. But why don't we delete the Draft of Draft:Cultural Marxism and move the history to the requested Draft of Draft:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, for now? If editors that want to try to work on the Draft that was requested and agree the old history is of no use, then it can be deleted. If some editors want to keep the history because they think they can find something useful there, then keep it until the new article is either made and accepted, or deleted too. Or maybe merged. Like I posted on the Talk page there are various articles that mention this term here > PC identity politics and here. Is this agreeable to other editors here? Dave Dial (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per mostly harmless. NE Ent 21:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep There is an abuse of process going on here, and that is the continual repeated opening of AfDs on the article conducted by User:RGloucester until finally managing to contrive the desired outcome, followed by utter determination to shut down all possible subsequent discussion on the subject, including this morning's attempt to get the relevant talk page deleted. This runs directly against the process of WP:CONSENSUS that the entire project is built around. The subject of the article is contentious and open to multiple interpretations, but its inherent status as WP:NOTABLE and thus its potential to form a worthwhile article is evidenced by its coverage by multiple reliable sources listed in the draft and the discussion threads – presumably the reason why these are the subject of such a blizzard of deletion requests. The widespread discussion of the concept by both proponents and opponents also mandates the ultimate existence of an article on this subject according to both WP:NEO and WP:FRINGE. The article is badly in need of improvement, and the draft exists to facilitate this improvement. JimmyGuano (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Not at all disallowed to recreate a draft article of a deleted article. Plus, if the draft ultimately responds to the issues raised at AfD, it's even encouraged. Tutelary (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Drafting" of a new article version replacing an AfD-deleted one, especially in a case like here, where deletion was due not to simple concerns of notability or sourcing, but to concerns over the very definition and scope of the topic, should only be done if there is at least a clear, consensus-based vision of what the new article should look like and how it is going to avoid the problems that led to the deletion of the former one. I'm not seeing that here. If the new draft only serves as a playground for continuing the same fights over the same conceptions that made the old article unworkable, then it boils down to being no more than just another attempt at an end-run around the AfD result, which is something we shouldn't allow to happen. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously, but with a definite and very firm notice to those involved that if it has not changed meaningfully in both tone and focus before mid-Feb at the latest, then it will be nuked. This is not a second kick at the can, it's an opportunity to refactor the article into a neutral description of the wingnut meme. By neutral, I mean one that makes it plain that it's a baseless slur thrown around by those who think "liberal" is a term of abuse. Misplaced Pages is not Fox News. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Your tone is unnecessarily political. I have still seen ZERO sources that say anything about "memes" this seems to be WP:OR propagated by Jimbo that you've taken up. Regardless, that's irrelevant. A new article on the subject can be drafted, but edit history must remain deleted sans a deletion review ACCORDING TO POLICY. There is nothing complicated here, and the fact that you're facilitating the circumvention of the deletion policies is really quite sad. RGloucester — ☎ 03:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
That is incorrect. The fact that that edit history has been made less easily accessible does NOT forbid its being mined for a new article. All that is truly required under policy is that an article which is not substantially identical to the article previously deleted-and-redirected at AfD be launched. If it is substantially the same, the new piece qualifies for speedy deletion; if it is a different piece with different sourcing, then the correct process will be to again go over the matter at AfD. The first decision to redirect was wrong. Now there's yet another mainstream source (see below). It's gonna be a GNG pass when rewritten and resubmitted... Carrite (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think we even need to say that the original decision was wrong. The original article seems to have been deleted on more or less valid grounds, not just WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and if a new version is kept it will definitely not be on the basis of WP:ILIKEIT from the other extreme. As it stands, the article is confusing to the outsider (i.e. me). Guy (Help!) 07:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
You fellows are not understanding my objection. My objection is to the restoration of edit history that was DELETED. It is no longer deleted, and hence the community decision was overturned. I've quoted all the policies above, saying that revisions deleted by an AfD discussion cannot be restored without a deletion review. A new article can certainly be drafted without a review, but not with the existing edit history attached, which was must remain deleted. RGloucester — ☎ 08:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and the specific article has been restored. Edit history that was deleted has been restored without community consensus. The subject matter is not "banned", but that edit history has been deleted, and cannot be restored without consensus in a deletion review per the deletion policy. RGloucester — ☎ 03:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you've made that argument with some vehemence over and over and over again in a number of venues. Since the subject matter of the article is, by your repeated admission, of no particular interest to you, meaning that you're only arguing for the sake of upholding process, I'm not sure why you see the need to keep reiterating it. We are, after all, a project that has as one of its central tenets WP:IAR, which surely means that we should not get all hung up on process for its own sake.

I suggest that repeating the same argument to every "Keep" !voter is a bit silly, as well as perhaps being off-putting to others who might be considering making the same judgment. Why not ease off and see what the community has to say, since we already know what you have to say? BMK (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)a

Never mind, Rgloucester finally admitted on his talk page] that the real reason for his crusade against "Cultural Marxism" has nothing to do with upholding process for its own sake, it's simply because the article is offensive to his own political views. This entire campaign has been a gigantic POV cluster fuck hiding behind Misplaced Pages processes. (Not that it didn't seem like that from the beginning, but Rgloucester kept saying that he had no opinion about the subject matter one way or the other; at least that charade is shot down. No one who doesn't care about an article writes, in many venues, "IT MUST BE DELETED ... IT WILL BE DELETED" and so on. POV-warrior, clearly.) BMK (talk) 05:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
What "political views" are those? I said no such thing. I merely said that I feel sorry for people steeped in the liberal muddle, who have no sense of right or wrong. That has nothing to do with this article. I like how you invent things out of thin air, but that is to be expected from you. You will do anything you can to circumvent policy to maintain this article, as did Jimbo, as did others. No care is taken for sourcing, or for matters of OR, or for matters of sources that do not support the text, or for consensus driven AfDs that no one has the guts to challenged at deletion reviews. This whole thing is a farce. RGloucester — ☎ 05:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep It is acceptable to have a draft article on a deleted article to make it better, Note that the nominee is a self described marxist who has Viciously campaigned for the deletion of this article --RetΔrtist (разговор) 02:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete The original article was deleted because it was made-up junk, not because of vicious campaigning by a self described marxist (hello—there was an AfD). Recreating the "draft" article is a work-around to avoid the deletion review process. Like Draft:Gamergate controversy, it is just a place for people to explore an alternative universe. Johnuniq (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is clearly an encyclopedic topic as passing GNG. Here's a brand new source, published Jan. 18, 2015 in The Guardian: Jason Wilson, "'Cultural Marxism': A uniting theory for rightwingers who love to play the victim." The crushing tactics being used by some against establishment of a neutrally written article on this topic — repressing an edit history and now attempting to snuff out a draft of a new article — are reprehensible. Carrite (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - The principle of "Userfication" is well established, is it not? Striking down an (early) draft under the rationale that new work is based on a deleted article would nullify this well established process, would it not? It is not like the decision to delete-and-redirect was a slam dunk — there was already divided opinion over notability BEFORE the new source in The Guardian appeared on Jan. 18. Carrite (talk) 05:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    • @Carrite: See my comment above. Rgloucester doesn't give a tinker's cuss about process, he just wants the article deep-sexed because it offends his political sensitivities. As pretty much everyone suspected from the start. BMK (talk) 05:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I have no "political sensibilities". I don't want any article removed. It has already been removed through consensus at an AfD. This is not an "early draft". This is the old edit history, revived sans a deletion review. A new draft can be created. However, the old edit history must be destroyed, unless a deletion review revises the AfD result to "userfy" or "convert to draft". Carrite, you cannot reargue the AfD here. If you want to do so, you need to go to deletion review. This is about the draft, and not about the GNG or the notability of the topic. Regardless, the source you provided is an WP:SOAP opinion piece, and hence not RS. Sorry. RGloucester — ☎ 05:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep but delete the edit history? Withdrawing votePer NE Ent. From what I can gather RGloucester's issue is not with the fact that this draft exists but that all the old diffs exist (correct me if wrong). So if all the old edit history is deleted but the draft stays the same he should be fine with it? Either way it's just a draft. Bosstopher (talk) 08:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    That's not possible as it will break the attribution requirement in our copyright policy. —Dark 10:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Correct. The edit history was deleted, and according to policy, can only be restored by a deletion review. Many people are treating this discussion as a deletion review, but that's inappropriate. It isn't. It is merely a request to delete the history that must remain deleted according to the policy. The edit history is destructive, and was deleted for a reason. It cannot be restored without a deletion review, as it says in the deletion policy. RGloucester — ☎ 16:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I've withdrawn my vote on account of feeling a bit over my head. As it stands I think this is a bit of an Ignore all Rules situation. I dont think there's any point in not treating this discussion as a deletion review. Firstly if 100% proper protocol is followed and the draft is deleted, it would just be brought to deletion review anyway, so not having the discussion here is just a waste of time. Secondly, it's just a draft. It doesn't show up when you search "Cultural Marxism" and 99.9999999999999999% (a rough estimate) of people who visit wikipedia probably have no clue that it exists. I think ultimately the most important question to discuss here, is whether this draft is useful for the purpose of creating a new, deletion policy compliant cultural Marxism article, or if it would be better to start over from scratch completely. Bosstopher (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The community deemed the edit history not legitimate, which was why it was deleted in a recent AfD. According to policy, it cannot be restored without a deletion review. You are re-arguing the article deletion discussion, or saying that that process was inappropriate, indicating that you don't understand the purpose of this MfD. RGloucester — ☎ 16:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I guess you forget about "the 5th pillar". All this fuss about a ridiculous page (it may or may not exist - who cares?) was a pure damage for the project, because it resulted in enormous waste of time for you and other participants. My very best wishes (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
IAR only applies if there is a very good reason to apply it. There is absolutely zero reason to do so here. The page is not compliant with Misplaced Pages policies, and was deleted for that reason. This restoration undermines the whole AfD process, to the point of rendering it moot. If results of AfDs are not going to be respected, the AfD process should be wound up. If we're not going to follow our policies, they should be removed. Otherwise, they must be followed. RGloucester — ☎ 17:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Again, if you have a problem with the AfD, you must file a deletion review. This is not the place to question the AfD. RGloucester — ☎ 17
01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I did consider filing a deletion review, but came to the conclusion that expending a huge amount of time and effort on restoring what was without question a shit article was just point-scoring and too depressing to contemplate. Getting the content to the point where a decent proportion of non-monomaniacal editors felt that its inclusion would bring at least some credit on the encyclopedia seemed a much more productive use of everybody's time than engaging in yet more agonising wikilawyering. However strongly I feel that the basic principle of WP:NPOV - "Misplaced Pages aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them." - requires there to be an article on this subject, ultimately this end is only served by an article that itself makes a decent fist of this task, and the existing one didn't and still needs a lot of work before it does. The process that led to the deletion - not a single AfD but a relentless campaign littered with WP:GAMING - was wrong and deeply unedifying, but process is a means, not an end. The end is a high quality encyclopedia with good coverage of all notable topics, including controversial ones. If 20% of the Wikipedian effort that has been expended on this in unproductive inward-looking process had been spent sorting out the article itself it would be heading for WP:GA by now. (I include myself in that criticism) JimmyGuano (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Nonsense. It is a non-notable neologism. There is no "dispute". Regardless, this isn't the place for rearguing the deletion discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 20:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't. You are.
Maybe we need a special word for an issue that has managed to excite strongly expressed argument over a 30 year period, resulted in the death of scores of innocent Norwegian schoolchildren, spawned several books, quite a few published journal papers, numerous articles in national newspapers and acres of bad-tempered Misplaced Pages debate, but somehow still doesn't constitute a "dispute"? JimmyGuano (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Instinct and common sense tells the reader there was nothing wrong with the article . . . maybe a few improvements. The article existed since 2006. There are laws called Statutes of limitations that prohibit lawsuits after a certain amount of time has passed, usually two or three years, similar rules should apply here. The removal of the article appears to be motivated out of prejudice for maybe defaming "Marxists". Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
We have no statute of limitations, and that's a good thing (some hoax articles have hung around for ages). We also have no binding decisions. What matters is sources. In this case, they seem to me to be strong and getting stronger. This XfD is frivolous. Guy (Help!) 23:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep The sources look excellent, maybe the article can be recreated. Shii (tock) 05:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't see the reason why a draft for a deleted article shouldn't exist. For all we know, an article about the subject can actually stand on its own. GamerPro64 05:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. In draft form. For now. There is a well-established process for these things and to my mind, this is a process issue. It was deleted at AFD - that's doesn't mean the subject was black-listed. The draft and user spaces are designed to function this way - you create a draft, work on it and then put it forward at DRV where the community can determine if the consensus established at AFD should be overturned (on the basis of problems resolved, situational changes or the finding of new and better-quality sources). That process is available to every title (every subject) not salted. If consensus there is that the draft should not be moved to mainspace, so be it. While there is nothing set in stone, immediately attempted recreations are usually frowned upon (without some additional reason to void the AFD). I'm not excited about the idea of a draft being created when there is no immediate prospect of restoration, but I can't fault it at a technical level. Let's wait until someone actually lists it at DRV seeking re-creation before we get too upset about what is (by definition) a draft. St★lwart 07:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The problem isn't about whether or not there should be a "draft", as I've said, but the restoration of the edit history, which was deleted by AfD. RGloucester — ☎ 07:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
That's probably a question of attribution policy or for one of the admin noticeboards. That's no really a question for this forum as having the history there (or not) would have no impact on this discussion about whether the draft should remain. If your objection is to the restoration of the history of the article then you're probably in the wrong place. I thought your concerns were in two parts, but I apologise if I've misinterpreted them. That said, I can't really see any reason for not restoring the history as part of a userfication request. I'm not sure that either is SOP; just the discretion of the admin. If it goes to DRV and is rejected, it can always be deleted again. I would, though, be concerned about restoring the edit history but not the corresponding discussion on the article talk page. St★lwart 08:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - I see absolutely no reason this draft can't exist. If this user wants to try and create a draft of the Cultural Marxism article devoid of all the problems that plagued it before who are we to stop him? HessmixD (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The draft can exist, but the old text and edit history must remain deleted, per the deletion policy. An entirely new article can be written. RGloucester — ☎ 23:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
You have repeated this for days now. What part of our deletion policy prevents us from using prior versions in a draft? What you need to understand about AfD is the the A stands for article, as in article space. This draft is not an article. There are two possibilities here, either everyone else is wrong or you are wrong. Ask yourself which is more likely. Chillum 23:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
People voting "keep" are wrong, and this whole thing is wrong. Many of the "keep" voters are ignoring the problem here, which is the unilateral restoration of deleted content, not the creation of a draft. This is an obvious attempt to please Jimbo, and flout the deletion discussion. This would not've happened without Jimbo's continued disruption of the process. The deletion policy is clear: "Deletion of a Misplaced Pages article removes the current version and all previous versions from public view. Page blanking can be performed (or reverted) by any user, but only administrators can perform deletion, view deleted pages, and reverse ("undelete") any deletion". By this definition, moving an article to the draft space, or redirect it, or page blanking, none of that is "deletion". The result of the community discussion was delete. Conversion to a draft was not even discussed, and hence such a result, restoring the deleted edit history, directly overturns the deletion discussion's result without a deletion review. WP:REFUND says "Requests for undeletion is a process intended to assist users in restoring pages or files that were uncontroversially deleted via proposed deletion, under certain speedy deletion criteria (such as maintenance deletions or rejected Articles for creation drafts), or in "articles for deletion" debates with little or no participation other than the nominator...controversial page deletions will not be overturned through this process". It is quite clear that REFUND process does not apply, and anyway, no REFUND request was filed. Category:Misplaced Pages administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles says "Undeletion requests for pages deleted in a deletion discussion or a speedy deletion should be made at Deletion review. Please read and understand the undeletion policy first". The undeletion policy says "In the case of pages deleted as a result of summary decisions and not following community discussions, undeletion may be requested at Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion". None of these conditions apply. There were zero grounds for undeleting this content without a deletion review, and that's clear all around. This is just one cowboy administrator out to please Jimbo, and nothing more. Community consensus and processes be damned. A view vocal people took issue with the deletion result from day one, but they refused a deletion review. They forced the talk page archives to be undeleted, despite not using them for anything, and then forced the article to be undeleted and restored as a "draft" without even bothering to contest the discussion, most likely because no deletion review would've overturned the result enacted by three uninvolved administrators in good standing. It is all absurd. RGloucester — ☎ 23:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Again, you are quoting policies that say "article", the article is deleted. This is a different name space. I suggest you just remove the draft from your watchlist if it bothers you so much. Chillum 23:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Are you being purposefully dense, because I think it is quite clear that the article is not deleted. Once again, let me quote, with EXTRA BOLDING: "Deletion of a Misplaced Pages article removes the current version and all previous versions from public view. Page blanking can be performed (or reverted) by any user, but only administrators can perform deletion, view deleted pages, and reverse ("undelete") any deletion. If this page is deleted, that'd mean that only administrators could see it. Moving a page to the draft space is something I can do, and I'm not administrator. All of the previous versions remain in public view. The page remains visible to non-administrators. It is quite clear that the page is not deleted. RGloucester — ☎ 23:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Lets keep this civil. If you think bolding helps people understand things then it is a draft not an article, the article is deleted and this is a draft based off the history of the article. Once again in the very part you bolded at me it says article, the word right before you started bolding. You can quote article policies all day long but this is a deletion discussion about a draft. Chillum 23:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is NOT ABOUT A DRAFT. IT IS ABOUT AN ARTICLE THAT IS HIDING UNDER THE VENEER OF A DRAFT. THERE WAS NO CONSENSUS TO UNDELETE THAT CONTENT, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO DELETION REVIEW. THE HISTORY WAS DELETED. DELETED. DELETED. DELETED. IT CANNOT BE RESTORED WITHOUT A DELETION REVIEW. THE POLICY IS CLEAR. THE ARTICLE STILL EXISTS, BECAUSE THE HISTORY IS STILL PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE. USERFICIATION (draftification) IS NOT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR IN THE DELETION POLICY BECAUSE IT IS AN INFORMAL PROCESS THAT WAS ESTABLISHED BY AN ESSAY. IT IS NOT PART OF POLICY, NOT PART OF GUIDELINES, AND A RECENT ATTEMPT TO MAKE IT A GUIDELINE WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL. PLEASE READ THE POLICIES AGAIN. THIS HISTORY MUST REMAIN DELETED!!!! RGloucester — ☎ 00:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
It was once an article, then it was moved and now it is a draft. Different namespaces have different inclusion criteria. I am not going to read all caps. Chillum 00:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
THE CONTENT WAS DELETED BY CONSENSUS. THE INCLUSION CRITERIA ARE IRRELEVANT. THE HISTORY WAS DELETEd. IT CNAJAETIASFISJGSDJGEJSTE BE RESTORED WITHOTU A GODAMNED DELETIO NREVIEWL. THERE WAS NO CONSEUSS TO MOVE IT TO A DRAFT.aFSFSFGHSGJSHDGHSHEGTJFE NOEN . RGloucester — ☎ 00:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I like this game. Let me have a go: IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW LOUD YOU SHOUT, I HAVE BEEN AN ADMIN SINCE FIVE YEARS BEFORE YOU MADE YOUR FIRST EDIT AND I SAY YOU'RE WRONG, AND INCIDENTALLY SO DOES JIMBO. Or, you know, you could drop the stick. Guy (Help!) 00:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
YOU HAVE NO RANK. YOU ARE A DUSTMAN WITH A MOP, A MOP YOU DO NOT DESERVE. YOUR STATUS DOESN'T MAKE YOU IMMUNE TO POLICIES, NOR DOES JIMBO'S OPINION OVERRIDE COMMUNITY PROCESSES. RGloucester — ☎ 01:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
THE POLICIES DON'T SAY WHAT YOU PRETEND THEY SAY, AS MANY PEOPLE HAVE TOLD YOU. Your turn. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
MANY PEOPLE ARE WRONG, OR DIDN'T YOU KNOW THAT? RGloucester — ☎ 22:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes when everybody with relevant experience tells you that you are wrong, it's because you are wrong. This is one of those times. Thus far you have succeeded only in persuading several of us that you are a zealot who cares only about having your belief reflected as fact, regardless of its objective merit. But I'm not inclined to discuss this further since you have very obviously lost this particular debate. Guy (Help!) 12:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
You've got no experience with anything. You're wrong, and you're wrong. There isn't much to do about that. I don't need to persuade anyone. I simply need to be correct, which I am. I don't have any beliefs at all. I've won this debate, and that's clear. There is no chance for your position, which is simply unacceptable. RGloucester — ☎ 15:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Naturally using all-caps and larger font ensures that your opinions are more valid. However much you two may have enjoyed this dick-measuring contest, I suggest you take it to a more appropriate place so that others do not have to see it. Or you could stop acting like fucking children trying to get the last word in. —Dark 07:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep per two different grounds, since it seems that common sense isn't appealing to RGloucester. First off, if the draft that uses portions of the original article exists, then we are *required* to keep the revision history, to stay within the limits of copyright law--remember, each revision is, technically speaking, copyrighted by the person who posted it, and merely licensed to Misplaced Pages for free use. And if compliance with US copyright law and the legal terms of Misplaced Pages's licensing isn't sufficient, then I simply point to the Fifth Pillar and say that this is a place where common sense says to ignore all rules that would indicate otherwise. When literally everybody who chimes in on this, except for one person, is saying that this is the case, perhaps it should be taken as such? rdfox 76 (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
If they wanted to use that content, they needed to file a deletion review to have it undeleted. This is a flagrant violation of our policies. It was deleted because it is corrupting content that is both unsourced and conspiracy-laden. Allowing it to be reintroduced without community discussion is tantamount to throwing plagued corpses into our clean wells. RGloucester — ☎ 01:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
That's quite the analogy. The debate on the intent of policy aside, what exactly is your worry? That someone on the internet might be pointed to this draft space and have their mind infected? That the article might be rehabilitated and put back into the main space? GraniteSand (talk) 02:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
You can't "rehabilitate" a deleted article. You can either write a new one from scratch, or request a deletion review. Neither of these have occurred. The encylopaedia is being poisoned by these ongoing soap campaigns. RGloucester — ☎ 02:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the context you're referencing. I think having the original article to mend and work off of is a reasonable use of the draft space. I get that you feel that there's some end run being made here but I just don't see it that way. I'm also still not clear about what it is you're so worried about. I know from interacting with you in the past that you're a smart guy and a productive content contributor but you're coming off like you want to impede an attempt to create a demonstrably policy-complaint version of this article. GraniteSand (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
A new article from scratch is acceptable. A deletion review is acceptable. Otherwise, no. It is very simple. It was deleted, and no one has challenged the deletion. RGloucester — ☎ 02:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems like productive a productive and appropriate use of the draft space. As an aside, I'm happy to see progress being made on rehabilitating an article which was prematurely deleted. GraniteSand (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Unsourced OR and misuse of sources is a "rehabilitation" of the article? If you want to challenged the deletion, file a deletion review. RGloucester — ☎ 02:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
FINE? None of them support the text. Others and I spent ages debunking all of them in the deletion discussion, and a panel of administrators agreed with that assessment. Now they're suddenly "FINE"? RGloucester — ☎ 02:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh for fucksake give it a rest seriously!, Yes they look fine ... If you have an issue with that then good for you, Instead of badgering the keepers why don't you accept the fact everyone wants this kept and you're perhaps wrong here.... If you can't accept peoples opinions and consensus then you really shouldn't be here. –Davey2010 02:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Why don't you try reading them, and see if they are "fine"? If you don't make up statements about "fineness", I won't respond. RGloucester — ☎ 02:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete if deleted via a AfD it should not be restored in Draft space. Use the proper process. Legacypac (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete This article is just a re-incarnation of the previous, deleted article and uses much of the same errant framework. It (currently) does very little in the way of highlighting that the academic use of the term is rarefied and limited in definition to POSSIBLE Marxist influences (The Frankfurt School is well known to have been critical of the soviet system), and makes no effort to outline the time period to which the claim of Cultural Marxism refers - it does even less to highlight the conspiratorial claims as unfounded - it in fact seems determined to legitimate the terms modern usage (which seems to suggest that wikipedia is fine with liable against feminism, gay and civil rights as well as against any number of other popular political movements the right include in the conspiracy )... and the modern usage is just that: A conspiracy, not that you'd know it from this current draft. I've outlined my extensive evidence and references for the modern usage being a conspiracy theory here if anyone is interested in this ongoing effort to propagate a culture war and engage in Red-baiting. --Jobrot (talk) 08:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, the article in its current state is complete crap, but it's not in the mainspace where it can be confused for a real article or indexed by search engines. Either the "draft" will sit there for the rest of eternity, unread and unloved, the content will be improved to a state where it can be used somewhere, or it'll be moved back into mainspace without being improved and squished per CSD G4. None of those scenarios are particularly troubling to my mind. Lankiveil 09:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC).
  • Keep Claims of consensus in this matter seem absurd; what we have here is obviously a polarised dispute. As the matter continues to rumble on, it's is helpful to have the original edit history preserved so that non-admins can see what all the fuss is about. Andrew D. (talk) 10:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
There is no fuss. The article and its edit history were deleted. RGloucester — ☎ 15:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
This may be the greatest piece of performance art I have ever witnessed. But it's offtopic and clogging an already overclogged MfD discussion Bosstopher (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How you can describe your behavior here as no fuss is beyond my comprehension. Would you please stop repeating yourself? Next time you post something ask yourself "Do I have anything new to say that has not already been said my me 5 times on this very page?" If the answer is no then just don't post, we have already read it. Chillum 18:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
You've not read it. If you'd read it, you'd not be obfuscating reality. RGloucester — ☎ 18:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
For example we all know it The article and its edit history were deleted. It is not that we have not read what you have written, it is that we don't agree with your reasoning. I know this is a subtle concept but please try to get it. Chillum 18:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
It is impossible to disagree. The reality is the reality. If you want to live the immaterial and ethereal, there isn't much I can do for you. RGloucester — ☎ 18:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
But you are disagreeing right now, it is clearly not impossible. Frankly the whole "I am right and it is impossible that I am wrong and impossible that others are right" is so implausible it does not deserve consideration. Not just for you but for any human.
Since Misplaced Pages works off of consensus and not who is right then you may find that your complete perfection in correctness to be a liability here. You may just be too perfect of a being to get along with us mortals on this collaborative project. Chillum 18:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and reality is not reality. That is a gross oversimplification of perception. Reality is something filtered through our perception and we each have of our own version of it. Otherwise each MfD would only take 1 person to resolve. Chillum 18:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
No. It is defined by God, and set in eternal permanence. I do not disagree. I cannot disagree, because there is nothing to disagree about. RGloucester — ☎ 19:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay well if your truth comes from god there is little I can do about that. Just know that religious beliefs are not valid deletion arguments. Chillum 19:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
It is not "religion". It is reality. RGloucester — ☎ 19:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
All religions believe they have the monopoly on truth. They can't all be right - though they certainly can all be wrong. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe I said anything about "religion". There is one reality, and you may think you're part of some balkanised liberal phantasy, but you're not. There is only one true reality. Avert your gaze, for its light is ever-piercing. Nothing can ever be wrong, except that which is decreed by God. RGloucester — ☎ 22:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Sure sounds like a religion to me. Please don't use Misplaced Pages to profess your version of the truth and god. Chillum 22:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The only truth is that there is no truth. That is why I'm well suited to Misplaced Pages. Regardless, I must take my leave. Enjoy this plate of poison! RGloucester — ☎ 22:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.