| Revision as of 05:55, 14 March 2014 editThe Four Deuces (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers50,502 edits Jews and Communism← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:57, 14 March 2014 edit undoThe Four Deuces (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers50,502 edits →Jews and CommunismNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| ====]==== | ====]==== | ||
| :{{DRV links|Jews and Communism|xfd_page=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism|article=}} | :{{DRV links|Jews and Communism|xfd_page=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism|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 ], although many editors said it was, and few disagreed. |
||
| 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 ], although many editors said it was, and few disagreed. | ||
| ] (]) 05:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:57, 14 March 2014
< 2014 March 13 Deletion review archives: 2014 March 2014 March 15 >14 March 2014
Jews and Communism
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 POV fork, although many editors said it was, and few disagreed.