Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2014 March 14: 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:Deletion review | Log Browse history interactivelyNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:01, 13 March 2014 editAnomieBOT (talk | contribs)Bots6,557,219 edits (BOT) New discussion page: 2014 March 14. Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/DRVClerk  Revision as of 05:55, 14 March 2014 edit undoThe Four Deuces (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers50,500 edits Jews and CommunismNext edit →
Line 4: Line 4:


Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:drv2|page=<PAGE NAME>|xfd_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>|reason=<REASON>}} ~~~~ --> Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:drv2|page=<PAGE NAME>|xfd_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>|reason=<REASON>}} ~~~~ -->
====]====
:{{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. ] (]) 05:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:55, 14 March 2014

< 2014 March 13 Deletion review archives: 2014 March 2014 March 15 >

14 March 2014

Jews and Communism

Jews and Communism (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

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. TFD (talk) 05:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)