RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Al Quds day

Al Quds day | Result: deleted 10-4

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Please see Jeremy Corbyn talk page
Especially beginning with the section "Al Quds Day videos" and then the section about something or other being "Bowlderized." Avenger has had his sysop status removed and cannot cirumvent the block on the Corbyn article. So, he's trying to get what he wants embedded in a link to an al Quds page he just created today and then asked an UNinvolved, innocent user to embed it for him. This is bullshit antics. Read the Corbyn talk page to see why. If the al Quds article isn't deleted, well, we can just start having an edit war over that! (But I won't do it until I've finished the Zionism draft.) ---Mona- (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete

 * 1) Axe-grinding without relevance to mission. MaillardFillmore (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) The article is Avenger's attmept to have his rejected edits linked to on the Jeremy Corbyn article. His sysop status was removed for reason and he so can't make the edits on the Corbyn page. A consensus -- or near consensus -- rejecting Avenger's edits and antics is all reflected on the Corbyn talk page. So, today he created the al Quds page and asked an uninvolved user to embed his tendentious al Quds link on the Corbyn page (which the user did and I promptly removed). tl;dr: The al Quds article was founded in bad faith and should be deleted.---Mona- (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC
 * Mona first of all your contribution was in the wrong section (thanks for correcting that). Second of all the faith in which an article was created is not grounds for its deletion. And thirdly would you please kindly refrain from dragging one discussion across myriads of pages. It has gotten people angry at you in the past. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Words do not describe how black you are calling the kettle right now.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Mona is constantly dragging a discussion across multiple pages which makes it impossible to follow for all but a few people, usually those that are most involved. I don't really know why she does it, but she should refrain from doing so. I don't know what the kettle thing is supposed to mean though. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a well known idiom that means you are accusing somebody of something that you are also guilty of. 22:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * (EC) Google "pot kettle black idiom" and be amazed. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:25, 19 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * Well for reasons passing understanding I don't know all idioms in the English language. Also, when did I drag a discussion of something entirely unrelated into Afd? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 22:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide even a semblance of a reason for your opinion? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) .--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is no policy that prohibits votes on Afd without any reason provided, there should be. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There indeed is no such policy. If you wish to change that, feel free to make a proper proposal on a more appropriate page. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:18, 19 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * 1) Redo from scratch. While the topic is relevant to RW (as an example of officially sponsored anti-Israel activities with strong anti-Semitic strains, the latter being the missional bit), the current incarnation reads like a wingnut view of the Middle East with Iran being Ze Evulz Maztermind behind everything, replete with Munich-style suggestions of Western appeasement & betrayal as the reason the Tehran regime didn't collapse in 2009 (as if Western support would've done anything beyond discrediting the opposition as collaborators and foreign agents). It's also kind of hilarious to see the Shi'a being touted as the bogeymen of the Middle East when those fundamentalist Muslims that pose the greatest threat to everyone not sharing their particular faith are actually the extreme Sunnis. Even more bizarre is trotting out the Houthi rebels in that shell shocked crater, Yemen, as anything but one of numerous warring factions in that hopeless country which is now being bombed back beyond the stone aged and blockaded into starvation, courtesy of what has for decades been a far more destabilising force in Islam and the Middle East: Saudi Arabia. The Shi'ites' major black mark at the moment is their short sighted and vindictive Baghdad regime whose marginalisation and persecution of the Sunni minority for its support for Saddam's decades of dictatorship helped prepare the ground for the likes of ISIS. ScepticWombat (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Kill it with Scorpio.gif]] Blacke (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Delete and start over, preferably written by absolutely anyone else - David Gerard (talk) 23:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Lemme on the bandwagon, will ya? &#60;-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-&#62; (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Tiresomely equates support of Palestinian rights with anti-Semitism. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 00:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You do know who created the Al Quds day and when, right? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Genetic fallacy? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 13:34, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * 1) I think the WP:TNT approach which David cited is the right approach here. I do think there is a missional article to be had, but cannot see any way the current article can be re-written to achieve that in an acceptable manner. Delete and start again.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep

 * 1) Is a gathering of all kinds of wingnuts and moonbats and relevant in terms of Antisemitism and antisemitic dog whistles. Have yet to hear a serious reason for deletion. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) The subject is appropriate for an article. The language should be freer of emotion. Tone it down. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I read it again. The subject is no different than a multitude of other RW-articles. There are only two things wrong, and one of them will be corrected with growth, that is sources. The second thing is just a matter of style - an English speaking satirist might do wonders. Neither the author nor I are qualified for that job. So, again keep but improve. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * PS: Sources and content. I'd like to see more. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Other stuff exists" is not a reason to keep an article. MaillardFillmore (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) I'd say it is on-mission, but improvable.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Seems on-mission. Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Goat

 * I'm pretty sure there's missional stuff to be said about it, though I'm skeptical if the current article is that stuff. It's currently also rather lacking in the content department, so I dunno if it's worth keeping at this point. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:11, 19 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * There is a saying on WP: Deletion is no cure for content. If your issue is with the content of the article, please be so kind as to add content Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * [Removed comment and put it in delete section]---Mona- (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Mona, vote for delete then. &#60;-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-&#62; (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There really isn't. What there is, is WP:TNT, which definitely applies here: demolish and start over - David Gerard (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're going to start an article with controversial content, you should properly cite every statement with a reputable source. Add the snark later, after you've got all the facts right. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Jerboa

 * Rawr! &mdash; Unsigned, by: long-eared bipedal rodent

So what's the consensus now?
I know that the delete side won. But there were more votes for "on mission thus recreate" and "keep on mission" combined thaen for "delete off mission". Hence the article should recreated in due time, shouldn't it? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * By anyone who isn't you. I note it's currently at -6 on the "to do" list, which is pretty much "to don't" - David Gerard (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)