Talk:Genocide Joe

Unexplained deletion by redirection
Hello,. Why have you been unilaterally deleting the page and redirecting it? It's definitely a notable name for Joe Biden. KlayCax (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Why are you edit warring against obvious consensus? I suggest you quickly self-revert. And there is nothing obvious about this as you have been informed on multiple pages. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a matter for WP:AFD to determine. There's no obvious consensus to delete this page, . He cited that it was "controversial" and "without consensus".
 * But: 1.) There's no requirement for a claim to not be "controversial" to have an article. (e.g. Let's Go Brandon!) 2.) There doesn't need to be a consensus for an article to be made. KlayCax (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Warning placed on your UTP. I again suggest you quickly self revert. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I only reverted 1RR per the topic area. This process is supposed to go through WP: AFD. Articles do not need a consensus to be created. KlayCax (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What's the possible metric for deleting the article, ? An unilateral redirect and deletion without going through a AFD process is not anywhere near a normal protocol. That's why I reverted it. Articles should only be deleted and redirected if it is "uncontroversial". Of all topics: this certainly doesn't apply here. It's clearly notable enough to warrant an article. KlayCax (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Edit warring is edit warring. Read the multiple warnings on your TP. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Which is why I reached out to him for a response on this talk page. KlayCax (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:D-R's should only be done if the deletion is uncontroversial. This is clearly not the case here. It's an improper way to handle a WP: AFD case. KlayCax (talk) 00:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is disingenuous. It was originally a redirect that you improperly attempted to force to be an article and edit warred to your preferred version. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Alleging an article is disingenuous or slapping their talk page with warnings doesn't actually constitute an argument. It's best to engage with the substance of the points made. There was no proper AfD process here. JDiala (talk) 01:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I strongly support the creation of this article. It's sufficiently notable at this point. JDiala (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I happen to agree with the political statement on your user page. But its existence does not help how many may look at your arguments in terms of bias. Abd your edit restoring a change from a redirect to an article was a really bad idea. Discuss first with contentious topics. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Esterau16 has reverted my edit (seemingly a 1RR violation, but I digress). I'll stop reverting things here since I do not wish to edit war. I will say that it is concerning that KlayCax is making good-faith attempts to explain his reasoning but is being rather curtly dismissed and his edits reverted. JDiala (talk) 04:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I’d like to see a proper AfD instead of edit warring to see if this article is notable using actual wikipedia policies, especially from O3000. It’s in the best interests of both sides. I’ve had this page on my watchlist for a few months and it’s extremely frustrating seeing this edit war drag on. This is getting into lame territory.  -1ctinus📝  🗨  01:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Can I reinstate, ? Not sure how we can have an AfD discussion if editors won't allow it to be created. My only choice is accepting a wrongful AfD workaround or de facto edit warring. KlayCax (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That’s the problem with edit warring. It can only directly be directly fought with more edit warring. Could you try conflict resolution with O3000? That would be less inflammatory than recreating the article for the 70th time. -1ctinus📝  🗨  14:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You attempted to create this highly controversial article and were unsuccessful due to the opposition you faced. Now you have tried to restore this article several times without any discussion neither consensus. This article is deeply controversial, potentially violates the the biographies of living persons policy, and seems created to push a particular political narrative. Esterau16 (talk) 04:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As has been pointed out to you, this hasn't been through AFD. Please do not edit war. It is expected that you demonstrate the ability to engage with your opponent's arguments rather than edit warring and repeating the same point over and over. This is your second revert today which is already a 1RR violation on I/P. JDiala (talk) 04:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What arguments? There hasn't even been an attempt to justify the article's existence. And it wasn't even created as an article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It has notability. That's why I justify the article's existence. KlayCax (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The subject of Palestinian genocide accusation has notability and there is a article on it which includes President Biden. A name yelled by some protestors does not. Innumerable other things are yelled by protestors. Should we have separate, little, stub articles on each? O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd agree if it was limited to a few utterances. But the phrase "Genocide Joe" has received substantial, widespread coverage over the past eight or so months. There's also articles on similar phrases with similar/less notability.
 * All Lives Matter
 * Basket of deplorables
 * Binders full of women
 * Go woke, go broke
 * Guns don't kill people, people kill people,
 * Nevertheless, she persisted
 * Troika of tyranny
 * It's okay to be white
 * I'm not a scientist
 * There's enough information on the "Genocide Joe" phrase to require a split. In my opinion. KlayCax (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Most of those are extraordinarily common. A couple should be AfD'd. The information is that protestors yelled it. I do not see how that warrants an entire article on its own. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * One last comment. Keep in mind that you did not gain consensus to include this in List of nicknames of presidents of the United States. Please read WP:POVFORK which covers such a situation. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There's many sayings not found on the "list of nicknames of presidents of the United States" that have articles. I think it clearly passes notability.
 * Ideally, this would go through the normative AfD process, as mentioned above. Are you alright with that? KlayCax (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the best course of action might be to hold an AfC to gain a consensus. While I would somewhat support an article on this topic, this debate has been so drawn out and repetitive that I don't really want to participate in an AfC. -1ctinus📝  🗨  01:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's do that then, . KlayCax (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Never mind. JDiala has been topic banned. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)