User talk:Mel Etitis/Afd-Islamofascism

Articles for deletion/Islamofascism


 * Delete: 8
 * Redirect (or delete): 23
 * Keep: 22
 * Sock-puppets, vague, etc.: 6

Delete

 * 1) Islamist 01:03, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Mikkalai 01:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Leifern 02:34, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
 * 4) zen master   T  00:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) BrandonYusufToropov 15:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Ragib 15:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Lee Hunter 20:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Stancel 16:36, 30 Apr 2005 {UTC)

Redirect

 * 1) Neutralitytalk 03:21, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) El_C 03:41, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Tempshill 20:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) nobs
 * 5) bainer 05:38, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 10:43, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) LDan 23:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Firebug 17:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Grace Note 12:33, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Charles P. (Mirv) 12:56, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) 80.203.115.12 15:58, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Delete or Redirect Yuber 00:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Dalf | Talk 05:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Mustafaa 06:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Viriditas | Talk 07:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Delete, or Merge and Redirect AladdinSE 09:46, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Charles Stewart 08:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) dab (&#5839;) 12:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Usedbook 18:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Blackcats 06:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) goethean 17:39, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Enhance, Redirect if not delete. Svest 06:09, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Keep

 * 1) Meelar (talk) 01:36, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Klonimus 23:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Jayjg (talk) 02:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) keep, but with the admonishment that the article should acknowledge that this is an inherently POV term invented by persons with beliefs that are probably generally hostile to Islam. -- 8^D BD2412gab 03:17, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
 * 5) Megan1967 05:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) TigerShark 10:55, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Slac speak up!  00:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) RaD Man (talk) 05:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Capitalistroadster 02:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) SlimVirgin (talk) 09:14, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Briangotts 16:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Yuckfoo 06:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Dbiv 11:04, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Irishpunktom\talk 13:42, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Mrfixter 01:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) ObsidianOrder 03:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Shinobu 22:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Rhobite 05:45, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Wetman 01:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Lotsofissues 13:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Sean Curtin 00:21, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) BSveen 21:18, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

New editors/sock-puppets

 * 1) Keep UDoN't!wAn* 23:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Note User:UDoN't!wAn* is an apparent sock puppet, just signed up on 22 Apr 2005. zen master   T  00:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep Walkingeagles 04:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Fifth edit; only one of previous four on an article (Islamofascism, in fact).
 * 1) KEEP, remarked, at 01:49, 25 Apr 2005
 * This anon seems to specialise in PoV edits ranging from near-vandalism to genuine vandalism. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 13:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Porphyria 14:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * New editor who hung around for a couple of weeks.
 * 1) User:Aeroflot on 06:35, 24 Apr 2005

Vague or ambiguous

 * 1) Delete, Redirect, or Keep depending on if its NPOV and can be so maintained. Its of course a huge double-standard that a title like Judeofascism can be deleted, and Islamofascism can be claimed to be NPOV. Many here I suspect are newbies, and hence dont have the concept of NPOV under their grasp. Others are yet POV warriors seeking to push or repeat an agenda. If its written in an NPOV way, keep. But the mere existence of this kind of article lends its proponents to claim it like it was theirs to define, forgetting the basic fact that its just a word, and a POV word at that. Theres nothing wrong with POV word articles, as long as the articles themselves are not POV. Judging by many of the comments above, it would seem that there is a basic ignorance of that distinction. So, thats my vote. -SV|t 21:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC