Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claims of hate speech or hate acts against holocaust deniers

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was ambiguous.

13 users made clear votes for Delete. Only the original author voted Keep. 11 users voted Merge. 1 of the 11 is a very new user who is under active investigation as a possible sockpuppet. 3 of the remaining 10 merge votes said "Merge and Delete". If that were allowable, the balance would have been 16 delete to 8 keep and would have resulted in a close Delete decision. Unfortunately, "Merge and delete" is not generally an allowable option under GFDL. Those votes default to "merge and keep".

Having said all that, when I went to carry out the merger I found it appropriate only to add a link to a third article in the main Holocaust denial article. None of the text about the Faurisson affair seemed appropriate to merge. I elected not to merge the quote attributed to outlaw.com because it could not be verified. (To clarify - It was easy to verify that the website made the quote in the article. I was unable to verify their reliability as a notable source that is appropriate to quote in an encyclopedia.)

Since no content was actually merged, the article could be deleted without violating GFDL. I am leaving it as a redirect for now in case someone else has better evidence that the material in the old version is appropriate to merge somewhere. If someone believes that the redirect should also be deleted, that should be nominated at Redirects for deletion. Rossami (talk) 00:16, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Claims of hate speech or hate acts against holocaust deniers
Non-encyclopedic POV essay created when an editor wasn't getting his way, and wanted to make a point by disrupting Wikipedia, as this talk: comment shows:. Jayjg |  (Talk)  22:11, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. This doesn't need a seperate article and it's too POV.  Gamaliel 22:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: Title is NPOV as it says 'claims'. This topic is stub so hopefully we will get more data soon. make a point by disrupting Wikipedia this is not a policy let me quote. from it


 * it is not an official guideline of Wikipedia and carries neither official weight nor provisions for enforcement


 * So useless to say incorrect reason was sited. Neither it is POV nor against any wikipedia policy.


 * Any way here are extracts from 'official' wikipedia deletion policy. Following are problems not requiring deletion.
 * Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article
 * Article duplicates information in some other article
 * Article is biased or has lots of POV
 * Dispute over article content
 * Can't verify information in article


 * I think this vfd is 'funny' :) Zain 22:23, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. This incident belongs in an article on history falsification laws. Reviewing the talk link posted by JayJG, it seems clear that Zain engineer created this article to make a point, in violation of the proposed policy cited. --Jewbacca 22:57, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * You might also be intrested in edits by admin Any way even if it is making point, the article it self makes it clear that is has no weight. When wikipedia article itself says that it should not be enforced so why to enforce it? If it is the case Zain 23:11, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Merge into Holocaust denial. RickK 23:26, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is unnecessary and the title is POV. I don't find this VfD very funny, but the article is laughably biased. Carrp 23:28, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Title is not NPOV, as it says 'Claim'. If the content is biased so why not to edit it, to 'correct it. Zain 23:37, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Lacrimosus 23:50, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons mentioned above. One should not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, as has been pointed out.  This rule may not be policy, but that doesn't really matter here. If it was policy, then there would be punishments for breaking it (such as banning).  It is not policy, so instead we nominate point-making disruptions for deletion. Tuf-Kat 23:55, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * As a point of note, Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point has indeed been cited in findings of recent Arbitration Committee rulings; see, for example, Requests_for_arbitration/CheeseDreams/Proposed decision. Jayjg |  (Talk)  03:54, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nonencyclopaedic. Xtra 00:32, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Merge no good reason offered for deleting. Salazar 00:46, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * User joined Jan 9 2005.


 * Delete -- DCEdwards1966 01:05, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into Holocaust denial. I agree with RickK. What is the justification for deleting this information completely? OneGuy 01:13, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, considering that the only source given is a notorious Holocaust Denial site, it's hard to imagine what reliable information could be merged. Jayjg |  (Talk)  03:59, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge if possible. Any potentially useful shreds of information would be totally lost under this bizarre title. - Lucky 6.9 01:40, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, merge anything interesting into Holocaust denial JFW | T@lk  02:01, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete It's non-encyclopedic. The title and stub are inherently POV as they imply that criminally charging a Holocaust denier, for example, is an act of "hate speech" or "hate act." As no other encyclopedia or reputable publisher would recognize that definition, the article will not be able to support its claims with reputable references, and therefore counts as original research. SlimVirgin 03:28, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Holocaust denial, then add redirect. Megan1967 03:48, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-encyclopedic. Source link does not confirm or verify information in the article. Information in current article is duplicated by two existing articles, Robert Faurisson and Faurisson affair. --Viriditas | Talk 06:29, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * You're right, all valuable information in this article is already in those two articles, and far better written. Jayjg |  (Talk)  16:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you joking about 'far better written'? It is just copy paste! and stub so more can be added. Any way if you read wikipedia deletion policy 'carefully' duplication is not a reason for delete!
 * Yes, far better written, because your article, which you copied out of the Faurisson Affair article, was an orphaned stub under an incredibly long POV title, whereas the original article was much more complete and had a NPOV title. Moreover, your formatting was messed up.  And you might not be aware of this, but POV forks are typically deleted on VfDs.  Also, please sign your comments. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  20:35, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy says badly written article shouldn't be deleted! If title is POV and long, can you suggest a small NPOV title? It is not fork it is stub. More people will be added slowly.
 * Either it's a useless fork with a POV title, or it's the start of some POV original research essay you're planning "slowly" write on Wikipedia. Either way, it should be deleted. And again, Zain, please sign your comments. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  22:05, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * You still haven't suggested any NPOV title! I wonder why is that? Second if any body adds 'orignal research'. You can delete it and lock the page. After all you are an admin.(No restriction on signing as per wikipedia policy, It is recommended but not necessary)
 * POV forks and original research articles need no titles, since they shouldn't exist in the first place. Why do you continue to refuse to sign your comments, Zain? Jayjg  |  (Talk)  22:44, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Why u call it 'POV' and 'fork' at the 'same time'. If the content is 'fork' of a NPOV article, so content is 'NPOV'!. So this leaves only the title. So you can suggest another title. Zain(Now do you have an answer?????)
 * Um, ok, you don't have to sign your comments, it's just a courtesy. Nor does anyone have to respond to anonymous comments.  I certainly won't be doing so. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  23:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Extreme Merge, this was a significant incident in France, where one can go to prison for public assertions of Holocaust denial, then Delete. Wyss 07:04, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: non-encyclopedic .  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 09:40, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. What the other folks said: this is minor entry in the history of holocaust denial at best. Merge existing text into its parent articles. --Modemac 12:29, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge content to main article. Unnecessary branching is bad. - Jeltz talk  15:48, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, at best merge, as above. &mdash;Ben Brockert (42) 00:06, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Merge with Holocaust denial until it is expanded to a reasonable size. If people claim that they have suffered hate speech because they deny the Holocaust, it is not "POV" to say so. In any case, as someone kindly pointed out to me a couple of days back, being POV is not a reason for deletion.Dr Zen 00:43, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and if possible merge. So far, this info is duplicated elsewhere.  If any such general article is needed (and the one example provided here is not enough evidence that it is) it's proper place is a section under Holocaust Denial, at least until such a section grows unwieldy and needs its own article.  The author can expand existing articles on Robert Faurisson and Faurisson affair, if facts appear to be missing.  --Goodoldpolonius2 03:59, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into Holocaust denial. This is probably encyclopaedic, but that's the worst damn title ever - David Gerard 19:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.