Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zionism, race and genetics (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Blatantly disruptive nomination that does not even begin to engage with the extensive discussion from the first AfD, which was closed yesterday as no consensus. While there is no formal time limit imposed on the renomination of an AfD closed as no consensus, nominators are expected to make an effort to explain what has changed since the prior discussion, or else present a valid, novel argument for deletion that builds off of the prior discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 13:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Zionism, race and genetics
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Shameless POV-pushing that is written like an essay, and also the concepts in the title are not related (WP:AND) Quick Quokka  [⁠talk • contribs] 12:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Judaism, Science, Biology, Social science,  and Israel.  Quick Quokka  [⁠talk • contribs] 12:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep Disruptive renomination less than 1 day after a no consensus closure. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 12:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Rosguill: It appears that your recent AfD close has been undone by means of instant re-nomination. FYI. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete, some mish-mash of OR and stuff about almost anything it seems. Oaktree b (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @QuickQuokka: There was literally an 'in creation', a.k.a. 'don't nominate for deletion' notice up on the top of the page when you re-nominated it. Are you being intentionally disruptive, or did you simply not read past the title? Perhaps read the previous discussion closed by an admin literally a day ago and withdraw this community time-sink. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I read the thing that said it shouldn't be nominated for deletion, yes, but I believe that this article is inherently non-neutral, and should not be given a grace period. -- Quick Quokka  [⁠talk • contribs] 13:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This nomination is disruptive. Selfstudier (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well it was closed by an admin, after several admins conferred on the close. If they had thought a relisting was worthwhile, they would have relisted. This is just abuse of process, with intent. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This comment should have been put below mine. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 13:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.