Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject/New World Order/Neutral lede




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

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted as a G8. "subpage with no parent page". (There is no parent page WikiProject/New World Order). I have not waited for the full 7 days as this is clearly a candidate for speedy deletion. Further user:Ludvikus I remind you of your promise when you were unblocked: "(1) I have learned how to avoid being blocked in the future.(2) I understand now 100% how to avoid it - simply drop ANY confrontation with any other editor." You are in a confrontation here.--PBS (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject/New World Order/Neutral lede
"WikiProject" created by, previously blocked for 2 years (since unblocked), and bringing up a matter on the talk page which has been dead for over a year. The WP:CONSENSUS is that the lede is neutral, so a project dedicated to make the lede neutral is operating against consensus. As an aside, he's been making inappropriate edits to the article in a section unrelated to the sections he's argueing about on the talk page. This "WikiProject" is an attempt to bypass the discussion on that talk page which is running against him. --— Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment 1: The "neutrality" concern was raised by others, and the Talk page speaks for itself: . --Ludvikus (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment 2: I've just Moved/Renamed the project title by dropping "lede" to accommodate my colleague's complaint above. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments.
 * Renaming a page while under an MfD discussion is considered antisocial. I moved it back.
 * The talk page does speak for itself. None of the editors who have stated neutrality concerns are now active on Wikipedia.  I didn't check whether they were blocked.  The editors who have stated they don't see a neutrality concern are all still active.  Under those circumstances, 2 supporting the present article as neutral and 2 opposed would still be a consensus in favor of neutrality.
 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: That all clouds the issue. You objected to the narrowness of this WikiProject, so I simply broadened it by removing the qualifier "lede." And now you complaint because I did precisely what was required to accommodate you. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: That close a call on this issue, a dead heat on a controversial topic like New World Order (conspiracy theory) seems no ground to my attempting to start this page to improve the article. I don't see how this WikiProject could possibly be inconsistent with improving an article on a controversial article. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. A WikiProject focused only on one article, is problematic at best.  (I thought I wrote that already.  Must have been a system crash.)  WikiProject Council/Guide suggests that if the scope is only a few pages, it should be a less formal organization than even a task force.  See, particularly, WikiProject Council/Guide; this one doesn't specify, but implies that a single-article "WikiProject" should live on that article's talk page.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


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