Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination)

Discussion about other articles

 * Question for Jayjg: do you believe that your decision to speedy-delete Global apartheid (discussed here) is likely to help us move on from past situations of partisan gamesmanship? Thanks in advance.  CJCurrie (talk) 06:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, since it was a useless article created by a sockpuppet of the same banned editor who created this whole mess in the first place. Now, do you believe your decision to not only condone his most recent sockpuppets, but also make a stink about a crappy article deleted under CSD:G5 is likely to help us move on from past situations of partisan gamesmanship?  Thanks in advance. Jayjg (talk) 07:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Jay, the article was not created by a banned editor. If your intent was to undue the actions of a banned editor, you should have just reduced the page to a redirect.  Also, you should note that I'm not taking any position on the article; I simply believe the speedy deletion was out of process.  (For more context, other readers may refer here.)
 * Btw, it's considered bad form to make accusations that you know cannot be refuted without going into private discussions. Perhaps we should move on from epic battles of the past and focus on the matter before us.  CJCurrie (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, I expect you to delete references to past AFDs that have no relevance. --Leifern (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it seems that last year's "Allegation of [...] apartheid" debates are not entirely "in the past". CJCurrie (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This article really has nothing to do with the articles that were involved then. But if what you say is true, it is because you started this AfD.  6SJ7 (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please correct me if i'm wrong, CJCurrie, but it seems to me it was editors who want the article deleted who brought up last year's allegations of... articles.--Leifern (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Btw, I should clarify that I returned the "possibly related" afds on principle, as I did not approve of their arbitrary deletion by other parties. I don't think I would have added them to the article on my own initiative.  CJCurrie (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Then why didn't you discuss their inclusion or exclusion on this talk page? --Leifern (talk) 10:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * They were deleted arbitrarily, so it seemed to make sense to return them arbitrarily. CJCurrie (talk) 22:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So in other words, you added the material not because it benefited the encyclopedia in any way, but just to make a point. Isn't there some policy about that?  6SJ7 (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the material is relevant to the subject matter; I just wouldn't have been inclined to add it under normal circumstances. I did so on principle, because it was deleted under very questionable circumstances.  CJCurrie (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that's pretty much the definition of a WP:POINT violation. 6SJ7 (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, a WP:POINT violation would involve irrelevant or unencyclopedic material. This doesn't involve either; this is more a case of "I wasn't going to take that line of argument but I'll return the references if someone deletes them for no good reason".  CJCurrie (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

"Other articles of interest"
The objection against this article is that it violates policies against original research and synthesis. Editors should be able to judge whether or not it does by the article's own merits, or lack thereof. Articles on more or less related topics may have been deleted, kept, renamed, or rewritten for entirely different reasons. CJCurrie and ChrisO have already made it clear that at least part of their argument is based an ad hominem and unsubstantiated point, namely that a group of editors want to keep this article because they have an imagined axe to grind when it comes to Israel. --Leifern (talk) 10:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus is complex. What is wrong with providing similar articles that the community has already provided input on and using that towards making a consensus?  This is realy not that big a deal, but you are making it to be one.  Please make every effort to make your discussion about the topic at hand as you yourself just engaged in ad hominem arguments.   Chris  lk02  Chris Kreider 18:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * An ad hominem attack is an attempt at discrediting an argument A by asserting things about the person who is making argument A that aren't relevant to the argument itself. CJCurrie and ChrisO have made it explicit that they think editors should decide how to vote based on not only past votes, but also past and unsubstantiated allegations against me and others. To point out a fallacy in an argument is not to commit a fallacy. So I did not commit an ad hominem attack. --Leifern (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * According to ourselves an Ad hominem argument, "consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim." ALl you have done is attack Chris O and CJCurrie without providing evidence for any of your assertions.  They may or may not have done that but based on your statement, we cannot assertain if what you say is true or not.  Your comment attacks the editors and does not address the article itself.  As far as I am concerned, that is an Ad hominem argument.   Chris  lk02  Chris Kreider 18:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To specify, when I mention assertions, I am referencing such statements such as, "CJCurrie and ChrisO have already made it clear that at least part of their argument is based an ad hominem and unsubstantiated point." Did they come out and say this?  This is your interpretation (which I interpret as an attack on them and not related to the discussion at hand).  Chris  lk02  Chris Kreider 18:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read the arguments before passing judgment. I'll repeat myself: Please read the argument before passing judgment. What brought me to this AFD to begin with is that my name was mentioned in the context of a long dead (and good riddance) arbcom case last year; where one proposed but rejected finding of fact accused me of a thoughtcrime. If you read what ChrisO and CJCurrie (and others) are arguing, it's that I and others want to save this article because we have concerns about the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article. I haven't been near that article in a long time. I believe several AFDs have passed without my even voicing an opinion. I have no opinion about CJCurrie or ChrisO's personal attributes. I only care about their arguments. It is not a fallacy to attack a fallacy. --Leifern (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am going to drop it after this as we are just going around in circles and at this point it is a trivial distinction. The article states, "by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim."  You are attacking their beliefs.  This is an ad hominem attack.  It does not negate or make what they are doing right, but that fact that your assertion revolves around naming them supports this as well. Chris  lk02  Chris Kreider 19:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Observation from an uninvolved user
If this AFD is closed as anything other than 'no consensus', it should be taken straight to deletion review. I've just read through it after being invited to comment by ChrisO, and while I actually have no opinion on the article myself, I can safely say I don't think I've ever seen a more blatant example of 'no consensus'. Terraxos (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote count. If it were, you'd be correct, but it's not. This is one of the most clear "merge" or "delete" candidates I've ever seen. It's a playground for POV-pushing, and basically a listdump of any time the word "apartheid" is mentioned anywhere. S. Dean Jameson 00:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's now been closed, and the closing admin agrees with you - and gives a very good argument why, despite the appearance of 'no consensus', this is really a candidate for deletion. I'm convinced by his argument, and retract my comments above. Terraxos (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)