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 keep. The problems with this article have been largely resolved by trimming out the BLP-violating content. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign Against Antisemitism[edit]

Campaign Against Antisemitism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject is non-notable. While there are a lot of sources, these are mainly sources about the area in which this organisation works, quoting a spokesperson from the organisation among other interviewees, and do not offer WP:SIGCOV of the organisation itself. The WP:ORG standard is not met (esp WP:ORGCRIT) and the WP:GNG neither. Amisom (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (creator) WP:GNG clearly passed with numerous mentions. Sources like [1] [2] have depth, so WP:ORGDEPTH satisfied. Clearly there's promotionalism that's happened since I created this, but I've flagged it for overuse of primaries etc, but that's irrelevant for notability per WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. Widefox; talk 21:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on nom User:Amisom considering this obviously meets GNG in contradiction to the nom, has WP:BEFORE even been done? Else why isn't this disruption? Widefox; talk 21:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because we disagree about whether or not the article meets GNG doesn’t mean I’m being disruptive. Duh. Amisom (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amisom No, GNG is a red herring as nobody will agree with you on that (duh yourself). You didn't answer if you took any steps in BEFORE? The nom is weak as you didn't do WP:BEFORE D: "prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, please be sure to:"... "D: Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability". Took me a minute to find multiple RS. My concern is you're attempting to delete this and a list on a related topic with weak arguments against consensus, with warnings for edit warring. It's disruption. Widefox; talk 12:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At least one other commenter has so far agreed with me that the article is non-notable and should be deleted. Please stop accusing everyone you disagree with of bad things. Perhaps you might also think about not dragging other editing disputes (where I notice you haven’t bothered to engage in the discussion) here too. Amisom (talk) 13:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One (who hasn't replied since their argument was directly refuted). Since then the article was rewritten with multiple secondary sources. As I predicted, nobody yet has agreed about GNG. I'm only accusing one editor of failing to do BEFORE on this and other AfDs (which are closed Keep, or Snow Keep). Widefox; talk 23:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They don’t have to reply to you, you know. This isn’t a courtroom. Perhaps they’d had enough of your aggression. Amisom (talk) 06:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(incivility ignored). Widefox; talk 09:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn’t sound like you did. Amisom (talk) 10:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article do not fail per WP:GNG, keep and resolve the issues with primary sources. Shellwood (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:ORGCRITE and WP:ORGDEPTH. Has not received significant, in-depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. AusLondonder (talk) 07:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nom clearly hasn't done WP:BEFORE, there's a substantial number of sources [3] ,[4] , comprehensive article about the org [5] (powerbase is used as a ref in WP, although its status isn't clear is clear to me as WP:UGC/wiki - not an RS) (these are gathered at [6]) [7], [8] , [9]

So there's "subject of significant coverage in secondary sources" WP:ORGCRITE: yes, GNG passed: yes. Widefox; talk 12:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure that answering back at those who don’t agree with you is helpful. Just let the consensus form. Amisom (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amisom Please familiarise yourself with WP:AFD "...directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. You can search out reliable sources, and refute the deletion arguments given using policy, guidelines, and examples..." .  Done "If the reasons given in the deletion nomination are later addressed by editing,..."  Done "...the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator, ... If the nominator fails to do it ..." Widefox; talk 00:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop addressing me. Amisom (talk) 06:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If Amison's AfD request was intended for damage-limitation purposes, blocking him will have nipped that straight in the bud. Clearly the article lacks neutrality. Likewise, edits to another WP article in which my name is featured, Quenelle (gesture), also appear to be motivated by the possibility of a threat of legal action. Furthermore, the fact that my notability allows for such edits to take place on two separate articles, yet would not, apparently, be appropriate for my own WP:BLP (perhaps also because of legal issues) raises concerns regards the supposed neutrality of the encyclopaedia when it comes to certain topics. Keeping the article shines a light fully on these matters and, considering records of all edits have been safely stored, deleting would not achieve much. Alison Chabloz (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC) — Alison Chabloz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I'm trying to figure out what you are trying to argue but I find it very difficult. In the meantime, I have removed the Chabloz-section from the quenelle article; see edit summary. Drmies (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Forgive me if I am responding incorrectly. I set up an account today, am quite new here and feel that the 'single-purpose account' tag is therefore unnecessary, if not downright unfair. In its previous revision, the Quenelle article section about me is far less tendentious than the section in the CAA article. Such a paragraph would never be permitted in a WP:BLP. As for notability, is it significant that my name is good for mention here, whereas Jeremy Bedford-Turner's is not? Might not there be a WP:COI in the way some editors - and as you rightly state in your Quenelle article edit - merely repeat what has already been reported in the mainstream media? Nevertheless, to cite lack of notability regards the only artist in modern history to have been locked up for singing satirical songs would suggest that the role of the encyclopaedia is, in my very particular case, to dissimulate rather than inform. Shame. As another editor stated, the CAA section concerning me goes beyond the remit of any such article. Both cases of litigation cited are ongoing and the UK Crown's chief witnesses are all involved with CAA. I hope this helps to clarify my earlier comment. Alison Chabloz (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are valid reliable sources in the article WP:GNG is meet. Also searches show there would be more sources not yet used  — Ammarpad (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• BLP applies everywhere in Wikipedia. It applies not only to all articles, even those not primarily about a person, but all talk pages and WP space pages. The section on the individual mentioned above is a gross BLP violation, andhas been deleted. According to policy, it may not be restored with discussion and consensus. I am amazed it was ever added; I am puzzled it was not noticed sooner. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DGG: On the talk, I've already templated it BLP other, and listed the most obvious WP:SPA & WP:COI editor. Widefox; talk 11:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.