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 of the debate was closed (per consensus) due to ridiculous speed of renomination. Come back in about a week. And please do not re-open this one, either now or "then", we will start afresh once more. If you wish to contest my closing, please use the talk page. Thank you. Garrett^Talk 01:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think a week is far too soon to renominate. Given the lack of consensus, at least one month should pass before thinking about another VfD. Give the article some time to improve (or time for editors to decide it should be deleted). Carbonite | Talk 02:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Fork of Persecution of non-Muslims to avoid get around VFD of that article.
• Author of the article is pushing an anti-Islam POV on numerous articles. ~~~~ 07:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC) User:-Ril-[reply]
• The prior VFD (before the article was moved) did not reach a consensus as to what should occur. ~~~~ 18:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The previous delete vote had a clear majority for keeping. Ril does not seem to respect Wikipedia procedures. I will add the arguments from that section.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 10:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This article is neutral, as manifested by the lack of POV complaints. --Germen is not the only contributor to this article. When persecution of muslims is a legitimate article, why Religious persecution by muslims is not? Note that no objective reasons have been stated to delete this article. All attempts seem to focus on my supposed bad faith. --Germen 12:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: I have added a discussion[1]. --Germen 13:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: This VfD seems to be an attempt to support the RfC [2] complaint against me: one of the charges which are levelled against me is the "spurious" creation of articles. Note that it is not Wikipedia policy to forbid the creation of articles and that this article describes a real-world and proven phenomenon. Note that the one who sponsors the VfD (Ril) support a delete vote just for one reason: the supposed bad-faith of undersigned. The propable reason is my supposed anti-islam bias. --Germen 08:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please add here only general remarks --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 13

52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete ~~~~ 18:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Best handled under "persecution of" articles.--DNicholls 18:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't that be a "merge" vote, not a "delete" vote (since the history of anything taken out of this article would need to be preserved)? Guettarda 19:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be an awkward merge vote, seeing as it would have to merge with at least four articles (persecution of Jews, Christians, pagans, and Islam and other religions), don't you think? I would be in favor of making this a dab with links to the various articles, but as for the content of it, I don't know how much needs to be merged with said articles, since the stated topic of the article is historical persecution, and the other mentioned articles don't seem to be exceptionally lacking in that regard.--DNicholls 23:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The previous VfD was closed all of one day ago. What reason is there to suspect that a consensus will have developed since then? Are you going to VfD Historical persecution by Jews and Historical persecution by Christians too? --Michael Snow 18:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't VFD them in the first place, as someone else did that instead. So it wouldn't be right for me to be the one to re-open their VFDs. ~~~~ 19:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you think they should be treated differently or the same? I notice that you didn't answer my first question. --Michael Snow 19:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, Historical persecution by Christians was a consensus keep, so the VFD couldn't be reopened for at least 6 months. ~~~~ 08:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also like to know why this was nominated so soon after the closing of the previous VfD. Everyone has different opinions on what length of time is sufficient before re-nominating an article for VfD, but "one day" seems absurd. Carbonite | Talk 19:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, because nothing substantial has happened in the, oh, 24 hours since this was last discussed. Let it sit for a month, and you still think it doesn't deserve an article, then re-nominate it. In the meantime, why not work to eliminate the POV with brilliant prose?
  • unsigned by unknown user ~~~~ 08:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep, this article was just kept by Vfd on July 28th. No need to renominate it so quickly.Gateman1997 23:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --Viriditas | Talk 00:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. El_C 01:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC) Wait, I'm not sure what's happening here. El_C 01:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "Persecution by" makes as much sense as "persecution of," and the two can coexist well. Obviously, should be limited to religious persecution. POV problems, which this article will obviously attract, can be worked out in the normal fashion. Aside from this, however, it's simply foolish to renominate so quickly -- the implication is that the nominator is not trying to resolve the issue through discussion, but to keep voting until the desired result emerges, whether by a lenient closing admin, a few of the previous keep voters being on vacation this week, or what have you. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:00, 2005 July 30 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. This article has already been retained after a lengthy debate, in which there was a clear majority to keep it. The Wikipedia system should not be polluted by this kind of spurious delete votes.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 09:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The previous delete vote had a clear majority for keeping. Ril does not seem to respect Wikipedia procedures. I will add the arguments from that section.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 10:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the previous VFD had the result "no consensus" it clearly states this in the archive. The exact results of the previous VFD was delete - 23 (43%), keep - 28 (53%), merge - 2 (4%) 10% is NOT a consensus margin. Wikipedia usually requires a margin of 40%, and at least 33%. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 13:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is neutral, as manifested by the lack of POV complaints. --Germen is not the only contributor to this article. When persecution of muslims is a legitimate article, why Religious persecution by muslims is not? Note that no objective reasons have been stated to delete this article. All attempts seem to focus on my supposed bad faith. --Germen 12:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I have added a discussion[3]. --Germen 13:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The link you provide results in a bad page error ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 13:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: This VfD seems to be an attempt to support the RfC [4] complaint against me: one of the charges which are levelled against me is the "spurious" creation of articles. Note that it is not Wikipedia policy to forbid the creation of articles and that this article describes a real-world and proven phenomenon. Note that the one who sponsors the VfD (Ril) support a delete vote just for one reason: the supposed bad-faith of undersigned. The propable reason is my supposed anti-islam bias. --Germen 08:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, this VFD is a result of the inappropriateness of the article. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 13:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per Germen. Dunc|☺ 10:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep for already stated reasons. See Germen. --Mario 11:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep already decided in VfD Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Religious_persecution_by_Muslims --Zeno of Elea 11:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The exact results of the previous VFD were delete - 23 (43%), keep - 28 (53%), merge - 2 (4%) 10% is NOT a consensus margin. Wikipedia usually requires a margin of 40%, and at least 33%. The previous VFD did not result in a decision. That would have required a consensus. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 13:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep and kick the ass of the person who nominated this. You don't get to keep re-nominating stuff until you get the result you want. --malathion ^talk 11:49, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but you do get to keep re-nominanting stuff until a consensus is reached as to what to do with it (which is why GNAA had 6 VFDs - see Wikipedia:10 GNAA VfD nominations pool). ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 13:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia policy is KEEP, unless there is consensus to delete. Wikipedia:VfD--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 13:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but requires a better title.--Maustrauser 13:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Renomination after non consensus a mere 24 hours aftewards is a breach of the rules of engagment and an abuse of wikifunctions.--Tznkai 14:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per Germen. I also echo the concerns of those who note the inpropriety of re-VfD-ing an article this quickly. --EMS | Talk 18:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep as per Germen and others. William M. Connolley 18:53:35, 2005-07-30 (UTC).
• Speedy González keep and delist from VfD. This nomination is completely unfounded. —RaD Man (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, obviously, as per my last vote 48 hours ago. Shem^(talk) 20:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Nomination obviously in bad faith. Almafeta 21:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Close VfD - I voted delete but make into articles about more specific groups so it didn't generalize before -- but there was no concensus for delete and I think a new VfD could be in order but not after 48 hours. -- So I don't want to vote on this article but I want to vote that this VfD is far too soon to be allowed gren グレン

• Speedy Keep and Close VFD It's not right to nominate articles this quickly.Heraclius 22:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and Close VFD did we get this wrong the last time?--ClemMcGann 22:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per Germen. Please don't waste VfD's time with childish disputes. Volatile 23:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Close this VfD. ElBenevolente 00:37, 31 July 2005 (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.