Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist terrorism (3rd 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 no consensus.

Rationale
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I am discounting the opinions that do not address the possible policy-based reason for deletion of this article, which is original research by synthesis because of an alleged lack of sources covering the topic "Communist terrorism" as distinct of other forms of left-wing terrorism. Because of the loaded and complicated nature of this AfD, I am more stringently than otherwise excluding any type of "votes", including WP:PERNOM comments, and am counting ony arguments that reflect a certain degree of individual engagement with the policy-based rationale raised in the nomination, and especially with the sources at issue.

This means that I disregard the following opinions in this discussion for the purpose of determining whether there is a policy-based, informed consensus to delete this article:

  1. Slatersteven (WP:PERNOM)
  2. JzG (superficial comment)
  3. Collect (WP:GHITS, WP:NOTAGAIN)
  4. The Four Deuces (bare assertion that "No sources exist" when many are at least cited)
  5. The Bushranger (assumes it's WP:JUSTAVOTE)
  6. Sander Säde (WP:GHITS, the one cited source appears to be of questionable relevance)
  7. Greyhood (does not address sources)
  8. Off2riorob (WP:JUSTAVOTE)
  9. Sayerslle (does not address sources, incoherent comments)
  10. Snowded (does not address sources)
  11. Mamalujo (uncollegial attitude, largely a rant against others)
  12. Biophys (discusses the article title, which is not the subject of this discussion)
  13. Medeis (no policy-based argument)
  14. Bishonen (does not address sources)
  15. Shakehandsman (no policy-based argument)
  16. Lothar von Richthofen ("per X")
  17. Griswaldo (does not address sources)
  18. Zloyvolsheb (does not address sources, WP:BLP violation in their comment)
  19. BigK HeX (does not address sources)
  20. Epeefleche (relevant comment is "Notability amply demonstrated by the sources", but notability is not the problem being discussed)
  21. Dojarca (does not address sources)
  22. FormerIP ("Apparently no sources" does not reflect an individual engagement with the various proposed sources)
  23. Schrandit ("There are plenty of sources" does not reflect an individual engagement with the various proposed sources, plus WP:NOTAGAIN)

Only ten opinions address the relevant question of policy and the sources at issue in what I think is at least adequate depth, and they are equally divided:

Keep
  1. Volunteer Marek
  2. Thparkth
  3. Biruitorul
  4. Munci
  5. Silver seren
Delete
  1. Joshua P. Schroeder (nominator)
  2. Ludwigs2
  3. AndyTheGrump
  4. Petri Krohn
  5. Mathsci

This leaves us with no consensus to delete this article.

Editorial consensus will need to be sought in order to determine how to proceed with this article. Editors should request administrative intervention if this process continues to be disrupted by edit-warring. In particular, I am mindful to block any editor who, from now on, makes a revert from the "long" version to the "short" version of the article, or vice versa, that is not their first such revert. This also applies to editors who have already made one or more such reverts. I do not want to lock the article in any of these versions, but the edit-warring needs to stop.  Sandstein  09:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]