Deletion of Jews and Communism (2nd nomination)

Comment: anti-semitic . There is no causality between Jews and Communism, therefore the whole basis of the article being founded on blatant . The article is no more than a list of communists who were racially jews, but underlines a  "connection" between jews and communism
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:SYNTH||WP:FRINGE)

Comment: basically I agree that (sorry to be lazy and copypaste TFD's words but it's put plainly and clearly)  'The article fails notability because no books or articles have been written about the topic.   Of course there are various articles about Jews and Communism in different countries at different times, for example Jews under Communism in Stalin's Soviet Union or Communist Jews in the United States between the two world wars.  But nothing links them, making the article implicit |"synthesis
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: Wikipedia is not designed for |propaganda purposes, particularly when the propaganda is a non-notable, anti-Semitic rant plagiarized from the hate wiki Metapedia. The article, as it currently stands, needs to go. As for recreation, I am extremely hesitant as this does not appear to be notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PLUG)

Comment: because ''even'' User {{User|Director}} says so https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=607905535&oldid=607905394, after all the  behavior with such formidable implementation of reckless, self-defeating and self-destructive  behavior that has not helped WP or anyone else for that matter. Thank you
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ownership of content (WP:OWN||WP:BATTLEGROUND)

Comment: I guess I can can more or less repeat what I said last time round and/or what others have said above: the page leaves an unpleasant impression. That's not enough to kill it, but the fact is that it seems focused on proving a link and constructing an argument by stringing together examples that are claimed to be part of the topic. Prima facie, that is  or, more precisely, . I'm not sure that such "relationship" and "comparison" pages, whose titles usually consists of two genuine topics connected with the word "and", are ever of much value or can ever escape from being caught up in WP rules against original research. Yes, this topic is arguably one of legitimate and fleetingly recorded academic enquiry, but you can pretty much find sources for any such juxtaposition if you look hard enough. In this specific case, we have the bonus flaw that even if the intention is not anti-Semitic, the result invariably comes across that way
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYNTH)