Deletion of Administrator abuse on Wikipedia

Comment: to Criticism of Wikipedia. There's no way this could be considered notable enough in scholarly and media sources to be able to stand alone, and I'm concerned that there's some  issues in the creation of it as well. If we get a large number of sources that are specifically referring to "administrator abuse on Wikipedia" as a specific topic, then maybe it'd be worth an article. Right now, the sources are a laundry list of negative material about administrators and decisions that were interpreted by someone or another as being abusive, incorrect, etc
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: per blatant , attempting to spin old outdated sources and op-ed pieces in an attempt to push a particular POV
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: per  and  --Special:Contributions/82.7.40.7|82.7.40.7
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: WP:POINTy  page which is a clear  and is born out of an RfC on an admin that has not gone their way. I am not an admin, but I do try to abuse them regularly
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attack page (WP:ATTACK||WP:POVFORK)

Comment: Do I really need a reason here? It's |Pointy and an |attack page by people who really should know better and seem to be wikilawyering all over the place ('The article should be restored to its status at the time the AN/I was opened' is especially absurd, thats not how things work and they've been around long enough to know this). The fact that its been taken to AfD rather then just being speedied and a  block handed down is baffling
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINTY||WP:ATTACK||WP:POINT)

Comment: How a page came to be created is not relevant (). But after careful review '''I cannot find evidence that this is notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ATA)

Comment: per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTCENSORED)

Comment: as a |pointy POV fork of Criticism of Wikipedia. Any allegations of "admin abuse" are POV by their very nature and any encyclopedic coverage of this material should be placed within an article with a more neutral subject (ie: Criticism of Wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: to Criticism of Wikipedia or '''rename''' to Criticism of Wikipedia administrators; title has got to go per .  Some of the content may be worthwhile, but the use of the loaded word abuse is clearly an NPOV violation
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: I'm concerned that the rationale for merger since it seems that the proponents have not actually read the article or the sources cited in it.  It is notable on its own for a stand alone article as the 12 or so cited sources indicate.  If there are sources that balance the article, include them.    says
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Merging (WP:MERGE)

Comment: This is an attack piece.  This is a POV fork and reduntant.  It also is in violation of |biographies of a living person.  This looks like sour grapes to me.  The editors used synthesis to come to the conclusions.  There is just so much wrong with this that I don't think there is anything worth merging.  Delete is the only way to go since this is written against a lot of policies, names editors who are or were administrators.  Thanks
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: This is almost exactly what I suggested with my !vote (and I am not an admin), though I later suggested also that Criticism of Wikipedia should itself be merged into Wikipedia as well, since an article simply for criticism is inherently negative and thus a violation of . This would be a matter of further discussion beyond the scope of this AfD though; for now, just merge into Criticism of Wikipedia and then a merge discussion can handle anything not directly related to this article). I would be interested in seeing if there would be any interest in the further merge I proposed however, though I realise it involves merging two very large articles
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: as . Probably the most supreme effort in navel-gazing I've seen outside of project space in my time here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: Per Antandrus, not to mention it's a violation of .  The creators also appear to have been blocked for disruption, and to that end, this article violates  as well
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:POINT)

Comment: notable, well sourced. Negative material is well sourced by v/rs. Concur that admins discussing this should disclose their status, as it is an apparent 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: As a secondary choice if consensus prefers – merge any useful non-BLP content into Criticism of Wikipedia as others have suggested, and has already been attempted.  It's an obvious |synthesis of cherry-picked sources to push a particular attack / wounded-vanity POV.  Allowing this article into the encyclopedia would be a sign we are taking ourselves too seriously, and exaggerating the importance of the "community" that writes this thing.  (That's a judgement for others ''outside'' to make, not us.)  Our internal politics, divisions, and squabbles aren't nearly as interesting or notable to the world as they are to the people who spend dozens of hours a week doing the squabbling
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)