Deletion of Gatekeeper (politics)

Comment: The "attack" wasn't a personal one if it was merely pointing out likely or potential vote-stacking.  If there is evidence that a certain group of people is vote-stacking in similar Afds, it's actually more relevant to this discussion, not less.  Asking someone to vote in an Afd is, as far as I know, not against Wikipedia policy, even if you know how they will vote beforehand.  It is, however, a relevant consideration for a sysop that is attempting to determine consensus in an Afd vote, consensus being a muddy concept (as it should be, imo). Please remember to Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith and interact ivility|civilly
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C)

Comment: Do you mean you or those sites will attack WP as a gatekeeper, or me?  I hope that isn't what that means (WP has plenty of scandalous stuff about Bush, anyway).  The Gatekeepers article is simply not neutral from the first part of the first sentence: "In political parlance, a gatekeeper or left gatekeeper" - right there: "political parlance"?  Broad use by politicians or political scientists?  'Fraid not. One of the other problems I failed to mention was the lengthy list of alleged gatekeepers. I don't know if there's a specific policy on allegations on WP (there's no lists of alleged homosexuals or people alleged by David Icke to be reptilian humanoids for example, though some pages do mention allegations), but List of people described as neoconservatives got Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_people_described_as_neoconservatives|deleted (see AfD) for similar reasons.  The Gatekeepers article simply uncritically reproduces a list of allegations from a nn site #Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links.2C images.2C or media files|WP is not a mirror (in its original conception it collated allegations from several nn sites).  The article's primary author () invited criticism to be added, but this theory seems to be so nn that apparently none of the major right, center, or left media has commented on it in the US or abroad
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:OWN)

Comment: The good faith/civility comment was meant to be a reminder for everyone here.  Regarding whether the information about potential vote stacking violates , well, "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary."  I.e., if there is evidence of potential vote stacking, an editor can and should point out the evidence.  Here, there is at least some evidence of vote stacking (though the nature and weight of the evidence will be for the sysop who goes through this Afd to determine), thus it was appropriate, in my judgment, for Jersey to point to the evidence despite AGF.  I hope this makes sense, forgive me for being somewhat long-winded.  Cheers
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)

Comment: violates 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)