Deletion of Jewish subversion

Comment: mdash; Well obviously, it is a topic related to antisemitism. I can see by now, that is the sole reason you want it deleted. Again, . If you feel it isn't Encyclopaedic enough, edit it to a higher quality. &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTCENSORED)

Comment: As you seem to like citing that one rule, I'd like to point out what it actually says: "While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, or content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy can be removed, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the articles about the penis and pornography) and '''do not violate any of our existing policies (especially neutral point of view)'''..." (emphasis mine). This is not a question of censorship. The article appears to be anti-semitic in nature which violates 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: If it's a lie, why are you so afraid to have an article about it? Isn't it better that we have an article where it explains all these allegations, and perhaps, even refute them as being false? Also, it's you who should prove that it's a hoax. You can do that by editing the article with credible sources. If you want it deleted because you consider it a hoax, then I'm afraid, you're giving the impression that this accusation of subversion is so genuine that you want to censor it on Wikipdia. In any case, it's not a violation of , it may be a false accusation, but regardless of that, it has an important historical significance in the history of the Jewish people. Your ancestors have been killed because of ''Jewish subversion''. You want to ignore this? &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes (WP:HOAX)

Comment: I never called you an anti-semite. I said that the "article appears to be anti-semitic in nature." But it's interesting that you jumped to that conclusion, which is just as interesting as you pointing out that another editor is Jewish, and that is why "he wants it deleted." Cries of censorship, persecution and pointing out irrelevant information about someone's identity are odd ways to reach consensus (reminds me of certain groups, but I digress). By the way, my comment above pointed out that ''is'' allowed as a reason for deletion (i.e. it does not say that we can't use it, as you have claimed). As for "it's here to stay, whether you like it or not" and "I always engage myself in AfD debates when articles I've created and worked on, are listed for deletion": you may want to check out . The fact remains, many of us feel the article is not worth keeping. That is our opinion. You can continue to obsessively watch this page and reply to ''everyone'' who disagrees with you, but I will move on. My opinion is here for the record. Have a nice day
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:OWN)

Comment: The title is beside the point, that is what this is called. If your concern is NPOV, that is no reason to delete this article. Because if your reason to delete this article is NPOV concern, then you are not neutral yourself since your POV is clearly showing. You think this is an uncomfortable topic, and again, I'll have to remind you, |Wikipedia isn't censored. What you're implying, is that you want to delete this article because you don't like the title of it. That is censorship. Case in point: your delete vote is not valid and shouldn't count. &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CENSOR)

Comment: mdash; As I said, this AfD debate is an abuse of AfD nomination. Read this: /FAQ#Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete. Fact remains: this topic is discussed in academic literature about antisemitism, it's here to stay, whether you like it or not. &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: with respect to you perhaps the article should be renamed and refocused to say: ''Subversion Of The Jewish People Over The Years''. By the way this looks like anvas http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scope_creep&diff=168349391&oldid=168332878
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C)

Comment: the direction of the article violates  and is beyond salvageability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Nowhere does it say you ''cannot'' use  as a reason for deletion. The section you cite ends with: "Material that violates  should be removed." There are serious questions of |verifiability here. If that is not established, then  applies. The sources cited merely add supposed references to what appears to be original research. In order to save this article, we would need to gut it and start again. Is there any point to that? Others have suggested a merge and that is a sound compromise, and that is exactly what we are here for, reaching consensus. Please do not jump the gun on whether or not the article is "here to stay". The necessary gutting of this apparent bit of original research would likely lead to an edit war: not a reason in itself to delete, but more than enough reason to be cautious and consider at the very least a merge.  —Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:NOR||WP:V||WP:NOR)

Comment: I'm not trying to  anything. I added the {{expert}} tag, did I not? I added it because I wanted help with the article from people who are more familiar with the topic than I am. &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ownership of content (WP:OWN)

Comment: Currently the article is nothing more than a list of the times this phrase was used by anti-semites. This in no way shape or form implies that the term is notable in and of itself; it is an example of an association fallacy. Just because more than one anti-semite uses this term does not mean that it means the same thing to them or anyone else. To suggest that these people all had the same intent and idea in mind is |original research, albeit possbibly implied, on the part of the article's author. At this point I see no way for this article to be salvaged from its obvious point-of-view biases, original research violations, essay-likeness, and lack of context. Should an article about the phenomenon of the use of the allegation that Jews, as a whole, are considered by anti-Semites of all types, religions, and eras, to constantly be involved in the subversion of whatever government and country that they happen to reside, then I could consider having this listed in "AntiSemitic Canards" with perhaps its own, properly sourced and impartially written article. This article does no such thing and is thus unworthy of wikipedia on its own merits
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: It sounds to me as though you might consider  in your remarks about the nominator of this AfD. By the way this so called article that you are so ardently supporting is a total of 3 paragraphs of various biased points of view from Hitler to Henry Ford, this is '''not''' Censorship, your argument sounds a little too much like , and YES it's a duck, and I think you can understand that
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No personal attacks (WP:NPA||WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: mdash; It's not a |personal attack. I'm simply pointing out the obvious. And neither is it , I always engage myself in AfD debates when articles I've created and worked on, are listed for deletion. I believe the reasons given here to delete the article, lack a valid, and most of all, neutral, reason. &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No personal attacks (WP:NPA||WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: Nowhere does it say you cannot use WP:NPOV as a reason for deletion.'' &mdash; But that is what the AfD nominator did. This entire AfD debate, should on that basis, be disqualified since it wasn't a valid reason to AfD it in the first place. If the AfD nomination had been something like, "article has no encyclopaedic notability", that would have been a valid reason to discuss if it's notable and if it should be deleted. But, the truth is, the AfD nomination is for one reason only: the nominator is Jewish, he doesn't like the article because it bothers him, hence, he wants it deleted. I'm sorry, but that in itself, is not neutral. If you think this article suffers from |Original Research, then you add an {{OR}} tag on it, discuss on the article's talk page, and from there, we reach consensus, compromise, and fix the article to an NPOV, free from Original Research, revision. This entire AfD debate should be closed without any deletion, because it's not a valid procedure in accordance with Wikipedia policy. It's so obvious that there are users here, far from being neutral on the subject, who want this article deleted for the sole reason that it bothers them, they feel offended by the controversial nature of the article; that's why they want to delete it. That is what we reasonable people call, '''Censorship'''. And don't even start with the "you're an antisemite" ad hominems. Personal attacks will get you nowhere. &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Benjiboi is right. This entire AfD nomination, has no support in Wikipedia policy: #REASON &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DEL)