Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jew-fro

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 of the debate was REDIRECT to Afro. Mass-sockpuppetry aside, there is still no outright consensus to delete here, with many preferring a redirect instead (though relying rather heavily on a previous AfD, when really this AfD is about...this AfD). Still, there is literally minimal support for the article to standalone, so I figure a redirect is likely to displease people the least. -Splash^talk 00:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was already a consensus to have the Jewfro article become a redirect to Afro, to which the contents of the article were merged into. During this process, I made a redirect Jew-fro to Afro. This was back on Janurary 15. However, the original creator of the article, after several failed attempts to erase the redirect on the main Jewfro page, has decided today that the old AFD ruling does not apply to Jew-fro (and only to Jewfro), and has recreated the Jewfro article in Jew-fro as it was before it was merged. I tried reasoning with him, but after facing intransigance and personal attacks on his part, decided to relist it here. Where ^(talk) 20:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Attention two warnings below- please read closely.
• *Note to closing administrator: this vote is tarnished by many sockpuppets of User:Whoermaster.

• Speedy redirect. Melchoir 20:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or delete, whichever makes the AfD easier to close. Melchoir 01:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per nom. Melchoir 05:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This should have its own article as should all other spellings of Jew-fro. MosheF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.38.113 (talk • contribs) Suspected sockpuppet of User:Whoermaster.

Keep. Relevant term, I say to keep. EricClapper No double voting. KI 20:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree with Moshe F...The link of Jewfro page should lead to Jewfro or vice-versa.---Whoermaster (talk · contribs)
• Speedy keep pov attempt at deleting a genuine term. KI 20:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For values of POV which include a valid AFD with consensus redirect, all encyclopaedic content covered at Afro. Just zis Guy you know? 01:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep there has been a conspiracy by some including sceptre and where to erase jewish concepts...i wonder if they are holocaust deniers as well...KEEP! jcohen (talk · contribs) Suspected sockpuppet of User:Whoermaster.
  • Using sockpuppets does not excuse you from WP:NPA. Please note that calling someone a holocaust denier is to many people highly offensive, particularly if they have relatives who died or went through the holocaust. It is not an effective method of discourse. Do not do this again with this or any of your other sockpuppets. JoshuaZ 00:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Please keep as I am familiar with this term as are many others who i know! MattyTheK (talk · contribs) Suspected sockpuppet of User:Whoermaster.
• Speedy keep Very relebent term! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dankotler (talk • contribs) Suspected sockpuppet of User:Whoermaster.
• Comment: I think many of the votes above are sockpuppets. Where ^(talk) 20:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: also note that currently, all the material in Jew-fro is in Afro because of the previous AFD. We don't want to be forking articles here. Where ^(talk) 20:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Assume Good Faith aside, I suspect most, if not all, of these speedy keeps are from the same person. In any case, they don't adress the nomination. I'm familiar with the term but that's not the issue. This hairstyle can be and is dealt with in Afro, and therefore doesn't need its own article. Redirect, and protect if this persists. --djrobgordon 20:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per previous consensus. No new arguments presented above. I think we're being hosed here... Just zis Guy you know? 20:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Where, so not only do u seem to have a problem with Jewish concepts, but now you have a problem with democratic procedures? I think we should change this site to "where-pedia" and then people would only print things that Where deems to be okay. Furthermore, if this information is in afro, then depending on the outcome of this vote we will either have to keep it in there or remove it:) .Perhaps they are "sockpuppets", but i don't think there is a way to prove that, so we will just have to rely on good faith. Sic Semper Tyrannis!!!
  • This is a cynical attempt to bypass Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewfro, and I don't have to prove anything to see what's going on here. Melchoir 20:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is in fact not a democracy. See the relevant rules on WP:AFD and WP:NOT. Also for more data about how sockpuppets are generally treated, see WP:SOCK. Furthermore, saying "Sic Semper Tyrannis" may constitute a threat, which if it is intended as such, can get your banned. Between that and your other sock making comments about holocaust denial, you are on very thing ice. Please desist. JoshuaZ 01:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just as Afro has its own page, so should Jew-fro/Jewfro, and the content on the Afro article pertaining to this, should just be transferred to the Jewfro page(s). Thanks. CobraCommander (talk · contribs) Suspected sockpuppet of User:Whoermaster.
• Comment Some may believe there are sockpuppets, and this may be so, but i believe it is just validation of Jewfro's deserving of an article here. CobraCommander (talk · contribs) Suspected sockpuppet of User:Whoermaster.
  • FYI, people with checkuser status can detect whether they are sockpuppets are not. Where ^(talk) 21:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy redirect. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy redirect as above.  RasputinAXP  c 21:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well known phrase,— Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielSON (talk • contribs) 22:03, March 4, 2006 Suspected sockpuppet of User:Whoermaster.
  • User's sole edit, suspected sock. Just zis Guy you know? 01:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and add redirect page for the term the hairstyle was described as in the 1970s, the Hebro (no joke). Monicasdude 22:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I voted keep last time and still believe that the article works fine on its own. Of course, I wrote most of it so maybe I'm biased. Nevertheless, sticking it in the middle of Afro essentially does a disservice to both articles. On a side note, I'm somewhat bemused by the ardent calls to respect the previous AfD outcome. Considering how freqently articles are nominated and renominated, sometimes three or four times, sometimes in the same week, until they are eventually deleted, at which point they become speedily deletable as recreations of previously deleted material, the editors who have waited some months to recreate Jewfro have shown significant restraint. -- JJay 22:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But is this the place to withdraw a previous AFD decision? If this is a keep, then we will have Jewfro mentioned in two different articles. The old AFD is currently under deletion review; perhaps you should consider listing your objections there. Where ^(talk) 22:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Almost all the jew-fro content was merged into Afro. It could just be demerged. Also an AfD closed as merge or even keep is not binding. I spend a lot of time fighting with editors who try to redirect articles that are closed as Keep or no consensus. There is unfortunately very little respect for the rules here. -- JJay 22:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have heard no argument that this article is any different from the version that was merged per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewfro. I see no new evidence nor claims of violated process. We shouldn't even be here. Melchoir 01:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree we shouldn't be here, but could you explain what you mean by new evidence? Also, why do you feel this article works better buried within Afro? Maybe I missed it, but I can't find where on this page you have provided reasons for your "vote". It would be nice if people made an attempt to explain their reasoning rather than voting "delete" or "redirect" without comment-- JJay 10:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's the principle of the thing; AfD is not a game won by the side with the most continues. And I will be happy to explain my original vote above. Melchoir 05:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that Jewfro should have its own article, and I voted that way in the original AFD. But that AFD is closed, and this isn't the place to try and resurrect it - deletion review is. Even so, I must reluctantly admit that no new arguments have emerged that makes it necessary to reconsider it. Where ^(talk) 14:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Considering that you nominated the article for deletion, hence reopening the previous AfD, I don't see why we can't discuss the article. It would be nice if people provided reasons why they think this should be merged into afro. Also, as I have stated already, deletion review is not the place to discuss this. For proof, see the discussion concerning this article that is now going on there, where everyone is voting to "keep deleted" an article that was not deleted. -- JJay 14:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Though when I had friends with this hairstyle back in the seventies, we called is an "Isro". I know, that's bad. Fan1967 22:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy redirect to Afro, where the topic is already covered. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 23:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Perfectly well addressed in Afro. Speedy Delete CSD G4 if truly a copy of previously deleted material. I wonder if "isro" should have a disambig page, rather than going to Indian Space Research Organisation. Schizombie 23:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've seen snd heard Jewfro in many sources, both Judaic and secular. I don't think it should be relegated to just a "blurb" in the afro article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.155.32 (talk • contribs) 00:03, March 5, 2006 Suspected sockpuppet of User:Whoermaster.
  • This vote is the user's only contribution. Where ^(talk) 00:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While I slightly disagree with the previous AfD, this matter is settled. If they want to contest the previous deletion they are more than welcome to do through the appropriate process. However, it is completely unacceptable to simply add a hyphen and argue that the article is somehow different. This seems to be the sort of behavior that would be covered under WP:DICK. JoshuaZ 00:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing to contest because nothing was deleted. -- JJay 01:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand. What do you mean? JoshuaZ 01:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC) Ah, I see. You mean that it was merged rather than deleted. Thats still contestable. JoshuaZ 01:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really. It's not a binding close. Anyone can undo it. -- JJay 01:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the clarification. JoshuaZ 01:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Anyone can undo page deletion too if they have the article text. That doesn't mean that going against those AFD's can just be done on a whim without going through Deletion Review. Where ^(talk) 01:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The bottom line is that AfDs are really only closed as keep or delete. A close as merge or redirect is in fact equal to keep. I can point you to many Afds that were closed as merge where editors at the target refused the merge and so it was not carried out. I could also point you to many Afds closed as Keep where editors who had voted delete immediately redirected the article. That is actually extremely frequent. Your point about page deletion is not correct. Recreation of previously deleted material can be speedied. Hence, it requires DRV. However, there is nothing to review regarding the close of the previous Jewfro Afd since the material was not deleted. -- JJay 01:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Whatever the correct rules are, this behavior still seems to be dicky. JoshuaZ 01:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's the best summary so far. Melchoir 01:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Look, I respect the AfD closes and I'm not trying to justify the actions of individual editors. I'm just saying that there are masses of editors who do not adhere to what is "decided" on AfD. This case does not seem very unusual. -- JJay 01:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wow, i am really flattered that i am so hated that i am suspected of having all these sockpuppets...Hate to say it, but they aren't sopckpuppets, as these are all people with their own accounts and who voted on their own velition...It is unfoprtunate that these people and mayself have signed up for accounts and participated in furthering WP, only to be treated so callously by a select group of individuals...For shame!---user:whoermaster
  • Stop deleting others' comments. Melchoir 05:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC) Suspected sockpuppet of User:Where.[reply]
  • whoermaster, Melchoir and Where are very obviously not sockpuppets. Trying to smear them as revenge for your sockpuppets being pointed out is juvenile and violates WP:NPA. Stop. JoshuaZ 05:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody hates you. People do hate end-runs around consensus, gaming the system and emptying the contents of the sock drawer to try and astroturf your agenda. I note from my Talk page that you assert some of tese are meatpuppets not sockpuppets. Read WP:SOCK - neither is acceptable. Just zis Guy you know? 09:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JoshuaZ. Fagstein 09:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It's always the most unlikely things that end up being the most controversial on WP:AFD, somehow. Who knew! — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Redirect per AfD on Jewfro and concurring comments above. youngamerican (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, and maybe a protected redirect at that, if it's within policy to do so. -Colin Kimbrell 19:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unsourced neologism. Failing that, return it to its status as a redirect. Rossami (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as above. - Hahnchen 02:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because of prior AfD consensus, non-encyclopedic dicdef, arguments of Melchoir above. Support redirect to Afro after deletion. Added afdnewbies template to this page out of sheer annoyance with sockpuppetry. -ikkyu2 (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please explain what you mean by "non-encyclopedic dicdef". If that was true, why do you support a merge? Why is jewfro "non-encyclopedic", but Afro is encyclopedic? -- JJay 10:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afro describes a hairstyle and its existence in popular culture. Jewfro is "an Afro worn by a Jew" which is a dicdef. Or so it seems to me, anyway. Just zis Guy you know? 13:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am pleased to clarify. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. That's not my idea, but it's a long-established and repeatedly-affirmed Wikipedia policy. Consensus at prior AfD was that there was nothing to say about a Jew-fro other than to dictionary-define it as "an Afro worn by a Jew." Such Afros are covered already in that article, so the consensus is to redirect inquiries about Jew-fro to Afro. I happen to agree with the prior AfD consensus, but that's actually beside the point; the consensus was strong and in alignment with Wikipedia policy and no new data has come up to controvert it. -ikkyu2 (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a somewhat idiosyncratic interpretation of the previous AfD, because the result was merge, which is exactly what was done- the article was merged and it is substantially longer than a dicdef. Afro had limited material related to Jewfro prior to the merge. Furthermore, if I add much more to the article, it would most probably have to be demerged anyway because it would overpower Afro. Nevertheless, that doesn't expalin why you feel the need to call it "non-encyclopedic" but also state that you agree with the previous AfD where the material was retained. -- JJay 22:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see where you're confused. Merge here on AfD means "merge and redirect," which was in fact the consensus of the prior AfD. When commenting on an article for deletion, a merge vote means you don't think it's worth having its own article, but that the content belongs somewhere. Where it belonged was determined to be Afro. If you don't understand how redirects work, have a look at Wikipedia:Redirects. You may also wish to consider not removing the afd-newbies template again, at least until you can demonstrate that you have a better understanding of the way the process works; otherwise you risk being accused of acting in bad faith. -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete echoing Ikkyu's comments above. This issue has already been dealt with and shouldn't have to be readdressed. Eusebeus 12:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• As a matter of fact, I move that the whole process be speedied, under CSD G4. This debate has already been done at AfD, consensus was achieved, the same consensus has been re-achieved (barring a bunch of sockpuppets), and it's a waste of effort to keep beating this around any more. -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You want to G4 what exactly, since nothing was ever deleted??? -- JJay 00:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you read? I want to speedily delete the article Jew-fro, and redirect to Afro, on the grounds that the exact same debate occurred just a few months ago and was closed with an irrefutably clear community consensus. Why do you persistently remove the afdnewbies template? Is there something in its content you don't agree with? -ikkyu2 (talk) 04:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, having two warnings at the top of the page is overkill and absurd. However, since you feel strongly that multiple warnings are required I added my own, to make sure that the admin does not fail to read the other warnings. Maybe everyone should add a warning to the page. And yes, I can read, but I would suggest that you read the criteria for speedy deletion and this does not qualify. -- JJay 10:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with you about the CSD, JJay. The previous AFD closed with a deletion in a figurative sense, but not in a literal sense, and only the latter matters with G4. Regarding the warnings, however, I think we do need two, as each warning serves a different purpose. The first warning (in blue) is addressed to the closing admin, and the second warning is addresseed to Whoermaster (and possible his/her friends). Where ^(talk) 12:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Ikkyu's comments above. Whata crowd, and all about the style. --Mane 08:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.