Israel News Agency Deleted Again By Danny!, Danny does it again - deletes without community consensus! Options

[Joel Leyden]

Israel News Agency

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel news agency - closed as "keep" on 15 Jan 06
Speedy-deleted as "vanity page by banned user" on 10 May 06
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Israel News Agency - closed as "overturn speedy and list on AFD" on 23 May 06
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel News Agency (2nd nomination) - closed for procedural irregularities on 29 May 06
Speedy-deleted as "more of the same nonsense" on 1 Jun 06

It passed its original deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel news agency, but when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel News Agency (2nd nomination) was created, the closing administrator said that because someone didn't follow process and grouped arguements into those for keeping and deleting, that the individual discussion was broken beyond repair. The administrator stated that he had no prejudice toward reopening the debate for a third time, then the article was again deleted by Danny, so I'm requesting it again be created and relisted. Daniel Bush 22:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

* Keep deleted'. Self-promotion of a non-notable non-agency by a banned user. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
* Undelete as out-of-process deletion. If someone believes that something was missed in the first AFD, then relist. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
* Keep Deleted. It's still a nonnotable blog that anyone who was clever enough to register a name like that could set up. --Improv 23:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
* I think this article should be deleted but I think we should do it properly. Overturn the speedy-deletion, relist on AFD and I'll help watch the deletion discussion. Rossami (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
* Comment: Wasn't this thing deleted via WP:OFFICE? If so, WP:SNOW--Rayc 23:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[everyking]

Well, that does it. From now on I'm voting straight keep on this subject just out of protest at all this abuse of process. Previously I avoided taking a stand on it, but I'm sick of the process abuse.

[blissyu2]

Everyking, I don't think that's a good idea. They'll ban you in a second if you do that. You are a good person, and you don't deserve that.

Yes, it is wrong to delete the article. But we are better served to protest that outside of Wikipedia, not inside it.

[Joel Leyden]

Everyking, I don't think that's a good idea. They'll ban you in a second if you do that. You are a good person, and you don't deserve that.

Yes, it is wrong to delete the article. But we are better served to protest that outside of Wikipedia, not inside it.

Everyking has done the right thing. DO NOT let Wikipedia management terrorize you! The whole world is watching this one. In the hours to come I will be contacting friends of mine at major global media outlets.

"It's beyond apparent that the management of Wikipedia cannot tolerate criticism in the press," said one Wikipedia user. "Wikipedia has implemented stringent measures for adding and deleting articles on its Website, but all of these rules and policies are blatantly ignored, the "process" has been corrupted by Wikipedia's two executives who spit in the face of all those who claim that it is a 'citizen's media.' Censorship at Wikipedia is no different than what one would find in Iran, Syria or China today."

[Joel Leyden]

Everyking, I don't think that's a good idea. They'll ban you in a second if you do that. You are a good person, and you don't deserve that.

Yes, it is wrong to delete the article. But we are better served to protest that outside of Wikipedia, not inside it.

Everyking has done the right thing. DO NOT let Wikipedia management terrorize you! The whole world is watching this one. In the hours to come I will be contacting friends of mine at major global media outlets.

"It's beyond apparent that the management of Wikipedia cannot tolerate criticism in the press," said one Wikipedia user. "Wikipedia has implemented stringent measures for adding and deleting articles on its Website, but all of these rules and policies are blatantly ignored, the "process" has been corrupted by Wikipedia's two executives who spit in the face of all those who claim that it is a 'citizen's media.' Censorship at Wikipedia is no different than what one would find in Iran, Syria or China today."

Note that Danny now describes the Wikipedia process - all of the rules and policies as: "nonsense."
I believe Danny / Jimbo to be either total idiots - making the same mistake twice or by continuing on this path keeps the controversy alive thereby attempting to gather more circulation (through noise) for Wikipedia.
Either way - they are destroying Wikipedia's credibility. Or what's left of it.

This post has been edited by Joel Leyden: Fri 2nd June 2006, 7:10am

[Selina]

Danny's moved way far from being office actions only to considering himself some kind of Wiki-fuhrer that has authority to delete anything he wants instantly, regardless of whether there's any legal problems

[everyking]

Everyking, I don't think that's a good idea. They'll ban you in a second if you do that. You are a good person, and you don't deserve that.

Yes, it is wrong to delete the article. But we are better served to protest that outside of Wikipedia, not inside it.

What the...? They aren't going to ban me for voting "keep". Or do anything. They aren't THAT bad.