The first few sections are copied from my talk page, the section labelled "Appealing against the deletion of Chris Moore (blogger)" is copied from Edit77edit's talk page.

From Phantomsteve's talk page

Appeal of your deletion of Chris Moore (blogger)

Article DID indicate importance or significance of the subject. Edit77edit (talk) 04:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which bit indicated this - that he was a blogger? That he's written for some internet publications? That he coined a neologism? None of these would appear to show significance. However, if he is notable (a slightly different criteria to "significance"), then I presume he's been written about in the media? Could you link to some articles at reliable sources which are independent of him (ie no press releases), which have significant coverage of him and his life/career? You might find the general notability guidelines helpful, as well as the notability guidelines for biographies or the notability guidelines for writers. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of Chris Moore (blogger)

Neologism "Judeofascism" is too controversial for media coverage, but is increasing used on Internet, and its blogger coinage and the context thereof is therefore of encyclopedic interest.

"Judeofascism" currently garners 11,600 google results. Judeofascism + "Chris Moore" currently garners 2,230 of those (19%).

"Judeofascist" currently garners 102,000 google results. Judeofascist + "Chris Moore" currently garners 5,330 of those (5.2%).

Media gatekeepers should not be the decisive factor in encyclopedia worthiness, but rather general interest. The dispute over the listing for article "Judeofascism" established way back in 2005 that term "Judeofascism" had been used in mainstream context… http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:BrandonYusufToropov/Judeofascism_dispute

And today, the term is even more common (as evidence by the google search results), and part of the American vernacular.

Since certain elements of Wikipedia have censored the term "Judeofascism" on an ongoing basis since 2005 (even though they include the term "Islamofascism" in article listing), in the interests of intellectual fair play and general public interest, at the least the person who coined the term Judeofascism and reference to the context of its coinage (Judeofascism.com -- active since July 2006) and the blogger who coined the term (actively blogging since Oct, 2001) should be available on Wikipedia. Edit77edit (talk) 05:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide some reliable sources which are independent which shows that the term was originated by Chris, and that it is in popular use? Google search results themselves do not necessarily mean anything, as the source needs to meet Wikipedia's reliability standards. Number of hits on Google is no indication of notability either - if you typed in my real name into Google, you'd get about 7000 hits for my full name (including middle name), about 119,000 hits if you use my middle initial instead of my middle name, and about half a million hits using my name without the middle name/initial - and that is exact quotes (using a search term in quotation marks like "John Quailstone Smith" - not my real name!). Google hits is far from an accurate sign of notability

Although the term may be too controversial for media coverage (although controversy and media go together like peas in a pod), I'd expect to see lots of references to it in scholarly works or in books, including many which meet the reliability and independence criteria. The scholarly papers which use the term either attribute it to professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz, or minor mentions (ie in a single sentence, not a paper specifically, or majorly, about the term) - indeed, in The Discrete Charm of European Intellectuals by Hamid Dabashi in Volume Three, Number Four of the International Journal of Zizek Studies, it appears to be a much older phrase, created more than 60 years ago: I have not heard of any talk about “Judeofascism” sixty years after the Zionist armed robbery of Palestine.... In books, the mentions again appear to be minor ones.

As such, I feel that the decision to delete the article was a correct one. If you feel that my decision was incorrect, please go to Deletion review and ask other editors to judge whether my deletion was correct. If you do so, please mention this discussion. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Moore (blogger)

Phantom: "Could you provide some reliable sources which are independent which shows that the term was originated by Chris"

Never said the term originated w/Chris, only that he coined and significantly defined and advanced it after origination. That is self-evident from the google search results.

Sorry, but for most people, if you say that an individual coined a term, that means that they created it (see wiktionary definition of coin). What you say above also says that he significantly defined it as well. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom: "Number of hits on Google is no indication of notability either"

The question is whether the word is significant neologism, in which case number of hits is relevant. Another relevance is the geopolitical environment which itself is advancing the legitimacy of the word as a significant neologism.

The number of hits is only relevant if they are at reliable, independent sources. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom: "controversy and media go together like peas in a pod"

Not in certain areas, which are highly censored by corporate and politically correct mainstream media. The uncensored Internet itself should be considered a far more worthy judge of legitimacy in those censored areas. Wikipedia is creating a Catch-22 by relying on mainstream media references in censored areas of society, and then using lack of reference to justify censorship on Wikipedia.

With respect, that is incorrect. We are not censoring anything here - we are just asking for reliable independent sources which show that the term is in popular use. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom: "I'd expect to see lots of references to it in scholarly works or in books"

The area is so controversial and sensitive, political correctness and academia careerism prevents/stifles such references.

Again, I think you are mistaken here. There are always people willing to be controversial, and this is often reported in the media, as they love that kind of story. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopedia. It is a popularly edited, cyberspace encyclopedia, maintained by the world community, and thus should reflect populist, cyberspace trends and neologins and their backgrounds, including controversial ones.

You obviously don't understand the intention of this encyclopedia, as you are so narrow-minded with regards to this subject. We have no aversion to covering controversial subjects, but they must be reliable and independently sourced PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking you to rescind your decision to delete without my having to go through a bureaucracy of would-be gatekeepers who themselves might be subject to the constraints of political correctness, as their refusal to list the word "Judeofascism" itself as a neologism demonstrates them vulnerable, whereas they had no problem listing the word "Islamofascism" early on despite its lack of credentials, and having only been advanced by a handful of ideologues with "credentials" and an agenda.

At this point, the term Judeofascism has a credibility all its own which is legitimized by the People. It's coinage would thus be of significant interest to the populist Wikipedia community. On top of that, Moore's many other Internet writings and blogging activities over the course of many years qualify him for inclusion in the "American bloggers" category on Wikipedia at the least.

Again, pleas rescind your decision to delete.Edit77edit (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I do not think that my decision to delete was incorrect. Unfortunately for you, being "legitimized by the People" is insufficient - there needs to be multiple independent reliable sources which verify the information. In this matter (both with Moore as a blogger, and the tem Judeofascism) there is insufficient sources which meet our criteria. Again, if you feel that I was incorrect, you are free to take the deletion to deletion review. As far as I am concerned, this discussion is now over, and if you comment further on this page, I am unlikely to respond, as I have made my position very clear - you are just choosing to not accept it. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Moore (blogger)

Phantomsteve: "You obviously don't understand"..."you are so narrow-minded"..."Unfortunately for you, being "legitimized by the People" is insufficient"..."I have made my position very clear - you are just choosing to not accept it."

You couldn't be more obvious in your bias, nor could the other editors of Wikipedia who quickly accepted "Islamofascism" and rejected "Judeofascism." If your approach is representative of the level of professionalism I am likely to encounter on appeal, it's clearly a waste of time.Edit77edit (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I have missed a memo, but I am unaware of any policies or guidelines that say "if something is legitimized by the People then it is clearly notable"! I have explained clearly why I will not consider undeleting the article. However, you appear to want to ignore some of Wikipedia's core principles: verifiability at independent sources which are considered reliable. I would welcome you going to deletion review - I may have made a mistake and not realise it, in which case the deletion could be overturned. But you would need to accept that at a review, editors will consider the merits based on the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia.

Of course, you will say that we are unwilling to host controversial subjects, that we are influenced by a society which will not accept the term. You would be wrong, but I am sure that you will say that, so that you can run away and tell your friends how short-sighted, how ignorant, how Judeo-friendly, etc, Wikipedia are.

If you could provide a decent set of references for Judeofascism like that provided for Islamofascism, you'd not be having the problem you are. Oh wait, I've forgotten - you can't, can you? It's a conspiracy whereby all of the media are refusing to mention it, where every single scholar in the subject area is too cowardly to write a paper mentioning it, where no reliable independent source will dare to cover it, because they would lose their job/career/life!

Sorry, as you obviously do not have the courage of your convictions, and are unwilling to go to deletion review (after all, every editor in the world is part of this Judeofascistic conspiracy, aren't they - they can't be anti-Judeofascistic, can they?) then further communication would be a complete waste of time. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and one other little thing - if you want to continue a conversation, we generally edit the section that the conversation is in and add to the bottom of the section, not start a new section. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PhantomSteve: "you will say that we are unwilling to host controversial subjects...I am sure that you will say that, so that you can run away and tell your friends how short-sighted, how ignorant, how Judeo-friendly, etc, Wikipedia are."

Actually, you're not Judeo-friendly because you refuse to distinguish between sane Jews and Judeofascists. You insist on conflating the two, whereas I go to the trouble to distinguish between the two. Indeed, you deny there is even a Judeofascist wing of Judaism, and glom them all together into the same camp.

If you were to allow an entry for the term "Judeofascism," then that would clue people in that not all Jews are part of the Judeofascist syndicate, which is perhaps why you and Wikipedia refuse. It's either out of ignorance, or malice, or both.

I wasn't going to bother to appeal, but since we've had this conversation, I realize how essential it is for some reference to "Judeofascism" to appear somewhere on the pages of Wikipedia, if only to prevent short-sighted malice and ignorance from attaining totalitarian control of these pages.

How do I appeal? How I reference these conversatons on appeal? Edit77edit (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Edit77edit's talk page

Appealing against the deletion of Chris Moore (blogger)

Before you do anything, please read the information at Wikipedia:Deletion review, which explains the purpose and scope of the review.

Specific instructions for listing a deletion at the review are in the section headed "Steps to list a new deletion review" at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Steps to list a new deletion review.

I have moved our discussion (plus a copy of this thread) to User talk:Phantomsteve/Discussion about Chris Moore (blogger) - I am archiving the discussion from my talk page, since I have created a copy of our discussion.

Let me summarise the reasons why I believed that the article did not "indicate the importance or significance of the subject":

"Chris Moore is a blogger who writes, edits and publishes the web sites ..."
- Many people are bloggers who write, edit and publishes their own websites. There was nothing to indicate that Moore is important or significant in this regard
"He did not originate, but coined, and helped define, the term "Judeofascism"
- Leaving aside that "coining a phrase" is generally regarded as meaning the same thing as "originating a phrase" - there is no indication that this shows his importance or significance. Many people originate/coin phrases, which may even be used on a lot of websites, but this in and of itself does not show that they are significant or important
- Incidentally, in our discussions, we focussed mainly on this concept. As mentioned there, unless there is evidence at reliable and independent sources which verify (a) that he is connected strongly with the phrase, whether as originator or significant definer of the phrase; and (b) that the phrase is in common use at reliable independent sources - then it is hard to verify this. There was no indication in the article that it is in widespread use.
"In addition to LibertarianToday.com and Judeofascism.com, his writing has appeared on the popular Internet publications ..."
- Many people write for those publications - although some may be notable as Wikipedia defines notability, it will be for their "day jobs" rather than for. Writing for them would not make him notable in and of itself

The other problem is that you say that reliable independent sources could not be found - in fact all the hits on Google web search that I found about Moore and Judeofascism were all written by Chris Moore, with nothing linking the name and the phrase together in Google News, Google News Archives, Google Scholar or Google Books - which would indicate that from Wikipedia's criteria, the subject is not suitable for inclusion.

Now, it may be that the consensus of editors at Deletion review is that I was wrong to delete the article - that is one of the strengths of Wikipedia - but arguments need to be based on policies and guidelines (see Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines#Content standards for a list of relevant ones). Asking off-wiki for people to come and comment is frowned upon (and the closing admin can choose to ignore comments from editors who have never edited Wikipedia before, as the implication is that they were asked to come to save the article) - see Wikipedia:Canvassing.

When you start the review, mention that I have temporarily undeleted the article for review purposes, and it can be found at User:Phantomsteve/Chris Moore (blogger).

If you do not start a deletion review within about 48 hours, I will re-delete it - if you start the review after that time, let me know and I can restore it.

Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC) looked over the category of “American Bloggers.” It was a joke. Half the people on there wouldn’t meet the scrutiny you’ve subjected my entry to, and yet somehow they made it through unchallenged.[reply]

After looking through the appeal process, I don’t have neither the time nor inclination to jump through the technical and coding hoops necessary, and concede that under the scrutiny Wikipedia clearly subjects controversial “anti-Semitic” (in this case, anti-Judeofascist) bloggers to, my appeal is likely to be rejected anyway, so I would be wasting my time.

I will say that this episode illustrates for me the extent to which Wikipedia is heading down the road to irrelevance that has afflicted mainstream media which, for example, still censors discussion of the Israel lobby and its Jewish-American Zionist agents even though their pernicious role in everything from instigating the Iraq war to corrupting Congress to ongoing neocon/neolib efforts to incite a world war against Islamic civilization has been now been well-documented and acknowledged, at least in certain responsible and reality-facing circles.

Similarly, Chris Moore has documented, defined ,confirmed and propagated the reality of Judeofascism at Judeofascism.com for years now, yet because the creaking, crumbling, bankrupt American liberal-State Capitalist order and its Left-Right minions -- the same ones who ignored, censored and ridiculed as “conspiracy theory” discussion of the Israel lobby for all those years to the utter detriment of the American people -- would rather put its complicit head in the sand, the editors at Wikipedia use that as rationale to do the same.

Congratulations. You’re part of the problem. And part of the U.S. equivelent of the crumbling ancien regime in its last throws.

Enjoy it while it lasts!Edit77edit (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]