Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of state terrorism by the United States: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Yahel Guhan (talk | contribs)
22,767 edits
k
Line 51: Line 51:


*'''Delete''' This is a highly bias POV fork aimed at attacking America based entirely on anti-american allegations. The United States government does not practice state terrorism, and wikipedia should not promote that conspiracy theory. '''[[User:Yahel Guhan|<span style="color: #008080">Yahel</span>]] [[User talk:Yahel Guhan|<span style="color: #000000">Guhan</span>]]''' 01:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' This is a highly bias POV fork aimed at attacking America based entirely on anti-american allegations. The United States government does not practice state terrorism, and wikipedia should not promote that conspiracy theory. '''[[User:Yahel Guhan|<span style="color: #008080">Yahel</span>]] [[User talk:Yahel Guhan|<span style="color: #000000">Guhan</span>]]''' 01:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

*'''Keep''' with the new name (move the talk page too, please, Dr. admin -- why would an admin not move the whole thing?) The topic is notable. The correct way to fix an article on a notable topic is not to delete the article, it is to improve it. [[User:Listing Port|Listing Port]] ([[User talk:Listing Port|talk]]) 02:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:02, 16 April 2008

State terrorism and the United States

[Note: I've just moved the page to Allegations of state terrorism by the United States per the talk page; it doesn't affect my vote William M. Connolley (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)][reply]

State terrorism and the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article has been nominated for deletion many times and I do know that. I also know the subject is possibly notable. But looking at the lead sentence alone, I can see POV violations, coatracking, off-topic straying, synthesis, original research, et cetera. This is also a potential embarassment to Wikipedia because it's been tagged as such since mid-last year, and the problems go back way beyond that, possibly to the point of the article's conception. I can safely say that people aren't fixing it, they're just making noise on the talk page. In short, this is the textbook example of everything that's wrong with Wikipedia and our credibility may increase as a result of it. Sceptre (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AFDs
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Becksguy (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Becksguy (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on balance. There is undoubtedly evidence that the US has been accused of state sponsored terrorism, but we have proven that we are completely unable to document it in isolation without violating every single policy we have. Repeatedly. And then violating them all again. Guy (Help!) 18:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Bad faith nomination and disruptive nomination. Any POV problem is editing, the topic is notable, it is valid topic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject is valid if WP:NPOV and WP:V is respected. Clearly there are problems and have been for a long time now but we do not solve these problems by declaring defeat - and that is exactly what this nom is doing. If this is deleted it will most likely be recreated shortly anyway - most likely under a new title too. A better approach here is to show those who disrupt the article the door with less discussion and more liberal use of the block button. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject is notable and has number of RS sources to back it up, just because few people are unable to clean it up per NPOV is no reason for Deletion. Taprobanus (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The massive COATRACK issues, the continual edit warring, and the rampant soapboxing aren't in and of themselves reasons to delete an article, irritating as they are. However, a large majority of the sources fail WP:V due to their extremist and fringe nature. Hugo Chavez and Noam Chomsky, despite their supporters' fervent desire, are not representative of mainstream thought on the topic. Skinwalker (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable subject with reliable sources. The current poor state of the article is not grounds for deletion but the result of poor editing practices such as edit-warring instead of constructive debate and compromise. Were this to be enforced, I could easily imagine the article becoming rather a good one. --John (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I urge all of you voting to keep to look at WP:HOPELESS: "If the subject is notable, but the current article is so blatantly biased that it's an embarrasment, or a blatant hoax where all the statements are wrong, then Wikipedia may indeed be better off without the article. Things which cause concerns over core policies like verifiability need to be addressed, and simply saying that major concerns of that nature could be solved eventually, is not going to solve the problem." definitely applies to this article. Sceptre (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment First of all you are quoting that out of context. Second, you are using something that isn't even a guideline. Third, why is this article not on probation? If I didn't know better I would stub this article myself but there is a valid topic here and deleting it will only result in recreation. I'm not unsympathetic to the concerns raised but we do not solve these problems by deleting the article. With due respect I think that is a naive approach to dealing with the article at not least those who are disrupting it. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • How am I misquoting it? I listed the exception to the "surmountable problem" argument to avoid. Besides, "why bother?" isn't a valid reason for keeping an article (see "better here than there") Sceptre (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because there is a valid article to be had if stubbed and reworked from there. Thus the exception you are quoting does not apply. If stubbed is there an actual policy or even guideline that would be violated? EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep none of the reasons stated by the nom "POV violations, coatracking, off-topic straying, synthesis, original research, et cetera" are valid criteria for deletion. The topic is WP:N with numerous WP:RS. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per TheRedPenOfDoom. — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think that the article could theoretically be improved, but on balance it may simply be better if it were deleted and other articles expanded. As Guy says, there has been so much edit-warring over it that if it is ever to be improved it will involve a lot of people being banned/heavily restricted in their editing. Some people may like the idea of that, but I think that would be a shame. John Smith's (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject is clearly notable by the numerous sources to be had. All of the things that are listed by the nominator are things that can be fixed and repaired through normal editing. Controversy surrounding a subject is not a good reason to delete an article, nor is controversy surrounding the article itself. Regarding the comment above me, if you can't stand the heat, then stay out of the kitchen. We're supposed to be objective here, and if you can't be, then don't edit difficult articles. Celarnor Talk to me 20:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice against recreation. While the subject is notable, we could do much better by simply nuking it and starting again. While I am usually the first to claim any article is better than non at all, in some cases the issues outweigh the benefits. Since we can most-likely assume that it will be recreated, then I see no reason not to start over, as I don't think it could end up much worse than this. Random89 20:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article is sourced and describe real facts. I suppose that this article has been tagged for deletion due to politcal reasons.User:Lucifero4
  • delete. Notable subject, appalling article. Its just a list of areas, most (all?) of which are covered elsewhere. It makes no attempt to integrate these disparate threads together, which would be the justification for its existence William M. Connolley (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I share the frustration of those who feel that the article, in its current form, is in a shambles. However, this article has survived a total of seven prior AfD attempts, and has a substantial history of turmoil. Deletion is a drastic step, tantamount to asserting that there is no salvageable version anywhere in the history of the article, and thus in effect overturning the collective weight of all previous AfDs. Given the fact that the article is currently not in a "stable" state (over half of it was deleted recently, restored, deleted, restored...), I suggest that this AfD be postponed until heads are cooler, and responses are more tempered. silly rabbit (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Awful, unsalvageable article. --DHeyward (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bad as it stands. Several useful references in there, though, that address this topic specifically. I don't think that we can or should delete it given those circs. Don't see what this nomination is doing. Sceptre, please stop nomming things for deletion that you know are going to receive lots of keep support unless you have a novel argument to make. If you really want our credibility to increase, go delete real SYNTH articles like Denial of the Holodomor, not something that has half a dozen bloody academic seminars a year devoted to it. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the time being and fix if possible. The title is POV even with "allegations" added and grammatically wrong (the allegations are about the USA not by the USA, an allegation of state terrorism by the USA would be the USA saying about some other countries actions "that's state terrorism"). I think this is a case of an article which hasn't clearly stated what its topic is. Perhaps "Allegations that the USA has broken international law" is a better topic. Also consider merge to other topics.Nick Connolly (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:COATRACK X Marx The Spot (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I took this off my watchlist because I was sick of dealing with it, and the article I see now bears little resemblance to the one I saw a couple of months ago. I don't know if that's good or bad, but the deletions seem excessive. This is an extremely notable topic and that's what is at issue here. The problem with this article is that over the years it has been worked on largely by two groups of people: 1) People who love it, and want to include every possible accusation, sometimes even if it goes against NPOV; 2) People who hate it and want it deleted and spend most of their time putting it up for AfD, deleting massive sections, or adding irrelevant material for balance. The former group was largely owning the article a few months ago, now the latter seems to be moving in. Unsurprisingly the result of all of this has not been a good article (though it's not, or wasn't, nearly as bad as some are making it). However deleting it is clearly the wrong way to go. The topic is notable and quite frankly deleting it makes us look a little bit ridiculous if we do so. I can't help but notice that no one has put Allegations of State terrorism by Sri Lanka, Allegations of state terrorism by Russia, or Allegations of state terrorism by Iran up for deletion (all of which are linked to at the bottom of this page). I find that very revealing, and an outside observer might wonder why we can have those articles but not this one, why this has been put up for AfD and those have not. Basically the answer is that this article creates a lot of drama because more folks on en.wikipedia have strong feelings about US foreign policy than the foreign policy of Russia or Sri Lanka. But that's a terrible rationale, and to delete this and keep the others (perhaps someone will put them up for AfD now, though I don't see a basis for that) is, I think, to violate our core policy on NPOV. This project has its base of operation in the US and is very heavily "staffed" by American volunteers. Sceptre thinks the article in its current state makes Wikipedia look a bit ridiculous (and I don't necessarily disagree with that), but we look far more ridiculous by deleting an article critical of US foreign policy because the lot of us can't figure out a way to edit it properly. My keep rationale is per WP:N, but I hope the other component of my argument will be considered.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that you talk about the "allegations.. sri lanka" article. As the one who moved it to its present title from a ridiculous "State terr by/in SL" or something, let me tell you that that article has been at the center of vehement disputes too. I am not sure but I think it has also been put up for deletion once or twice.. or has come pretty close. Also, the reason this article is AfD-ed more often is not because this is a more high profile target or anything, but simply because there's several orders of magnitude more people editing American articles(not just this one) compared to those editing SLankan articles. We could probably count the number of active editors on the Sri Lankan project on two hands. The problem with these articles is that there simply is no way in the wiki process to ensure that it will read even remotely balanced. And we keep proclaiming that NOR, NPOV etc are non-negotiable. UCS-->delete is the way to go. it is WP:NOTABLE .. so keep it smacks of BURO. Sarvagnya 00:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a highly bias POV fork aimed at attacking America based entirely on anti-american allegations. The United States government does not practice state terrorism, and wikipedia should not promote that conspiracy theory. Yahel Guhan 01:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with the new name (move the talk page too, please, Dr. admin -- why would an admin not move the whole thing?) The topic is notable. The correct way to fix an article on a notable topic is not to delete the article, it is to improve it. Listing Port (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States&oldid=205931036"