The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Contesting PROD. This article was both A7'ed and prodded last year despite this rapper's landing a top ten album in the US in 2005 ([1]). I'd call it unbelievable, but I see editing this irresponsible all the time. Chubbles (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
In 2006 there was a first attempt to delete this article, which was rejected on the grounds that the article would be improved significantly. This has not happened, and I believe the reason to be a systematic fault of the article, not being sufficiently narrowed down according to precise criteria. The development of this article does not follow any editorial process. It seems to be just an accumulation of random events, often seemingly added by people with a patriotic or political motivation. This criticism has been voiced on the discussion page for a long time, but still many authors seem to have had a rather intuitive idea about what should be added here, or seem to follow a patriotic agenda, sources or citations are often missing. Often "minor" events are treated in relative depth blurring a more global picture, while killings of hundreds of thousands are mentioned with a single sentence or not at all. I apologize for not following the precise deletion criteria of wikipedia, but I believe that looking at the article, and seeing that little improvement has happened will convince others (Tags Citecheck and Refimprove are here since 1 1/2 year. I think the introduction, and some parts of the text on WW II war crimes are interesting to read. In my opinion, they still do not save the article, because the information contained in these parts can also be found in the individual articles covering the corresponding topics. User:KlausN —Preceding undated comment added 10:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC).
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
There's a discussion on my talk page about whether I should have closed Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_February_24#Template:White_supremacist_organizations as delete after approximately 4-1/2 days and removed all instances of the template from articles. Against this closure, it is argued that per Wikipedia:DPR#Templates_for_deletion_page TFD discussions are closed after seven days, instead of the usual five for many other XFDs, and that "due process" is important (there is apparently no objection to the deletion of the template per se.) In favor of my closure, I argue that the TFD discussion provided significant and unanimous support for the deletion, and was of adequate length to give reasonable assurance that no opposition to the deletion was likely to be expressed, justifying a closure after approximately 4-1/2 days per WP:IAR. I am listing my own discussion closure here to determine whether the community would support similar closures in the future. If this DRV is closed as "overturn", I will restore the template to all articles in which it appeared (though it is highly likely to be re-removed in the near future). Erik9 (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |