Talk:Croat Catholic Ustashi clergy/Archive 2

From Votes for deletion#Croat Catholic Ustashi clergy in June 2004

-

It&#8217;s just a list full of accusations but without any real attributions or research. It&#8217;s been marked for deletion already. It is offensive in its current, highly defamatory form. The article gives no attributions, no sources and no evidence for all the accusations.--GeneralPatton 17:56, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, good info. Everyking 19:10, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Good info? It&#8217;s a bunch of defamatory name-calling without any real attribution nor evidence that any of the stuff is true. It was probably taken from some Serb radical website or magazine. The article has a massive POV and shady agenda all over it. It is Serb extremist anti-Croat, anti-Catholic propaganda.--GeneralPatton 19:44, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that this page was initially added by Igor (and was one of my primary complaints about him), deleted by one of the editors, re-created by Igor again but without any(?) change in content, proposed for removal by GeneralPatton, then kept with the explanation that it just needs some cleanup, received a minimal amount of cleanup (by myself who am not convinced that it should stay). Overall this is a soap opera that probably won't go away any time soon. :P --Shallot 19:40, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Since this was a recreation of a page deleted according to deletion policy, it was a speedy-delete candidate. I have therefore zapped it. &#8212;No-One Jones 20:28, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Unacceptable. I'm pretty sure that this survived the last time it was nominated for deletion, even if it was deleted before that. Everyking 20:33, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * This did survive the last time, see Talk:Croat Catholic Ustashi clergy/archive1. I undeleted the article, although I'll shed no tears on a proper deletion. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 20:49, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * But it didn't survive the first time. From Deletion log archive/December 2003: 00:23, Dec 10, 2003 Delirium deleted "Croat Catholic Ustashi clergy" (unsourced list of alleged Ustashi members of the Catholic Church -- listed on VfD 6 days, no objections to deletion). Now compare the recreation, on Feb 2 2004, with the revision of Nov 26, 2003: . The versions are more or less identical, except the February version has the content of Croat Catholic Ustashi clergy 2 (also deleted back in December) tacked on. &#8212;No-One Jones 21:49, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, if it survived last time, let's see to it that it doesn't do it again. Also, can we figure out why it was deleted "with no objections" when the VfD archive listed on the page has 5 objections? Snowspinner 21:53, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * The article is unreferenced and offensive, but it would be possible to write an article about the involvement of Croat Catholic Clergy in the Ustasha - it would need to be properly referenced. Mark Richards 21:15, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * It certainly would be possible. And when someone does it, we shouldn't delete it. However, this isn't it, and unless that article shows up in the next few days, we should delete this until we get a real one. Snowspinner 22:10, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know about that - I don't think deletion is for articles that are simply unreferenced and badly written. Mark Richards 23:27, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I think in the case of an article with no references that amounts to extremely harsh accusations about a number of people that we should delete until we have references. The article makes some pretty serious accusations that should require citation to stand. Snowspinner 00:23, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. I think that Detective Jones is correct here... This page was recreated. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:23, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Which obviously no longer applies if a more recent debate ended in the article being kept. Everyking 22:48, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works; we don't keep recreating articles until there's a decision to keep them. If someone wants to restore an article that was deleted according to policy, like this one, they should use Votes for undeletion. &#8212;No-One Jones 23:34, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * But it's already been done. Someone should've raised that issue before the last vote resulted in it being kept. Everyking 23:58, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Someone should've raised that issue &mdash; I did. &#8212;No-One Jones 01:27, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, it survived the process regardless, and now the result of that process is binding until this vote is over, so no speedy deletion. Everyking 01:47, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * The accusations of this article are so severe but the sources/attributions/credits are none. In it&#8217;s current form it&#8217;s nothing more than a Serb-radical version of the so-called Clinton Hit list. Having this in is pretty much as having the Clinton hit list.--GeneralPatton 23:24, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't object in principle to such an article, but everything beyond the introductory paragraphs is very dubious. Accusations against specific non-famous individuals, with no clear citations to back them up (leaving the reader with no means even to judge whether the accusations come from a credible source) do not belong in wikipedia. Some of this could well be libelous. -- Jmabel 07:29, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * This is extrodinarily POV, beyond what cleanup can accomplish. If someone wants to have a go at making a proper stub feel free but I don't know anything about the subject so I can't do it and if knowone else does then Delete. --Starx 00:24, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Without citation, this has all the possibility of gross character assassination. While there ample evidence that certain Serbs and Croats behaved badly, what evidence is there that this is anything like a complete and accurate list. Delete. Denni &hArr; 03:26, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)
 * Comment: Look, we don't routinely delete articles just because we haven't verified every fact they include. That takes time, and we rely on the natural wiki process to sort these things out. We could use a good article like this, and this seems like a good starting point.
 * The introductory paragraph, now that I rewrote it, seems like a good starting point. Unverified grave accusations do not. --Shallot
 * Maybe the person who started this article could be persuaded to work on it a bit, or someone else could take up the task.
 * Yeah. That's been excuse since November 2003. It's now June 2004. That's eight months. I think that we've given plenty of time for this to happen, and it quite obviously did not. --Shallot
 * Oh, I'm sorry, I remembered incorrectly. The article history shows that it was created in August 2003. That's ten months then. --Shallot
 * Another thing, I don't think we should be so worried about the reputations of these gentlemen. Everyking 05:35, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Sure, but if we stopped abiding by the NPOV and verifiability policies in this case, what's next? Random bashing of whatever "sinners" everywhere based on anonymous information? That's a very slippery slope and I don't think anyone really wishes to risk that. --Shallot
 * Provided that nobody has further comments, I am going to remove the bulk of the questionable content from the article (like it was done before by Pfortuny, and was reverted by Nikola Smolenski without much further explanation) and move this discussion to a subpage of the article's talk page (like it was done before, too). --Shallot 12:35, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * This article really ought to be only a re-direct, the entire matter be moved to Roman Catholicism's links with democracy and dictatorships where it would be sufficient. The current form of the article goes against several rules in What Wikipedia is not,
 * ?Wikipedia is not a means of calling people names or bashing people. It is a serious encyclopedia.?
 * ?Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. But of course an article can report objectively on what advocates say, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. Go to Usenet if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views--and good luck.?
 * ?A genealogical or biographical dictionary. Biography articles should only be given for people with some sort of notoriety or achievement. One measure of achievement is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (either online or offline).? --GeneralPatton 13:32, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, but cut out anything that isn't substantiated. That might be most of the article. The content is appropriate, but needs evidence. I don't recommend merging with Roman Catholicism's links with democracy and dictatorships; the topic deserves its own article. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:28, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

-

Preserved for the record, please do not edit.