Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Laotian coup d'état conspiracy allegation


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

2007 Laotian coup d&
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

So it would appear that the accusations were unsubstantiated, and therefore should be considered false, in line with the presumption of innocence. I do not think false allegations about a crime, which have had no long lasting effects, have a place on Wikipedia. See WP:CRIME and WP:NOTSCANDAL. As such, I think deletion may be in order. Note that I created this article, and I am now proposing its deletion. Int21h (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 20:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 20:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 20:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 20:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * keep true or false, these allegations are now part of US and Laotian history and should be memorialized by this article. The whole affair harmed many people who may have been Innocent all along.  History facts should not be made to disappear from WP when they become inconvenient. Hmains (talk) 22:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, any relevant facts can be merged into the History of Laos article. Wikipedia is not a place to "memorialise the wrongfully harmed innocent", it's an encyclopedia; the facts aren't "inconvienent", they're simply not worthy of a stand-alone article. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. People were arrested; there were court proceedings; this is well-sourced. This is a notable incident that deserves separate article. Biophys (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets GNG, given the RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears to be a notable controversy, as plenty of reliable coverage has accumulated over the past four years. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.