Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of mass graves at Chemmani


 * 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. Whether or not to rename it it is an editorial decision. Sandstein 17:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of mass graves at Chemmani
Another one in our series of allegation articles, this one is not so much original research as it is simply a news story sound byte. A convicted criminal stated there were mass graves somewhere; this was investigated, and it was concluded that he was lying. A newspaper might hype this up, but it does not appear to be an encyclopedia story, except perhaps as a footnote to the article on the murderer (which, incidentally, we don't have). WP:NOT a newspaper, and this gives undue weight to something found to be false.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC) (if kept, rename as suggested below).  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment- reaname into what specifically ? 12:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. It's an old news story, and there turned out to be no substance to the allegations. Shalom Hello 08:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please look at this recent report] in 2005 that disputes what you just said that this is done with. Thanks Taprobanus 15:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete As per Shalom, its an old story and only a few bodies were found. Allegations from convicted criminal who served in the military, so how can that be trusted.  Sinhala freedom 22:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Really what is an old story ?recent report this one ? and only few bodies ? 15 bodies were found. They did not find themselves in the ditch by themselves. Thanks Taprobanus 23:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep this is what happens when someone reads an article in a cursory manner and makes up their mind. The statement in nomination undue weight to something found to be false where is the WP:RS source that substantiates. It simply takes the point of view of the alleged perpetrators of the crime, that is the state of Sri Lanka as a fact when number of WP:RS citations in the article mention that 15 bodies were found including academic books. Currently the title itself is under mediation. I strongly believe the allegation part on the title is misleading. Also google search on Chemmani yields over 900 hits. This is not based on a newspaper article. This does not violate WP:NOT and WP:NOTABLE. This is written from a WP:NPOV point of view with WP:RS sources. Thanks Taprobanus 14:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Taprobanus. Article is sourced to more than one newspaper article.  It is a point of controversy in an important civil war.  Any problems with the article itself should be addressed in the mediation.  --Richard 16:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Another bad-faith nom by this poster, no doubt to try and build a case for deleting the "State Terrorism...United States" page. I sure hope the sysops are keeping count.  The article deals with a widely discussed event in a neutral manner, has citations from government sources to back up most assertions and other, suitably reliable sources to support the others.  Stone put to sky 16:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep -- Much more thought and research have gone into the article than into this nomination. This is a case that received widespread international attention and is important in understanding the ongoing conflict in Sri Lanka. It's not a matter of a newspaper "hyping" the matter up, and anything more than a skim of the article (not to mention the wiki discussions, the sources, and related material on the Internet) bears that out. The reason that the article is entitled "Allegations..." is because whether or not the allegations were proven or disproven is a matter of ongoing controversy. The nominator's view: "this was investigated, and it was concluded that he was lying" cannot be attributed to a neutral source. Incidentally, the title was upheld in moderation. This nomination is groundless and frankly baffling. -- Shunpiker 17:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per above, at least 5 news sources. Although the weasel word "allegations" should be removed. 68.90.179.243 19:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but rework. I am positively baffled as to why this article resides at this "Allegations" title when it's obvious the mass graves did exist. There's even a redirect at Chemmani mass graves which makes a lot more sense - what would be even better is if someone who has access to the information could write a proper article on the village of Chemmani itself and then merge this information to that page. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep graves did exist and it got International attention and is backed by reliable sources.Harlowraman 20:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep As per User:Taprobanus. Please note that the name change is in meditation. We are trying to meditate to bring it to say Mass grave at Chemmani. Watchdogb 00:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I can't resist.... Buddhists meditate and Wikipedians mediate. --Richard 03:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hindus also meditate. I was talking about the wikipedia meditation that is closed now. Watchdogb 17:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt that Hindus also meditate. And aren't you talking about the wikipedia mediation that is now closed?  --Richard 18:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL yep I was talking about that :). Seems like you repeated my sentence :) Watchdogb 19:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad to be able to point out the inadvertent humor in your misspelling. It is quite amusing to imagine a new WikiProject called the Meditation Cabal (shortcut WP:OM) whose mandate would be to meditate away any conflicts that may arise.  I've heard of psychokinesis but the idea of being able to meditate an article into changing its name is quite a new one on me.  Lesseee, if we can get enough Wikipedians together, maybe we can meditate away all the trolls and vandals, too!  --Richard 07:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep As the nomination accurately summarizes, somebody alleged that there were mass graves, this was investigated, and it was concluded that he had exaggerated (although 15 persons in a grave seems like a lot to me). Reader can judge for themselves whether the allegations were true or not.  Mandsford 01:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Further this is an ongoing saga, meaning the investigation is not complete and people are not satisfied that the allegatiosn of hundreds of bodies is a lie and suspect a cover up. Thanks Taprobanus 12:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename into something less inflammatory Corpx 04:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Like what ? Chemmani mass grave ?Taprobanus 21:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How about Bunch of dead people in a hole who could have just wound up there by accident or maybe it was evil government soldiers but Wikipedia wouldn't say that because it might be considered inflammatory? --Richard 01:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You hit the problem on the nail :( but that is the process we have in Wikipedia and only way to resolve them is to have a critical mass of editors intereted in these obscure HR issues. Thanks Taprobanus 12:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * weak keep style could be more encyclopedic though. Terse 14:24, 15 August 2007 (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.