Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States


 * 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 speedy keep as a bad faith nomination. The very first edits in Special:Contributions/Conspiracy Smasher were to create this nomination, and subsequent edits, including the nomination of for deletion have revealed that this person is here merely to disrupt and to provoke on a contentious issue. I am closing this and the other AFD discussion, and have revoked the account's editing privileges indefinitely. We can do without this. Uncle G (talk) 05:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Started by POV pushers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Conspiracy Smasher (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * User's first edit Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's a well-sourced article. Dekisugi (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete under WP:SOAP. Also impossible to keep NPOV with this kind of hate article, but that is a side issue. Pharmboy (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - For reasons stated on six previous AfDs; article is not a soapbox, it consists of verifable facts. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 23:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. While it may make for unpleasant reading for some, it's not a soapbox. It's a well-sourced article that people can read and find helpful in forming their opinions. I'm not asking people to either agree nor disagree with it. Just read it. And, by the way, describing it as a "hate article" says all too much about the closed minds out there. Whatever happened to the 1st Amendment? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment So the 1st amendment only applies if I agree with you? Pharmboy (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Pharmboy, the 1st Amendment means that you have the right to express yourself. Without others, who don't like what you have in mind, trying to shut you up by throwing around unhelpful ill-considered phrases such as "hate article". Clear? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Perfectly. You are trying to shut me up because I see the article as hateful, and clearly stated that this can't be considered a reason to delete AFTER I stated my policy reasons for voting delete.  Really, talking down to me isn't the solution, we just have different opinions and you just can't let that be.  Move on, I'm much too old for this.  Pharmboy (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - what has changed since the six previous Afds? Well. take a good look and you will find that the references are now vastly improved, and the content has been significantly expanded upon and improved since the last afd. The content references what is now a  considerable body of academic and human rights literature  consisting of either references to descriptions of  U.S. state terrorism or in-depth examinations supporting the hypothesis. See the references section which includes contributions from professors from Yale, Princeton, MIT, Columbia and Hong Kong University, among others. If you require more evidence that this is a serious scholarly concern, constituting a significant alternative discourse, albeit not representative of the mainstream, then I would be happy to provide a long long long list of academic references. BernardL (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Per others. Article seems well-sourced and neutral. Rray (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Well sourced, notable subject, and title is NPOV. Joshdboz (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It doesn't matter that it was started by POV pushers, the great thing about a Wiki is that you can correct errors. 75.175.30.154 (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As was concluded in previous AFDs. the article is about a notable topic and has multiple references from reliable and independent sources, satisfying WP:N. It seems fairly neutral and NPOV. The rest is a content dispute, and not a topic for AFD. This is not to say I agree with everything it says, but that is a matter for editing, not deletion. Edison (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep given that it is well sourced and the topic is notable. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Convert to a list format While no doubt containing factual info, the whole article is impossible to read, and has no structure or flow. It needs to be changed into a list, with links to the articles where most of the content is already duplicated, or to new articles such as allegations regarding El Salvador. The whole thing is an insult to proper style and readability, and serves no purpose as is.MickMacNee (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Snowball keep, obviously a notable subject, contains reliable sources out the wazooty. It's tagged for PoV already; PoV seems to be the only problem I can see with it, and that alone is not a reason to delete. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SNOWBALL --Strothra (talk) 03:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Although the article has its POV problems, it's reliably sourced. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Sourced and notable  User  Doe ☻T☼C 04:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Per others; article has reliable references. No evidence of use as a soapbox. KurtRaschke (talk) 05:01, 18 December 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.