Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia's alleged East Timor cover up


 * 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 of the debate was 15 to delete, 3 to keep and 7 to merge (including the vote to Keep but rename or merge). Those who support merge argue well, but there is no agreement on where to merge. There are also some voices to rename and rewrite the article. A better written and less POV article under a different title will certainly be started. The votes to delete are plenty and well argued, so I close this AfD as delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ezeu (talk • contribs) 12:56, 30 May 2006  (UTC+10 hours)

Australia's alleged East Timor cover up
This article has been a blight on Wikipedia since the middle of last year. It is a horrendous example of gross bias and unbridled original research. I doubt very much that the subject would warrant its own article in any case. cj | talk 11:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - much as it's a nice read. 4 newspaper only references, zero non POVpushing ghits means no verifyability and no possibility of balance. Articles like this are for anti-government newspaper articles not wikipedia. - Peripitus 12:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It could possibly form the basis of a reasonable article but it is very POV as it currently stands. Capitalistroadster 13:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR, WP:NPOV & WP:NOT. --Srik e it ( talk ¦  ✉  )  14:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons stated above. --Ed (Edgar181) 14:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as someone who has tried to make it better, it ain't worth it. Delusional paranoia. Lao Wai 15:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - any article that contains the word alleged is by definition not encyclopaedic--Kalsermar 18:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Kalsermar.--Ton e  20:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete obviously.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 23:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Although it's badly written POV and OR there are sufficient sources to rewrite and I'll make a beginning. Grateful if you could hold off deletion until I've spent some time on fixing it. Mccready 02:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per above, and also because of inherent problems with verifiability Fluit 03:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Hi Guys, since my post of 02:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC) below, I've done quite a few hours work on the article. We are now looking at quite a different beast. Would appreciate your revised input. Does anyone have the Des Ball article? Thanks. Mccready 08:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename or merge. As is, this is not an article.  It needs to be pulled together under a stronger common theme with a different name, or perhaps merged to another page.  Maybe one of the people/reports referenced on this page might qualify.  But at the same time it doesn't seem to be OR, and the material covered does seem to be encyclopedic.  There are plenty of other wikipedia pages that do deal with allegations - so long as the allegations are serious enough and at least potentially true, that's OK.  POV is reason to cleanup, not reason to delete an article.  Finally, I remind people that AFD is not a vote.  It may be 'obvious' to you that the article is/is not worth keeping, but that is not a useful comment in our attempt to reach consensus.  Regards, Ben Aveling 09:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Is there anything in the article that is actually untrue? I don't think so. Certain questions have been raised by certain people and these people are senior whistle blowers. A suicide is involved. Certainly more work is required, but such is the nature of the Wikipedian beast. Yes the article is problematic but these issues have yet a long way to go before a clear view can be had. Deleting the article will only frustrate future researchers. The references are all quite valuable. The article can be utilized in building a clearer picture of this history. Deleting it amounts to suppression of information. --Wm 12:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've been reluctant to reach a final conclusion on this because although it has been a POV problem in the past, and probably still is, it does cover some stuff that should be covered (Lance Collins, for example, who was widely covered in the media, is currently covered nowhere else on WP but here). I think in the end however that it would be better to start again from the ground up and not have to work off the legacy of this article. Some users have volunteered to help with working on this, I'd like to add my name to the list but invite them to start from scratch rather than trying to fix this article. As per the old AWNB discussion, it would be more appropriate at somewhere like foreign relations of Australia with East Timor, to tie in with the main article foreign relations of Australia. --bainer (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I really can't believe wikipedia is giving over an entire article to such unfounded allegations. John Smith&#39;s 15:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: soapboxing. Pecher Talk 19:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The problem with the article is not that the writer has a POV (that's generally a given and not grounds to delete). The problem is that the article is more about the people who have made accusations, than about the accusations.  It's more of a list than an article.  Assuming that all these allegations are to do with East Timorese Declaration of Independence (currently a redirect to East Timor) perhaps that article should be resurrected and expanded and these allegations be dealt with there.  Alternately, they could be dealt with in the East Timor article itself, but that wouldn't feel right to me - just a little off topic.  As I said above, this material may be uncomfortable for some people, but that is not a reason to delete it.  Yes, it's POV and soapboxing and yes, it should be cleaned up so it deals with the issues (independance/genocide/cover up) and mentions the accusers, rather than the other way around, but none of that is not an excuse to delete it either.  Regards, Ben Aveling 08:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, develop, has been a recurring theme since the 1970s. Could possibly be renamed but I can't think of a better name.--A Y Arktos\talk 22:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV fork, some verified information might be an OK addition to History of East Timor or Foreign relations of East Timor.--Peta 00:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete title is fairly POV i would have to say. if kept rename, but i think it should be deleted. THE KING 04:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * delete as per above. Wombdpsw 05:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge as per Ben Aveling above or develop more fully. Article could explain the history of the allegations, the arguments put forth, and the responses by nay-sayers. Other allegations and conspiracy theories are covered here and can be done well (chemtrail for example, is a perfectly acceptable article). Matt Deres 19:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge as suggested above to Foreign relations of East Timor. If the article is cleaned up, and better explained then weak keep. The sources don't appear bad at first glance. And just because alleged is in the title does not make a topic unencyclopedic. A move would be nice however.  Falphin 19:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per Falphin, after POV removal. B.Wind 13:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge or Rename somewhere! The information is sourced, the grouping of information is logical, but it doesn't really feel like it would fit at Foreign relations of East Timor. A less-POV title than "cover-up" and a more descriptive and neutral treatment of the subject is absolutely necessary. Z iggurat 00:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If its merged into Foreign relations of East Timor, it would only be a few critical sentences beneath a new section on relations with East Timor. Other information would include just the basic facts, and where the relations currently stand. Falphin 01:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to Foreign relations of East Timor, or start Australia-East Timor relations in the same format as plenty of other articles like Anglo-American relations, Australia-New Zealand relations --Astrokey 44 10:24, 29 May 2006 (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.