Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crimes against humanity - the SS medical experiments on humans - the results


 * 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 delete. A10. T. Canens (talk) 07:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Crimes against humanity - the SS medical experiments on humans - the results

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I initially declined a CSD request for the page (which I stand by, since I do not see which CSD criteria it technically fails). However, having taken another look at it, I do not believe it should be included in the encyclopedia. It seems to start off as a (slightly garbled) account of Nazi experiments on humans, some of which may be salvageable, but in the latter section (as far as I can tell) the article drifts into some sort of advertisement or guide on how to prepare lethal medicines yourself! And all this is quite apart from its massive presentational problems (bad English; not wikified; poor, unclear, scant referencing ...). Although it does not seem to fit any CSD criteria, I think this article quite clearly needs to be deleted, if not Oversighted.  It Is Me Here  t /  c  09:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't think there's much that can be salvaged from this. The title isn't particularly good and the content is really confusing to parse. Any keepable bits such as the references should go in Nazi human experimentation. -- Ritchie333  (talk)  09:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The account has so far added machine translations to the Russian, Spanish, and English Wikipedias of this same text.  Xe hit the right places, the Russian and Spanish equivalents to the Nazi human experimentation article, in the other Wikipedias.  Here, xe created a new standalone article instead.  The other Wikipedias were the lucky ones.  They simply had to revert the additions.  Here, because it's a separate article, we have to have an AFD discussion.  We already have an article for this subject, as the original editor well knew.  It doesn't need machine-translated gibberish, and we don't need machine-translated gibberish as a standalone article with a bad title.  Delete.  Uncle G (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't A10 ("Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic.") cover this then? I wouldn't even want to keep the title as a redirect, so perhaps it does? -- Ritchie333  (talk)  13:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Point of information: they've now been LOCKED, according to POPUPS (afraid I can't find a diff, though).  It Is Me Here  t /  c  14:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The log for such things is on Meta, and the global lock was enacted by the same steward who came here and tagged the article for speedy deletion, which tagging you then declined. &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is nothing salvageable here. Dtm1234 (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per A10 - Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic. Everything Uncle G talked about fits this criteria. Also, there is another SPA who has edited the original article, seemingly obliviously of the tags on it. -- Ritchie333   (talk)  20:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I've filed an SPI case about that – but better to keep these two issues separate, I think.  It Is Me Here  t /  c  22:03, 28 June 2012 (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.