Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragan Vasiljković


 * 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, but someone needs to definitely clean up this article.  Singu larity  03:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Dragan Vasiljković

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

My previous proposal that this article be deleted was removed without any significant changes being made. Most of the article strongly reflects one person’s POV. It requires a complete re-write. Otherwise, it should be removed.

Below, I have explained clearly my reasons for applying the AfD tag. In the first paragraph, almost every sentence is written in a biased tone, or contains information that is not verifiable.

(1 paragraph removed as defamatory comments were made)

I understand that Dragan is revered by SOME Serbs. However, he is considered a war criminal by many (Serbs and Croats). This article should not convey a POV for OR against him – it should be neutral and factual! Otherwise it should not exist!

Wikipedia is not a forum for you to express your own point of view, especially to lobby support for someone who is charged with a crime! That’s what Myspace is for. It is an encyclopedia – i.e. it is supposed to be objective!

Read the rules for Wikipedia if you want to contribute! If you can’t do that, write nothing!

… been held in an Australian prison for over one and a half years with convicted prisoners, yet he himself has not been charged.

Your tone implies that he is the victim of an injustice. This is your POV!

What makes Dragans case interesting…

Interesting to who? You? You are expressing your POV.

is that even though he has been an Australian citizen for over 30 years, no evidence of the allegations against him was required by the Australian government.

Again, use a neutral tone!

If it was the USA, Canada, NZ or the UK requesting his extradition, an evidence case is mandatory (House of commons 2003).

Not verifiable!

Dragan is revered by the Serbian people because after his role in the war

Not verifiable!

The Serbian people believe…

You do not speak for all Serbs!

They are petitioning for him to face the War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague if he must face trial.

Are all Serbs in the world are signing this petition?

'However, they also claim that he has already faced 18 hours of questioning at the War Crimes Tribunal and even rejected an offer of immunity for anything that he might have done. He was released and not one of his men were indicted.'

Again, you are conveying YOUR point of view that he is innocent of any wrongdoing.

'Therefore, the Serbian community believe that the accusations against Dragan are unfounded and are just a means to get him into Croatia. They are also surprised that Dragan (AKA Daniel Snedden) has not received the public support that David Hicks has.'

This comparison is stupid - Hicks and Dragan have nothing in common.

'In July 2007 Dragan was able to commence the defamation proceedings against Nationwide news. The court found that six out of ten of the statements against Dragan were libellous and defamatory.The proceedings are stood over in the Supreme Court of New South Wales until 27th July 2007.'

You are only selecting the results of the trial that support your POV!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snaark (talk • contribs)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.  -- Canley 10:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Being poorly written is not a reason for deletion, it just needs to be fixed. The news articles cited show notability, and there are enough sources to write a verifiable article. Kevin 10:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for now (with no objection to another article of the same name being created at a later date). The news articles show that the subject is notable, but this article is completely original research and appears to be heavily biased.  It needs to be re-written from scratch. &mdash;gorgan_almighty 12:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but rewrite, obviously. --Martin Wisse 14:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kevin Twenty Years 14:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. The sources support notability but needs a cleanup. Capitalistroadster 02:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite. the subject is notable, and that's what counts. DGG (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, but rewrite because it's pretty POV at the moment. What is it about articles concerning the Balkans that they seem to always be a cesspit of racial POV?  Also, this page is a discussion on whether to keep this article, not a discussion on the merits of the prosecution case against Vasiljkovic.  Lankiveil 05:46, 19 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.