Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LTTE Propaganda


 * 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   delete. Many "delete" opinions appear a bit ... less than thoroughly policy-based to me, but since nobody objects to the deletion....  Sandstein  12:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

LTTE Propaganda

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is full of Original research and POV. 70.49.98.169 (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As I have mentioned in the talk page I agree with this point but any WP:OR and WP:SYNTH that has creeped in is more due to my shortcomings as an editor and does not reflect on the Notability of the subject. The subject does meet WP:SIGCOV or I would not have found the references I mentioned. Before deleting this article can someone apart from me try to edit this article and make it more netural and encyclopedic? I don't mind doing this but that would defeat the collaborative nature of Wikipedia.--Wikishagnik (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete As per WP:OR and also as per this Talk:LTTE_Propaganda as the creator and Principal editor of this article also agrees LTTE is  is not alone organizing the Eelam cause is supported by various groups ,political parties which are Legal in many countries  are not part of the LTTE.To say anyone who supports the Eelam cause is a LTTE  Propagandist is wrong and may even violate WP:Redflag as the LTTE is banned organization and to say that Legal organization or an individual is LTTE  Propagandist implies that he is working on behalf of the Organization which is a very serious charge.This discussion is here on serious accusations.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Fully agree with the above view.--Kanags (talk) 12:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Apart from WP:OR (which I have answered above) nothing else really makes sense. WP:REDFLAG is about specific claims and all that I have claimes is from published sources. If you have concerns about the original source then check the references and take it up with the publishers. Just because an article covers controversial grounds does not mean it should be deleted. -Wikishagnik (talk) 13:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * DeleteThis can't be a stand alone article and certain facts could be merged with existing LTTE article. Otherwise it will violate WP:NPOV.HudsonBreeze (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If WP:NPOV is addressed by future edits, lets say someone gives a scholarly deffinition of what LTTE propoganda is and presents the accusations of LTTE doing this and that, and also presents both side of the coin equally. Would it be OK to keep the article then? -Wikishagnik (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The title, "LTTE propaganda" itself is POV, there in no need for scholarly definition for it; that will further make the article more POV. It should be deleted and certain facts should be merged with the existing LTTE article.HudsonBreeze (talk) 03:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope! the title isn't WP:NPOV. If you have reliable sources that says LTTE (or its propoganda mechanism) did such-and-such good stuff then please add it to the article, and no! that we beyond the scope of the article. Nope! again but WP:DEL-REASON,WP:NPOV and the NPOV template don't say that an article has to be deleted if there is a POV issue. It simply asks you to improve the article by editing it and removing any unsorced statements. Even techinically the accusation of OR is wrong because Nothing in this article is assumed or forwarded by me. All contentious statements have been duly attributed to reliable sources. I conceeded to OR simply to encourage others to edit the article but I guess that was too much to ask. Lack of a certain POV does not automatically assume the existence of such. If you have anything that reflects a different opinion from what is expressed in the article and have reliable sources for it then please do add it to the article. I have added for example that the US government was not happy with the reaction of Sri Lankan Government to LTTE Propoganda.--Wikishagnik (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Even a single source which you have cited, doesn't have "LTTE Propaganda" in its article heading or book title. But you have managed to create a Wikipedia article on the title "LTTE Propaganda" based on the facts which are available at those articles and books; that is the reason the "LTTE Propaganda" should be deleted on Wikipedia as a Stand-Alone article and the facts should be merged with existing LTTE Wikipedia article.HudsonBreeze (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please understand WP:SIGCOV which specifically states Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material to answer your query. Had LTTE Propoganda only recieved trivial coverage in a handful of sources, your argument would have been valid, but the coverage in each of the sources is more than trivial. I have seen entire pages covering the topic. Moreover I would not have found so many sources and frankly, would not have bothered then because I am not close enough to LTTE to think of material. -Wikishagnik (talk) 07:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 7.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  12:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC) : Strong Delete   WP:OR the  LTTE is not doing or organizing Propaganda. The  title, "LTTE propaganda"  states that the LTTE is doing it which is not true.Further I agree with the other editors above who also agree to delete it.
 * Note IP 82.40.203.114 has voted above and another Editor has voted in the other section after relisting.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. --Natkeeran (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2013 (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.