Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nationalist crimes


 * 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. WP:SNOW  MBisanz  talk 00:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

List of nationalist crimes

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No real criteria for inclusion. "Nationalist crimes" is rather ambiguous. Garden. 20:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. An arbitrary and random selection of links.Biophys (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as random opinion-based laundry list subject to endless POV-warring. - Biruitorul Talk 19:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have relisted this old discussion as it was lost (never added to a log page). ascidian  | talk-to-me  06:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete It's impossible to determine objective inclusion criteria. - Mgm|(talk) 10:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per Mgm. Unmanageable for the vast majority of readers. Ottre 14:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - a totally arbitrary list which will be subject to endless conflict whilst giving no information to readers. the wub "?!"  15:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  15:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Despite the title and the introduction, this list just seems to be a random collection of link to articles which the author thinks might have something to do with nationalism. I can't see any way of defining clear and objective inclusion criteria for a list such as this. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete a very bad jumble that requires explanations instead of a simple list. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 04:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete With no criteria to determine inclusion in the list, this article is just original research. Edward321 (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2009 (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.