Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of war 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 03:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

List of war crimes
This list is too subjective and is bound to violate WP:POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ineffable3000 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 5 December 2006
 * Strong Delete as nom. --Ineffable3000 04:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep parameters are vigorous. Is this a joke, or some political maneuver? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per RAN. Will also note the list is quite NPOV in that it lists precisely accusations and any resulting outcomes. Also well sourced and verifiable. --Karnesky
 * Keep The list enumerates facts that are well documented and, in mzny cases, have ben recognized as such by international bodies. --Lebob-BE 11:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, let's quit political campaigning on this issue Alf photoman 14:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep POV will be a problem but isn't grounds for deletion. TSO1D 14:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. --- RockMFR 15:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; Seems fairly well defined; PoV specifics can be resolved through references. &mdash; RJH (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above. Pathlessdesert 00:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Please stop nominating every military-related list for deletion. --Hemlock Martinis 05:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey thats not fair to say. You owe him an apology. He is not trying to delete every military list, and I resent you implying that. He is trying to delete every list he didn't create. Its a big difference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep WP:Deletion policy specifically mentions POV as not being a reason to delete an article, but as a reason to fix it. There is no subjectivity in what should and should not be in this article. As the only reasons provided have been false or invalid, and as this list is quite important to the study of war crimes, I strongly recommend keeping it. -NorsemanII 07:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Defined by international law, hence verifiable. Mukadderat 01:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per all of the above. Khoikhoi 05:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Very strong keep - per all the arguments on all the military lists this nominator has targetted.    Th e Tr ans hu man ist   12:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Inportant subject, even with clarifications. Note that the nominator is a POV-pusher - Skysmith 18:00, 7 December 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.