Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuanced voices on the Reconciliation, Tolerance, and Unity Bill


 * 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 and redirect to Reconciliation, Tolerance, and Unity Bill. Consensus is the material isn't suitable for a merge. Given history of this article's existence, viable ATD Star   Mississippi  21:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Nuanced voices on the Reconciliation, Tolerance, and Unity Bill

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Appears to be a WP:POVFORK (due to the title) of Reconciliation, Tolerance, and Unity Bill but maybe there's something I'm missing. Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 15:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Oceania. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment The See Also section links to a whole series of articles relating to this bill. I don't believe the nominated article is a POVFORK as such; more like an attempt to split the main article into this series of subarticles. The sourcing is all over the place (generally poor), so I suspect they should all be merged into Reconciliation, Tolerance, and Unity Bill. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge with main article. OTOH, it all needs a total rewrite, as does much of the Fiji material from this era. Unfortunately a lot of original sources were purged during the coup.--IdiotSavant (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what exactly could be merged when almost all of the article is unsourced commentary, essentially. Quotes from people and whatnot. I understand the desire to preserve information but I'm not seeing anything that'd make merging useful. If it needs a total rewrite, what would we be merging? Maybe you could explain a bit more so I could understand your perspective? I don't mean to be harsh and I appreciate your efforts to try and improve what you can. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming sources can be found e.g. on RNZ (the same applies to the main article). The problem is deciding which reactions are worth keeping - which is probably addressed by rewriting the main article and its other subsidiaries.--IdiotSavant (talk) 08:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. This page explains that this is a rationale to avoid in deletion discussions. However, if you can actually find such sourcing, feel free to add it. As you said, another matter is deciding whether there are reactions worth keeping, even if you can source them. If there is, I'd suggest creating a section called "Reception" on the main article. I know you haven't suggested anything other than merging, but I feel it worth mentioning for future participants that "nuanced views" on a subject implies that whoever isn't giving their opinion is not being nuanced, which is why I compared it to a POVFORK. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, normally I'd just go through and add the sources, but this whole area is such a mess that it requires more work than I can do ATM.
 * I think a section on "reception" in the main article is a good solution, and this can also incorporate information worth keeping for the related international, religious, and military reactions articles.-- IdiotSavant (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Not retrievable - it's a muddle of hearsay, opinion, and POV fork. Any relevant, sourced debates and reactions should be recorded in the main article. Plutonium27 (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:TNT. Incredibly poorly sourced, if you took all the info out which did not pass WP:VERIFY, you'd be left with a blank page. Onel 5969  TT me 01:35, 21 March 2023 (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.