Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate


 * 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 of the debate was KEEP and CLEAN UP. &mdash; J I P | Talk 20:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate

 * Keep and cleanup - I've been following this debate for a couple of years and will help clean up the page. APologies if I edited this page wrong but I didn't see any way to do it an add the time stamp.Tracy White
 * Nominate and Delete  - Crazily non-encyclopedic, nowhere near the quality of conspiracy articles like Kennedy assassination theories. Staxringold 11:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup well-known debate. Low quality is a reason to edit, not delete. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup I have to agree, well-known debate. Low quality is a reason to edit, not delete. MaddMaxx 16:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC) Madd Maxx MaddMaxx 16:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. Good grief - Admiral Husband Kimmel got scapegoated over unpreparedness/advance knowledge issues.  This is definitely a notable subject about which lots has been written.  Needs bigtime cleanup/expert attention and I have tagged it as such. - Sensor 00:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Cleanup. My mistake, sorry, vote amended as it still DEFINETLY needs a clean-up. Staxringold 01:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup, per Wahoofive and MaddMaxx. -- NS LE  ( Commu nicate! ) < Contribs > 09:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Deletion - Delete it entirely as it damages the spirit and intent of Wikipedia. Our group's interest is not well served here; this is the wrong forum for this now multi-generational squabble.  Note that there are no totally agreed upon "experts" on this topic; a balanced pro/con view has not been abided.  Various of the materials as shown even today are objectively incorrect as can be easily shown to be erroneous by simple fact checking.

This is not what a free, open, and insightful information sharing communities' encyclopedia should be about.


 * Merge with Attack on Pearl Harbor. -- Necrothesp 02:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep, cleanup, merge with Attack on Pearl Harbor. Even though the article requires a lot of work, there are enough documents, research results and most of all academical comments to support an ongoing debate, which should not be swept under the carpet simply because some countries are a little sensitive about the issue. aeris 00:07, 4 November 2005 (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.