Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revenue of the LTTE


 * 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 speedy delete as copyright violation. Blackknight12 is wrong. is not this article's creator, because Ellaalan simply ganked paragraph after paragraph wholesale from various other people's writings. Spot checks on several parts of the article turned up several originals that were copied here. Uncle G (talk) 13:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Revenue of the LTTE

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

This article is so heavily biased that I almost speedily deleted this as spam. I also think that it is likely to be full of lies. For example, it states that the LTTE is not involved in vices, but atrocities like conscripting child soldiers and killing a busload of monks suggest otherwise. Jesse Viviano (talk) 23:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: This article has no reliable sources, and some are even taken from within Wikipedia it self. It is definitely biased like it's creator Ellaalan and his other article Operation Unceasing Waves III.--Blackknight12 (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions.  —Jesse Viviano (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  —Jesse Viviano (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOR, at the least. Anyone else sick and tired of the various factions in this civil war fighting it out on Wikipedia?   Ravenswing  03:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete POV fork of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Everything in this fork can be addressed at the mother article, briefly, in more neutral terms. Binksternet (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. Shame that Janes link is a 404 - more independent reliable sources could rescue the article from the quicksands of POV. bobrayner (talk) 00:41, 24 November 2010 (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.