Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/STILL REFUSES TO SAY SORRY


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 11:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

STILL REFUSES TO SAY SORRY
non encyclopaedic Xtra 03:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete POV rant against John Howard. Zach (Sound Off) 03:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy as attack page? Ashibaka (tock) 03:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Not encyclopedic at all, as well as biased and POV. NickBush24 03:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Edit: Forgot to mention this, but the very fact that the article name is in all caps doesn't exactly indicate scholarliness, if you ask me. NickBush24 09:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy as an attack page.  [ edit ] 03:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This is not a speedy candidate, because it's not "short". Compare with the example given ""OMFG! Joe Random is a l0ser n00bface lolol!!!11")." A page like this could easily contain material worth merging or keep. 03:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Our Stolen Generation discusses this issue at length and with sources. Our National Sorry Day while a stub covers the same ground. There is nothing in this article worth merging and a redirect is pointless because noone is going to search for an article with that title especially in All Caps. Capitalistroadster 03:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Capitalistroadster. Qaz  ( talk ) 06:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, personal attack. &mdash; J I P | Talk 06:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Although I'm not a fan of my nation's leader, this article attacking John Howard is pointless, unencyclopedic, and a waste of space. Saberwyn 08:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As per Capitalistroadster, Delete. Uncle G 12:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Capitalistroadster.--Isotope23 15:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Speedied as an attack page. android 79  00:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Kappa correctly pointed out that the attack-page criterion applies to short articles, which this was not. I've undeleted and reopened the AfD. Oh, and Delete, POV rant. android  79  01:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * So if I write an article in which I call a person every euphamism for "penis" imaginable (and there are thousands) it doesn't get speedied because it's not short??? Come on. Kappa should find a better use for his time. I'm gonna go get high. Don't be surprised if I speedy this when I get back. -R. fiend 01:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If it had no potentially useful content, it wouldn't meet the criteria, but I wouldn't nag people about it... Kappa 02:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't be surprised if I don't complain if you do. Enjoy your plant-based recreation. android  79  02:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * IMO the speedy was appropriate. This is an attack page, and as pointed out above, useful content already exists elsewhere.  Speedy delete, or do it slowly if we must.  Friday (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is a POV rant, but it doesn't really qualify as an attack page. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV rant. Perhaps mention event briefly in Stolen generation if any of it can be verified (I doubt if the nosepicking detail is true, for example), and then delete this. -- The Anome 09:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV rant, detracting from this resource as a reputable encyclopedia. Perhaps something can be salvaged to merge into Stolen Generation. MulgaBill 11:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, otherwise move to elsewhere such as Talk:Stolen Generation -- Zondor 15:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey guys, i wrote this page. would it be ok if it was merged to part of stolen generation pages. I believe that the issue of the howard government's refusal to say sorry has not been sufficiently cataloged by this encyclopedia. It is quite important to this aboriginal history of australia, just as important truganini and namatjira. that's why i placed it here. (posted by user:130.194.13.102 talk)
 * 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.