Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Success of Kennedy's administration in its relations to the Soviet Union


 * 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The Success of Kennedy&
Hello all. I can see why some my say that this is a POV, but i would disagree. It is intened to be an ANALYSIS of how he dealt with the communists during his time in office, and as is stated is a work in progress. I have also referenced from Stephen E Ambrose, rise to Globalism and Chompsky 'Dtereing Democrasy, but i have not had time to footnote correctly. It is certainly not meant to be an essay. Similary it is not designed to replace, or be an alternative to the pages on 'the bay of pigs', 'the perlin crisis' or the 'cuban missile crisis'. These articles do indeed deal with those issues in more depth, but they do not provide the overview of his dealigs with communism or much of an analysis. I felt the need to address those issues in a little depth so that the reader would not neccessarily need to visit those pages to gain an undertanding of the events, and then relate back to this. As it clearly states it is a work in progress and will be updated shortly. I am concerned regarding the comment about the lack of neutrality of the article. When creating an overview assessing the success of something one must surely come to a cnoclusion? E Clendennen 17:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by E Clendennen (talk • contribs)


 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Inherently POV subject, bad title, only one source, not proper article format Kevlar67 (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * delete - POV essay with a single source. Relevant information is already at JFK. Torc2 (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Beeblbrox (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Author is honest in showing that this is drawn from pages 847 and 848 of a history textbook called The Enduring Vision, but this is covered much better in articles about the Bay of Pigs, the Berlin Crisis, and the Cuban Missile Crisis, all of which rely on more than one source Mandsford (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above. Tim  meh  !  02:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Obviously an essay, several POV issues here, and I don't think that it could be rewritten in a neutral fashion. Plus, what little verifiable info there is has already been covered in JFK's article. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV beyond salvage, poorly sourced. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   —Nick Dowling (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above comments (no need to repeat their reasons). This is an essay, not an article, and looks to be unsalvageable. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Clearly a POV essay, unsalvageable. —  Wen li  (reply here) 04:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV essay, only one source, material is covered elsewhere.  --Dawn bard (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Note that the author has recreated the content in a new article:  Foreign policy of the Kennedy administration, which has been PRODded.  --Dawn bard (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2008 (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.