Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USA war crimes


 * 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. As Protonk notes there is the possibility of an article along these lines (perhaps following the pattern of other articles mentioned below), however right now there is a clear consensus to delete this version as an unnecessary (and largely duplicative) content fork of Allied war crimes during World War II.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

USA war crimes

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Procedural nomination for User:JukoFF, who gave the cryptic explanation "Moved from quick removing." in a malformed AfD. As for me, I give an unbiased Delete as a case of synthesis and original research. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Syn, OR, POV. This is a notable subject, and one that is probably already covered in a half dozen other wikipedia articles.  Were this list to be completely and totally reworked (including cited from plenty of places alleging war crimes by the US over the 19th and 20th century (though the phrase didn't have any legal weight in the 19th century), it might be worth it to hang on.  But I don't see this article getting from here to there without a delete in between. Protonk (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Synthesis at its worst. MrPrada (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV title, article lacks context or coherence (apparently is entirely about WWII), mostly links to existing articles. KleenupKrew (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article is orphaned, cut-and-pasted from its origins at Allied war crimes during World War II where it was given context within a larger framework. This material belongs there, not in its own article. Binksternet (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Binksternet. As an aside: one of the "crimes" was the killing of some of the SS guards at the Dachau death camp by Americans who liberated it. The article on that incident referred to it as "mopping up," which seems more appropriate. Edison (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Although this isn't the forum to discuss the legitimacy of war crime claims, if the "mopping up" occurred when the guards were disarmed or otherwise had surrendered, it was a war crime. I don't remember reading anything about the US doing that at concentration camps (the russians did), but we did it elsewhere at the end of the war. Protonk (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete All I can say is wow. Blahblah5555 (talk) 04:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * that's not really an argument then. If you have a reason we should delete this article, please append it to your statement or the bottom of the page. Protonk (talk) 08:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep we have German war crimes, Italian war crimes and Soviet war crimes and this article seems to follow a logical similar format, the fact that a country may have been responsible for war crimes should be discussed in detail (as it is with other nations) Thisglad (talk) 07:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Then wouldn't it be fine to have an article entitled Allied War Crimes? Presumably if you consider the concentration camps as war crimes, the Italians and the Germans deserve a separate page.  Russian acts in border countries and what would become East Germany probably merit s separate page.  Are you prepared to show that the USA merits a separate page of war crimes distinct from the British, the French, or others? Protonk (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Thisglad  JukoFF (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As you may or may not know, AfD is not a vote. If you would like admins to consider your arguments strongly, you are better served by formulating and expressing them yourself rather than just noting your assent or dissent to the proposal.  Thanks! Protonk (talk) 20:46, 25 April 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.