Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War criminals in Canada


 * 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   keep. The idea that this is a content fork has dramatically failed to gain any purchase in this discussion. I cannot see any other reason given for deletion, let alone a reason that has rallied any consensus. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

War criminals in Canada

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The article is a content fork - Content forking - Rapists in Canada and Murderers in Canada are next? its totally undue - there is no special problem with war criminals in Canada - we have no War criminals in any other country article, and there are other countries with far greater coverage of the issue - the whole story, such minor as it is, is easily coverable at the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, the group that is focusing on the one or two cases that have been brought to trial. - a couple of not notable books commenting about war criminals in Canada do not make a notable NPOV topic for an encyclopedic article. You really  can  03:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: Canada has had a long history of allowing war criminals to reside in their country. This article has plenty of citations and has very little to do with the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, i.e. it is not a fork! In addition, it is written from a NPOV. JunoBeach (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note - I also have issues with the articles neutrality and there are comments on the talkpage of the article in this regards - a WP:NPOV template I added has been removed without addressing the content issues by the above user - diff - This discussion about the article on User:Bwilkins talkpage is also further detail to consider. You really  can  12:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep What are you alleging this is a content fork of? Did you mean POV fork? Cleanup is necessary, and perhaps a rename. "Status of war criminals in Canada" might be better. --BDD (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Abstain I came to this page on fairly routine newpage patrol. I was intrigued by what was going on there and decided to help the creator find a new consensus. I believe that the way this has always been done on wikipedia is by editing the article - not by engaging in edit wars over the NPOV tag. The NPOV is a tag is one that we can live with Canada's immigration policy has not been neutral either. But it does not mean that Wikipidia should distort facts. If there is a risk of confusing the public the NPOV tag should stay until resolved - but this is not a reason for censoring the article on political grounds.
 * However the NPOV has not been added in accordence to the recomendation of Responsible Tagging Responsible tagging. Infact YouRealyCan has not participated in the attempt to form a new consensus by explaining what POV, facts, opinion are missing from the article. If s/he has such opinions he has kept them to himself. I would call his work disruptive editing - but he has not edited the article -
 * The non existence of an article as a proof of non-noteablity is based on a logical fallacy - for example a dearth of swiss war criminals is not an indicator about this article. This type of sensationalism is the reason we argue from policy not from norms.
 * Regarding the uniqueness of Canada - the sources indicate that Canada is the only participant in the Nuremberg Trials and Tokyo Tribunals to give unlimited safe Harbor to Nazi war criminals. (Though the USA has had a similar stain in the past - one also worth an article in the future.)
 * Since policy without norms is difficult to interpret the following are a number of subject that would be censored in a less open encyclopedia:
 * Japanese war crimes
 * Dachau massacre - provides a good balance between two controversial POV
 * Historical revisionism (negationism) - what is going on here.
 * As pointed out already on the talk page, the role of the SWC in this subject is currently high-profile since they have kept the issue current with their global initiative operation last chance. However the sources indicate that the same claims have made by a much larger group of organizations - Canadian and independent. The role of SWC is marginal when compared with those of Lawyers, Judges and the Canadian legislatures.
 * Regarding the notability of the books in the further reading section. This claim is rather blatant evidence of a lack of WP:Before. These text books a frequently cited in scientific literature.
 * The author David Matas is a noted Canadian lawyer and academic who was named to the Order of Canada and nominated in 2010 for the Nobel Prize for his work related to the Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China of Falun Gong BO ; talk 20:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. How is this a content fork? It looks like its a notable category in its own regard, and I think it meets WP:GNG. Lord Roem (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2012 (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.