Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Dante Arthurs

For many people, the rumour that Arthurs may be Thompson has NOT been disproven conclusively. If you want, I can put together a conspiracy theory page featuring Arthurs, Thompson and the Governments of Australia and Western Australia with hard evidence far more noxious to you than what is currently featured in this article. The evidence I have is fully sourced and can be forwarded to Wikipedia editors before positng if you would prefer that. The only reason why I have not posted this information so far is for fear of jeopardising the trial.

The rumour exists and Dante Arthurs is the central character. Those are undeniable facts. If you believe there is no further basis for this rumour, let me know and I will forward what I have to Wikipedia and let them decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elpocoloco (talk • contribs)

You are still basing your rationale for the page on this discredited rumour. If Dante Arthurs turns out to be one of the killers of James Bulger, the story worthy of a Wikipedia page will be the conspiracy story concerning the national and relevant local governments and Police of both Australia and UK, who have all denied this ridiculous rumour. What is this so-called 'hard evidence?'. If it exists, please post it here, and also send it to me at tlaingyorbATkriocouckeDOTmailexpireDOTcom

If by any amazing turn of events, there is some substance here, then it will be the correct time to feature it on a page. Centrepull 06:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr Unsigned Comment aka Elpocoloco, you may also have evidence that Elvis is still alive, and that aliens exist. But you can't seriously expect us to take it on trust? I don't even know how evidence can be 'noxious', but whatever it is, either you reveal it or the article doesn't conform to Wikipedia notability criteria and gets rubbed out.

The ball is in your court.I elliot 13:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The camera hardly ever lies, Elliot. The non-coincdental similarities between the two are there for all to see. The article should remain on this basis alone. These pictures were obtained from public, unbiased sources - the West Australian Newspaper and the BBC. The West Australian tried to alter the face of Thompson's notorious mugshot photo and publish it soon after they published Arthurs' arrest photo in an attempt to "make amends" for their oversight. That is what the West Australian would probably like officials in the UK to think, that no doubt want their heads on a platter for publishing Arthurs' photo when they would've undoubtedly known that the lid would not remain on the "rumour" the second time around. Thankfully, the West Australian isn't owned by Murdoch or any other multinational media organisation therefore they are more difficult to threaten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.166.230.179 (talk • contribs)

Believe it or not Wikipedia is not a medium at your disposal to push your political agenda. You clearly seem to have an axe to grind with the government, the Murdoch press, Arthurs and/or Venables. If you're so passionate about this I suggest you contact the news media or set up your own webpage/blog. Publishing original research is clearly a contravention of Wikipedia policy. I elliot 11:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an avenue for the truth that no one else is prepared to become involved with. The axe I have to grind is with individuals whom want to dispute the miscarriage of justice that is occurring right before their very eyes, seemingly for their own political reasons given the extent to which they refuse to address the facts that have been presented regarding Dante Arthurs. The government and press cannot and should not be considered as the sole conduits of truth. You won't find anything other than unbiased fact in the article. It does not contain any unreferenced sources of information. The sole purpose of the article is to provide information regarding murder and rape suspect Dante Arthurs. Simply because the mainstream media have been intimidated into steering absolutely clear of reporting ANYTHING about Dante Arthurs or this case does not mean it applies to all media thankfully, much to the disdain of the UK authorities no doubt. Wikipedia, having no commercial or political interests, is the perfect place for information that is verified as being true yet is too sensitive for the media to the report. Viva la Internet.Elpocoloco 14:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)