This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2012 March 21. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2012 December 5. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was delete. Despite all the SPAs (including one proxy editor), the result is to delete and not redirect. The current title of the article is not neutral and is more an opinion, or a referenced opinion. Also, this is duplicating existing topics and there is not much newly sourced information in the article. It discribes affiliations and activities, which is already covered in the other articles, or should be covered there. This is not disputing the right for the information to exist (except where previous consensus has been made), but it does need to be done in a more neutral fashion, and we can't be saying they have ties to group x and group y, so they are now supporting terrorism, as "supporting terrorism" is an opinion in itself. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
This topic is covered well in the main article. This is a WP:POVFORK created after two RFCs ( [1], [2]) at the main article's talk were closed with consensus to exclude the content proposed by the author. So this article is also in a way evading the consensus reached there. SMS Talk 18:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Also probable sock, see [11]. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 15:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I am not another IP of any one else. Please do not remark on me. -- 39.41.168.9 ( talk) 15:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC) reply
This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2012 March 21. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2012 December 5. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was delete. Despite all the SPAs (including one proxy editor), the result is to delete and not redirect. The current title of the article is not neutral and is more an opinion, or a referenced opinion. Also, this is duplicating existing topics and there is not much newly sourced information in the article. It discribes affiliations and activities, which is already covered in the other articles, or should be covered there. This is not disputing the right for the information to exist (except where previous consensus has been made), but it does need to be done in a more neutral fashion, and we can't be saying they have ties to group x and group y, so they are now supporting terrorism, as "supporting terrorism" is an opinion in itself. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
This topic is covered well in the main article. This is a WP:POVFORK created after two RFCs ( [1], [2]) at the main article's talk were closed with consensus to exclude the content proposed by the author. So this article is also in a way evading the consensus reached there. SMS Talk 18:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Also probable sock, see [11]. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 15:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I am not another IP of any one else. Please do not remark on me. -- 39.41.168.9 ( talk) 15:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC) reply