Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trnopolje

Nothing but a long rant. Rick K 22:53, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Hopeless POV, and I'm not sure anyone seeking information on the massacre, supposed or otherwise, would be searching this way. Geogre 23:59, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep and improve. Come on guys, its only a few hours old. Let cleanup take a shot at it. Trnopolje is a real location, and something can easily be written. This is obviously very POV, but should not be deleted. It and many other camps are listed even on Wikipedia at Concentration camp#Bosnia and Herzegovina. -- Netoholic @ 00:50, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I.e. blank this out (so the edit history is misleading, since nothing remains of the "contributions") and start over with what is essentially a brand new article? If you're saying, "Come on, guys, let's create an article for this place," that's fine. I don't disagree. That's not the same thing as "keep," though. Geogre 01:03, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There are obviously verifiable facts in the article, and the current version can be a starting point for the effort. -- Netoholic @ 01:30, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's not a good starting point IMHO since, the only reason that it's not a copyvio is the clear POV material surrounding the sections taken from newspapers. The author has fair use rights (he has lots of rant relative to his copied material), but if we deleted everything which was POV and only left facts, let alone facts we could back up, this would be a cut and paste from a newspaper. That's not to say there shouldn't be an article, but it would be easier to start from scratch. At best the entire material should move to a talk page and a good stub should be written.Mozzerati 06:37, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)

Agree with Mozzerati -- using it as a starting point is more trouble than starting anew. Delete --Improv 19:35, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete - not an article but a rant - Tεx τ urε 03:42, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. If it is stubified to a verifiable, on-topic, NPOV core, then I will change my vote. This article and a related picture of dubious copyright status are the only contribs from this user yet. I'll try to compose a suitable welcome. Andrewa 03:48, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete for the following reasons: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not #3: Wikipedia is not a soapbox; What Wikipedia entries are not #6: Propaganda or advocacy of any kind, #9: Personal essays that state your idiosyncratic opinions about a topic, #10: Primary research, #16: A news report, #18: A vehicle for advertising and self-promotion; Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Precedents #10.1 Are personal reviews and commentaries encyclopedic? - No. SWAdair | Talk 04:07, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Content is marginally relevant to title. Mikkalai 05:19, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - POV. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 10:25, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep the article but remove the content. The subject itself (Trnopolje) merits an article, but the content of this article is clearly a violation of NPOV, among other things. Aecis 11:18, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Only if you care to write a new content right away. The whole fuss here on VfD is content. It is not that difficult to begian an article from scratch; one doesn't need to "reserve" space, fill permission and export control forms, or so. Mikkalai 14:59, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- If you can write a real article do so now and return here with a request for review of the new article. - Tεx τ urε 15:21, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Clear propaganda/advocacy. Keeping this on Wikipedia longer will only serve to propagate it to mirrors. If anyone wants to write a neutral stub from reliable sources after this is deleted, please, do so. Andris 15:19, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. No good. Bad. Jallan 20:03, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Ambi 03:36, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. POV rant. — Gwalla | Talk 22:32, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Hopelessly POV. Nothing here could be used to make a decent NPOV article. Key45 09:07, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Second the above. NPOV would barely yield a stub; better to just start over. Mashford 17:52, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)