Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In Defense of Internment

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 02:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] In Defense of Internment

POV page that states explicitly that it exists to forward a political agenda. --AStanhope 00:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless expanded and NPOVed. Do you mean "POV page"? In any case, there is very little content beyond what was copied from the book. Part of that minimal content calls Malkin a "counter-terrorism expert". Huh? -Willmcw 00:46, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • You are correct - I meant POV. I am fixing it. Thanks. --AStanhope 11:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This is a book in case you have not noticed. The page is a stub that will get expanded. You VFD has no merit.--CltFn 03:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • It is not your place to delete the VFD tag from the original article once the VFD process has been initiated by another editor. I have replaced the tag. Please do not remove it again. Thank you. --AStanhope 12:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, published book. Kappa 12:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Easy Keep - whilst being a pulished book does not in itself make it notable, 20k googles does. --Doc (?) 13:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - real book and lots of googles. I resent VFD being used as cleanup. --Celestianpower ^hab 13:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I resent the Wikipedia being used as a vehicle for promoting the sale of a commercial item. --AStanhope 13:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A book might be POVed, but the wikipedia article commenting it can be NPOV. It is especially interesting to have wikipedia articles on controversial issues or works. --fnielsen 14:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Astanhope, I suspect your personal opinions about this awful book would not be very much different than mine. However, I strongly disagree with your action to list this page on VfD. Please read WP:DEL closely. Candidates for VfD include pages which violate WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:N/WP:V, WP:VAIN, hoax pages, vandalism, and patent nonsense. A page that is about an encyclopedic subject (and despite the nonsense Malkin believes, the book is worthy of an article on WP, see WP:V), but does not adhere to NPOV is not a candidate for deletion. It should be discussed on the Talk page, a POV tag can be slapped on the article page in the meantime, etc. The point being that it should be worked on to bring it to NPOV. Not deleted because it is currently POV. You're right that User:CltFn shouldn't have removed the VfD tag; however, you can, and I'm hoping you will close this and work with him on the talk page.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ14:50:18, 2005-08-13 (UTC)
  • I'd like to believe that my personal opinions have nothing to do with this request. Using the justifications cited here to "keep" the book, any book publisher could write software that cranks through their database to (A) create a new Wikipedia article for a every title, (B) populate it with the standard marketing description and table of contents and (C) add a "stub" tag - so the article can "be expanded later." We used to call this "spamming." --AStanhope 18:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
    • It is true that some unscrupulous publishers may theoretically take advantage of Wikipedia's openess to market their products. I do not think that we as editors thereby have a justification to interpret VfD policy to mean more than it does. The WP:DEL page is pretty clear about what articles should not be in VfD, and this is very probably one of them. I agree that the "article" on the book is awful, and the version that you came across [1] particularly so, but equally, it is reasonably clear that User:CltFn is not a piece of software; indeed, a visit to his Talk page discloses that he has had long-standing problems with articles on books, and appears not to understand how to write one. That this is so is good reason to try and correct the POV problems of the page (or attaching tags to indicate the NPOV problem and the need for attention/cleanup), but it is not a reason to VfD the page. Regards—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 19:58:01, 2005-08-13 (UTC)

In Defence of CltFn. With all due respect folks I started this page as a stub. No sooner had I done so an editor nominated it for deletion. I hardly had a chance to develop the article. I have started a number of book pages and have immediately encountered heavy blanking out and redirecting by POV warrior who object to the topics of the books. I have often added an author's quote to the pages because it is the only thing that seems to survive the shredding of unhappy POV warriors. I do my best to add content to the pages, but it is difficult to do so in the teeth of the editors who continually revert what I insert. I present The Sword of the Prophet Page History as a case in point.--CltFn 00:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup. Notable book by notable author. Capitalistroadster 15:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep rather than repeat all that was said, Encephalon pretty much summed it up. In fact, the VfD is more POV than the article. Themindset 18:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, significant as the first US book in a long time to openly defend internment. Gazpacho 20:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep BUT Wikipedia is not a dust jacket. A quotation from the author (which may be copyvio?) seems to be most of the content on the page, rather than a discussion of the issues raised in the book and the controversy I have no doubt surrounds it. JDoorjam 20:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. High profile book that deserves a more detailed article examining the controversy over its case. David | Talk 20:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup. Article is extremely POV and needs to be rewritten to be NPOV. Author's POV is presented, controversy is briefly mentioned, and opposition view is not detailed at all. ManoaChild 23:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but it needs to be cleaned up and expanded to include more than a chapter list and a quote by the author. GregAsche 03:23, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I have expanded the article discussing the controversy over the book. No change of vote from keep. Capitalistroadster 04:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• This book is a steaming pile of crypto-fascist trash, written by an evil person who hates freedom and whom I would refuse to break bread with. Despite that, Keep. It's notable. Notably evil, but notable. Nandesuka 12:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Obviously notable book. User should know better than to nominate. Eliot 15:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Change vote to Keep. The article has improved greatly since it was nominated. -Willmcw 17:54, August 15, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.