Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mirko Norac

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 Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination by now-blocked user. Duja 07:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mirko Norac

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

This article is about an insignificant military person known to outer world only through the crime he commited. Not a single encyclopaedia, military journal, mainstream media, military institution, or historian ever expressed any interest in him. The article is written along with the ruling nationalist agenda aimed to relativize the crime he commited.

All his military 'achievemnts' are recognized by the people who were directly responsible for the crimes against civilians (Janko Bobetko, Franjo Tudjman). Actually, this man (Norac) is uneducated and primitive person - a hero of the people who are at the same mental hevel as him. I hardly could imagine any interest of an avereage educated reader of Wikipedia - in that man.

All together - following the same reason - we could have entries about a bunch of people praised for the crime they commited in the Burundi, Iraq, or Afganistan wars. Credibility and dignity of Wikipedia shall be ultimately protected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mario.radin (talk • contribs).

• Keep - notability established: first general of the Croatian Army to be found guilty of war crimes by a Croatian court; also note that the user who proposed AfD did it only after he vandalised the page several times --User:Dijxtra 14:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Your nomination seems to amount to a claim he's not notable, and you claim "mainstream media" hasn't expressed any interest in him. Yet the New York Times [1] have, as have L'Humanité [2], Der Tagesspiegel [3], and the BBC [4], all mainstream media. Apart from that you claim the subject is "primitive" and the article biased - these aren't grounds for deletion. So keep. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid giving false references as yo did here!!!!--Velebit 00:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - The fact that Wikipedia is suppose to be unique is the main reason the article should be kept. Why delete anything as long as the article follows the rules for submission. I agree with Finlay McWalter in-part too in that if anyone thinks the article's relativizing, praising, primitive or biased they should change it.

I agree with User:Dijxtra. Do you want to be manipulated by vandalizer? As for Unsigned's comments, in all due respect, you speak of poor education on the part of the contributor, but your text sating, "...and primitive person" maybe should read, "...and a primitive person" and "...the same mental hevel" maybe should read, "...the same mental level." Perhaps it was accidental. If it's correct or acceptable English I apologize.

As about the vandalizer - the very author of this article about Norac twice vandalized my contribution to the Talk page. Bad thing for Wikipedia is that the User:Dijxtra is an administrator.--Velebit 00:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That's what we're suppose to be here for though. We're not suppose to censor people. Don't delete it. If anything change it. But definitely keep it. DavidWJohnson 16:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep High-ranking convicted war criminals are encyclopedically notable. The article could use some cleanup however (e.g. weasel words problems, some poor English) Bwithh 17:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable and informaive. `'mikka (t) 19:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete The article follow strict and primitive nationalistic agenda aimed to whitewash the image a petty war criminal. As it mentioned before, if we allow this article here the integrity and credibility of Wikipedia will be gravely compromised. High-ranked by the men who are war criminals too--Velebit 00:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It is funny thing to even read this article. Telling people about youngest ever colonel of Croatian Army and not telling the fact that the Croatian president Tudjman - and his superior in some way - was a man despised by the world leaders (nobody attended his funeral) and considered as a war criminal too - is a fraud! It is fraud not to tell that Norac's superior and commander-in-chief Janko Bobetko was an indicted war criminal who avoided the ICTY dying before getting chance to be handed over to the ICTY. To put it differently - what is the real value of this rapid advancement of a half-literete man in the ranks of some army??? It is fraud to say that he was duke of Sinjska alka and not to tell that the Zagreb diplomatic corps publicly annonced their disgust by the fact that this (Norac) man was honoured that way and refused to participate in this commemorative and solemn event. I am asking all those writing Keep why they did it so?
  • Why don't you edit the article, then? `'mikka (t) 18:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Bwithh, Finlay McWalter. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. 38K+ GHits and deals with an important event. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per all above. It will need heavy copyediting, however, among other things.UberCryxic 15:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Utter garbage and heavy bias--Perkovic Ante 17:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • This is this account's first edit. Also, note impersonation of User:Ante Perkovic. --Dijxtra 17:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep POV-problems can be fixed. The most important point is that this man is notable enough. —Khoikhoi 18:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Enough of the Anglo-centric worldview. Just because some hicks in the US haven't heard of this bastard doesn't mean he's not notable. --estavisti 08:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete The article is still a garbage. A bastard is a bastard - not a notable!!! Not a single serious encyclopaedia has a Norac entry!!! Please, do not degrade Wikipedia!!!

• Strong Keep Tsk, tsk, tsk. Revisionism at its finest. Perhaps we should also remove the article on Mladić as well? I mean, he hasn't even stood trial, let alone been convicted. Agree with Dijxtra. Хајдук Еру (Talk || Cont) 21:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the nomination for deletion is weak, and I believe in bad faith. Just because his notability is for war crimes doesn't make it any less of a topic for an encyclopedia. "All together - following the same reason - we could have entries about a bunch of people praised for the crime they commited in the Burundi, Iraq, or Afganistan wars. Credibility and dignity of Wikipedia shall be ultimately protected." Then following the nominator's logic, we should delete William Calley, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. because each is an "uneducated and primitive person - a hero of the people who are at the same mental hevel as him." In Calley's case, that is absolutely the only thing he is notable for. Thanks for your concern about keeping the dignity of wikipedia at its oh-so-lofty levels, as I'm sure that is your primary concern, but the disingenuous edit/deletion wars between various Balkan region ethnic groups, Turks and Armenians, Indians and Pakistanis, Arabs and Israelis, Republicans and Democrats, pro-Iraq War people and anti-Iraq War people, and Mets fans and Yankees fans are really wearing thin. If you don't think the info is neutral or correct, change it with verifiable facts.--Nobunaga24 04:28, 3 October 2006 (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.