Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campaign against missile defence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete as blatant copyvio of this site. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Campaign against missile defence

Campaign against missile defence (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Looks like a Soapbox. Also seems like a WP:COI. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.S. missile defense also. Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 22:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

  • cleanup. It is definitely POV right now, but with work it can be salvaged. Maybe it can even include criticisms of the movements. Kingturtle (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • delete. I looked at the edit summary of the article, saw that it didn't have very many edits in spite of its enormous length. Usually that's an indication of cut and paste copyright violation. I found one of the sources for the copyright violation, and I put the appropriate tag on the article. Kingturtle (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined towards deleting the article. As it stands, the article is somewhere between a coatrack, a soapbox and original research. I think it would be better to rewrite it from scratch, than to attempt to clean this up. AecisBrievenbus 23:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • neutral. This article is a crap article, primarily because of its POV, but it is the only useful article about the latest anti-American comsymp movement, and as such, there should be an article on it, and there seems to be useful material for such an article. Argyriou (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Copy-Vio Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 01:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 07:09, 7 February 2008 (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.