Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World peace

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 keep per WP:SNOW, bad faith nomination. Non-admin closure. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] World Peace

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/World Peace Forum 2006 Articles for deletion/World Peace Plan
World Peace (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Violation of Neutral Point of View Markmulligan (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment nominator made a hyperweird PROD at [1] and then claimed vandalism on his soapboxing being deleted. 70.55.84.89 (talk) 05:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This article should not be deleted, first of all, because it is totally important. Second of all, because since world peace has never been achieved or attained, the causes and effects of world peace will never be truly established. There will always be debate on whether information regarding world peace is justified, so the text of the article should be written in such a way that will be reasonable to justify. Third of all, why was this article nominated for deletion again? WinterSpw (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Topic is notable and verifiable. NPOV concerns can be worked out in editing...but I don't see any myself. Is the nom suggesting that the topic of "world peace" is NPOV? Perhaps they can explain themselves better. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Destroy This article is typical neocon flat-earth twaddle. World Peace is a question of mutually axsured destruction (MAD), the brainchild of George W. Bush and go.army.com, that are quoted as reference sources. No mention of Tolstoy, Kropotkin, Adler, More and dozens of other contributors to the idea of World Peace. This editor knows as much about World Peace as he does about being intelligent; as do his saboteur supporters. All pro-peace references have been deleted as of Nov 2007 (including mine -- full disclosure). I am ashamed of everyone here at Wiki; an outsider has to come and clean up your in-house messes. You people are so wrapped up in your rule nerddom, you let flagrant liars flourish among your topics. I wonder how many more topics are equally corrupt, and you just let slide. Read the damn article and see for yourselves...Markmulligan (talk) 12:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Disagreeing with the current content is not a good reason for deletion. If the content is bad (I have no opinion about this) but the topic is notable (which it clearly is), then the article should be improved, not deleted.Klausness (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, perhaps speedy keep, nomination does not state a real ground for deleting this. NPOV violations are not deletion grounds. This page wants improvement, not deletion, so it can be a valuable reference resource for potential beauty pageant contestants everywhere. It certainly is a well known phrase. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep! Come on, how many zillions of sources are there for this topic? Even the US post office has issued multiple stamps on this topic (here and here). Nyttend (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obviously notable topic, as mentioned above. Sure the article could use some updating and cleanup, but that is not a reason for deletion. Useight (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep: as bad faith nomination. It is plain that nom (who could stand to review WP:CIVIL) came out on the wrong end of a content dispute, quite aside from having his only Wikipedia activity before the last couple days being trying to insert an external link linking to an essay written by ... Mark Mulligan. This AfD should be closed at once.  RGTraynor  16:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Smerge with Miss World Plutonium27 (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy keep and tag for cleanup The article needs work, that much is true, but the nom is obviously a pointy one. Jtrainor (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep Nominator's arguments do not seem to be based on, or otherwise related to, wikipedia deletion policy; speaking of which: although the article contains several unsourced statements, the subject is inherently notable and numerous sources are readily available. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 17:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, nominator has offered no valid rationale for deletion. NPOV is a problem to be resolved through editing. Likely bad faith per RGTraynor. --Dhartung | Talk 17:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Clear Keep no questionThright (talk) 19:24, 14 March 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.