Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Túpac Amaru II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedy keep as inappropriate nomination --Carnildo 8 July 2005 23:06 (UTC)

[edit] Túpac Amaru II

The Author/Caretaker of this article has repeatedly shown strong personal feelings on the subject of Tupac Amaru II, reverting necessary and insightful edits on the subject as if he were the sole arbiter of knowledge on Tupac Amaru II. I argue that this man's obsessive, hot-headed, argumentative involvement with the subject casts severe doubt on all the factual claims held in this article. I move that we delete this page on the grounds of prejudicial personal bias.

  • Comment: 4.174.0.193 (talk · contribs) failed to list this correctly...Tomer TALK July 8, 2005 04:23 (UTC)
    • Comment: The above seems to be the same person as 4.171.123.44 (talk · contribs), which explains what's going on here, as I've commented at Talk:Túpac Amaru II. Tomer TALK July 8, 2005 04:44 (UTC)
  • Keep, incidentally. Nothing in the VfD nomination is remotely decent grounds for deletion. Tomer TALK July 8, 2005 04:24 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep. Why are we even voting on a frivolous nomination like this? --MarkSweep 8 July 2005 04:30 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - for reasons above. Having problems with another editor is never grounds for deleting a page. --TheMidnighters 8 July 2005 04:42 (UTC)
  • Delete -we should start over from scratch. The author obviously too biased and insecure.
    • above unsigned vote cast by 4.174.0.193, who nominated this article for VfD, at 23:48, July 7, 2005. Tomer TALK July 8, 2005 04:58 (UTC)
    • Comment if you have a problem with the author, take it up on the author's talk page and on the article's talk page. If that fails to get anywhere, invite input from a few other users. If that fails to lead to resolution, go to RFC. Conflict between editors is, categorically, not valid rationale for a VfD nomination. Tomer TALK July 8, 2005 05:01 (UTC)
  • Keep. Neutrality disputes are not a reason to delete. --FOo 8 July 2005 05:03 (UTC)
  • Keep. As per Tomer. El_C 8 July 2005 05:12 (UTC)
  • Keep. Important historic figure. If there is a problem with the article then fix it. -Willmcw July 8, 2005 05:43 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a good, worthy, notable article. - Mark 8 July 2005 06:18 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep "Personal bias" is not a valid reason for deletion. Improper nomination. Xoloz 8 July 2005 08:03 (UTC)
  • Keep, improper nomination as above. --Scimitar 8 July 2005 14:39 (UTC)
  • Have to Keep, improper nomination. But the behavior described above, if true, is highly troubling. --Briangotts 8 July 2005 14:52 (UTC)
    • From what I've seen, it's been a 2-way street. At least the alleged "owner" has improved the article by keeping out badly worded irrelevant tripe about Tupac Shakur out of the article, which is the source of the anon nominator's gripe. Tomer TALK July 8, 2005 16:49 (UTC)
  • Strong keep: nomination is likely in bad faith. If someone could investigate these allegations, that would be great, though. jglc | t | c 8 July 2005 15:03 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course. This is not the way to deal with content or personal disagreements. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 8 July 2005 15:38 (UTC)
  • Keep stop being such crybabies about it, youre pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.169.68 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 8 July 2005
  • Absolutely Keep, such an important figure as Tupac Amaru II does not deserve this type of problems. Messhermit 8 July 2005 21:39 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep it. The day we delete an article on a notable historical figure is the day I quit. Everyking 8 July 2005 21:43 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - VfD is not punishment for abd behaviour (assuming that one takes the nominator's comments at face value). Please list some valid criterion. Guettarda 8 July 2005 22:39 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.