| Revision as of 17:08, 17 May 2009 editArma virumque cano (talk | contribs)192 edits →Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:36, 17 May 2009 edit undoSpinningspark (talk | contribs)89,216 edits →Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre: cahnge to deleteNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| * '''Comment''' - I was not even aware that there were two so similar pages. Even though both of them are long, would it not be an idea to merge the content of both articles into one? ] (]) 09:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC) | * '''Comment''' - I was not even aware that there were two so similar pages. Even though both of them are long, would it not be an idea to merge the content of both articles into one? ] (]) 09:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *Clear case for a '''Merge'''. It should certainly not be deleted, if for no other reason, because of its excellent image content. ] 12:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC) | *<s>Clear case for a '''Merge'''. It should certainly not be deleted, if for no other reason, because of</s> its excellent image content. ] 12:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :*Changing to ''delete'' after examining in more detail. Comparing the ledes of the two articles, it is now clear to me that this is a deliberate fork of the ] article and not an accidental duplication. The almost identical sentences could only have come from the original article (borne out by the edit history). ] 17:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong Delete''' Fringe theory. this is comparable to ]. Gives undue weight fringe theory this is not notable. All the references are Japanese suggesting this article is for POV pushing and reducing the reliability of sources ] (]) 16:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC) | *'''Strong Delete''' Fringe theory. this is comparable to ]. Gives undue weight fringe theory this is not notable. All the references are Japanese suggesting this article is for POV pushing and reducing the reliability of sources ] (]) 16:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| **'''Comment''' One look at the author's contributions State that this is clearly a POV pusher SPA account. With a Japanese sounding name, no wonder ] (]) 16:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC) | **'''Comment''' One look at the author's contributions State that this is clearly a POV pusher SPA account. With a Japanese sounding name, no wonder ] (]) 16:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 17:36, 17 May 2009
Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre
- Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Reason the page should be deleted PCPP (talk) 09:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Article that violates WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Most of the article's content is well covered in Nanking Massacre controversy, and only a fringe minority of historians deny the the occurance of the Nanjing Massacre. WP is not a promoter of fringe theories. Furthermore this article is written in a manner than gives weight to the denialist claims with little refutation from mainstream historians, making it seem as the Nanjing Masscre denials are undisputed, especially the photographs section, which violates NPOV. Last of all the tone of article heading higly suggests that the massacre is fabricated, instead of being a concept held by a minority.--PCPP (talk) 09:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - I was not even aware that there were two so similar pages. Even though both of them are long, would it not be an idea to merge the content of both articles into one? Mlewan (talk) 09:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Clear case for a Merge. It should certainly not be deleted, if for no other reason, because ofits excellent image content. SpinningSpark 12:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Changing to delete after examining in more detail. Comparing the ledes of the two articles, it is now clear to me that this is a deliberate fork of the Nanking Massacre controversy article and not an accidental duplication. The almost identical sentences could only have come from the original article (borne out by the edit history). SpinningSpark 17:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Delete Fringe theory. this is comparable to Holocaust denial. Gives undue weight fringe theory this is not notable. All the references are Japanese suggesting this article is for POV pushing and reducing the reliability of sources Arma virumque cano (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment One look at the author's contributions State that this is clearly a POV pusher SPA account. With a Japanese sounding name, no wonder Arma virumque cano (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)