| Revision as of 09:58, 17 May 2009 editMlewan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,304 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:08, 17 May 2009 edit undoSpinningspark (talk | contribs)89,216 edits →Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre: mergeNext 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) | |||
Revision as of 12:08, 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 of its excellent image content. SpinningSpark 12:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)