Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sri lanka Armed forces Conduct during war

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 OTRS declined, speedy deleted G12 by Lectonar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin closure. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sri lanka Armed forces Conduct during war

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Regardless of the status of the pending OTRS ticket, this article serves as a UN-issued opinion piece against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, and, once the biased content is removed, does not expand upon Sri Lanka Armed Forces and Sri Lanka Army. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No content it should be biased, NPOV was maintained throughout its creation. If you have concern regarding the content, please raise those in talk page of the article before bringing them here.Distributor108 (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should be using this material as a source to expand the aforementioned articles, not reprinting it verbatim. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That will be done at a later stage, however this article on its own is a good new addition to WP. Distributor108 (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above --Christian and Jericho 09:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Verbatim copy of a government report, and NPOV as such.--Dmol (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a text dump, if it is a reliable source it can be uploaded to wikisource and/or used as a reference in other articles. MilborneOne (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV fork from Sri Lanka Armed Forces (see article creator's comments in this thread). An article which is basically the Sri Lankan army's take on why what the Sri Lankan army did was right, without any alternative viewpoints or sources offered - it's the very definition on POV. Not to mention being written in a completely unsuitable format, and way too long to boot. Yunshui (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Objection Please indicate clearly which part of the article is in violation of NPOV. Distributor108 (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was I not clear enough? It's the part where you use one, primary, biased source as the text of the entire article. Yunshui (talk) 06:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Objection This article is still under construction, references and citations will be added for each statement. Distributor108 (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin Distributor108 has recently been blocked from editing, and as such, will not be able to respond to further rationale for deletion. Yunshui (talk) 10:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this has actually been released into the public domain this belongs on Wikisource. It's clearly not an encyclopedia article. Nick-D (talk) 12:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete belongs on WikiSource. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the OTRS tag and decline to certify the content. No statement from the site or content creator has been received in ticket 2011091910012951, only the word of an anonymous emailer who then told me to make costly international calls to receive undocumented statements on copyright that cannot be referenced in court should a copyright issue arise. And they were rude to top it off, asking whether I sought a UN resolution on the matter. OTRS certification declined. – Adrignola talk 13:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With the OTRS refused, this falls - for the third time now - under WP:G12. Tagged for speedy accordingly. Yunshui (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.