Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assassinations and murders attributed to the LTTE

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 Merge to Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War. While there are lots of strong opinions all around, it seems that no one really dislikes the content — most problems center around it being a POV fork. I'm not going to opine on this, but a merger seems to strike the best balance between the three opinions expressed here — it will allow expansion of the article in an organic fashion into a legitimate daughter article (as opposed to any accusations of fork). It will also retain the content, which is the general concern of a majority of the keep arguments. Overall, I think while the delete/merge argument may at best only be a general plurality here, the arguments made in the merger arguments are the most compelling towards actually making something useful from this article. I've redirected the page. Interested editors can merge from the history. --Haemo 03:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assassinations and murders attributed to the LTTE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As the author of this article, I can say that this has long since ceased to fulfill the requirements WP:LIST and is currently a POV fork of Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War with a neutral title. This is also a violation of WP:SYN Taprobanus 19:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

• Delete This article is a POV fork that covers assanation by one side and not all the sides of the conflict. There is another article,Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War, that covers everything on this list. Also per nom. Watchdogb 21:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a sub article of LTTE, containing the names of all people assassinated by the LTTE. Listing them all at LTTE#Assassinations would largely clutter the main article, which is already 71KB. Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War contains people who have nothing to do with the LTTE. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:SIZE, we have over 70,000 people dead in Sri Lanka either killed by the government of Sri Lanka or its minions or the LTTE. Are we going to add everybody allegedly killed by the LTTE in this list? Currently the list looks like one as long as a source (never mind relibale) says that the LTTE did, it has been attached to this list. Remember we are trying to create an encylopedia not a propaganda list, for that we have lists made by the South Asia Terrorism Portal (a biased source) and Defence department of Sri Lanka (another biased source). That's why reasonable people decided to create an article called Notable assasinations and because just two people refused one editor suggested it be put in AFD. Notable assasinations will at some point include ONLY notable people killed in the Sri lankan civil war not the 70,000 or anybodies wishlist. Thanks Taprobanus 18:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does it look to you like there are 70,000 people listed here? Has anyone tried listing the names of 70,000 people in this article? Are there people listed here who had nothing notable about them apart from the fact that they were killed by the LTTE? The rest of your comment makes little sense ("Currently the list looks like one as long as a source"???) so I'm don't really know how to reply to it. I'll just say, the article title doesn't have to include the word "notable" to prevent needless trivial information included in it. It is a basic principle of Wikipedia that only notable facts are included in articles. An article about Sri Lanka isn't titled Notable facts about Sri Lanka, an article about the 9/11 attacks isn't Notable facts about the September 11th attacks. That just goes without saying. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any Heads of Governments or Cabinet ministers or Members of Parliment killed in 9/11 attacks. Nevertheless like Joseph Stalin once said Death of one man is a tragedy; The death of millions is a statistic. Unfortunately it is the lack of that one man the reason the 9/11 article doesn't have a notable word on the title. Cheers ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 22:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that comment doesn't make much sense to me. What are you trying to say? My point was, Wikipedia articles don't need to have the word "notable" in their titles. If something is included in an article, it has to be notable. That's why the article about Sri Lanka is Sri Lanka, not Notable facts about Sri Lanka. The same goes here. Only notable people are included in this article. There is no reason to have the word "notable" in the title. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 07:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are loads of topics in Wikipedia that have notable in the title[1],[2], [3]. ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 07:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because other editors create incorrect article titles, that doesn't mean we have to follow suit. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 12:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think its not right then please point that out in those article talk pages do. Won't it be the right thing to do if you strongly believe that? ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 13:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have more creative things to do on Wikipedia than going around correcting article titles. This AFD is about Assassinations and murders attributed to the LTTE, and no other. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 13:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wanted to know for sure that if you will correct all wikipedia entries or go about it only with specific articles. Once again this is for the closing admin to have a look at. ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 13:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, and is it because you support vandalism on Wikipedia that you don't revert *every* single act of vandalsim on *every* single article? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 13:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would correct or atleast point out the ones which are incorrect. That is my ethos afterall. Cheers ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 13:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I'm really not going to waste my time replying to your arguments. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete as per the author of the article further it is WP:OR as none of the killings have been investigated independently further People associated with such killings like Karuna are not being persecuted by the Sri Lankan government.It is a clear POV fork.Pharaoh of the Wizards 21:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"People associated with such killings like Karuna are not being persecuted by the Sri Lankan government" umm... so? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 22:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. Well sourced, accurate and verifiable article. It is currently used as the main article for the assassinations section of the LTTE article, in line with other similar pages created to reduce the size of the LTTE article. The LTTE article is currently is 71KB. Moving this stuff back wouldn't make sense and will violate article size policy.

I don't see how this violates WP:SYN. There are no cases where, for example, a source which says "xyz was killed ... the LTTE was active in the area" was contorted in the article to say "therefore the LTTE killed him". All sources directly attribute the murders to the LTTE. The nominator hasn't mentioned what parts of WP:LIST it violates.

And note, who the original creator of this article was has no relevance to this AFD. The article has been improved much from the initial, racist if I must add, version.[4] (Taprobanus originally tried to limit the article to list only people of the Sri Lankan Tamils race who were killed by the LTTE).

It is also interesting to note, the alleged "POV fork" (i.e. this article) was created 6 months before the notable assassinations article, which has a lot of disputed claims and is far from being a good article. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 22:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the personal attacks in violation of WP:NPA, this is a WP:LIST that masquerades as an article. The list has long since outlived lists cardinals reasons for existence, that is as a development reminder to readers to develop red linked articles. Every notable person in this article now has their own article mostly developed. Further the title attributed does not sound very encyclopedic, it indicates that all the accusations are just that accusations not for sure, hence it has become a magnet for people to attach anyone killed in Sri Lanka to this list. But we know Sri Lanka is a Killing field. But we have another problem, this list fails in the title WP:NPOV completely. Hence many neutral Wikipedians in the past tried to create anew more neutral title and worked on it diligently see here, here and here. It was opposed by just few people. It was suggested that an AFD will solve the impasse, hence this AFD. (see below the quote) Taprobanus 13:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I personally attacked you, why not report me at WP:AN/I?

"as a development reminder to readers to develop red linked articles."

A good dose of reading WP:LIST may be in order here. Among the first few sentences, "The list may be a valuable information source". This one is. Like I said, please don't try to bring up ownership of articles. What reason you created it for has no bearing on this AFD.

"the title attributed does not sound very encyclopedic"

The criteria of inclusion of content on Wikipedia is verifiability. All cases here have verifiable been linked to the LTTE by reliable sources. In fact, the term "attributed" in the title makes it as neutral as could be, as opposed to a title in the order of Assassinations and murders carried out by the LTTE.

"a magnet for people to attach anyone killed in Sri Lanka to this list"

I find that a blatantly untrue comment, which you should withdraw unless you can back it up with evidence. Which random person killed in Sri Lanka was added to this list?

"this list fails in the title WP:NPOV completely"

This is an article broken off from the main LTTE article due to size constraints. That is a universally accepted Wiki procedure. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say all sources say that the X did it, any cursory look at this article say other than about 10% of the people listed here all the accusations come from Defense Department of Sri Lanka (a biased source), South Asia Terrorism Portal (A biased source) and may I add the source that I extensively use UTHR which can only be used as attributed because per WP:REDFLAG you need more than one WP:RS sources that agree this murder was carried out by X. 90% of the listed people in this WP:LIST are based on biased sources or single source. That is a big problem with this entire article then if you look at 90% people listed in this list they fail WP:NOTABLE completely. For example an entire section called

Poets and writers

Chelian Perinpanayagam Writer, Journalist former Mayor of Batticalao [21]

Natpudduminai Faleel Poet, Assistant Government Agent [22]

Chasy Krishnamoorthy

I am sorry to say, if you do a search on them you will fail miserably to find any information about them, this problem abounds for about 90% of the people listed here. This article has no legitimate Wikipedia rules to stand on. Thats' why my comment at some point all the 70,000 people dead in Sri Lanka will show up here. More later. Thanks 14:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taprobanus (talk • contribs)

Your figures are getting more and more ludicrous. 90% of the people here are not notable? Where did you get that from? Just 10% are reliably sourced? Honestly, it'll be funny if this wasn't such a serious matter. The criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not "truth". That is why the article is not Assassinations and murders carried out by the LTTE. The word attributed is in the title for a reason; that is to make the article abide WP:NPOV. And remember, we aren't writing separate articles about these people, it's a listing of notable people (parliamentarians, mayors, activists, journalists etc) who's killing have been reliably attributed to the LTTE.

About the three people you mention above, you added them to the article, not anyone else. If there is a problem with some of the entries not having reliable information about then, that calls for the names of those people to be taken off the list, not for the entire article to be deleted.--snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling other people silly, ludicrous and hilarious only points to dearth in ones own arguments. But thanks you for being yourself :) makes my life much easier. Cio Taprobanus 18:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. This is a through documentation on actual facts on LTTE. This article has been in Wiki for a longer time. The person who suggested this article to be removed, Taprobanus, has created another article with the same facts from this article. Now he wants to promote his article by deleting this detailed piece of work. None of the facts mentioned in this article cannot be argued agaisnt. This is article about LTTE and its activities and it should be here for users information. Actual facts are presented here.Supermod 02:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did the original thorough documentation but under a non neutral tile, after my initial work may be a few more references that too many non WP:RS has been added further I did not create the other more neutral article. It was created by a another wikipedian (see here). Please have you facts before accusing others of bad faith. Do read WP:AGF. Thanks Taprobanus 13:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Bad faith nomination. As me and many of other fellow wikipedians know already, nominator is a heavy contributor to racist tamil web-sites and I wonder whether he has any ethics to question the nuetrality of this article. Article give ample information about LTTE's criminal activities and its not surprising that some poeple take this personally and want to get rid of these TRUTHs. Let truth prevail again ,this time .Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 04:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NPA, it is one thing vote in an AFD but dont forget your WP:CIVILilty along the way. Thanks Taprobanus 13:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

here we have some one who probably have violated tons of wikipedians policies, including the same ones he mentions above ,talking about civility. As long as you violate WP:COI i will not hesitate not mention it. Even if your friends come and block me again. And really thanks for that joke you made at the pawn farm discussion page. Actually I couldn't stop laughing for a while seeing how good you are in your Sinhalese. reminds me my old friend, wikrama, wonder what he is doing now..any idea ?? Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 17:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War or move to less of a troll-magnet of a title. Don't burden Afd with obvious redirect/merge/move candidates such as this. --dab (𒁳) 09:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dab please see here and here we tried to merge to a neutral title but few people objected and some suggested that the only way to resolve it is through an AFD this this AFD. Thanks Taprobanus 12:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging with the notable assassinations article will not work, as the primary use of this article is as a sub-article of the LTTE page. Using the notable assassinations article as the sub-article instead will not make sense, as some of the people mentioned there have nothing to do with the LTTE. Any suggestions about a less troll magnet title? Since all the entries included here are attributed by reliable sources to the LTTE, like I said about, I would think it's probably the most NPOV title we could have, rather that a title like Assassinations carried out by the LLTE. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are clever ways around it by creating a subsection under the Notable assassinations attributed to the LTTE and making that the main link article on main article about the LTTE under assassinations section or create a redirect for Assassinations carried out by the LTTE to the Notable assasinations article and make the Assassinations carried out by the LTTE as the main link for the LTTE main article under assasinations section. Thanks Taprobanus 16:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By implication, merging means this article will be redirected to the other. That will not resolve the problem I pointed out, as the sub-article will still have a bunch of people in it that have nothing to do with the LTTE. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 07:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vey simple the sub article can have section on LTTE Taprobanus 12:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That will not solve the problem of having a bunch of people completely unrelated to the LTTE in the other article. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 13:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletions. —--♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 10:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Assassinations and murders attributed to the LTTE is attributed assassinations which may not be established, whereas Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War contains well established and somewhat investigated assassinations. NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 11:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S in case both the articles are containing the same we have to segregate established and attributed assassinations into these two articles. NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 11:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Netmonger you are the one who suggested that this title is not neutral and should be re directed to another more neutral tile and you even agreed and voted with many neutral wikipedians in the vote. See here Then how can you vote to keep it now? Thanks Taprobanus 12:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do articles on "assassinations which may not be established" (did you know John Siegenthaler is dead?) dab (𒁳) 13:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, I made the mistake when I created it a year ago, it has to go. It is not encyclopedic Taprobanus 15:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well opinions change overtime don't they Raveen? NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 06:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don’t know who Raveen is but I can tell you with time I am more aware of Wikipedia rules not just opinions. My opinion has always been that LTTE has killed scores of innocent civilians including Tamils . It has killed notable Tamils too who may require an entry in Wikipedia such as Chelvy Thiyagarajah, Relangi Selvarajah and others and we have created articles on them. But this article as it stands is a crap magnet that becomes an endless list of all non notable assassinations in Sri Lanka that some biased source thinks can be pinned on the LTTE. The South Asian Terrorism portal lists Nadarajah Raviraj as categorically killed by the LTTE. Now that is a blatant attempt at trying get the real culprits go. That source has become the bedrock of this article. That un reliable source to go from Wikipedia and this article has to be merged per User:Dab Taprobanus 13:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me keep this short, Raveen is your previous user name :-)(i.e. before you renamed your self to Taprobanus) NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 07:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been around Wikipedia for a long time and by now you should know that according Harassament guideline which says It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives.. Hence you cannot talk about alleged change of names. It is a clear cut violation. Thanks Taprobanus 14:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Even if well documented, this is a strange article that could set potentially volatile precedents for other topics, not worth the trouble--Kathanar 12:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Not worth the trouble"? Maybe not for you. And if splitting a large article into a smaller ones per WP:SIZE is a "potentially volatile precedent", then yes, it should be deleted. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Were parts of this article merged into the "Notable assassinations" article? If so, per the GFDL, someone would either have to do a history merge or the article would need to be redirected to preserve the contributions history. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article was merged into "Notable assassinations" article per talk discussion. Thanks Taprobanus 20:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As is pretty obvious, all individuals listed here are not listed on the other article. A majority of the citations in this article are also not in the other one, leaving that a highly disputed mess. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please compare both the articles and you will see that this article was the starting point for the other under a neutral name per talk page discussion. Thanks Taprobanus 14:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Initial reasons for the creation of articles have no relevance here. The fact remains, this article is a sub-article of LTTE. Adding this list back will negatively reflect the other article. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 07:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Real surprizing to see this article facing AFD. I see no reason why this article should be deleted. "POV Fork" funda given in the nom really doesn't make sense, for the obvious reason explained above by SnowolfD4. - KNM ^Talk 05:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete There is already an entry Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War where this can be included. ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 13:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the comments above. The two articles exist for two separate reasons. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. As per Black Falcon if the parts of this article is merged into the "Notable assassinations" article, then either the history merge or redirection to preserve the contributions history, should be done.Lustead 15:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as per above Travb (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. This article is verifiable and it is in line with Wikipedia policies and also it is referring to the sub topic of the Sri Lankan civil war. The details are supported with citations from Reliable Sources (RS). The format of the article also as per common Wikipedia style. I am surprised about the nomination of this article for deletion, because the things already happened and it has legal proof on the details. The country like India has conduct an investigation about the murder of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and legally proved that the LTTE is responsible for the murder (this one also to be added into the article). The other important fact is the number of people murdered by the LTTE is very high in number and this article is classified the victims into groups such as "State Leaders", "Journalists" as per the Wikipedia style of formatting. --Lanka07 15:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - The article cites many references for details listed. Certainly the article is encyclopedic and informative. The article is not WP:LIST as accused in the nom. Gnanapiti 17:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your compliments but we haveeven a better article, see discussion Thanks Taprobanus 12:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Well cited.Dineshkannambadi 22:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your compliments, I cited 90% of them but that is not the point. The point is the consensus on the talk page was to redirect to Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War but because of the holdout of few this AFD. Just like you observed here, that article too is well sourced but is balanced in its title per WP:NPOV and content. We list all WP:NOTABLE assassinations during the Sri Lankan civil war done by all parties. This is become a WP:LIST of every body dead is Sri Lanka that is attributable to the LTTE by any source and most of them are biased sources such as the Defense department of Sri Lanka and South Asia Portal for Terrorism. Hence this situation is untenable. Thanks Taprobanus 13:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you blatantly lying like this? You cited 90% of the content? Every body dead is Sri Lanka that is attributable to the LTTE is listed here? That is just absolute bs, and like above, I suggest you retract your comments. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My, my just cool down , have you read WP:NPA lately ? it says concentrate on the subject matter not the person. Anyway this was the last version that I edited as part of creating this article since then other editors have added biased sources such as defense department of Sri Lanka and South Asia Portal of Terrorism. These are unreliable sources and are making accusations that are governed by WP:REDFLAG. Redflag clearly says that you need more than one reliable source make such fundamental accusations as to X killed Y. Further this article unlike the other Notable one does not even have the qualifier that the dead person has to be notable. Because of that anybody killed in Sri Lanka by anyone that can be pinned on LTTE (dont tell me it does not happen, it happens on both sides) by biased sources such as the Defense department of Sri Lanka and the South Asian Terrorism Portal will find its way to this list. Then this is no better than anybodies propaganda wish list just to score political points. I hope you understand why neutral Wikipedians prefer the Notable article over this. Thanks Taprobanus 17:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to you, I think you need to write an essay Wikipedia:How to completely ignore your past silly comment, by Raveen. I don't know anyone who does that better that you. Since you seem unable to read what I posted above, I'll just copy it here

Does it look to you like there are 70,000 people listed here? Has anyone tried listing the names of 70,000 people in this article? Are there people listed here who had nothing notable about them apart from the fact that they were killed by the LTTE? The rest of your comment makes little sense ("Currently the list looks like one as long as a source"???) so I'm don't really know how to reply to it. I'll just say, the article title doesn't have to include the word "notable" to prevent needless trivial information included in it. It is a basic principle of Wikipedia that only notable facts are included in articles. An article about Sri Lanka isn't titled Notable facts about Sri Lanka, an article about the 9/11 attacks isn't Notable facts about the September 11th attacks. That just goes without saying. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 21:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - I am not at all surprised that some individuals with a POV want to delete this article. But the article sites facts, or at worst strongly supported indictments, as well as cases established by judical inquiry (as is the case of rajeev Gandhi). A lot of people would find this article a valuable source, and they can use their independent judgements regarding the validity of the material. This article has to be in an on-line encyclopeda like Wiki.Bodhi dhana 01:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/Rename - The content no doubt is relevant and deserves a page. The title is unwieldy. However there also needs to be a relevant page for the Lankan government, its not like they dont have blood on their hands.Bakaman 05:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a neutral title article that was developed per discussion, it is called Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War. That artcle is a exact copy ofthsi plus more. So we have two articles dealing with the same subject. One with a crappy title and prone to reflect Wikipedia in a bad light and the other written per WP:NOTABLE and WP:NPOVand WP:RS rules including the title. This needs to be merged with the other and the title deleted. That was the concensus of most who participated in the talk page discussion. Taprobanus 12:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions on a rename Bakaman? And there already was a page about the Sri Lankan government. It contained zero entries and was deleted, if I recall right, following a expired prod. Not exactly sure what the article name was, but Assassinations attributed to Sri Lankan government forces was one of the redirects to it.--snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of having two POV article on accusing the LTTE and the other accusing the SL government we intend to have one neutral article. Taprobanus 14:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually two POV articles will be much easier to write and document that one article which will be almost impossible to make neutral. We have to ignore some rules here, in the spirit of efficacy.Bakaman 16:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But do look at the neutral article we have come up with, it is a great outcome due to collaborative effort, we reallydont need POV articles when we have a way to resolve them through a neutral one. Thanks Taprobanus 19:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral? It kind of a mess, with {{fact}} and {{disputed}} tags everywhere. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 13:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the point is ? Taprobanus 18:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You want to replace a good article with an inferior one? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 20:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to replace an article that does not conform to wikipedia rules and guidelines and will always prone to edit warring with one that conforms to wikipedia guidelines and can be appropritaely edited in the future. Thanks 13:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taprobanus (talk • contribs)

First it is your opinion that it doesn't abide by Wiki policy. Official wiki policy contradicts that. To quote WP:SPINOUT

Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article... This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure... Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork.

There are two exceptions mentioned

However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking... However, it is possible for article spinouts to become POV forks. If a statement is inadmissible for content policy reasons at an article XYZ, then it is also inadmissible at a spinout Criticism of XYZ.

Neither of those two apply here, as the most notable assassinations have been left in the main article and it is perfectly alright if the content was left at LTTE, the only problem is the page will have been too long.

Also, when has there been an edit war on this page? Or are you going into make-believe again with that allegation? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 22:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - this shouldnt even be in AfD! I cant think of a more NPOV title either.. if anybody has suggestions for the title, come forward. But that is an issue for the article talk page.. not an AfD. Sarvagnya 22:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See here for doscussion in talk page. The concensus was to redirect except 2 people hence this AFD per talk page discussion. Thanks Taprobanus 12:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Merge per dab. The article is going to be always incendiary on wikipedia and amicable solution must be found to ensure articles don't become a magnet of future wiki conflicts. Sinhala freedom 00:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - This is obviously a POV article. If you guys are going to have a page like this, why not have a special page dedicated to Rapes and murders by the GOSL and paramilitary forces? Wiki Raja 13:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per dab. The article Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War specifically says and shows that most assassinations have been attributed to the terrorist group. Having two articles that would end up sharing 90% of the content seems an overkill. Lotlil 16:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War. This is unnecessary duplication of content with a title that is bound to attract POV. GFDL compliance/credit for the article should not be a problem since article history can be merged. utcursch | talk 05:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per dab and Lotlil. While the content of the article is notable and most definitely belongs on Wikipedia, I really don't see why we need two articles reproducing substantially the same content. (Incidentally, isn't "Notable" in Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War redundant? If it isn't notable, it doesn't belong on WP). -- Arvind 14:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should take that up in the talk page of that article. I agree it is redundant. We are learning you see:DTaprobanus 14:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To both Utcursch and Vadakkan, it'll be appreciated if you read the above comments as to why two articles currently exist. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 07:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They know how to read and have seen these arguments I suppose that's why they agree it should be merged, which the right thing to do Taprobanus 12:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion was from six months ago. Consensus can change, and comments on this AFD are more relevant. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 13:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at your exchange with Taprobanus higher up in the page. I still don't see why you simply can't divide Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War into several parts, depending on which organisation was responsible. At the end of the day, the Tigers were responsible for a significant number of the assassinations, so having a separate article for them is inevitably going to mean that the articles are virtually identical. -- Arvind 18:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do it, see if everyone is happy with the format, and then let's discuss on a related talk page (not an AFD) about how to proceed. I personally am skeptical such a solution will work, as I have pointed out above. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 20:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your whole argument was based on such a solution will not work. But as you seem to be agreeing that is a plausible scenario discussable in that talk page, then we should merge this article with that. That has been the position of many uninvolved third party wikipedians like User:Black Falcon, Sebastian and User:Shunpiker from day one. None of these guys have any stake in this civil conflict to make the other party look bad. Thanks Taprobanus 20:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read what I said again carefully. Come up with a solution agreeable to everyone and we could see what gets merged with what. Not merge and then discuss, that's not how it works.

Also, as Arvind has pointed out, if the articles are both "identical", why not merge the other one with this one, instead of vice versa? This has tons more citations, content and neutrality than the other one. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 04:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What we eventually have is that we all agree that both the articles are identical and the other one although with more fact tags has a neutral title and it is even possible that the other article can be formatted in a way that a section of it becomes the main article for the LTTE article's section on assasinations. Not just the above three neutral wikipedians who have no axe to grind in the Sri Lankan civil war but other neutral wikipedians such as Arvind, User:Wikiality123, User:Dbachmann, User:Travb and User:Utcursch agree that this article has to be merged. Everybody else who has voted here have entrenched positions in this issue. Most of them vote en mass against or for Tamil related AFDs. Hence it is important for the closing admin to look at the opinion of the neutral wikipedians who have commented on this issue in the discussion page as well as this afd about this article. As pointed out all reasons pointed out why this article should stay has been properly answered and can be resolved. If people still persist as to why this article has to stay then we should go back to the comment that User:SebastianHelm made when he tried to resolve this many months ago. He said that The fact that we see some unconvincing arguments could indicate that there are other, unexpressed, needs which the "... LTTE" article satisfies [5]. That is there is an ulterior reason to keep this article than any logical reasoning would conclude. Thanks Taprobanus 12:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Wikipedians? Come on...

This article is completely in line with WP:SIZE and WP:SPINOUT guidelines. It was broken off from the LTTE article because we can't list all people here in LTTE#Assassinations. I didn't want to go here, but what you are trying to do is get rid of a perfectly good article just because you don't want to attribute the blame of these assassinations to the LTTE. Those are ulterior motives. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 22:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletions. —--♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 15:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep per nom. This article is a sub article of LTTE hence can't be merged back again without reducing the quality of the LTTE page. It's also contain lots of information which is not given in Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War article which is not well cited and listed some highly disputed information. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 06:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What made you change your mind from this consensus to redirect ?Taprobanus 20:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well opinions change overtime don't they? Like the Lankan flag in {{Sri Lankan Conflict}} ;-) --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 01:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• strong delete it is clearly a POV fork.--Kanags 00:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly is not a POV fork, per the same policy you mentioned,

"Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article... This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure... Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork." --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 01:17, 22 September 2007 (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.