Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Issues In Darusman Report

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 speedy delete. Copyvio and content fork. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Issues In Darusman Report (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Clearly spreading propaganda with hardly any references. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 15:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hardly any references ? What is this ? http://www.mea.gov.lk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2746&Itemid=75

  --Himesh84 (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is "© Copyright 2011, Ministry of External Affairs. All Rights Reserved.". No more pasting it wholesale here. People can follow hyperlinks, you know. Uncle G (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not agree with you. Still there are exceptions like Intoronto1125 who only read the link not the content. --Himesh84 (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This is the official response of the Sri Lanka government that could be summarized in a couple of sentences in Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka - no need for a separate article. Delete or merge. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objections for delete after the merge. But it should not remove any of the current facts in the article. I am not an expert to write all the things by 2,3 sentences. Also it should comply with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lessons_Learnt_and_Reconciliation_Commission#Motivation. It is widely accepting that Issues (issues called by GoSL with fair objections) in Darusman report lead government to create new report --Himesh84 (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Already an article Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka exists no need for a new article.Further Part of this article has copied from this source violating copyright.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wrote following message in your space
  • I also believe there should not be a separate page for Issues In Darusman Report. It can clearly merged into the UNSG's report. But political issues lead me to do it without having options. Some authors with the help of authoritative users trying to keep UNSG's report as 100% white washed report. Last time when I tried to add negative feedback on UNSG's report (By official response of UNHRC commitee) I was warned and they threaten to block me. They didn't allowed to add negative feedback on UNSG's report saying that I am blocking the negative side of the LLRC report. You can read the discussion in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Report_of_the_Secretary-General%27s_Panel_of_Experts_on_Accountability_in_Sri_Lanka If you can take care that I won't be blocked if I merged the content to the UNSG's report , I can do the merge --Himesh84 (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy DeleteIt is only a Sri Lankan Government's propaganda piece.Sudar123 (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge This page contain interesting and new contents. Those are not covered by any other article. Every aspect of views are essential for neutrality. Must not Delete the page--JimmyRajapaksha86 (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge Provides a different prospective. Should be referenced and either kept or merged to with Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka. Cossde (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redundant. Article already exists. BlueLotusLK (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this seems to be original research not encyclopedic contentTim bates (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV and non-encyclopedic propaganda piece --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:08, 26 November 2012 (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.