- 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 of the debate was delete. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 04:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh this is just too much, a POV fork, of a POV fork--Petral 02:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but this one has a better chance of winning against deletion. It is a historical fact that their was a "secret plan" of Nixon, there is also no mention of the other two wars. Thanks you, made this article better, and less prone to other misguided POV warriors attacks in the future. Travb 02:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You expect an article titled 'secret plan' to be considered NPOV?--Petral 02:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the name that Nixon used in 1968. I am trying to detail this by referencing books and historical journals. Travb 02:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, Travb's attitude, and Travb's policies of revisionist history (see this AfD's page history). --Cyde Weys votetalk 02:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep On 00:39, 23 December 2005 I started a new article: Promises of troop withdraw by American presidents I was hoping to draw parallels between the Iraq, Philippine, and Vietnam wars. In all three wars Americans have been promised by their political leaders before an election of troop reductions. On 01:07, 23 December 2005,[1] while I was still beginning to flesh out the article, Petral added on a {{POV}} tag.[2] The POV tag explains this:
Since there was no "discussion on the talk page." I messaged Petral on his talk page[3][4], asking him "for maybe a better name, any suggestions" and asking him to discuss why he had put the {{POV}} tag. On 01:34, 23 December 2005 Petral responded by adding my article for deletion.[5]
I then began to edit the page again, adding content, and trying to ignore Petral's heavy handed tactics against my brand new article, I then changed the name of the article to Campaign promises of troop withdraw by American presidents, and I added a link at the top of the deletion page, stating that I changed the name, with a link, which Petral deleted, and then reported me to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/RU Moderate. Petral then retracted his statement, stating: "nevermind, user is showing some restraint and is now cooperating with the AfD process."[6] He then began to revert the redirect to Campaign promises of troop withdraw by American presidents back to the original article, 4 times, and I reported him for 3RR. He then stated on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/RU Moderate "continuously moving an article nominated for deletion, without redirecting the AfD link" Please, someone tell me how to redirect an Afd link! I don't know how, as I said on the Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/RU Moderate page. Petral will not move it. I asked him how. Can someone please redirect the page?
People should determine if this is a good article based on its content, not on the other article. Thus far no one has talked about the content of this very scaled down article. What is POV in this article? What is not factual? No one has commented one bit about this.Travb 03:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete as blatant attempt to circumvent AfD. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- I find it odd that the person who has deleted 90% of the content of the article is against deleting the remaining 10%. Reyk 03:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I attempted to delete the entire Promises of troop withdraw by American presidents throughout history because there was already several votes for deletion, and I figured there was no use fighting it. Instead I wanted to rewrite the article from scratch, and Petral stalked me to here. People should determine if this is a good article based on its content, not on the other article. Thus far no one has talked about the content of this very scaled down article. What is POV in this article? What is not factual? No one has commented one bit about this.Travb 03:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- you're the only one who has made any changes to this page in at least 10 edits, stop accusing me of changing your words, when you're the only one editing this page--Petral 04:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I attempted to delete the entire Promises of troop withdraw by American presidents throughout history because there was already several votes for deletion, and I figured there was no use fighting it. Instead I wanted to rewrite the article from scratch, and Petral stalked me to here. People should determine if this is a good article based on its content, not on the other article. Thus far no one has talked about the content of this very scaled down article. What is POV in this article? What is not factual? No one has commented one bit about this.Travb 03:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
changing your words>>>I never said this. This is another fabrication.Here is my argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Travb#Dispute_with_Petral Travb 04:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]- [7] you are literally flame/trolling yourself, you reverted your own change, and called me a pest--Petral 04:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- My aplogies, I was wrong.Travb 05:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- [7] you are literally flame/trolling yourself, you reverted your own change, and called me a pest--Petral 04:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This minor fact is already covered in Richard Nixon. Presidential candidates lie all the time about lots of topics. It's not a big deal. JoaoRicardotalk 04:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Merge as per Endomion below. And Travb, please stop enclosing your comments in horizontal lines. It disrupts the page and makes it harder to read. JoaoRicardotalk 08:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm having deja vu. Merge this article with Election_promise Endomion 05:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the suggestion--I will do it now, but I will not change the article, otherwise Petral will accuse me falsely of hiding information AGAIN. Travb 05:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete already exists elsewhere...--MONGO 06:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete bad title, info already covered elsewhere, and this scuffle is becoming seriously WP:LAME. (ESkog)(Talk) 08:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as part of some weird user war. Create content, go through RfCs, AfDs, etc. Don't create a million articles trying to prove a point. Flyboy Will 09:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Nixon's secret plan, many results on google [8] -- Astrokey44|talk 13:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per above. --Pierremenard
- Delete, but... this is looking a little too personal between Petral and Travb. Calm down, guys. This is getting into WP:LAME and almost WP:POINT territory. rodii 20:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Secret plan (Nixon). This is a very well known issue and Richard M. Nixon did indeed use that specific term to refer to it. Crotalus horridus (TALK ● CONTRIBS) 02:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Mongo. If I see one more article on this battle I'm liable to ask for admin intervention and warnings/blockings to prevent this disruption of Wikipedia to make a point. Stifle 13:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agree with Stifle. At best merge the one or two sentences there now into Nixon's bio? ++Lar 15:25, 26 December 2005 (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.