Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Port Arthur massacre theories

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Port Arthur massacre theories

*Originally submitted by User:Internodeuser -- Longhair | Talk 19:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this page should be deleted, as it gives a balanced view to respond to severe inaccuracies in the Port Arthur Massacre and Martin Bryant pages. Unfortunately, the spam filter has removed the ability to use the references that were originally used. Look at the last history section before Tannin's edit, and you will see them all there. [1] Repeated requests for these references to be removed from the spam filter have fallen on deaf ears. This is the final response to attempts to hijack and sabotage pages, and deleting it would mean that personal attacks, vandalism and destruction of the integrity of Wikipedia would be seen as a good idea. Internodeuser 15:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think that putting in 100 hours of research with unbiased facts and 49 references should be deleted. Especially since it encouraged someone to hurl abuse and to go around destroying the page. Absolutely, definitely delete. Otherwise we'd turn this thing in to an encyclopaedia, and we don't want that now, do we? Internodeuser 15:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:POINT. I'm not going to vote here, but I feel this user using this VfD nomination to make a point to further his own arguments. Submitter goes on to say in their VfD nomination "I don't think that this page should be deleted" then votes to delete it anyway? -- Longhair | Talk 19:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- - It's called sarcasm, or perhaps irony. Obviously, you shouldn't even consider deleting this page. Internodeuser 08:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment:I'm not voting, but that aside, VfD is not the place to nominate articles you want kept. If this article is deleted, you basically deleted it yourself by nominating it. Again, WP:POINT -- Longhair | Talk 08:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- (Insert dpbsmith's little-pink-"IRONY"-box template here.) Barno 00:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV fork. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV fork. --Carnildo 20:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV fork. See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#User:Internodeuser. RickK 20:40, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Inappropriate message in a Vfd box. 203.26.206.129 08:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Patent nonsense. Tannin 20:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The term "patent nonsense" fulfils the requirement of a personal attack, for which you have repeatedly been warned to stop. 203.26.206.129 08:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: This is a vote regarding the contents of article. Nothing more, nothing less. -- Longhair | Talk 08:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then such words should not be used, as they attack a person's character, and suggest that a page as detailed and verified as this would be entirely made up. Internodeuser 08:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No vote. It isn't patent nonsense, but it sure as hell isn't NPOV, either. I don't feel like cleaning it up, but I don't want to send it to the scrap heap, either. Scimitar 22:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why isn't it NPOV? It provides both sides to the argument, as is required to fulfill the requirement of NPOV. 203.26.206.129 08:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete conspiracycruft. Ben-w 22:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup. I basically agree with Scimitar, the article as it stands is highly POV, boardering on original research, but something must be salvageable from it... Physchim62 00:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. This is not original research. Unfortunately Wikipedia's spam filter removed some of the references, and temporarily they had to be removed. They can be reinstated if the spam filter is fixed, or if the vandalism of the page by Tannin can stop for long enough for a sensible edit to be able to be made. 203.26.206.129 08:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. All useful content already resides at Port Arthur Massacre. Tannin

- - Which is false, as the content of Port Arthur Massacre is in the main patent nonsense, and all attempts to include relevant issues, as discussed here, have been vandalised and maliciously removed. 203.26.206.129 08:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork bordering on tinfoil hat stuff. It will reduce the credibility of Wikipedia if we keep stuff like this. Capitalistroadster 00:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rather, I would suggest that keeping Martin Bryant and Port Arthur Massacre in their current, widely inaccurate, proven false, and unverified form reduces the credibility of Wikipedia. Having something like this, with verified facts, greatly improves it. (ref: Talk:Martin_Bryant Internodeuser 08:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POv fork. Megan1967 06:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although hestitantly.--Cyberjunkie 05:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per capitalistroaster. as in "media are permanently forbidden from ever speaking with him, with a worldwide ban on any books or movies being made to explore the case." that's just nutty carmeld1 02:17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's just a rehash of the stuff on http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snportarthur.html. The link on Port Arthur Massacre lets you find all this info -- Jgritz 20:38, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV fork --nixie 05:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.