Deletion of State terrorism by the United States (sixth nomination)

Comment: The numerous accusations of bad faith made against me and my nomination are absurd.  After I nominated the article, I made sure that all prior AfDs were listed at the top of the page (something an editor acting in bad faith certainly wouldn't do).  As for the bogus accusations of my nomination violating , no one has provided any evidence suggesting that I am trying to make any such point (and I am not making any such point).  My conclusion is that many of these people are making ad hominem arguments in order to avoid providing any valid reason to keep the article, because they know deep down that there is not a valid reason to keep the article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: I doubt that this article will ever stop being a flashpoint for those with strong views on the subject, but the endless string of deletion nominations is absurd. I don't think the community should entertain another fD debate unless a concerted effort to improve the article towards a consensus position fails. Those who think this article could never possible achieve  should examine their ''own'' neutrality
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A||WP:NPOV)

Comment: Violates , , , erify, and#Undue weight.  #SOAPBOX|Wikipedia is not a soapbox for linguist Noam Chomsky's opinions about whether or not the US committed acts of state terrorism -- that's for  sources to decide, which don't seem to be present here unless you violate our rules against |synthesis
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:SYNTH||WP:NOR||WP:V||WP:NPOV||WP:NOT||WP:RS||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: the title is inherently POV and |attempts to draw conclusions before actually getting into the material of the article. Since it is comprised entirely of allegations and various peoples opinions, salvage useful '''facts''' only to Foreign relations of the United States and related articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Violates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox wikipedia is not a soapbox...this article is a synthesis of opinions not agreed to by the UN or any other legislative body on an international scale. Violates  ''Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: As has been said many times, WP rests on ''verification'', not ''facts''. The article does not fail  - to take one example, Chomsky
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:VERIFY)

Comment: Article is well referenced, verifiable by reliable sources and fundamentally encyclopaedic. Remember that |"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is '''verifiability, not truth'''". And it has survived 5 AfDs so far - I see no new arguments since the last debates
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: Inherently |POV, inherently |original research. If Wikipedia cannot muster the common sense to save itself from this embarrassment of an article, then at least the title needs to be changed, preferably to "Allegations of
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:NOR)

Comment: and merge well researched material into the different articles on the subject. As it stands, the content may be sourced, but collected in such an article fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: As said above, this violated , , and . The allegations are not notable; this is a constructed article. Anything encyclopedic can be covered under something like Foreign relations of the United States
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:SYNT||WP:NOR)

Comment: per , , . This sort of article gives WP a black eye for its unobjectivity
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:POV||WP:OR||WP:SYNT)

Comment: New low and hopeless violation of   
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:SYN||WP:SOAP)

Comment: First, there have been a gazillion demands using   and  as justification, but so far not a single bit of evidence to support the accusations.  I find it unsurprising that yet another ''Me too!  Delete, big poppa Wiki-Jesus!  Delete because IDON'TLIKEIT!'' is sprouting up again.    Lacking actual evidence or proof, these weak excuses -- which wikipolicy clearly states as inadequate for deletion -- seem to be the only thing these folks can resort to
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYN||WP:NPOV)

Comment: Such an article is always going to attract cries of , which is why it needs to be scrupulously sourced.  And it is.  The fact that Chomsky is referenced is certainly not a supportable reason for delete, he is only one of many, even if that was a reason in the first place.  , which most of the delete votes appear to be, can't trump verifiability and notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: OR, badly sourced, violation of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: i wish to note that (1) it seems like an extremely long article with comparisment to the State terror one. (2) i have a hard time to believe that there is simply no similar article made on any Islamist country (see: Template:State terrorism .. at the very least six should be there, ever heard the term Fedayeen?). (3) i'm confused where it's prohibited to call terrorists by that name here on wiki, but now it's ok to do so to a country. *scratches head* (see linguist gymnatics done on Samir Kuntar so not to call him a terrorist) (4) i'm not sure that when a state supports a terrorist group to combat it's neighbours constitutes as "state terrorism".. more like shady politics if you ask me. (6) i'm keeping this "vote" on weak, because i think there is room for an article about allegations, but i'm puzzled on how this is supposed to be NPOV and not come out a |soapbox libeleous piece while so many other known terrorist supporting countries are not on the radar and terrorists are not allowed to be dubbed terrorists
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAP)

Comment: as this article violates  and is only a soapbox for leftist propaganda copied from propaganda departments (albeit cited) of dictatorships (Cuba, et al).  This article only demeans the value of Wikipedia, reducing its acceptance by schools, and undoubtedly causing many schools even to install blocks for Wikipedia. The sooner this propaganda is deleted, the better
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: and '''cleanup''' this decently-referenced piece to comply with  per Watchdogb and others. This is a -driven nomination made by someone with a "don't smack Uncle Sam" mentality that thinks it O.K. for the stars and stripes to be above the law. Though unlikely, this nomination could likely also violate  ''if'' it was made by someone employed by the U.S. government. The bottom line is that contrary to the nominator's beliefs, no government is perfect. OTOH, it would be more appropriate to move/rename this article to Accusations of state terrorism against the United States which would be far less POV than the current title
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:POINT||WP:COI)

Comment: Blatant  violation
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: So basicly your vote is a  (or rather a 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:NOREASON)

Comment: Although somebody informed me I think that is less of a problem than the |pointy nomination every week. Also I propose '''a permaban for every editor that starts another AfD within twelve months.''' As to the rationale, clearly a sourced article should not be deleted on account of the ''we-won't-have-any-criticism-of-the-US''-crowd on WP
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: This article is an insult to Wikipedia.  This article is nothing more than a POV'ist playground and the article a massive exercise in 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: So basically,  then
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: Please read  under the section about giving reasons, and not just attacking those who have a different opinion. Even though I agree with keeping the article, as I said above
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD)

Comment: This is the sixth AfD nomination for goodness sake - it kind of begs the classic lightbulb question: "how many AfD nominations must an article endure before allegations of |point making are clear?" I would normally say 3 or 4 at the most. Is this really going to be wheeled out to AfD every two months or so for this monumentally disruptive waste of time? Enough already, drop it and get on with collaboratively working to fix the elements of the article where you perceive the problems to be. I urge the closing Admin to speedyily close this as '''keep''' by virtue of  and being a disruptive waste of time
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:POINT)

Comment: or at least rename. "State terrorism" is a painfully POV tag for this anyway (and yes, I think State Terrorism in Sri Lanka is a problem article name too). Lots of |original research going on too, which explains why it is cited out the wazoo
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: as it is significant and very notable and well referenced (probably the most referenced Afd nominated article I've seen so far), I don't think  violation is enough to throw this in an Afd
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: Please observe  and avoid terms like "stupid" in AFD debates. Please read  and see what constitutes valid arguments for keeping or deleting an article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No personal attacks (WP:NPA||WP:AFD)