Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atomic Energy Commission investigation of John F. Kennedy assassination evidence
The deletion policy  says, ''"If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."'' And, ''"Consider adding a tag such as cleanup, disputed or expert-subject instead"''. In the Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 19#Atomic Energy Commission investigation of John F. Kennedy assassination evidence|RfD of this article, a consensus was found that this article is '''not''' a , therefore this article was restored. In that RfD there was also a consensus that this article had a  issue and a consensus was found on solving these issues by making amendments to the text (I agreed to CanadaJack's proposal of explicitely attributing certain sentences to their author). Therefore VQuakr created this AfD in violation of , because he created this AfD before he, myself or anyone else made any changes to this article. VQuakr also tried to delete this article via -R before, which was rejected. I just recently made changes https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atomic_Energy_Commission_investigation_of_John_F._Kennedy_assassination_evidence&diff=598337591&oldid=597480426 1  in the article according to the Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 19#Atomic Energy Commission investigation of John F. Kennedy assassination evidence|consensus on the POV issue. The article does not ''"rely solely on one source"'' and it also does not rely on a ''"conspiracy theorist"'' which is obviously used in a pejorative way against historian Gerald McKnight, whose ''"Breach of Trust is the leading study of the Warren Commission"''http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/fac_pm/114/ 1. The ''"conspiracy theory"'' claim is also invalid because no theory about a conspiracy for the JFK homicide is mentioned in the article. The article does not represent a fringe theory, because all reliable sources on the NAA performed on the assassination evidence share the same conclusion with the exception of John Gallagher, who is no expert on the subject (but whose opinion is now also included in the article). The article is also no fringe theory because the conclusions mentioned (on whether Oswald shot JFK or not) are only one part of the bigger whole of the article. The article also is no fringe theory because now also the conclusion of John Gallagher which builds the Warren Commission Report's view is included in the article. The argument not even wrong is invalid because the text of the article entirely consists of reliable sources in natural science, history and criminal justice. The article can not be covered effectively in the JFK assassination conspiracy theories article because it is not about a conspiracy or a theory but instead on the AEC's investigation of JFK assassination evidence
— User:Icarus4, 02:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:ATD||WP:POVFORK||WP:POV||WP:ATD||WP:D (Wikipedia:Deletion policy)