Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Capitalist regimes
The article was originally created as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_Killings_caused_by_Capitalism&oldid=373650810 this, an initial adaptation from Mass killings under Communist regimes, created partly because there was then no space on Wikipedia where non-Communist mass killings were discussed as a class (mass killing is a disambiguation page). It was nominated for deletion 4 hours after creation, and shortly after that the removal of various content reduced it to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_Killings_caused_by_Capitalism&oldid=373766415 this. At the time the vast majority of !votes above were cast, it looked like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_Killings_caused_by_Capitalism&oldid=373812937 this (or worse). At the time of writing, it looks like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_Killings_caused_by_Capitalism&oldid=374071385 this, and includes as sources (among others) a peer reviewed academic article, an academic book (''Late Victorian Holocausts''), and the views of Aimé Césaire and Frantz Fanon, as well indications of other sources and cases where further research is likely to turn up relevant sources. My question is this: #G4 says "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". Because of the excessively early AFD nomination, the article has undergone dramatic changes since most of the current !votes. Were this not to be taken into account, the existence of G4 would create a situation where paradoxically, an article up for deletion should not be improved whilst the AFD is under way, and improvements kept for after the article is deleted, to allow G4 not to apply. This would clearly be perverse. The problem is all the more dramatic in this case where the nomination was made mere hours after creation, precluding sufficient time for Wikipedia's strength (collaborative endeavour) to achieve much. In sum, the early votes (particularly those based on erroneous accusations of yness) should be discounted; a "no consensus, default to keep" would permit a new AFD nomination at any time to consider the revised article. Alternatively, the nominator could withdraw the AFD, and renominate immediately or at a future time
— User:Rd232, 11:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:CSD||WP:POINT (Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion)