Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The mystery of Dewinter's "unalloyed Fascism"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Refdoc 17:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete This is a) simply source, b) a potential copyvio and c) if re-publishable, then it should be in Wikisource Refdoc 10:31, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep There is no copyright violation. Copyright was granted by the quality newspaper De Standaard, see discussion side at Flemish Interest. The problem was rather technical. I was not able to make a direct link at “Flemish Interest”, because the original article was in Dutch and not translated. So I placed it there at full length. But another user, for whatever reasons, had objections. So my idea was simply to make a new item, to which I could link. For the case Wikipedia doesn’t grant this new article, I suppose the solution will be that I simply replace the full text at the original site at Flemish Interest. I don’t think anybody will ever republish it, at least not in English, except perhaps for the case someone wants to write a book about the plight of neo cons abroad.--Jvb March 10, 2005
- Delete (maybe I come too late...) this is (a) simply source and (c) as such, at best should go to Wikisource. (d) This article inherently expresses a point of view. The presentation paragraph clearly shows the article is part of an ongoing discussion, in which it represents a particular point of view. Wikipedia is not the place for opinion articles. (e) the very existence of this article is part of the general behaviour of Jvb who is pushing his own point of view on Wikipedia, ignoring and frequently dismissing in his contributions any point of view other than his. This is not Wikipedian. --FvdP 20:04, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- KeepYou contend that I want to push my own point of view, but nevertheless this text is the TRANSLATION (copyright granted) of a text written by a professor in history, namely Mr. Eric Defoort [1].This is simply academic, not my point of view. BTW, I could contend the same about your own article about Flemish Interest on the French-speaking Wikipedia. Do you have better sources? --Jvb – March 28, 2005
- It might make sense to restrict your votes to a single one.Refdoc 13:44, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- (e) is not my central argument. (a) and (d) are. --FvdP 17:27, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Concerning a) and d): the basic text could possibly be interpreted as satiric, but nevertheless the content is academic. The explaining comments are the reworked information such as found in: http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041115-124213-7311r.htm BTW articles with similar content exist in Dutch. So the result is fit for an encyclopaedia. --Jvb – March 30, 2005
- What NL does proves nothing. And perhaps it's time someone files a vote for deletion on NL, that might succeed ;-) BTW you're talking of contents, but form is important as well; and regarding contents, balance matters. So these "similar" articles on NL may turn out not to be similar enough to support your argumentation. --FvdP 18:24, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Similar writings? I fear you didn’t understand very well what I meant. First of all, it reminds me of the columns of Derk Jan Eppink in the De Standaard newspaper. Eppink is a Dutchman, and thus an observer from abroad, who previously worked at EU commissar Bolkenstein’s cabinet. Is he neutral? Prime-minister Verhofstadt already telephoned the De Standaard redaction in an attempt to remove him, so I think Verhofstadt is not pleased about what Eppink writes… --Jvb – April 1, 2005
- But did you only read, grasp what I wrote ? Apart of your first two words, I see no deep correlation between your answer and my remark (and that's how discussion so often goes with you: in circles that go astray. Stopping it here for now). --FvdP 17:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Similar writings? I fear you didn’t understand very well what I meant. First of all, it reminds me of the columns of Derk Jan Eppink in the De Standaard newspaper. Eppink is a Dutchman, and thus an observer from abroad, who previously worked at EU commissar Bolkenstein’s cabinet. Is he neutral? Prime-minister Verhofstadt already telephoned the De Standaard redaction in an attempt to remove him, so I think Verhofstadt is not pleased about what Eppink writes… --Jvb – April 1, 2005
- What NL does proves nothing. And perhaps it's time someone files a vote for deletion on NL, that might succeed ;-) BTW you're talking of contents, but form is important as well; and regarding contents, balance matters. So these "similar" articles on NL may turn out not to be similar enough to support your argumentation. --FvdP 18:24, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Concerning a) and d): the basic text could possibly be interpreted as satiric, but nevertheless the content is academic. The explaining comments are the reworked information such as found in: http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041115-124213-7311r.htm BTW articles with similar content exist in Dutch. So the result is fit for an encyclopaedia. --Jvb – March 30, 2005
- Delete. --Edcolins 21:38, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I have listed this under today's date, as it apparently was never placed on the main VfD page. —Korath (Talk) 22:17, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. --Edcolins 08:37, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or transwiki. Not encyclopedic. Jonathunder 02:39, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
- Delete or transwiki. Source material. -- The Anome 13:46, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or transwiki. If there is no copyright problem, move this to Wikisource, since its non-neutral POV makes it inappropriate for Wikipedia; otherwise, delete it.(left unsigned by User:Jacobw) - Refdoc
- This is NO personal opinion. Compare with: http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041115-124213-7311r.htm --Jvb – March 29, 2005
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.