Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of war crimes (2nd nomination)

:{{la|List of war crimes}}

In 2006 there was a first attempt to delete this article, which was rejected on the grounds that the article would be improved significantly. This has not happened, and I believe the reason to be a systematic fault of the article, not being sufficiently narrowed down according to precise criteria.

The development of this article does not follow any editorial process. It seems to be just an accumulation of random events, often seemingly added by people with a patriotic or political motivation. This criticism has been voiced on the discussion page for a long time, but still many authors seem to have had a rather intuitive idea about what should be added here, or seem to follow a patriotic agenda, sources or citations are often missing. Often "minor" events are treated in relative depth blurring a more global picture, while killings of hundreds of thousands are mentioned with a single sentence or not at all.

I apologize for not following the precise deletion criteria of wikipedia, but I believe that looking at the article, and seeing that little improvement has happened will convince others (Tags Citecheck and Refimprove are here since 1 1/2 year. I think the introduction, and some parts of the text on WW II war crimes are interesting to read. In my opinion, they still do not save the article, because the information contained in these parts can also be found in the individual articles covering the corresponding topics. User:KlausN 2009-03-01 10:12:41

• Malformed deletion nomination, with rationale taken from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_1&diff=prev&oldid=274103662 this edit], fixed. Uncle G (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, acts which constituted war crimes are obviously documented by WP:RS, from which an acceptably sourced list can be produced. Except in the case of WP:VAND, WP:SPAM, WP:BLP or WP:COPYVIO problems, articles are only deleted if it is believed that they cannot be improved. A lack of editorial effort does not, by itself, justify the deletion of an article. Erik9 (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Erik9. ..."the article would be improved significantly. This has not happened..." improved significantly is open to interpretation. There is no time limit in getting an article improved. Lugnuts (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep- As has been previously stated, just because it hasn't been improved, doesn't mean it can't be improved, and there's no deadline for us to have it improved by. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.