Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White torture

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:56Z

White torture

Not encyclopedic in the least and does not conform to WP:RS, and the article itself can never be WP:NPOV since its just allegations and not verifiable. The allegation from Amnesty could be added to Uses of torture in recent times, though even that article is inherently POV. Khorshid 19:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Amnesty International and US department of State are not reliable sources?! it's a type of torture, the allegations are allegations, that can be noted. I don't see any reason why the article can "never be" NPOV. The term is well used and therefore notable. --Rayis 19:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Rayis, this is so well sourced that one is left with the only conclusion that the nominator is pushing a pro-Iran POV. Carlossuarez46 21:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kindly keep your nonsensical accusations to yourself. When I nominated the article, there were only two sources [1], one of which is Amnesty and the other US State Department, both of which are not exactly NPOV sources. BTW, Christian Broadcasting Network is definitely, definitely NPOV. Yes, indeed. Sieg heil to the neocons! *sarcasm* Khorshid 02:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what if it had two sources? Amnesty international is a POV source?! What, a POV against crimes against humanity?! If you believe there is another POV to this matter, add sources which discredits the topic. If you want more sources for topics, ask for them by adding ^{[citation needed]} to statements or ask in the talk, not nominate it for deletion. --Rayis 09:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is very well sourced, I see no reason to delete. Altosax456 22:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As per above comments. Xanucia 22:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Range of sources have been added now to make it clear that the term is notable, used in various media, newspapers and articles, and describes a very specific method of torture --Rayis 23:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per everyone else. Acalamari 23:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, maybe the article was not well-sourced when it was nominated, but it's fine now. --Dariusk 03:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks fine, though could use expansion. Torture has a long history. The Behnam 10:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Could use more international coverage, but it appears valid and notable as it stands. I agree this is a questionable nomination. — RJH (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that there are sufficient references - Ozzykhan 18:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article has some problems, most notably conflating the definition of "white torture" as psychological torture and as a specific technique of sensory deprivation by making everything literally white. However, that is a content issue and therefore not a reason to delete. --Richard 05:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme sensory deprivation is not a form of psychological torture? --Rayis 10:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article could be cleaned up, but it should not be deleted. --Darth Borehd 01:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.