Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scandals of Najib Tun Razak

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 delayed delete (one month). All seem to agree that this ought not to exist as an article, but editors disagree whether to merge some content or to delete this outright. So I'm implementing a compromise: I'm redirecting the title to Najib Tun Razak. Editors have one month to find consensus about what, if any, content should be merged from the history. After one month, the remaining redirect should be nominated for speedy deletion with reference to this discussion, and the processing administrator should delete the page. Sandstein 20:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scandals of Najib Tun Razak[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page was created as an attempt to get around page protection implemented on Najib Tun Razak in response to edit warring. The title and content of the article make it clear that the intent is to attack the subject in violation of BLP. I feel strongly that this article should be deleted based on the title alone. Monkeyassault (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I declined the speedy deletion as an attack page because of the extensive sourcing, but I agree with Monkeyassault's position that the title of the page constitutes an attack, and I won't have any objection to a speedy deletion if that's the consensus at this AfD. My position is that you need more than two people to make this call for pages with this much detail and this many references. - Dank (push to talk) 16:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC) P.S. There's a new speedy deletion criterion, WP:CSD#A10 ... the odds are that it won't apply here, but there's a chance it might, I'm just throwing this out because it's new. - Dank (push to talk) 16:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All apologies. I did not blank the article on purpose.Monkeyassault (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination for deletion is not showing properly in AfD. Apparently I botched the job. Can someone help please? Monkeyassault (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's showing up on today's AfD list. - Dank (push to talk) 16:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put in my comments on the article. This article is not meant to be permanent but an area where we can put all the information that was inadvertently deleted and whitewashed from the main article by a certain individual. The main article was temporarily frozen after I reported the individual of edit warring and whitewashing whole sections of the main article. The information from the current article will now be moved to the main article once we have gain consensus. But apparently that individual did not take any opportunity to gain consensus from other contributors or editors before whitewashing, putting us back in square one. Now the freeze has been lifted the individual continues with his blatant deletions and whitewashing of whole sections of the article. You can see that this individual has purposely blanked this whole page before seeking a nomination for deletion. Roman888 (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monkeyassault has apologised and said it was not done purposely. Do you want to strike out that comment? Meanwhile, you seem to be saying that you deliberately created this to get around the page protection. I've raised this at ANI. Have I misunderstood you? Dougweller (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that Roman888 move any temporary article to his own userspace and that the scandal article then be deleted at the request of its creator.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you have misunderstood me. I just wanted to point out the continued edit-warring in the main article Najib Tun Razak and the failure of that individual to seek consensus in the discussion page of the article. As an administrator it would be good if you freeze the main article for another few months until consensus can be achieved, otherwise this blatant whitewashing, censorship and edit-warring will continue unabated. Roman888 (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We generally do not freeze articles for months. There's an AN/I thread open, let's see what happens there.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a spiritual violation of WP:CSD#G10. G10 does not carry an exemption for sourced attack pages. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: POV fork, undue weight, etc. Sarah182 (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that Sarah182's editing history consists of four edits, all comments at AfD's.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. We don't create forks of articles because the original is protected, we discuss the reasons for the protection on the original article's Talk page. Woogee (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In my view, a well-sourced attack page is almost worse than an unsourced attack page, as it gives a one-sided attack a veneer of legitimacy. The controversies section of Najib Tun Razak can adequately and fairly deal with Najib's "scandals" in context and with balance. There may be material in the "scandals" page that can be merged to that section. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to Roman888 (talk · contribs)—who created this article as a container for content being removed from Najib Tun Razak—and discuss on Talk:Najib Tun Razak. This is a mistake of reasonable intention, but wrong namespace. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- User space is no place for a BLP-violating attack fork. Woogee (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge With Najib Tun Razak. There's a lot of cited material from reliable news outlet. __earth ^(Talk) 00:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the sources are not reliable - they are from anti-government blogs. A merge would imbalance Najib Tun Razak. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not most. A majority (35 out of 51) of them are from news outlets and one academic paper, discounting all the blogs and Malaysia Today. Below is the list of those news outlet:
    - The Malaysian Insider
    - The Edge
    - Bernama
    - New Straits Times
    - IHT
    - FT
    - Asian Sentinel
    - The Star
    - AsiaOne?
    - Malaysian Mirror__earth ^(Talk) 23:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge With Najib Tun Razak. There's a difference between opinion blogs and news blogs. Malaysiakini.com and Malaysian Insider belong to the latter, yet were both questionably considered anti-government blogs, when they have actually reported from both sides of the fence. Both are relevant and mainstream enough to considered by Google as news sources (their articles show up in Google News). Interestingly there's no mention of them being anti-government in their respective wiki-entries either. Simply blanket-naming them as anti-government blogs and denying them as relevant/reliable sources runs counter to the spirit of wikipedia. To think of it another way, if they do contain some articles that appear anti-government, that merely balances the information given by state regulated/controlled media. In fact there woult not even be a need to merge the article as the content were in the original article, except much of them were deleted without editor consensus. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a fair point - I don't think it would be wise to rule out the web-based news sites entirely. However, the problems though with this content are (1) the use of plainly one-sided sources (Anwar and Lim Kit Siang's blogs); (2) many of the articles from the so-called "independent" blogs are just attack-jobs, not reliable journalism: see this; and (3) there's very little balance from mainstream and international media. I think we ought to be very cautious about merging any of the content to Najib Tun Razak for fear of unbalancing the article with weakly sourced contentious material.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge as obvious POV fork.( And pay attention to proper sourcing for the part that is merged) DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. —Mkativerata (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Mkativerata (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV fork. Hash it out on the Najib Tun Razak page, please. Abductive (reasoning) 00:49, 6 January 2010 (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.