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 merge to Military of Malaysia. The original reason for deletion isn't really valid. The keep arguments are overall stronger than the delete arguments, but fail to address the issue brought up that the article is a content fork that gives undue weight to unrelated events. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysian Military Scandals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

POV fork and attack page in violation of BLP Monkeyassault (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: what page is this forked from? Can you provide some more info on this AfD? andyzweb (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is laughable as this is not a biography of a living person or a violation of it. The user Monkeyassault in all honesty is a Malaysian government stooge and cybertrooper. Roman888 (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is forked from Najib Tun Razak. Roman888 has a history of behavior like this. Last month he created another POV fork called "Scandals of Najib Tun Razak." It was merged into the main article. This is just a reincarnation of that fork. Monkeyassault (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is apparent that this individual continues to dabble in censorship and whitewashing whole sections of articles that does not paint the Malaysian government in a good light as seen in other articles. Already deletion of the article was declined by a administrator in the first place - [[1]], thus making this individual continues to abuse the system by making repeated postings of template deletions. Roman888 (talk) 05:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal attacks are quite inappropriate. Please refrain from this kind of behavior. Monkeyassault (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understand this, you also have a history of deleting whole sections of articles that do not paint the Malaysian government in a good light. And you also have a history of repetitively posting deletion templates which to me is waste of time and resources. The first request to delete the article was denied and yet you persist with this behaviour. I have talk to numerous individuals who have agreed with my assessment.Roman888 (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article was declined for speedy deletion. The admin who declined mentioned the possibility of bringing this to AfD as is the standard practice. Nothing nefarious has happened here. If you have issues with any of my edits we can discuss them on the appropriate talk pages on their merits. Personal attacks are not acceptable. Monkeyassault (talk) 09:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, since you also have a history of making personal attacks. I take issue with editors who continually disrupt, delete and destroy whole sections of articles. Furthermore I don't see any consensus being made with discussing any issues with you, because of your past behaviour. This discussion for deleting the articles will go no where, is my case in point. Roman888 (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, possibly speedy, deletion rationale does not apply. IMHO this nomination is on the brink of disruptiveness. Could both parties nevertheless keep their cool in this discussion, please? --Pgallert (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just being an article on "scandals" isn't POV. There's clearly enough here for a topic and it is well sourced.--Mkativerata (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with the articles about the branches of the military they relate to, especially Military of Malaysia. This is clearly a subtopic of that, and seems a bit too much like a collection of information. I previously moved a section about the missing jet engines from the Najib Tun Razak page to the Royal Malaysian Air Force page and can see the same happening here with the rest of it. I'm also not sure why it contains a link to Murder of Shaariibuugiin Altantuyaa either. This doesn't seem to belong at all, so I can see why Monkeyassault thinks it is intentionally POV. Also, "scandal" is a known word to avoid, so if it does stay it needs a less POV name. --Spinosaurus aegyptiacus (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section in the Military of Malaysia article has less information that that of the Malaysian Military Scandal article. They do not cover the issues about the Sukhoi, submarines and patrol boat articles. The link to the murder is pertinent to the case, and only covers one part of the article. If you read correctly the words to avoid can be used provided there are facts or media references to back it up. Go and read it before you make any more of these comments. Roman888 (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Adequately sourced about notable events. ¨¨ victor falk 08:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge anything useful into related article - gives undo weight to subject by being stand alone as most of the events are not related. MilborneOne (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a grab bag of incidents with no common theme (other than misbehavior in Malaysian military purchasing and assets management). While the incidents have notability and definitely belong somewhere on Wikipedia, lumping them together like this isn't really appropriate. I'd suggest that this be userfied or sent to the article incubator rather than be deleted outright so that the content can be reused. Nick-D (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge with military of Malaysia. Qajar (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Military of Malaysia. All notable, but this POV spin is not the right way to present it. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:05, 3 February 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.