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. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 04:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is extremely subjective and should be removed. Who is a war criminal? (A person that was tried for a war crime, a leader responsible for a war crime but not tried, etc..? )

• Strong Delete as nom. --Ineffable3000 04:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but make criteria something like "People judged by an international body to be guilty of one or more war crimes", to avoid POV. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Never mind that, but still keep. The criteria listed for inclusion leave absolutely no room for subjectivity. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A person can commit a war crime but never be charged with it. The official decision of whether the person violated the agreements is also subjective and may be wrongly decided due to political reasons. --Ineffable3000 05:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Lets rename it [[People or peoples charged by one or more transnational agencies with war crimes against civilian populations in violation of the Geneva Code and prosecuted by the International Criminal Court in the Hague: People or peoples are presumed innocent until proven guilty by the ICC]]
  • • But it is objective if a specific body charged them with it, which is the criterion for inclusion. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then the list should be rennamed to "Formally convicted war criminals" or something like that. --Ineffable3000 05:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If you think the guidelines need to be tightened, this is NOT the venue for that. Thats for the discussion page. The parameters for the article are very clear in the opening paragraph. I notice that you are nominating articles then also voting on them. I don't think you are supposed to nominate, then second your own nomination with a "strong delete" vote, your double dipping. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the admin looking at the page would just count it as one vote. --Ineffable3000 21:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, as nom and only person to vote delete has suggested a page move instead of deletion. --Karnesky 06:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Terence Ong 12:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Lebob-BE 13:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as per Karnesky. --Buridan 17:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Encyclopedic topic. Contains more information than can be supplied by a category. — RJH (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Please stop nominating every military-related list for deletion. --Hemlock Martinis 05:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as per Karnesky. -NorsemanII 07:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/rename, to exclude possible misunderstanf]ding by contributorsd. Mukadderat 01:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I see very few people listed here who were on the winning side. I guess that confirms that the good guys always win. How reassuring! How Wikipedic! Stammer 10:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - "War criminal" is pretty well defined. But Wikipedia:Notability has more relevance here. If someone is a notable war criminal, it's because they've acquired the reputation of such. Such notability is readily verifiable.  The Transhumanist   13:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The information is unreliable and questionable. Why is criteria expressed as negative: "not acquited"? I ran into the article while looking for information on Vilis Hazners - he WAS acquited. After a cursory look the next name pops up - that of Kurt Waldheim, former Secretary general of UN and Austrian president. Just delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doc15071969 (talk • contribs)
• Comment. As the original creator of the article, the list had originally been intended to list who who had been charged by an international organization for war crimes. In copiling this list, I used Sheldon Glueck's War Criminals: Their Prosecution and Punishment, Victors' Justice: The Tokyo War Crimes Trial by Richard H. Minear and partial information from Nuremberg and Vietnam: an American Tragedy by Telford Taylor, the latter being U.S. Chief Council at the Nuremburg Trials. I believe these to be both reliable enough resources to support its encyclopedic value. Unfortunatly, while I've been busy with other projects, I've not had time to go through the list to investigate the inclusion of questionable entries (many of which are listed in Category:War criminals). This issue notwithstanding, the deletion of the list seems a bit extreme given the alternative of simply cleaning up the list. MadMax 20:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep -- this is useful tabulation of disparate data, and interesting to many. Lists in general are great article organizing assets, and linked to primary articles are great aids to having nice professional looking articles that pack maximal information while presenting minimal intrusion into the main topic. One of our main strength's over deadtree encyclopedia's is being able to present more in depth, more in detail and cross linked information in the spirit of WP:Btw. This sort of this is a no brainer -- keep. If maintenance is an motivating issue for you, take a wikibreak. You'll find the project does fine whilst you need not be vexed with your pet peeves. // FrankB 16:20, 9 December 2006 (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.