User:Balloonman/CSD Survey/3.10
| Quicklinks |
|---|
| Other Excellent articles on CSD |
Original Article
[edit][name removed] (born 1953 in Gitarama province) is a Rwandan politician.
[name removed], an ethnic Hutu and economist by education, was a general manager of a private printing company until November 1993. When the Rwandan Genocide occurred in 1994, [name removed] was a member of the moderate faction of the MDR political party. After his resignation as Prime Minister he was accused later of supporting the genocide, but he initially supported the Rwandese Patriotic Front when it overthrew the government and came to power.
[name removed] was the prime minister of Rwanda from August 31 1995 to February 28 2000. During his time in office as prime minister, a no confidence vote was brought against him over problems with educational funds when he was minister of education. According to the Integrated Regional Information Network (IRIN) on 23 December 1999, [name removed] survived the motion, leveled against him by a parliamentary commission of inquiry chaired by Member of Parliament Major Rose Kabuye, on a 34-27 vote. He had to help run the government's handling of the war in the Congo, and prosecution of the perpetrators and recovery from the genocide. Early in 2000, Rwigema announced his resignation. Shortly after he left office, the Hutu president Pasteur Bizimungu also resigned, and the departure of these two officials increased the dominance of the Tutsi vice-president Paul Kagame who became President. Saying that he was being persecuted by the Rwandan government, [name removed] fled to the United States via Germany. The Rwandan government accused him of distributing weapons and chairing a pro-genocide committee in 1994, and a warrant for his arrest was issued in 2001. In 2003, [name removed] won his case of political asylum in the United States Immigration Court with subsequent removal of the warrant arrest and all charges.
Nomination Criteria
[edit]G10
Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage or threaten their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile"). These are sometimes called "attack pages". This includes legal threats, and may also include a biography of a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral version in the page history to revert to. Administrators deleting such pages should not quote the content of the page in the deletion summary, and if the page is an article about a living person it should not be restored or recreated by any editor until it meets biographical article standards.
Deletion Options
[edit]| rationale | Count | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Agree with ratioinale to speedy delete. | 5 | 8.5 |
| Disagree with rationale to speedy delete, but deletable by other criteria. | 0 | 0 |
| Disagree with rationale to speedy delete, but this is a case where IAR applies. | 0 | 0 |
| Disagree with speedy deletion the unsourced BLP information needs to go, but the article should stay, we are talking about the Prime Minister of a country. | 54 | 91.5 |
Survey Comments
[edit]- unless sourcing can be located, BLP. Would check for sourcing and, if none found to support current contents, create a new stub.
- Little besides the (one sentence) lede should stay, but just that is enough to avoid an A1 or A7 by itself.
- Tell the truth. BLP is secondary to truth. It should be kept and the truth told. I don't care what some stupid BLP policy says.
- G10 does not apply. Removing unreferenced information would be enough.
- As you say - strip the BLP, tag for improvement
- keep if there are sources , which there will be. Blatant error
- With no sources, this would be a clear BLP violation.
- edit the article!!!
- I would search for sources but the fact that the claim is about a prime minister is all the more reason to delete under BLP, rather than use that as a basis foir keeping
Balloonman's analysis
[edit]G10 is not an invitation to delete valid articles. He was the prime minister of Rwanda, as a head of state, he is notable. There is nothing wrong with the first two paragraphs. The third one is problematic. I don't see it as an attack page, but I can see deleting most of the 3rd paragraph. The last three sentences, however, should stay.