Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurdish-Armenian relations

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish-Armenian relations[edit]

Obvious pov fork. Sourceless too,

Delete & rewrite --Cat out 23:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm 24.211.193.113 01:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is far from complete. -- Clevelander 00:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete and rewrite then please, even the intro isnt in accordance with WP:NPOV nor WP:NOR. --Cat out 00:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't make sense to delete this article if you want to help improve it. -- Clevelander 01:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its currently a pov fork, since the last time I looked at it, it got worse. "Common foe"? come on... And thats one of the many obvious examples. --Cat out 02:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How just how isn't Turkey a foe of the Armenians or the Kurds? Even if you don't agree with article, then you can still revise it or help improve it. I fail to see how deleting this article will solve anything. -- Clevelander 03:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to that comment, I recomend a read of WP:NPOV since you dont seem to have the slightest idea. Furher reading of WP:NOR is reccomended. --Cat out 03:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But where does it specifically state that if information is unreferenced in an article that it should be deleted? -- Clevelander 08:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see deletion policy. Articles not in accordence with NPOV, NOR and etc can be deleted assuming the concensus is delete... --Cat out 08:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment apparent attempt to deal with a content dispute at AFD. Nominator fails to say where this was forked from and believes that the subject is a valid one (per his "delete and rewrite" opinion). We don't deal with content disputes here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See: Wikipedia:Content Forking
A POV fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and violate one of our most important policies.

Various statements (practicaly all of it) exists to highlight negative viewpoints towards Turkey and among other things. Calling Turkey the common foe of Kurds and Armenians is just only one of the many examples present at that page.

--Cat out 18:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very good, but to be a POV fork it has to have been forked from an existing article, otherwise it can't be a POV fork. Please say which article it was forked from. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm a long list. It touches a particular view point on Armenian Genocide (helping the Turkish army eliminate Armenians?), Various historical events such as the spread of Islam (invasion? come on), Kurdistan/kurdish independence movement (dashed any hope of a Kurdish state? come on!), arival of Turkic tribes to anatolia (in expense of the local populations? come on!)... etc etc. A jungle of articles basicaly and beyond recovery. --Cat out 19:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to be a valid topic and, as explained above, not in fact a POV fork. Not WP:OR as gbooks shows writings which address the subject and gnews shows some reporting relevant to the subject from a current perspective. Article requires references and less colourful language, etc, per WP:NPOV, WP:V et al. As WP:DP says, AFD "not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally." Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article doesn't seem properly sourced or POV to me, but that's a reason to clean it up, not delete it. The topic itself is valid, and does not have any characteristics making it suitable for deletion. Saying that the article is a POV fork or contains original research is baseless. As stated, "deletion is based upon policy and not personal likes and dislikes." -- Augustgrahl
~~Keep~~ Keep or merge. Wikipedia should probably have an article on the topic, although not necessarily this one. Rewrite it so it's NPOV, sure, but deletion doesn't solve the POV problem, it solves different problems.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 17:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, merge into ... History of Armenia, I suppose.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 17:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article should be merged into any others, it's a distinct topic on its own. The text needs to be more on topic, though. Augustgrahl 22:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but needs work. Nickieee 20:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep, It's a legitimate topic but it's going to be extremely hard to source almost every single paragraph. Needs a lot of work. I see a lot of statements that are very dubious. --Eupator 14:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and keep it neutral. --Telex 16:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it of course. --Davo88 02:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it, the statements made about the common foe is simple to understand if you know or read about any history of Armenia and Kurdistan, the rest will be worked on and cleaned up in a neutral way, the topic is legitimate...why delete when we can improve! --Fedayee 22:34, 6 September 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.