Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyprus v Turkey (Attila Olgac Testimony of Alledged 1974 War Crimes)

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 delete. Discoutned multple !votes by one editor, and the arguments for retention are weak - sourcing does not automatically equate to notability, and there is a failure to address the WP:NOT#NEWS issue, which is is actually incorporated into the general notability guideline. The weight of argument thus lends itself to deletion Fritzpoll (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus v Turkey (Attila Olgac Testimony of Alledged 1974 War Crimes)[edit]

this is WP:NOTNEWS and has WP:BLP issues; it would be an obvious merge into Attila Olgac but I can't find any info about the person. I've mentioned the episode in a sentence at Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict#Legal challenges, which seems quite sufficient. Rd232 ^talk 22:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless a redirect is thought necessary to support the GFDL for the material inserted. That would be a shame, for it's an unlikely search term. There is probably no justification for an article on Olgac, though that remains a possibility if there is additional information on him & he should be notable as an actor or a writer. DGG (talk) 00:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect isn't necessary. The sentence at Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict#Legal challenges is my own, as is the source I added there. Rd232 ^talk 10:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is well sourced and thus verifiable. The article pertains to Cyprus v Turkey (based upon testimony of Attilla Olgac),and I wonder ifprevious objection to this article has been politically motivated. (Copperhead331 (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

First, assume good faith. Second, the article doesn't explain which Cyprus v Turkey case it relates to, or how. Third, if Olgac had made this statement without retracting it that would be different in terms of notability. The article (from the title on, and the links to it from other articles) does its best to ignore the retraction. Fourth, if Olgac merited his own page (maybe he does, but there don't seem to be English sources) then much of this could be merged to his page (but it would still need to be treated as a retracted statement by an actor on a talk show, not as unretracted "testimony").Rd232 ^talk 23:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Notable subject, well sourced, topic of interest. Rotovia (talk) 00:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An unapparently non-notable Turkish actor's retracted talk-show claim of a war-crime, possibly no more than PR fluff, is notable because...? Rd232 ^talk 07:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "alleged" is spelled incorrectly in the title of the page. Hairhorn (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the most obvious but by far the least important of the title's problems. See my comment above. A more accurate title would be Attila Olgac 2009 retracted talk show claims re 1974 Cyprus invasion. Does that sound notable, when we can't seem to scrape an article together for Attila Olgac? Rd232 ^talk 07:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. Rd232 ^talk 07:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. THF (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cleanup needed. Article remains a matter of interest (these allegations actually came up in a tutorial of mine, recently) Rotovia (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which allegations? Attila Olgac's? Or the much more general Cyprus invasion war crimes allegations? Please be clear in your answers. Rd232 ^talk 08:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KeepAt worst, the article requires some attention to correct so-called problems. Objections to this article appear to have no basis, other than to spare Turkish military blushes with regards to a well-sourced and upcoming movement to the EU courts over Attila Olgacs claims. Perhaps, the article would be best fit into a more general article about war crimes in Cyprus committed by all sides, and associated court judgements and international measures. Copperhead331 (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not knowledgeable enough to express a view on keeping or otherwise, but "Alledged" is not a word. It's "ALLEGED". Please move it if you keep it (also it's a terribly long title anyway). Wik idea 19:52, 7 June 2009 (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.