Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sèvres Syndrome

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. Was already snowballing, but the nominator had already withdrawn their nomination with this diff. Considering there is no support for anything other than keeping the article, there is no reason for this AfD to continue four more days. (non-admin closure) ~Styyx^Talk? 22:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sèvres Syndrome[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Created for propaganda purposes, check talk page of the article Aloisnebegn (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced article, propaganda or not, it has value here. Within scope of Wikipedia, to cover all view points. No reason for deletion simply because you don't like it. Excellent source found in the Washington Post [1]. Turkish paranoia as it describes in the article. Here is another critical review of the case [2]. Happy to keep the article, I did not know this syndrome existed, 100 yrs later and it still has importance to a nation. Oaktree b (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said in talk page. if not deleted it requires serious editing in order to fit to wikipedia. Aloisnebegn (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment also about 17 hits in Jstor, proably only about 10 or so are good quality to use here. Again, a very interesting topic, haunting a nation 100 yrs later. I would happily expand the article and perhaps create a French language one, we need to share this knowledge. Oaktree b (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should change your tone. I assume you did not check the talk page in detail so explaining here again. Trianon syndrome article is a good example on how it should be written. Article is full of accusations, exactly like you just did. Aloisnebegn (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WE do need to share this knowledge, that's the point of wikipedia. No matter how far-fetched an idea, we discuss it in a neutral tone. Oaktree b (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep OP tried removing a bunch of sourced content. When they got reverted by different users, they launched this AfD with subpar reasoning. Article is well sourced as Oaktree b noted and definitely has a place to stay. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I only kept parts with a writing language fitting to wikipedia. Instead of tracing my actions and trying to make it personal you could compare the what was said in sources with the way article is written. Aloisnebegn (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are being disruptive, and not only on this page. Nominating a well sourced article for deletion with subpar reasoning is disruptive. Read the numerous notices on your talk page and other inputs by various wikipedians here and on the article talk [3]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop with these bullying attempts. This is not the place. If deletion nomination is incorrect, an admin will close it eventually. I will not respond your messages any further. Aloisnebegn (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the term is frequently considered by scholars., for example see the hundreds of cites at https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C27&q="Sèvres+Syndrome"&btnG= Rjensen (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sourcing exceeds notability and verification guidelines. Reliable, independent, secondary and significant coverage in New York Times, Journal article Turkish Studies, Article in Virginia Tech Journal here. The list goes on. Not only are these sources good, there are countless scholarly, peer reviewed journal articles, which to me are the gold standard of sourcing because they indicate scholarly interest in the subject, interest which is documented, reviewed, and published in a curated academic source. It is hard to be more sound and rigorous than that. MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Feels a bit like piling in as we're in SNOW territory, but found this quite a well written and well sourced article. No possible rationale for deletion. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. The phenomenon is detailed in numerous academic journals and reliable sources. There is no reason to delete this article. Helen(💬📖) 23:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG, seems like a bad faith nom. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
not bad faith but someone who did not exactly know what deletion should be used for. an admin can remove this nomination. Aloisnebegn (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep plenty of references, well written, nominator's assertion regarding the purpose of the proposed deletion doesn't track with how the article reads. Hard to add anything beyond what's been said here. An admin should step in and SNOW close this already. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 12:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily passes WP:GNG by a mile, there is no basis for deletion that is in any way founded in Wikipedia policies or guidelines. - Aoidh (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2022 (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.