Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenian Genocide Timeline


 * 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 of the debate was 'delete all. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 20:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide Timeline
Timeline of Armenian Genocide Timeline_of Armenian Genocide and Attacks on Armenians Timeline_of Armenian Genocide and Forced Deportations Timeline_of Armenian Genocide and Ottoman State Timeline_of Armenian Genocide and Ottoman Military Timeline_of_Armenian_Genocide_and_Ottoman_State_Related_Activities Timeline of Armenian Genocide and Armenian Resistance force &mdash; copyvio. El_C 01:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Note that I have just now deleted Armenian Genocide and Executors as copyvio of the Armenian Youth Federation, Greece. See: tinyurl /luyb9. El_C 03:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Note that I have just now deleted Timeline of Armenian Genocide and Turkish War of Independence as copyvio of the ANI. See tinyurl /pj9c7. El_C 05:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Undelete The specified pages are unique contributions of the author. As they are collection of dates and events, which can be find everywhere. It is the organization of the dates makes it unique. There is no page on the internet that organized these events within these categories. This set of pages are UNIQUE and not copyvios. Thanks for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OttomanReference (talk • contribs)
 * This isn't a request for undeletion; the pages are not unique. A cursory glance reveals this. See tinyurl /qbrrd, for an example. El_C 03:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * A text is copywritable regardless of the format and the way it is presented if it comes from elsewhere it is copyvio. Fad (ix) 21:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Roy  boy cr ash  fan  [[Image:Flag_of_Texas.svg|30px]] 01:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete could make for one interesting article. Oh there's already one. Eivind 01:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There's also its referencial basis: Ottoman Armenian casualties. El_C 01:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge . Certainly there is enough detail here for a very good Timeline of Armenian Genocide.  These are rather too detailed, but they may be merged, and we should be careful not to lose the detail contained in the detailed timelines.  bikeable (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to merge, everything has been copy-pasted from the Armenian National Institute's website. I might as well have speedied it, perhaps I should have, but I wanted a [single] reference; I wanted complete transperency (for nonadmins, who can't read deleted text). And it isn't like the ANI is likely to sue in the next few days (though I invite admins to speedy it immediately/early), or that they would have sued at all. The fact remains that it is outright plagiarism (that is, the real author/s are not credited &mdash; the author of the article is effectively claiming their work as his or her own; unless s/he is the author, in which case, now's the time to say so). El_C 05:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I missed the "copyvio" link at the end of your nomination, and didn't see the copyvio mentioned anywhere else in my cursory look. In that case, certainly they should be deleted as copyvio, unless ANI releases them under the GFDL.  I would be very happy to see a recreated, and merged, Timeline of Armenian Genocide, however.  bikeable (talk) 05:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete them all, per nom and Eivind. Jude (talk,contribs) 03:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete them all per Eivind.--Isotope23 03:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I won't vote because I refuse to vote when I somehow feel involved, it is a copyvio, the language is unencyclopedic, we don't need a dozen of chronological articles one is enought and probably should be written, but it should be worked, discussed before being submited. The main article still has issues to work on, a lot of issues, starting to work on multiple chronological pages, ane even one is still much too soon. Also, even if it was to be rewritten according to ANI website, I can source many timelines that somehow disagree with eachothers, a chronological article will require a lot, a lot of work even if it is not apparent at first, it will require to read various chronological tables and select those dates that correspond with eachothers. Fad (ix) 02:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If it is a copyvio, it should be marked at such. In any case, requiring it to be "discussed before being submited" is hardly fair -- we don't require that of any other articles; we edit them as we go and improve them.  It may be a lot of work, but it is most certainly encyclopedic.  bikeable (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * When it is a chronology pages meant to be an expantion of the main article on the subject, I think at least asking those involved in the main page is very welcome when the main page itself is controversial and prone to edit wars... starting a couple of timelines regardless if it is a copyvio is just not an OK thing to do, that they are copyvios make it even worst. Was it a documented encylopedic text prepared by the editor with a lot of sources, merging them would have been the solution, in this cases even when merging there still is the copyvio issue. Fad (ix) 03:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete all as copyvio. --Ter e nce Ong 12:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Localzuk (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: smell of copyvio, multiplying entities beyond necessity, missing encyclopedical format (explanation or hyperlinks are missing) and low quality generally. Pavel Vozenilek 23:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * From author: The specified Armenian timelines are unique contributions of the author. As they are collection of dates and events, and it is the organization of the dates makes it unique to this author. There is no page on the internet that organized these events within these categories. This would make the articles original research (in positive sense). Every article, ideally, should be backed up by verifiable references. If someone changes a number here how could one check validity? Pavel Vozenilek 13:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.