Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenian Genocide and Turkish National Movement


 * 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. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide and Turkish National Movement
POV fork, no significant information psch  e  mp  |  talk  18:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Golfcam 21:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Obvious delete. The name of the article doesn't mean much, doesn't correspond to the content, and the content is just unrelated, I still have no clue about what this article is. Fad (ix) 23:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I do understand what the article is about and how it relates to the title, but it is so badly written that there is little that can be done with it. If there is sufficient popular demand, I could try to paraphrase it into something understandable. It is strongly POV, from the Armenian side. If someone should think that is an issue: wake up: almost all content on the issue present on Wikipedia (and elsewhere) is poisoned with POV assumptions, terms and phrases, whether from one side or the other. There is some valid but not terribly interesting content here; it would take more effort than I can muster to try and see if it is represented elsewhere. And then I'm not even mentioning the effort of finding reliable neutral sources for verifiability. Lambiam Talk 02:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That this article is POV from the Armenian side is questionable. It has been created by a Turk, the same that undangered the integrity of the main article. Why has he created an article which appear at first impression 'pro-Armenian' as you might call it, I have my suspicions but I'd rather not say it here, besides, does it make any difference that a bad quality articles POV is pro what? As it is, this entry from what it is now, doesn't have a justifiable existance. Also, I beg to disagree, and strongly, and I even find it offensive that you'd go as far as using the term 'poisoned' for 'almost all content,' but having yourself questioned the name of the main article because you considered it 'loaded,' I can't tell that it would have surprised me that the content itself isen't satisfying you, but the word poisoned was misplaced. Fad (ix) 03:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What I mean by 'poisoned' is that if part of an article is POV it taints the whole article. I didn't mean to be offensive. I'm curious as to your suspicions, but maybe I shouldn't ask. Lambiam Talk 07:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as content fork. Fagstein 06:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. --DanielNuyu 03:50, 22 April 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.