Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaldean Syriac Assyrian Popular Council


 * 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The result was  Result Keep I was leaning towards closing this as a keep when I noticed that the nominator has withdrawn his AFD nod. While there is still a !vote to delete, it is clear this will be kept.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Chaldean Syriac Assyrian Popular Council

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete, to me it seems to push a viewpoint more then report on the subject in a nuetral manner Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, I'd like to withdraw the nomination for deletion. While I have reviewed a few pages on afd I've never reviewed WP:ATA. According to this, I nominated article incorrectly. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - What viewpoint is it pushing? The controversal statements in the article is cited with neutral NGO reports. Besides, just because you don't like how an article sounds doesn't mean you can delete it. Get involved and edit the article. The party is of significance, having won the Christian elections in the January 2009 elections. Its Arabic name gets 5,000 hits []. Iraqi (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment, I would ask and suggest you strike your personal attacks against my motives. I've left a caution on your page regarding Assuming Good Faith.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What personal attack? Iraqi (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Besides, just because you don't like how an article sounds doesn't mean you can delete it"Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you took that as a personal attack. The reason you gave for deleting this article was you don't like how it sounds. And I simply said that is not a good enough reason to delete an article. It doesn't really matter to me if you did remove some sentences from the article. But its important to keep the article, because its notable and thus Wiki-connected to different articles. Iraqi (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just keep in mind that comments like that are generally taken that way. I could care less how the article sounds, I just want to make sure it's encyclopeadic and nuetral. on the plus side this opens your article to community debate and My voice is only one chipping in. Try asking them what they think could improve the article. I am not qualified to help you fix it as I am unfimiliar with Iraqi Politics. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I guess that is where the problem is. If you are not familiar with Iraqi politics, how did you then conclude that the article was pushing a point of view? Iraqi (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way. As time goes on hopefully you will understand the policies better and how they've been applied to this article. No one is denying your parties notability the article is unencyclopeadic. It's also not a newspaper which this does sound like with statements such as "Weither autonomy is legal or not within the Iraqi constitution is debatable." Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm curious, you agree that it's notable, and say the way it's written is unencyclopaedic - I don't think anyone would say it's well written at the moment, but what makes you think that deletion is the appropriate answer, as opposed to cleanup and/or verify tags? Bearing in mind that poorly written articles are not alone grounds for deletion --Saalstin (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because something is notable doesn't nec. mean it will be included. In my opinion the entire article would require a fundemental rewrite to make the standard which is a criteria for deletion. I'm not saying you can't get it that way but as it stands now, it should be deleted. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * English is not my first language and don't have a strong command in it, so I apologize for that. If the issue is just not readable for you, then why don't you reword the sentences you don't like? And please don't call it "my political party", I have no affilation with it. I am currently working on different Iraqi-related elections pages. Iraqi (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - a legal Iraqi political party with representation in two Provinces - that's notable. It might well need severe copyediting, but there's no reason to delete --Saalstin (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Not very encyclopedic, too much of a personal page with forward looking statements, rather than facts. Parkerparked (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as a party who got members elected. That the article contains "forward looking" statements is to be expected--I have it on good authority that Iraq is a fairly new democracy. BTW, I don't understand the nominator's gripe about POV--I don't see any POV at all here, not even in the version that was current at the time of nomination. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as expressed above. AFD is for articles which shouldn't exist on WP - this article is about a minor political party which has regional representation and is fairly important to the topic of Christian politics in Iraq. The reason given for deletion - NPOV - is not a valid reason. It that's the problem, raise it on the talk page and fix it. AndrewRT(Talk)(WMUK) 12:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep POV is not an issue for AfD, nor is the fact that's not an amazingly written article - time would be better spent bringing it up to standard rather than discussing it here Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Improvements needed, not deletion. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  01:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sourcing is difficult - anyone read Arabic? - but the nominator doesn't seem to have tried. To avoid Western systematic bias, we should keep and improve the article; the party seems to be one of the main Assyrian Iraqi parties.  Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:16, 7 July 2009 (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.