Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demands for Armenian Genocide reparations


 * 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. Merging or any other editorial action can be discussed on the talk page. Tim Song (talk) 03:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Demands for Armenian Genocide reparations

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Proposing the article for deletion on the grounds of; The article is written in POV style and seems to be in violation of a number of Wikipedia rules: WP:FORK, WP:Synthesis and WP:SOAP. Please note the final section of the article, which questions the legal borders of a neighbouring state and as such qualifies as propaganda.Hittit (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Why rush to nominate the article for deletion? If the text, including the Sèvres section, is all properly referenced I don't see any reason to delete it. The article presents demands for Armenian Genocide reparations after all. Besides, I don't see why the reparations issue is not covered in Wikipedia. Its coverage is necessary if coverage on the Armenian Genocide is to be complete. Those who feel concerned should simply wait for the development of the article, or even contribute. Thanks. --Davo88 (talk) 02:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. 1) No signs of WP:SYNTH occur in any part of it as the whole context is written in accordance to the sources and there are no claims that are made out of their context or the spirit of those reliable sources. 2) No regards to articles forking with. 3) Stating, that an international treaty (here Treaty of Sèvres) "questiones borders", and thus articles that discuss them in their context because of being directly related to the cited sources are a propaganda (a WP:SOAP) cannot be serious. Aregakn (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Although referring to Sevres per se is not an issue, using a selective source claiming that the Treaty of Sevres is actually in force and not superseded by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne is just another evidence of strong POV with a serious claim on the territorial integrity of a neighbouring state. Furthermore, please note that over 50% of the article is based on two selective sources: an article from Armenian Weekly web page from May this year and Alfred de Zayas (from what I think is the author’s own promotional web site). I would like to also point out that currently a substantial amount of the article is direct citations from original sources and as such needs to be examined whether or this also includes, but not limited to copyright violation WP:COPYVIO.--Hittit (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment answars
 * 1) Pls do not change your starting issue and make the comments of other editors look stupid (i changed them back).
 * 2) If you have additional issues, add them in additional comments (as you did with WP:copyvio).
 * 3) Pls do state the exact rules you think the article violates so they can be considered and don't change your mind on the way.
 * 4) If you are uncertain of those, then maybe you should have followed the guidelines required before deletion proposal?
 * Addressing rules you mentioned:
 * 1) if you notice, the article isn't named "Sevres treaty" or "demanding land by sevres agreement". It is about the Armenian Genocide Reparations. It includes international law background and researches in that matter. I see no reason to concentrate on the paragraph "The aftermath of the Armenian Genocide" that speaks of that particular issue.
 * 2) The amount of reliable sources aren't an issue of rules; so speak of rules.
 * 3) The article isn't based on sources; those are sources the article refers to, to show the claims are not a WP:SYNTH
 * 4) Armenian Weekly isn't who "tells" it. Pls don't manipulate. It is the Professor mentioned
 * 5) That published statement is there for ascertain a point of view that many share (including Diaspora or some political parties), as written in the article. That very citation is for others (yet again) not to claim a WP:SYNTH or even an WP:OR, (as there was some certainty in the possibility, and it was justifies, as it can be seen)
 * 6) All the citations are from public domain (UN laws, news, published researches) and don't violate any WP:COPYVIO.
 * Note. Please, don't be looking for whatever rules MIGHT be suitable just to try imposing a deletion and be concrete! Aregakn (talk) 05:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note to Admin: After noticing a linking mistake in my opening statement I executed corrections. These corrections were reverted by User:Aregakn as he admits to this in his below comment. After reviewing WP policies I interpret that such actions are not allowed and discouraged (“Modifying users' comments”). His revert of my opening statement correction has substantially changed its meaning and even possibly has had an affect on editor voting. The correction replaced WP:FORK with WP:CFORK, and WP:POVFORK and was done as soon  as the mistake was noted. Editing other user’s comments is discouraged. --Hittit (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note to Admin. Hittit falsifies the facts. An opening statement was not to be "corrected" after certain voting and commenting took place. As I stated in the reason of bringing it back, new issues had to be mentioned in new comments, not changed in the opening statement so it would neutralise other editors' point. Aregakn (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Additionally, there was no link-mistake he claims but a change of policy he saw applicable (easily proven by checking history) and so it was him to change the comments, and is now blaming me for revert of that change. Aregakn (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep This is a fairly important issue among Diasporan Armenians today who are the third or fourth generation of descendants of the survivors of the Armenian Genocide. During and after the Armenian Genocide, many Turks and other Muslims moved into the homes of the Armenians who had been deported or purchased or plundered their movable property and goods with the connivance of the government. The title is a bit clunky and might need some shortening but the article definitely has potential for greater expansion. The sources are perfectly fine and more than qualify as WP:RS. Many historians and lawyers today have been trying to extract some form of reparations from the Turkish government and from insurance companies (albeit to virtually no avail). The validity of international law is presented in the article. Perhaps we can also explore the reparations provided by Germany and other European countries to Jews following the Holocaust as a blueprint for the better elucidation of this article (if such information exists on Wikipedia). Needless to say, the nominator's reasons are largely an exaggeration and, frankly, unconvincing. One can't help but wonder if this article's nomination has something to do after the "Persecution of Muslims" fiasco.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC) I hope that issue with many others concerning it will be discussed after this finishes. Aregakn (talk) 07:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Marshal are you admitting that you are using this article in Wikipedia to build a law case and promote a suit for compensation by extending the content of the claims to the universal Internet community? I am not even sure how to classify that, perhaps an admin can comment. Nevertheless, one more strong reason to delete. BTW as in any population movement property changes hands in legal or illegal ways, e.g.,  massive waves of refugees (millions of people) in the Balkans and Caucasus accompanied by population exchanges between 1821 – 1922. This is also evident in recent cases, for example the expulsions of the Azeri population of Nagorno Karabag…numerous examples could be pointed. This is not a place to build a legal suite use Wikipedia to acquire notability and promote it. --Hittit (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I now notice that most of the article proposed for deletion has been merged to the Armenian Genocide article and as such provides more merit for the deletion case. --Hittit (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: It is neither Marshal nor me that is "promoting" anything. Others who support reparations such as De Zayas do use the basis of international law, the Sevres treaty, and so on, and I find it necessary that it's reported on Wikipedia because it corresponds perfectly with the purpose of the article (describing the demands for Armenian Genocide reparation). --Davo88 (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note.Hittit your comments do not represent any reasons by Wiki why you proposed deletion.
 * 1) Marshal only noted, that the issue worths being a separate article.
 * 2) Once again, don't be looking for reasons on the way to ask for deletion
 * 3) Now you agree on the content issues having no WP:SYNTH and WP:SOAP and you propose a merge
 * 4) If it was a merge you thought, "deletion" isn't what you had to propose first
 * Aregakn (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Aregakn, it is pointless to beat around the bush, instead explain your actions. I did not agree on anything, but deletion and I have given my reasons (see my comments). I just noted that you merged the article as such you prove it to be fork. I am just pointing out to it. Since now you have merged almost the whole thing the only sensible action would be to delete the article. Consult WP:CFORK and WP: POVFORK and you will understand the reasons for my delete comments in addition to WP: Synthesis, clear WP:SOAP and a probable WP:COPYVIO due to the extensive cut and paste of original citations into the article. My five cents on the topic; and the admin will make the final call. I have said all I have regarding this matter. Best regards. .--Hittit (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong assumptions and false claims.
 * 1) I didn't merge the article. I summarised some content and put it in the Armenian Genocide.
 * 2) You claimed the article was merged and this is why it is a reason to delete it but didn't note that what you called WP:SYNTH and WP:SOAP remain. For your info, these rules are about any content anywhere in Wiki, not only for 1 separate article and so my comments are relevant.
 * 3) WP:CFORK and WP:POVFORK are the same rule, so no need to link them several times. I stress it again:  YOU are yet to show what and how your claims are correct and not only claim and leave them be. Aregakn (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Proposing the article for deletion, Hittit has not presented any evidence for his claims. Calling rules with no explanation "why and how". He failed to do it even when asked several times after these many days. It is obvious that it is purely his desire to delete the article in abnsense of any reasoning. IsmailAhmedov (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into Post-Armenian Genocide timeline or somewhere else. The article talks about demands of reparations, not reparations per se. There is a piece of crystall ball out there. Brandmeister[t] 20:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. No, not really. Have you read the article? The article title talks about the demands and the title is being discussed on the talk-page. Th article itself is about the problem of reparations from the side of the guilty and issues connected to it. Aregakn (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. I believe this article is very important and therefore should be maintained and further expanded. Reasoning brought by those who wish to delete it are purely of personal and subjective nature and in no way serve as a valid ground for the article to be deleted. Moreover, the initiator of deletion covers up with wikipedia rules to let out his own propaganda and does this in a very obvious manner. I see no explanation for the deletion and no contradiction to the rules here. Emilio1974 (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2010 (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.