Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fondul Proprietatea


 * 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. Cleanup issue - refer back to me if there are still problems in a couple of months Fritzpoll (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Fondul Proprietatea

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

Attack page. My own speedy was declined. Guy0307 (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC) --Cbrajon (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC) -Cbrajon (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)  --Cbrajon (talk) 08:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Calling it an attack page is a bit much. The slant is obvious however, so why not just remove the pov section? Beach drifter (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Well, it's certainly a disaster, and should be stubbed. Deleted, no.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello,I would like to understand why you propose delete this article for deletion. Did you read the discussion page of the article? I saw no reaction or response... I paste it again here:This article is fair and gives facts regarding a Romanian institution that has failed. The jurisprudence of the ECHR is very clear. Unfortunately it is not available in English and it is not really a good idea to translate judgements. If it were available, I would obviously include the English version. But if you can read it in French, the judgements are very clear and fair: the fund is not efficient and is not able to deliver any compensation.This fact cannot be contested since there are a lot of court decisions by the Europen Court Of Human Rights. This situation is now a fact, a real statement.What would not be fair is to let believe anyone that Romania is effectively compensating people whose goods (properties and lands) have been confiscated abusively between 1945 and 1989. This is false.The aim of Wikipedia is to show an accurate and fair information on any subject. If the situation regarding this fund changes toward a better efficiency, the article will be changed accordingly.--Cbrajon (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)--Cbrajon (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added much information to the article and changed the presentation of some parts. I have also translated all court judgement extracts. So now the contestation part is less imposing in the article. If you still find something not acceptable, I thank you to be so kind to explain to me what and why...
 * response to user:Guy0307I do not understand why you wiped out the "Contestation" paragraph. It is full of accurate and verifiable information. Court decisions are final and irrevocable. Why do you consider this should not be included in this article? Without this part, the article is incomplete and misleading. Better to scrap it entirely! The fact that Proprietatea is not working for the beneficiaries it had been craated for is a fact, not a journalist suspicion and is an essential statement. Nobody contests that. Do you know what mean ECHR decisions? Are you aware of The European Union concerns about this? Would you find fair an article about the Communism wihout the Goulag part or the Moscow trials or even more striking an article on the Nazi party without the Nuremberg trial? Certainly not.
 * Responded at user's talk page. Guy0307 (talk) 10:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

--Cbrajon (talk) 11:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep a very problematic article, needing to be rewritten from a NPOV. First of all, based on the financial statement in the article, it is not an independent fund, or created by a popular movement, or a joint stock company in the usual sense, but an agency owned almost entirely by the Ministry of Economy and Finances. To say as the article does "it does not get any finance from the state budget" when the ministry owns 80% of the shares seems a little contradictory. The actual operation of the "fund" needs to be elucidated from neutral sources.I trust neither the defense nor the attack here as being objective, and the combination in the article is unclear. The article needs to be rewritten by someone who understands the issues involved, and can express them in comprehensible English. But AfD is not cleanup.  Or maybe it is--it does seem an effective way of getting attention to articles like this.DGG (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Your remark is accurate. This fund has been managed directly by the state from the beginning and a been a complete failure. So recently the government of Romania decided to put the management into private hands. All the financial information regarding the fund comes directly from the website of the fund itself. It may be very difficult to find a neutral source of information since the subject is very disputed and the fund is constantly changed by the authorities. On one side you have Romania and its ex-communists dignitaries who live in the stolen houses and are often senators or deputy, on the other side, you have around 150.000 plaintiffs all around the words (family of real owners...). However I have just been informed that the European Parliament has very recently decided to finance a survey on the situation regarding the restitution of properties in ex-communist countries. The part of the study that deals with Romania and Bulgaria will be done by the Societatea Academica Romana. The latter already done a survey (I mention it in the article). Anyway it may take quite a long time before this survey is available.
 * Again, you are being POV. Guy0307 (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

--Cbrajon (talk) 14:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC) 
 * To Guy0307 - POV? Two many acronyms kill meaning. Anyway because of you personal socialist 'etiquette', you seem to be proud of, I do not trust you to judge this article in which you personal political point of view may interfere with your judgment. In deed it is a socialist regime that lead to this painful situation.
 * For others: I have complete the Management paragraph and the text is now clearer:Until the appointment of a selected administration, the Property has been managed provisionally by the Ministry of Public Finance through the Board of Supervisors. After selecting through an international public tender, a management company will take over the powers of the administrator of the Fund property.Following a tender selection process, a Selection Commission has recently designed on June 9th, 2009 Franklin Templeton Investment Management Ltd as the manager of the fund.  I have also added more sections. It is true that this theme is complex because the governments of Romania changed frequently the law regarding this fund and also because it has been challenged in internal juridiction, ever before being challenge at the ECHR. So you will find tons of comments and opinions on this fund (unfortunately generally in Romanian). <br \> My position is that it seems fair enough to tell about ECHR judgements because it gives an unbiased light on the efficiency of the fund. I do not believe it would be fair to let think readers that this fund is a panacea to the property abuses in Romania. Moreover, It is not only about one single judgement but dozens if not more. I only selected the very last ones. A succession of juridical decisions, all in the same way, has a true significance that must not be ignored.<br \>Endly, on what basis would Wikipedia scrap all information about trial and court judgements? Would you for instance ignore the Madoff trial because it is subject to controversy? <br \> I understand your concern and your will to avoid article which show biased opinions or which are closer to a political forum that an encyclopedia, but it shall not  blind you on relevant information. Moreover since the information you are wary of are (final) court judgements, there is absolutely no risk of lawsuits from anybody. Should you wish to have these judgement presented another way, tell me:)<br \> I will travel in Romania the next days and will unfortunately not be able to connect myself to internet easily. So you may get no more answer or information from me that will not mean I have nothing to add. I hope this article will still be alive and not amputated when I come back :))
 * Wooooooow. Slow down buddy. Yes, I do consider myself a socialist, however to be honest, I don't really give a damn what's going on in Romania (no racism meant of course), nor do I know what regime currently controls there (or in other words, who won the last elections). My ultimate goal is to make Wikipedia perfect. According to our current WP:NPOV policy, articles must be neutral. What that section did is attack the organisation, and only that. You see I don't say any of the statements in that section are false. What I'm saying is that it does not attempt to be neutral. Anyone who would read that section would think that whoever wrote it was against that organisation. And one final thing, thank you for looking through my user-boxes. Guy0307 (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

--Cbrajon (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello again Guy0307. Sorry to be a bit harsh but what I saw in Romania either national heritage destruction or organized fraud and corruption (communism results) made me very touchy of this matter. Moreover my family suffered particularly from communism. <br \>Anyway, I think we can agree on an objective: to have clear and accurate article, as objective as possible. Thus, to include events directly related to the subject of the article and having a direct effect on it is not something negative or biased. It enriches it. For instance, it would be very relevant to add a new section on the article regarding the American Reserve and its failure to prevent to financial crisis. Same remark for the SEC.<br \>So, when true and precise information exists on the fact that Fundul Proprietatea does not work as design exist, I see no reason to discard it. Finally the article is now very developed and the ECHR part is only a section of it, not the main part as it was when I started to write this text.
 * 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.