Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey (Second nomination)


 * 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 Speedy keep, per WP:SNOW, and some legitimate questions about a nomination so soon after another speedy-keep. Discussions about a possible merge should go to Talk:Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey

 * — (View AfD)

Originally with the title Kurdish genocide, article fails WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V and is nothing but a pov fork of Human rights in Turkey. It probably also fails WP:N and WP:NOT. Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey can be a section in Human rights in Turkey.

Past discussion was disrupted by a redundent pov debate: Articles for deletion/Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey

-- Cat out 14:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong, strong (as strong as it gets!) keep. The article has been renamed, and most reviewers seemed to accept this compromise. So, I honestly do not understand this new AfD. In any case, I strongly believe that we definitely need this article. The whole issue is very important (the article does not fail WP:N), notable and with many parametres we can develop. In the research I started to conduct, I read and learnt about an alleged genocide conducted against Kurds in 1937-1938. I do not necessarily endorse these allegations, but they are important issues and in my recent sourced edits you'll see the huge reprecussions of these events (such as the persecutions of a prominent Turk sociology). I do not argue for keeping this article because of blind nationalism. I may become unpleasant to the nominator or to other reviewers, but I strongly believe that we need this article for strictly encyclopedic reasons. I will continue my research and I'm sure I'll find other, even more interesting parametres. POV and OR can be dealt with, but encyclopedic knowledge shouldn't be thoughtlessly deleted.--Yannismarou 15:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC):*I have already started providing verifiable sources per WP:V. I hope you regard Google Book sources as verifiable!--Yannismarou 15:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest writing about those historic events under their respective titles (such as the said rebellion) rather than a blanket article about Kurdish rights in general. The past discussion was prematurely closed due to a rant between Greek and tuskish editors and I see no evidence of a compromise aside from senseless yelling casing abruptly with afds closure. -- Cat out 15:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No I do not consider bluntly biased sources reliable as per WP:V. -- Cat out 15:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Cat out, do not hurry! More sources are coming! I'm gathering such important material about the "Bersim genocide or massacre", that I am now thinking that the first title of the article (Kurdish Genocide) was not after all so inaccurate as I was initially convinced. I am thinking about proposing the renaming of the article and the adoption of its initial title. If you think my sources from Google Search are biased, then provide your own sources and conduct your own research!--Yannismarou 15:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I think well-researched information on historical genocides is very important, but the problem with this article is that it makes no attempt to discuss both sides of the event, nor does it document the events so well that that it makes it possible to treat potential criticisms dismissively, as mere fringe beliefs (as with Holocaust, which has 60 references). If you'd like to get this article accepted, you need to provide much stronger sourcing (more than one book, and an email archive) and you need to make an attempt to write it in a neutral voice.  For now, I'd suggest taking some of your sourced information and amending existing articles on human rights or Kurdish history to reflect this information (where it will undoubtably be read by more people anyway). Tarinth 15:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree and I provide verifiable sources from Google Search. I would be grateful if the nominator or anybody else could provide other sources contradicting my own, so as to make this article less POV and more "objective".--Yannismarou 15:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you find some verifiable media sources that name the event? I don't really understand what was wrong with the original "Kurdish Genocide" title, since that seems more descriptive, but perhaps there are no media sources that ever used that term (the new title strikes me as vague relative to what you want to talk about in this article). Tarinth 16:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am now conducting the material and making my own research. Until now, I was not actively involved in the article. But I also tend to believe that maybe the original title Kurdish genocide should be restored.--Yannismarou 16:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Your statement that youare "making [your] own research" is troubling because it suggests you are using Wikipedia to publish original research. If you reference your own research it needs to be peer-reviewed research published by another reliable entity, or better yet, research that's been done independent of you. Tarinth 16:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My own research of sources Tarinth. What has this to do with OR? Let's not argue for trivia. I do know how Wikipedia works; it is not the first time I am editing an article. See my edits and if you see any OR tell me. I only use verifiable sources.--Yannismarou 16:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It is original research to merge two/three unrelated incidents. The Dersim incident can be it's own article but has no connection with the incident involving the PKK nor does it have any connection with the European Human rights court decisions. With statements like "Beşikçi paid a heavy price for his moral and intellectual courage" I question the neutrality of the said source. I also question the objectivity of the editor writing the statement to the article. The question "why is a person with Greek origin is writing an article about Turkish/Kurdish history and human rights issues" bothers me. There is also the allegations of Greek vote stacking on the previous AfD. -- Cat out 19:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool Cat, you oblige me to officially ask you to substantiate these allegations against me. I have the right to edit any article I want as long as I do not violate Wikipedia policies. If you think I do violate any Wiki policy, proceed to the due actions; otherwise, avoid unsubstantiated personal attacks. If you think my sources are biased, provide yours and contradict my findings. I'll rephrase the sentence you mentioned, because it qualifies indeed for POV - my mistake. But apart of that, I feel offended by your comments against me, and I ask you to provide evidence or to recall.--Yannismarou 19:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That was an accident. Chill dude, take a walk or something. I was about to revert myself. I cited one example on how what you wrote was biased, I probably can cite more. If you consider that a personal attack thats your problem and frankly I could care less. I am not required nor expected to contradict your "findings". You are however required to write neutral articles and this one is far from neutral and it is digging into further bias and original research. -- Cat out 19:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm cool, but I'm accepting no unsubstantiated allegation against me. Therefore, I hope you won't repeat them. The argument of Original research is obviously ill-grounded. Everything I write is based on sources. Unless you regard the reports of EU, the decisions of the European Court or the articles of Economist as OR?!!!! It is your right, of cource, but I'm afraid that you are not particularly convincing. Now, as far as POV is concerned, everything I write is based on verifiable sources. Now, if you disagree, please contradict them. Speaking generally for POV does not help. If my phrasing is somewhere wrong, as you saw, I'm willing to change it (as I proved). But the most important it this: I do not accept allegations like this one: "There is also the allegations of Greek vote stacking on the previous AfD". If you think somebody committed vote stacking, go and speak to him; not to me. Don't throw phrases like these in order to create a wrong impression against me. You chose the wrong guy for such unsubstantiated accusations. I hope I made myself crystall clear.--Yannismarou 20:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The article has now 13 sources (8 printed and 5 online). How many OR articles with this number of sources have you encountered in Wikipedia?--Yannismarou 20:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My "allegation" stays. I do not consider you an impartial party. As for vote stacking there was an ANB/I case, I do not know if you were involved with that particular case. I do not recall accusing you. Reports of EU, articles from the Economist and etc are not necessarily without bias. So far you have been only relying on sources "accusing". You also seem to be covering minor incidents. -- Cat out 20:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you do not know, do not accuse. Do you regard the burning of the village of Nurettin or the events in Diyarbakir as minor?! Well, this is indicative of your ideas about human rights. Now I do not care what you say about ANB/I cases. I just want to know one thing: Do you personally accuse me of vote stacking? If yes, prove it. If no say so. Otherwise, you will be officially called to prove your allegations against me.--Yannismarou 21:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Officially call to 'prove allegation' then, I am breathless with anticipation on what this offical thing is. -- Cat out 12:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe because you are breathless, you avoid to be specific in your accusations and you choose the road of confusion. But everybody is judged here. And your initiative for this AfD has been also judged. Any allegations for - how you called it? I liked the word - vote stacking for this particular AfD? Because obviously something went wrong again!! Don't you think? Try to find a new conspiracy theory. You look successful in this domain.--Yannismarou 12:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Yannismarou. -- S onicChao talk 15:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Why can't this article be merged with Human rights in Turkey? TSO1D 16:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it is a notable issue per se. Why merged when it can stand as a seperate article?--Yannismarou 16:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * An argument in favor of merger is that if your information is notable and useful to people, then it's more likely that people looking for your subject will find the information they're looking for... But that's neither here or there until the information itself is sourced. Tarinth 16:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Check WP:SS and you will understand why merger does not serve this purpose. The main article can lead to a sub-article.--Yannismarou 16:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am looking at WP:SS... -- Cat out 19:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We POV and un-POV articles Cool Cat by our writing. And why did you revert my previous edit? I hope it was a mistake of yours.--Yannismarou 19:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We do not POV articles. POV isn't a verb. Articles are required to be neutral. And yes that particular case was an accident. -- Cat out 19:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * POV isn't a verb? Well, I decide to use it as verb, and I tell you that yes, it is up to us to POV or to un-POV an article. We make the articles. The skilled editors can un-POV an article.--Yannismarou 20:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Articles are expected to be written in a Neutral Point of View (NPOV). Since start, this article has been biased. It isn't getting any better. -- Cat out 20:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you think it is biased, why don't you provide sources contradicting mine. You make think that such sources do not exist. Does this happen?--Yannismarou 21:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in waisting time with such a poorly written article. -- Cat out 12:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you are interested in losing time for this AfD "until you get a "good" decision" (per RockMFR). And you lost a whole day, because, watching your contributions, I saw this was almost the only think you was doing in Wikipedia yesterday!--Yannismarou 12:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge the salvageable content to Human Rights in Turkey. Some of the stuff in there is definitely FORK, and of TWO articles: "HR in TR" and "Casualties of the TR-PKK conflict". Uninformed readers should take a look at the last AfD to understand the background of the article. It is pretty complicated :) Baristarim 20:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge - Article seems better than most, with a lot of referencing now. I think it could continue to be made even better over time, with further input from the community.  My only question now is why it isn't simply a section of Human Rights in Turkey.  If it really stands on its own I think it needs a more unique name to avoid confusing, perhaps rename it to the original "Kurdish Genocide," and provide links from Human Rights in Turkey. Tarinth 20:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I already provided links from Human Rights in Turkey. We can discuss about a renaming.--Yannismarou 20:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge - and WP:REDIRECT to Human rights in Turkey Tonytypoon 20:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Human rights in Turkey. I am confident that the latter can fully cover the topic, there really is no need for a separate article. TSO1D 23:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not this shit again. We JUST finished this debate. You cannot continue nominating the same article over and over until you get a "good" decision. --- RockMFR 23:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Yannismarou. Turkey is a nation with a huge role in the history of the Middle East and Europe. There is no need to shove all human rights concerns with respect to Turkey into one article, when there are multiple reliable sources with respect to this one aspect of Turkish human rights. The article has numerous independent and verifiable sources. POV concerns are best addressed through the usual fine work of collaborative editing by Wikipedians. Edison 23:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep while there are certainly problematic pieces (for example, the large Fernandes piece) this article is too big to be merged with Human rights in Turkey, and certainly does cover a relevant topic.--Aldux 02:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This article was a paragraph when nominated, the author is just inflating it. -- Cat out 12:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Edison--Xiahou 03:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Now back to square one :) I still think that some people have not understood why this is a fork... HR of KP in TR inevitably covers other subjects in HR in TR. The whole article is simply a mirror site, but only concentrating on HR as concerns the Kurdish people. The article is big because most of its info comes from other articles. Yannis, I don't think that you understand the true nature of the merge proposal: gender-equality is already talked about in HR in TR for example. Kurds in Turkey and casualties of the TR-PKK conflict already cover many sections in this article. In fact, I really think that this article is a fork of THREE articles as is. Well, I will restart working on HR in TR article soon, and when it will be finished it will cover the same thing as here. There is no need to list every single ECHR case either, even in Religion in Turkey article the landmark ECHR headscarf case is talked about in two sentences, not three looong paragraphs like it is here. Well, I will get around to it some day soon :) Baristarim 06:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The article is concentrated on the Kurds and elaborates on their human rights. The fact that it is related with other articles or that it repeats some assessments does not outdo the fact that:1) the topic is notable, 2) the article can stand as a seperate article, 3) POVs can be addressed, 4) the OR allegation is now at least weak. This is what I believe, and that is why I do not endorse the merger proposal. Now, if you re-work the articles you say and the overlaps become "annoying", we can reopen the whole discussion. It is not a problem to create new sub-articles, if these articles have a reason of existence and an encyclopedic value. This article fulfils both these criteria IMO. Again, I do not try to impose my opinion here. I respect your arguments, but I cannot endorse them.--Yannismarou 08:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep per Yannismarou, Edison and Aldux. Also, suggest speedy closing per RockMFR's note for this AfD being a WP:POINT violation. NikoSilver 11:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. The last AFD was just closed on December 20.  Dragomiloff 11:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep of course. It was just over a week ago the other one ended; the arguments on both sides remain the same, I see no reason to delete. //Dirak 15:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per previous AFD. Nacon kantari  15:35, 29 December 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.