Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurdistan Workers Party/Timeline


 * 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 delete. --Core desat  00:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Kurdistan Workers Party/Timeline
Uncited, unsourced, ugly, unuseful, original research, POV. You name it, this violates it. - Francis Tyers · 15:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and a substantial portion is written in Turkish! - Francis Tyers · 15:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)OttomanReference 18:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment on Original Research: Timelines are hardly classified as an original research. This argument is not applicable.OttomanReference 18:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment on UGLY: is a POV of the reader, "Wikipedia" do not eliminate articles based on their beautification of historical content. This argument is not applicable.OttomanReference 18:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment on source and citations:The citations and sources are in the article.--OttomanReference 18:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment on Turkish: There is no Turkish in the article.OttomanReference 18:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment on POV: Francis Tyers needs to explain how POV is applicable to a time line.OttomanReference 18:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment People are welcome to go to the single site which is used for all the references, www.pkkgercegi.net. Does it strike them as the bastion of impartial scholarly research? - Francis Tyers · 19:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * All the articles in Wikipedia can be accessed from the citations. However, The timeline was created on 26 March 2005 by user:Cool Cat (more than two years) and I have never seen this time table anywhere on the internet, but the Wikipedia. The timeline is composed from many different sources and there are a long discussions (couple times) about this timeline under PKK talk pages.--OttomanReference 19:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If Francis Tyers thinks this is "impartial scholarly research" There is a long tradition of BALANCING the articles, but not deleting them. It should not be difficult for Francis Tyers to add the events from Francis Tyers's view point. Francis Tyers is welcomed to bring is POV to make it NPOV.
 * "Balancing the articles" usually means putting an opposing viewpoint within the article itself, either as a separate section or mixed within the same section, not by writing a separate, stand-alone "article"... and this is hardly an encyclopedia article as it is presented here today. B.Wind 00:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * For the people interested Kurdistan Workers Party/Timeline; It was created as a graphical time to the the articles PKK and History of the Kurdistan Workers Party in helping the users understand (visually see the periods) the violent behaviors of the organization (organizational development) that spans more than 30 years. PKK is an organization that uses force and the threat of force against both civilian and military targets, and it's activity profile is comparable to Al-Qaeda. The arguments regarding Kurdistan Workers Party/Timeline (graphical time) is part of wiki (an encyclopedia article)or not, is something that does not have any credit. To understand this tool; or to use the tool; one has to read History of the Kurdistan Workers Party, or look previous versions PKK which (timeline integrated into the article) before the history become a separate article. In order to understand what this time line is telling about. If Francis Tyers wants to improve the article, I was just trying to be agreeable to Francis Tyers. I can not see the validity of adding "opposing viewpoint" of an organization that has committed multiple acts of terrorism. On the other hand, Francis Tyers seems removing content more than adding to it. This time line stayed in the wiki sphere for nearly two years. I guess if you do not like something (a dedicated militant of an ideology or group) what you need to do is "wait"; there will be a time that one can even "delete" a content using claims like ugly, unuseful'''. Thanks guys.--OttomanReference 01:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as nom. - Francis Tyers · 15:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete but only because it belongs in the Turkish Wikipedia as long at it is not even decently translated and because it is unsourced. This could have been a valuable article (and not just a subpage as it is now) but it fails this horribly. Note that you could possibly have speedied this as not being in English. MartinDK 16:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * How is it not in English?--Doktor Gonzo 05:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge Translate and merge with PKK as a sub sectionRaveenS


 * Delete Awful. bogdan 18:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: Wikipedia is a place to search and find information. This Time line is perfect to understand PKK and its history. OttomanReference 18:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Kafziel Talk 19:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete collection of date links without substance. In addition, Firefox users can't even follow the graphic on which the list below is based. If there were some actual usable, objective substance associated with each of the linked dates, it might be different, but the article as it appeared on my computer via Firefox was indecipherable and without utility. B.Wind 18:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As told by Baristarim, Hurriyet is the most prominent newspaper in Turkey, why can't we use it as a source? And time table looks good if you know how to read a time table.--Doktor Gonzo 05:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per B.Wind all 93 kilobytes of it.-- Dakota 01:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge Merge with PKK. Article as a whole looks a bit "nonwiki", time table can be placed in the PKK article. I also would like to add Francis Tyers' demand for deletion is too much, time table looks good, why do you want to get rid of it?--Doktor Gonzo 20:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, Merge or Move - We no longer allow subpages in Main article space. I'm indifferent to what is done, but it can't stay here.GRBerry 02:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep or create a new article if its listing as a subpage violates guidelines. There are shorter articles about fictional Star Wars and Pokemon characters and planets, there is no reason that there shouldn't be an article about the timeline of PKK et al. NPOV issues can be dealt with, just put the appropriate tag. The whole article is sourced, it can be expanded, structured and English sources found.. What is the problem here? Hurriyet is the most prominent newspaper in Turkey. In 2004, Turkey ranked higher than Italy for the freedom of the press, so I think that its words carry enough weight. The article could be moved to a a new article, but there is no basis for deletion. Many timeline articles exist for every topic imaginable. NPOV issues in the article are not the basis for its deletion. Baristarim 18:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete of course, per nom. //Dirak 02:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. no need to explain... I have been covered by the answers above. Hectorian 04:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am bothered to see so many people who have less than an impartial view on issues concerning turkey on one vote. That is why I wont be voting. As for the article in question, I did not create it, I created a sub page because of the amount of code. I merely copied the timeline from tr.wiki since it felt sensible at the time. I was going o translate it but later felt that was rather pointless. A number of png/svg timelines would be better IMHO. -- Cat out 21:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Good idea Cool Cat. Couple of small timelines would be great.--Doktor Gonzo 14:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. NikoSilver 11:39, 19 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.