Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persecution of Degar Peoples in Vietnam


 * 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. But clearly needs cleanup for neutrality and copyediting, including the title. Subsequent discussion can work out if anything needs to be merged back to Degar.  Sandstein  08:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Persecution of Degar Peoples in Vietnam

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The page, although it has numerous sources, is biased and slanted towards one particular side while harshly criticizing the other side. For example, they cast Vietnamese as being bad overall and committing "savage acts" or as "colonists" while casting the Degars, despite their diversity as one entire monolithic group. The article solely criticizes one ethnic group (Vietnamese) as the cause of all the faults for the Degar people using mostly partisan sources, unreliable sources (in books that mention genocide, they never elaborate on it such as the source, "Battle for the Central Highlands" while the source Criminal Investigation Detachment #3: Bamboo Battleground is not an academic book source for example), citation overkill (references 28-30, and 42-43 are the same sources while 9 references are being used to deliberate show that the claim is strong) or deliberate misinterpretations. In the 2004 subsection, there is repeated sentences that accuses Vietnam of criticizing the Montagnard Foundation as if Vietnam truly hates them. The format is much like a news article, mentioning all of the events which are deliberately selected to prove the general viewpoint, which is synthesis and Original Research. The article was originally from the Degar page before it was moved (see page history) which was ridden with bias. Ssbbplayer (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Simply based on length and number of sources, the topic would seem to be notable. If there is a POV problem, this is not normally addressed by deletion. If you, for example, feel that the Degar people are not persecuted, the usual advice is to add sourced material to that effect. Elinruby (talk) 14:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - That an article needs expansion, plus additional editing to deal with relative weighting of sources, isn't a good argument for deletion per se. The fundamental issue of human rights in Vietnam in terms of social prejudice appears notable. If the page needs work, then it can be worked on. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep There's a lot wrong with this article (it's not neutral in tone, over-long and its style leaves something to be desired, for starters) but all those things can be fixed. The topic itself seems notable so it's worth persevering with this. I don't think it's a WP:TNT case. Neiltonks (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep It needs major cleanup and and has a POV issue, but these can be fixed. I don't think it's a WP:TNT case but it might just be too much to handle. Like User:Neiltonks said, it is a notable topic. Tessaract2 Talk 16:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Move back to Degar, most of this article appears to have been taken by from Degar on 19 November 2016, which was previously mostly added by  in major edits on 16 May 2016 and 12 July 2016. Prior to removing this text the Degar article was under 9th words, well under the 10th words length when a split may be warranted, according to WP:LENGTH. This information could then be looked at in the context of the Degar article as a whole. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:29, 8 December 2016 (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.