Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrorism in Kazakhstan


 * 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, though feel free to contact me if you disagree, and we'll try and work it out. Adam Cuerden talk 19:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The result was keep, the deletion was improper but was undone by the closing administrator. KazakhPol 19:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism in Kazakhstan

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Strongly violates WP:NPOV WP:AD WP:NOT. It is a biased personal essay rather than an encyclopedic entry. At least two users tried for almost a month to edit the article to confirm with WP:AD WP:NPOV have failed because of creator's relentless reverts. Previous efforts included dozens of attempts to replace title and section titles to confirm with WP:AD WP:NPOV, merge the article with Counter-terrorism in Kazakhstan which is a much more relevant title for the content of the page, and editing to avoid unneccesary and biased use of the term terrorism. All failed, so I am nominating it for the community's attention. cs 11:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and refer to any number of dispute resolution options. If you want to get people's attention, this is not it.  AFD is not the place for content disputes or cleanup.   Since you're not advocating outright deletion, I suggest this be speedy closed and referred else where.  FrozenPurpleCube 11:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this article should be completely re-written, if it stays, it still refers to groups are terrorists in the narrative voice violating WP:WTA, and still refers to Hizb ut-Tahrir as a terrorist group, or memebrs as "terror cells". I suggest we keep it on condition that it is merged with Counter-terrorism_in_Kazakhstan, and Cooperation between Kazakhstan and the United States in Counter-terrorism, then all the POVs removed. Aaliyah Stevens 12:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete the article's bias is beyond dispute resolution. Tried for more than a month, failed. I have a god damn Ph.D that says there is no terrorism in Kazakhstan contrary to the title of this entry. Is this an encyclopedia or a make-believe political forum?cs 12:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Your possession of any degree is not convincing, especially since I have no way to verify that for myself. However, given that your claim is rather broad, and I can find reputable news sources that cover the subject...I would tend to doubt your claim.  FrozenPurpleCube 19:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you go on checking SSCI articles, or JSTOR or Proquest on "Terrorism in Kazakhstan" before doubting anything you may do yourself a service.cs 21:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So, there are articles regarding terrorism in Kazakhstan? Again, this concern is not a deletion issue.  It's a dispute resolution problem.  FrozenPurpleCube 22:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, there is none. That is what makes it a problem for an encyclopedic entry. Regarding the news sources, I have waited more than a month to see a single news article citing a terror case in Kazakhstan. cs 22:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There doesn't have to a news article about a case of terrorism in Kazakhstan, the fact is, Terrorism and Kazakhstan are not unrelated concepts, and the subject does exist. It is not a concept without some information to be found.  If you have differences regarding the current content, or even the article title, this is not the forum for it, and you need to work on it in a different way. WP:DR is what you want, not AfD.  As I said to start with, this is the wrong way to go about resolving your problems with this page.  FrozenPurpleCube 23:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

STRONG DELETEI tend to agree with delete considering that there is not a single incident of terrorism in kazakhstan, so the whole article could be seen as a red-herring, or a sensationalisation of a phenomena that barely exists in this country. Aaliyah Stevens 13:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1 There has not been a single terrorist bombing in Kazakhstan
 * 2 The title says terrorism IN Kazakhstan, assuming there is terrorism IN the country when there isn't any recorded incident of it
 * 3 The article is so littered with use of the words "terrorist", "terror cell", and "terrorist literature" used in the narrative voice violating WP:WTA it will be difficult to fix
 * 4 The article assumes all groups that are banned by the government, are done so for terrorism, or accused of terrorism by the government, when actually the government itself in the source says that e.g. Hizb ut-tahrir is not banned for terrorism, but banned for "extremism". This article is well beyond repair.


 * Keep this is an attempt to anger me by deleting an article I frequently edit. If you look at the history of the page you will see there has been nothing but disruption from Aaliyah Stevens and Cs. They want to 'rewrite' the articles to reflect their personal pov, which is pretty off-the-wall. KazakhPol 15:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note Aaliyah Stevens' edits to Hizb ut-Tahrir and you will understand why she is so angry Wikipedia has an article on this. KazakhPol 15:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy close AfD is not an appropriate dispute-resolution method. It is only for deletion, whereas the nom has suggested merge.  If there is an ongoing content dispute about the article, please consider mediation, WP:RFC, or (as a last step) arbitration.  However, be aware the last two processes may involve the imposition of binding decisions and possible warnings/blocks for inappropriate behavior for one or all sides in a dispute. -- Black Falcon 22:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly a notable concept.--Sefringle 06:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per Black Falcon's reasoning. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Clearly encyclopedic. - Peregrine Fisher 07:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. KazakhPol does almost nothing on Wikipedia but push the POV that certain Islamic groups and political parties are terrorists, some of whom are not on the usual designated terrorist lists, which he has been told a thousand times. It seems that, for KazakhPol, if you're Islamic, you're ipso facto a terrorist. This article is an example of his extreme POV, and it will be very hard to fix it given the amount of work that would need to be done to find out which parts, if any, are accurately written up and cited. How many actual terrorist attacks have there been in Kazakhstan? Another editor has told me there have been none. It would be best to delete this and start from scratch with a new title and an entirely neutral approach. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow. You sunk to a new low. - trying to delete an article I edited to spite me - I did not think it was possible but you proved me wrong. Do me a favor, find me a single reference that is either unreliable or distorted. KazakhPol 18:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * KazakhPol, practically every time you encounter me, I've sunk to a new low. :-) Can you produce a source showing there have been any actual terrorist acts in Kazakhstan? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice attempt to cover up your incivility with a smiley face. Regretting your earlier post? Not surprising. I do not have to present proof of a terrorist act, I only have to present proof that is a valid, encyclopedia concept. The fact that has been discussed, that they arrest and deport suspects, that the government has been accused of sponsoring terrorism, makes this a valid entry as those all fall under the umbrella topic of terrorism in kazakhstan. This was already explained above by other users. KazakhPol 18:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I almost forgot to respond to your smear of my editing - "for KazakhPol, if you're Islamic you're ipso facto a terrorist." Go read Terrorism in Greece. Or how about the page move history of Zionist political violence and Apartheid in Israel. KazakhPol 18:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin and KazakhPol, please try to be civil when making your points. I understand if you two have a long history and feel exasperated with each other, but nasty accusations aren't appropriate in an AfD. You can make your points without them. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 01:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Mermaid, I've been perfectly civil, and I have no "long history" with KazakhPol. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly a notable subject, and the material in the article is supported by many good references. -- Karl Meier 20:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. This article seems to cover everything except terrorism in Kazakhstan.  How much longer is this kind of nonsense going to be allowed? &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 01:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep it needs name and thorough content change -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 17:14, 2 March 2007 (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.