Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Analyses and Reports of the Second Chechen War

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was MERGE WITH Second Chechen War. (as Second Chechen War is currently a copyvio warning, I have moved this page to Second Chechen War/Temp, where hopefully it can form the basis of an external links section of a new article) Stormie 10:35, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

The Analyses and Reports of the Second Chechen War
Nothing but a bunch of links. RickK 06:39, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless expanded to be a proper subarticle of Second Chechen War. There is a request to expand that one afterall. I voted deleted because Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of external links. jni 07:53, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article consists of studies of the reputable unbiased military enstitutes of the politically sensitive issue.--BIR 08:00, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A deletion in this case can be seen as a purpose to make some naive people here to promote plain censorship in only one ratling party's favour. Especially, the aspect of information warfare is quite relevant.--BIR 08:00, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It would be more correct just to develop the content rather than add tags like Cleanup. etc. --BIR 08:00, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In short, I regard this request politically motivated therefore I am against this short process.--BIR 08:06, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Um RickK isn't being politically motivated, he's just trying to enforce wikipedia standards. If you want that page to be kept, I recommend putting some actual content on it. Kappa 08:15, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't give a good rat's *ss about the politics of this so-called article. This is an inappropriate "article" for Wikipedia, and I would have listed it here whether it was political or not, so long as it contains nothing but links.  Now, when can I expect your apology?  RickK 00:14, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

I don't blame RickK. I blame some else. That's exactly what I am going to do, namely, to expant its content.--BIR 08:25, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In the meantime, don't panic nor delete the article hasty. Be patient, read yourself the facts and make your own conclusions.--BIR 08:25, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * This page was listed here because What Wikipedia is not says: Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Mere collections of external links. Of course, there's nothing wrong with adding both lists of content-relevant links and on-line references you used in writing an article, not because of any sinister political motive. It will remain listed here for minimum of five days and won't be deleted before that, giving the community ample time to fix it. jni 08:45, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Merge into Second Chechen War and possibly redirect - Skysmith 11:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * If you red the History chains, the Article The Analyses and Reports of the Second Chechen War was originally embedded in the Second Chechen War in its External links, but after heavy prolonged criticism I decided to edit a special page aimed to be expanded later on.--BIR 12:03, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Now, if you red yourselves the reports and analyses, which contradict the official truth of the conflict in details, you'll might understand why they were sophistically attacked first by talks then by these Cleanup tags. When evaluating how reliable the facts are, pay attention to the publishing institutes, too.--BIR 12:03, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Be awared that if you expand the article, it will remain constantly under rude or sophisticated attacks by one overwhelming ratling party of the conflict until turned feeble and harmless. --BIR 12:03, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Obviously, I guess I am that "ratling party". I think it's improper to throw accusation behind my back when I am not even aware of this discussion. --Gene s 14:34, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't quite think anybody discusses behind your back, since you're online as a Wikipedian and awared of the watch button in the bar above as well as the rest of the world's peoples.--BIR 15:37, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Merge back into Second Chechen War. Having two POV forks is not the solution to an edit war. --TenOfAllTrades 17:22, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Per BIR's suggestion above, I have looked at the article history, and I'm rather appalled by the behaviour of both parties to this edit war. Merge the list of links, and trim aggressively (there are more than thirty links here.  In comparison, World War II is covered by ten external links; the Vietnam War, nine.)  Though beyond the scope of VfD, I would politely suggest that both editors take a wikibreak. --TenOfAllTrades 03:06, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a bad advise. When one party of a discussion takes an unconstructive stance (any edits, just like with RickK above, is "deletion ... can be seen as ... to promote plain censorship"), the other side looses either way: if you talk, you are drawn to an endless pointless discussion and accused of all sins. If you don't talk - you are accused of not willing to discuss the edits with the other party. You said: "I'm rather appalled by the behaviour of both parties to this edit war". If you really believe so, why don't you show by example how such discussion should be carried? Look at the article and, for example, try to remove loaded language. How about that? --Gene s 14:34, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * What about, for example, trying to discuss honestly based on facts and not to laboure these sophisticated featurs of our beloved Wiki against the idea of free information itself and turning the points off-tracked into nonsense this way. By the way, this is the method the creatures of totalitarianism have always used against freedom and democracy.--BIR 07:11, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. User:Björn-Isak Rosendahl kept adding and adding and adding links to the main article until the Ext Links section was talking half of it. Look at what it was . If the links are merged back, the problem will not go away. It would be pushed from this page to WP:RFC or something like that. Why not address it now, instead of pushing through further bureaucracy? --Gene s 14:34, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Merge Well...who was the person keeping on editing, and editing, and reverting, reverting and editing etc. for one making me finally hit a roof ? As everyone can see oneself the issue itself is politically sensitive, therefore it deserves some special attention...and time for some proper writing. From here, it just looks like you tried to keep crucial info away from the Wiki by your sophisticated ways.--BIR 15:03, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not native in English either, but it shouldn't be to loose but to lose there above. Nor I mentioned your would-be sins at all but focused on Chehnya and woldwide feeble attitude on the human rights abuses and plain war crimes on the spot.--BIR 15:20, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Just for the records that this 'discussion' has poured in many pages.--BIR 12:37, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Something interesting happens here.
 * It appears that someone pointed out that you (BIR) quoted a block of externally-sourced text without proper attribution. What's the relevance to this VfD? --TenOfAllTrades 15:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Merge This needs sending back to become a subsection and as Ten has said should be heavily trimmed. The links should be cut back and the text expanded to cover any media issues. --Mazzarin 06:28, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)