Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish Federated State of North Cyprus


 * 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 deletion as copyright violation; also POV fork and likely created by a sock of a banned user. Recreated as redirect to Northern Cyprus. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Turkish Federated State of North Cyprus

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Technical nomination. Tagged db-hoax by. The connotation of this username, and the fact this user also used the same tag on Portal:North Cyprus leads me to believe this is a WP:POV nomination. Despite the issues with the article, which are quite real, I am neutral, even leaning towards keep.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 00:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) I suggest you refrain from obnoxious, WP:AGF defying personal attacks. If the connotation of my user name disturbs you obviously have not bothered to google the title of this hoax before you made your spurious personal attack just so as to exhibit your personal prejudices. Delete obvious hoax . or Redirect to Northern Cyprus. Dr.K. logos 00:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My bad, I was assuming good faith on the tagger's part and I re-tagged for a second. Either way, this article surely needs to be split up if kept. 268 KB is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too long. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am sorry TenPoundHammer that you feel I acted in bad faith. But do zero (0) google hits mean anything to you? We have an article on Northern Cyprus. There is no such thing as the Turkish Federated State of North Cyprus. Only Wikipedia is the victim of this hoax currently. Just google this and you will see. I guess being Greek is a handicap in these situations because everyone assumes bad faith. Too bad. Dr.K. logos 00:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Just google it" is reason enough why this article cannot be speedied (which does not mean it cannot be deleted). Speedy deletion, with regard to hoaxes, is for cases where one sees no reason to even bother with a Google search. It wasn't just your nomination of this article that led me to assume bad faith on your part here, but mainly your speedy nomination of Portal:North Cyprus, which I have seen first. If anything, that could have easily been moved or redirected to its proper name. You seem to me like a good editor overall, just don't let emotions take over your sense of constructiveness. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 00:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) This has nothing to do with emotions. It is simply not good form to assume bad faith on the basis of ethnicity, so I just reacted to that. It was ovious to me from the beginning that this article was a hoax. I did not have to google it. Maybe I was wrong in assuming that everyone would understand this point. Just redirecting it would not be sufficient because vandals may revert it from time to time. Also as you see with google no such entity exists as the "Turkish Federated State of North Cyprus". So a redirect would be pointless. As far as the portal as I explained on your talk page it is an attempt to rename Northern Cyprus to North Cyprus, a proposal which was rejected at Talk:Northern_Cyprus. On retrospect I admit that the hoax tag on the portal was a bit of an overkill but at the time I did not think to move it to the proper name, because I was coming from the opposite direction that you were. I was coming from the "Turkish Federated State of North Cyprus" article which I tagged as a hoax and when I saw the portal, created by the same user as the article, with more POV propaganda on it, I thought it would be better to just delete it and start from scratch. Dr.K. logos 01:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Tasoskessaris, where are you finding zero Google hits? I found more than zero. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) My bad. But even so, what difference does it make? Total 255 hits. If you subtract Wikipedia mirrors, blogs and other non WP:RS sources, some of which redirect to Northern Cyprus, you will see this is just another term for Northern Cyprus, which already exists as an article here. So this is just a POV mirror of the "Northern Cyprus" article with information starting from prehistory so as to imply that this entity existed thousands of years ago. That's simply ridiculous and an obvious weasel way to insinuate historical continuity through the ages. Dr.K. logos 01:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyway I have just about had it with this debate. If you think this is a bona fide article just keep it. It is not worth the innuendo and bad faith I have witnessed in this discussion just because I happen to have made the mistake to edit under my real name and not under an undetectable nickname. If you seriously think having this article in Wikipedia serves Wikipedia well, go ahead and keep it. Dr.K. logos 01:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: After I did some more checking of the Northern Cyprus article it turns out that:"In 1975 the 'Turkish Federative State of Cyprus' (Kıbrıs Türk Federe Devleti) was declared as a first step towards a future federated Cypriot state, but was rejected by the Republic of Cyprus, the UN, and the international community. After eight years of failed negotiations with the leadership of the Greek Cypriot community, the north declared its independence on November 15, 1983 under the name of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus." So I stand corrected. The name "Turkish Federative State of Cyprus" or "Turkish Federated State of Cyprus" is not a hoax. So I was wrong to call it a hoax and tag it as a hoax. But I did not do this out of bad faith or POV. In all honesty, I had never heard of the "Turkish Federative/Federated State of Cyprus" before and that "Neolithic age-1571" section just didn't do it for me as far as this article's credibility goes. Regardless, this article is not needed because it is already covered in Northern Cyprus. So at best it should be redirected, or if is de-POV-ed sufficiently, parts of it may be useful for background history of the Cyprus crisis. Dr.K. logos 03:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:23, 2 June 2009 (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.