Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish Peace Council


 * 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. Tone 10:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Turkish Peace Council

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

After the coup d'état quickly turned out a failure, this interim body never really came into existence. Therefore it seems preferable to cover the few information we have, within the main article 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt. PanchoS (talk) 07:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC) *Redirect as creator of article, don't see any reason to have separate article anymore since the coup has failed and the composition of this so called 'council' is completely unknown. Nub Cake (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect it to the main article. Nothing there to merge, as the current content is highly problematic in terms of WP:BLP, giving prominent coverage to the alleged role of Fethulla Gülen (an assertion that, as fas as I know, has only ever be raised by Mr Erdogan, who is decidedly not a reliable source on such matters, so I'd count it as a BLP violation). Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect. -- Lyuflamb (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect. -- prat (talk) 10:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirecting to the 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt article seems sensible here, both considering the BLP issues and the lack of sourced substance regarding the Council. Sam Sailor Talk! 11:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 *  Keep : I've changed my mind. The formation of this council is likely to become apparent in the coming days, even though it has failed to take power. Nub Cake (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

*Redirect to 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt. The content on the Turkish Peace Council could have been expanded at the redirect target page, and the redirect is not implausible. Also remove BLP vios when moving the content over. Hx7 12:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect mainly because the coup failed. Ceosad (talk) 12:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt. For closing, I suggest that WP:SNOW might apply without waiting for the standard deadline. Boud (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep since the content has now expanded and presents a meaning that is more clearly "a group of people that briefly claimed to constitute an institution for controlling Turkey and for several hours persuaded the world's media that they had a chance of succeeding". That group of people are likely to increase in notability, even if their nature as a group and their membership are likely to remain controversial and will need NPOVing and care with WP:BLP. A rename should probably wait until some time has passed, to find out what name for the would-be group becomes accepted in the English-language community. Boud (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – The article's content needs a total overhaul, but Wikipedia deserves an article on the subject. --Checco (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Strongly keep now that article has been expanded. --Panam2014 (talk) 08:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect under the circumstances this falls under the primary topic (only one event). -- Callinus (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Obviously notable.15200 Google news results for "yurtta Sulh Konseyi". Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect --Opdire657 (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable enough to have its own article. Beejsterb (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect WP:NOTNEWS --Idh0854 (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect: Too soon, not enough information as separate from the coup. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: I have added significant information to the article, that unlikely would be included in a redirect. Burst of unj (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect: The entirety of this organization's existence is based around the coup, so I would be inclined to say that it is not notable or worthy of inclusion. I mean, if there are further incidents by this organization, we could look at it again. But for now, I'd say not. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 03:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: The article need desperately more content and reliable sources, but the subject is very much notable.--Boris Baran - ✉ 04:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect without prejudice as WP:TOOSOON. There might be room for an article if this body has any future, but for now it is solely a part of failed coup and its only notability comes from that. --Muhandes (talk) 08:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Details yet to be revealed.--  Hakan · IST  12:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * On the article's discussion page, the following "votes" were cast: "The article says it has been nominated for deletion. IMO this shouldn't go ahead. This coup will likely change the entirety of the Turkish government and geopolitics in the region. While it could use expanding, it shouldn't be deleted. PromethiumElemental (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)PromethiumElemental

-yeah why should it be deleted its? The article would lack an other side it makes absolutely no sense--Crossswords (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)" Burst of unj (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect: It's not, in my opinion, that it's not notable enough, just that it wasn't around for long enough for sources to be written about it to prove its notability. I also agree with ' comment above. If in the future, more information comes out about the Peace Council (maybe pre-made plans for its members, formation, etc.) then a new article could easily be made. The analysis by the BBC journalist can be merged into the main article as a subsection.  Seagull123  Φ  17:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep now that article has been expanded: The article has now been expanded with further details regarding the statement of its establishment. It would be counterproductive now to delete this article, seeing as it is the only solid establishment we can link the failed coup plot to. Nub Cake (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong keep– seems like a very useful article, best kept separate from the main coup article. The brief period of existence of this council doesn't mean it's not notable. Chessrat ( talk, contributions ) 03:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect Article looks like it's a rose by any other name. The lead is all about the coup, the body is a massive translation of what was read out (i'm sure that has to be breaching some guideline). There really is nothing in this that isn't covered in the main article so it's a bit redundant. If people feel this translation is necessary an external link on the main page would be more appropriate. Hollth (talk) 08:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that a statement made by a reporter at gunpoint, as a part of her forced participation in a criminal act and a criminal conspiracy, is covered by intellectual property rights. Do you have a link to (other) English versions of the statement? 46.15.226.195 (talk) 10:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The lead is all about the council - not the coup. 46.15.226.195 (talk) 10:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean copyright. The Odyssey isn't under copyright, it isn't printed in full on Wikipedia. Similarly, the translation is not warranted in full, instead an external link would suffice. When that is removed from the page, there is nothing that could not be covered under the main page. The only other bit that is not covered thus far in the main page is the composition, which by the way, looks like it is not from an RS for this matter. I"d also note that in this discussion so far there appears to be mainly arguments using 'it's useful' or 'it will be more important later' (crystal). Neither are particularly convincing in my eyes. Hollth (talk) 03:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per everyone else. EkoGraf (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Not very helpful. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You really want me to say why I think everyone else who said keep is right and I agree? Fine, keep because even if it was short-lived it was a notable organisation/group because they attempted to overthrow the Turkish government and history remembers such things. There. EkoGraf (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Nub Cake. --Sirenje (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, as this name was as far as I know never proven to be an official name for them. The article now relies far too much on WP:SYNTHESIS. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It definately was the proven official name for them. Nub Cake (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect as per my favorite policy, WP:NOTATHING. while this might have "been a thing" for a very brief duration, the article is overwhelmingly composed of the official statement and speculation on membership/conspiracies/Gulenist influence. I see nothing here that couldn't simply be incorporated into the "Peace at Home Council (Yurtta Sulh Konseyi)" section of the main article, since that section could really do with some work. GABgab 15:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Shwetha (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep —Legoless (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep — It has now good information. Shadow4dark (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, since this is related to a current event and more information will likely be added. Mooseandbruce1 (talk) 00:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep since this is an ongoing current event. Abstrakt (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep There is a big difference between the articles. One focuses on the coup, the act and how it progressed. The other focuses on the politics behind it. Well worth keeping both.歳 (talk) 06:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Strongly keep The article primarily focuses on the political background of the coup.--176.104.110.11 (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Useful spin off article of important political entity; events are ongoing. Paraphrasing The Gambler: there will be time enough for sorting and merging when the dealing's done... Carrite (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - the attempted coup may have failed quickly, but this still seems like a group of arguable historical significance. The main article is very long already; merging this back in would make it longer. If anything, more content should be split into sub-articles. Robofish (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per above. MB298 (talk) 01:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This entity is different than the coup itself. It seems best to keep them separate. In response to statements above, it seems negligent to redirect an article just because of the politics behind it. Hair Talk 20:37, 22 July 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.