Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Press coverage of the Armenian Genocide
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. The Bushranger One ping only 07:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Press coverage of the Armenian Genocide
This is just a list of links to newspaper articles about the Armenian Genocide – essentially an "External links" section split out into an article. It violates
WP:NOTREPOSITORY ("Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of external links"), and there's no clear selection criteria. The list won't ever be comprehensive, and since this is a controversial subject, editors could be accused (and indeed have already been accused) of abusing POV guidelines by cherry-picking headlines. The subject of "press coverage of the Armenian Genocide" might well be notable enough to deserve an article, but to have any kind of encyclopedic value, it would have to actually discuss the topic in some depth, which this article plainly doesn't. DoctorKubla (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
- Keep The article talks about the newspapers in depth. The lead helps provide that insight for us. The subject is definitely notable and external links may be removed if that seems to be a grave issue. Other avenues can be used to help suggest that for us. We must consider them. For example, we have tags for these. Why send to deletion when a mere suggestion of removing external links can be easily expressed in the talk page of the article? The nominator himself states the articles notability. Don't see why such a notable subject as this shouldn't merit an article. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't mean that the "External links" section is a problem – I meant that the entire article, with the exception of the lead, seems like one big "External links" section. And failing to meet notability standards isn't the only reason to delete an article, it's just one of many possible reasons for deletion. So even though the subject of this article may be notable (I've only done a cursory Google search), it could still be deleted because it falls down in other crucial areas. DoctorKubla (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I told you that the external links of all the articles may be removed if this is such a grave concern. However, I do not believe an AfD is substantiated or necessary to make such a point on your behalf. I mentioned above that there are other avenues to express your concerns rather than attempting to entirely delete a noteworthy and notable article. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, okay, I see what you mean. But simply removing the links wouldn't address the problem that this article is nothing more than a list of newspaper headlines, with no analysis or critical commentary even attempted. I'm not filing this AfD to make a point, I'm doing it because I believe this article is so unsuitable for Wikipedia that it can't be salvaged. You disagree; that's fine. I suggest we both disengage now, and wait to see what the rest of the community thinks. DoctorKubla (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The analyses is provided in the top of the article with a 2,000+ character lead. The article is definitely "salvageable", all it takes is just one edit. Unfortunately however, the AfD sure makes it a lot harder for me to conduct the necessary steps to resolve all the mentioned issues. According to this this AfD, the entire article shouldn't be deleted since your only complaint is what the listed items contain external links. What about the lead? There's a wonderfully sourced lead with many sources including peer reviewed journals that depicts a subject that even you as a nominator said is notable enough for a stand alone article. Therefore, as I mentioned earlier, the AfD is unsubstantiated and unnecessary. I shall remove the external links in my next edit. All I need is one minute. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The analyses is provided in the top of the article with a 2,000+ character lead. The article is definitely "salvageable", all it takes is just one edit. Unfortunately however, the AfD sure makes it a lot harder for me to conduct the necessary steps to resolve all the mentioned issues. According to this this AfD, the entire article shouldn't be deleted since your only complaint is what the listed items contain external links. What about the lead? There's a wonderfully sourced lead with many sources including peer reviewed journals that depicts a subject that even you as a nominator said is notable enough for a stand alone article. Therefore, as I mentioned earlier, the AfD is unsubstantiated and unnecessary. I shall remove the external links in my next edit. All I need is one minute. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, okay, I see what you mean. But simply removing the links wouldn't address the problem that this article is nothing more than a list of newspaper headlines, with no analysis or critical commentary even attempted. I'm not filing this AfD to make a point, I'm doing it because I believe this article is so unsuitable for Wikipedia that it can't be salvaged. You disagree; that's fine. I suggest we both disengage now, and wait to see what the rest of the community thinks. DoctorKubla (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I told you that the external links of all the articles may be removed if this is such a grave concern. However, I do not believe an AfD is substantiated or necessary to make such a point on your behalf. I mentioned above that there are other avenues to express your concerns rather than attempting to entirely delete a noteworthy and notable article. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't mean that the "External links" section is a problem – I meant that the entire article, with the exception of the lead, seems like one big "External links" section. And failing to meet notability standards isn't the only reason to delete an article, it's just one of many possible
- Delete per nom and WP:NOT. I'm unconvinced that the article talks about anything "in depth", and removing the links would essentially render it useless. Ansh666 19:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Per AfD nomination, there is no doubt the subject is notable. Per LISTPURP, "The list may be a valuable information source." and organized in a chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists" which is exactly what the article contains. I don't see it much different than other featured lists such as, "List_of_Digimon_video_games". Perhaps I can add a table soon and make it look even more organized. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - to ]
- Maybe... but the article does "called out the Turks" for the event in the lead, let alone the hundreds of listed newspapers and sources acknowledging and reporting the atrocities. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- definitely keep: newspapers of the era widely reported the Armenian massacres and they are a very important component against the official Turkish denial that claim there was no systematic killings. "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article" Let this article be not "normal" then. I insist this article to be kept, because its content is more than notable and very significant in the Armenian Genocide topic and the Armenian-Turkish relations. --talk 21:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying "I insist that..." is much more likely to make neutral observers ignore your comments as obviously partisan than to make people agree with you. If you want this to be kept then evidence is what is needed, not insistence. ]
- Sure! I'm not denying my partisanhip, am I? It's not hard to guess that I'm Armenian. My userpage isn't closed to the public. --talk 04:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure! I'm not denying my partisanhip, am I? It's not hard to guess that I'm Armenian. My userpage isn't closed to the public. --
- Possibly projectify (like userfy, but to a Wikiproject subpage or to a subpage of the talk page). These are useful resources for users working on the Armenian genocide article, but not encyclopedic information. The analysis at the top is not adequately sourced to support a separate article - only one source actually analyzes the coverage, and whether or not it's reliable at all (I'm not familiar with it), one source isn't sufficient. The rest of the sources in the lede are backing up general background information about the Armenian genocide and so on, not supporting the existence of "press coverage of the Armenian genocide" as a theme. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Point taken about external links from main text, and a spot of work on that would be a good thing. But I think any researcher or student working on the events of the period would be grateful for this article. There can, as we see above, be reasonable disagreement on doctrinal grounds among regular WP editors, but trying to see things from our readers' point of view I consider this article a good thing to have. – Tim riley (talk) 09:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This entry discusses books and articles specifically about the press coverage of the Armedian Genocide. Clearly the topic has received significant coverage and scholarship. I'd call this a no-brainer. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Though I agree that the article perhaps need a expansion of actual text I think the subjects of this article passes WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per all the keep !votes. In addition to being a notable subject, the wide and unique perspective afforded by the scope of the article to any student of the History of the Armenian Genocide is not only remarkable but also interesting and educational. In that regard, I agree with similar points made by other editors here. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Article is merely a list of external links and newspaper articles. Nothing worth saving or merging. Perhaps, in the future, if the topic is found notable, it can be recreated, but none of the material currently in the article will be useful. Actually, this list reeks of nationalistic promotion as well. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How does one "promote" genocide using old newspapers? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's in the nom - cherry-picking headlines can make it seem like coverage was exclusively tilted towards one side, which would become a WP:POV page. Not that it is right now, but it could possibly be used for such. Ansh666 01:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My question was based on the statement that "this list reeks of nationalistic promotion" already. I can't detect any of the old newspapers of some 100 years ago, describing the events as they happened, "reeking" of anything. Also could a statement like that also be made for the Holocaust or is such treatment only reserved for the Armenian Genocide? Of course this is a rhetorical question. Noone, apart from the lunatic fringe, seriously doubts that the Holocaust occurred or raises accusations that it was promoted for nationalistic reasons. What makes the Armenian Genocide ripe for such treatment? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Introducing "two-sides" of the story goes against the general consensus of Wikipedia and the arbitrary regulations under WP:ARBAA2. The side that presents the genocide as fact has been the one adopted by the Wikipedia community through a consensus, while the other side, a minority position pushed by the Government of Turkey, has not. More importantly, this article isn't about massacres...it's about a genocide or in other words, the systematic and purposeful massacre of a race. The race in this case is the Armenian race. Current Wikipedia consensus does not allow us to present any the other "side of the argument" and present it as fact. In fact, if that happens, the user may be risk being banned from editing any articles related to Armenia under WP:ARBAA2. Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (]
- (edit conflict) Thank you PB for your policy-based analysis. But I want to go further than that. I just wanted to know why the Armenian Genocide receives such treatment from some quarters while other Genocides are sacrosanct and not subject to such comments. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- They really aren't. For example, Holocaust denial isn't really a "lunatic fringe" - it's a huge movement including high-profile figures like ]
- The coverage was exclusively tilted towards one side, anyone who has about a hour in a major library to check microforms of newspapers covering 1915-16 will come to that conclusion. Jedi Master 02:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I know I'm say off-topic, but where in WP:ARBAA2 does it say this? I'm on mobile so I might have missed it... Ansh666 02:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Denialist literature, whether it be the Holocaust or the Armenian Genocide, is always held separate from Armenian Genocide/Holocaust related articles. In fact, denialist sources and references are considered unreliable and thus unacceptable in terms of Wikipedia Denial of Armenian Genocide article but never into Armenian Genocide/Holocaust related articles. Yes, Arbcom takes the position seriously, see Admin Sandstein's remark here and here. The user was formally warned for his constant assertion of denialist information and sources and as of this point may be banned if he/she continues. Proudbolsahye (talk) 02:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Denialist literature, whether it be the Holocaust or the Armenian Genocide, is always held separate from Armenian Genocide/Holocaust related articles. In fact, denialist sources and references are considered unreliable and thus unacceptable in terms of Wikipedia
- They really aren't. For example, Holocaust denial isn't really a "lunatic fringe" - it's a huge movement including high-profile figures like ]
- It's in the nom - cherry-picking headlines can make it seem like coverage was exclusively tilted towards one side, which would become a
- Keep The headlines clearly demonstrate how much coverage the genocide got during that time period. It is useful for anyone who wants to find news articles about this. This is an important moment in history. Dream Focus 09:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I don't believe what I'm actually reading here, this article clearly fails WP:REDUNDANT), it should be useful for navigation and lists are useful for development of maintenance purpose. This is clearly a unacceptable content fork and all its content should be integrated within its parent article. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 21:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is a useful WP:List, not a regular article. Actually, it should not discuss the topic in any depth, as the AfD proposer seem to believe. My very best wishes (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I can't understand why so many people, both those saying "keep" and those saying "delete", keep saying that this is a list article, when it has 600 words of prose supported by sources about press coverage of the Armenian Genocide rather than examples of such coverage. We can get rid of the list if necessary (that is a matter for talk page discussion) but still keep the article. ]
- 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.