No edit summary |
Captain panda (talk | contribs) Delete |
||
Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
*Funny how ''revisionist concept'' almost never fails to equate to ''troublesome Wikipedia article''. Delete per Grafikm. ~ [[User talk:Riana|Riana <font color="green">⁂</font>]] 18:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC) |
*Funny how ''revisionist concept'' almost never fails to equate to ''troublesome Wikipedia article''. Delete per Grafikm. ~ [[User talk:Riana|Riana <font color="green">⁂</font>]] 18:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep.''' Well referenced. IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument for deletion.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus| Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</span></sub> 20:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Keep.''' Well referenced. IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument for deletion.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus| Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</span></sub> 20:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''' Far too POV for inclusion. Definitely not neutral. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="red" face="Papyrus">panda</font>]] 20:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:35, 26 September 2007
Reason: already deleted (as Soviet occupation denialism). This article is a re-creation of a recently deleted (see discussion) POV fork, created by a number of closely associated accounts (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Digwuren, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DLX, Martintg, Alexia Death), based in Estonia, representing extreme nationalist point of view. We already have numerous relevant articles and POV forks Occupation of Baltic states, Soviet occupations (created by the same user), Soviet occupations of Latvia, Soviet occupation of Estonia and many others, covering the question. The accounts created a mob and promoted the article to GA shortly (several hours) after creation (there was a mutual personal agreement to promote each other's POV articles between reviewers [1]), altough the decision was quickly revised. I was unable to put deletion template into the article as it is now blocked due to permanent edit-war. The creator of the article has been recently unblocked from a two-week block only to give him ability to participate in an arbcom case opened against him (see blocklog:[2]). He also already has been blocked for re-creation of deleted articles. Besides i want to note that the very name of the article is inherently POV as it recalls associations with Holocaust denial.--Dojarca 08:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- First of all, I have some issues some of the inaccuracies of the nomination
- It is a re-creation of a recently deleted article. Apparently there are significant differences between the this and the deleted article. No policy against creating improved articles that are sunstantially different to the deleted article.
- created by a number of closely associated accounts based in Estonia. Actually only one individual created this article
- The accounts created a mob and promoted the article to GA. Only a single person handled the GA process, the creator. Martintg 16:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: see also Wikipedia:Good article reassessment#Denial of Soviet occupation. Also, several administrators have not seen fit to dominate this article to AfD. -- Sander Säde 10:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sigh. Digwuren was unblocked not because "only to give him ability to participate in an arbcom case opened against him". Instead he was unblocked because "I've unblocked you in favor of protecting the article, since the edit warring is more extensive among others than I realized, and so that you can keep participating in the ArbCom case", see [3]. Please stop your attempts to paint all Estonian users as some kind of nationalist trolls and follow WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA guidelines (note that there are no edits in the article by me). -- Sander Säde 11:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - OR, POV and since it's already supposed to have been deleted, that'll have to be a delete from me... Spawn Man 08:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- You should read the article, it is a total rewrite, not "re-creation" -- Sander Säde 10:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- I did read the article, hence the OR & POV issues, but considering that the last article was deleted, I'm going on the nom's word in regard to the recreation of text. OR & POV are still sufficiant enough for me to oppose. Spawn Man 11:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- You should read the article, it is a total rewrite, not "re-creation" -- Sander Säde 10:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. As nominator very well knows, it is a total rewrite where issues described in previous AfD are addressed. Article is very well sourced, and follows WP:NPOV guideline by also describing contradicting viewpoints. Article contains no original research, but is annoying to a well-known group of Soviet supporters, who try to get this article deleted no matter what, only reason being WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Validity of the topic cannot be questioned, as shown by multitude of sources. Also, nominator should be reported for gross personal attacks, knowingly promoting lies and ethnical hatred. -- Sander Säde 10:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- "Denial of Soviet occupation is the revisionist concept..." - is it NPOV? --Dojarca 10:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Care to show, which part of the WP:NPOV guideline it breaks? There is no "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" clause there. -- Sander Säde 10:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- It presents opinion as a fact.--Dojarca 10:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'd have to agree with Dojarca there SS. Besides, I really don't think that arguing we're all Pro-Soviet is a legitimate argument do you? If no one else, I have given rationale as to why the article should be deleted and I didn't even comment on the last AfD. You could say that I was an unbiased party before this AfD. Spawn Man 11:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- See [4] - version that was accepted as GA. In my opinion it is quite a lot better, then the current protected version. -- Sander Säde 11:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Nope, I still would have voted delete then too as POV. If the article is a complete rewrite, then how come this POV sentence still exists in the current article as it did in the old version? "Soviet Union was a strongly ideology-based regime with peculiar ideas..." Peculiar etc? "As of 2007, Russia is the only country in Europe to maintain this denial..." The article keeps on barraging the reader with anti-Soviet text; that is why it's POV. It needs to be neutral. C'mon guys, I thought the Cold War finished ages ago! Spawn Man 11:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- "As of 2007, Russia is the only country in Europe to maintain this denial..." is both sourced and fact, how is it not neutral? -- Sander Säde 11:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- The only source for that is a phrase by Estonian nationalist politician Tunne Kelam. Is it reliable source for you?--Dojarca 11:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Do you have a non-Russian source that either calls Tunne Kelam "nationalist politician" or tells that there is another country in Europe, that denies occupation (very probably Belorussia does, as it is under dictatorship as well)? -- Sander Säde 12:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- The statement is unsourced and you indirectly accept it by asking for a non-Russian source. An Estonian politician cannot be taken as neutral by the same rationale: he is an involved party here and has an inherent conflict of interest. --Yury Petrachenko 12:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Do you have a non-Russian source that either calls Tunne Kelam "nationalist politician" or tells that there is another country in Europe, that denies occupation (very probably Belorussia does, as it is under dictatorship as well)? -- Sander Säde 12:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- The only source for that is a phrase by Estonian nationalist politician Tunne Kelam. Is it reliable source for you?--Dojarca 11:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Okay guys, stop. Sander Säde, you're being way too argumentative in regard to this AfD; calling us Soviet lovers, replying to everything, making obviously inflammatory remarks when a user gives their rationale etc etc. Please stop. It's an article on an online encyclopedia! Who cares? If you're going to get all wrapped up about it, I'd suggest everyone else stops replying to Sander, and you Sander, should occupy your time on Wikipedia with another endevour. I'm sure there's another article out there you'd rather be editing or which could need your help? Anyway, guys, just cool it. Regards, Spawn Man 12:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- "As of 2007, Russia is the only country in Europe to maintain this denial..." is both sourced and fact, how is it not neutral? -- Sander Säde 11:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Care to show, which part of the WP:NPOV guideline it breaks? There is no "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" clause there. -- Sander Säde 10:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Simply because I don't think there's enough here to make a separate article. The title says "Denial of Soviet occupation" yet very little in the article focuses on the denial of the Soviet invasion(s) and rule in the Baltic States (which seems to be the chief concern here). As the nominator says "We already have relevant articles Occupation of Baltic states, Soviet occupation of Latvia, Soviet occupation of Estonia and many others, covering the question". Any valuable material should be moved to the appropriate pages. --Folantin 10:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as a synthesized original research article. Looking through the related articles it clearly is a POV fork. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete with fire, this screams POV-fork and original synthesis. I've deleted this rubbish once and it's tedious to have to do so again. Any material of any repute can be used elsewhere. Moreschi Talk 12:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Question, If it is a POV fork, what's the alternative view? I thought NPOV was about representing all significant viewpoints, so presumably there is some other views that is not expressed in this article if it is considered POV.Martintg 13:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as POV, trolling, OR and violating just about every policy WP has. Recreation of deleted content too btw. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 13:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete this is a WP:POVFORK and re-creation of a deleted article (which already warrants it for speedying). - Francis Tyers · 13:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Because denial of Soviet occupation is a notable issue in politics, in Latvia at least. Maybe the issue wasn't that notable when the previous article was deleted, but it became notable just days after that, as it was one of the main issues in Latvian presidental election debate, after it was discovered that one of the candidates had denied occupation, in fact it was the pretext why he wasn't elected. I saw the previous article - it was different. I see issues of POV - the article favours the view that occupations did take place, thus all oppinions are not taken into account - but these could be worked with ---- Xil...sist! 13:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment We already have numerous articles of the topic. This can well be described in Occupation of Latvia. Existance of this article is a source for permanent edit war.--Dojarca 17:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, I don't think so - what we have is nummerous articles on occupations of this and occupations of that - those are historical events. Denial of Soviet occupation in turn is a modern concept in politics. This isn't about whether there was or was not any occupation, but about the fact that there is an argument in which one side denies that there was occupation. The article is POVish (starting with "revisionist" and "echoed" in the lead) and has redundant sections (namely how the hell is "Economic background" connected with this ?), it should be worked with, but I think that the concept is notable enough to have it. ---- Xil...sist! 18:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- This is not a "modern concept" but one of the mainstram points of view all after the WWII.--Dojarca 18:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, I don't think so - what we have is nummerous articles on occupations of this and occupations of that - those are historical events. Denial of Soviet occupation in turn is a modern concept in politics. This isn't about whether there was or was not any occupation, but about the fact that there is an argument in which one side denies that there was occupation. The article is POVish (starting with "revisionist" and "echoed" in the lead) and has redundant sections (namely how the hell is "Economic background" connected with this ?), it should be worked with, but I think that the concept is notable enough to have it. ---- Xil...sist! 18:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: if there are problems with POV, it is not criteria for deletion. SpeedKing1980 14:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- POV problems that cannot be solved are criteria for deletion. Moreschi Talk 18:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- The criteria for deletion here is not POV issues but that the article is a POV fork. Read the prevous deletion discusson please.--Dojarca 18:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- POV problems that cannot be solved are criteria for deletion. Moreschi Talk 18:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, POV fork, recreation of deleted content, synthesis. Strongly tempted to speedy it. Neil ム 15:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per my nomination of the predecessor article. I would very much appreciate if Sander could explain to me how comes that the population of his Republic declared the national sovereignty and independence through an occupational authority (Supreme Soviet of Peoples' Representatives of his Republic)? And how comes that the same occupational authority continued to govern his country long after the declaration of independence occured? What kind of occupation it was? And what kind of logic it is? --Ghirla-трёп- 16:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- keep per Xil, as a main issue in Latvian Presidential elections, noteworthy though this will need cleanup. Chris 16:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I would like to note that the current name of the article makes associations with Holocaust denial, so it is essentially POV as existance of Holocaust is a non-controversial concept while occupatin of the Baltics is.--Dojarca 17:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- keep, many Western news outlets reported on Russias policy of denial of Soviet occupation and some anaylses have been done by some think tanks, so it is definitely notable. POV issues are not a criteria for deletion either. Martintg 16:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Numerous sources presented exclude OR. POV is not a criteria for deletion, not that I'm saying its a valid concern. The previous article was deleted as NEOLOGISM, this article is free of that fault, thus no grounds for deletion.--Alexia Death the Grey 17:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- The prevous article was deleted as POV fork. It is clearly visible from the discussion page. This article is nothing less POV fork than the prevous one.--Dojarca 18:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Funny how revisionist concept almost never fails to equate to troublesome Wikipedia article. Delete per Grafikm. ~ Riana ⁂ 18:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Well referenced. IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument for deletion.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 20:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Far too POV for inclusion. Definitely not neutral. Captain panda 20:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)