Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catalan negationism

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 of the debate was no consensus. Default to keep. Interested parties are cordially invited to merge and redirect as the mood strikes them, or to renominate this article at a later date. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 19:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Catalan negationism

• The term is a neologism of difficult understanding.
• Even if the already proposal of renaming it as historical revisionism (Spain or Catolonia) in the sense of

historical revisionism (political) will hold no sense with the text present

• The article is full of factual errors and outlandish claims, which extracted would leave the article nil. If needed I could elaborate
• The intention of the article is, as the last line shows, intentionally derogatory (and perhaps slanderous) of, at least,one political party and a well known journalist
• The appearance of a genocide denial accusation makes the derogatory intentionality even more evident. I know of no person who has denied that during the Spanish Civil War, crimes than in a broad sense could be called genocide happened in both parties. What there is, ever since the start of the war, is discussion about the causes, ways and numerical volume of it.
• Discussion of the war at a whole, and many other historically related issuess has recently flourished again in Spain (it's true partly on /around political issues), but the so termed revisionists,mainly keep their research within scholary acceptable standards, Their conclusions may be controversial in relationship to current mainstream perceptions or affront some political groups, and even might be false -the race is still open-. But that's just the normal play.
• I think, as the so called revisionist school has very few things in common, specific problems are better suited in the articles which touch the matter. Wllacer 00:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

--Wllacer 10:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC) : A note to reviewers who vote for merge. I've been researching a little more on the topic. AFAIK it seems it has appeared in the last few weeks, as part of the usual political bashing, regarding some ongoing questions in Catalonia (and Spain in general), and has less to do with the historians' debate as I thought. And it's still to early to kown if the idea will stick. Therefore, in case you vote for merge, i would propose to do it into Politics of Catalonia, after all factual errors has been cleared

I've put on the article's talk page, a detailed account of the, IMHO, factual errors --Wllacer 12:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Zero Google hits. If it got a few Google returns I'd say merge with Spain under Franco but this looks like pure original research. Durova 01:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Catalunya. Jasmol 03:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Catalonia or other relevant articles, unless it gets too large to be put in any of them. —Simetrical (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as lacking any evidential basis of widespread support. The editors on the Catalonia article are sure ot have covered this in appropriate depth (which may or may not include ignoring it as sub-trivial). Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per above Tom Harrison ^(talk) 21:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Do not merge, because the content isn't any good. Do not redirect, because the name is a total neologism. Spain under Franco should probably deal more with the repression of the nationalities, and if we got enough material on that, it would deserve to be spun out on an article of its own Repression of nationalities in Spain under Franco , but this poorly researched poorly written article is no place to start. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Don't bite the newbies.

• Nominator is improperly conflating a discussion of what they perceive as POV issues in the article, with the issue of whether the article should be deleted or merged. That is wrong. All discussion of POV issuss should have been left on the article's talk page.
• The original author of this article clearly isn't a native speaker of English. But it looks like they tried to confine themself to a neutral point of view. As to nominator's assertion that the title is a neologism? I strongly suspect the original author made their best effort to translate a real term, in Cataln, into English. I think it is unfortunate that the nominator didn't assume good faith, and suggest the actual translation for the Catalan term.
• See the suggestion that the article more properly belonged under a name like Historical revisionism (Catalunya). Nominator has not assumed good faith, and is implying that the creation of an article duplicate content is an attempt to end run policy, rather than considering that it is a shocked newbies attempt to conform with policy. I think these two nominations highlight the importance for nominators to comply with policy and leave their concerns over POV issues on the articles talk page.
• This nomination gives the appearance that the nominator is trying to use wikipedia policies to win the upper hand in a POV dispute. I had a wikipedia contributor, who thought my contributions showed a biased POV. When I asked them to explain how they thought I was showing a bias, they couldn't or wouldn't explain themselves. Instead of engaging in a civil dialogue they started nominating the articles I created for deletion. It was a highly disturbing attack on the wikipedia community, in general. Having gone through this, I urge all wikipedians to make the effort to show good faith, follow the policy, and not let their POV concerns leak into {afd} discussions. And I urge all wikipedians who follow {afd} discussions to be on the lookout for nominators who, consciously or unconsciously, slip POV issues into their nominations. -- Geo Swan 14:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into somewhere like Spain under Franco--Bkwillwm 23:07, 20 December 2005 (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.