Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of kemalism

From 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 Merge/redirect to Kemalist ideology; action completed. JERRY talk contribs 05:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of kemalism

Criticism of kemalism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete as soapboxing/attacking fork from the main Kemalism article Mayalld (talk) 13:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. WP:POVFORK. Any legitimate criticism goes in the main article. TheBilly (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Every argument in this article is academically referenced. This argument is based on the peer reviewed publications. There is no reason for deletion. Rather, it would be vandalism deleting it. of course kemalist wikipedians are frightened. And want it to be deleted. But Wikipedia is an Encyclopeda and can not bias itself in favor of any ideology including Kemalism. The article even cites European Court of Human Rights press releases. This article only depicts the facts about kemalism.

Kemalist ideology article does not include any criticism. Like Communism and Criticism of communism it is better to construct two seperate articles.

Deleting this article would be not only violating wikipedia policies and rules but also a commiting a crime against humanity.

--Polysynaptic (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment So, add the criticism to that article. And, please lay off the hyperbole. Deleting this article will not break any policies or rules, and will very clearly not be a crime against humanity. Mayalld (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge Both articles contain useful referenced information that should not be lost from Wikipedia. I see two options: keep them both in the present form, or merge them. The worst thing to happen would be to simply delete this article, and lose the information it contains.

I'm leaning toward advocating the merger of the two articles into one as neither can be described as NPOV in their present form - I can see this would involve a lot of work to make it flow and create an article that both sides could live with - lots more heat than light to come I fear. Riversider2008 (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is not POV fork.

There are many if so:

But i will not resist if merging is wiki policy.

merging is ok but deletion would not be helping.

--Polysynaptic (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. I have to say keep because there is no violation of WP:POVFORK in this article. Comparing this article with the said forking articke Kemalism, there's no attempt to avoid WP:NPOV with this separate article. Instead this article is merely a WP:SPINOUT. Per WP:NOTE, this article already shows enough reliable sources and can contain detailed information of Kemalism#Criticism of Kemalism section. Only some WP:MOS issues remain. Dekisugi (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Interesting points Dekisugi - the article on POVFORK says that "There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork. At least the "Criticism of ... " article should contain rebuttals if available, and the original article should contain a summary of the "Criticism of ... " article." At present while the two articles link to each other, there is not this mutual summary of the contents of the other article present in either article, so they BOTH currently violate NPOV. Even if they are not merged, they still need to be amended so that they each contain summaries of the main points in the other article and the common rebuttals of their own arguments. Riversider2008 (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Reply. Thank you. Per WP:SPINOUT, which is also in POVFORK, it says: "Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork". And being POV does not warrant a deletion, but only a content dispute. Here, I've tagged this article with {{pov}} template. Of course, the summary in the Kemalism's Criticism... section should be expanded a little bit (here I tagged it also). Dekisugi (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Keep, still Keep... "Kemalism" article has got the summary or at least the introduction of this "Criticism of kemalism" article. like any other article of which the detail is summarized in the criticised article and the detail is particularly created for critic, kemalism article has got the summary of the detail and detail -as critic- is particularly created. The arguments which suggests that this article is POV should specifically state the reason and should specifically depict the reason. that debate took too long. there is no need for deletion.
        • --Polysynaptic (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The article contains useful information. --Raphael1 00:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • POV FORK This is really a reply to Dekisugi's last comment, where he talks about WP Spinout. The text he quotes continues "the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others." This is what I feel has happened here. Two articles have been created to accomodate two opposing viewpoints. To achieve NPOV either BOTH articles need substantial re-writes, summarising the main points in the other article, or the articles should be MERGED, keeping the main points of both. I favour Merging as I feel it would involve slightly less work, and lead to a single better article. Riversider2008 (talk) 13:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply. I agree with you. Both summary and detailed articles must conform with WP:NPOV. Again, POV does not warrant a deletion. I don't oppose merging, if the merged article does not reduce readability. When it is necessary to split the section into more detailed articles, then this article can be re-created again. However, I still stand for my keep opinion. Dekisugi (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:POVFORK. The issues in the article are recent events which the article claims to be related with the ideology itself. The personal opinions of journalists, without collaboration from the established sources, are not established facts, and most of the claims fall into Original Work. However, justified arguments can be easily integrated into the original article. --TarikAkin (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clearly set up with the purpose to attack the policies of Turkey, and not just to report on them from a neutral point of view. The criticism of racism is not supported by the sources, and the article is full of opinions (instead of reporting on them). There is no reason why the salvageable (neutral and sourced) material cannot be accommodated in a section in the article Kemalism.  --Lambiam 23:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:POVFORK and a lot of WP:OR linking Kemalism to racism. The criticism of Kemalism is not a large enough subject to be worthy of its own article, and it appears to be driven purely by a POV motive. As a member of the WP:Greek_and_Turkish_wikipedians_cooperation_board, I think by it existing as an article by itself we are promoting POV behavior on top of my original objections rather than just adding to Kemalism. Monsieurdl mon talk-mon contribs

01:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. WP:POVFORK and WP:OR. E104421 (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not neutral at all. The illustration is a false picture that might lead to misunderstandings relating to kemalists. I find a lot of statements unproven by relable sources. Like the Fascism. --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 10:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. When asked where the article's creator got the information from that Atatürk was the follower of fascism, (s)he replied: "I did not get the information from somwhere else. I experienced and have been experiencing it as a person."[1] Apart from the fact that this implies he or she is considerably older than 69 years (Atatürk died November 10, 1938), it also shows the author's lack of grasp of our nonnegotiable policies of verifiability and neutral point of view.  --Lambiam 19:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - as per nom. A POV fork. Xdenizen (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Stick a fork in it and delete. DodgerOfZion (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:POVFORK. Editor has a point to make by the looks of it. --A.Garnet (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note to the closing admin. Wheew, there are a lot of POVFORK shouts and it's too bad that the creator has been blocked for a week for edit warring and 3RR. Regardless of what the author nationalistic-POV-biased intention when (s)he started the article, I investigated again WP:DEL#REASON for this AfD debate. There's no single item there as the basis for the article deletion. Not even for a POV! Now, if some editors feel the unreliability of sources given in this article, I'd looked one of the links from the article. Especially, this news article explains that Criticism of Kemalism is a notable topic, even for ECHR. There are other news articles from reliable publishers in this article. Basically, the article has reliable sources, not an original research (it's a notable term that is also coined by a European institution), but it's not neutral. Again, non-neutrality does not warrant a deletion. Dekisugi (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    Being an attack page – my argument above – is even a criterion for speedy deletion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G10).  --Lambiam 23:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    No no. The CSD G10 is used for a page that is trying to disparage the subject. Now, is this criticism article trying to disparage somebody? Who? People who endores kemalism? I don't think so. Otherwise it has been deleted without this AfD. Dekisugi (talk) 09:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    Furthermore, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, an official policy, states in the section POV forks: "A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article." (My emphasis by underlining.) This is a meaningless policy if POV forks cannot be deleted.  --Lambiam 23:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    Well, there is no policy yet to delete a POV article, as long as the topic is notable. That's why I agreed to redirect or to merge this page to Kemalism and when that particular Criticism of Kemalism section is getting longer in the Kemalism article, it is necessary to split the article for the sake of readability. Deleting this article by only saying POVFORK will prohibit the re-creation of the same article when it needs to be separated from the main article. Or at the alternative point, just keep the article and invite other editors to make this article become balance and neutral. Dekisugi (talk) 09:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    Unless the article is salted, it can be re-created later if this should become necessary (which appears somewhat unlikely to me). The article should then be named "Criticism of Kemalism" anyway. As to making the article "balanced": if you remove everything that is WP:OR and not WP:NPOV (including improperly sourced material because the source is not reliable or is represented incorrectly), not enough remains for even a stub.  --Lambiam 12:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete There is no reason this cannot be covered in the main article. MBisanz talk 05:20, 12 January 2008 (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.