Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dohuk, Kurdistan Region

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 redirect. W.marsh 17:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dohuk, Kurdistan Region

Dohuk, Kurdistan Region (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Pointless pov fork. Page is a duplicate of Dahuk, Iraq --Cat out 23:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Obvious Delete or Speedy Redirect- per nom. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Dahuk, Iraq and, since the region is in fluid controversial status, then re-name that Dahuk with no affectation (or perhaps the non-controversial Dahuk (city)). Dahuk, Dahuk Governorate as it is in the Dahuk Governorate region. This would be in Wikiform, i.e. Los Angeles, California, not Los Angeles, U.S.A.. I'd also be okay with no affectation, i.e. Cardiff. --Oakshade 18:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

  Umm no. Dahuk Governorate is not a state and there are no other Dahuks --Cat out 18:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

  it's a Governorate of Iraq, a rough equivalent to Provinces and territories of Canada, Régions of France, Provinces of Iran and States and territories of India. --Oakshade 18:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

  No. it is more like Hakkari, Turkey. And if we are going to follow a US model that would be Dohuk, Kurdistan. I am actualy fine with that. I doubt many Iraqis would respond like me to the change. Rather than Dahuk, Iraq why not just Dahuk? --Cat out 18:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

  We might be in agreement here. As you said, there are no other Dahuks, and I said before, I'm fine with no affectation (see Cardiff example), Dahuks by itself might be the most appropriate. --Oakshade 18:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

  The thing is, we're not talking about renaming the article. We're talking about a redirect. And I don't see the problem with letting it stay as a redirect. Especially if it helps resolve a conflict. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

  Redirect may lead to a conflict. Someone is unlikely to type "Dohuk, Kurdistan Region" in the search box and there isnt even a history to preserve. --Cat out 18:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

  The nom specifically cited the pov fork which we are trying to address. Even with a redirect to Dahuk, Iraq, the controversy also exists there on the talk page. --Oakshade 18:47, 3 December 2006 (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.