Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet occupations

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 Keep--JForget 23:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet occupations

Soviet occupations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article is a POV-fork and original synthesis, created by Estonian user Digwuren with long history of disruption (see blocklog: [1]), who also created (and attempted to re-create under other names) already deleted articles Denial of Soviet occupation and Estophobia. I was unable to add a deletion template into the article because it is protected due to permanent edit war. This article is a part of his campaign of creation of numerous POV-forks of existing articles, mostly related to Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact by copying text from them to the new article. The article includes information about various unrelated events throughout XX century from inter-war period until war in Afghanistan to create POV-oriented narrative or to depict them as somewhat related. Some of these events are not generally accepted to be occupations. No evidence presented that there is something in common between these events. We already have numerous articles covering the topic such as Military history of the Soviet Union, Occupation of Baltic states, Soviet invasion of Poland (1939), Soviet occupation of Latvia, Soviet occupation of Estonia, Prague Spring, Soviet war in Afghanistan and many others. Do we really need one more POV-fork consisting of re-compilation of already existing articles? Note the topic is havily occupied by related accounts.--Dojarca 08:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep. Once again (see 1, 2 and 3), Dojarca nominates an Soviet-related article created by Digwuren for deletion, giving the identity and ethnicity of the creator as the first and main reason for deletion.
As Dojarca kindly pointed out, there are various articles about Soviet occupations, this article serves as an overview of the phenomena. Most readers do not want specific details at first when interested of Soviet occupations, they want a generic overview - and that is what the article is for. If Dojarca is able to come up with specific details that he deems to be POV, then those could be fixed - or the other (properly sourced) viewpoint given. As for "original synthesis", there are almost hundred articles in Google Scholar and close to 300 books in Google Books even for exact search, several articles and books solely dedicated to dealing with phenomena.
Article itself is reasonably well written and referenced (25 references, full third of them scholarly books and many articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals). Many improvements could be made, but I can see no reason to delete it whatsoever.
-- Sander Säde 09:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The article is a compilation from other articles. Hence it is sourced. Nothing unusual. The reason here is that the article is a POV-fork and unnecessary compilation of unrelated events, not your ethnicity.--Dojarca 09:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Would you kindly note that I am not Digwuren. And why do you mention his nationality - or the creator at all, is it somehow relevant to the deletion in your opinion. Compare it with AfD nomination "Delete Holocaust, because it is created by a Jewish user Hsiwej".
As for claim "sourced, because it is a compilation", then only lede has 5 independent sources, three of them scientific books and one peer-reviewed journal World Politics. And "unrelated events", they all are a part of Soviet Union and its foreign policy. Where else do you plan to give a general overview of specialties of Soviet occupations?
-- Sander Säde 10:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • This article has had many contributions by other editors since its creation, so citing the reputation of the article creator has absolutely no relevance. Martintg 19:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, the claim original synthesis is factually incorrect. All soviet occupations mentioned in the article are listed in The International Law of Occupation ISBN 0691121303 [2]. In case the title is too POV-sh, the article should be renamed like suggested on the talk page.--Termer 16:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The "occupation" of Romania is not mentioned in that book.Anonimu 17:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
It is, however, mentioned in numerous other reliable sources, so is a legitimate encyclopedic topic. Biruitorul 23:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Only a limited number of sources mention it, and moreover, some even explecitely deny it. The feebleness of the term "Soviet occupation", as applied to Romania, should be given expression in the article.Anonimu 00:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Obviously the number is limited: it's not infinite! One source denies it, but for no apparent reason and without context. The overwhelming majority accept what is blindingly clear: that an occupation took place. Biruitorul 04:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I meant less than a dozen sources found on google book search. The fact that google scholar gives only one relevant result for the term is speaking. The one who use it are ignorant of international law (cause the above book written by a specialist doesn't mention it) and/or have a beef with the soviets.Anonimu 07:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Just keep strumming away at that one-note harp... There's a whole book on the occupation! It's called Military Occupation and Diplomacy: Soviet Troops in Romania, 1944-1958, by Sergiu Verona. Biruitorul 21:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
1. Interpreting a book by the title shows how interested you are in promoting "facts". 2.The title doesn't support the concept as presented in the article.Anonimu 22:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is the 4th time Dojarca (talk · contribs) repeats the same personal attacks and bogus claims in XfD nominations (1st, 2nd, 3rd), despite being repeatedly asked to tone down the incivilities during the last month. It is time to help Dojarca to reform himself with a block. Colchicum 19:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, I strongly object to Dojarca citing the article creator's ethnicity as a factor for deletion. There should be zero-tolerance for this kind of behaviour on Wikipedia, Dojarca was warned about this previously. Martintg 19:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The nominator rationale ("created by bad user X") is not a reason for deletion. Moreover, that kind of argument might be interpreted as a personal attack. A lot of good-faith effort by many editors have been invested in this article. According to WP:Deletion policy, "Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page", which is relevant here.Biophys 20:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Since an overview of Soviet occupation, from Afghanistan to Yugoslavia, doesn't seem to be an article (some have cited articles about the Baltic states, Eastern Europe, etc.) this is a good place to start So what if Digwuren has a bit of point of view showing through along with the sourcing and footnotes? I suppose that if I'd lost a loved one in the World Trade Center, it might be hard to conceal my feelings about al-Qaeda. But he or she isn't the only editor who can work on this article. Mandsford 02:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
    We already have Military history of the Soviet Union--Dojarca 02:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • So what? We also have Soviet War Crimes. Martintg 03:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you Dojarca, I believe this should be a "see also" under both the "World War II" and "Cold War" sections. Will insert (or not) once this issue is decided here. PētersV 13:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
IMO silly terminology. What are your grounds for using Speedy keep? --Philip Baird Shearer 13:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
See Dojarca's previous three XfD's, linked above. Any AfD that lists ethnicity and identity of the article creator as the first and main reason for deletion should be instantly closed and user removed from Wikipedia until s/he understands that racism has no place on Wikipedia. Nor censorship. -- Sander Säde 14:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. — Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  12:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This should be the "parent" article to what are now scattered about as independent (sub-)articles. Per Termer, the list is not a WP:SYNTH compilation--neither is, for example, the source which Termer cites a "nationalist" publication. Title and scope are reliably sourced. PētersV 13:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - well-referenced treatment of a phenomenon widely recognised by academic literature. Biruitorul 14:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep Notable, happened, factually verifiable to have happened. If there is a problem with the article content, hash that out. Deletion? Absurdly silly. • Lawrence Cohen 16:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Biruitorul. - Darwinek 16:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per PētersV and Biophys — Zalktis 17:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Lawrence Cohen--victor falk 23:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very important / notable subject; useful list that has distinct purpose beyond individual sub-topics. Wikidemo 14:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep-Extremely important article that should detail in full political organisation of occupation, propaganda justification for occupation, terror used to crushed resistance and attempts to deny those events.--Molobo 01:47, 21 October 2007 (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.