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. Any discussion about merging the article can be provided at its talk page, using proposed mergers. (non-admin closure) TBrandley (what's up) 01:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Istanbul rally to commemorate the Khojaly massacre[edit]

2012 Istanbul rally to commemorate the Khojaly massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:POVFORK of Khojaly massacre, created to advance a particular viewpoint. The rally had a very limited impact and I don't think that rallies of such level deserve standalone articles. Brandmeistertalk 14:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The racist commentary during the rally is what made the rally significant anyways. I don't believe if it were for the racist slogans and chants that the rally would even matter to the Turkish press and the international community. Therefore, the article of the rally must stay and its racist chants and slogans shall stay as well so readers can see. Proudbolsahye (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pretext of this AFD is apparently "The rally had a very limited impact". The article clearly states that "The European Union raised concerns regarding the racist slogans. A statement by the European Commission urged Turkey and its media to ..." An EU statement demonstrates this AFD context to be false - it did have an impact. My real concern is that it is yet another PoV magnet, witness the deterioration of a neutral article by the edits of 8 January, but that is not a reason to delete it. Chienlit (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from WP:POVFORK, the article continues to have serious issues of WP:NPOVD and WP:DISPUTED about its content. Apart from this, the event was not historically significant, as to justify an article about it. Noraton (talk) 06:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep/merge scertainly not delete. Notable and we do not CENSOR. The article needs cleaning up and organising but hat is not reason to delete.Lihaas (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well-sourced, notable event. Shortcomings of the article may be eliminated easily. We should all work on it. --E4024 (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Seems to be notable enough under WP:EVENT, although it's of course too early to say anything about. It could of course be covered in another article, but I don't really agree with the WP:POVFORK claim of the original nominator, since it does cover a specific event. Tomas e (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
More