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The result of the debate was speedy keep as withdrawn nomination. bainer (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Genocide and position of Turkey[edit]

POV fork of Armenian Genocide not discussed at all on talk page of article. In fact, previous consensus was that a page such as this should not be created. Point being that the goal is to get the original article to inclusive NPOV, rather than splinter off the minority view. pschemp | talk 08:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC) I withdraw this nomination. I feel the debate will be damaging to the community. pschemp | talk 23:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if nominator provides evidence of a well-established consensus against such an article on the talk page. Otherwise, weak keep - it doesn't seem to be intended as a POV fork but rather as a factoring-out of material into a proper sub-article. Which I think might be legitimate, because the present-day disputes within Turkish society and between Turkey and the rest of the world are really a topic reasonably distinct from the historical discussion of the genocide itself, so a separate treatment might be not such a bad idea after all. Lukas ^(T.|@) 15:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Ah, well this has been a nasty messy topic and the archives are full of fractured discussion, but I'll do my best to find the comments. pschemp | talk 16:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok...here's one, (I am only including the opinions of serious editors to the page, it attracks a lot of POV spam and such from random anons. Also, its not like eveyone lines up after each comment and says, "I agree" or I disagree".) Actually, we would delete such an article since it is a POV fork. The point is that the Armenian genocide is hardly contested outside Turkey and widely accepted as a historical fact. Immediately after the genocide and more recently it is partially accepted in Turkey too. Both the history of the genocide and the fact that many Turks and few others have reservations is well covered in the article. Therefor it is NPOV. We also cover the recent recognition of the genocide in Turkey, but are still weak on its early recognition. gidonb 22:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• So what are the arguments in favour of deletion? Lacking such arguments, I'd say Keep, but perhaps call it Armenian Genocide, Official position of Turkey. Lambiam 18:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Look at the history. Proposer changed her mind. Lambiam 18:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, especially in view of recent developments: Denial of Armenian genocide. It is a well-defined topic. mikka (t) 05:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per mikkala. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for same arguments as Lukas' "weak keep". (My struck-out comments above were added when this page was blank.) Lambiam 16:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Yo, guys, you are voting on a proposal that has been WITHDRAWN. It is still here for the records, but is not an active afd. Please respect my decision and stop adding votes. pschemp | talk 17:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge This should be perfectly fine to merge with the Armenian Genocide. -- Alpha269 16:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Armenian Genocide. It is well-established that POV forking is not the way to go. Stifle 09:37, 9 March 2006 (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.