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 No consensus whatsoever. It would seem to be a plausible search term, whether or not it is an accurate description of what happened. Redirecting to one or the other article is not an option, since both have been called by this title. Cúchullain ^t/c 23:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish genocide[edit]

Kurdish genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is a Dab page, bad faithly named,there are two links in the page ehich all of them are not related with the name. Must.^{T C} 18:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator.Must.^{T C} 12:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Inappropriate usage of words. Artaxiad 19:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ditto above. Use of this as a dab page is really a stretch. Can I create a dab at "Dumb people" and say "well, it can refer to Mr. X, Mr. Y or Mrs. Z"? There was an actual article of two paragraphs at "Kurdish Genocide", which basically resulted in a delete after an AfD three months ago, this redirect was created four days after the AfD was closed by the creator of that article. Dabs are supposed to be for non-controversial stuff, the page really has no content as the nominator said.. Baristarim 02:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Makalp deniz^T_C 06:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Barış & Makalp E104421 14:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete It's not an article.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 05:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sourced for both usages. Turkish POV pushing again; reminds me of this case.--Domitius 06:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rhetoric and staw-man, please show one major news organization referring to the human rights of Kurds in Turkey as "Kurdish Genocide" - WP:OR, undue weight and most common name are all stacked up against this. Baristarim 21:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per norm --Rayis 09:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' notable and has/will be improved on sources by WikiProject Kurdistan soon. Ozgur Gerilla 11:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it is sourced as an academic opinion for certain events, by two WP:INDY scholars. See the destination of the redirect at Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey#Genocide allegations, where the following sources are provided:

1. 1. Fernandes, Desmond (Winter 1998-1999). "The Kurdish Genocide in Turkey, 1924–1998". Armenian Forum 1 (No.4): 57-107.
   2. Filner, Bob (2004). "Congressional Record", The Kurdish Question in U.S. Foreign Policy: A Documentary Sourcebook by Lokman I. Meho. Praeger/Greenwood. ISBN 0-313-31435-7.

• Merging the said article to Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey was a borderline case. Deleting the redirect is a terrible stretch. NikoSilver 11:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Turkish Cypriot Genocide
  WP:NOT a soapbox. Al-Anfal Campaign is not commonly known as "Kurdish genocide". It is not the only chemical attack either (see: Kingdom_of_Kurdistan#Chemical_attacks). Referring to "Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey", which has a range of topics, as a genocide also seems problematic. The word Genocide should not be used so leisurely.
  Also note the absence of Japanese genocide (atomic bomb et-all), German genocide (various allied bombings), French genocide (various allied and german bombings), American genocide (various attacks - especially on several islands), Chinese genocide (Japanese attacks), Greek genocide (Soviet invasion in WW2) and how they are not redirecting to World War II even though mass number of people were indeed killed (some even classified as massacres or even genocides by some communities but not vast majority).
  -- Cat ^chi? 12:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help noticing that "American genocide" exists in two redirects: Native American genocide and American Indian genocide. NikoSilver 12:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those events are commonly known as "Native American genocide" or "American Indian genocide" and not as an "American genocide". -- Cat ^chi? 12:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not proposing to rename to Native Kurdish Genocide are you? NikoSilver 12:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depends. How is the term used academically? -- Cat ^chi? 13:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For how it is used academically check the two sources above. A book titled "Kurdish Genocide", and an author mentioning a "Kurdish cultural genocide". I also suspect that no one would seriously argue for RfD if there were an American genocide redirect. NikoSilver 14:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What did I say about not using the word genocide leisurely? Please do not mention Armenian genocide unless you can point out relevant and plausible way for a connection. -- Cat ^chi? 15:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You call three independent academic sources "leisurely"? Including Mark Levene? The Turkish pov-push in (their) Armenian Genocide is not "relevant and plausible way for connection" to the current Turkish (again) pov-push for (their, again) Kurdish Genocide? And to think there are books calling Anatolia "a modern Zone of Genocide"... Or did you mistype Armenian for American (which first you brought up as comparable)? Is there really a point when such lame arguments start to bring the feeling of shame, or is this hopeless? You also removed my citation and my quotes on false grounds. Where does this stop? NikoSilver 16:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can. Wikipedia is to abide by WP:NPOV unlike academic sources. Unless a terminology is in widespread usage, it cannot and should not be a redirect. I have not seen an overwhelming usage of "Kurdish genocide" to refer to "Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey". Even if it is under overwhelming usage we avoid certain usages. Just like how Terrorist organization of Kurdistan Workers party or Turkish Cypriot Genocide is wrong to have as redirects. -- Cat ^chi? 17:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, nice subpage... (no comments). NikoSilver 12:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stay on topic. Your point? -- Cat ^chi? 12:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that I frankly detest organized POV push on most Turkish issues; the Armenian Genocide being a great example. I'm off the soapbox now. NikoSilver 12:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Turkish (I do not claim to be from any nationality/ethnicity - though I have been "declared" Turkish as well as other nationalities/ethnicities). I detest vote-stacking. -- Cat ^chi? 13:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly Niko, you have no right to be talking about organised POV pushing... --A.Garnet 14:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly Alf, neither do any of you; and yes, I am not an elephant. NikoSilver 14:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per NikoSilver. --Mardavich 12:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it as redirect to Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey; delete the rest of it.--Yannismarou 13:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd ask Yannismarou to type 'Kurdish genocide' in google and see what the majority of links point to. --A.Garnet 14:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. It is still much better known as an Al-anfal campaign. Any "Kurdish genocide" text does mention "Al-anfal campaign" (I haven't checked every url on the web) -- Cat ^chi? 15:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate. The term also refers to the Dersim massacre. That is why I propose the redirect to this article.--Yannismarou 16:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WRONG - it refers nearly exclusively to Al-Anfal campaign, I invite all those keep voters to show even one major news organization referring to the human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey as "Kurdish Genocide" - WP:OR and undue weight are clearly at cause here. Baristarim 21:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not only the news organizations, Baris, that we are interested in. Have a look at Google Book and the relevant bibliography.--Yannismarou 09:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to Al-anfal campgin. --A.Garnet 14:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alf, just a question: Have you access to Levene's work? Have you had the chance to read it? NikoSilver 15:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I added an additional third source and quotes by the accredited modern historian Mark Levene. (diff) NikoSilver 15:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see Wikipedia:Attribution. Do not copy paste entire texts to wikipedia. -- Cat ^chi? 15:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You must be referring to Wikipedia:Attribution#How_to_cite_and_request_a_source, which clearly states:

Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be accompanied by a clear and precise citation, normally written as a footnote, a Harvard reference, or an embedded link; other methods, including a direct description of the source in the article text, are also acceptable.

• • How shameful. NikoSilver 15:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this is proper to be discussed here. Also, unless you enjoy blocks, I suggest you to avoid WP:NPA violations in the future. -- Cat ^chi? 16:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Keep' this phrase is in quite common usage even if some people disagree with the existence of a Kurdish Genocide. AlexiusComnenus 17:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you suggesting people commonly referance to human rights in Turkey as genocide? -- Cat ^chi? 19:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I invite all those keep voters to show even one major news organization referring to the human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey as "Kurdish Genocide" - WP:OR and undue weight are clearly at cause here. Baristarim 21:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Gets lots of google hits so it is common. --alidoostzadeh 18:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you suggesting people commonly referance to human rights in Turkey as genocide? -- Cat ^chi? 19:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I invite all those keep voters to show even one major news organization referring to the human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey as "Kurdish Genocide" - WP:OR and undue weight are clearly at cause here. Baristarim 21:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Per NikoSilver. Also, as far as I know this was suggested once for deletion already and failed.   /FunkyFly.talk_  18:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Déjà vu, anyone? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 20:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Miskin 02:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I invite all those keep voters to show even one major news organization referring to the human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey as "Kurdish Genocide" - WP:OR and undue weight are clearly at cause here. Baristarim 21:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you guys voting as a 'revenge' for something in the past. Also, are we supposed to take the following one as a joke: "To vandalise and add Greek POV: This section lists articles that we dont really like. Please change them the way you want. Turkey, Istanbul, Turks, Turkish military." I cannot believe how you guys can agree to have a disambiguation page of a genocide with one of the items being Human rights in X. There should be a limit to things. deniz^T_C 20:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually no, Deniz. The relevance in that article is the sourced genocide section. That section used to be an independent article called Kurdish Genocide (Turkey), but after a Turkish outburst it was merged into that article even though the relevant AFDs did not result in such a consensus (an unprecedented move, to my knowledge at least) and it was agreed that the redirects and/or a dab page should remain. This was later affirmed at this RFD which is how this disambiguation page came about. Concession after concession have been made and those people with "sympathetic tendencies towards Turkish nationalist views" on the issue, but they keep coming back for more.--Domitius 21:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • • Funny that the first AfD was proposed by an administrator who is English, not Turkish.. Take the rhetoric somewhere else please. Baristarim 21:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • As far as I know, a non-Greek non-Turk created this article, which you hastily tried to eliminate. Now nationality is suddenly important to you again, how quaint.--Domitius 21:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Aha. Not relevant to this AfD, so please stop Trolling. When I put it up for AfD, I honestly didn't do it out of such considerations, I honestly thought that it was a Fork and the title was OR. I said in my nom "merfe (if possible) any meaningful content to Cyprus dispute". I also proposed another AfD that day. I am trying to make Wikipedia the most academic as possible, it has nothing to do with "elimination". Again, please stop trolling, your comments in all these pages is nothing but trolling, with lame rhetoric "TR POV-pushing", "we have seen this before". Stick to the topic and adress the issues with regards to wiki policies. Baristarim 21:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I would like the closing administrator to take a look at the AfD of "Kurdish Genocide" [1] - I think that it is shameful that so many Greek editors are showing up one after another in some sort of a pie-throwing contest. I completely second what Deniz said above. Closing administrator should also note that the real deal behind this is a debate going on at Pontic Greek Genocide which has been going on for months. Come on guys, we have been over this and I felt that we had gone past this already, what is going on? Baristarim 21:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the relevance of Greek opinion on Kurdish issues is well-known. Hell, Ocalan was actually hiding in the Greek Embassy in Kenya when he was caught. Cooking up conspiracy theories to discredit large numbers of opinions is more shameful in my humble opinion.--Domitius 21:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conspiracy theory? Vote-stacking was proven in that AfD - as I said, to keep this AfD focused, it was only a note to the closing admin to check the AfD of the article "KG" (this one was created afterwards, and as such this AfD is the first one for the one with the small "g") Baristarim 21:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is truly shameful is the suggestion that Greek editors should not exercise their right to vote on any article they see fit. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 21:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any editor of any nationality can edit here. Anyway, the (ir)relevancy of Greeks is not important. I think you guys should not vote with anything other than the article in your mind. Please once again take a look what you are voting for, a disambiguation page for Kurdish genocide with one of the items being Human rights of Kurdish people in X. deniz^T_C 22:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit-conflict) Of course you can vote - but Domitius's suggestion and implication in his vote is also shameful, trying to discredit the Turkish users with words like "TR POV-pushing" and "we have seen this before", when the original AfD was proposed by an admin who is British. As I said, vote along - but I would like the closing administrator to take a look at the vote-stacking that was done in the last AfD and the debate at the PGG article. I invite any of the keep voters to show a press release from any major news organization or et al which refer to the human rights of Kurds in Turkey as "Kurdish genocide" - if not, it is WP:OR and undue weight.. Baristarim 21:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per
• ISBN 1564321088 A Human rights watch, New York, 1993,
• "On the “Little Matter” of the Kurdish Genocide in Turkey, 1924-2001’October 2001, p. 45-60" and
• "2007 - Perspectives on the Armenian, Assyrian, Pontic Greek and Kurdish Genocides" (Stockholm, Apec Press),
• Desmond Fernandes “The Kurdish Genocide in Turkey”.

Im sure the article will get a lot of attention if let be and thus improvement, but that is not a reason to delete it. Using euphemistic words is semantic games and POV and usually the intend of the aggressors. Sensorhip and silencing is not what wikipedia is about, otherwise it would not be open to the public. Aristovoul0s 11:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But being a serious encyclopedia is. There are no "agressors" Aristo, as I have stated before, the original AfD was proposed by an admin who is British, not Turkish. That report you have just cited was the only one present in the article to begin with, and this was discussed before - it is not about censorship, but it is also making sure that Wikipedia is not a platform to propogate minority opinions. WP:OR, Undue weight and most common name are definitely applicable in this case. I have asked all of the keep voters to show even one major news media release calling the human rights of Kurds in Turkey as "Kurdish genocide", and it has yet to happen. And nobody is fooling anyone Aristo, the only reason why there is such a debate here and why certain editors are interested here are because of the debate at Pontic Greek Genocide, thus my comment above to the administrator about this activity bordering on disruption and the turning of Wikipedia to a national battleground. Again, it is really not cool people. How many Turkish editors show up at Greece-related AfDs and consistently vote in a way that would be perceived as "getting one over the Turks"? Come on, I had really thought that we were past this between TR-GR editors in Wikipedia.. Baristarim 14:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baris, I really don't agree with the logic that it is not "cool" if Greek users vote here, and that Greeks are "getting over the Turks". I think we already had that discussion, and I really don't think it helps reopening it. I believe that we should focus on arguments and on the dab itself, which I see was also a subject of discussion here. Therefore, both the article's AfD and the dab's RfD have a long history where not only Greeks and Turks but other nationalities' users have been involved. Thanks!--Yannismarou 15:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you are right. Point well taken. Baristarim 16:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is merely a disambiguation page at present, and can usefully remain such. I express no view as to whether the Turkish-Kurdish civil war was (or involved) genocide. If there are other alleged genoicides against the Kurds. they can of course be added. Peterkingiron 21:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But by having Human rights of Kurds in Turkey in that disambiguation page, we are asserting that "Human Rights of Kurds in Turkey" is a "Kurdish genocide". That does not make sense, I guess what is meant is that there was a genocide against Kurdish people in Turkey. So there is an assertion about that. Also is this any different than making disambiguation pages "X genocide" with items like Human rights of X in Y, where X can be Indian, aborigines/natives in Y, many peoples in Africa and Americas, Y, you name it, US, UK, France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, etc? Do we have such disambiguation pages? Why do we have this? I am not saying that Kurdish people have had no problems in Turkey, but they had presidents, prime ministers, many ministers, many many MPs (probably overrepresented) in Turkey, as well. This is not true in the cases I just mentioned. The problems stemmed in earlier years because of the abolishment of caliphacy and sultanate. Nowadays, it's because of Kenan Evren junta and Turkey-PKK conflict, and also the prevalent feudalism in the region. I don't know much about Anfal campaign, I cannot state whether it can be called a genocide or not. Currently we have basically only Desmond Fernandes who calls what happneded in Turkey a genocide. Unfortunately he does not have a Wiki-article yet. A Google search shows us that "Desmond Fernandes is the Coordinator of the Institute of Tourism and Development Studies, De Montfort University, Bedford, England"

I checked the four items Aristovoulos listed above, the last three are all works of Desmond Fernandes. The first one is about Iraq. deniz^T_C 22:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again. I just found this on [2], it is relevant:

About Desmond Fernandes: Desmond Fernandes is the author of ‘The Kurdish Genocide in Turkey’ (which is to be published in 2007 by Apec Press, Stockholm) and has written a number of articles on genocide, Turkish state terror, tourism and the ‘Kurdish Question’. He was a Senior Lecturer in Human Geography at De Montfort University in Bedford from 1994 to 2006, specialising in Genocide Studies, Sustainable Development, Globalisation and Imperialism. He is currently a member of the Consortium for Research on Terrorology and Political Violence (CRTPV). CRTPV is a consortium of academics operating under the auspices of NASPIR (The Network of Activist Scholars of Politics and International Relations) and the Public Interest Research Network (PIRN) on issues relating to the ‘War on Terror’.

Apparently there is only one scholar in the whole world calling it a genocide, and he calls it a cultural genocide. deniz^T_C 22:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Complete BS, this is a soapbox article, go to Turkish Republican Library (TBMM Kutuphanesi) and see primary, PRIMARY documents. Any person dying in Turkey is -for some reason- classified as genocide by western scholars. Actually, only 2 scholars just say that Turks killed kurds while the World Genocide Foundation (or whatever) does not recognize this at all. Korrybean 02:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Clearly there is consensus that there was genocide under Saddam, but I'm not sure if it is appropriate to link Turkey to this. Turkey denies existence of Kurds (calling them Mountain Turks), but unless mainstream sources connect Turkey to actual genocide, it is inappropriate. Nevertheless the title is most often used in connection with atrocities committed by the Saddam regime, so a redirect is proper. Khorshid 03:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turkey does not DENY existence of Kurds. As far as I know, Kenan Evren is the only (ex)government official who referred to Kurds as Mountain Turks, and he hasn't been a government official since 1991. I don't think there is a government policy of labeling Kurds as Mountain Turks. All the ethnicities are under one umbrella term, Turkish, which refers to being a citizen of Turkey. You might be referring to that. deniz^T_C 03:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are probably right about the lack of government policy on "Mountain Turks", but from what I have read (and I am far from an expert on Turkish matters) government of Turkey does recognise the existence of Kurdish (and Armenian?) ethnicity, so they are only "Turks". This would be similar to French policy in France for immigrant populations, with the exception that Kurds are obviously not immigrants. But also in France there is no official recognition of Breton language, but in Brittany the French government does not stop the use of the indigenous language. But anyway, I am not saying that "Kurdish genocide" should be used in connection with Turkey. I only suggest a redirect to the Saddam genocide of Kurds. Khorshid 04:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is a disambiguation page and I don't see any POV in it to be deleted. ROOB323 09:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Genocide is a very harsh word. Delete per Cat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caglarkoca (talk • contribs)
• keep It will be useful to show that wikipedia cant be taken seriously in issues like this. 88.233.27.139 15:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • _{Note: Anonymous user's only edit [3] Baristarim 16:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)}[reply]
    • And a Turkish user to boot. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • ? what? We are trying to build a serious encyclopedia Kekrops, please do not use it for ordinary discussion. Baristarim 16:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am simply noting that the user with the single edit was Turkish. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, I figured. But we are wikipedians first and foremost, remember? Such banter is not appropriate, doesn't matter from who it is coming from - that's why I put that note. I suggest that you take a chill pill Kekrops and be more serious. Thanks Baristarim 18:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • And yet, you have a penchant for noting the nationality of users voting in AFDs at every opportunity. Please refrain from commenting on my seriousness or lack thereof; it isn't appreciated. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ok, however I have only made it an issue in the original AfD and this one. Many impartial users had agreed that there was something really bizarre going on in the original AfD. If I hadn't brought it up it would have been even more bizarre. In any case, I don't want to continue this discussion since it doesn't bring anything new to the AfD. However, I will refrain from commenting on your editing - sorry if you took offense.. Baristarim 18:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's stop this war now. Should we remove the last comments? (you can remove this one) I would rather talk about anon's reasoning: "It will be useful to show that wikipedia cant be taken seriously in issues like this". Bur it's up to her/him however s/he votes and for whatever reason. 18:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok.. Kekrops? Baristarim 18:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't believe in removing any comments. I always mean everything I say, write and do. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: Users are deleting the sourced section where the second link of that dab page directs (in the article about Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey). I hope this is not in an attempt to alter the result of this poll by leading users to non-existing information. NikoSilver 19:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No, not at all. That debate had been going on for months at that article, has nothing to do with this AfD. Baristarim 19:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. Don't delete the section where the dab page directs. It is considered an unauthorized de-facto deletion of an article under debate for deletion. NikoSilver 19:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  (no comment) :) Baristarim 19:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep Useful redirect, reasonable search term. Didn't we just have an AfD on this? Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • No, this is not about the redirect. Currently it is a dab page. Discussion centers on the validity of the dab, keep it as a redirect, keep/delete it. Baristarim 02:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have changed my comment accordingly. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It is a likely search term, and the two links each point to material about accusations of genocide/genocide of the Kurds. That seems like an apropriate use of a disambiguation page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Al-Anfal Campaign Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey#Kurdish genocide claims +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey#Kurdish genocide claims? Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:Point cs 18:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a redirect or disambiguation page. It is a likely search term, and would make research on either of these topics easier.The Myotis 22:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But redirect where? That is also the other problem.. It very rarely refers to the Human right of Kurds in Turkey and much more to the Al-Anfal campaign.. Baristarim 23:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then, maybe, to both of them per the RfD.--Yannismarou 12:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to Al-anfal Mdozturk 13:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as it is not an article and no attempt is being made to start one. The dab redirects are POV, should not redirect to article sections, and are not true dabs in any case. I also don't see why it should be replaced with a redirect; that would also be POV, though creation of such a redirect could be supported with reliable sources and would be OK in that case. There are articles and article sections discussing the historical material, so there is no need to leave this page up with instructions to improve it. Mike Christie (talk) 12:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The so-called genocide is not accepted by any scholar of any kind. None of the countries recognized such a genocide. There are no substantial evidence in the article to support the claims of a genocide against Kurds. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not place to create pseudo genocides. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog, to write someone's opinion. --Scientia Potentia 12:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per WP:N, Prester John 18:49, 5 April 2007 (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.