Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Kokoity Fandarast: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:30, 30 August 2007 editPocopocopocopoco (talk | contribs)Rollbackers3,882 edits →[]: Relax Kober← Previous edit Revision as of 01:37, 30 August 2007 edit undoIberieli (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,219 edits →[]Next edit →
Line 8: Line 8:
:::BTW, Kokoity's reaction to the movement has also been included, but you still claim that "the Article will likely never present the opposing viewpoint".--]<sup>]</sup> 04:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC) :::BTW, Kokoity's reaction to the movement has also been included, but you still claim that "the Article will likely never present the opposing viewpoint".--]<sup>]</sup> 04:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
::::Assume good faith Kober, I acknowledged above that I may have been wrong about the notability and I got convinced by your arguments below and you turn around and get upset. Relax. What do you want me to do, continue to argue on behave of deletion after I've been convinced by you that it shouldn't be deleted but merged instead? See above, I've struck out the never, I still believe that the article is POV as it stands because it merely shows Kokoity as having an negative emotional reaction, but I will use one of the sources you provided below to make the article more neutral regardless of whether it is kept as is or merged. I recommend thinking about merging as it can improve the provisional government article. It's better to have one good article rather than two stubs. ] 01:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC) ::::Assume good faith Kober, I acknowledged above that I may have been wrong about the notability and I got convinced by your arguments below and you turn around and get upset. Relax. What do you want me to do, continue to argue on behave of deletion after I've been convinced by you that it shouldn't be deleted but merged instead? See above, I've struck out the never, I still believe that the article is POV as it stands because it merely shows Kokoity as having an negative emotional reaction, but I will use one of the sources you provided below to make the article more neutral regardless of whether it is kept as is or merged. I recommend thinking about merging as it can improve the provisional government article. It's better to have one good article rather than two stubs. ] 01:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

:: Nobody gave you right to decide about this article. Your POV pushing is very disruptive. Most people voted to keep it and many of them also will oppose your another attempt to destroy this article. It will not be merged. Your tag will be removed shortly. ] 01:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

*'''Keep''' - This is a real movement: and while the article is propaganda now it's our job as editors to fix things like this, not delete them. ] 04:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC) *'''Keep''' - This is a real movement: and while the article is propaganda now it's our job as editors to fix things like this, not delete them. ] 04:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
:*'''Response''' - The two sources you provided describe ] and the ] for which there are already articles. This "Fandarast" movement is not described in those sources. ] 04:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC) :*'''Response''' - The two sources you provided describe ] and the ] for which there are already articles. This "Fandarast" movement is not described in those sources. ] 04:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:37, 30 August 2007

Kokoity Fandarast

Kokoity Fandarast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
  • Delete - Fails WP:Notability. Article describes a propaganda campaign by the Georgian government yet there are no non-Georgian sources available. Article is inherently POV. Article will likely never does not adequately present the opposing viewpoint. - Pocopocopocopoco 03:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - Despite being the nominator, I change my vote to Merge this article with The_Salvation_Union_of_South_Ossetia. Kober has convinced me of a little bit of notability. I believe that it would be better if the information were part of the Salvation Union article as it is just a stub and this information could expand the Salvation Union article a bit more and make it a better article. Merging would also eliminate the POV in the title. I also want you to be aware of the constant assumptions of bad faith from many of the users that edit these articles. Not just the comments below but it has been a constant string of assumption of bad faith. On this particular issue one user tried to remove the delete discussion tag from the article. I have been nothing but cordial. Furthermore, snide comments are left on the edit summaries and on the talk pages. I can provide diffs on request. Pocopocopocopoco 01:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
What do you actually want? It's pretty puerile to change a vote when the outcome is becoming obvious. I don't think that your move is in the letter and spirit of Wiki guidelines.--Kober 04:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
BTW, Kokoity's reaction to the movement has also been included, but you still claim that "the Article will likely never present the opposing viewpoint".--Kober 04:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Assume good faith Kober, I acknowledged above that I may have been wrong about the notability and I got convinced by your arguments below and you turn around and get upset. Relax. What do you want me to do, continue to argue on behave of deletion after I've been convinced by you that it shouldn't be deleted but merged instead? See above, I've struck out the never, I still believe that the article is POV as it stands because it merely shows Kokoity as having an negative emotional reaction, but I will use one of the sources you provided below to make the article more neutral regardless of whether it is kept as is or merged. I recommend thinking about merging as it can improve the provisional government article. It's better to have one good article rather than two stubs. Pocopocopocopoco 01:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Nobody gave you right to decide about this article. Your POV pushing is very disruptive. Most people voted to keep it and many of them also will oppose your another attempt to destroy this article. It will not be merged. Your tag will be removed shortly. Iberieli 01:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is a real movement: and while the article is propaganda now it's our job as editors to fix things like this, not delete them. Calibas 04:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is a real movement and has earned an international attention. The campaign is not conducted by the Georgian government as claimed by Poco, but by an alliance of Georgian and Ossetian NGOs. I'm afraid this is a bad faith nomination by the user with a strong anti-Georgian POV. --Kober 04:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
and for example.--Kober 04:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
The first source doesn't mention anything about Fandarast. Pocopocopocopoco 03:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I confused two South Ossetia articles by EurasiaNet. Try this one.--Kober 05:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
That's the same article author as the tol.cz article. So we've got one non-Georgian source. Hardly international attention but you might be able to convince me that the content of the article could be redirected and merged with The_Salvation_Union_of_South_Ossetia and dePOV'd. After all, the title translates to "Goodbye Kokoity" which is inherently POV. Pocopocopocopoco 02:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The fact that the two different non-Georgian sources published the same article doesn't diminish the subject's notability. "Goodbye Kokoity" is not a descriptive title, but the name of the campaign which cannot be changed just because you find it POV. --Kober 04:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's another international source for you.--Kober 09:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Response - This is the equivalent of having an article titled "Goodbye George Bush" and only citing Democratic party loyal sources and having no other sources available. Pocopocopocopoco 16:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I want to bring it to your attention that this user Pocoproco is a politicized user with certain agenda on Misplaced Pages. This attempt to delete the article is an indication of POV pushing due to political convictions this user has. This article has valid sources (taken from UN news pages, etc). I also made it more NPOV yesterday, but even that was not enough for this politicized user. This page should be protected. MIGAbkhazeti 16:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Again, supported with sources and in total compliance with encyclopedic content and NPOV. This is clearly a political pushing which is very destructive for Misplaced Pages productivity. Iberieli 21:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Categories: