Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/2007 Estonian unrest: 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 editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:32, 30 April 2007 editBondkaka (talk | contribs)566 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:20, 28 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(32 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''no consensus to delete.''' There is no policy-based reason to delete either article: a redirect would be just fine. I believe consensus here is that ] is the main article and that this should be merged there. Some think a rename is appropriate, but there isn't consensus (although it wasn't the topic of debate). There is a merge request underway, let it take its course. I think this debate has only established that the ] article is the "main" article, which means that one of two results should be chosen: either (1) the articles should be merged there, or (2) the coverage of the unrest should remain in a separate article but have an appropriately short summary in the main article per ].

A reminder: because of the GFDL, it is not allowed to "merge and delete." ]]<sup>]</sup> 15:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


===]===
*<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>-- ] - <small>]</small> 03:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)</small>
:{{la|2007_Estonian_unrest}} - <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude>
We cannot have two different articles competing with the same updates. I've now pulled the emergency break. How can we solve this problem? What do you think? ] 09:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering about the reason for the creation of this page. From what I can see right now, it has created a situation where both pages have most of the same info but aren't updated at the same rate. If you trully want to make ''this'' page the centrepiece, you should move most of the ] article here, including all of the sections about the ''reason'' for this unrest. ] 07:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Just wondering about the reason for the creation of this page. From what I can see right now, it has created a situation where both pages have most of the same info but aren't updated at the same rate. If you trully want to make ''this'' page the centrepiece, you should move most of the ] article here, including all of the sections about the ''reason'' for this unrest. ] 07:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:'''Delete:''' I think this article should be deleted as soon as possible, and all updates take place at the main article: ]. --] 08:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC) :'''Delete:''' I think this article should be deleted as soon as possible, and all updates take place at the main article: ]. --] 08:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:'''Merge & Delete''' - I believe this is a case of ] I agree if should be merged with the main article (and then this entry deleted). -- ] <sup>]</sup> 08:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC) :'''Merge & Delete''' - I believe this is a case of ] I agree if should be merged with the main article (and then this entry deleted). -- ] <sup>]</sup> 08:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:'''Merge and Delete''' This article is just a duplication and very confusing. We now have a situation with updates taking place on two different articles covering the same topic. Important developments are expected within the next few days. Let ] article remain the sole and only article for that. ] 08:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC) :'''Merge and Delete''' This article is just a duplication and very confusing. We now have a situation with updates taking place on two different articles covering the same topic. Important developments are expected within the next few days. Let ] article remain the sole and only article for that. ] 08:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:'''Keep''', it's notable separately. &mdash;]]] ] 09:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:'''Merge & Delete''' now - if there will be further unrest, the article can be restarted, perhaps with a more appropriate name, though. ] 10:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:'''Merge and Delete''' - No point in having to observe two articles for provocations and false statements. Also it is easyer to update one page. ] 10:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:'''Keep''' like nightstallion --] (]) 10:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:'''Delete''' - one article is good enough. We can rename the article ] into ], if necessary. ] 11:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:conditionally '''Merge and redirect''', provided that all aspects of the "unrests" can be covered on the "statue" article. - The unrests are too much related to symbolism, that it cannot be covered alone. If new unrests start, then we should reconsider. Aslo, we should closely follow the issue around the clamed "]". If this is real, it merits its own article. -- ] 12:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:'''Merge and Delete and Rename to "Bronze Soldier Controversy" and redirect both current pages to it''' - as said, its pointless to update and revert vandalism on the same info on 2 different pages.--] 15:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:'''Cleanup, Rename''' to ] and '''move''' relevant information out of ] which should be article purely on monument ] 11:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' - I feel that renaming or creating an article on ] or ] is effectivly a keep. I believe the question should be does the current situation regarding the Statue warrant a seperate article? Or (as I suggested above) Is it a case of Recentism and should detauls of the current unrest/situation be included in the ] article? -- ] <sup>]</sup> 14:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:'''Merge and redirect''' --(] 23:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC))
:*This AfD nomination was ]. It is listed now. ] 12:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
:'''Keep''' and remove the unrest details from the article about the monument. ] should be an article about a monument and piece of art, not about the unrest. This article should cover the unrests which might and if so, the monument does not play a role in them anymore. --] 19:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete for now'''. With an article that's getting edited every few minutes, and with the stories of the statue and the controversy surrounding it linked in so many places, I feel that it is NOT currently possible to maintain a consistent line of separation between these two articles. And if we don't do that, what we get is a whole heap of duplicate information, and editors are tasked with the huge task of checking both pages to see if one of them has something that the other doesn't. I propose that for the next couple of weeks, at least, we keep everything about this story in one place. Once the dust has settled, then we can look at ways to logically break it up into separate articles. With the article changing so quickly, it is impossible to have a discussion about the best way to break it up. By the time we've finished discussing, the article and the situation will have changed and the discussion would be irrelevant. ] 07:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
*<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>-- &nbsp;<span style="border: solid 1px black;">]</span> 09:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)</small>
* '''Keep'''. For Estonians and Russians is this cause very important. I do not know why to delete it when so much people and even governments are talking about it. References also exist; many news sites are still bringing new informations about this. --] (]|]) 16:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' - duplicates the article ], besides 2007 isn't finished yet. ] 00:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 15:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

Latest revision as of 21:20, 28 February 2023

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 to delete. There is no policy-based reason to delete either article: a redirect would be just fine. I believe consensus here is that Bronze Soldier of Tallinn is the main article and that this should be merged there. Some think a rename is appropriate, but there isn't consensus (although it wasn't the topic of debate). There is a merge request underway, let it take its course. I think this debate has only established that the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn article is the "main" article, which means that one of two results should be chosen: either (1) the articles should be merged there, or (2) the coverage of the unrest should remain in a separate article but have an appropriately short summary in the main article per WP:SUMMARY.

A reminder: because of the GFDL, it is not allowed to "merge and delete." Mangojuice 15:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


2007 Estonian unrest

2007_Estonian_unrest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

We cannot have two different articles competing with the same updates. I've now pulled the emergency break. How can we solve this problem? What do you think? Camptown 09:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering about the reason for the creation of this page. From what I can see right now, it has created a situation where both pages have most of the same info but aren't updated at the same rate. If you trully want to make this page the centrepiece, you should move most of the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn article here, including all of the sections about the reason for this unrest. Esn 07:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete: I think this article should be deleted as soon as possible, and all updates take place at the main article: Bronze Soldier of Tallinn. --Camptown 08:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Merge & Delete - I believe this is a case of Recentism I agree if should be merged with the main article (and then this entry deleted). -- Rehnn83 08:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Merge and Delete This article is just a duplication and very confusing. We now have a situation with updates taking place on two different articles covering the same topic. Important developments are expected within the next few days. Let Bronze Soldier of Tallinn article remain the sole and only article for that. Bondkaka 08:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep, it's notable separately. —Nightstallion (?) 09:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Merge & Delete now - if there will be further unrest, the article can be restarted, perhaps with a more appropriate name, though. DLX 10:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Merge and Delete - No point in having to observe two articles for provocations and false statements. Also it is easyer to update one page. Suva 10:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep like nightstallion --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete - one article is good enough. We can rename the article Bronze Soldier of Tallinn into Bronze Soldier Controversy, if necessary. 193.40.5.245 11:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
conditionally Merge and redirect, provided that all aspects of the "unrests" can be covered on the "statue" article. - The unrests are too much related to symbolism, that it cannot be covered alone. If new unrests start, then we should reconsider. Aslo, we should closely follow the issue around the clamed "Army of Russian Resistance". If this is real, it merits its own article. -- Petri Krohn 12:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Merge and Delete and Rename to "Bronze Soldier Controversy" and redirect both current pages to it - as said, its pointless to update and revert vandalism on the same info on 2 different pages.--Haigejobu 15:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Cleanup, Rename to 2007 Estonian riots and move relevant information out of Bronze Soldier which should be article purely on monument Borism 11:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I feel that renaming or creating an article on 2007 Estonian riots or Bronze Soldier Controversy is effectivly a keep. I believe the question should be does the current situation regarding the Statue warrant a seperate article? Or (as I suggested above) Is it a case of Recentism and should detauls of the current unrest/situation be included in the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn article? -- Rehnn83 14:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect --(Ptah, the El Daoud 23:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC))
Keep and remove the unrest details from the article about the monument. Bronze Soldier of Tallinn should be an article about a monument and piece of art, not about the unrest. This article should cover the unrests which might and if so, the monument does not play a role in them anymore. --213.155.224.232 19:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for now. With an article that's getting edited every few minutes, and with the stories of the statue and the controversy surrounding it linked in so many places, I feel that it is NOT currently possible to maintain a consistent line of separation between these two articles. And if we don't do that, what we get is a whole heap of duplicate information, and editors are tasked with the huge task of checking both pages to see if one of them has something that the other doesn't. I propose that for the next couple of weeks, at least, we keep everything about this story in one place. Once the dust has settled, then we can look at ways to logically break it up into separate articles. With the article changing so quickly, it is impossible to have a discussion about the best way to break it up. By the time we've finished discussing, the article and the situation will have changed and the discussion would be irrelevant. Esn 07:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  09:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. For Estonians and Russians is this cause very important. I do not know why to delete it when so much people and even governments are talking about it. References also exist; many news sites are still bringing new informations about this. --Aktron (t|c) 16:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - duplicates the article Bronze Soldier of Tallinn, besides 2007 isn't finished yet. Martintg 00:50, 10 May 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.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mangojuice (talkcontribs) 15:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC).