Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aramean-Syriac people

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 delete, discounting nationally motivated I(DON'T)LIKEIT votes from both sides, delete arguments are clearly predominating among the legitimate policy-based ones. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aramean-Syriac people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete under WP:CFORK and WP:NAME, this is a 100% pov-fork residing at a title established as not in use in any WP:RS:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, zero hits on either google books or google scholar (one incidential google books hit for "Aramean (Syriac) people").

on equal grounds, {{Syriac ethnicity}} is a content fork of {{Assyrian ethnicity}}, both describing one and the same group of some 4 million people of Syriac Christians. There is a bona fide dispute, covered at Assyrian naming dispute. Proper terminology and issues of WP:NAME are addressed here. There isn't any room for reasonable doubt left that this article is a content-fork or counter-article created at an invalid title. At this point, this is just about some people stalling based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Wikipedia doesn't allow the resolution of disputes by content-forks. Whatever the dispute, it needs to be worked out within the existing article. --dab (𒁳) 12:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

note that the current full protection is the result of a rather surreal action on the part of Akradecki (talk · contribs), who blocked t AramaeanSyriac (talk · contribs) for 3RR violation, and at the same time locked the article in the 3RR-violating user's version. I don't think I have ever seen such an admin action before (details). --dab (𒁳) 12:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I thought I'd add a note of explanation...the two actions, the block and the lock were two separate actions. The 3RR block was because of, well, a 5RR violation. The lock was because another editor was removing all text and replacing it with a redirect, without the benefit of discussion or consensus. As I said at the time, creating a redirect like that, right or wrong, is tantamount to deleting the article, and should be discussed, either on the article's page or here at AfD. I repeatedly asked the various parties in the edit dispute to make change proposals and then discuss them at the talk page, and I got little response. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• commentWell, your actions ain't better, redirecting an entire article that has been existing for almost a year. Without any sort of consensus for a redirect! The article will be moved, but not to Assyrian people, I've urged before and I'll do it again, for a move to Syriac people. Also the dispute is covered at Names of Syriac Christians, way to go to choose side by calling it the "Assyrian naming dispute". The TriZ (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll take that as a "keep" vote (but this isn't a vote). Note that the pov-fork was first created by an anon in January, immediately reverted as a CFORK even then. The fact that we have allowed this to go on for the best part of a year is a disgrace, not a recommendation of those re-instating the pov-fork in the face of patient explanations why this isn't permissible. --dab (𒁳) 12:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:CFORK and WP:NAME for the reasons given. Verbal chat 12:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's clear that this is a fork with a title that doesn't match reality/sources. dougweller (talk) 13:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CFORK and WP:NAME Blueboar (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this article is a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.33.121.197 (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this POV fork. Whatever the puerile flamers will say to the contrary. This goes against basic style and content guidelines. Moreschi (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the relevant part of the nomination. Article was created by Pylambert in February 2006, as a redirect. An anonymous user turned it into a relatively large article in a single edit in January 2008. This was quickly reverted by Chaldean with edit comment "rv WP:POVFORK". In February/March the (presumably) same anonymous user re-reverted, resulting in an edit war mostly between Chaldean and VegardNorman (an account that had been created between the two anonymous edits). It's not entirely clear to me whether this article is about the exact same (ethnic) group that is discussed under Assyrian people, or whether it is supposed to be about a (religious) subgroup. (See talk page discussions until about 27 March.) But since the religious group is hard to distinguish from the ethnic group, not least because both are part of the same huge self-designation conflict discussed in Names of Syriac Christians, I would count this as a content fork in both cases. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I'm citing the opening phrase in the ethnicity article, "An ethnic group is a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of preferential endogamy and/or a presumed or real common ancestry." Now clearly there is a relativetly large group (as large as the Assyrian or more likely bigger) whom rejects the Assyrian name and they are identifying with eachother and the Syriac name. Yes, the name of the article is made up, since the real articles name should be "Syriac people", so do a search on Syriacs and you'll see that you will get more hits than you do with "Assyrian people". The TriZ (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The people who have created this page are simply radical propagandists who want to distort history to fit thier own so-called nationalistic agendas.130.17.92.11 (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have no intention of judging what is the true name or nature of an ethnic group, and neither should Wikipedia. For what appears to be the same group, different parts of it describe and name it different ways, its good reason to have two articles. In a practical sense, its the way of settling the continuing conflict about what to call it. Sometimes a fork makes sense, Even if necessary to appeal to IAR, this is an illustration of why an absolute rule against forking does not help the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 04:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest possible keep, and block of nominating editor for disruption of our project - Notable and sourced. Badagnani (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article is very biased, inaccurate, and often contraditory. Levi Seigel (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Funny you haven't made any edits in a halfyear and less than 15 total edits (which included this one [1], pointing to the fact that you call yourself Assyrian), and then suddenly shows up here, makes one believe you have more than one account. The TriZ (talk) 02:26, 9 November 2008 (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.