Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrorism in Kazakhstan

Terrorism in Kazakhstan

Terrorism in Kazakhstan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Strongly violates WP:NPOV WP:AD WP:NOT. It is a biased personal essay rather than an encyclopedic entry. At least two users tried for almost a month to edit the article to confirm with WP:AD WP:NPOV have failed because of creator's relentless reverts. Previous efforts included dozens of attempts to replace title and section titles to confirm with WP:AD WP:NPOV, merge the article with Counter-terrorism in Kazakhstan which is a much more relevant title for the content of the page, and editing to avoid unneccesary and biased use of the term terrorism. All failed, so I am nominating it for the community's attention. cs 11:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and refer to any number of dispute resolution options. If you want to get people's attention, this is not it. AFD is not the place for content disputes or cleanup. Since you're not advocating outright deletion, I suggest this be speedy closed and referred else where. Mister.Manticore 11:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this article should be completely re-written, if it stays, it still refers to groups are terrorists in the narrative voice violating WP:WTA, and still refers to Hizb ut-Tahrir as a terrorist group, or memebrs as "terror cells". I suggest we keep it on condition that it is merged with Counter-terrorism_in_Kazakhstan, and Cooperation between Kazakhstan and the United States in Counter-terrorism, then all the POVs removed. Aaliyah Stevens 12:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete the article's bias is beyond dispute resolution. Tried for more than a month, failed. I have a god damn Ph.D that says there is no terrorism in Kazakhstan contrary to the title of this entry. Is this an encyclopedia or a make-believe political forum?cs 12:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Your possession of any degree is not convincing, especially since I have no way to verify that for myself. However, given that your claim is rather broad, and I can find reputable news sources that cover the subject...I would tend to doubt your claim. Mister.Manticore 19:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If you go on checking SSCI articles, or JSTOR or Proquest on "Terrorism in Kazakhstan" before doubting anything you may do yourself a service.cs 21:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

So, there are articles regarding terrorism in Kazakhstan? Again, this concern is not a deletion issue. It's a dispute resolution problem. Mister.Manticore 22:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

No, there is none. That is what makes it a problem for an encyclopedic entry. Regarding the news sources, I have waited more than a month to see a single news article citing a terror case in Kazakhstan. cs 22:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't have to a news article about a case of terrorism in Kazakhstan, the fact is, Terrorism and Kazakhstan are not unrelated concepts, and the subject does exist. It is not a concept without some information to be found. If you have differences regarding the current content, or even the article title, this is not the forum for it, and you need to work on it in a different way. WP:DR is what you want, not AfD. As I said to start with, this is the wrong way to go about resolving your problems with this page. Mister.Manticore 23:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with delete considering that there is not a single incident of terrorism in kazakhstan, so the whole article could be seen as a red-herring, or a sensationalisation of a phenomena that barely exists in this country. Aaliyah Stevens 13:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep this is an attempt to anger me by deleting an article I frequently edit. If you look at the history of the page you will see there has been nothing but disruption from Aaliyah Stevens and Cs. They want to 'rewrite' the articles to reflect their personal pov, which is pretty off-the-wall. KazakhPol 15:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Note Aaliyah Stevens' edits to Hizb ut-Tahrir and you will understand why she is so angry Wikipedia has an article on this. KazakhPol 15:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy close AfD is not an appropriate dispute-resolution method. It is only for deletion, whereas the nom has suggested merge. If there is an ongoing content dispute about the article, please consider mediation, WP:RFC, or (as a last step) arbitration. However, be aware the last two processes may involve the imposition of binding decisions and possible warnings/blocks for inappropriate behavior for one or all sides in a dispute. -- Black Falcon 22:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Clearly a notable concept.--Sefringle 06:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per Black Falcon's reasoning. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Clearly encyclopedic. - Peregrine Fisher 07:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. KazakhPol does almost nothing on Wikipedia but push the POV that certain Islamic groups and political parties are terrorists, some of whom are not on the usual designated terrorist lists, which he has been told a thousand times. It seems that, for KazakhPol, if you're Islamic, you're ipso facto a terrorist. This article is an example of his extreme POV, and it will be very hard to fix it given the amount of work that would need to be done to find out which parts, if any, are accurately written up and cited. How many actual terrorist attacks have there been in Kazaskstan? Another editor has told me there has been precisely one, which hardly warrants an entire article, at least not one with this title. It would be best to delete this and start from scratch with a new title and an entirely neutral approach. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)