Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attacks on humanitarian corridors in Chechnya

Attacks on humanitarian corridors in Chechnya

Attacks on humanitarian corridors in Chechnya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fundamentally non-neutral article failing WP:NPOV and based in large part of references that fail WP:RS andy (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:POVFORK. Bombing of market in Grozny is already described in detail in Grozny ballistic missile attack article. DonaldDuck (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Do not delete, the page can still be salvaged, sourced (as is being done now), following the model that many wiki pages have, of describing a category of events, with links to each individual page. There is plenty of ways we could rework the article, deletion, in my mind, would be hasty, unnecessary, and foolish. --Yalens (talk) 02:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • To add to my statement above, alternatively, we could make this a section in another page, the problem is that there is no other page that's really appropriate. This deals with both wars, to start with, and the Geneva Convention aspect (i.e. that Russia has intentionally bombed civilian areas it previously designated as such) is consistently ignored and sidelined on English Wikipedia, and would be thrust to the bottom of a page, when at least I think it deserves much more consideration. Considering we have a whole category for Chechen Terrorist attacks (and a large excess of not-so-neutral articles on them), a considerable amount of which are not exactly proven 100% (and far from it) to actually be attributed to Chechens at all, the notion that keeping this page alive is somehow biased is largely unfounded. In addition: we could also convert this page into the main page for a category of "attacks on humanitarian corridors". In such a sense, we could make it a somewhat minor page with brief summaries of the events, and still make note of the primary point of the article.--Yalens (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    • There is such "category" page already (Second Chechen War crimes and terrorism). Attacks on "humanitarion corridors" are described in great detail in 1999 Grozny refugee convoy shooting and Baku-Rostov highway bombing. There is no reason for duplicating same content in multiple articles under different titles.DonaldDuck (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. This is important subject, and the article is well sourced. Not a content fork to anything.Biophys (talk) 04:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. POV fork, and violation of WP:Synthesis. Biophys may insist as long as he wishes that sources are reliable, but these are the sources sharing only one POV which Biophys happens to adavance through ages here in WP. These are only sources which Biophys wants to have in the article. Other views are not considered at all as usual. And add to this the fact that these events were already covered several times in Chechen war artisle and separate articles. Spam and nothing more. Why we need to have one thousand articles with different names about the same event?

Of course, the masterpiece is what is written in the lead - "humanitarian corridor was absent" because... bla-bla-bla. "Bla-bla-bla" is someone's individual POV. Then why this weird name for the article, at all? Call it individual opinion on absence of humanitarian corridors by...

And it is the stupidest thing to think that Chechen bandits sitting in Grozny were allowing their live shield to go in peace from Grozny to safe place. Pregnant women from Budyonnovsk hospital hostage crisis and Beslan school children, Nord Ost hostages Moscow theater hostage crisis used as a live shield by chechen bandits are the most famous examples. Why this super-mega tactic of chechen terrorists is not described here in detail?

Thirdly, if these sources are really reliable? If activists from any NGO have military education and operative military knowledge of given situation that allows them to make report that has any weight? Vlad fedorov (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• • There is nothing inherently "POV" in word "attacks", although the article might be renamed Humanitarian corridors in Chechnya. Yes, it must be improved per WP:NPOV. Frequent use of word "Russian" puts it on nationalistic footing. Besides, "Putin began the general bombing" sounds too personal. But this is something to be fixed. Not a reason for deletion.Biophys (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Unless it's fixed PDQ it is a reason for deletion. The article is fundamentally POV and also a content fork. There's no reason to keep it. andy (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Deletion#Reasons_for_deletion. Failing our NPOV standards is not a reason for deletion but for improvement. And there is no any evidence of significant content forking so far.Biophys (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Content forking is reason for deletion.DonaldDuck (talk) 05:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• We have articles about many individual incidents, but we do not have a general article about the attacks in humanitarian corridors. There is nothing wrong to create an umbrella article to briefly summarize the individual cases.Biophys (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)