Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gara massacre

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 and redirect to Operation Claw-Eagle 2. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gara massacre

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:POVFORK of Operation Claw-Eagle 2. This fork uses unreliable sources (for example, Erdogan's state-run media, Anadolu Agency) (compare with sources at Operation Claw-Eagle 2#References and Operation Claw-Eagle 2#Further reading). It portrays the death of 13 hostages (the responsibility for which is still debated) as a "massacre". Compare with how the NYT describes it: President Recep Tayyip Erdogan blamed the United States and opposition Kurdish politicians in an effort to deflect responsibility for a failed rescue operation. [1]. The title "Gara massacre" is not backed by RS, and is highly POV, and perhaps should not be kept even as a redirect. There is nothing to merge because nothing is in this fork that isn't already stated with better sources and more neutrally at Operation Claw-Eagle 2. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha.. One more hostility to Erdogan ... killing civilians is a massacre. Turkey is a democratic country. Turkey a republic. Also, the title has nothing to do with Erdogan, nor with the media. The title is remarkable, let it stay. Resource-owned media organizations are independent, not state monopolies. -Pivox (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Pivox's !vote is below. Miniapolis 14:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the fact that the incident got coverage even from Cumhuriyet and Bianet, and the article is detailed enough to deserve its own article. Although I agree the problem about excessive usage of somewhat biased/unreliable sources like Daily Sabah and Anadolu Agency, that should be addressed in the article talk page instead of here, in my opinion. Plus, there's enough amount of reliable and unbiased sources with high amount of coverage if you do a quick Googling. For example, here is a less biased content, also includes speeches about the event by politicians: [2] Here is again a coverage about the parliamentary question that given to the minister: [3] (in Turkish) And here is a coverage by Reuters about the aftermath of Gara events: [4]. again, here is another coverage about aftermath and speech of Erdogan: [5] [6] I believe that qualifies an independent article about the events.

Ahmetlii (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable enough and has lots of coverage. Anadolu and Sabah were only used for statements by foreign representatives in the reactions section, as well as Turkish claim on PKK casualties of the rescue operations. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 20:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to note the attempted canvassing on the Turkish Wikipedia village pump, which I have reverted. I will add my own thoughts once I have had a chance to examine the article. --GGT (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect Obvious POVFORK of Operation Claw-Eagle 2, presumably created to avoid page bans after a number of editors were banned from that article for trying to editorialise the article in the same way as this one has been. Probably could have been deleted as WP:CSD#A10. Black Kite (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect To Operation Claw-Eagle 2 which has a more NPOV and presents the same information that is up to Wiki standards. Valeince (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect To Operation Claw-Eagle 2 Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect this POV fork per nom and others. In future, the reliable sources noticeboard is thataway. Miniapolis 01:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as PoV fork.. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per reasons given by Black Kite.Mr.User200 (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i explained above. -Pivox (talk) 08:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect This page already exist and therefor this AFD we wanted merge this but it was ignored by disruptive users.Shadow4dark (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect – Aside from the fluff sections (background, reactions) the sourcing for the key claims of massacre are either Turkish outlets, linked to the Turkish state or attributing statements to Turkish officials - WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies here. Given the absence of sourcing in mainstream, third-party media sources I agree with the nom that this is ultimately a POVFORK of Operation Claw-Eagle 2 to promote the Turkish line (and loaded term) about it being a "massacre". Jr8825 • Talk 17:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Let's break down the points one by one:
- The killing of the hostages and the operation itself seem indistinguishable when it comes to the focus of the sources. If we are splitting hairs, yes, these are two separate entities, but that's not the way RS in general have covered them. So yes, this is a POVFORK and should not exist as an independent article.
- In the ANI thread as well as above I have seen an inclination to treat all sources coming out of Turkey uniformly as products of Turkish propaganda. That's a dangerously simple and to be frank, inappropriately stereotyping narrative that reduces any Turkish voice to either a pro-Erdoğan propagandist or a well-meaning but self-censoring journalist. As any such stereotypes would be, this is incorrect and reflects a certain unfamiliarity with the subject at hand. For all their worth, it is also important to keep in mind that foreign outlets may not have the same insights or connections as native Turkish ones. Outlets such as Birgün and Cumhuriyet, which have maintained their editorial independence at great expense, have also called this event a massacre (see this interview of the father of one of the victims). I really wanted to get this one on the record, but this does not mean that the term "massacre" should be given in Wikivoice, English-language sources clearly don't commonly call this event as such. But it is worth mentioning the use of this term universally in Turkey, by pro- and anti-Erdoğan outlets alike.
- Finally, I find it hard to understand why the nom has argued that there is "nothing to merge" here and why others have jumped on that bandwagon. Clearly, this article has a lot of content that can be merged into the operation article, which does not cover domestic or international reactions nearly as well. Yes, there may be some need for editorial review and cleanup, but outright deletion is clearly unwarranted.
--GGT (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per GGT. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 19:18, 10 March 2021 (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.