Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sednaya Prison Syrian crematorium atrocities

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. Neither side of this discussion denied that this is a notable subject but there is no consensus to keep this as a separate article. No matter whether this is a POVFORK or not, there is consensus that it is an unnecessary fork not justified by WP:SPINOFF. Since the title is not NPOV, it also makes no sense to leave it as a redirect. Whether a neutral redirect can be created or not is not within the scope of this discussion. SoWhy 09:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sednaya Prison Syrian crematorium atrocities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Classic WP:POVFORK. Much of the material here is already found at the Sednaya Prison article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh puh-lease:

• U.S. says Syrians built crematorium at prison to dispose of bodies
• Syrian Crematory Is Hiding Mass Killings of Prisoners, U.S. Says
• Syrian regime built crematorium at prison near Damascus to dispose of bodies, US claims
• Syrian regime burned 'thousands' of bodies at crematorium to hide scale of slaughter, US diplomat reveals
• U.S. Makes Disturbing Accusations Against Bashar Assad The State Department alleges mass killing, use of crematorium.
• U.S. Accuses Assad Regime Of Building Prison Crematorium To Cover Up Mass Murders
• Assad using large crematorium to hide mass atrocities at Syrian prison, claims US
• Syrian regime using crematorium to 'cover up' mass murders, State Department says

That's just the first page of google search, all of it for THE CREMATORIUM. There are literally 18 more pages of sources (not mentions) though you get into non-reliable sources after the 9th page or so. That still leaves around NINETY reliable sources (I'm forced to estimate here because there are so many) for this particular topic. NOT the prison in general which has its own separate article (as it should), but THIS topic.

Honestly, if it wasn't for all the Trump stuff, this is the topic we'd all be talking about.

If somebody else had nominated this for deletion, I would've thought it's a WP:POINTy joke, but knowing the nominator's long history in this topic area, I am aware that unfortunately this is done not as a joke. It's a WP:ADVOCACY motivated WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT nomination.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And in case anyone thinks of saying that I am being unduly harsh on EtienneDolet, then just consider these recent two related edits of theirs [1][2]. Here EtienneDolet is insisting that text related to the deaths and burning of thousand of killed individuals is... "uncontroversial"! Yup, that's right. Denying mass murder is "non controversial". To him. Why does he do this? Because he wants to use a non-reliable source which up until recently employed a Stormfront neo-Nazi writer on their staff (he was let go when he was exposed). You can't make this up. This isn't WP:TROUT, this is WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:NOTHERE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Étienne Dolet - I think there is enough extreme end bad faith material in VM's above comment to be sanctionable, if you were to pursue it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: You would think so. Indeed, lots of bad faith remarks, cursing, and misleading statements. In fact, you'd think that the edit-summary of this edit is sanctionable in and of itself ("purposeful dishonesty"?). At any rate, an admin like BU Rob13 or El C can look into it. While they're at it, VM also violated 1RR today ([3][4][5]) and refuses to self-revert. He also violated it yesterday ([6][7]). Need I say more? Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is one of the biggest and most important recent stories related to the war in Syria. I saw it even in Russian language publications a few days ago. There were some comparisons with Katyn massacre. Perhaps rename if needed. My very best wishes (talk) 00:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not a WP:POVFORK. As Volunteer Marek (talk) stated, I believe this deserves it's own article. Ethanbas ^(talk) 00:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You created this article. You have to do more than just say "I believe this deserves it's own article". Why do you think its content is deserving of its own article separate from Sednaya Prison? In what way can all its content not be incorporated into the main article? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it is a POV-fork (of no stand-alone notability) from Sednaya Prison that has been given a zero-sourced OR and POV title. In what way is using a crematorium for its intended purpose an "atrocity"? BTW, is there more content in this "source" [8] visible to subscribers, or does its entire content really consist of just an exact word-for-word repeating of its headline? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per My very best wishes and Ethanbas, etc. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per what? Per no valid reasons at all (Ethanbas's "I think it should be here because I created it and so I obviously think it should be here" and MVBW's ludicrous "one of the biggest and most important stories related to the war in Syria" assertion (has NVBW been living in a cave until last week?). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually all three users gave valid reasons for their !vote - not a POV fork, a very notable story - so stop badgering them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asking someone to explain themselves is not "badgering". Maybe Ethanbas' "it is so because I say it is so" and Мандичка's "I agree with so-and-so when he says it is so because I say it is so" are valid arguments in your eyes - but they should not be, and I hope will not be, for anyone else. Ethanbas has not explained WHY he thinks this subject is deserving of its own article - all he says is that it is deserving of its own article. He has not provided any supporting arguments that would dispel the fact that an article, Sednaya Prison, already exists that could easily contain all the content in this article. Consensus, may I remind you, is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Sednaya Prison. 23 editor (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Sednaya Prison and possibly merge some content. The event is likely notable, but right now, it's a content fork; the main prison article is already basically all about these and other atrocities, and this content should first be improved in one place before subarticles are spun off per WP:SS.  Sandstein  09:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or delete as suggested below is also ok, the redirect isn't from a very probable title.  Sandstein  08:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is an argument that retains a highly pov title as a redirect, a title moreover that nobody will ever search for. Better to Delete, then create a neutral redirect like "Sednaya Prison crematorium". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All the content is already in the article on the prison so there's nothing to merge; & I do not see the point of a redirect--it's a totally implausible search term in full, and it starts with the same word. I think this could better have been a A10 speedy as a duplicate article. DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete , or redirect to Sednaya Prison, pr nom, Huldra (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obvious NPOV issues. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - not WP:POVFORK. Plenty of good reliable sources. If there are issues about the contebt that should be discussed in the articles talk page.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - What possible reason can there be for having the same content in two Wikipedia articles? Exemplo347 (talk) 08:02, 6 June 2017 (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.