Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/6-7 September exhibition assault

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 merge to Istanbul riots#Aftermath. J04n(talk page) 22:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

6-7 September exhibition assault[edit]

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

This crime gets news-coverage but that coverage is just routine reporting and as Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and there is no indication this crime is of any lasting significance it should be deleted. LGA _talk^edits 21:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT, not a newspaper. Qworty (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I must elaborate on what I have mentioned earlier:

1.) The exhibition itself is considered "a major step forward for the development of democratic values in preparation of Turkey's admittance into the European Union." by the New York Times.

2.) This event plays a major role in regards to the ongoing Ergenekon trials since many of the organizers of the attack played major roles as part of the Deep state.

3.) The event itself was a major xenophobic incident that was and is still talked about in news media outlets, peer-reviewed journals, and other information agencies.

4.) There is a definite lasting affect in terms of "Turkey's image abroad" as the President of the Turkish Historical Society asserts. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about the exhibition but attack, and you have failed to give a source to any claim to lasting significance. If you want an article on this Wikinews is that way.LGA _talk^edits 22:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per Dr.K. below. I don't mind if the name of the article changes. The exhibition is noteworthy in itself and the assault reinforces the notability of the exhibition and the lasting significance of the event. However if need be, I don't mind keeping the current title either due to the reasons I have mentioned above. I believe this topic of discussion regarding the name of the article should be taken to the TP of the article. Proudbolsahye (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per proposer. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Proudbolsahye and per significant, well-covered historic event. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

to quote "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" that's what Wikinews is for. LGA _talk^edits 22:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the links you provided. You have also mentioned similar ideas during your opening statements when you quoted not a newspaper. Therefore repeating them makes no difference and only serves to annoy the editors who come here to express their opinion. I will not speak about badgering as yet. My comments are here for the closing admin or editor to evaluate. Let the closing editor decide if my arguments have merit or not. I don't need repetitive and useless reminders. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well as you did not address the rational for the nomination, it has nothing to do with meeting WP:GNG or if there are WP:RS or not. LGA _talk^edits 05:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Dr.K. said "Per Proudbolsahye." If he didn't address the rational of the nomination...I did. Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition to my !vote above I would like to suggest that the article be renamed to 2005 Istanbul riots photographic exhibition, or something similar, because the exhibition is a very significant event for Turkey on its own merits as it demonstrates the existence of significant political maturity in the country as has been commented upon by various sources. In addition the attack could be viewed in the wider context of the larger event and make the article, and its title, less POV. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment :There are hundreds of exhibitions everyday and each one of them has a certain theme. It is illogical to keep an article about each exhibition. But the summary of this article can be added to Istanbul riots as a section (maybe headed Legacy). Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this exhibition were just another exhibition as you claim, it wouldn't have been attacked the way it had been. There is a rather controversial relationship between the Greek and Turkish communities that needs to be taken under serious consideration. I already mentioned above that the exhibition was considered a "major step forward for the development of democratic values in preparation of Turkey's admittance into the European Union" by the New York Times. Above all, the people who lead the assault weren't just random discontent individuals, they were part of the Deep state and were highly active in Ergenekon. Proudbolsahye (talk) 08:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Proudbolsahye, well-covered historic event. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Istanbul riots#Aftermath, probably in reduced form. This does read a bit too much like newspaper coverage; it more appropriately belongs in the context of coverage of contemporary Turkish society's reaction to the riots. Sandstein 10:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Sandstein, a good compromise. Miniapolis 21:18, 3 March 2013 (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.