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--JForget 23:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Georgian Chauvinism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

A highly POV article with a POV title made up of carefully selected and largely distorted facts from various Wikipedia articles. We do have articles about society-specific nationalisms, but the title and content of this article is an attack on Georgia rather than the encyclopedic treatment of the issues of Georgian nationalism. I also have a suspicion of sockpuppetry. This is the very first article by user:Toobigtohide who seems to be quite familiar with wiki syntax. Kober^Talk 19:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete POV nastiness. MarkBul 19:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's probably room for an article about minorities in contemporary Georgia but definitely not under this title. Way too soapboxy, under-referenced and under-researched. --Folantin 19:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is based on facts and only on facts. And they are backed by references. There are people who would love to hide facts, not show the full truth of the topic that deals with issues in their own country. Like user Kober who intensively fights against any information on Wikipedia that highlights negative issues in Georgia. You can look at his page and see that that where he spend majority of his time. And instead of providing facts telling the contrary (which of course he cannot) he keeps accusing the author in whatever his imagination is capable of... without any factual arguments from his side! -- Toobigtohide 19:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't engage in personal attacks and don't make false assumptions. I'd oppose any article under the title of "X Chauvinism". Your own posts reveal that this article is aimed at propaganda.--Kober^Talk 20:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing personal and no propaganda. Issues in every society need to be openly discussed. I am just learning Wikipedia. This information is true and verifyable. It is the choice of community to decide how important are facts there. Any comment on how to improve it will be welcome. Toobigtohide 20:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - original-research essay, trashy POV-pushing. Moreschi ^Talk 20:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do people bother tagging this stuff? Kill, biased soapboxing. Whether it's true or not is irrelevant; thoroughly unencyclopedic. ~ Riana ⁂ 20:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV. - Alsandro · T · w:ka: Th · T 21:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- it's a stub and highly subjective. Rustavizauri 21:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - OR, POV, biased, unencyclopaedic etc. --BelovedFreak 22:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's probably possible to write an article on racial discrimation in this area, but this POV/OR/attack-y article isn't it. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and most all others voting delete here -- it's POV pushing at its finest. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Georgianization or Georgification similar to Armenianisation or Azerification and de-POV the article. Pocopocopocopoco 03:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of having one-sentence articles with unscholarly titles like Armenianisation and Azerification? The issues addressed in these articles can be discussed elsewhere.--Kober^Talk 07:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This particular article is more than one sentence and it's sourced but it's POV it needs to be NPOV. Georgianisation is actually a word used in more scholarly material. So is Georgian Chauvinism by the way and they both generated hundreds of thousands of hits when you do a search for these terms. If you don't like Georgianisation, how about Allegations of Georgian Chauvinism? Or how about Human Rights in the Republic of Georgia? I think it's notable to have an article in wikipedia about the conditions, real or alleged, of the minorities in Georgia. Pocopocopocopoco 00:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of Georgian Chauvinism? Are you suggesting creating a POV fork? The human rights article would be helpful, but please note that "the Republic of Georgia" is only a historical name of the country.--Kober^Talk 08:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is a need to more extensive approach for this topic, and this article is just a stub, so feel free to add more content to it. The article contains true facts and only true facts. The country name makes little difference as the issue existed and exists as many people currently living in the Georgia can attest. Renaming the article to Human Rights In Georgia is almost the same, doesn't make the issue less or more. I chose the term as the most descriptive and exactly characterising the issue. Toobigtohide 12:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far, you the only user who finds the title "most descriptive and exactly characterising". Most of what you have written in your masterpiece is taken out of context, distorted or copy-pasted from unreliable sources such as the already mentioned anti-globalization journalistic corporation.--Kober^Talk 13:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I am not the only one Wikipedia user that found interest in this article. Second your allegations on distortion are speculations and in your turn - attempt to distort the truth of facts described in this article, based on four different references from specialists and and organizations that made research in this area. Or you prefer to call anything that doesn't match you POV a distortion...? Toobigtohide 14:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Extremely POV article that has no place in an encyclopedia. Grandmaster 04:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom et al. Violates core principles including , unreliable sources, WP:NOT, etc. Bearian 13:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Every source is reliable. Toobigtohide 15:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... Especially the Centre for Research on Globalization notorious for its journalistic speculations and conspiracy theories. --Kober^Talk 15:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. What are the facts suggesting that? Other then your speculations... Toobigtohide 15:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A blatant NPOV infringement. --Brand спойт 22:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ridiculous WP:SOAPboxing, trying to incite larger conflicts along national lines in Wikipedia. Interestingly, POV page was created by a user established just 3-days ago, who only edited this one article. Atabek 23:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really ridiculous is your ignorance to the topic and instead of giving constructive arguments you are making points based on how long ago the user created article was registered before he created an article... As if there a period of time after registration when you are allowed to make contributions to Wikipedia. Any suggestions how to make this article NPOV are welcome... I just am not that professional in writing articles to do best job. That is why this article is a stub. But the only thing I can guarantee is whatever it contains is truth. Toobigtohide 13:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling people ignorant is outside the accepted tone of Wikipedia. Please consult Wikipedia:No personal attacks if you really are a newbie.--Kober^Talk 13:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling people ridiculous is the non lesser offence. And interestingly enough you didn't respond in the same way to his comment. Evidently, your comments are biased... Anyway, let's all be polite and NPOV to each other. This article is a first try to lit light on this issue in Wikipedia format. And best benefit will be any constructive suggestions how to improve it to match Wikipedia standards. Most commented response is POV view of this article. I dont' quite understand what specifically makes it so, and how to make it NPOV, so any comments will be welcome in this area. Toobigtohide 14:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what was said was "...Ridiculous WP:SOAPboxing...". Here "Ridiculous" would mean an absurdly high level. This is a comment on the tone of the article (I presume, under AGF), not an attack on an editor. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. VartanM 00:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Kober. Parishan 07:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Alæxis_¿question? 08:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Iberieli 13:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 13:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete irrelevant vote, though --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:45, 28 September 2007 (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.