Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahwaz territory

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 No consensus (defaulting to keep). While the keep arguments are affected by the lack of reliable sources, and possible single purpose accounts, most who argued for deletion or merely commented were also open to a merge in which case a redirect with the edit history should remain in place. Interested editors may want to continue looking for editorial solutions. --Tikiwont 12:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahwaz territory

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}}.

Delete This territory does not actually exist (WP:HOAX) in a political sense - it is not recognized by any authority. If you note these maps: [1] [2] [3] you can clearly see this. Rather, the article is discussing a non-autonomous ethnic group within Iran, not a region or territory nor group of territories that are officially acknolwledged.[4] Since the minority group (not the territory) does exist, however, it might be prudent or advisable to ~~create a new article for them on Ahwazi people by merging~~ merge whatever information can be cited by reliable sources to Iranian Arabs. Strothra 15:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

m per nom. Carter | Talk to me 20:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted". This is not the place to discuss editorial decisions like renaming or merging. Pax:Vobiscum 21:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually merge/redirect is an appropriate suggestion to be discussed at AfD. Gnan garra 08:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, merging can be advised for an article nominated for deletion, but it is not appropriate to nominate an article for merging using AfD (which is what was done here since "Delete and Merge" in reality equals "Merge"). The nominator obviously thinks that the article contains information worth merging, and in that case the issue should have be solved on the talk page (and I see no attempts to do that). However, the article is obviously in very bad shape (in terms of language and sourcing) so I'm going to withdraw my suggestion to keep it. Pax:Vobiscum 14:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand my position. My point is that the article about the region should be deleted, but the article brings up the potential for a new article on an ethnic minority that does exist in reality. So what little information in the article that exists concerning the minority group should be salvaged, but that is a minor point when compared to the fact that the article itself is about a territory which does not exist. An AfD is appropriate in this case. --Strothra 18:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep It's a distinct territory and is an encyclopedic topic. AfDs are not for discussions for merging. --Oakshade 23:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Neutral - I just don't know right now. --Oakshade 02:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

er, perhaps I wasn't clear. The territory doesn't actually exist (see the maps provided above - note that there is, in fact, a city named Ahvaz) - ie WP:HOAX, but the ethnic minority does.--Strothra 02:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possibly redirect and merge anything appropriate to a new article like Ahwazi people, per nom. But the additional problem with this article, for me at least, is that I understand very little of what it says. I would start copyediting it but I really don't understand it and so don't know how to fix it. Sarah 06:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while I dont see it as a complete hoax it reads more like a legend created from possibly factual information to support the political organisation AL-Ahwaz Revolutionary Council. It fails notability as sourcing is only from the a primary source. LookingAL-Ahwaz Revolutionary Council website which even if it could be considered WP:RS its still into sources for Khūzestān Province which is said "to be a part of the territory" I'd expect to find referencing to support the existence(even historically) of Ahwaz territory. Gnan garra 08:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion is premature.There is no attempt at talk page discussion.There seems to be some sourcing available such as [5] and [6]. Israel was not on official maps for many years yet the territory existed. Meganslaw 21:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is the user's first and only contribution to Wiki. Also, neither of those are reliable sources. All they prove is that the Ahwazi ethnic group allegedly exists. There is, however, no Ahwazi territory. Such an article suggests some form of official recognition or autonomy when in fact there is none. Further, those sources are not reliable per WP:RS. --Strothra 21:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with the edit checking comment? I edited often on indigenous peoples in the past but just felt like a new user name; good grief. Meganslaw 21:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization qualifies as WP:RS I think and they show the territory on a map here. Meganslaw 22:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming your not a WP:SOCK can you please identify your old user name so that it can be blocked from editing. 16:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Note The Nom. should explain why he feels that the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization is not WP:RS (as he states above) and if he accepts them as WP:RS then that clearly proves WP:HOAX does not apply so that inference should be dropped. The article's originator clearly worked hard on the beginning of the article and it seems to me the rest of us could help get it into shape. Meganslaw 16:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UNPRO would be a primary source as all the information is supplied by its members, additionally its fails WP:RS as the information isnt peer reviewed the information on unpro is sourced from AL-Ahwaz Revolutionary Council. Gnan garra 16:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I'll just accept that then. Thanks for the response. Meganslaw 16:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough information here that a retitle and re-emphasis would be simpler than a deletion. DGG (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. None of the information in the article is verifiable from reliable sources since the territory does not actually exist. --Strothra 12:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments If the nom's position was strong he wouldn't need to repeat it every time someone votes to "keep" the article. Also, he quotes WP:RS as if it is set in stone but that is not the case at all as can be clearly seen from the banner at the top of WP:RS"However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". Is the nom saying his only objection is the lack of what he considers 1 reliable source? Here's one right here;"Ahwaz was an autonomous Arab territory" And is the nom. an expert on this subject wherein he can declare that "the territory does not actually exist"? Two people voted "keep" and backed off that position but it still shows more weight toward "keep". An anon in Australia has loaded up the article with tags [7] yet done no work on the article and the only 2 people who voted to delete are in Australia; you'd think the article is worth trying to fix if it's worth tagging. There definitely is a territory which seems to be called Ahwaz or Khuzestan[8] and there definitely is the Ahwaz people and many references to Ahwaz territory [9]Michael2314 14:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second account to be created and then make their first edit to this AfD. account creation and contibs. Gnan garra 01:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's better to focus on the content of the edits rather than who makes them. However, if you wish to analyze where the extreme lobbying is coming from; there are 21 edits in this AFD; 5 by the nom.; 5 by you; and 2 by me. 8 Users have edited and 2(25%) of them (the nom and yourself) have 50% of the edits. Also, do you know who the anon in Australia is who loaded up the article with tags after this AFD ran into trouble? Michael2314 16:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another anon added the tags before I added the AfD [10]. I actually removed the tags accidentally in the redirect and AfD processes. The previous anon simply restored them. Further, your edit history is not tangential to this discussion. The opinions of established editors weighs far more heavily than new users and anons, particularly single-purpose accounts, during an AfD discussion. --Strothra 16:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you square that with Ad hominem? Actually, drawing attention to the characteristic of an Editor being new or anon seems to me to be a perfect example of an Ad hominem argument: "An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claims is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject." Michael2314 17:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your "argument" was addressed in addition to pointing out the fact that you are new editor with no previous edit history. Simply making an observation does not constitute an attack. --Strothra 17:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand; I am saying that you and Gnangarra are using a classic ad-hominem argument, I am not making any such argument, and I italics the part about "characteristic" not the part about attack. Also, the big negative Banner you put over this AFD seems distractive to constructive discussion as well. Maybe we can take this discussion to the talk page? Michael2314 21:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Micheal my comment is only in response to your "ad-hominem" comment about where people live diff. lets look at your diffs the one marked 7 is only about an editor adding maintenance tags so it offers nothing to verify the existence of the region. The one marked 8 is from encyclopedia britannica it abouts Khuzestan not Ahwaz territory it doesnt even refer to Ahwaz in any form, we already have a corresponding article called Khūzestān Province. Number 9 a yahoo search with 22 hits but when you add "-wikipedia" it gets reduced to 12 and these are from al-ahwaz.com in various langauges. Therefore all you diffs show is that the article is a Legend to created by al-ahwaz revolutionary council to it some political credibility/legitimacy. The other article you referred to is an advertisement piece for Nir Boms from Benador Associates which supplies speakers for events, radio and television. Most interesting piece in the "article" is that he claims Al-Jazeera has reported about Ahwez yet I'm unable to find anything about them independent of Al-ahwez.com this only goes to further indicate that the actual claimed territory based on this legend is not notable with the historical legend itself being a hoax. Gnan garra 06:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete: As already proposed both here and on article's page I think merging it to other articles (particularly Al Ahwaz) is the proper action. Article as its own seems better to be deleted per above reasons.Farmanesh 01:59, 23 October 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.