Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenian Congress of Eastern Armenians

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep and history-merge into the newly written Armenian National Congress (1917). The new article was created after the AfD, which means it would normally count as a content fork. But whatever the technicalities, it is now so well sourced and so substantial that the "delete" votes here have been made obsolete, especially in view of the fact that the AfD was evidently affected with tendentious and sock editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Congress of Eastern Armenians

[edit]
Armenian Congress of Eastern Armenians (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)

Delete - This article needs to be deleted, because:

  1. It doesn't include any reliable source since it was created some years ago;
  2. It gives fake information about the congress that never existed. Konullu (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EyyubVEVO (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Please delete this page as it does not refer to any reliable source, which is expected, as there were no such Congress. Ricardo Shaxvelyan. 94.21.93.77 (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC) — 94.21.93.77 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Yeah, "Ricardo Made-up-Armenian-name-yan". Good to see Wikipedia's traditions of sock/meat puppetry are still alive and well. Have fun! --Folantin (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It tries to give false information about an organization that never existed and no reliable source since it had been created. ahuseynov86 14:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahuseynov86 (talk • contribs)

Strong keep (Now REDIRECT - see below) Evidence that this existed is given, for example, by Stephen F. Jones in Socialism in Georgian Colors: the European Road to Social Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2005), page 259: "In late September [1917], the Congress of Eastern Armenians was convened, representing all parties and organizations. The Dashnaksutiun had 113 of the 200 or so delegates." Google Books reveals other references to its existence. --Folantin (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I searched for the name of this congress in the book you mentioned and search results show that it was mentioned only once which was small body of the organization in South Caucasus (articles about small bodies of similar organizations are not subject to the separate WP article), this article misinterprets the facts and overestimates its role. I also searched on Google and Google Scholar, they also show zero result that can be considered reliable third-party and verifiable source. Best, Konullu (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's mentioned in books such as Hrach Tasnapetean's History of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (1990). Moreover, it's now obvious this congress is the same thing as the Armenian National Congress of 1917. (In fact there is a disambiguation notice on Wikipedia saying this at the top of the page here). See below. --Folantin (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources provided, dubious article. Hittit (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has no reliable sources, facts cannot be confirmed neutrally. --Verman1 (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Um, try using Google books. The existence of this congress is now established using reliable sources. --Folantin (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's also becoming increasingly apparent that this is simply another name for the Armenian National Congress held in Tbilisi in 1917, which is very well documented indeed. See, for example, Richard G. Hovhanissian The Republic of Armenia: The First Year 1918-19 (University of California, 1971) page 16 ff. --Folantin (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should probably be renamed as Armenian National Congress (1917—18) (not entirely sure when it ended) or something like that, as Armenian National Congress appears to be its most common name in English. Unfortunately, there is also a modern coalition called Armenian National Congress, so this would mean some disambiguation. --Folantin (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As you mentioned, I read in the book "Socialism in Georgian Colors" one sentence about "Armenian Congress of Eastern Armenians". However, I don't think that one sentence mentioned in one place is enough to create one wikipedia article. Alismayilov (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the above "delete" arguments and per user:Folantin. "Strong keep" implies a POV position, especially if it is based on a one-sentence (or one time, I have not read the book) reference in a book which is not a monography. --E4024 (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - user E4024 received indefinite topic ban from Armenia related articles during the time this AfD has been running.--Staberinde (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a strong bias on this page but it's not mine. It's pretty obvious that the "Congress of Eastern Armenians" Jones (in his Harvard University Press publication) is referring to is simply another term for Armenian National Congress (1917) and should be redirected there. In both the "Congress of Eastern Armenians" and the "Armenian National Congress", the Dashnaks "had 113 of the 200 or so delegates." --Folantin (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While we are discussing here, one of the users defending the "strong keep" option at the beginning, later a merger (merger with an article that s/he is the creator of :-) makes me feel like we are being kind of ... (could not find an approppriate word). Do other people not think there is something weird here? Am I the only one who feels this way? Admins, please, this is a snow and speedy delete. (Not voting twice.)We are facing a smoke-screen here. --E4024 (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is your problem? I've provided evidence, based on books, that the Congress of the Eastern Armenians and the Armenian National Congress of 1917 are one and the same thing. I have consequently created a new article at Armenian National Congress (1917), given that that is its most common name in English. It has extensive sourcing. It is encyclopaedic. Everyone interested in building an encyclopaedia should be satisfied with this. A simple redirect will solve the problem of the many pages linking to the Congress of Eastern Armenians. If this page is summarily deleted then it will be substantially more difficult to deal with and assess those links. --Folantin (talk) 09:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Armenian National Congress (1917). Looking at google book search results it seems to be alternative name for same entity [1].--Staberinde (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (or rather redirect and now keep redirect) ...I always look at the article BEFORE the discussion, so I didn't see a redirect new article had been created, it took precisely 3 minutes in Google Books to see that this was a highly notable subject, well supported in sources, but badly titled. So why couldn't Konullu, Ricardo Shaxvelyan, Hittit, Alismayilov, Ahuseynov86, Verman1 see that? ...and what is going on. How so many editors all apparently unable to do basic AfD checks arrive at this article so quickly and be so out of line with Google books?

...and...as for E4024.. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the comments regarding the google results on this topic written above by Konullu. Could you give any proof that Armenian National Congress and Congress of Eastern Armenians are the same? Best, 195.212.29.190 (talk) 12:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason why you are editing as an IP and talking about yourself in the third person, Konullu? Best. --Folantin (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not answer to that question. Please answer it and give evidence that they are the same. Best, Konullu (talk)
Blatant sock puppetry is a serious issue at AfD. It looks pretty obvious that there has been some tag-teaming here too. --Folantin (talk) 08:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you are sure, please report and provide evidences for this. Best, 195.212.29.185 (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish. --Folantin (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the discussion is whether Congress of Eastern Armenians and Armenian National Congress are the same. Karabakh Council has nothing to do with these congresses. Best, 195.212.29.185 (talk) 13:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidence this did indeed exist and is the same as the Armenian National Congress (1917): Anahide Ter-Minassian devotes a whole section to it (pages 30-35) in her book La République d'Arménie 1918-20 (Editions Complexe, 2006 ed.). Under the heading Le Congrès des Arméniens orientaux (i.e. the Congress of Eastern Armenians) she begins "Le Congrès National Arménien qui s'ouvrit le 28 septembre 1917 dans les locaux du théâtre artistique de Tiflis..." ("The Armenian National Congress, which opened on 28 September 1917 on the premises of the Artistic Theatre of Tiflis..."). She refers to the congress consisting of 204 delegates, of which 113 were Dashnaks. The discrepancy between the late September date of Ter-Minassian and Jones and the early October date of Hovannisian and others can be explained by the difference between the old Julian calendar then still in use in the Russian Empire and the new Gregorian one soon to be introduced in the region. --Folantin (talk) 09:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, 28 September 1917 Julian calendar is 11 October 1917 Gregorian calendar. See [2]. They are the same. QED. --Folantin (talk) 09:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not a head count; it is based on arguments and evidence. There is absolutely solid academic evidence that this existed and is simply an alternative name for the Armenian National Congress (1917). --Folantin (talk) 09:18, 17 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Armenian_Congress_of_Eastern_Armenians&oldid=1068989353"