Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dastak (Nakhichevan)

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. without prejudice to merge. Keep voters urged to find sources or risk another sucessful afd soon. Scott Mac (Doc) 22:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dastak (Nakhichevan)

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

With the relevant filter word 'Armenian' I've found no reliable sources at all, whether on web or on Google Books. Even the Armenian sources are virtually non-existent. Dastak turns ambiguous, giving several unrelated topics. Brand[t] 14:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. —Brand[t] 14:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. —Brand[t] 14:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article does not have any sources or has any relevant importantce, it seems like a cheap article. Neftchi (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probable Merge. I had noticed this article before. I think Dastak is actually the Agulis district, and Dasht (meaning "fields") is its more common spelling - this is just from memory but there should be sources about. But if I'm correct, the content should probably be in the Agulis entry. Meowy 02:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source that uses Dasht with Agulis http://www.cilicia.com/armo5_agulis-nshan.html Meowy 03:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I spotted it on Google, but there is still no reliable coverage. Brand[t] 11:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources, does not seem to hold any significance. Parishan (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources about this location, no proof that it actually exists. Grandmaster 07:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - since what proof there is indicates that it no longer exists, that it was demolished within the last 10 years as part of Azerbaijan's campaign of cultural genocide against anything that can be identified as being of Armenian origin. What needs to be done is to merge the content of this article into an entry for Agulis, a place which was once a very significant and historically important settlement. Meowy 13:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge Took me two seconds to find a source despite the partisan complaints above. "The various settlements of Goght'n are located in valleys and include the present-day villages Agulis, Orduar (Ordubad), Trunis, Vanand, Ts'ghna, Dastak..." From: The journal of Zak'aria of Agulis By Zakʻaria (Aguletsʻi), George A. Bournoutian[1]-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh ... I was hoping to find someone who had access to that book! It and other sources should be used to put together an entry on Agulis. But if Dastak is not an alternative name for Agulis, is there a more recent name for Dastak so that its location can be fixed on a modern map? Meowy 15:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a present day village, why only Bournoutian mentions it? WP policy discourages the usage of one source, which is Armenian in this case (Template:One source). Brand[t] 09:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bournoutian doesn't mention it. Eupator is simply quoting his translation of a seventeenth century Armenian traveler named Zak'aria, who was from Agulis.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it's real, that used to mean a for-sure keep, but in the Caucasus dispute it seems that articles on real places (current and former) are deleted, if enough people from one side of the divide come and scream. For example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maf, Shamkir where the existence of the place was claimed not to be sourced to an infallible source. So echoing the protagonists who managed to get that article deleted: is the source infallible? If not, this should go as well under the sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, or maybe we should just restore the other article or maybe we'll just let WP be your WP:BATTLEground since it's better than actually killing people. One standard or WP shoots itself in the foot, folks. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maf actually exists, there is even a weather forecast for it: [2], [3]. Brand[t] 11:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could be either keep (if it no longer exists as a settlement) or maybe merge if it still exists but under another name and Dastak had no particular notability under the name Dastak. If it does still exist as a settlement then there is probably a Nachchivan place-name stub waiting for this article's content. I'm not for creating two articles for "settlement X when it was called A" and "settlement X when it was called B" where the only change is a change in the ethnicity of its inhabitants. Meowy 00:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge The paucity of sources on this settlement seems to suggest that little information exists on it. I have several historical-geographical books on Armenia and none of them mention it (I don't believe it is mentioned in the entry for Agulis in the Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia, either). Nevertheless, as Eupator showed above, the settlement did exist with that name at one time. I will look into a more comprehensive volume on historical geography, which will probably provide details on Dastak's previous names or its current state. After we have gathered the basic information, we'll probably merge this into another article.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2010 (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.