Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whole Azerbaijan

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whole Azerbaijan

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

This article is unverifiable. There are 5 references in this article, all of them are Turkish references which are against Neutral point of view and reliability of sources and are original researches, for example, reference 5 is a panturkish weblog, reference 4 is an Azerbaijanian newspaper. The article is aginst Verifiability as well, because it is mentioning a territory from northern Caucasus to Persian gulf, while in this region lots of Ethnic groups such as Armenian, Persians, Kurds, Lurs, Arabs and ... are living. Aliwiki (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Perhaps a little rewriting and retitling can be done to make this fit in under the rubric of Azerbaijan nationalist movements or some such. Carrite (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not the title of the article,the problem is that there is no reliable source which is talking about this idea. I tried to make some useful changes [1], but later I came to the conclusion that the whole text of the article is unprovable.Aliwiki (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be deleted as it does not have any reliable ground among all, no academic reference whatsoever can support any of the material suggested by the mentioned article. In total, the article does not satisfy the basic Wikipedia by-laws for introducing articles, one of which is providing accountable ground while creating the article. As a result the whole of the article must be removed. Thanks. Cyrusace (talk) 10:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - it is not unverifiable, as the idea exists. Whether it's notable or fringe ideology are not easily adressible. I could find several sources online, see [2], [3] and [4]. I see a potentially damaging POV issue here. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I haven't yet dug into the sources for this, but I would point out that the nomination statement makes several claims that are irrelevant to the discussion. Sources being written in Turkish, or being an Azerbaijani newspaper, are not by those facts non-neutral, unreliable or original research, and the article makes no statement that no other ethnic groups live in the area between the Northern Caucusas to the Persian Gulf - only that followers of this ideology make the claim that Azerbajanis should rule this area. There is nothing in the article that says that Wikipedia supports this view. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As I just mentioned in the talk page of the article, it is disputable that those territories were historically controlled by Azerbaijanis, yet this is presented as a fact though in a very ambiguous way. This ambiguity shows that such territorial claims are groundless...--Davo88 (talk) 04:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per comment by Phil Bridger (above). Further more, the number of sources is sufficient for an article and topic of this size. I am also concerned about any political agenda that may have inspired the nomination of this article for deletion. RfD is not to be used as part of a political squabble - otherwise, every article that has any political significance would continuously be up for deletion. That said, I am concerned about the lack of verifiability of the WP:RSs. BlueRobe (talk) 07:56, 20 September 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.