Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Salyan

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 no consensus‎ on the articles nominated here, but there is a consensus amongst many participants that this nomination was a WP:TRAINWRECK and never going to yield a workable result. Individual AfD discussions for some of the nominated articles are likely warranted, and it has been suggested that other matters be discussed at more appropriate venues like WP:ANI. Relisting of this discussion is highly unlikely to result in a clearer outcome or consensus on the bundle of articles that were nominated. Liz suggested a procedural close during an earlier relist, but decided against that due to the editor resources involved in the discussion; regarding that, I would suggest that relevant discussion and analysis from this discussion be referred to in any AfDs on the individual articles that might be opened later. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Salyan[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Battle of Salyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a single neutral source or source from a credible publisher or website for this article, plus violation of WP:GS/AA – articles created by non-extended confirmed user. I am also nominating the following related pages because of same reasons, to enforce WP:GS/AA among other issues such as:

- Kevo327 (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let's see, this person is trying to discredit me, because he supports Armenia 100% and there is no fault in that, no his bad liver makes him want to delete all my articles for unknown reasons, you can just look at his profile he describes himself as a supporter of Armenia, if you want to debate the objectivity of my article you can, but indeed because you support Armenia and I think you are an Armenian from Levant, I can not continue this, the battle of Salyan is in the historical documents described by the Turkish government, and even present in the national encyclopedia of Azerbaijan, you would therefore tell me that it is not reliable as a source, but look at your articles on the battle of Halizdor and you will see that you are doing articles without any real sources, using the argument that I am not a verified member will not change anything, and your attempt to delete because it is not not accommodating to your community is ridiculous. Movaigonel (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, this only concerns edits as said here "Extended confirmed restriction: only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, subject to the following provisions:", in itself you have no reason to delete my articles, it contains reliable and considerate sources of schools, you can check them all, in itself you have no good argument. Movaigonel (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You say that my sources are not reliable, are you serious in your words two seconds? I have sources from Cambridge University press and it is not reliable? Your argument doesn't hold water. Movaigonel (talk) 14:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the articles are indeed lacking WP:RS, and most importantly, what do you think publishing entire articles related to Armenia/Azerbaijan is? It's a form of editing, and in this case, editing by non-ECP users hence violation of WP:GS/AA. - Kevo327 (talk) 14:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well let's continue in your logic, I do not publish only on Armenia - Azerbaijan, because as far as I know the Ottoman Empire is not an Azerbaijani empire, right? Once again, my sources are correct and most of them come directly from Armenians who lived through the 1915 genocide, all my pages have been reviewed at the moment, as far as I know, writing articles is not prohibited, and writing about turkic countries is not forbidden too, so swallow your rage and please stop deleting my work with an argument that makes no sense, if you want to argue the legitimacy of my articles you can do it and I will give you all the sources you need, for me this debate is closed, you do not accept as an Armenian to write articles that are not in favor of your country even when sometimes it includes Armenian sources , such as "Battle of Erzurum (1918)", but you don't do the same for Armenian articles which are not accessible and purely false when we check it, such as "Battle of Halizdor", "Syunik rebellion", "Battle of Mastara", and it doesn't cause you any problem because it suits your community, doesn't it? And again the last time you undo what I modified on the siege of Aintab, because it contained fraudulent information, no French sources claim that Andranik Ozanian was present in Cilicia, but you still have undo, lack of faith maybe ? Movaigonel (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you stop with the personal attacks, such behavior is not allowed on Wikipedia. Focus on content, not the contributor. Your created articles aren't just about Ottoman Empire, they mention various info about Armenia and Azerbaijan, including as belligerents, so articles such as these created by non-ECP editor are in violation of WP:GS/AA. - Kevo327 (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I'm sorry if my words touched you,
but you see, we're going to see my articles to contradict the argument that it's about "Azerbaijan-Armenia"
In conclusion 90% of the pages you want to delete have nothing to do with what you described, what I'm going to say is not against you, but I'm afraid you lose your objectivity due to the fact that you are Armenians, don't take what I said the wrong way but that's what I noticed. Good evening to you. Movaigonel (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User_talk:Movaigonel#July_2023 as explained, those are covered by WP:GS/AA. - Kevo327 (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Besides 1TWO3Writer, just checked all my pages, so I would like this debate to be closed because it has no place to be, and that you stop trying to delete my pages. Movaigonel (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I only checked for WP:CV per Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reports/Easy reviews#Unreviewed articles marked for AFD. Me marking them as reviewed does not mean they are notable. 1TWO3Writer (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Most of this articles are supported by RS and the content of the articles matches the references. Disruptive nom. Kges1901 (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've elaborated on the rationale of most of the articles, aside from the fact that these were created in violation of WP:GS/AA. Please take a closer look at the explanations. - Kevo327 (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've blocked Movaigonel for one week for the repeated violations of GS/AA. This AfD can continue, but given the number of pages involved and the nature of the deletion rationale, WP:AE or WP:ANI may have been a better forum of choice. signed, Rosguill talk 17:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep. I've never heard of an AfD being WP:TNT'ed, but this nomination is so problematic that TNT comes to mind. First of all, the nomination fails to state a valid deletion rationale for any of the nominated articles and in some cases states no deletion rationale at all. Second, each of these articles needs separate consideration. For instance, my !vote would be to WP:MERGE Mardakert offensive (July 1992) with the existing article Mardakert and Martuni Offensives. A quick WP:GOOGLECHECK suggests that there are enough reliable sources to establish notability but we don't need two articles on essentially the same subject. The other articles vary from being clearly notable, if poorly sourced, to being completely obscure. Fiachra10003 (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fiachra10003 I elaborated on the deletion reasons and crossed off the articles that could be improved or merged, now only articles that lack notability or reliable sources for their existence are listed. - Kevo327 (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this is a complicated bundled nomination with the nominator changing what they are requesting with several different articles. Participating editors should carefully review the nomination statement as Deletion is not being called for with all proposed articles. I'm almost tempted to do a procedural close so that these articles can be considered in individual or smaller bundled nominations but editors have invested time in this discussion so I will relist it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I can't see any way to provide useful input on such a large and complex bundled nom. I can see a case for bundled noms where we have a large number of cookie-cutter articles or a group of tightly related articles where the research involved in evaluating the nom would be substantially the same, but each of these articles requires a separate factual inquiry. Importantly, the WP:GS/AA violation is not a free-standing rationale for deletion, because as that page states: Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.-- Visviva (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Visviva I crossed some of the articles per Liz suggestion on my talk in order for it to be easier for voters and only left the most problematic ones. The ones left not only were created in violation of WP:GS/AA, but having several issues I highlight for each remaining article. Some are very problematic being just propaganda with no reliable sources confirming massacres like Massacre in Bashlybel.
    In general, I'd say the WP:ONUS is on the article creator to provide reliable sources, which they haven’t done for most of the articles, so deleting would be the best option. - Kevo327 (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Bearing in mind that most AFD participants are not experts in the military historiography of this region, can you explain why the sources currently cited e.g. in Battle of Salyan are not reliable? -- Visviva (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Visviva The participants would not need to be experts on military historiography, they would only need to be familiar with Anti-Armenian sentiment in Turkey and in Azerbaijan. If Turkish or Azerbaijani sources are making extraordinary claims about Armenian topics (in the case of Saylan, 'the small Turkic militia defeating the twenty-times larger Armenian-Russian-Iranian bad guys who also massacred civilians') that no neutral source mentions, then generally it does not belong on Wikipedia. The participants would also need to be aware that these are countries without academic integrity; all of their academic institutions are state-controlled and only promote nationalistic narratives even if that means rewriting history (see Kemalist historiography). The president of Turkey even claimed America was discovered by Turks.
    As for the specific sources on the Saylan article:
    The Yengin source is just a diary from over a century ago, not reliable per WP:PRIMARY.
    Güzel, Oğuz, and Karatay are genocide deniers. Page 483: "This is an important proof, demonstrating that Armenians were not subjected to genocide before and after the deportation."
    Güçlü is very apologetic to genocide denial and portrays it as a legitimate view, such as (Page 179) writing genocide deniers like Heath W. Lowry and Justin McCarthy "both dispute that the evidence supports a verdict of genocide" as opposed to "other historians...take a very different view". Also on Page 44: "Yet unlike the denial of the Holocaust that nourishes anti-Semitism, denial of the Armenian genocide is not part of a racist anti-Armenian ideology".
    The Altayli website is not a credible or established source, and includes articles denying genocide.
    I also found very little information about these writers, and suspect they would not pass Wikipedia:Notability (academics). - Kevo327 (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per HistoryofIran. TrangaBellam (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill Wreck the nom - This entire AfD proposal is so flawed as to be unworkable. I agree with Fiachra10003 that this is a poster child for WP:TNTing a nomination. Blow it up, created an AfD for each article, and discuss each one on the merits. As Rosguill points out below, there is a specific policy for this: WP:TRAINWRECK. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC) Last1in (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedutral Close this multipage AfD as malformed and consider each page separately. I look at the first two articles and the first one (Salayan) my vote would be del, while the second one (Karamaryan) is my keep. - Altenmann >talk 03:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Kill the nom per Last1in. Each article should be discussed separately. — Toghrul R (t) 06:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:ROC and WP:RS. The battle is not covered by Western historians, hence verification of events is difficult to achieve. The article is confusing to follow. It is written as though it was part of the Caucasus campaign, yet discusses that it falls in the scope of the Russian Revolution. A rewrite of the article in the context of the Southern Front of the Russian Civil War could be a solution, however the absence of Western coverage of the battle means it would be futile. ElderZamzam (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Can we cut it out with the "kill the nom" !votes? We have a more common and less-charged word for what is being proposed by these !votes, WP:TRAINWRECK. Let's keep the metaphorical violence to a minimum here. signed, Rosguill talk 14:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never thought of euthanasia as violent, but okay. Last1in (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Part of my concern was that "kill the nom" could be (mis)interpreted as "kill the nominator", rather than "kill the nomination". signed, Rosguill talk 15:08, 21 July 2023 (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/Battle_of_Salyan&oldid=1171131846"