Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 Artsakh blockade
- 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. WP:SNOW. Consensus is clear that this event is notable; as deletion is not clean-up, issues relating to the article content should occur at the talk page. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- 2022 Artsakh blockade (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)
The alleged blockade is not being reported by reliable news outlets as it completely relies on Armenian media reports, with the only non Armenian source cited calling it a disinformation. Ecrusized (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep - OP's AfD reason is entirely null as third party sources reported about the blockade [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. I suggest OP do a little more research before launching an AfD like this. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- The sources you have cited are Armenian like I stated in my deletion request. euneighbourseast focuses on headlines specific to Armenia. RFE/RL states that the article is written by its Armenian edition at the top. The statements by EU do not confirm the alleged blockade taking place. It only states the EU is concerned by alleged reports. Again I stand my argument, the article is entirely made up of first party accusations by one country towards another. There are zero 3rd party sources reporting in on this. Ecrusized (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
RFE/RL states that the article is written by its Armenian edition at the top.
- It's published by RFE still, and I don't see "alleged" in other sources. Also, Eurasianet which is third party, reliable and used in many AA2 articles also wrote about the blockade [6] so again, this article has all merits to stay. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- The sources you have cited are Armenian like I stated in my deletion request. euneighbourseast focuses on headlines specific to Armenia. RFE/RL states that the article is written by its Armenian edition at the top. The statements by EU do not confirm the alleged blockade taking place. It only states the EU is concerned by alleged reports. Again I stand my argument, the article is entirely made up of first party accusations by one country towards another. There are zero 3rd party sources reporting in on this. Ecrusized (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- the article should be rid of armenian sources and use third-party ones. The whole article feels like one from the armenian wikipedia and there's a huge imbalance towards the armenian point of view. The topic is notable, but the article isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.134.58.187 (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - if the article is not meeting WP:NPOV then this issue should be solved by editing and doesn't require deletion Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - per rationale above. Archives908 (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. I repeat, the article consists of Armenian sources only because it is a translation from the Armenian Wikipedia. It is necessary to add foreign sources, since they are, as indicated above. PLATEL (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - seems to meet notability requirements and has coverage by international reliable sources. - Indefensible (talk) 03:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - Coverage, notability requirements are met. WP:GNG met.BabbaQ (talk) 11:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep and develop the article better. I'm not qualified to comment on the claims of biased sources, but deletion is not the remedy for such a thing. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- 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.