Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whole Azerbaijan (2nd nomination)

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. There are sufficient sources for the concept of Azerbaijani irredentistusm; what the name should be needs further discussion. This will do as a start, & I'm changing the redirect of Greater Azerbaijan to point to this article. I think there's some content in earlier versions of it that could be merged. me DGG ( talk ) 22:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whole Azerbaijan

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Whole Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:OR, WP:Synthesis, WP:Advertisement. The whole article is based on synthesis self-made materials supported by non-reliable sources. Here I made a short summary of the situation of the references of this article:

  • Reference No. 1: turksam.org is a non-reliable source to be used in Wikipedia. Besides, Arif Keskin is a wel-known pan-turk activist, and more important than all, he hasn't use the expression Whole azerbaijan (Bütün Azerbaycan In Turkish) in his article.
  • Ref No. 2: Dead link. Non- verifiable non-reliable source. In addition the author's name (Arif Rehmoğlu) has no result in google scholar search
  • Ref No. 3: non-reliable non-verifiable partisan source, by the wel-know pan-turk Abulfaz Elchibey, ex-president of republic of Azerbaijan.
  • Ref No 4: Again non-reliable verifiable source by a newspaper in Baku!
  • Ref No 5: dead link

As it's obvious, there is no source to support the fringe idea, reported in the article body. Aliwiki (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


thanks for your comment. But the main problem here is non-reliable references and original research. The google search result can't be a valuable criterion since internet is full of rumors, synthesized and self-made materials, and here we don't have any RS supporting the ideas given, while I gave an opposite example of Turkmenchay Treaty. The article claims according to that treaty the land of Azerbaijan has been divided, while not only there isn't such claim, but there is no similar or even a weak semi-similar note in the text of the treaty about it. --Aliwiki (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - There is no reliable and/or academic source to back this article (Original Research); apparently based on a Pan-Turkist propaganda originated by Abulfaz Elchibey's speech during Azerbaijan-Armenia war. Similar to other false territorial labeling such as 'south Azerbaijan', 'western Azerbaijan (Armenia)', etc. that are being made and advertised by various Pan-Turkists. Cyrusace (talk) 05:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's been already stated that it's a notable article about an irredentist ideology and there are reliable sources which identify this term. My suggestion would be to move the article to Greater Azerbaijan which redirects to Treaty of Turkmenchay and supplement the article with reliable sources such as these: [1]. May I also add that the two accounts who cast their votes before me seem to be meatpuppets as they seem to have a casual editing history with just a few word changes throughout a year. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I mentioned twice before, the claim that Azerbaijan has been divided by the treaty of Turkmenchay is absolutely an aobvious false claim and it's in contradiction to WP:weasel words (which is made by the article and redirect page creator, not mean you). It's not even a fringe theory!. About google engine search results, as I noted in my previous comment can't be a criterion for decision here. I give a simple example; Iran Israel war, which has never beed occured yet, gives 136 000 000 results on the web pages [2], and 2 280 000 results on google books [3], and this doesn't mean we can have an article about it and there isn't any article about it on other encyclopedias such as Britannica, Iranica and etc.. The information provided in the article are whether wrong, or original research and according to WP:NPOV we can't state opinions as facts in Wikipedia. Regards, --Aliwiki (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about the number of google search results that should make an impression, so to speak, but the content of the results. Like I said, google Greater Azerbaijan and see how many reliable and scholarly sources you get. The link is above.
NOTE: Moreover, to show good faith, please remove your vote since, as mentioned below, you're not really to vote since you're the nominator. It would also make sense if active editors would vote on this deletion nomination, not go-by users who are most likely invited to drop a "delete" line and disappear until the next nomination. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's better that you find some strong or at least weak evidence before accusing me that I've invited others to vote. First, be sure that if I want to invite someone for voting, I am not so stupid to invite a user who is not a frequent editor. Second, I if I had that intention I would have done it in previous nomination (at the time that I was a new and non-expert wikipedian. Third, it's amazing that you and user mursel looked to his contributions and understood that his/her last edit was on may but I wonder how didn't you notice that before may he wasn't also a frequent user. I know better than you that the admin will not count the number of votes to decide to keep/delete the article since WP is not an experiment for democracy, but he will read the reasons and logic every one has provided here. I removed my vote for your convenience. About our AFDR topic, RS is not the only criterion for writing an article. There are many RS for Iran-Israel war example as-well. I gave an example on the article talk page. Let's consider that now president of China, for political reasons, is changing the name of a province near the India's boundry and gives the nam eof India to this province;Next year, a revolution in China will cause this country to be seperated to several indipendant states, including this small republic of India; At this time, can I write an article in the name of whole India starting with Whole India is an irredentist Indian concept that propagates the political union of territories currently inhabited by Hindis or historically controlled by them. Regards, --Aliwiki (talk) 13:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even understanding what exactly what you're trying to say. First off, immediate arrival of two casually editing accounts after your nomination speak for themselves. Even if an account was taking a break and all of a sudden appeared on such a page because he was the nomination in his dream, he would continue frequent editing, if he was a frequent editor in the past, though. Otherwise, the fact that some accounts appear out of nowhere to cast their votes, make reverts, etc then their actions are too obvious to disregard. Secondly, let the admins speak for themselves. A good faith editor nominating an article for deletion would just leave the comment in his reasoning remarks, not cast an additional vote. Don't worry, I've seen these tricks before. Third, to respond to your example. Yes, if the article about Whole India was based on legitimate sources, attesting to the fact that the term exists, that article could be created. Note my comment above though, that I, in fact suggested a a more broadly used term by scholars, the Greater Azerbaijan.Tuscumbia (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article does not fullfil the required criteria for nomination for deletion. No discussion was held on the given arguments and no good faith was implied in an effort to improve the article. Instead user Aliwiki rushed a 2nd nomination for deletio, this is also against the rules. Another fact is the nominator cannot vote in his own proposed deletion, yet Aliwiki did so anyway. The fact remains that most the issues can be solved. Where does it write that Azerbaijani land was divided? I couldnt find this. Anyway we could rewrite this as Azerbaijani people were divided, as my proposed sentence is supported by academic sources, for example: E. Cornell, Svante (2001). Small nations and great powers: a study of ethnopolitical conflict in the Caucasus. Curzon. p. 37 [4] writes: "However the result of the Treaty of Turkmenchay was a tragedy for the Azerbaijani people. It demarcated a borderline through their territory along the Araxes river, a border that still today divides the Azerbaijani people." This source should be implies in the article, there are numerous other reliable academic sources regarding this topic. Here are more examples of reliable academic sources regarding this subject: [5], [6], [7], etc. The fact is that this article is very close related to Treaty of Turkmenchay (as can also be seen from the mentioned source). Also why do you think Elchibey is an unreliable source? After all it was his idea. Like PhnomPencil said similar sources are also used in similar irredentist articles. I also find it suspicious how user Cyrusace last edit was on 10 October and in that edit he also cast a vote regarding deletion of an Azerbaijani related article. Cyrusace's edit before that was in the month May! [8] So its obvious that his account is used as a meatpuppet. And even user Wayiran has made only little edits and no sufficient contributions to Wikipedia. Mursel (talk) 10:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
here is the link of the book, and there is nothing as you have posted in your comment in page 37 and the word Turkmenchay has not been repeated even once in the book. But your sentence exists on Azerbaijan article and I guess you have taken it from there and used Wikipedia as source. The process of name adoption for the former soviet union states dates back to 1920's (Turkmenchay was signed on Feb., 1828). After annextion of South Caucasus to Russian empire, russians refered to the people as Caucasian Tatars or Azerbaijani in order to distinguish them from other Turkic people ref., because historically Russians were used to refer to all Turkic people as Tatars. This is not the only mistake made by Russians and there are several other similar examples. One similar is the Turkestan name:
Annette M. B. Meakin, In Russian Turkestan: a garden of Asia and its people, page 44. Excerpt: On their way southward from Siberia in 1864, the Russians took it, and many writers affirm that, mistaking its name for that of the entire region, they adopted the appellation of "Turkestan" for their new territory. Up to that time, they assure us Khanates of Bokhara, Khiva and Kokand were known by these names alone.
Central Asian review by Central Asian Research Centre (London, England), St. Antony's College (University of Oxford). Soviet Affairs Study Group, Volume 16, page 3. Excerpt: The name Turkestan is of Persian origin and was apparently first used by Persian geographers to describe "the country of the Turks". It was revived by the Russians as a convenient name for the governorate-general created in 1867 and the terms Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and etc. were not used until after 1924.
Come back to the case of Azerbaijan, interestingly the Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary (Энциклопедический словарь Брокгауза и Ефрона), also note that several scholars have later suggested to change the term in use for some Turko-tatar people for example use Azerbaijani Taras (Iranian by type) see Turko-Tatar article. So as a conclusion, Wikipedia could not be a mirror for presenting historical mistakes. --Wayiran (talk) 12:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Treaty of Turkmenchay. This is an irredentist non-academic fringe concept. In short, this is another case of using Wikipedia for nationalist [WP:SOAP]]ing, by creating articles like this, about mythical nationalist fringe concepts, citing a bunch of blogs, and unreliable non-academic sources, and violating WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:Synthesis in the process. Notable Azeri scholar Shireen T. Hunter, of Georgetown University, address this issue in "Iran and Transcuacsia in the Post-Soviet Era", writing in page 106 that "After the Ottoman empire had collapsed, both the Communists and, later, the Azerbaijani nationalists developed the myth of one Azerbaijan divided into a southern and northern part, comparing it to what happened to the two Germanics and to Korea, and using this myth to justify irredentist claims toward Iranian territory." Wikipedia is not WP:NOT#FANSITE to propagate fringe nationalist ideas. Kurdo777 (talk) 09:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I vote for deletion of this article because it doesn't meet conditions of several policies of Wikipedia, such as WP:NOT, WP:Original research, WP:synthesis, and WP:Fringe. It's clear to me that the author was not even aware of the history of the current Caucasian republic while bringing original opinions to the article. Here I list the opinion of some of famous academic scholars:

  • Ben Fowkes, Ethnicity and ethnic conflict in the post-communist world (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002) pg 30: In fact, in medieval times the name 'Azarbaijan' was applied not to the area of present independent Azerbaijan but to the lands to the south of Araxes river, now part of Iran. The lands to the north west of the Araxes were known as Albania; the lands to the north east, the heart of present-day post-Soviet Azerbaijan, were known as Sharvan (or Shirwan) and Derbent


  • (Bert G. Fragner, ‘Soviet Nationalism’: An Ideological Legacy to the Independent Republics of Central Asia ’ in” in Van Schendel, Willem(Editor) . Identity Politics in Central Asia and the Muslim World: Nationalism, Ethnicity and Labour in the Twentieth Century. London , GBR: I. B. Tauris & Company, Limited, 2001.: In the case of Azerbaijan , there is another irrational assault on sober treatment of history to be witnessed: its denomination. The borders of historical Azerbaijan crossed the Araxcs to the north only in the case of the territory of Nakhichevan . Prior to 1918, even Lenkoran and Astara were perceived as belonging not to Azerbaijan proper but to Talysh, an area closely linked to the Caspian territory of Gilan . Since antiquity, Azerbaijan has been considered as the region centered around Tabriz , Ardabil, Maraghch, Orumiych and Zanjan in today's (and also in historical) Iran . The homonym republic consists of a number of political areas traditionally called Arran . Shirvan, Sheki, Ganjeh and so on. They never belonged to historical Azerbaijan , which dates back to post-Achaemcnid, Alexandrian 'Media Atropatene'. Azerbaijan gained extreme importance under (and after) the Mongol Ilkhanids of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, when it was regarded as the heartland of Iran.
  • Vladimir Minorsky. Caucasica IV. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 15, No. 3. (1953), p. 504: The territory of the present-day Soviet republic of Azarbayjan roughly corresponds to the ancient Caucasian Albania (in Armenian Alovan-k', or Alvan-k', in Arabic Arran > al-Ran

There is no doubt that the article content is original research and advertisement for pan-nationalists.Reza1615 (talk) 10:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the historical background behind it is flimsy, the idea does exist. Maps published under the auspices of the government of Azerbaijan label areas like Armenia as "Western Azerbaijan" when such a designation has never even existed in the past, let alone the present. The best course might be to discourage the creation of such poorly-sourced articles on Wikipedia.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The ideology has many supporters not only in Azerbaijan, but in all regions shown in the map, where Azerbaijani people are highly concentrated. It should be noted that, before Azerbaijan gained independence, this idea was also supported by Soviet leadership, especially by Stalin (however he wanted to include Whole Azerbaijan into Soviet Union). --Verman1 (talk) 10:45, 2 December 2011 (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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Whole_Azerbaijan_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138724037"