Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 19:19, 12 May 2024

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2012 December 10. For an explanation of the process, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review.

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 delete. Many of the arguments to keep the article are just a vote with no valid rationale for keeping attached. Those arguing for deletion have presented a valid argument that the article is an unecessary split from the main article on the subject and that the recent "expansion" added little to nothing of value. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Name of Azerbaijan

Name of Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No need for this article as the same relevant info is covered by the etymology section of the Azerbaijan article. E4024 (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

keep.

• The article is much longer now with an added etymology section.
• There is a name of asia temple where there is articles with names of other countries: "name of afghanistan,name of south korea, name of Iran, name of Armenia..". Unless those are deleted, then there is no need to delete this. ..Note these names pre-date the modern states by at least 2200 years, so the name is not necessary the same as a modern country with that name or even has the same boundaries.
• Azerbaijan today refers to two entities, but the pre-Islamic Azerbaijan(Aturpatakan) at least has nothing to do with the modern country..the pre-Islamic Azerbaijan is in NW Iran (see link below) and when and to what scaope the name "Azerbaijan" was used in the Caucasus, is very disputed (per below). Also there is an Iranian Azerbaijan article, which is not the same as the Caucasian entity and had trhe name Azerbaijan much before the Caucasian entity.
• There is working page which represented the much more longer version: where data is supposed to be incorporated by Dbachmann. --140.147.236.194 (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Like the nom said, this is an unnecessary split from the Azerbaijan article, which already has a section on its etymology. There is no real need to split this off to its own article. Rorshacma (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
• keep The etymology section is expanded--Espiral (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
• Question to Espiral (and whomever) Is the IP up there is yours? I know it is too little evidence to deduce that because you may have similar interests in WP or both of you write "keep" instead of "Keep"; so I apologize in advance if I am inventing something. I would like to ask Checkusers and Admins that a regular "check" should be made for every IP that participates in any discussion... --E4024 (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

No, the ip is not me. A who-is shows a different continent.--Espiral (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Weak keep - the article is slightly annoying with its lengthy encyclopedia quotes but, hey, it is twice as long as the etymology section in the Azerbaijan article. Shouldn't the deletionists at least be arguing for a merger if they think the split is unnecessary? In my view, there seems to be sufficient sourced info to sustain a separate article. Sionk (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Merging is unnecesarry in this case because all the information on this page is already present in the section of the main article. The only thing this really has that isn't at that page is the lengthy copied quotes, which do nothing except state the exact same information in three different ways.Rorshacma (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. The article needs improvement though ... --Lysozym (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
• Keep- the article contains about double the information of that on the original page, and the subject matter seems large enough that a sizable amount of space would have to be devoted to it were it to be merged to the original page. Ducknish (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• What is this double the information consist of, exactly? Both this article and the etymology section of Azerbaijan state the exact same information. What it is that the name directly translates to mean, and that the name was derived from Atropates, a ruler from the past. The only reason this article seems so much longer is because it just contains lengthy passages directly copied and pasted from other sources. Not only is this not standard practice here, but all three quotes all just reiterate the same information regarding Atropates. Rorshacma (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
• And they were added today, by an IP, after the deletion was proposed... --E4024 (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Keep- The etymology section is expanded.Iroony (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
• weak keep Etymology articles/sections tend to grow to vast lengths, and it's better to keep this off the main article as most people will want information about the country, not having to wade through multiple paragraphs about the name. But it's still a valid topic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete -As pointed out the article is larger only because of the superfluous quotes. The material is already covered in the main article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• keep Because originally and in real world , that name has been a controversial topic : Some of the writers in republic of Azerbaijan tend to present a new etymology for the name , that it's argument is reflected in Name of Azerbaijan/workpage and the history of the page . So deleting the bulk of evidences and expansion of the topic , may pave the way for coming controversy .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Minus the excessive quotations, this is an unneeded duplication of the etymology section of the main article.  Sandstein  13:37, 6 October 2012 (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.

• Pages at deletion review