Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:19, 14 February 2022

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.

Please see User:Sandstein/AfD closing for an explanation of the closing process.

I am discounting the "keep" opinions by Yerevanci and VartanM (because they contain personal attacks), and by Sprutt, Eupator and Hiosn (because they do not address the arguments put forth for deletion). This leaves us with 4 "delete", 1 "redirect" and 1 "keep" opinion. Although I give less weight to the "delete" opinion by Angel670 (because it is just a bare assertion), this is sufficient to find a consensus that we should not have a separate article on this topic: It is not my job as closer to determine whether the nominator's analysis of sources is correct, but all except one of the (non-discounted) opinions expressed in this discussion agree with him. The article is consequently deleted. Whether it should redirect anywhere, and where to, is a separate editorial decision.  Sandstein  05:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Northern Artsakh

• Articles for deletion/Northern Artsakh
• Articles for deletion/Northern Artsakh (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Northern Artsakh (4th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Northern Artsakh 2

Northern Artsakh (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)

This article survived 3 AFDs, but still remains nothing but original research. It has only one direct reference, Samvel Karapetian, which is a nationalist author from Armenia. Even if we consider the topic of this article to be a nationalist concept existing in Armenia, one source is not sufficient to establish notability. All the info contained in the article is WP:SYNTH, i.e. the creators took verifiable info from reliable sources that never mention "Northern Artsakh" and included it in the article to make it look as if all those sources describe this alleged historical region, which they don't. For example, August von Haxthausen never uses the term, but he is quoted nonetheless. The same with statistics. None of them relate to "Northern Artsakh", those are just statistics from various Soviet administrative units, and the USSR never had any administrative division or geographic or political concept called "Northern Artsakh". The map is also an original research, it does not come from any reliable source and represents the idea of the creator. It is time for the community to make the final decision about this OR article. Grandmaster 05:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, looking into the history of the article, there appeared to be a consensus at talk that this article be merged into some other article, even though the opinions differed to which one exactly. But once the article was merged, the merge was reverted: , and subsequent edit war with involvement of anon IPs and one registered user resulted in the article remaining. And looking at the last AfD, which I missed, it looks like the editors commenting there mixed mentions of northern Artsakh (i.e. northern part of the region called Artsakh) in some literature with the alleged geopolitical notion of "Northern Artsakh", the latter meant to include large territories beyond the region of Artsakh/Karabakh, such as Ganja, Gazakh, etc, up to the border of Azerbaijan with Georgia. Grandmaster 06:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep First of all, the region was called Artsakh long before Turkic tribes appeared in the region and called it Karabakh. The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast borders do not have anything to do with historical Artsakh's borders, look at the map on the right.

Yes, I do agree that the term Northern Artsakh is relatively new, but I can't agree that Samvel Karapetyan's 2004 book is the only source on that topic.

Here are two articles from newspaper Yerkir from 1991 that refer to the region (especially Shahumyan) as Northern Artsakh:

• http://ankakhutyun.am/archives/1800
• http://ankakhutyun.am/archives/1796

Also, isn't Western Azerbaijan (political concept) the same? I will agree to delete this article, only if that article would be deleted as well.

Before calling S. Karapetyan a nationalist, please read more of your president's speeches, for example the one saying our main enemies are Armenians of the world, which sounds fascist to me personally as an Armenian.--Yerevanci (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yerkir is not a third-party source either. Parishan (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

When did I say it's third-party source? The problem here is not neutrality, but the term which is used by Armenians to describe the region. See the deference? This article clearly states that Northern Artsakh is a a geopolitical concept used in the Republic of Armenia to refer the region in north-western Azerbaijan.--Yerevanci (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Western Azerbaijan (political concept) and Greater Armenia (political concept) are notable political concepts, because they are supported by notable politicians in respective countries. As for the political concept called Northern Artsakh, I don't see any significant political party or movement supporting it, and no proof of its existence as an actual political concept. It is only promoted by one scholar in Armenia, and therefore is a very marginal view. The newspapers are not in English, and we cannot verify what they say, but then again, assuming that they use the combination of words "Northern Artsakh", that is still not enough to establish notability. Grandmaster 19:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's not my problem that you can't read Armenian. It's 2012 out. You can use online translators.

And what is Western Azerbaijan based on? On some dictator's speech to his servants? That's what it seems to me.

Above you said the following: one of them relate to "Northern Artsakh", those are just statistics from various Soviet administrative units, and the USSR never had any administrative division or geographic or political concept called "Northern Artsakh".

And was Western Azerbaijan ever used during Soviet era? No. Isn't it original research as well? Isn't this double standard? --Yerevanci (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

If a notable politician such as the country leader uses the concept, then it proves its notability. Which well known politician uses "Northern Artsakh" as a political concept? Western Azerbaijan may contain original research, but it does not excuse the OR in this article. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Grandmaster 19:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not bringing that up as an excuse. I'm saying that if you delete this article, I don't see any reason why you should keep the other one. Just because Aliyev said that Armenia's territory is historically Turkic doesn't give you permission to create an article and fill it with biased information.--Yerevanci (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Nominate that article for deletion, if you are convinced that it should not exist. Greater Armenia (political concept) also presents a biased point of view, but since it is supported by the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, it is notable for an article. Grandmaster 20:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You know what? Why am I even discussing something with some Azeri, whose soldiers kill my compatriots on the border and his fascist leader considers my nations his enemy. Good luck my lovely neighbor, have fun!--Yerevanci (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Please mind WP:CIVIL. Grandmaster 05:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete. It is curious how articles like this come to be created when there is absolutely no basis to it, not to mention the POV nature of the single relevant source used. Even with the minor and rather questionable evidence presented, it is not clear as to when and how exactly this entity was monolithic or existed outside of its surrounding. The article makes references to the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, neither of which controlled a region with such a name. The rest of the article are just facts about eight separate administrative units of Azerbaijan, again without any proof as to why they should be groupped in this article. One might as well group and report on Switzerland, Austria and Liechtenstein in one article and call it 'Northern Italy'. Parishan (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Super, Strong, Huge, Mega, Giant, Keep Article is sourced and is about a term that is used in the Republic of Armenia. It has been kept 3 times and will be kept again. Azerbaijani editors need to get over their butthurt and get back to their Eurovision parties. VartanM (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Վարդան ախպեր, սրանց սիկտիր արա, թող գնան ինչ քաք ուզում են ուտեն: Ավելի լավ ա լուրջ էջերի վրա ուշադրություն դարձնենք, էս էջը առանձնապես ոչ մի բանի պետք չի: Նենց որ բանի տեղ մի դիր սրանց: Ճիշտ կլինի մեր ուժերը կենտրոնացնել ցեղասպանության, Սումգայիթի ու ուրիշ կարևոր էջերի վրա: --Yerevanci (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Երեվանցի ջան, Մայ փոինթ էկզակլի: Իֆ յու դոնթ վանթ դեմ թու անդերստանդ վաթ յու վռոթ, յու նիդ թու վռայթ ին ռիվերս թռանսլիտ, ադրվայզ դեյ քան յուզ գուգլ տրանսլեյթ: Besides, its freaking summer outside, WTF are you guys fighting over a stupid article on wikipedia. VartanM (talk) 06:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Strong keep. The lack of references is a rectifiable issue. Plenty of references can be found everywhere. Sprutt (talk) 05:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It has been waiting to be rectified since July 2009. Do you not think this is enough time for it to be considered untenable? Parishan (talk) 05:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

This request for deletion is a misuse of the deletion policy, plain and simple. I checked the article again and it has several good references. Samvel Karapetian is reliable source who features in many WP articles. The reference to WP:SYNTH is misuse as well. Reliable sources, good text, notable concept. This abuse of process shall be reported to administration enforcement. Sprutt (talk) 14:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

None of the "several good references" mention anything by the name of "Northern Artsakh". Samvel Karapetian is yet to be proven as a reliable source, as is any post-1991 historian on the Caucasus from Armenia or Azerbaijan. Parishan (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete The article is clearly original research.Angel670 talk 20:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep We have an academic book about medieval Armenian architecture that uses the term "Northern Artsakh" as a definition of the region that lies immediately to the north of the territory of modern Nagorno Karabakh (see http://www.raa.am/Hs_Arcax/pict/Images/hs_artsakh_e.jpg). This book is part of a substantial series of books dealing with Armenian architecture in regions that are outside of the Republic of Armenia. That is more than enough to indicate the term's existence. Nagorno Karabakh is often also called "Artsakh" - but that is a modern borrowing of an old name. Medieval Artsakh is not the same territory as modern Nagorno Karabakh, and obviously that medieval territory had a "northern" section. "Northern Artsakh" is now used to define the territory of (and the historical monuments in) historical Artsakh that lies outside of, and to the north of, the borders of modern Nagorno Karabakh. Meowy 02:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I do think the article's content is rather unsatisfactory. It seems overly concentrated on just proving an Armenian presence, rather than having sources and an account of the region's history make that case. However, unsatisfactory content is not a reason to delete an article - it is a reason to keep it and try to improve it. Meowy 02:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

There's just one book using the term Northern Artsakh and claiming that there was such a region. One book is not sufficient to justify the claim that Northern Artsakh was a historical region. Plus, the author of that book Samvel Karapetian is not the most neutral person either, the British expert on the region of South Caucasus Thomas de Waal calls him an "Armenian ultranationalist". The article claims that Northern Artsakh is a political concept, but no sources exist to explain how it is used and who are the most notable proponents of it. Parishan is right, 3 years were more than enough to find some sources, including third party ones, if the topic of the article was something that actually existed in some shape or form. The fact that after 3 years we still have only one reference directly related to the topic, and even that one is of a dubious quality, speaks for itself. Grandmaster 04:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

This obsession over the last 5 years you have about Samvel Karapetian, all of it based on a single sentence in an article by a journalist who has not written one word about architecture in his entire career, isn't going to run. Karapetian heads a notable research organisation and has authored numerous substantial and specialist academic books on medieval Armenian architecture over some 3 decades. The wording "Northern Artsakh" is also used in the 2001 book "Armenian Cultural Monuments in the Region of Karabakh". For example, from the preface on page 8, explaining what is not included in that volume: "Numerous monuments of Armenian history and architecture still remain undocumented (particularly, in Ghazakh, Shamkhor, Touz, Getabek, Dashkesan, Khanlar, Goran districts in Northern Artsakh; and Norashen, Nakhijevan, Shabooz, Julfa and Ordubad districts in Autonomous Republic of Nakhijevan"). Meowy 13:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

De Waal does not have to be an architect to understand that Karapetian was expressing racist views, denying Azerbaijani people the right to live in Kelbajar and other places, from where they were ethnically cleansed, calling them interlopers, invaders, etc. There's a whole chapter in his book about his conversation with Karapetian. I would like to see at least one third party source, published outside of the region by a notable international scholar, supporting the claim that there was a historical region called Northern Artsakh. Again, to have an article about the historical topic, there should be multiple reliable sources published by international academia. If we are talking about political concept popular in Armenia, again there's not enough evidence to support notability, as it is not clear who are the most notable proponents of it. "Armenian Cultural Monuments in the Region of Karabakh" is a publication by the same Samvel Karapetian. Karapetian is not sufficient to justify an existence of a stand alone article, considering blatant partisan nature of his publications. We need multiple independent and reliable sources to justify the existence of this article. Grandmaster 13:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I wonder, over the 5 or so years have you ever consulted even a single work by Karapetian to judge the quality of his output? Northern Artsakh is a recognised academic term used to define this region in an historical context. Are you disputing that an historical Artsakh existed? Are you disputing that its borders extended far beyond the modern borders of Nagorno Karabakh (which is nowadays also often called "Artsakh") on its northern side? Obviously not. So what alternative term do you think exists to define those northern parts, those parts that lie outside of what is now widely known as "Artsakh"? The terminology seems to be modern - but that will be because until the recent past there was no modern Artsakh (i.e. Nagorno Karabakh) for the medieval Artsakh to be confused with. Are we going to go around saying there is no such thing as "East Prussia" because all of it is now part of Poland, Russia, and Lithuania? Also, see page 119 of "Armenia: A Historical Atlas" by Robert H. Hewsen, 2001: "It was in this way that the east Siwnid state of Khachen or northern Artsakh, ruled by this fourth Siwnid line, rose to prominance during the 9th and 10th centuries". Hewsen here isn't talking about exactly the same territory of the article's Northern Artsakh (it does not include Gardman), but to a part of Artsakh whose southern section now lies inside the northern part of modern Nagorno Karabakh, and whose northern section now lies inside Azerbaijan. However, it does indicate a usage of the term. Meowy 15:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

We have an article about Artsakh. If this article is about the northern part of that region, then what is the point in its existence? If "Northern Artsakh" was some recognized entity like North Carolina, then it would deserve a stand alone article, but why have an article with only one reference and very little actual info? Hewsen clearly refers to the northern part of Artsakh, and not some distinct region of Northern Artsakh. Khachen and and Syunik are located within the traditional Artsakh/Karabakh region. So northern part of Artsakh is not the same as Northern Artsakh, the latter is claimed to be located outside of traditional Artsakh. Grandmaster 20:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Delete I expressed the concern some time ago. A very murky irredentist concept with virtually no coverage in non-Armenian sources (as could be verified both by Google test and in Google Books). The existing scratchy info could be accomodated within any relevant article. In fact Northern Artsakh just means northern Karabakh. Brandmeister 16:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

  In fact, the name Artsakh is older than Karabakh. Please read more history books.--Yerevanci (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  05:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Relist comment: The preceding discussion is conducted exclusively by people who appear to be involved in the nationalist disputes surrounding this topic area (see WP:ARBAA2). Can we please have some opinions by others?  Sandstein  05:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

  I agree. I would greatly appreciate third opinions. Maybe we can ask for third opinion on RFC board, or some similar place? Grandmaster 06:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep This region is synonymous with Gardman, modern sources no longer use the ancient toponym of Gardman and instead refer to the region as Northern Artsakh.-- Ευπάτωρ 10:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gardman (or vice versa) - since Eupator is right that Artsakh and Gardman coincide, it's a content fork to have articles on both. The map in Gardman clearly shows the same geographic area. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

  While I agree that this article should be made a redirect, I'm not sure that it should be redirected to Gardman, as Gardman was part of another region called Utik. Even the Armenian primary source Anania Shirakatsi mentions that Gardman was a part of Utik (and not of Artsakh, or "Northern Artsakh"). The notion of "Northern Artsakh" is a modern invention by Samvel Karapetian. In the opinion of Karapetian "Northern Artsakh" included Utik, and many other regions up to the modern border of Azerbaijan with Georgia. But as I noted above, the ideas of one author do not merit a stand alone article. Grandmaster 11:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

  The Armenian media and various organizations that represent Armenian refugees ethnically cleansed from the region regularly use the term "Northern Artsakh", none of them are tied to Samvel Karapetyan in any shape or form: , , . Since these territories lie outside of Artsakh for the most part and were not part of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast, obviously it's not merely a reference to the Northern region of Artsakh.-- Ευπάτωρ 11:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

  If "Northern Artsakh" was a historic region, then what was Utik? "Northern Artsakh" clearly overlaps with Utik. The ancient primary sources do not mention any "Northern Artsakh", and neither do any prominent international experts on the ancient history of the region. I never saw any mention of "Northern Artsakh" in the works of Minorsky, Dowsett, Hewsen, etc. The main problem with this article is that no reliable third party academic sources could be found on the topic, and according to the WP:RS, "if no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it". This article have no prospects of expansion beyond the lead, because everything else is just WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, as I explained above. Someone just dumped into the article the Russian Imperial and Soviet statistics which have nothing to do with "Northern Artsakh". If you remove all the WP:SYNTH from the article, then what's left is just one line from the lead, which is also unsourced, and that's what we have after 4 years of the article's existence. Grandmaster 12:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

  Anyone could find mentions of region in academic sources like Mutafian, Chorbajian and Croissant. They are prominent international experts. OptimusView (talk) 10:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

  Croissant does not use the term, the only mention of this combination of words in his book is the quote of a declaration by Armenian separatists, which says: They assume the obligation to represent the national interests of the Armenian population in northern Artsakh (NKAO), Shaumyan rayon, and Getashen districts. Source: Yerevan International Service, 3 December 1989. But as anyone can see from the above quote, the word northern does not start with a capital letter, which means that it refers to the northern part of Artsakh, and which for them is the territory of former NKAO, plus Shaumyan and Getashen are listed separately, while they are supposed to be a part of "Northern Artsakh". Same with Chorbajian and Mutafian, they mention "northern Artsakh", i.e. northern part of the region, but not the distinct region of "Northern Artsakh". Grandmaster 20:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Croissant cites this term as he recognizes it. NA was enough distinct to have a prince (Sahl Smbatian) and to be a principality. OptimusView (talk) 07:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

you write here that there are no reliable sources and quietly remove them from article. How a quoted text could be an original research? OptimusView (talk) 07:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• "lord of northern Artsakh" does not mean that he was a ruler of a distinct region of "Northern Artsakh". If you search books, you can find some references to "northern Artsakh", but those are references to the northern part of Artsakh, not a distinct region of "Northern Artsakh". By the same token, the combination of words "southern Artsakh" can also be encountered, but that does not mean we should have an article on "Southern Artsakh". We don't need an occasional mention of northern part of Artsakh, we need multiple sources that would describe the distinct region of "Northern Artsakh", its boundaries, etc. So far nothing that could qualify as WP:RS has been provided. Grandmaster 07:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

  And this edit: is simply disruptive and is a violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Neither of the sources that you included in that revert mention Northern Artsakh. You cannot include in the article you personal interpretation of the sources, it is an original research. If you don't know what OR means, read the rule. According to the rules, OR "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented". Grandmaster 07:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. The article was nominated for deletion several times and the nominations were defeated. Hiosn (talk) 12:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC) — Hiosn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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.