This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Armenia. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Armenia|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Armenia. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Asia.
watch |
New alerts are automatically placed here, this page is kept as a historic reference.
Articles for deletion
- Karine Babajanyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lacks inline citations. Sources listed mostly lack independence from the subject. Not clear that the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Armenia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Verkine Karakashian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Theatre, Armenia, Greece, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. No refs. If any coverage of this person ever surfaces, it would take exactly 10 minutes to write a better article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: There is a book reference in the article. I would suggest to keep the article, unless someone actually provided an assessment of its coverage. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- @TheJoyfulTentmaker That is not a valid policy based keep vote. WP:SIGCOV requires multiple sources with independent significant coverage, which we generally interpret at AFD is a minimum of three sources. One book source, no matter how in-depth does not meet our notability guidelines.4meter4 (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- I kindly disagree, a single book may indicate existence of more sources. Even without references, deletion nominators are expected to do a good faith WP:BEFORE: to check Google, Google Books, Google Scholar, and Wikipedia Library if possible. AfD is not a place to urge people to fix unreferenced articles. Nomination must come only after there are good indicators that the subject is not notable, regardless of the state of the article; as stated in WP:NEXIST. Sorry for repeating these in multiple nominations of yours, but there are not enough people watching these nominations about niche topics like this one, and I honestly believe it will be a loss for the encyclopedia if these are prematurely deleted. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- @CeeGee I think you created the article, pinging just in case you were not notified. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- We need other sources, suggesting that they exist isn't helpful Oaktree b (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- @TheJoyfulTentmaker You seem to be misinterpreting policy language. WP:SIGCOV requires multiple sources as a non-negotiable criteria for all wikipedia articles. It's a must and its policy. Period. WP:NEXIST requires people voting to keep articles to produce multiple sources at the time of making a keep argument at an AFD. Asserting there are sources through guesswork is not following NEXIST; nor is arguing for keep based on a book you personally have not seen. Providing sources with url links or the names, publication dates, and pages of specific sources that you personally have looked at is following NEXIST. As for me, I looked at several standard opera reference works, including a Russian language music encyclopedia and found nothing on this person. My attempt at BEFORE may not be perfect but please WP:AGF. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- I suggest you re-read WP:SIGCOV because it doesn't say what you think it does. The immediate subsection doesn't mention the number of sources but a bit further it says
"Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.
Multiple sources are not a "must" and the requirement is not "policy" (our notability documents relate to guidance rather than policy). Thincat (talk) 10:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- I suggest you re-read WP:SIGCOV because it doesn't say what you think it does. The immediate subsection doesn't mention the number of sources but a bit further it says
- @TheJoyfulTentmaker You seem to be misinterpreting policy language. WP:SIGCOV requires multiple sources as a non-negotiable criteria for all wikipedia articles. It's a must and its policy. Period. WP:NEXIST requires people voting to keep articles to produce multiple sources at the time of making a keep argument at an AFD. Asserting there are sources through guesswork is not following NEXIST; nor is arguing for keep based on a book you personally have not seen. Providing sources with url links or the names, publication dates, and pages of specific sources that you personally have looked at is following NEXIST. As for me, I looked at several standard opera reference works, including a Russian language music encyclopedia and found nothing on this person. My attempt at BEFORE may not be perfect but please WP:AGF. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- I kindly disagree, a single book may indicate existence of more sources. Even without references, deletion nominators are expected to do a good faith WP:BEFORE: to check Google, Google Books, Google Scholar, and Wikipedia Library if possible. AfD is not a place to urge people to fix unreferenced articles. Nomination must come only after there are good indicators that the subject is not notable, regardless of the state of the article; as stated in WP:NEXIST. Sorry for repeating these in multiple nominations of yours, but there are not enough people watching these nominations about niche topics like this one, and I honestly believe it will be a loss for the encyclopedia if these are prematurely deleted. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- @TheJoyfulTentmaker That is not a valid policy based keep vote. WP:SIGCOV requires multiple sources with independent significant coverage, which we generally interpret at AFD is a minimum of three sources. One book source, no matter how in-depth does not meet our notability guidelines.4meter4 (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Well, this source mentions this person [1], but that's all I can find. I don't think we have enough sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Oaktree b Just a note: during the period she was active, The Ottoman Empire used the Arabic writing system. So search is not trivial. Even modern sources include various different spellings of her name. Trying the modern Turkish spelling Verkine Karakaşyan, I can easily find at least one journal paper. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Also, I can only see a short segment from the Google Books preview, but the book you linked might have a significant coverage (there are three search hits in separate places of the book). Here is the the second one, page 67: "... Verkine Karakashian read his poem “Freedom” and moved the audience so deeply that the ceremony was repeated for several nights in a row. After this incident, gradually more young girls showed the courage to go onstage and break the ...". Seems there is more before and after this passage, and this itself probably has a citation in the book; so if anyone has access to this book it would be really helpful if you could check. Separately, I added two more sources to the article and found the ISBN number of the book, referenced by CeeGee, who created the article. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: The Armenian wiki has some links, but I'm not in a position to say if they're RS or not. Oaktree b (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly not notable Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 17:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Armenian–Azerbaijani cultural relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is largely WP:OR and created by a now indef blocked user that had a history of using revisionist/negationist citations and misusing citations. Lacks WP:RS, unreliable sources include other Wiki projects and links that don't work. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. Shellwood (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- The motives of a creator are not necessarily outweighed by the fact of notability. I’m unclear as the the nomination reasoning. Bearian (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Fix the article then? The topic is certainly notable. C F A 💬 13:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. If it's notable, blow it up and start again. This is not a good start and is too problematic to keep around. Yilloslime (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- This article is nowhere near TNT territory. There are a few unreliable sources but they can be removed/replaced as necessary. We shouldn't delete articles just because the creator apparently has a bad track record. For the record, I think using TNT to delete any article on a notable topic is a prime example of "lazy editing". Fix it yourself or someone else will do it eventually. C F A 💬 15:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- That can be an extremely dangerous position to take, depending on the topic of the article. This particular one involves genocide and genocide denial. (Relevant context: 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh, among many others.) Sometimes things really are "too problematic to keep around". -- asilvering (talk) 06:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- No one has actually presented any evidence, beyond a few citations to Wiktionary, to justify why this article is so irredeemably flawed that it warrants deletion. As far as I can tell we're going off the fact that the creator was blocked – arguably just grave dancing. I wouldn't be sticking up for it if was obviously an anti-NPOV attack page mess, but the article is actually fairly well-written. C F A 💬 12:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- That can be an extremely dangerous position to take, depending on the topic of the article. This particular one involves genocide and genocide denial. (Relevant context: 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh, among many others.) Sometimes things really are "too problematic to keep around". -- asilvering (talk) 06:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- This article is nowhere near TNT territory. There are a few unreliable sources but they can be removed/replaced as necessary. We shouldn't delete articles just because the creator apparently has a bad track record. For the record, I think using TNT to delete any article on a notable topic is a prime example of "lazy editing". Fix it yourself or someone else will do it eventually. C F A 💬 15:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete There don't appear to be reliable sources indicating the notability of this topic, it should be deleted, Wikipedia isn't a place for articles that aren't notable. AntEgo (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Archives908 (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after considering this discussion. The basis of this deletion nomination is the lack of RS but there are over 80 references here. A source analysis to actually review all of these sources and see if they are "unreliable" would be helpful. As other Delete positions are either per nom or weak on polcy reasoning, I think further consideration is due.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)