- 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 no consensus to delete, but consensus to do something - most likely some significant editing via collaboration and talk page discussion, and potentially having a conversation on the talk page of a rename and/or refocus for the article. Daniel (talk) 00:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Azerbaijani-Mongolian cultural relations
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Azerbaijani-Mongolian cultural relations (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)
Article is one big WP:OR mess. Not sure where even to start.
This article is named "Azerbaijani-Mongolian cultural relations", yet talks about Turks (which is a huge group, Turkic peoples) the vast majority of the time, which makes sense, considering the Azerbaijanis were not even close to forming an ethnonym at this time (we're talking multiple centuries here). The article quite bizarrely tries to claim all Turks in the area and period as "Azerbaijani", which is pure historical revisionism. This is not surprising, considering the article was translated from the Azerbaijani Wikipedia (where even the ancient Manneans [1] are claimed as "Turks" in "Azerbaijani" land), literally a mirror of all the historical revisionism/negationism campaigned by the government of Azerbaijan and its predecessor governments, all the way to the early Soviet era. Wikipedia even has an article and a whole section dedicated to it Historical_negationism#Azerbaijan and Falsification of history in Azerbaijan.
The article also uses the irredentist term "South Azerbaijan", also part of the same historical revisionism. It also cites a lot of "sources" published in Azerbaijan, which are not WP:RS, as the country is notorious in scholarship for campaigning for this kind of historical revisionism/negationism.
Sources that are actually WP:RS such as the Yarshater citation is used to mention info about the Turks in the Ilkhanate army, which is indeed mentioned in the source, but what does it have to do with the Azerbaijanis? Nothing.
Besides the two articles I just mentioned, there are countless other sources (listed down below) which also report on the Azerbaijanis not being an ethnonym at this time (first really started emerging in 1918 and the 1930s with that name and the identity they have today) and the historical revisionism/negationism heavily pushed by Azerbaijan since Soviet times. This is unanimous in scholarship. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The ethnonym Azerbaijani
|
---|
|
Historical negationism/revisionism in Azerbaijan
|
---|
|
The toponym Azerbaijan
|
---|
|
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mongolia and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Keep and modify/rename. Since I am not the author of the article, but the translator, I asked from the original author on the other wiki. Now I see he's not allowed to edit here. If the naming is problem then we can rename it something like to "Turko-Mongolian cultural relations in Azerbaijan (area)" or "Turko-Mongoloan cultural relations in Caucasian and Iranian Azerbaijan" etc.
- About the term "South Azerbaijan", to be honest I don't know how is it considered as irredentism, but anyway, I don't think it's a big deal. We can simply replace the term to "Iranian Azerbaijan".
- About the concerns on a specific article in azwiki. To be honest I don't know what to do with this information. I just took a look, and it just says opinions of some authors. I didn't find the claim. Even if there's one, it's not related to our current topic.
- Lastly, nominator didn't mention which sources are unreliable and why. And the sources are being published in a specific country doesn't make them unreliable. There's not such thing in WP:RS.
- Conclusion: the article is huge and it has lots reliable sources (14 books, and tons of citations) including books by Mehmet Fuat Koprulu and Zeki Velidi Togan. It would be a big mistake to delete such a big article. It just needs to be renamed and modified. Peace out. Aredoros87 (talk) 12:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
"If the naming is problem then we can rename it something like to "Turko-Mongolian cultural relations in Azerbaijan (area)" or "Turko-Mongoloan cultural relations in Caucasian and Iranian Azerbaijan" etc.
- As mentioned, naming is just one of the issues, and your proposals aren't an improvement. Azerbaijan was not a nation at this time (and not used as a name in the Caucasus), and Azerbaijanis were not an ethnonym, this is unanimous in scholarship.
"Lastly, nominator didn't mention which sources are unreliable and why. And the sources are being published in a specific country doesn't make them unreliable. There's not such thing in WP:RS."
- But I literally did, and with tons of proof a that. Wikipedia is not a place to sponsor historical revisionism/negationism.
"I asked from the original author on the other wiki. Now I see he's not allowed to edit here."
- Even more concerning that the original author is indeffed here. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- Keep -- I agree with nearly all of the points raised in the nom, but not with the conclusion. WP:DINC applies, as there is a clear body of scholarly work, much of it cited in the article and more in gScholar. The problem is that the article is a hot mess, from the title on down. Replace the admittedly ludicrous 'Azerbaijani' focus with the actual RS scholarship (Turkic peoples), and I believe there is a good article underneath. I think it needs to be renamed, stripped down, and substantially rewritten, but all three of those things can only happen if we keep the article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input. Would it not be better for this article to get drafted then? We're basically talking a whole different article here. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- I could support Draftify as an AtD, but what would be wrong with fixing these problems on the Talk and having more editors swarm the problem? The power of crowdsourcing article improvement is one of the reasons for WP:DINC and the extremely aggressive WP:BEFORE requirements, and it is a central question in the WP:ZEAL essay. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input. Would it not be better for this article to get drafted then? We're basically talking a whole different article here. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: per Last1in. This isn't so bad that it can't be cleaned up through collaborating on the talk page. Regarding renaming, I think that can be done boldly and then via RM if someone challenges the move. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Even though consensus to keep seems apparent at a glance, comment posters have expressed sufficient diversity in opinions regarding the nature of the keep that further discussion seems useful. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)- Keep Article has a lot of text and notable sources. बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:24, 22 December 2023 (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.