Talk:Khojaly–Gadabay culture

A hoax article?
A google search for "Khojaly-Gedabey culture" gets 30 hits - almost all of them seem to be reproductions of or rewordings of the same news report, they are mostly blog-type posts, and all are from the year 2010. If "Khojaly-Gedabey culture" is a legitimate archeological term it would be expected to have had far more hits, would have sources that go back a decade at least, and would appear in legitimate specialist archaeological sources. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your Google search seems a bit narrow, esp. because you use quotation marks looking for the specific phrase. Apparently we are dealing with a not yet well-researched culture which does generate enough hits to indicate we are not dealing with a hoax. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, it is a pretty contentious issue as well; see this. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A correct search will require the quotation marks - otherwise you are getting hits that include place names - Kjojali and Gedabey are both places. The article is not about a "culture" it is about an alleged archaeological term (see Kura-Araxes culture for example). However, sources do not seem to exist that use the term. So it is either a hoax, or non-notable. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually used the "wrong" words to search! "Khojaly–Gadabay culture", the article title, gets even less hits that "Khojaly-Gedabey culture". Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Scribblescribblescribble, here is some 20th century history: This was in the Soviet Union, therefore the archaeologists excavating it were Soviet archaeologists, publishing in Russian. In cases such as this, the first thing you need to figure out is, what is it called in Russian. Then you can start looking for references. --dab (𒁳) 22:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, while elm.az is not a quotable reference, it is perfectly permissible to use it to find such references. Whatever else is being said on the site, these are perfectly valid references:
 * In the 20-70s of the XX century archeological excavations in Garabagh have been carried out by I.I.Meshchaninov, A.A.Iessen, Y.I.Gummel, A.A.Alakbarov, O.Sh.Ismizade and other famous Russian - soviet and Azerbaijani scientists.
 * In the 60-80s of the XX century a wide excavation - researches have been carried out in Garabagh by M.M.Huseinov, G.S.Ismaiyilzade, I.H.Narimanov, A.B.Nuriyev, R.B.Goyushov, N.F.Jafarov and other prominent Azerbaijani archaeologists. The most thorough data about the ancient history of Garabagh have been concentrated just in the works of these scientists. (See: R.B.Goyushov. Christianity in the Caucasian Albania. Baki - 1984: M.M.Huseinov. The Ancient Paleolith of Azerbaijan. Baki - 1985; I.G.Narimanov. Culture of the most ancient agricultural and cattle breeding population of Azerbaijan. Baki - 1987: G.S. Ismayilov. Traces of the ancient culture in the valleys of Guruchay and Kondalanchay Baki - 1981; N.F.Jafarov. Azerbaijan by the end of the IV millennium B.C. - at the beginning of the I millennium B.C. Baki - 2000; A.Nuruyev, A.Babayev. Historical - archaeological sketches of the city Barda. Baki - 2001 etc.)

This is Russian academic literature, as such pefectly quotable. --dab (𒁳) 22:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Dab, I find your condesceding attitude offensive, verging on abusive. If you want what you write to be taken seriously, stop producing nasty little mean-spirited comments like "here is some 20th century history: This was in the Soviet Union". Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I admit this was a little mean. It was my reaction to your submitting articles to AfD without proper reflection. I am annoyed by all the AfDs on subjects that could just be sorted out editorially. In this case, either expand or merge. It wasn't personal. I just thought you could have done the job of figuring this out before submitting the AfD. I also think that now I have done the job for you, you could now retract the AfD.  --dab (𒁳) 09:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That reads like more meanness. I have not been "submitting articles to AfD without proper reflection" - I have submitted ONE article, and the reflection was well thought out and presented. If you look at the history of this article, you will see that the creator of the article removed the hoax tag I had added, a tag which, with the accompanying talk page comment, was intended to open discussion about getting proper sources to attest to the term's existance. When that tag was removed without justification, and the article's creator made no contribution to the points raised in the talk page, I think that an AfD was appropriate as a second-best option, especially since this is a recently created article on a very obscure subject. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the claim that the excavations of the Naxçivan Archaeological Project are connected to "Khojaly-Gadabay culture". The official website of the excavators (Naxcivan Archaeological Project) does not mention "Khojaly-Gadabay culture" on any of its pages, and in fact identifies objects found as belonging to Kura-Araxes culture, as similar to Urartian sites like Ayanis, and as Achaemenid. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I reverted your deletion on the basis that deleting large portions of text from an article you are currently trying to have deleted is bad form. Lady  of  Shalott  02:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read Wikipedia editing recomendations. It is bad form NOT to attempt to improve an article that has been nominated for deletion. This article can be edited just like any article. If you can refute my reasons for removing the Nakhchivan claim, then do so. Don't just do blind revert edits. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I make no claim to knowledge on this subject, and thus will not argue that. Your edit summary seems disengenous however. YOU are the one who nominated the article for deletion. It wasn't just nominated by some random person, and making large deletions from an article which you are trying to have deleted outright is bad form. Lady  of  Shalott  02:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This article can be edited just like any article (its RfD status is unimportant in this aspect) and it can be edited by any editor who has a claim to knowledge on the subject (even if it happens to be the editor who started that RfD proposal). As a result of discussions about the deletion proposal, we now have a proper source that uses the phrase in an archeological context - so the article is unlikely to be deleted, but will either be merged or kept as a stub. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As the deleted material may affect others' comments in the Afd, you should at the very least make a note there with the diff. Lady  of  Shalott  02:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll do that, and will you ask dab to do it also (since he also has made large changes. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that you have done that; thank you. I have looked through Dbachmann/dab's edits and am not going to make the same request of him for a combination of two reasons: (1) he is not seeking outright deletion of the article and (2) his edits were not removing large portions of text. Lady  of  Shalott  02:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know where he got " Gyandzha-Karabakh culture" from. Is "Gyandzha" Gandzak / Ganja? Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

So ask him. Maybe make a new section on this page to do it... Lady of  Shalott  02:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I only have the google books snippet view I provided. This establishes that there was a lemma in the 1957 БСЭ called "Ходжалы-кедабекская культура (Гаянджа-Карабахская культура)" (note Гаянджа, not Гянджа). I don't know anything about it, as always I am just basing my judgement on the references that are available. The БСЭ is a good reference for Soviet archaeology, so I see no reason for artificial skepticism. The ru-wiki has Ходжалы-кедабекская, and I am just mentioning the alternative name as a help for your googling efforts.

Look, this is an obscure prehistoric culture of the Caucasus. There is no point in keeping an article about this without any substantial content. The title is valid, but for now this should just be merged into Prehistoric Caucasus, which is itself a pathetic stub section. Once we get substantial coverage at Prehistoric Caucasus, it can become its standalone article, and in the unlikely event that there should be very extensive coverage of this culture in particular, this article can still be recreated. For now, it should just be a redirect. --dab (𒁳) 09:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is a later edition of the БСЭ (1969-1978). You don't need to speak any Russian to use it, just use google translate and you will get the gist. The literature section is this,
 * Пиотровский Б. Б., Археология Закавказья с древнейших времен до 1 тысячелетия до н. э., Л., 1949; Минкевич-Мустафаева Н. В., Памятники трех основных групп Ходжалы-кедабекской культуры на территории Азербайджанской ССР и их датировка, в сборнике: Материальная культура Азербайджана, в. 4, Баку, 1962.

This literature is of course too obscure to find online, but I tend to use such sections to find archaeologists that can be linked from the article. In this case Boris Piotrovsky. --dab (𒁳) 09:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ah, here is an even newer edition (1973-1982), which explicitly states "sometimes known as Gandzha-Karabakh culture" (Иногда ее наз. ганджа-карабахской культурой, note Ганджа, not Гаянджа or Гянджа. These are spelling variants, you need to cover them all when googling). --dab (𒁳) 09:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I do not consider the Prehistoric Caucasus an appropriate merge target, since this is currently a redirect to History of the Caucasus, which is largely a list. If a substantive article were created with that title and this article became a section in it, it might be appropriate. From what I gather the subject is an obscure one, resulting from a handful of Soviet excavations. This means that it is possible that its existence as a distinct culture may be the subject of academic dispute. Nevertheless, if the term has been used, an article in some form is desirable. If it is now regarded as an example of another culture, it may still be worth having an article, or at least a redirect to an article that deals with the issue. I make no claim to know anything of the subject. However, even poor sources (which are not WP:RS are often better than no sources. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would tend to oppose since actually there is extra information available in the web (sufficient to unstub the article). Wikipedia is a work in progress. Twilight chill  t   22:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)