Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agdaban massacre


 * 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. It is important to be aware that the quality of the sources is more important than how many of them there are, and those arguing to delete have made a compelling case that the sources used here are of a poor quality and/or not relevant to the subject anyway. 18:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Beeblebrox (talk)

Agdaban massacre

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Articles like these should be deleted. I recently fixed another article like this one, Capture of Malibeyli and Gushchular. All sources on the article are not reliable, nor third party references and are also from nationalist sites trying to promote the word "massacre', or "genocide" during a ethnic war that took place with civilian casualties. I see one third party sources in the article that does not mention the massacre directly or anything, so its irrelevant. Okay to break it down, the PAGE for this is here Battle of Kalbajar, civilian deaths occurred during that battle. This is basically nationalist propaganda that should have been deleted by now. Google books gets no hits: and Google search results are basically all from Wikipedia off shoots and such,, no third party reference is available that can verify this article. The only thing it can verify is casualties during the war which dont point out to a massacre anyway, no reliable or third party sources exist, however the amount of civilians that died during the battle can be added to Battle of Kalbajar. I've done my research and concluded that this page should be deleted. It goes against four of Wikipedia's main guidelines.Nocturnal781 (talk) 07:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Theís article should be kept for now. Enough reliable sourcing.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - As per BabbaQ. The deletion of the article had already been discussed in the past. It was decided that it would be kept. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 16:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is important to keep in mind that consensus can change but, for context, could you please provide a link to the previous deletion discussion? The only past deletion-related discussion I found was Deletion review/Log/2010 December 24, which was mostly about procedure and not the article. Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Cornell, Alizadeh, Baghdasaryan and the International Labour Office are unlikely "Azeri nationalists" to be dismissed as POV or anything of that sort. There has been enough coverage by the third-party provided to earn it a separate article status. Parishan (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The information from third party sources don't even mention a massacre for a fact but say that civilians were killed during a battle. Concluding that a massacre did not take place intentionally. Civilians die during battles almost always, this page is not notable enough to have its own page especially under a 'massacre'. Nocturnal781 (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename the only sources that call it a massacre are not neutral. --George Spurlin (talk) 05:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and Merge with Agdaban. Upon further examination, I'm changing my vote to merge with Agdaban article. A sentence long article can certainly be improved with the added information. --George Spurlin (talk) 06:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree with BabbaQ. This massacre is happened and proven fact, therefore don't need to remove just because it is ruining armenian genocide's true image.--NovaSkola (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Has nothing to do with the Armenian Genocide, nor its image. If you did research on the topic you would see where I am coming from, all third party sources or reliable sources I researched on this topic does not say a massacre occurred, if its a proven fact, please show your source that makes you confirm that because I've done my research and haven't found anything that can confirm that. I'd love to keep this article if I found reliable sources confirming a massacre of civilians occurred.Nocturnal781 (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Have searched for and found no coverage of this in reliable sources, let alone any calling it a massacre. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Darkness Shines. -- va c  io  09:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Darkness Shines. Unless third party/neutral sources can be found, it's better that this article be deleted altogether.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Keep for now, but the article needs to be expanded and better sources.--Abbatai 09:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The problem is that better sources, i.e. third party sources do not mention a massacre in Agdaban. -- va c  io  11:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There might be some Russian sources for this massacre maybe Armenian and Azerbaijani users here may help us to fin some, most probably they speak Russian language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbatai (talk • contribs) 13:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have checked two relevant sources:
 * Human Rights Watch/Helsinki, Azerbaijan: Seven years of conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. Helsinki (Organization : U. S.) 1994
 * "Small nations, great powers" of Svante Cornell. December 1, 2000, ISBN-10: 0700711627
 * There is no mention of Agdaban massacre. Please, if you want make WP better, don't vote to keep articles which include statements that cant be verified from third party sources. -- va c  io  12:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Per Darkness Shines. This is Azerbaijani nationalist propaganda. Dehr (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete A clear propaganda effort, which is not confirmed by any non-Azerbaijani, reliable source. The author refers to the years of war between Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh, and plays on guesses and allegations by what he / she calls "witnesses", or "other sources". The only non-Azerbaijani source is referred as mentioning destruction of "the military station". Definitely manipulation, and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spankarts (talk • contribs) 04:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Darkness Shines, no reliable source. Sardur (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The article is based on Baku propaganda and there are no credible sources to support it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprutt (talk • contribs) 02:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete There is an event, which is the capture of Agdaban, as part of the Nagorno-Karabakh War, and its aftermath. The references in this article are in many places either dead links, or dead trees. Now while there is no inherent problem with book sources, to properly assess the notability of the event, these sources are needed to see if there is significant coverage, or passing mention, and if the sources are reliable. When I go over the sources now I see the following:
 * Ref1: dead link no idea on how reliable this source is, of how significant the coverage
 * Ref2: dead link. The resulting page indicates "This Account Has Been Suspended", which gives doubt about the reliability of what was there.
 * Ref3: published book source. This looks like a good reliable source, but we have no indication of the significance of coverage of the event
 * Ref4: No significant coverage. Haven't really checked the reliability, but that doesn't really matter, since the coverage doesn't infer notability anyway
 * Ref5: A 2006 book with no ISBN listed on google books (which gives pause to how important this book is). It is online on google books, but I don't speak russian, and can't check for significant coverage (I wouldn't know the cyrilic spelling of Agdaban, so I can't even do a quick mention-count)
 * Ref6: Not a RS
 * Ref7: No significant coverage
 * Ref8: No significant coverage
 * Ref9: Dead link
 * Ref10: No significant coverage, and seemingly partisan source
 * Stepping over the NPOV problems of this article (which could be fixed by a refocus, and a rename to, for example, Capture of Agdaban (1992)) I don't think this event by itself is notable. If someone happens to be able to assess ref3, and it happens to be significant coverage, or could find out if ref1 is a good source, then I'm willing to take another look, but as it stands, I don't think there is enough here to satisfy the notability guidelines, or to properly verify the content. These small titbits here and there are just too thin to write a decent NPOV article on the subject. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have access to ref3, however the only sentence where the village Agdaban is mentioned, is already quoted in the footnote (From early February onwards, the Azeri villages of Malybeili, Karadagly, and Agdaban were conquered and their population evicted, leading to at least 99 civilian deaths and 140 wounded). -- va c  io  14:10, 9 February 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.