Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armen Ohanyan


 * 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   Keep Vardges Ulubabyan, Hovik Jivanyan and Rudik Hyusnunts; delete all others.. Geo Swan's argument here is the most sound, and it would do me no good in repeating it. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 15:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Armen Ohanyan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am also nominating the following related pages:

No evidence of notability; this is a return of a user who was warned about this before, attempting to create articles on members of the national assembly of Nagorno-Karabakh. The problem is that 1) they're entirely unsourced, but formatted in a way that implies they may be copyright violations, possibly from a government website; 2) they aren't inherently notable. Note that WP:POLITICIAN does not apply, since the "country" in question is not an internationally recognized state, and thus articles on these people can only exist under WP:GNG. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. As BLPs, the articles certainly can't be kept if they remain unsourced. However, government websites (even those of unrecognised governments) are frequently distinctly permissive about allowing copying - so we should check the website for statements on copyright before assuming copyright violations. Also, WP:POLITICIAN does not say that it applies only to internationally-recognised states (or their subdivisions) - and, looking at the history of international recognition, it is probably as well that it does not. I (and I suspect others) would also tend to apply it to political entities with sufficient control of an area to operate as its government, recognised or not - and this applies to Nagorno-Karabakh. So, while I am not going to vote to keep in the absence of sources, I think there would be plausible grounds for notability if even primary reliable sources are found. PWilkinson (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:POLITICIAN deems notable "members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature". If you recognise Nagorno-Karabakh as independent then its legislature is national, and if you don't then it is provincial. Either way, if verifiable, membership complies with WP:POLITICIAN. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Whatever Nagorno-Karabaky is, the members of its assembly pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * I'd like some clarification from Phil Bridger and PWilkinson. Are you saying that if, for example, an organized militarized organization had de facto control over a region, then any high level members of the organization would automatically be notable per WP:POLITICIAN? So, for example, members of Boko Haram, which does has de facto control over large parts of a number of states, would be notable, so long as we could verify that they are at a high level in the organization? I've not heard such an assertion before, and it doesn't make sense to me, but I don't usually deal with this subject area, and so I would certainly accept that I was wrong (in being outside of standard site-wide consensus).
 * Also, another comment to PWilkinson--I'm not entirely certain, having not dealt too extensively in this field, but what I have found is that while that many national US websites are in the public domain, some are not, and most other countries I've found do keep their government websites copyrighted (or sometimes special variants that are semi-free but not compatible with CC-BY-SA). I believe that our copyright rules require that, absent clear evidence of public domain status, we must always presume that published material is copyrighted. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The legislation that puts the work of employees of the US Federal government in the public domain is old. I am not aware of any other country with comparable rules.
 * There are a few countries that are not signatories to International agreements on Intellectual Property. The works of citizens of one of those countries, when first published in one of those countries, and not simultaneously published elsewhere, is considered in the public domain in the rest of the World.
 * By definition unrecognized states can't sign International agreements. So, technically, if the works of all citizens of Nagorno-Karabakh is not protected by copyright, neither is the work of its government employees.
 * Up until about 2 years ago we considered Afghanistan one of those nations with no copyright protection. About 2 years ago we learned that the Hamid Karzai government had issued some statements about signing International intellectual property rights agreements, and we have been treating intellectual works from Afghanistan as if it was protected by copyright.  Our lawyers have told us that we aren't legally obliged to do so.  They have told us that we will only be obliged to do so when Afghanistan actually does sign those agreements.
 * Personally, I think starting to treat works of Afghans, first published in Afghanistan, as if they were protected by copyright -- prior to Afghanistan signing those agreements, was premature. Karzai's term is almost up, and the agreemnts aren't signed.  Geo Swan (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)




 * Comment The nomination asserts ''"Note that WP:POLITICIAN does not apply, since the "country" in question is not an internationally recognized state, and thus articles on these people can only exist under WP:GNG. Sorry, this is nonsense.
 * First -- there are a handful of states, that aren't internationally recognized, yet are as real as other countries in just about all the ways that matter. So, not considering their legislators to qualify for POLITICIAN seems POINTY.
 * Second -- even if, for the sake of argument, we consider Nagorno-Karabakh to be a break-away province, not an autonomous country, WP:POLITICIAN also applies to office-holders at the State/Province level. Geo Swan (talk) 02:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment -- I am afraid we have a lapse from WP:BEFORE here. It turns out that there are references to support that at least some of these individuals qualify for WP:POLITICIAN.  Sorry, but I think web searches should have been done on all these individuals prior to initiating this nomination.  Consider Vardges Ulubabyan, Hovik Jivanyan and Rudik Hyusnunts.  Geo Swan (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Vardges Ulubabyan, Hovik Jivanyan and Rudik Hyusnunts as above. Geo Swan (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment This whole afd should probably be withdrawn, to give the nominators an opportunity to take a second crack at complying with WP:BEFORE. Geo Swan (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not withdrawing anything. They all fall under WP:BLPPROD. I just thought using the more thorough WP:AFD was better. Please source the ones you can. Also, I'm don't even think the sources you've provided meet WP:RS. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I initiated a discussion at WP:RSN as to whether press releases from the governments of unrecognized states should be considered reliable sources. Geo Swan (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete without prejudice to recreating as actual articles. While it appears possible to find at least one verifiable fact about each of these individuals (thereby meeting WP:BLPPROD), none of these articles, as presented, are useful biographies because of their resumee-like character and superficial nature. Rather than letting them languish in this state indefinitely, better to redirect them to Nagorno-Karabakh until someone wants to take the time to create an actual stub. There is not enough baby here to preclude throwing out the bathwater. VQuakr (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your comment seems to be written as if WP:GNG was our only notability guideline. We have speciality notability guidelines, like WP:POLITICIAN precisely because GNG doesn't suit all circumstances.  I joined the wikipedia in 2004.  Since long before I joined individuals who held a national or State/Province Office were exempted from having to meet GNG.  Please recognize that the three individuals for whom I found references to substantiate that they are members of the legislature don't have to measure up to the GNG because they measure up to WP:POLITICIAN, superceding GNG.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't believe I didn't notice this before: some people are claiming that WP:POLITICIAN applies under the "provincial" rules (i.e., even if N-K isn't a recognized state, it's still a province). Could someone please provide a source for that? As far as I can tell from reading Nagorno-Karabakh, it is not considered to be a distinct province within Azerbaijan--that is, it's a region, not a state. Thus, it seems to me that WP:POLITICIAN does not apply, as these people are simply members of a group that acts as if it is an independent government, but does not have any recognition that it is so. Of course, said people could meet WP:GNG, but we haven't been given that evidence yet (and for some, we don't even have a single citation sufficient to pass WP:BLPPROD). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:POLITICIAN includes two relevant caveats. First, the footnote on item one: "This is a secondary criterion. People who satisfy this criterion will almost always satisfy the primary criterion. Biographers and historians will usually have already written about the past and present holders of major political offices. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete regardless." Second, item three: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article"." Secondary guidelines exist to improve the consistency of coverage for certain classes of article, and your reading of them, while certainly defensible, is much more generous than mine. VQuakr (talk) 04:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In last in first out order:
 * You called my interpretation of the role of special purpose notability guideline "defensible", and then said it was "much more generous than mine." I think if we are going to discuss how to interpret the role of these guideline it would be very useful if you articulated your interpretation.
 * You quote item 3, which uses the phrase "elected local officials". The phrase "elected local officials" refers to office holders at a more local level than the Province/State/Canton/Oblast level -- like mayors, reeves, aldermen, city and town councilors, school trustees, etc.  What item 3 means is that the notability of guys like former NY mayor Rudy Giuliani or Fiorello La Guardia has to be based on the GNG or some other special purpose notability guideline.  As mayors they were "local elected officials" whose notability was established through GNG.
 * The footnote on item one? It is an explanation as to the reasoning behind deeming holders of high-level offices notable enough for a stand-alone article, even when they don't satisfy GNG  Skip the first 3 sentences in the footnote, and pay attention to the conclusion in the 4th sentence.
 * So, I suggest what you describe as "caveats" are merely explanations, and not caveats at all. Geo Swan (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Qwyrxian, you write: "As far as I can tell ... Nagorno-Karabakh ... it's a region, not a state." This distinction between regions and states/provinces is frankly unsupportable.
 * If you look at our County article you will see it lists countries were sub-national regions are called counties.
 * If you look at our article on Oblasts it says Oblast can be translated as either "Province" -- OR "Region".
 * Lots of countries have multiple second level units. Canada and Australia both have "Territories" an additional second level unit, parallel to their Provinces and States.  Pakistan has both Provinces and Tribal Agencies.  The USA used to have extensive territories, notably the Louisiana Territory and the Alaska Territory.  Puerto Rico and Guam both have their own legislatures, so are an additional parallel second level sub-national region, and office-holders there should be accorded WP:POLITICIAN status.
 * I suggest it shouldn't matter what the locals call their sub-national region in their official language, or how that term is translated into English -- if the powers of that sub-national region are comparable to those of a Province in the Anglosphere we should accord office-holders within that region with WP:POLITICIAN status.
 * With regard to international recognition, you wrote: "as these people are simply members of a group that acts as if it is an independent government, but does not have any recognition that it is so." Do you know when the Chinese Communist Party took over control of China and exiled the Nationalists to Taiwan?  1949.  Do you know when the United Nations allowed People's Republic of China to take China's seat on the UN Security Council?  1971.  The USA didn't recognize Chinese sovereignty -- partially -- until 1979.
 * International recognition is highly politically charged, as Red China's story shows. To follow your reasoning Mao Zedong and Chou En Lai shouldn't have been accorded WP:POLITICIAN status -- because they were merely "members of a group acting as if they lead an independent government."  I don't think our policies oblige us to maintain fictions.  It is not up to us rule on International quandaries.  Frankly, you seem to be advocating an approach that rather than preserving a neutral voice is a big departure from  the neutral voice.  Geo Swan (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're joking right? There is an obvious difference between a region and a sub-national political entity--one is a geographic term, and the other is a political term. Is Nagorno-Karabakh recognized by Azerbaijan as a discrete political unit, that has either separate laws, separate governing bodies, etc.? Or does the N-K just have a so-called parliament that is able to enact laws because the larger body is politically unable to stop it? For example, if a criminal gang is able to control a major portion of a city, and the government is unable to stop it, we don't suddenly call the leaders of that gang inherently notable per WP:POLTICIAN. Please note that I am not saying that these people are in any way criminals--what i'm really trying to do is express my ignorance, which is remedied only by what I see here on Wikipedia. And what I see is that N-K is not a state, and thus, by definition, does not have politicians. We have to draw the line somewhere; ideally, we draw it where the sources draw it, when we are able to do so. Do sources (those outside of N-K) recognize these people as "politicians" in the sense of being a legitimate representative of a legitimate government? If they do, and then if we can find even a single source verifying they are in this government, I can withdraw the nomination for those specific ones. For anyone for whom we don't have any sources, of course, BLPPROD still stands. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If a gand controlled the area and with as much actual authority as the leaders of Nagorno-Karabakh have, then yes, its chief officers would be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Qwyrxian, please remember that, as an administrator, you should be setting an example of responsible behavior.
 * No, I am not joking, and I resent this comment. I am disturbed by the appearance of a lack of serious attention you are bringing ot this discussion.  We are all volunteers here, so no one can expect to tell us which tasks to do.  What I think we can expect of one another is that when we choose to begin a task we do our best to do a good job when we carry those tasks through to conclusion.  I think you are falling short, and aren't making an effort to read and understand the points your respondents have tried to make.
 * I requested you read the Oblast article. If you had read the article, or even just taken my summary of it at face value, I don't believe you could have made the claim "There is an obvious difference between a region and a sub-national political entity--one is a geographic term, and the other is a political term."  The Oblast article explains that the Russian term Oblast was translated into English as either Region or as Province.  You have chosen to interpret region as region (geography), when, when applied to Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast, or its successors, it clearly should be interpreted as region (Oblast) -- an area of political administration.
 * With regard to your repetition of your claim that official press releases from de facto states that don't have widespread international recognition can't be considered reliable sources -- I informed participants here that I initiated a thread at WP:RSN to get third party opinions on the RS aspect. You haven't made any attempt to explain your position there.  My Pure Math buddies, back at University, would characterize you as using a "Proof by assertion".
 * You wrote: "Do sources (those outside of N-K) recognize these people as "politicians" in the sense of being a legitimate representative of a legitimate government?" I see this comment as a further instance where you have shown you aren't making an effort to pay attention to the points made by those who disagree with you.  I quoted the first five references I found -- and they are all from outside of NKR -- 2 from Transnistria, 2 from Armenia, one from Italy.  None of those references were from NKR.
 * You ask if Azerbaijan recognized NKR leaders, and its legislature? Did the United States of America recognize the Confederate States of America?  Does the People's Republic of China recognize the Republic of China?  What makes you think this is a question our policies entitle you to ask?  Several of us stated that we thought an individual should be accorded WP:POLITICIAN status if they performed all the same taks as the office-holders of the Federal governments of other nations.  Some of us have explained why we took this position.  International recognition is highly politically charged, and counter-intuitive, and the de facto leaders of unrecognized nations can have other leaders accord them all the trappings even when they aren't recognized -- like when Nixon met with Mao Zedong.  Somalia was stricken with civil war, some decades ago.  But it is the south, around Mogadishu, that is still in a chaotic war-lord state.  Somaliland and Puntland are two unrecognized states in the north of former Somalia.  People there pay taxes and receive government services -- just like in recognized states.  When the USA wanted to repatriate Somalian captives who had been held in Guantanamo American diplomats negotiated with Somaliland diplomats.  Evidence that a lack of formal recognition does not prevent informal recognition, and the conducting of diplomatic business.
 * For what it is worth the Government of Azerbaijan recognized the Government of NKR to the extent they entered into Peace Talks with them. Geo Swan (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Provisionally Keep those who have sources as identified by User:Geo Swan, but delete the rest as unsourced BLPs. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:53, 1 November 2013 (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.