Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garadaghly 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   no consensus. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Garadaghly Massacre

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Sources that are cited are not reliable, the article its self is not notable, I tried searching for references but I could not find any to make this event notable enough for Wikipedia. This page goes against: WP:OR, VERIFY and it is one point of view.. should not continue to exist on Wikipedia, as it goes against Wikipedia policies. Not a reliable published source exists on the event to give it a status to its own article here on Wikipedia. I request this article be deleted as no third party sources, reliable references exist on the matter and the only references are one of point of view and are not neutral or reliable. Nocturnal781 (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a well-sourced article for a topic of its nature. There is already a fine article on an apparently directly-related massacre, as well as several others. If there are opposing points-of-view on the subject, and I do not doubt that there are, I encourage those with that point-of-view to introduce it to the article. If the nominator can supply very compelling and direct evidence that none of the 19 sources supplied in the article are reliable then I might be inclined to change my mind, but while it is important to avoid a non-neutral point of view in articles it is arguably more important to approach such articles with an eye to fixing them, not deleting them. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  07:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources that are third party dont talk about a "massacre", the rest are one sided non-neutral, non-reliable sources pretty much. Its original research, its basically creating a new event, it is not important enough to have its own article.... the sources also are not on the massacre they reference something else so its irrelvent to how many references there are, quantity shouldn't matter, quality does here on Wikipedia. Nocturnal781 (talk) 07:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I literally picked a source at random and it plainly describes a massacre in the town of Garadaghly: . "...in the village of Garadaghly over 80 civilian Azerbaijanis, including children, women and old people were tortured and killed mercilessly, tens of people were taken hostages, the village itself was burned and razed to the ground." Can you explain why that source is unreliable? Because you won't convince me that what is being described is not a "massacre." I'm far more ready to be convinced that that and/or other sources are unreliable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  15:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment :Third party sources don't refer to as it as a massacre. Reliable sources, basically none exist. This article is original research.Nocturnal781 (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * DeleteI agree with Noctrunal. All the sources talking about a massacre in this article are Azeribajiani sources. There must be some international reports on this. Otherwise every country can produce news on their news-channels and start new articles in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali55te (talk • contribs) 19:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The massacre took place, and even is described in the book by Markar Melkonian, the brother of Armenian commander Monte Melkonian. Grand  master  01:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * DeleteI agree with Nocturnal. Winterbliss (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is supported by many sources. If someone wants to discuss over validity of sources that user should first raise his/her question on the talk page. I think it would be fair to try to improve the article rather than get rid of it. Angel670   talk  05:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Are people above really dismissing sources simply because they are Azeribajiani? When did WP:GNG start demanding international reporting on events taking place in an individual country? I do not get that argument at all. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  15:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, but not only. If you look here you can see that all neutral international authors, as well as all neutral supporting sources describing the massacre, have also been dismissed, ignored and labelled for the reason they fully support the content and title of the article. In fact, Garadaghly Massacre article is supported with the same international and neutral sources, which are provided in the discussion page of Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre as these two events happened within the same time-frame. In response to request of uninvolved editor to present sources denying these massacres, the arguing party could not produce a single source to justify why they don't like the articles. As a last resort, out of sudden the user Nocturnal781 silently decided to nominated both of these articles for deletion  which is clear evidence that he wants to get rid of them. Otherwise, he was supposed to write his concern or question in the talk page first, and suggest further improvement.  Angel670   talk  23:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep plenty of sources to keep this article. So much evidence but some people just want to get rid of it as they deleted Agdaban Massacre article. And please know these people screw up article Khojaly Massacre which is marked today. Dighapet (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep there is enough evidence showing that this is not hoax but a true event.--NovaSkola (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep there are many reliable sources in this article.This article is based on facts and that is why it cannot be deleted.Ladytimide (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Even no need to discuss. The massacre happend and we have enough source.--Abbatai 18:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Per Nocturnal. The problems with this article stem from the sources and the fact that they are not very reliable to begin with. Some of them are government-published and some are published by newspapers - neither of them have much credibility because they reflect political viewpoints and ones directed against another party that is technically at war with them. How reliable is a source that is titled "Armenian terrorism" ("Армянский терроризм")? Or a partisan statement made by a parliament that is hardly a neutral party to this conflict (quite the opposite actually). None of the sources reach the threshold of reliability and even the single English-language source (by Svante Cornell) neglects to make explicit use of the word "massacre. It's surprising that this article has survived after all this time. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Wouldn't the better solution be integrating the opposing point-of-view into the article? Or is there some powerful reason to conclude that the events described literally didn't happen -- or, at least, happened in a fundamentally different way (say, an armed conflict between two militia, rather than a "massacre")? From my utterly neutral perspective, it strikes me that deleting the article would be tantamount to eradicating the existence of one point-of-view in favor of silence, rather than letting both points-of-view exist side-by-side in a neutrally written article. Granted, I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about when it comes to the actual events, the politics behind them, the two sides, etc. Utterly clueless. So if there's something fundamentally wrong with what I'm suggesting in this comment, please feel free to say so and tell me why it's wrong. I'm all ears and am beginning to get the sneaking suspicion that I'm the only person in this room who doesn't have a personal opinion :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  18:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Unfortunately, I think the fact here is that there is an attempt being made to make something out of another thing. All the sources do agree that this village was seized during the war. That civilians may have died during the attack is perfectly plausible but does that mean that they died as a result of a massacre? That is, a premeditated attack by armed units against civilians. If I had it my way, I would create an article on the village of Gharadaghly and in the history section I would just mention that certain sources, x, y, and z, allege that the civilians were killed as a result of massacre and some were taken as hostage. That would be a compromise I'd be willing to work on. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the well-reasoned reply. That makes perfect sense. I'll revisit this later -- I'd like to take a second, and more careful, look at the sourcing. I strongly agree that there is a significant difference between a "massacre" and an armed conflict with civilian casualties, and if the latter is the more accurate, or at least more verifiable, depiction of events, then this article is fundamentally inappropriate. The current sourcing clearly paints a picture of a massacre, so I'll need to take a second look and see if I can work out whether aspersions being cast on the sourcing are valid. If I can't figure out an opinion on that matter, then I may just withdraw my vote and hope somebody else with a similar lack of bias in favor of either side in this conflict can come up with a better-considered opinion than my own. Regardless, thank you, I sincerely appreciate the helpful reply. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  19:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * We have to remember that Armenia, the NKR, and Azerbaijan, after almost 20 years since the cease fire was signed, are still technically at war with each other. A propaganda war exists, and in Azerbaijan many claims are put forward that pay little attention to facts and are quite partisan in nature. Most authors make no attempt to present the information dispassionately and equally and serve unfortunately to demonize the other side. The source you mentioned on my talk page, for example, writes about this event: "On January 22-24, two big villages with the population of thousands of people50, Malibeyli and Gushchular, and in mid-February the village of Garadagli, were cleaned off Azerbaijanis. About a hundred of villagers were forced into a truck and brutally slain by paramilitary groups51, while survivors had to flee through mountains to nearby villages of Agdam." The language is hardly neutral and not exactly well-written. This is why greater credibility is always assigned to sources like HRW, Amnesty International, etc., from whom you can at least expect a modicum neutrality and fairness. That doesn't completely exclude sources from the other side, but it does compel editors to scrutinize and study certain sources before they are introduced in an article. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You sound too convincing indeed. I do appreciate your skill to misinterpete the facts and mislead the people playing with their unawareness of issue :-) You know very well that HRW was indicating to only self-defence group of people comprised of villagers. And the village was surrounded and blockaded by Armenian armed forces. Where was the crossfire and between whom? Villagers and Armenian armed forces? None of sources mention anything about battle, crossfire, accidental killings, or existence of Azerbaijani armed forces in the village. Coming to the topic of deletion of this article, this discussion is supposed to be on the talk page of the article. Following the ethics before AfD the user should have written on the talk page of the article first and get his response on clarification of sources. Angel670   talk  14:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The snide remarks and the facetious smiley faces are really getting old. If you have nothing nice to say, don't say it all. But I am merely expressing my concerns over the sources and if they do not meet the threshold of reliability that Wikipedia requires then that is the problem of the sources, not the supposed articulation skills of an editor. I don't know what happened exactly when these villages were taken but the sources that label this a massacre come off as too extreme and too enthusiastic to employ words for a subject that requires more scrutiny. And finally, I did raise my concerns on the Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre talk page, where I noted that that article, this one, and the Agdaban Massacre article, all suffered from a lack of good sources.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per Marshal Bagramyan. Sardur (talk) 06:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per MarshallBagramyan. The information about the casualties can be added to the respective village article. --George Spurlin (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per MarshallBagramyan. - Fedayee (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I understand, but this user is a person who serves particular agenda as per his personal profile. He can not be taken as a reason to remove the article. Wiki is not on service of Marshall Bagramyan, is it? :) Angel670   talk  22:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Do mind WP:NPA. Sardur (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - good sourcing. passes WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry, but I only see one sided Azerbaijani sources. The only non-Azerbaijani source is Svante Cornell, who mentions the village in one sentence, without calling it a massacre. Do you mind showing me which sources you found as reliable? --George Spurlin (talk) 03:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - There are plently of objective source and this article does not meet the criteria for deletion. Mursel (talk) 07:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per MarshalBagramyan. For the closing admin, please remember that users who use WP as a WP:Battleground are well represented amongst both Azeri and Armenian users. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep As per Mursel.  Anastasia Bukhantseva   05:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This article does come from an Azeri author, but based on that it seems there are claims of massacres that merit mentioning. I should add that the editor nominating this article has been nominating several articles on alleged massacres of Azeris by Armenians during the Nagorno-Karabakh War. Seems there may be an ulterior motive for these nominations (one of the articles this editor has nominated already got scrubbed even though the source above demonstrates there have been claims of a massacre there as well). WP:NOTCENSORED means some offensive claims should be included if there are reliable sources to back it up. At the very least we have sources attesting to widespread claims of a massacre and I imagine with a bit of snooping we would find better sources to establish those allegations being discussed by independent sources if such sources are not already provided in the article.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 21:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There's absolutely no reliable source about a massacre. And copy-pasting your opinion here and there deserves you. Sardur (talk) 22:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Azeri news sources are reliable sources for the purpose of indicating notability of the event and presenting the attitudes in Azerbaijan. Clearly these events are notable incidents in the Nagorno-Karabakh war. If you don't like the article having the word "massacre" in the title based on it allegedly being an Azeri POV that is a separate issue to be addressed outside the deletion process. AfD is not the place to settle content disputes. Demanding it be deleted is basically the wikiequivalent of knocking all the chess pieces off the table.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * An Armenian source proving the fact of a massacre of Azerbaijani civilians in Garadaghly village by Armenian armed forces
 * Sardur, what you are saying is not true. Even Armenian sources confirm that Garadagly massacre took place. A book written by Markar Melkonian - a brother of Monte Melkonian, an Armenian commander during Karabagh War, is widely cited in Wiki articles. Please refer to page 212 of the book where it describes how the village had been cleaned-out and more than fifty Azeri captives have been butchered in Karadaghlu in very details. The same Armenian detachments which admitted Khojali massacre here too looted the village...set it ablaze...shoved thirty-eight captives including several women and other non-combatants into a ditch on the outskirt of the village... etc. etc. This proves that this article meets Wiki criteria and is undeniably sourced. Angel670   talk  00:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete It is wrong to rely on someone's "knowledge, opinion or assurances". This piece should be deleted, since it doesn't mention anything but a blind propaganda - something the Wiki has rejected and should continue doing so. The author tries to give credibility by linking the alleged event to other more known episodes of Azerbaijan's war with Nagorno Karabakh. Definitely a subject for deletion as a non-credible, and not supported by an alternative source propaganda piece. Different languages of the reference sources can't hide the origin of the author's useless effort Spankarts (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC) — Spankarts (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep as per stated reasons above, sources are reliable enough to keep the article. Lava22T (talk) 03:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Devils advocate. --DHeyward (talk) 05:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep – The response to POV materials is balance. The response to a POV title (if it can be substantiated as POV and fails WP:COMMONNAME) is a page move. Unless the nominator and others can demolish all the sources (and "they're Azeri" does not qualify as demolishing), we have a notable, sourced article here. Go fix its other problems outside AfD.--Carwil (talk) 14:01, 2 March 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.