Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garadaghly Massacre (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Or at least no consensus. A principal argument for deletion is the national origin of the sources. That is mistaken; per WP:RS sources are deemed reliable (or not) according to criteria other than the country of their publication.  Sandstein  21:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Garadaghly Massacre
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

16 out the 18 references given are Azerbaijani, which means partisan sources and some are even dead links. According to Wikipedia, sources for notability purposes should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. Furthermore material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. Moreover the common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. This article is mainly based on primary sources, non-objective evidence and has not received any significant attention from independent sources. Markus2685 (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per my own and other arguments advanced in previous AfD regarding the strength of the existing sourcing. I disagree with the assertion that an Azerbaijani source is by nature primary. Unless we are to assume that all of the sources were literally written by people who were in the village at the time of the assault, by calling all of these sources "primary" we are removing the ability of Azerbaijani media to contribute to the coverage of Azerbaijani events within Wikipedia. As I suggested last time, if there are opposing views on this subject then they should be incorporated within the article. If the concern is objectivity, deleting the article is another and more extreme version of being non-objective. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  19:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Delete I repeat the guidelines: "Moreover the common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability". This has not happened. I can see not one single independent source here like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch etc. --Markus2685 (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As nominator, it is assumed you support deletion - no need to also "vote". Cheers, Stalwart 111  12:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 *  Weak Keep - mostly per WP:NOENG. If you contend the sources are not reliable then we would probably need translations in order to assess them. Stalwart 111  12:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I furthermore quote: "NOENG: If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."--Markus2685 (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your quoting of policy and guidelines is accurate but it doesn't really address the concerns expressed. The fact that all of the sources are from a particular region in a particular language isn't really a solid argument for deletion, in my opinion. Most of the sources for the Myall Creek massacre are in English (not an Aboriginal language) and are from Australia. Likewise for the Sand Creek massacre; English and from the United States. If the sources themselves are biased or otherwise unreliable, then we'll likely need more analysis than, "I think they must be biased". You've offered not much by way of actual source analysis. Until then, we are called on to assume good faith. Stalwart 111  22:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 17:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 17:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 17:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 17:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete No third-party reliable source is given. Note that it's not about sources being in Azerbaijani language, but sources being Azerbaijani. It can be in any other language other than Azeri and Armenian (the two confronting sides), like Russian (the main language of interaction of the two nations) written by a non-involved author. -- Ե րևանցի talk  22:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean there. Why would an Azeri source automatically be considered biased? Or an Armenian source for that matter? What guarantee is there that a Russian source would automatic be more NPOV? We don't expect the same (by default) for other historical conflicts like Israel/Palestine or India/Pakistan. In both cases, sources from either side are used extensively. We do subject those sources to extra scrutiny, sure, but that's not what it happening here. We're basically saying, we don't trust commentary from either side to be neutral/fact based. But no evidence of that has actually been presented. Stalwart 111  22:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Deat Stalwart, before commenting on controversial topics like this you should do some basic research on Armenian-Azerbaijani relations first. My comment was pretty clear. Perhaps, you didn't know that Armenia and Azerbaijan are in state of war. And as we speak Armenian and Azeri soldiers are at the border keeping eye on each other. As an Armenian myself, I'm stating than no Armenian or Azerbaijani source (especially published/said/recorded after 1988) should be used in any article concerning these two nations and be presented as a fact. It can only be presented as the point of view of that side only. -- Ե րևանցի talk  01:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, not really, my original research wouldn't count for much anyway. You are certainly entitled to your opinion of the conflict and those involved; not suggesting otherwise. But your comment doesn't really explain why this particular conflict should be treated differently to any other conflict where tensions are equally high, propaganda equally prolific and opinion equally divided. Many of those conflicts are ongoing conflicts. There are literally thousands of conflicts covered here on WP and I can't find a policy-based reason to exclude sources from either "side" by default and simply on principle. I understand entirely that we should be super, super cautious about the sources we use, for all the reasons you have given. But deleting an article (without analysis of the actual sources, who authored them, when they were written, who published them, what they actually say) just based on the fact that the sources appear to be from one side or the other, doesn't seem like an opinion grounded in policy. Stalwart 111  01:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me be more clear. When the President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev who got the crown from his communist dad, whose statues are all over the country said "our main enemies are Armenians of the world" in a speech addressed to regional government heads, when their army destroyed hundred-year-old cross stones, when their army leutenant killed an Armenian soldier in Hungary with an axe at sleep, when the President himself is is considered a dictator by Western media. He wins elections with over 80% of the vote and has unlimited number of terms. I don't think you can find similar situation in Kosovo, Abkhazia, Cyprus, Kashmir or any other conflict. You name it!
 * Again, you don't seem to understand how this conflict works. I'll just want one answer from you. Can you explain why third-party sources don't have anything written about this? It's clearly another propaganda work.
 * Also note that, as an Armenian myself, I avoid using Armenian sources in controversial issues as this one. I used to, but then I understood that the best is relying on non-involved sources.
 * If you want me to analyze each source, we can do that together. I will be more than happy. -- Ե րևանցի  talk  01:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that would be an excellent idea. If there really are no reliable sources then the article should be deleted and that would be an entirely appropriate and sufficient deletion rationale. But no one has done that analysis, nor expressed a willingness to do so and so deletion "on spec" didn't seem diligent on our part.
 * You're absolutely right, this dude seems bat-sh*t crazy and I wouldn't trust a press release from his office as a reliable source for an article about anything. But we can't tar every Azerbaijani with the same brush just because their leader is crazy. We also can't just decide that anything written by any Azerbaijani is an "unreliable source" as a result and delete every article with Azeri-only sources as a result.
 * I'll copy-paste the source list from the article onto this AFD's talk page. Any insight you can give for each would be valuable. Stalwart 111  02:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. I never said that everything said by Azerbaijanis is a lie or an anti-Armenian propaganda, but most is and avoiding them is the best as I avoid Armenian sources. Also didn't say unreliable, but biased. As most Armenian sources are. 95% of the Azerbaijani media is under government control and the other 5% are bloggers who have been constantly arrested for their views. -- Ե րևանցի talk  02:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, I get that, though "state media" with pro-Government bias would generally be considered unreliable as it has no editorial independence on Government-related matters. I've listed all the sources on this AFD's talk page to allow everyone to comment on each. Stalwart 111  02:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Good, look at the page again. I added comments on them why they are not reliable. -- Ե րևանցի talk  03:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I've collapsed some I think are unreliable from the get-go. If others want to open them up and discuss them, that's fine, but I don't think those are worth worrying about. I've made some comments for you to consider / asked some more questions. Stalwart 111  04:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In general, there are no published sources on this alleged massacre. Thomas de Waal's Black garden (which is considered one of the best books on Karabakh conflict and although criticized from both parties, it's one of the most cited books on Wiki for this topic) doesn't mention it either. Is it appropriate to build an article on those few sentences from suspicious news articles, which isn't even mentioned in any other source?-- Ե րևանցի talk  05:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That, my friend, is the right question I think. Stalwart 111  06:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment, this article needs to be locked down and each "source" confirmed through consensus and Reliable sources/Noticeboard. All the sources have to conform to AA2 per. The Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre needs to have the same thing done. A source by source check. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Locked down"? You mean protected? Why? Drmies (talk) 04:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I just see an edit war on the horizon as soon as any of these sources fail Reliable sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It certainly has that potential (as many controversial articles do) but there is a very WP:CIVIL and good faith (I think) source-by-source review happening on this AFD's talk page. Would appreciate your input. I won't claim a chat between two editors is WP:CONSENSUS but I think it's a good start. Stalwart 111  06:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment to be honest, I don't get the point of this discussion. There are unmistakably defined WP guidelines which I have quoted above. The guidelines were created in order to have all WP articles with a certain standard. This article is describing an incident being part of the Nagorno Karabakh war. All other articles belonging to this same topic (Khojaly massacre, Sumgait pogrom, Maraga Massacre etc.) are, as it should be, supported by dozens of secondary and third-party sources and have all gained significant attention from independent sources like The Washington Post, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Thomas de Waal, BBC, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times and so on … This is not the case at all in this article. Even the chosen title of this article "Garadaghly Massacre" is dubious and highly biased as there is not one single third-party, independent source which has described this incidents as "massacre" except of Azerbaijani sources. I don't see any sense in analysing if a media outlet from Azerbaijan (for example news.az), is reliable or not because this doesn't change anything. Even if it was, the article still violates all WP guidelines.--Markus2685 (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Guidelines are built and maintained by WP:CONSENSUS and are interpreted and implemented by WP:CONSENSUS. Discussion and consensus are the whole point of AFD. Otherwise why nominate it? You can often build a consensus by making rational, policy-based arguments in an attempt to convince others that your interpretation is the right one and is the one that is most likely to lead to the constructive building of a neutral, reliably-sourced encyclopaedia. As I noted above, there are plenty of conflict articles, even "massacre" articles, that are supported by single-cultural-origin sources and I asked you why this article should be treated differently. You haven't answered the question. You don't have to, but you don't have much of a chance of building consensus (currently equally split if you !vote-count) if you ignore legitimate queries. You've suggested that the article should be deleted because it is supported only by unreliable sources, but you haven't really explained why they should be considered unreliable. Stalwart 111  23:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have actually answered your question with the following sentence: "This article is describing an incident being part of the Nagorno Karabakh war. All other articles belonging to this same topic (Khojaly massacre, Sumgait pogrom, Maraga Massacre etc.) are, as it should be, supported by dozens of secondary and third-party sources and have all gained significant attention from independent sources like The Washington Post, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Thomas de Waal, BBC, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times and so on … This is not the case at all in this article.". So to make it even more clear. As this article belongs to a series of articles depicting one main topic (the Karabakh War) I take the other related articles as a comparison. And I don't think your argument of "there are plenty of conflict articles..." is appropriate. Just because there are many articles conflicting with WP guidelines isn't an argument. The main argument I have given is my first sentence I have repeated above. Hope I could clarify my point a bit more.--Markus2685 (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I think we'll have to agree to disagree then, because there are a number of secondary sources (from news media, books, etc) not written by people directly involved in the conflict. That you don't think they are adequate or as high-quality as those for other articles is another matter entirely. I am not strongly one way or the other on this and am genuinely keen to understand why you contend that all 18 sources are unreliable by default. That's why I started the talk-page discussion. Stalwart 111  23:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see my comments on this AFD's talk page--Markus2685 (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A great start. I have left some notes there for you to consider. I might collapse this bit - we've had our chat and anything else can be added on the talk page. Cheers, Stalwart 111  01:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment primarily directed at nominator: Would renaming the article help to address some of your concerns? I am not sympathetic to the notion of outright deleting this article, because I remain unconvinced that these sources are all truly primary, but your arguments regarding how loaded the word "massacre" is are very well-taken, at least by me. I'm unsure what the new name could be (perhaps "Garadaghly Incident"?), but it seems to me that at least some of your concerns are with the word "massacre," and likely with the tone of the article in a few places as well. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  17:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see my comments on this AFD's talk page--Markus2685 (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have read them. I don't really see how they constitute a response to my suggestion, but I'll take this as a "no, not helpful." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  01:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What I wanted to say is, that renaming the article would not help or change anything as the sources are the main problem --Markus2685 (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I'm going to supply some responses on the reference discussion on the talk page. I disagree in a few cases (not in all of them) with your interpretation of what constitutes a primary source and a reliable source. Bias does not necessarily make content unreliable (from WP:RELIABLE: "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."), and editorial content published in a reliable source, however one-sided that content may be, is definitely "reliable." The requirement is that the source is reliable. I'll write some quick replies on the talk page (and note I definitely agree with your assessment of at least several of these sources) I just wanted to sum most of them up here. Sorry the rename solution didn't appeal -- I was hoping there might be some easy remedy :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  03:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete It should have been deleted the first time it was nominated. The same problems persist and there's little hope that the references will ever improve.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I have analysed all 18 references given for this article and could not find any strong reference which would led to the decision, that this topic deserves an article on Wikipedia --Markus2685 (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The massacre is described in much detail by Markar Melkonian, the brother of the Armenian warlord Monte Melkonian. He cannot be accused of anti-Armenian bias, so there cannot be any reasonable doubt that the massacre took place. The book could be seen here: Check page 212. Melkonian refers to the village as Karadaghlu.  Grand  master  16:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Quote from Melkonian's book, My brother's road: an American's fateful journey to Armenia, I.B. Tauris, 2005, ISBN 1850436355, 9781850436355, p. 212:

Grand master  17:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure, nobody denies the fact that people die during wars. The source you cited does not say whether civilians or soldiers were killed (A total of fifty-three Azeris were killed in and around Karadaghlu). It's a known fact that many more Azerbaijanis were killed in NK than Armenians. The blame is perhaps on the Aliyev dynasty, which didn't really care about own people as it still doesn't today. -- Ե րևանցի  talk  00:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Markarian calls it a "butchery in Karadaghlu". I think butchery is pretty much the same as massacre. And the rest of your comment is difficult to understand. What do you mean "The source you cited does not say whether civilians or soldiers were killed"? I think it is quite obvious from the cited source that a group of POWs and civilians were slaughtered on the outskirts of the village in an execution type massacre, some in quite an inhumane way (burned alive). And the source makes it quite clear that within the group killed in the ditch there were "several women and other noncombatants". And I do not understand what Aliyev has to do with Armenian militants stabbing and shooting unarmed people or burning them alive. Everybody is responsible for his own actions, and in this case the Armenian militants did what they did, and it is documented by sources on their own side. Grand  master  11:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

From the same book, p 212-213:

Grand master  11:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - well-referenced article with even Armenian source. Armenian author (he is definitely NOT pro-Azerbaijani due to his famous political vision) also admitted this massacre. Best, Konullu (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That Armenian source doesn't call it a massacre, nor says civilians were killed. -- Ե րևանցի talk  00:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It says civilians were killed, read carefully. And it calls it a butchery. Grand  master  11:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep and Rename - as it seems that only Azerbaijani sources use that title then it definitely needs to be renamed into something more neutral (something like Armenian capture of Garadaghly). As for the rest of the article, every source should be checked just like Kansas bear said. Its quite possible that deletion would be appropriate, but its hard to say at current stage as it seems that there definitely was some kind of incident, just how notable it was remains unclear.--Staberinde (talk) 11:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think mass execution of more than 50 people is notable enough for an article. As for the name, Melkonian is not an Azerbaijani source, and the word butchery that he uses means the same as massacre. If we strictly follow the words used in the source, the article should be called "butchery in Garadaghly", but that's not the generally accepted way of naming the articles here, therefore I think "Garadaghly Massacre" is more appropriate. Grand  master  11:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Its still very questionable if a single non-azeri source is sufficient for title that has very obvious POV issues.--Staberinde (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. An Wikipedia artcile can not be based on one single source that mentions these incidents in a few lines. Moreover if this one single source is furthermore an Armenian source and therefore depicts no "neutral point of view" as Armenians where one part who were directly involved in this matter. WP:NPOV. --Markus2685 (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The thing is that Garadaghly is just one of the hundreds of Azerbaijani villages destroyed in Nagorno-Karabakh and adjacent regions. What makes it special is that it was a location of the mass killing of civilians and POWs, with the death toll exceeding 50. Therefore I think the title needs to reflect why the events in this location are notable for an article. Grand  master  21:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Renaming this article does not change anything in this case as the sources are the main problem. Every single source has been checked and analysed in this AFDs talk page.  The My result was, that the sources are either Primary sources, or not verifiable or violate Wikipedias core content policiy of "neutral point of view". Therefore I don't see any other solution than deleting this article. Even more because of the fact, as this was already a topic for discussion in the first AFD in February 2012 and the references have not improved at all since then. --Markus2685 (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Armenian and Azerbaijani sources both agree that the event described in the article took place. That means that the subject of the article is existent, and more sources could be found in the future. Of course, any questionable or unreliable sources and dead links should be removed, but Melkonian is a reliable source in this context, as he has no reason to be biased against the Armenian side, and he provides quite a detailed description of what happened in Garadaghly. Grand  master  21:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Markus2685, neither that discussion (which does not require closure) nor this one (which has not yet been closed) has a result as yet, so claiming as much is a bit premature. You are entitled to your personal opinion or conclusions, of course, but ascribing a result to a discussion is a different thing all together. Stalwart 111  23:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have changed my !vote above from weak keep to just plain keep. I was concerned about some of the sources and so started a discussion on the talk page of this AFD to allow those who suggested all 18 original sources were unreliable to substantiate that view. While a number of those 18 sources can and should be removed, I'm not entirely convinced by claims that all are unreliable, as the analysis of each source has demonstrated. The insistence that sources meet our NPOV policy is not particularly convincing, mostly because we don't require the sources to be neutral, we are required to write about them, cite them and interpret them neutrally, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV (from the same policy). I think such an insistence is a misreading of that policy. A lack of neutrality is of concern, in my opinion, where the sources are biased because of a lack of independence from the subject. Thus, Government sources where the Government is a party to the incident would not be considered independent which is something we require from sources. But there are enough non-Government sources here that talk about the incident, are generally in agreement about some of the facts - when, where, etc - to verify content and can be cited appropriately, in my opinion. I remain slightly concerned about the title. As Grand  master  points out, the facts that can be verified do indeed substantiate an incident that could be described as a "massacre". But given few of the sources actually use that term (and it is certainly not used as consistently as is the case with other similar articles), I think a different title might help. That said, I have no idea what a better title might be. Stalwart 111  23:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be great if you could list those sources, which in your opinion are non-government/independent and on which you want to base this article on. --Markus2685 (talk) 17:04, 29 January 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.