Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historiography of the Armenian Genocide


 * 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. Going with the deletes here. The keeps didn't really show a consensus in why we should keep this and things like "looks good to me" and "notable historic events" etc, isn't the reason to keep the article (besides, did anyone read the article, LOL) - it's if it meets our inclusion guidelines. And I see a lot of people basing sourcing on known genocide deniers, that's not enough or even makes sense. We already have an article about Armenian genocide denial and related subjects. Please take any discussions to appropriate talk pages. Thanks everyone. Missvain (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Historiography of the Armenian Genocide

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Essentially everything on this article is a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Everyone who says it was a genocide is an Armenian nationalist, discredited Turkish sources and genocide deniers like Shaw and McCarthy are portrayed as legitimate sources, and "the west" has been brainwashed by these Armenian nationalists.

Most citations are of a paper written by David Gutman (on which 4/6 sources are by genocide deniers and there is a section titled "Countering the Genocide Narrative") and a book by Gwynne Dyer, who is an open genocide denier. --Steverci (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC) Steverci (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep all seems fine to me. Mccapra (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems like a POV FORK to me.★Trekker (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * FORK of what? Mccapra (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Opinions of genocide deniers.★Trekker (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment This AfD nom is a POV response by one editor to a POV article by another. Which POV is more 'correct', and whether two wrongs make a right, I don't know, and it's not something I particularly want to wade into. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Adhering to the guidelines is POV? --Steverci (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak keep I don't think this article needed to be created, the subject could have been covered in the main Armenian Genocide article; not as extensively as here, but then this is IMO too extensive for the subject, anyway. But now that the article exists, I don't see a compelling reason to delete it - even if it were condensed and merged into the main article, the POV would need to be edited out, so might as well keep this article and edit it out. Until then, appropriate health warning tags need to be added. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This article serves no purpose other than to host genocidal denial that would've been deleted on the main genocide article, for being views only held by a discredited few. --Steverci (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There's nothing inherently genocide-denial'y in the article name "Historiography of the Armenian Genocide", and content under that title could (in theory, at least) be written in any manner, including neutral. Therefore yours seems to me an argument for de-POV'ing the article, rather than necessarily deleting it. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The article premise is trying to portray genocide deniers as having equal credibility to real historians. It's inherently undue and POV, and cannot be salvaged. The whole article is basically a POV fork created and mainly edited by one user, which has gone largely unnoticed, and would've been instantly reverted if the content was put on the Armenian Genocide article. --Steverci (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Per WP:UNDUE and WP:POVFORK. This article will literally only serve as a host/means to fuel revisionist genocide denial, and, indeed, to portray genocide deniers as having equal credibility to the majority, real historians. Anyone who has actively worked within the Armenia-Azerbaijan-Turkey-Iran-Caucasus topic area knows what I'm talking about. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep -- With the Turks denying that there was a genocide, it is probably better to have an article dealing with the controversy, providing a venue for the deniers to vent their theories, in the hope that the main article can be kept clear of such stuff. This is an article about POVs held about the issue.  That is quite different from having an article pushing a controversial POV (which is not allowed).  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We already have Armenian Genocide denial. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as a WP:POVFORK that fails to establish that there is a legitimate academic debate sufficiently substantial to warrant an article, rather than an Intelligent Design-style attempt to dress denial up as academic. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Article meets GNG and has SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. The article is in rough shape, but this isn't a reason for deletion. Here are a few sources (JSTOR + other journal databases have more):, , , , , , , .  // Timothy ::  talk  20:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Gutman and Dyer are genocide deniers. According to that article by Matossian: "One of the outstanding issues in Armenian Genocide historiography has been the inability of historians to come to a consensus regarding the causes, the aim of the perpetrators, and the process of the genocide...These approaches range from arguing that religion and/or nationalism were the main factors leading to the Armenian Genocide, to the argument that the genocide was a contingent event that took place during World War I, represented by a rapid radicalization of the government’s policy toward the Armenians." This article abuses the definition of historiography to portray the genocide as a debatable subject. While it could be a proper article, it would need to be entirely rewritten from its current state, which is why it should be deleted and then possibly remade. --Steverci (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: seems okay. This request is WP:JDLI. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  17:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Surely you can address WP:NPOV concerns better than dismissing them as personal preference? If you think the content is neutral, make an argument to that effect instead. TompaDompa (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep It covers notable historic events. Shadow4dark (talk) 13:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:POVFORK and redirect to Armenian genocide denial. -gtrmp (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject is definitely important. The article is badly written though, and should be overhauled to better reflect the historical debate. T8612  (talk) 03:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Can be covered in Armenian Genocide Denial--Addictedtohistory (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , so, you're not in favour of deleting, but merging? --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  20:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not merging, but using it to as example to enrich the Armenian Genocide Denial article Addictedtohistory (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Per Addictedtohistory and LouisAragon. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:POVSPLIT of Armenian Genocide denial. Any useful content could be added to the main article and its relevant sections. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per LouisArago. Can be redirected to Armenian Genocide denial as well. Eurofan88 (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is a notable one, and in my opinion it isn't bad enough for TNT. The article needs substantial overhaul for NPOV, to indicate the relative acceptance (or lack thereof) of different views, and emphasize that the main debates in recent scholarship are not over whether a genocide happened, but the details of how and why.Sources:
 * (t &#183; c)  buidhe  11:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The article would need to be rewritten entirely to be about the details of how and why, which is why it's best to delete this one and then someone who is interested can then recreate it properly. --Steverci (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * For decades, there *was* a noteworthy debate as to whether there was a genocide. The article needs to state more clearly that the debate is pretty much over, and cover other aspects of the historiography, but not delete everything having to do with superseded or rejected views. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * For decades, there *was* a noteworthy debate as to whether there was a genocide. ...No, there never was. --Steverci (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * See the quote from Taner Akcam in the sources I cited. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Going by a translation, it sounds like he's talking about the academic world for any subject in general. Certainly wasn't true for the Armenian Genocide in 2010. --Steverci (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The article would need to be rewritten entirely to be about the details of how and why, which is why it's best to delete this one and then someone who is interested can then recreate it properly. --Steverci (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * For decades, there *was* a noteworthy debate as to whether there was a genocide. The article needs to state more clearly that the debate is pretty much over, and cover other aspects of the historiography, but not delete everything having to do with superseded or rejected views. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * For decades, there *was* a noteworthy debate as to whether there was a genocide. ...No, there never was. --Steverci (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * See the quote from Taner Akcam in the sources I cited. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Going by a translation, it sounds like he's talking about the academic world for any subject in general. Certainly wasn't true for the Armenian Genocide in 2010. --Steverci (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Draftify or userfy. What seems clear is that this topic is notable and distinct from the main topics about the genocide and its denial, but that writing about it competently needs exceptional care and skill. In this topic area, a poor article is worse than having no article at all. I know too little about the topic to determine the merits of the present content, but I'm following a simple rule of mine: the article contains Incorrectly Capitalized Section Titles, which indicates that whoever wrote it isn't an experienced Wikipedian, which means that the quality of the content is likely poor. The article should be draftified and only restored after review by qualified editors at WP:AFC.  Sandstein   15:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Nom seems to have a chip on his shoulder. Article seems fine, if controversial. Well established event, well-cited article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Even other users voting to keep it agree it's both poorly written and cited. If you decide to actually read the article, you should also take the time to read WP:AGF. --Steverci (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The event is well-established, but we have the article Armenian Genocide for that; moreover, as pointed out above, having footnotes is not the same thing as being well-cited. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: Much like with some other famous 20th century genocides, the historiography of the genocide is at least as noteworthy as the genocide itself. Im The IP  (talk) 02:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The historiography is noteworthy, but because it is part of a denialist effort, meaning that coverage of it belongs at Armenian_Genocide_denial. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete or follow the arguments brought forward by Sandstein and draftify. The article is a mess and if it should exist it should be similar to Functionalism–intentionalism debate which remains the redirect for "Historygraphy of the Holocaust". In summary this should be a serious academic discussion in regards to the historiography, not a validation of denial on a equal term as the academic debate. CutieyKing (talk) 09:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom, Addictedtohistory and LouisAragon. -  K evo3<b style="color:#0033a0">2</b><b style="color:#f2a800">7</b> (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.