Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iranian theory regarding the origin of the Azerbaijanis


 * 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. That the article is in need of cleanup is not a reason to delete it. There are some concerns of this being a POV fork. If these concerns cannot be alleviated it may warrant renomination in the future. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Iranian origin of the Azerbaijanis

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is a propaganda of Iran. Even some of the citations are fake and one-sided (mostly Iran sources). The origin of the Azeri Turks is Khazaria. So, it is definitely a POV. To prevent giving false information, I request you to delete this article. Tomyrys 13:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this article a "POV-fork" or some other article? -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 10:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: Fixed improperly done nomination, , , . -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 10:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to point out that User:Zamkudi and User:Tomyrys are the same person using two different Wikipedia accounts in order to create the facade that there is wide support for the article's deletion. Please be aware of this fact and be cautious of any new accounts without any previous history which may appear to vote here. Dfitzgerald 00:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a fork of Azerbaijani people. In it's current form it is OR, and whether or not the topic deserves a separate article in addition to Azerbaijani people is subject to discussion. I wonder what non-involved people think. Grandmaster 13:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Clearly this article in its current state is original research. However, there might be an argument for having an article describing the varying theories on the origins of the Azeri people. cf Race of Ancient Egyptians (although don't compare too hard, because there's an ongoing dispute there). I would recommend a move to Origins of Azeri people and a complete NPOV rewrite. - Che Nuevara 14:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * keep The article in its current form is in bad shape, and if there is any OR< people should ask sources for every statement made.  Then either a source will be provided or the statement will be deleted.  I made a section [] and added five scholarly sources.  The theory is expressed by such eminent historians Richard Frye, Vladimir Fedorovich Minorsky,Tadeusz Swietochowski and Xavier De Planhol[]. I just added four quotes from these well known scholars.  Also added an Encyclopedia Britannica quote which discusses Caucasian and Iranian origin.   These can be summarized (if there is no dispute about them) later, but now it just illustrates that there is some meat to the theory. So while there are sources with this regard, these sources were not present before the AFD.  In its current form the article needs a cleanup to make it in a better scientific shape and also tags for any statement that is deemed OR.  I don't it is a fork to Azerbaijani people, since the article discusses origin while that article is much more general and has a small subsection for Iranian origin.  To put all the evidences in that article might overburden that article.  The issue keeps coming up in Wikipedia but I think this article should be cleaned up.  So a cleanup tag and any other tag that is necessary is good enough until it is cleaned up.  Following up the discussion in Azerbaijani people, the major creator and editor of that article did not want to overburden that article with too much of the details (which is fine).  That is why he linked that article to this article where the details were supposed to be provided.  So the article just needs to be cleaned up (although the ADF poll was fine before the prior edits).--alidoostzadeh 16:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * keep I can't agree with the current reason for deletion, as the nomination is just as POV as anything written in the article. I regret that Wikipedia has become a stage for articles like the one nominated here, but I don't like seeing whatever external politics that are motivating people spilling over here and creating AfD nominations.  I support a rewrite or move.  --Bobak 17:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete In its current shape, it is purely selective history writing. All of those sources being brought by Alidoostzadeh are not compared and balanced by other sources, especially Cambrdige History of Iran, Audrey Altstadt and et al. If we could ever reach a compromise to make it a balanced article, I would vote for keeping it. --Aynabend 18:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * you should discuss the merit of existence of this article not the main contributor of it.--Pejman47 20:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have not been a contributor to this article.  I just added some valid references, but the article can be cleaned up.  --alidoostzadeh 20:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what Cambridge history of Iran says (which article and where). Pg 951 of volume 6 discusses the influence of old Azari (Iranian language) on the modern Turkish one.  Audrey Altstadt is not even remotely in the league of Minorsky, Frye, Planhol and even Swietchowski.   Her book has received some not so good reviews.  Here is what the book description says:Audrey L. Alstadt makes use of both Russian-language and Azerbaijani Turkish-language newspapers, journals, and scholarly publications. Much of this material has never been used in any other Western studies. Altstadt's original research adds the Azerbaijani perspective on the two-century relationship between Russia and Azerbaijan.  So her book is really adding the local political perspective and is not really encyclopedic when it comes to ancient history.  USSR histography overall has been manipulated as discussed in the book Stalanism by Fitgerald.  Alstdad lacks proper training in Arabic and Persian (which you really can't understand the history of the region without).  For example claiming Caucasian Albanians to be linked to Turkic languages is invalid (she mentions it in her book which invalidates her the history section) and outstide of the realm of Academia.  Or taking the story of Ra'esh (mythical Yemeni king who conquers Sind and Hind and Berber lands)and  who fights Afrasiyab (who had gathered Turanians (later on identified with Turks)) on behalf of Manuchehr in Azerbaijan and turning it into real history is not really academic (the story being told in the court of mu'awiyah).  She might be an okay modern historian but definitely not a good ancient historian.  If you think the article is unbalanced, you can put a unbalanced tag and discuss it in the talkpage or balance it by creating a section with the other point of view from academic sources.  But the article says it is a "theory".  The statements from Minorsky, Frye, Planhol, Swietchowski, Britannica makes the article very valid.  It would overburen the article of Azerbaijani people if all these valid soures (and more) are put in, thus Tombeyese references this article in order to make the other article's subsection succint.  --alidoostzadeh 19:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination, the tone of the nominator (not surprisingly a "throw away" account) is somehow like a propaganda poster (I omitted unrelated slogans). As Bobak stated, It is really disappointing to see that Wikipedia can be molested for political agendas.
 * (history of page as I remember): this page is one of the satellite article of Azerbaijani People, which is now a FA and has been appeared in main page of WP sometimes ago. There was two theories regarding the origin of the people, Caucasian origin of the Azerbaijanis and Iranian theory regarding the origin of the Azerbaijanis which both of them was discussed at the main article in two different sections. For keeping the article short, the details of those two theories have been kept for independent articles, both of them are not POV fork, but I admit that both of them are full of OR. --Pejman47 20:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep I can't understand if there is any problem with the text, then why it should be nominated for deletion as first step ? Please first read the Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and then chose the articles tobe deleted. --Alborz Fallah 11:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The article does not meet the criteria for deletion. Dfitzgerald 00:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to any appropriate article through redirect. Iranian theory isn't the sole. I also agree with Che Nuevara. --Brand спойт 16:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, I think this is a case where keeping the two theories on separate articles will work well. The two articles should describe the two prevailing theories in the intro. John Vandenberg 01:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep I agree with those users who believe this article does not meet the criteria for deletion.Gol 05:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Grandmaster that the article is a POV fork and OR in its current form. It should be re-written under NPOV and merged into Azerbaijani people. Deletion may be another possibility only if the current form is concerned. E104421 09:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC) P/s: In case of merger, this should also be applied to Caucasian origin of the Azerbaijanis. E104421 09:47, 9 October 2007 (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.