Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malibeyli and Gushchular 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   keep. This is an article with difficulties in neutrality. This is however no reason to delete. Arguments are brought forward that the word massacre in itself is problematic for neutrality (that is not saying it should be avoided at all costs in all situations, but, as Gingsengbomb puts it, "the word "massacre" is extremely potent and tends to make it difficult to incorporate opposing views in the same article". There are no arguments brought forward that this issue would only leave the option to delete the article, while there are other options like renaming open. There is consensus that the events that are the subject of this article are notable, and that deleting is not the only reasonable option to prevent NPOV, so keep it is. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Sources are all one sided or the only third party sources available do mention any massacres directly. Another article like this was deleted I nominated it also. It goes against Wikipedia policies and this article should be deleted from Wikipedia, as no reliable sources exist. Unfortunately this article does not meet notable criteria on Wikipedia, no scholarly references are available to give it a status here.(See:Articles for deletion/Agdaban massacre) Nocturnal781 (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Neutral and reliable sources don't call it a massacre. The information about casualties and the operation to capture the villages can be included in respective village articles. VartanM (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Nocturnal781 and VartanM. Sardur (talk) 06:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep No sufficient reason was given for deletion. Given argument even contridicts statements made by other users, who insist on rename rather then deletion. So this doesnt even meet the criteria for deletion. Mursel (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not a notable event, no reliable sources can back this article up. Renaming it still won't take away the fact that this article is not important.Nocturnal781 (talk) 02:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete As far as I could verify, third party sources do not confirm that a massacre took place. See for instance HRW on the capture of these villages: Eight people were reportedly killed as a result of the seizure of Malybeyli, some of whom were women and children. But the article claims that 15-50 civilians were massacred. -- va  c  io  22:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The article is Baku a propaganda effort. Dehr (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I had originally proposed that we rename the article to Battle of... but it's clear that the article itself would not be long enough to warrant its own page. Again, a lack of sources show why the current name is unsuitable, but it looks like now that renaming it is also rendered untenable.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The use of highly partisan Azerbaijani sources is alarming. --George Spurlin (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mursel. --NovaSkola (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete For this kind of artciles there must be international sources.Ali55te (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * DeleteI agree with Nocturnal. Winterbliss (talk) 04:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Several quite strong international sources are stated clearly in the talk page. Meanwhile, I haven't seen any firm reasoning to nominate article for deletion. Angel670   talk  05:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: The problem is that these international sources do not confirm that a massacre has occurred. See for instance the HRW quotation above. -- va c  io  10:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support to keep: The problem is that HWR is not an only source. There are several international authors who confirmed a massacre, there are whole books by international authors where Malibeyli and Gushchular massacre is very well described. These are all provided in the course of discussion in the talk page. Moreover, the article can be further improved. The other problem is that the user who nominated the article for deletion hasn't read the talk page at all, as I can understand from his text above, moreover, he hasn't provided his input/question in the talkpage (just out of respect to other users who spent energy and time for improvement of the article) prior to nomination for deletion, and therefore, his justification of deletion of well-sourced Wiki article is invalid. Angel670   talk  14:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please quote just one of those international authors. -- va c  io  16:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * How can you vote here if you haven't checked the talk page of the article at all. All international sources and quotes are clearly provided on the talk page of the subject article. Your unawareness proves that your votes as well as this AdF is fake attempt to get rid of good Wiki article containing interesting facts and testimonies of neutral international authors about these massacres. Angel670   talk  23:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Angel is very right. Firstly, there are many sources in the article and talk page which was given by Angel670 which call the killed event a massacre. And second, Armenians users don't want to recognize them that's why they want to delete all. Dighapet (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The event is mentioned in the report by the Russian human rights organization Memorial: Были изгнаны жители из сел Малибейли, Гушчулар, при этом в результате обстрелов погибли несколько десятков мирных жителей. The inhabitants of the villages of Malibeyli and Gushchular were forced out, and a few dozens of civilians died as result of shelling.  Grand  master  15:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's it: a shelling is not necessarily a massacre. -- va c  io  16:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, but my point is that the event described in the article took place, therefore the article should not be deleted. Whether it should be called differently is another question. Grand  master  18:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep this article is based on reliable sources which show the evidence. Ladytimide (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The article based on facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbatai (talk • contribs) 18:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete because the subject is not noted by any credible sources. Grandmasters "the event described in the article took place, therefore the article should not be deleted" misses the point. We are not here to decide what happened or did not happen and if it is a singular "event" that canbe given a title, and Wikipedia is not here to cover every event, it is here to cover events that have been noted by other sources. I have read through the talk page. The phrases "Malibeyli Massacre" and "Gushchular Massacre" are only used in propagandistic sources that are never going to be suitable to be used as sources on Wikipedia. Meowy  03:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment What you are saying is not true. There are credible sources mentioning massacre in Malibeyli and Gushchular villages. And this is enough to keep the article. The other thing is that you may not like those sources and discredit them for your own reasons. You may possibly not like the Dutch journalist who wrote about these massacres because you think he is an alcoholic or drug-addict or of different sexual orientation. In reality he can be just a nice chap undeservably labelled and cornered by some "prominent" Wiki users. You can not remove the article because your dont like the personality of the author of neutral source. Even the fact that there is such a long discussion here means, that this discussion should be continued on the talk page of the artile. This is as simple as that. Angel670   talk  21:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, based on Baku-based propaganda sources. - Fedayee (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: C'mon, dont be silly. Where you see Baku propaganda? Innocent civilians were killed, just pay respect to those who died. Have you seen me assigning Maragha Massacre for deletion or trying to call it Maragha Battle, although Maragha happened in the course of full-time war unlike Malibeyli&Gushchular, Garadaghly etc.? You know why? Because I can pay respect to died victims. This war experienced a lot of mistakes by both sides, you must be able to face them and admit them. Don't even try to hide them. Angel670   talk  21:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's because Maraga Massacre is supported by neutral and reliable sources, unlike Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre. Sardur (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Passes WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - all sources are valid. All a reader can read from talk page of article is proved sources that massacre happened and is rightly called massacre. As per BabbaQ.  Anastasia Bukhantseva   05:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see no problem with the sourcing. Besides, the event was notable enough; the occupation of the said villages is even cited by Armenian sources, so I fail to see how notability can be an issue here. Parishan (talk) 17:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment for closing admin As you have probably realised this article relates to one of those between two conflicting parties. Therefore, its nomination for deletion is the intentional decision of one of the sides. The article is well-sourced and meets Wiki criteria (though it has already been vandalised several times, including last editing). Now it requires that any uninvolved editor experienced in coordinating dispute between two parties, join in the talk page, and assess the neutral sources provided there: Rao Johannes, the German expert on Caucasian issues, Charles van de Leeuw, the Dutch journalist, and one more source by Charles van der Leeuw published by Finnish expert, all supporting the massacre event, in addition to other international sources such as HRW, Cornell etc. supporting term “ethnic cleansing” and “eviction” of people, and various links with testimonies of victims, documents etc. Uninvolved editors who joined in the discussion of this article previously at first glance would accept suggested sources and requested the arguing party to provide their sources against the article. This request was left unanswered and not a single source has been provided putting the article under a question. In such a situation, the uninvolved editor in search of compromise requested more supporting sources from one side that kept providing them continuously throughout the whole talk (this request was really unfair). This had been clarified too. In an attempt to make both sides happy, he simply got confused with his requests, or felt incompetent to make any judgement on the issue and withdrew. I would very much appreciate if you approach the article with the simplistic eye, based on Wiki rules, just saying the Dutch journalist, German expert and Finnish expert and other supporting sources listed here are neutral or not, if not, then why. The decision on this article neither is resolving the dispute nor fuelling it up. Uninvolved editor is required only to assess the neutrality of sources provided, without a headache to try to make everyone happy or to dig into the debris of the conflict. Thank you. Angel670  talk  11:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The following is what I said at another of this editor's nominations, but I think it applies to this one just as strongly: 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.
 * I think these articles need improvement, but I can't help but see this editor's actions as being a tendentious attempt to censor information about massacres by Armenians during this war. This was one of those conflicts where tit-for-tat massacres and reciprocal ethnic cleansing were common. An editor attempting to expunge the record of one side's abuses because it discomforts them is inappropriate for this sort of situation.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 21:35, 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) 22:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I would like to submit the list of neutral sources for this article on AfD too to make things clear:

I haven't included here the book by Azerbaijani historian as a compromise and the links which are secondary supporting sources to the article.

I hope this helps. Angel670  talk  22:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Seriously check the sources and their author, and then WP:BATTLEGROUND. All this has been discussed on the talk page. Sardur (talk) 22:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, but I don't see any ground you show me to the link of battle ground. I'm simply providing my sources which are neutral and reliable according to Wiki policy. They are not of Azerbaijani origin, they are international, they are published by reputable publishers, and they are widely cited in scholarly research works. Angel670   talk  00:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Angel670. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The article is an open misinformation, with clear trace and political goals. It should be deleted, since it doesn't provide with a reliable information from reliable sources, and is designed and expected to push on an emotional aspect by mentioning deaths among civilians. Non-Azeri sources mention operation to suppress firing position, which is natural during the war. The information has been "reinforced" and aggravated by the author, which doubts his/her objectives. Still, the piece remains another unconfirmed allegation. Spankarts (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC) — Spankarts (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note to admin. Given the history of the latter commentator's contributions, it seems like he registered merely to vote for the deletion of Azerbaijan-related articles. Parishan (talk) 11:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per The Devil's Advocate and Angel670. Unfortunate to see such open partisanship around these subjects, and more unfortunate to see one side of the conversation resorting to deletion as a kind of "nuclear option." The sourcing is, for the most part, sound; and where it isn't sound, it should be addressed via editorial activity, not deletion of the entire article. I may be sympathetic with renaming the article -- the word "massacre" is extremely potent and tends to make it difficult to incorporate opposing views in the same article -- but I have no suggestions for a better name and, indeed, the sourcing really does seem to support the current name. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  15:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as per stated reasons above, sources are reliable enough. So many neutral sources were presented, especially on the talk page of the article. The massacre as per the neutral sources is irrefutable and this move to get it deleted seems politically motivated. Lava22T (talk) 04:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient sources. I agree with the above comment that the opposition to the article is that of political dislike for the subject, which "didn't happen". the article is a little non-neutral at present, but that is fixable--at least, it is fixable if the various national groups stay away from it.  DGG ( talk ) 06:46, 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.