Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Artsakh


 * 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. Both sides failed to reach an understanding on pretty much every issue in the debate. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Northern Artsakh

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article does not cite any references or sources, and appears to be an original research. According to WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". Grand master  09:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * delete. A clear POV article without any sources, this indeed is original research. Neftchi (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  13:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  13:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * keep. ignore comment by user pushing agenda. already in armenian and russian wikipedia as linked. significant topic, just no citations yet. no need to fall to racism and anti-armenian phobia of grandmaster and neftchi.82.178.0.96 (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Be civil and mind your language, such outrageous accusations are not taken lightly. Neftchi (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That IP has already been blocked for disruption. Grand  master  05:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * keep, there are sources about the area (some (but not all) here). Sardur (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: The red hatched area of the map corresponds almost exactly to that of the 10th-century Armenian kingdoms of Tashir-Joraget and Gardman-Parisos as shown on map 95, page 119, of Hewsen's "Armenia: A Historical Atlas". And a map on page 102 of the same atlas shows the former territory of Gardman-Parisos now incorporated into the 12th century kingdom of Artsakh. That would seem to be evidence that the use of the name "Northern Artsakh" to describe these territories isn't completely fancyful. But the article obviously needs some credible sources that indicate an actual use of that name to describe those territories. Presumably we are talking about only a modern usage. Meowy 21:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Modern usage? Who uses that term to describe a part of the territory of Azerbaijan? And what's next? Southern Artsakh? Western Artsakh? Eastern Artsakh? We have an article about Artsakh, it should be enough to cover the topic. Grand  master  04:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously it will be a modern usage (but used to describe an historical region). The answer for who uses the term will be found in sources that use the term (if there are such sources). I was just pointing out that it could be a legitimate term for someone to use to describe those regions, I wasn't presenting evidence that anyone had actually used the term (it isn't used in Hewsen's atlas for example), but Sardur's posting does indicate usage of the same phrase (though it is unclear if that usage is the same as the usage detailed in the wikipedia article). Meowy 17:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I can see on google books, there are at least 5 sources using it that way. Sardur (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Which seems to negate the original research reason for deletion given by Grandmaster, as well as the silly and spurious "POV article" claim by Neftchi. But Grandmaster's other argument, that there is no need for the article because its content could be incorporated into the Artsakh article, seems reasonable. What arguments are there for retaining it as a separate article? Meowy 18:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To have it separate from Artsakh seems reasonnable as it had been a historical region, and quite a particular one. But see my other answer below. Sardur (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

delete too armenian article Gvozdet (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Meaningless. Meowy 17:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Meowy. The information in this article can also be redirected merged into the Kingdom of Lori article. For that matter, we can perhaps redirect Gardman-Parisos into that same article as well (see the map on the Kingdom of Lori page).--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't actually voted, though I'm veering towards merge. Meowy 20:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I could also agree to merge. Sardur (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Gardman should have its own article. It was a distinct region that played an important role in the history of Caucasian Albania. Grand  master  05:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * delete as per GrandMaster --Aynabend (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not established term, instead coined for propaganda purposes only. Ateshi - Baghavan  05:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:POV pushing again. The region hashed on this map, historically known as "Uti" was never part of "Artsakh". Probably the claim that modern Armenia as part of Erivan khanate is Western Azerbaijan holds more weight than this claim about "Northern Artsakh" not based on any sources whatsoever. Atabəy (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The article does not cite any references or sources. Chippolona (talk) 07:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nortern Artsakh is a real territory which have history, culture e.t.c.--Wikistreet (talk) 09:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article does not cite any sources or references and it seems be of original research, which is not allowed (original research). RetlawSnellac (talk) 11:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Google Books search linked above shows that this a well-defined geographical area. I can't handle Armenian but I can see that there are some more book sources in Russian. The sources include two books with Northern Artsakh as the title and one more that includes it in the title (the title translates as Secrets of Gandzak (Kirovabad) and Northern Artsakh), so this easily passes notability criteria. If the use of this name for the area is controversial and/or has nationalist overtones then this should be explained in the article, rather than be used as a reason to delete it. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that every region has its northern, southern, western and eastern parts. These parts could be mentioned in sources, however what is the point in creating an article about each of them? Northern Artsakh never existed as a separate historical, administrative or political unit. The fact that the article relies on no reliable sources at all speaks for itself. We have an article about Artsakh, I think the topic can be covered within that article without the need to create articles about north, south and west of the region. Grand  master  19:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're going to reply to my comments then please take the time to read and understand them properly first. I pointed out two books that have Northern Artsakh as their titles, and another that includes it in the title. This shows that Northern Artsakh is a notable entity. If you can find books about Southern Artsakh, Western Artsakh or Eastern Artsakh then we can have articles about those regions, but if not then we should have an article on Northern Artsakh but not the others. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I see your point, but all those books are extreme Armenian nationalist sources that cannot be considered third party. The rules require that "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". This is my point. Unless we have third party sources that use the term, we cannot have an article on it. I don't see that Northern Artsakh is a valid historical term, it is rather a fringe theory. Grand  master  05:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Are these authors really "extreme Armenian nationalist"? You need to prove that.  We have an biography about one of the authors, Samvel Karapetyan, and we may have biogs about some of the others. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 06:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Armenian Revolutionary Federation is a nationalistic political party in Armenia, and is not a reliable source on history. And the context of the other books leaves very little doubt about the political agenda of the authors. The fact that the Azerbaijani city of Ganja is referred to as Gandzak, the name that has never been official for the city, speaks for itself. I provided some info about Karapetian here: . Thomas de Waal describes Karapetian as an "ultranationalist". Karapetian clearly has an agenda, and cannot be considered third party. Grand  master  07:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a specific region with set borders. It doesn't merely refer to the North of Artsakh, so an analogy with West, East or South is not applicable.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 19:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Phil Bridger and Eupator - Fedayee (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. A pseudo-historical term made up in the post-Karabakh War period to justify Armenia's territorial claims. If we take a look at the presented sources, we will see that virtually all of them are written by Armenian-based authors, some of them as controversial as Samvel Karapetian, in the years following the active phase of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. In addition, even on the instances when it is used by them, the context is POV and political rather than NPOV and historical. As for the book that has "Northern Artsakh as its title", I think the phrase Armenian Revolutionary Federation next to the author's name says it all to someone who is familiar with this party's irredentist agenda. A mere fact of ending up with some search results on Google Books is not enough to start an article. The sources must be credible, relevant and neutral, and the term must be of some scientific significance. Parishan (talk) 05:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note. There is a deletion debate on Russian Wikipedia as well. And the book by Samvel Karapetian  is only available in one major library in the United States.  But I think this deletion discussion is too hasty; the talk page is still red! John Vandenberg (chat) 06:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There are no references presented to even initiate a discussion in the first place. Parishan (talk) 09:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I have just red the entire delation debate. Delete per Grandmaster.  Zitterbewegung Talk  16:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Granmaster --Baki66 (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment: John, we've been quite habituated to your questions which, you can not ignore, Grandmaster has an answer to or your indirect allusions like here. It's laughable to turn this as some 'nationalistic' battle when Tasir-Joraget (AKA Northern Artsakh) was indeed an Armenian Kingdom and this included by authors that Grandmaster likes to quote, such as Dowsett (see p. 475 of his 'The Albanian Chronicle of Mxit'ar Gos'), Tasir-Joraget and Gardman-Parisos were later incorporated in the Kingdom of Khachen (See Hewsen's work of the same name) AKA Artsakh, to form North Artsakh, consisting of its Northern part and this centuries prior to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. If anyone has a more appropriate name for the article, short and concise, go ahead and propose it but the flooding of the AfD page with bogus voting and false claims of 'ultranationist' claims is not going to make it, either side of the conflict very well knows that the entity did exist (regardless of the appropriateness of the current name). It would probably require to clarify that historical Artsakh was larger in size than present day Nagorno-Karabakh. - Fedayee (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2009 (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.