Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Artsakh (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 no consensus.

Given the contentious topic, the various comments about either the article's contents or this nomination for deletion being intended to push a particular political point of view may well be right, but they are immaterial to the AfD closure, which works by assessing consensus by weighing the comments submitted in the light of applicable policies and guidelines (notably WP:V and WP:N).

Since WP:V is a non-negotiable core policy, the article would need to be deleted if no references to reliable sources are provided to verify the existence of the subject. The references now provided in the article, which go to what seem to be websites not meeting WP:RS, fall short of this, as do the hand-waving references to WP:GHITS. But SmokeyJoe has provided a link to a published book, with an ISBN, that has the subject as its title. The concept of "Northern Artsakh" as a region is therefore verifiable and the article escapes mandatory deletion.

This leaves me to determine whether there is consensus that this source is not, in fact, reliable; or that there are other policy-based arguments for deletion. I find that this is not the case. The clearly on-topic source provided by SmokeyJoe is not addressed by any other contributor, and neither is the issue of notability or any other inclusion criterium. As I've already mentioned, the various opinions alleging political motivations, but providing no policy-based rationale for retention or deletion, are discounted. This leaves us with no consensus for or against inclusion, and accordingly the article is kept by default.  Sandstein  16:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Northern Artsakh
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This page was kept on 29 July 2009 as no consensus (see Articles for deletion/Northern Artsakh). Since then no sources have been provided, the article still remains 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". Moreover, the article creator repeatedly tried to remove the tags from the page without any explanation, which does not appear to be a good faith attempt at resolving the problems with this article:   (User:Wikistreet is the same person as User:Elegant's, he changed his name in the Russian wiki). It is also worth to note that this page was deleted from the Russian wikipedia, where it was originally created. Grand master  06:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - the issue here appears to be not that this is not a verifiable term with an explainable and referenceable meaning, but that it is a politically charged term. That's not an AfD issue; it can be fixed by rewriting the article as "Northern Artsakh is a name used by [group X] to refer to [territory Y].  The area is also known as [A] by [group B]" and then going on to explain the history of the name's usage.  See WP:POLE. - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the term does not exist. The term Artsakh is used, and we have an article on Artsakh. But there's not a distinct entity called Northern Artsakh. Some Armenian sources may refer to northern part of Karabakh as northern Artsakh, but there was never a state or geographical or administrative region with that name. That's why the article creator is unable to site any sources to explain what Northern Artsakh means, what territory it covers, etc. If we have an article on Northern Artsakh, then why don't we have articles on southern, western and eastern Artsakhs? What is the point in having articles on north or south of a region, when we have a general article about it? I can understand when we have articles about North and South Korea, those are distinct political entities. But what is Northern Artsakh? A state? A geographic region? A province? We see no proof of any such meaning. Grand  master  15:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a geographic region. Serouj (talk) 06:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it shown on any map published outside of Armenia by reliable third party geographers? Grand  master  07:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be. It's enough that Research on Armenian Architecture uses it. Serouj (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not, per WP:FRINGE. Grand  master  05:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Umm... There are 3,600 hits on Google. I don't know what you're talking about. Serouj (talk) 05:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And not a single reliable scholarly source. Google search means nothing. If you search google for any geographic region in combination with the words northern or southern, you will get plenty of hits. It does not mean that southern part of some region is a distinct geographic notion. Grand  master  06:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Northern Artsakh is a very distinct geographical region. Its borders are unmistakable when you view it on a topographic map.  Furthermore, its Armenian history and the architectural monuments there are very distinct and difficult to oversee. An article on the region only follows.  If I had the time, I would do much more research on this topic.  But my not having the time shouldn't prevent the existence of this article! At some point, more information from sources not yet available on the Web can be added.  Til that time, there are no grounds to delete the article. Serouj (talk) 08:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. In ru.wiki it was deleted because there were no reliable sources supporting existence of something like this. If there are any, then bring them up, otherwise lets clean Wikipedia from this junk.  Zitterbewegung Talk  16:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep because Northern Artsakh - historical region. Cost noted that user Grandmaster is - Azeri, therefore this article not benefical for him and his country.--Elegant&#39;s (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Historical and geographical term.  There is a published book about it (http://www.eastview.com/russian/books/product.asp?sku=799338B&Karapetian/Samvel/Yerevan/Armenia/English/Caucasus/History/%28General%29/).  For such a subject, a single book is sufficient evidence of notability.  I think it was deleted at ru.wiki due to political sensitivities, but, here at least, we do not delete due to political sensitivities.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I also see from google hits that term can is well used, and I count 104 incoming mainspace links. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The combination of words "southern Artsakh" is also used, does it mean we should have an article on it? I understand when we have an article on Northern Ireland, it is a distinct political entity. But what is Northern Artsakh? Of course, every region has north, south, east and west, and they are mentioned in literature sometimes. But should we have articles on each of those directions in every region? And why would Russian wikipedians delete pages due to political sensitivities? They just did not find the arguments presented by the creator in support of this page convincing. Grand  master  19:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * the status quo is very wrong. Note how not even Artsakh links to Northern Artsakh. The default procedure will be to merge into Artsakh until it can be established coherently and beyond doubt that there needs to be a standalone article. --dab (𒁳) 10:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Northern Artsakh refers to the historical area of Artsakh that is now a part of Azerbaijan. This differentiates the region from the Republic of Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh).  There is an obvious usage of the term as well as books published about the region. Serouj (talk) 10:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. There is not historical evidence for this article, also relevant sources are missing. It is just made up by author.--NovaSkola (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Northern Artsakh" is a classification used by the Research on Armenian Architecture to signify that area of the Armenian plateau which lies east of the mountain range east of Lake Sevan. It's a clear historical geographic region of Armenia which is now in Azerbaijan.  Please see the following map for reference Historical Structures of Northern Artsakh by Research on Armenian Architecture. Serouj (talk) 05:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that the area is topologically delineated -- it is a distinct mountainous region adjacent to Armenia (the easternmost part of the Armenian plateau) after which the plains of Azerbaijan begin, descending to the Kura river basin. Serouj (talk) 05:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete There is no such a region like Northern Artsakh.  Some locally published literature cannot be a reliable source.  --Aynabend (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge into the article on the province of Gardman. Northern Artsakh appears to be the geographical name used for the ancient province of Gardman. Robert Hewsen's book, Armenia: A Historical Atlas, has a page and map devoted to the kingdom of Gardman-Parisos (p. 119, map 95) and so it might be prudent to follow his example. I think it's also rather suspicious on how editors like Aynabend always appears during these votes relating to Armenia or Azerbaijan and then disappears off the radar for the next nomination to keep or delete something.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep  Thjs is a political-based content dispute.    DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The following article provides important background on the dispute: . Serouj (talk) 05:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Samvel Karapetian is an Armenian ultra-nationalist. I provided quotes from the book by Thomas de Waal about Karapetian here: Karapetian is the one who denies Azerbaijani people the right to live in Karabakh and Armenia. Looks like he is the only one who uses the term, and it is his recent invention. Karapetian is not a reliable source due to his strong bias in this subject. The question is, should we have articles on marginal terms that have no historical, geographical or political weight, and are used by 1 person? So far I see no evidence that there ever was a distinct political or geographic entity called Northern Artsakh.  Grand  master  07:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how a scholar's studying and documenting Armenian architecture makes him an "Armenian ultra-nationalist". Serouj (talk) 08:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Read his views in de Waal's book. He is a chauvinist denying the right of Azerbaijani people to live in Kelbajar and other occupied regions of Azerbaijan. He is described as ultra-nationalist by de Waal, not me. There are no other sources describing Northern Artsakh as a distinct region or entity. No mention of Northern Artsakh in historical literature, and no third party sources that use the term. I never denied that the term Artsakh existed, we have an article about it to which I also contributed, but there's no reason in having articles about its northern or southern parts, since no one can demonstrate that the northern part of the region was a political or geographic entity on its own. Grand  master  09:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, character assassination won't get you very far in such arguments. Yes, Northern Artsakh is a geographic entity and it has meaning in Armenian history as well as in historical geography. Serouj (talk) 10:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Then how come that it is not mentioned in any third party source? There are plenty of peer reviewed articles and books about Armenia, Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan, but the region by the name of Northern Artsakh is never mentioned. Can you explain why? Grand  master  05:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can speak so grandly as to say that nowhere else is the term Northern Artsakh used (I see 3,600 results on google). I haven't reviewed every book in publication to say.  But clearly, the prominent Armenian architectural organization considers this to be a region of note, and indeed that makes sense to me.  The region has had a significant Armenian population upto at least the Armenian Genocide and perhaps later, too.  The map alluded to above (Historical Structures of Northern Artsakh and hosted on the website of the American University of Armenia) shows a rich Armenian cultural heritage on this land now called Northern Artsakh. Perhaps the region has not had enough study that it deserves (partly because today it is no longer accessible to Armenian researchers since the government of Azerbaijan wages a campaign of deliberate destruction of Armenian cultural heritage on its territory, specifically historically Armenian lands such as Northern Artsakh and most disturbingly at Julfa where the Azerbaijani government succeeded in completely annihilating 20,000 medieval Armenian cross-stones at the Armenian cemetery.)... So it is no wonder to me that you don't like to see mention of "Northern Artsakh" because that it implies talking about the Armenian history of a part of Azerbaijan...  And the last thing the Azerbaijani government wants to here about are Christian churches, monasteries, cross-stones, and communities in Azerbaijan...  Particularly not Armenian Christian churches, monasteries, cross-stones, and communities... Serouj (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are trying to make this a political debate, while the questions that I ask are very simple and get no response. Of course, google search returns hits on northern, southern and eastern Artsakh. Search google for north of any region of the world, and you will get hits. The question is, what is Northern Artsakh? A northern part of the region of Artsakh? Why we should have an article on it, while we don't have a single reliable source about it? And why we need articles about northern, southern and eastern Artsakh, or just a northern Artsakh? I would understand if Northern Artsakh was something like North Korea or Northern Ireland, i.e. a political entity or a state. But it is not. It is not a distinct geographic region either. So what is Northern Artsakh, and what is the point of having an article about it? What information it contains that cannot be included in the general article about Artsakh? So far I haven't received any answer to this, only political speculations, which have nothing to do with the topic. The only source that you are able to cite is an NGO headed by an extreme Armenian nationalist, which is not a reliable third party source. Other than that, you have nothing. But the articles should be based on reliable third party sources, according to the rules. You are not able to provide a single third party source about Northern Artsakh. This article should be deleted or merged into that about Artsakh. Grand  master  07:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As I have explained in numerous ways, Northern Artsakh is a historical and geographical region. It differentiates itself from the Republic of Artsakh in that it is under the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan.  It is also separated from the RoArtsakh by a mountain range.  Compared to the rest of the adjacent Azerbaijani land, Northern Artsakh is a mountainous region and it has had a significant Armenian population and history which the prominent Armenian organization that preserves Armenian architectural monuments considers to be a distinct region of note.  Your claim that Samvel Karapetyan is an "extreme Armenian nationalist" is unfounded and even if it were true, we are dealing with this scholar's research of Armenian architectural heritage in this territory.  Northern Artsakh is the northeastern most portion of the Armenian plateau which happens to be in Azerbaijan today.  Armenian historians distinctly call it "Northern Artsakh".  What else would they call it? Serouj (talk) 10:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The term is not used in scholarly literature. It is a fringe theory, promoted by 1 nationalistic author in Armenia. No reliable scholarly source uses the term of Northern Artsakh. There's the term Artsakh, on which we have an article. But northern part of the region cannot have a dedicated article, until we have enough of independent scholarly sources to establish that the concept actually exists and is not the invention of Karapetian. Grand  master  05:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are going around in circles. Armenians refer to this territory as "Northern Artsakh."  We can certainly have an article on it.  Period. If you weren't so nationalistic yourself (an Azeri nationalist), what would you be doing here arguing such a minor point as to whether there should be an article called "Northern Artsakh" on Wikipedia? I think you'd be better off improving the Baku article rather than trying to delete an Armenian-related article. Serouj (talk) 05:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * An attempt to take it to a personal level to make this a political issue won't work. It is not me who describes Karapetian as ultra-nationalist, but the British journalist who talked to him. And attacking other editors is a violation of WP:NPA. You know the rules. WP:V holds that "if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". It's been 3 months since the first nomination, during all this time no sources have been provided, and the article creator repeatedly tried to remove the tags without any explanation, which speaks for itself. This is about verifiability, which some try to turn into a political debate to avoid citing reliable sources. Grand  master  06:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In this discussionm, you are an Azeri ultra-nationalist. Period.  Otherwise you wouldn't be here making this dubious nomination to delete this article.  Research on Armenian Architecture is a reliable source. Serouj (talk) 08:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This is just original research without any references and thats why it was deleted on Russian-wiki, anyone can make up this kind of term and write a whole article about it. Neftchi (talk) 09:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a hoax type article. Made up term with no RS to back it up. Grand  master  09:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - the content dispute clearly has political basis. Historically the Northern Artsakh has an important geopolitical role in the South Caucasus. Gazifikator (talk) 10:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably true. Why don't you do us a favor and justify your point with reliable third party sources?  Zitterbewegung Talk  03:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The concept does not exist. There has never been a geographical region or administrative unit like that. Chippolona (talk) 11:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete Junk. No reliable sources.--Interfase (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - political-based content dispute. Once again. Sardur (talk) 06:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is getting ridiculous; it is attempt number two at deleting any reference to the historic region of Northern Artsakh motivated by nothing but politics. Hopefully, the nominations for deletion end with this. - Fedayee (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * nothing but politics, eh? How about the marginal fact that the article after all this time still fails to refer to a single WP:RS? --dab (𒁳) 11:12, 29 October 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.