Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treaty of Kurekchay


 * 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. anddiscuss renaming on the article talk page DGG (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Treaty of Kurekchay
( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete The article is an OR based on personal interpretation of a supposed primary source. There are no references to reliable second party sources (except of a footnote where a Russo-Qarabaghi treaty is mentioned, which according to a user is the same as the Treaty of Kurekchay). I can not find any reference to such a treaty in academic sources (see google-books). So please delete per WP:PSTS and WP:BURDEN. --Vacio (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

 Delete  Per Vacio. VartanM (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote, see below. VartanM (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Vacio has been trying to remove the info about this treaty for quite some time now, removing the links about it from various articles, attaching baseless tags, etc, and now tries to delete the article about it. The treaty between the khan of Karabakh and the Russian empire was a real historical document, its full text is available from Russian historical publications. See here, full text in Russian:  Here's the scan of the text of the original treaty:  In a printed publication it is available from Под стягом России: Сост., примеч. А. А. Сазонова, Г. Н. Герасимовой, О. А. Глушковой, С. Н. Кистерева. М.: Русская книга, 1992. p. 275-279. Its existence is confirmed by secondary sources, such as this:


 * Mirza Jamal was thus present during the signing of the Russo-Qarabaghi treaty between Ebrahim khan and Prince Tsitsianov, which made Qarabagh a protectorate of Russia.


 * George A. Bournoutian. A History of Qarabagh: An Annotated Translation of Mirza Jamal Javanshir Qarabaghi's Tarikh-e Qarabagh. Mazda Publishers, 1994. ISBN 1568590113, 9781568590110, p 3.


 * agreement between the Karabakh Khan and the Russian Emperor of May 1805, under which the former renounced his vassalage from Persia and declared his recognition of the power of the Great Emperor.


 * Russia and the Moslem World: A Monthly Review of Critical Articles and Interviews. Institut nauchnoĭ informat︠s︡ii po obshchestvennym naukam (Rossiĭskai︠a︡ akademii︠a︡ nauk) N. Ross Pub., 2000


 * Despite all these sources being provided, Vacio still wants this article deleted. I don't really understand why an article about this important treaty is being nominated for deletion, when you have its entire text available from various publications. -- Grand  master  07:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you please provide one single source which would contain these two words -- Treaty of Kurekchay?--Vacio (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Flamboyant bad-faith nomination. Regardless of the disputed points the treaty existed. brandспойт 08:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. This nomination is ridiculous. Cited treaty is a historical fact, not sure why it would bother anyone committed to scholarship and research in history. Atabəy (talk) 09:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Academic sources DO NOT mean only google-books. Trying to have deleted an article about a historical fact is indeed ridiculous. Zitterbewegung Talk 20:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep but with qualifications. Something clearly exists, and is thus deserving of an article. However, the question is whether it is correct to call it a "treaty" in the general meaning of that word. But that can probably be decided through further discussion, as can questionable claims and possible OR, such as the "made the khanate a protectorate of the Russian empire" content in the article. Meowy 21:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename as per Meowy's suggestion I renamed the article to Kurekchay agreement and I think that the article can be kept by expanding on the context and the situation of the Armenian captives and those who escaped to Georgia. VartanM (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Is Meowy some kind of authority to grant permission for renaming articles? Google returns 3 times more results for "Kurekchay treaty", and here is impartial Webster reference using this term. Atabəy (talk) 03:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Bournoutian calls it a treaty. What's the problem here? -- Grand master  06:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Out of Atabəy's 3 results, 2 are from Webster, and their sources are "[WP]", thus Wikipedia. Not reliable. Sardur (talk) 08:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename As Meowy mentioned, something clearly existed but it was not a treaty so the article should stay until this is sorted out.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 13:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I searched the following names (using Google) which refer to the same fact: Treaty of kurekchay (247), Kurekchay treaty(212), Treaty of kurek chay(0), Kurek chay treaty(0), Kurek chay agreement(0), and finally Kurekchay agreement(4). Google returns maximum number of results, 247, for the current name, Treaty of kurekchay. Thus, I strongly suggest to keep this name and put redirects from Kurekchay treaty and Kurekchay agreement. Else this discussion is the waste of time. Thanks to all. Zitterbewegung  Talk 14:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The majority of those hits trace back to the Wikipedia article.--  Ευπάτωρ  Talk!! 22:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right, I checked and a few of them definitely trace back to Wikipedia but that in reality is not the majority. Zitterbewegung Talk 19:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hold on. I didn't say for certain it was not a treaty. I said there were questions about it being one. Based on reading it using various online translators (not the best way to read it, I agree) It seams like a personal affirmation and agreement between the Khan and Tsitsianov. However, that could still be called a treaty - and anyway, an article title is meant to be used to locate the article; it doesn't nead to be a 100% accurate definition of the article's content. What the document certainly doesn't do is "make the khanate a protectorate of the Russian empire". If that were its immediate intention it would contain references to territorial borders, and trade, and so on. But this has nothing to do with a request for deletion, so it should be discussed on the article's talk page (where the usual hidden agendas with probably eventually be revealed). Meowy 16:35, 22 March 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.