Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yeraz


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeraz

 * - (|View AfD) (View log)

The name of this article is already insulting to azerbaijanis. The people from the Historical Western Azerbaijan never named themselves Yeraz and they consider this word as insulting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmelikov (talk • contribs) 2011/01/05 13:15:23
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, it is very well sourced to an array of neutral WP:RS, it was previously vetted for WP:DYK, and the only argument being pushed here is a very political WP:IDL --which violates policy and is not a valid deletion argument. The nominators use of the term "Historical Western Azerbaijan" shows significant WP:POV as well.  This is not the article for alternate theories of border/race politics. I would argue that this is a subject that will fall into the existing arbcom issues over the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and all the nationalist silliness that's caused those articles/editors to be watched.  --Bobak (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment, just for yucks, here's a recent report by the International Crisis Group that clarifies the word with the same conclusions as the article above. --Bobak (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep, but I'll ask the nominator to propose a move, so the issue of the article name can be addressed. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  05:16, 14 January 2011 (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.