Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Garadaghly Massacre (2nd nomination)

Reliable sources?
For discussion, a selection of sources from the article itself. I have included them in the order in which they appear in the article reference list. Stalwart 111  02:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Opinion editorial from the Eurasia Review.
 * the author is Yusif Babanly, here it says Yusif Babanly is the co-founder and secretary of the US Azeris Network (USAN) and a member of the board of directors of Azerbaijani American Council
 * why not reliable: not a notable person, does not seem to be independent from Aliyev's govt


 * Indeed he is. A source does not have to be notable to be reliable. We'll probably need more than "does not seem to be" to make an assertion of bias. You can be supportive of your country without being supportive of its Government, as is the case for about 48% of Americans. But the fact that it's an opinion-editorial with less editorial oversight calls its reliability into question, regardless of the author. I would said it's okay, not great, but probably not enough for an article in its own right. Stalwart 111  04:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Not reliable: Yusif Babanly is a member of USAN. USAN is a progovernment Azerbaijani organization (link). The Azerbaijani government is directly involved in this incidents being part of the Karabakh War, which means this is a biased source --Markus2685 (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I had concerns about this one already and this probably tips the balance against it for me. Stalwart 111  01:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm unhatting this one. Is Eurasia Review a reliable source? It absolutely does not matter if Yusif Babanly himself is from a pro-government Azerbaijani organization if his editorial was published in a reliable source. I see that Eurasia Review is cited in many Wikipedia articles so I suspect it may be reliable, in which case this article is a perfectly reliable source, per WP:RELIABLE (which does not so much care if a source or author is unbiased so long as his content is subject to editorial control). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  04:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like to hint to one of Wikipedias core content policies. As this is a pro-government source it does not depict a "neutral point of view" WP:NPOV--Markus2685 (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

2. Markar, Melkonian (2004), My brother's Road - unlinked book.
 * it's a book by the brother of Monte Melkonian, whom Azeris consider a terrorist
 * why not reliable: no page given


 * Well that doesn't really make a source unreliable, it just makes the reference slightly more difficult. I think this might be worth exploring further given it is (on the surface) a view from the "other side". Stalwart 111  04:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Not verifiable: No proper referencing Verifiability--Markus2685 (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * A lack of a page number is not the same thing as "unverifiable", per WP:Page numbers. In this case, there's no indication that the book talks about this subject in depth, nor that the book uses the same language as the article and so could be used to verify said claims. There's certainly nothing to suggest it's a main theme of the book. Stalwart 111  01:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree --Markus2685 (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The previous AfD refers to the book covering this incident on or around page 212 (which you can see at the bottom of the page here). This is relevant if "Karadaghlu" in the book is the same village. If it's not, then I agree this source seems, at present, fairly useless! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  04:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I provided a quote from Melkonian at AFD page. Karadaghlu is the same village as Garadaghly. It describes the massacre in much detail, and is verifiable. The book describes the massacre on pp 211-212. Grand  master  20:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Here it is not about the fact if such a incident happened or not. One can not base an article on this one source. This is not possible. Also, as this is an Armenian (partisan) source, it can not be called "neutral point of view" WP:NPOV --Markus2685 (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

3. Broken link, but the article references a foreign-language title.
 * archived here This is the website of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (Azerbaijan).
 * why not reliable:It's a government agency so I won't continue. Although, the title of that page itself says everything "Terrorist attacks by Armenian terrorists" (ТЕРРОРИСТИЧЕСКИЕ АКТЫ, СОВЕРШЕННЫЕ АРМЯНСКИМИ ТЕРРОРИСТАМИ


 * Well the meme-esque headline doesn't help. Clearly not independent or neutral enough to be considered a reliable source. Stalwart 111  04:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not reliable: All is said here--Markus2685 (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm unhatting this as well. First, it's a government source. There's nothing in WP:RELIABLE which suggests that government sources are unreliable simply for being government sources. If this were a U.S. government source covering a terrorist attack against the U.S., we certainly wouldn't be objecting to it. Additionally, "Terrorist Attacks by Armenian Terrorists"...how is that so bad? Do we not incorporate sources referring to "terrorists"? If the title were something like "Terrorist Attacks by Bloodthirsty Armenian Dogs" I'd tend to agree, but "terrorist attacks by...terrorists" is not exactly screaming bias to me. I strongly disagree with this one. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  04:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd again like to hint to one of Wikipedias core content policies. As this is a pro-government source it does not depict a "neutral point of view" WP:NPOV--Markus2685 (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

4. No content, but the article references a foreign-language title.
 * Not verifiable: No content, no article Verifiability--Markus2685 (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Any idea what the title is? Our immediate lack of access to a source does not make the source "unverifiable" per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Stalwart 111  01:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I see it this is not a case of "ease of access to sources". The information or better said the article just does not exist and therefore is not verifiable. The title says "news - January 1, 1970, 04:00 | Region: | Topic: - More on this topic - January 1, 1970" Nothing about "Garadaghly" or anything similar. --Markus2685 (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

5. Links to a newspaper rather than a specific article. I couldn't find any article that specifically covered the subject on the site, but a particular foreign-language article is referenced.
 * it seems like the main page of the website is popping up
 * Yeah, without an actual article to reference, I can't see how this would be considered coverage, let alone significant coverage. Stalwart 111  04:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not verifiable: no actual article Verifiability--Markus2685 (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

6. Small Nations and Great Powers: A Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus by Svante E. Cornell (Psychology Press, 2001). Not necessarily "significant coverage" but it does make passing mention of the subject incident.
 * where? I couldn't find anything
 * The book refers to the location as Karadagly - the link in the reference list is actually an in-book search. Confirms there was an incident but does not refer to it by the same name as the article and suggests it was just another incident (as horrible as that might sound) in a wider conflict. Stalwart 111  04:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really useful. I agree with Stalwart111--Markus2685 (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps useful as a source to verify a small section about the incident in the article about the town, but I don't think it's enough to be considered "significant coverage". Stalwart 111  01:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree --Markus2685 (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Full quote (p. 81): From early February onwards, the Azeri villages of Malybeili, Karadagly, and Agbadan were conquered and their population evicted, leading to at least 99 civilian deaths and 140 wounded. - definitely not significant coverage on its own, but if this article is kept then it provides clear argument for renaming, as it is probably closest thing to neutral source around here and doesn't use word "massacre".--Staberinde (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

7. ''"Газ. "Бакинский рабочий", Т. Чалалзе. Сострадание. 1995.". February 18, 1992.'' Unlinked foreign-language title.
 * seems to be a Russian-language newspaper of Baku Bakinskiy rabochiy, no page given
 * why not reliable: no page given, no way to verify
 * Yeah, that doesn't necessarily mean the source is unreliable - we just require that it could be found by someone with access to the same source. Any idea what the title is? Stalwart 111  04:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not verifiable: No proper referencing Verifiability--Markus2685 (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As above - that doesn't necessarily mean the source is unreliable - we just require that it could be found by someone with access to the same source. Any idea what the title is? Can we get any idea what the source actually is before we summarily dismiss it? Stalwart 111  04:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * According to Google translator the title says ""Gas." Baku Worker ", T. Chalalze. Compassion. 1995"

8. Foreign language article - will require translation.
 * Not reliable: 1news.az is a pro-government/close to the Azerbaijani government website [1] [2] --Markus2685 (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the first is just someone's opinion (on a forum somewhere?) but the second is from a reliable news source that we (WP) quote extensively in other articles. While WP:WINARS, it seems there is agreement that the source suffers from some bias issues, probably enough to consider it unreliable. Stalwart 111  01:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Unhatting this one too because, again, WP:RELIABLE does not exclude "biased" sources. Bias is perfectly acceptable, and if the strongest condemnation we have on this source is the phrase "considered close to the government," I'm not sure this qualifies as the kind of nationalistic propaganda machine we would indeed have to toss out. I'm hardly certain this is a good source, but it can't be tossed out simply for having bias in one direction or another. If it is a propaganda organization, that is another matter. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  04:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd again like to hint to one of Wikipedias core content policies. As this is a pro-government source it does not depict a "neutral point of view" WP:NPOV--Markus2685 (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

9. Broken link from the same author/source as above. Would require translation if it can be found.
 * Not verifiable: No content, no article Verifiability--Markus2685 (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Same source as 8 - same problems. Stalwart 111  01:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

10. A letter to the UN - a primary source. While it might provide coverage of the subject, it is inherently POV and so would need to be supported by non-primary, NPOV sources.
 * quote In the village of Garadaghly alone, over 80 civilian Azerbaijanis, including children, women and old people, were tortured and killed mercilessly, dozens of people were taken hostage and the village itself was burned and razed to the ground. by the Permanent Representative of Azerbaijan to the United Nations
 * why not reliable: Aliyev's govt figure
 * Agree, no editorial oversight involved in a Government communique. At best, a primary source, but I can't see how it would be considered independent. I'll leave this one open for others to consider on that basis, but I'm not excited about it. Stalwart 111  04:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not reliable: WP:PRIMARY --Markus2685 (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

11. Seemingly, a list of atrocities as recorded by the Azerbaijani Government. A primary source when considered in the context of a conflict that involves said Government.
 * quote В январе 1992 года армянскими террористическими группировками было убито: в посёлке Кяркиджахан 80 человек, в феврале 1992 года в посёлке Карадаглы Ходжавендского района 77 человек и 26 февраля 1992 года в городе Ходжалы 613 мирных жителей, а 650 человек было ранено. translates In January 1992 by the Armenian terrorists were killed: 80 people in Kyarkidzahan, in February 1992 in the village of Karadagly 77 people..."
 * why not reliable: government agency, calls Armenians terrorists
 * It also doesn't actually refer to the subject in the same terms. I'll leave it open as a potential primary source for others to consider but it's not great, in my view. Stalwart 111  04:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not reliable: WP:PRIMARY

12. A broken link, but the article references a foreign-language title.
 * Not verifiable: No content, no article Verifiability --Markus2685 (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Any idea what the title is? Our immediate lack of access to a source does not make the source "unverifiable" per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Stalwart 111  01:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This again in my opinion is not a problem of "ease of access to sources". This would be the case if the article for example requires payment for access. But that's not the case. The article just does not exist on the server (see 404 Not Found) and is therefore not verifiable. --Markus2685 (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

13. Link didn't work for me, but the article references a foreign-language title.
 * quote On 10 February 1992, Malibeyli and Gushchular villages. The Armenians attacked many times these villages, but on that day everything finished: killed, wounded, refugees. Garadaghly, on 13 February, at 06.00 in the morning: more than ninety people taken hostages; there were forty one women among them. About two hundred residents of Garadaghly were shot.
 * why not reliable: calls Armenians historical falsifiers and slanderers, no source given in the website
 * Not great as a secondary source, obviously, and it doesn't give significant coverage to the subject - more a passing mention. The POV language doesn't help any claim that this might be considered an independently written editorial-style source. Stalwart 111  04:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not verifiable: In my case it redirects to the front page. No actual article. Verifiability--Markus2685 (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

14. Broken link, but the article references a foreign-language title.
 * Not verifiable: Broken link. No article. Verifiability--Markus2685 (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As sources don't need to be online, we really should work out what article is being referenced and whether or not in contains the information in question. Remember, regardless of personal views, we still need to WP:AGF. Stalwart 111  01:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if we could gain somehow access to this non-existing article (which is impossible) the issue of access is not the point anymore as APA is a pro-governmental News agency. "Gurbanly asserted to the pro-government APA news agency." [1]. Therefore not reliable WP:NPOV --Markus2685 (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

15. Foreign-language source that requires translation and analysis.
 * musavat.com seems not to be pro-governmental [1]--Markus2685 (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So... in your opinion...? Stalwart 111  01:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that these few lines are enough to base an article on --Markus2685 (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * These few lines on conjunction with the other material we have is a solid basis, and this is coverage in a source that is not only reliable it is even unbiased. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  04:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

16. NATO report on related matters that doesn't seem to mention the subject, but I could be using the wrong search parameters.
 * Not reliable: Elkhan Mekhtiev is the political advisor of the leadership in Baku [1] WP:PRIMARY--Markus2685 (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you help with a translation? Stalwart 111  01:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. On page 19 in the middle it says (in German) "Elkan Mekhtiev, Berater der politischen Führung in Baku..." --Markus2685 (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * At the end of page 10 and beginning of page 11 this NATO report directly addresses the incident, and actually uses the word "massacre" to describe it. And, again, the source is what constitutes reliability, not the author. This is a NATO-published report, so we judge whether NATO is reliable, not Elkhan Mekhtiev. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  04:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd again like to hint to one of Wikipedias core content policies. As this is an artcile written by a governmental person it does not depict a "neutral point of view". This article does not depict the opinion of the NATO but the opinion of Elkhan Mekhtiev and also the word "massacre" is not a term the NATO has used but simply the term Elkan Mekhtiev has used in his report. Therefore it is not crucial which website this is but who has written this artcile and who's opinion the article depicts WP:NPOV--Markus2685 (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

17. Article from an Azerbaijani newspaper about the subject incident. Need to determine if the source is considered a reliable source for our purposes and if not, why not.
 * Quote The French deputy visited the family of Sevil Azizova-resident of the Garadagly village under Armenian occupation whose two sons have become martyrs in the Karabakh war. Azizova spoke of the mass termination of the population of Garadagly village of Khojavend led by famous Armenian terrorist Monte Melkonyan in February 1992 just weeks before the Khojaly genocide.
 * why not reliable: a news article, based on nothing, News.az is a govt-influenced media
 * Yeah, this is very much a matter of "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" it would seem. I note our own article about him suggests a number of European governments said the same while Armenians consider him a hero. But even his brother's book about him accepts there might be some who think he was. I don't think using that language should immediately render that source unreliable in our eyes. Is there more to substantiate Government influence? A lack of editorial independent from Government would be a big concern. Stalwart 111  04:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with your 'freedom fighter vs terrorist' statement. That's the reason why I said third-party sources are the best. Armenians call him a hero, while Azeris call him a terrorist. If an American or a European historian/journalist does call him a terrorist and confirmed his involvement in this alleged massacre, then yes I will agree to put it up there for the reader. But don't you think that a neutral/reliable source would say "Monte Melkonian, a military leader of Armenians in Karabakh, arrested in France in 1980s for having connections with paramilitary group called ASALA, considered a terrorist organization by the US."? -- Ե րևանցի  talk  04:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose my point was that if others have used the term to describe him (rightly or wrongly) then the fact that a source has used the term probably doesn't make that source "automatically" biased. They could just be copying one of the European commentators who said the same, or even Melkonian's brother who accepted the premise of the accusation. Which is why I think we need to look at 17 and 18 more broadly. Stalwart 111  12:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not reliable: See no. 18 --Markus2685 (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Per my comments at 18. Stalwart 111  01:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

18. Article from an Azerbaijani newspaper about the subject incident. Need to determine if the source is considered a reliable source for our purposes and if not, why not.
 * quote Poladov said the Khojaly genocide started with genocide in Garadagli. The investigative group has declared six people suspects in the Garadagli genocide and has submitted the relevant documents to have them put on the international wanted list.
 * why not reliable: a news article, based on nothing, News.az is a govt-influenced media
 * Same as 17. Stalwart 111  04:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not reliable: A news website that calls the death of 70 civilians a "genocide" is obviously biased and pro-governmental as this is the official Azerbaijani point of view. No other media, historian or international Organization has ever described the events in Khojaly and Garadagli as "genocide" except of Azerbaijan. Therefore again: biased and not reliable --Markus2685 (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, again, you need to get away from this, "all Azerbaijan sources are biased" - it's not helping you make your case. In this instance, yes, calling a single incident (though in the context of a string of incidents) genocide, seems very biased and not at all the sort of language that a Western media organisation would use. I don't think it proves a bias but it certain suggests a lack of independent editorial oversight. I might make this 17 "blue" - probably not enough to base an article on (which is looks like someone has tried to do) but okay as sources to verify an incident to be covered somewhere else, and without the term "massacre". Stalwart 111  01:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have never called all Azerbaijani sources "biased". I just said the sources used for this article are very likely biased and not independent from what I have experienced in the recent years. And after this analyses it comes out that my first impression was right. But that's not the point. What is important is that we seem to agree that also this source is not enough to base an article on--Markus2685 (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

19. Rolf Kunsch, 2012: Chodschali (listed as reference no. 1).
 * Not useful: Doesn't mention neither a "Garadaghly Massacre" nor "Karadaghi" nor "Karadaghlu". --Markus2685 (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

20. Human Rights Watch (listed as reference no. 4).
 * Not useful: Doesn't mention neither a "Garadaghly Massacre" nor "Karadaghi" nor "Karadaghlu". --Markus2685 (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Summaries / general comments
To sum it all up: This is more than obviously an exceedingly bad case of referencing and can not be considered as a reliable basis for creating an article on Wikipedia at all.--Markus2685 (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Disregarding Azerbaijani sources, there are at least 2 non-Azerbaijani sources, Melkonian and Swante Cornell. I agree that more third party sources are needed, and they should be given preference, but deletion of the entire article is not a solution here, because the subject of the article is existent. Therefore the article should be cleaned from unreliable sources, and more sources should be requested. I'm sure that that there are more sources about this topic, it just needs a better research. Grand  master  05:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This article was already nominated for deletion on 25 February 2012. The sources have not been improved since then. No significant third-party sources have been added since then, although almost one year should be enough for adding such sources (if they would exist). Furthermore there has been a deletion review in December 2010. So this shows cleary that this article is disputed for quite a while and it has not improved since then. Therefore there is a good case to believe that an improvement will also not happen in the near future.--Markus2685 (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We only delete the articles that describe the events that never occurred (hoaxes) or events that are not notable for a stand alone article. I think it is quite obvious that there could be no reasonable doubt that the event described in the article took place. And a mass killing of over 50 persons is notable for an article, so neither of the reasons for deletion are valid. But we can delete from the article the content that violates wiki policies, and remove unreliable sources. What remains could be a stub for the future article, or a start level article. Grand  master  18:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)