Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karabakh Council

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Karabakh Council

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete - This article needs to be deleted, because:its not true'

It doesn't have any reliable source since it was created some years ago;
It gives fake information about the council which never existed. Best, Konullu (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 9. Snotbot t • c » 03:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable source in article. It was written in order to promote propaganda. --Verman1 (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, until a creditable case for it's being a hoax is made. It is certainly inadequately referenced, but it:Consiglio_del_Karabakh seems to give what may be a print reference.Sparafucil (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There was no goverment of Nagorno-Karabakh during 1918-1920. Therefore, there was not any council of non-exist goverment. Alismayilov(talk) 9:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC+1)
Delete No sources for such a council. Hittit (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article lacks reliability with only one referenced link and many statements miss citations making the article inaccurate and not fact based. 212.10.32.89 (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable source in article. It was written in order to promote propaganda and it tries to give fake information about an organisation which never existed ahuseynov86 11:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete - All the fake information around. Delete the article , everything is fake here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.217.148.122 (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC) EyyubVEVO (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The English article only supplies a dead link, yes, but here is a print source, easily googlable. If the deletion request is being made in good faith and it's indeed a hoax I'm open to persuasion, but for now it's looking like the burden of proof is the other way around. Sparafucil (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked Google for Emanuele Aliprandi, it is very "strange" that there is no information online about researcher and his other publications. Only Armenian sources talk about this book. If he were professor or researcher, he would have personal page on the web-site of the institution where he works (most of this kind of researchers even have their own page). Best, 195.212.29.185 (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sorting link, Gene93k! I've noticed the wording of this Afd is identical to WP:Articles for deletion/Armenian Congress of Eastern Armenians. No doubt Konullu knows more about both subjects than I do myself, but for an I've never heard of it argument to work he should demonstrate how much more. Sparafucil (talk) 06:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sparafucil. Even the briefest look in Google Books shows that there was a power vacuum in N-K 1918-1920 and given Armenian and Azerbaijani claims about that an article is notable even if the present title may need changing to Armenian and Azerbaijani claims on Karabakh 1918-1920 or something more neutral. Obviously it's a concern that Emanuele Aliprandi seems to be the only researcher working on the topic. The Azerbaijani source I found and added telling the other view isn't exactly academic in its approach. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a reliable source confirming that this existed, so the "delete" opinions based on it not existing can be discounted. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are several other sources covering this, e.g. this - renaming the article seems a good idea. Some of the delete voting here seems suspicious. --Michig (talk) 10:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, but I hope that there will be more sources that surface later to help better the article. Dreambeaver(talk) 01:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OUTCOME Outcome is clear delete, vote is complete and comments are provided. Why are these discussions kept still going? Hittit (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome is far from a clear delete. Most of the "delete" opinions claim that the subject did not exist, which has been proven to be incorrect, so those opinions should be discounted. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hittit. Verbatim as Phil Bridger: Most of the "delete" opinions claim that the subject did not exist, which has been proven to be incorrect, so those opinions not only should be discounted, but already have been. Participation in AfD discussions on notability requires ability and willingness to look for sources. Please take note. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Thirty seconds of searching confirms that this article is about a real and notable subject. — C M B J 01:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think that this article should not stand on its own, as it is a part of a history of a country, a very specific, should we discuss about the council which was formed to start the militar regime on Germany or Brazil or Chile? It is unnecessary, I think this article should be merged into its parent article. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, we should start articles on those councils as well. It just hasn't happened yet. — C M B J 11:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eduemoni, sorry, what are you identifying as "parent article"? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable; sources turn up if you put a little effort forth with your searching. It seems to me, however, that it may have been called the "National Council". Once source (albeit an official, Armenian one) notes that Nagorno-Karabakh was effectively a state from 1918-1920, and others suggest a lack of established external authority. dci | TALK 20:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep there is evidence for it existence, and sources are available to make a NPOV article. Temporary governments during conflicts or of disputed areas are appropriate for separate articles , because there is otherwise fair way to cover them. DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.