The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 ( talk) 09:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC) reply
No response from nominator despite multiple pings and activity elsewhere.

• ... that Ahmad Kasravi in his book Azari or the Ancient Language of Azerbaijan, proved that the Azeri language has Iranian roots? Source: KASRAVI, AḤMAD i. LIFE AND WORK He shows that the word āẕari found in most books of medieval history, especially those from the first centuries of Islam, is the name of the old language of Azerbaijan that was related to the Iranian languages and was a descendant of the language of the Medes with no relationship to Turkish

5x expanded by Amir Ghandi ( talk). Self-nominated at 08:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC). reply

• The article was created on Dec 24th not January 1st, but it was nominated here within ~7-8 days. Probably ok (ping User:BlueMoonset)? QPQ not found but not required. Size, refs, neutrality, copyvio spotcheck, GTG, but I am not happy with the hook that states the book has "proven" something, that's a rather strong claim and I am not convinced the article is comprehensive enough to warrant such a claim (are there no dissenting views?). I, therefore, propose ALT1 below which is more neutral. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• ALT1: ... that Ahmad Kasravi in his book Azari or the Ancient Language of Azerbaijan argued that the Azeri language has Iranian roots?

• I want to approve ALT1, but I have two issues with the article. There is a long quote in the article and I can't tell if it's one quote or if it is combined with another quote. It looks like just one quote at first, but within that quote at the end is "It is for these reasons that European scientists have considered my writings as why and why and all have accepted them." So if it's one quote, why would there be quotation marks within the quoted content? I can't access that source. Another issue is that the 14th reference seems to be an unreliable source. Otherwise - the hook is directly cited, the article is long enough, the article is new enough, and a QPQ is not needed. SL93 ( talk) 01:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Marking for closure. SL93 ( talk) 05:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply

LouisAragon, could you quickly check the long quote? CMD ( talk) 06:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I’m also curious about how the 14th reference is reliable. SL93 ( talk) 06:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply

My thought was it could just be deleted, but looking closer it appears to be an accessible copy of this journal article. An old article, but perhaps reliable enough. CMD ( talk) 07:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Is this nomination still active? It was marked for closure weeks ago but no action has been done since the last comments here on the 7th. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 23:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply

  I've simply removed the two parts SL93 has an issue with, although I still think cite 14 is fine. Article remains long enough, and I find it quite interesting. CMD ( talk) 01:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC) reply

  Approving ALT1. SL93 ( talk) 03:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure if the long blockquotes are necessary. They could potentially raise copyvio concerns per WP:NFCCP and WP:NFC#Text. Could this info be paraphrased, or is there something significant about the quotations that would be lost? Edge3 ( talk) 17:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC) reply

The nominator last edited yesterday so I have lost interest. Maybe someone else can decide. SL93 ( talk) 22:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Amir Ghandi, were you aware there were questions to deal with at this nomination? —valereee ( talk) 16:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Marking for closure again. Why waste time on this? The nominator fixed the issues with their other nominations after they were notified and they last edited yesterday. SL93 ( talk) 02:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply