- 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. There is consensus that the international coverage is sufficient to allay any WP:NOTNEWS concerns. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 21:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Explosion near the Susuzlug village
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Explosion near the Susuzlug village ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Per WP:NOTNEWS, the incident is very minor, not notable for a standalone article. Noonewiki ( talk) 14:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 12. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 14:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - The event is very important and has been on the world agenda for several months. UNESCO, OSCE, Council of Europe, Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders and others also responded to the explosion.-- Rəcəb Həsənbəyov ( talk) 10:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep notable, well-sourced (56 sources!), long article about an event that has received good coverage. Super Ψ Dro 18:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Doesn't meet WP:EVENTCRIT. Many sources is not always about notability. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան ( talk) 19:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The incident is so minor that even the UNESCO, OSCE, Council of Europe, Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders etc. has responded. -- NMW03 ( talk) 12:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete and merge to the border crisis article. Current article has been inflated with irrelevant content. if every mine and mine explosion (estimated at a million citation needed) will have an independent article then we have a lot of irrelevant content yet to add to Wikipedia. - Kevo327 ( talk) 14:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Strong delete This article is Azerbaijani propaganda and a hoax. Azerbaijan's state media claims that the mines were newly placed by Armenian reconnaissance groups despite the explosion occurring 11 km from the line of contact. Every single source in the International section cited to international figures and representatives is actually cited by an Azeri source. And almost all of the international reactions are simply expressing condolences for the deceased, without even making a single mention of Armenia. These sources are being falsely attributed to supporting the Azerbaijan propaganda narrative. Given that much of the article is built on "the Azerbaijani side blamed Armenia", something not even mentioned by the international sources, the explosion itself is just news, and the article should be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS. -- Steverci ( talk) 03:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- It is so disturbing for you to label two journalists getting killed as a "hoax". Some organizations and foreign political figures did accuse Armenia. It isn't that hard to read the article. 185.81.81.12 ( talk) 17:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The topic is notable enough to have its own article as its detailed, and was touched upon by numerous international organizations like UNESCO, OSCE, Reporters Without Borders etc.-- Nicat49 ( talk) 18:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The article follows the standards of Wikipedia so there is no issue. AustroHungarian1867 ( talk) 18:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep If the incident had been so small and insignificant, so many states and international organizations would not have reacted. The article is well prepared and has 53 references. So there is no issue for discussion.-- Qızılbaş ( talk) 07:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per Kevo327. Should be merged with the border crisis article. We don’t create separate articles for every mine explosion. ZaniGiovanni ( talk) 07:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Notability cannot be questioned. The event received wide international coverage and reaction from many international organizations. Grand master 15:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Duh. Do we have a separate article for every explosion in Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict or in any conflict? If yes, then let's keep this one, if not (it's not) then the lead of this overinflated piece can be compressed and easily fit into the aftermath of NKR war, or AA border as a sentence or a 2-3 sentence paragraph as a maximum. I cannot understand the tendency (that comes from az.wikipedia.org) of making WP a news channel - there are magazines and news websites for that, what's the encyclopedic significance of this? --Armatura ( talk) 20:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 00:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 00:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Easy to write this as someone who was (seemingly) unaffected by the explosion. Regardless, WP:GNG is what is considered as criteria for notability of standalone articles on Wikipedia-- not your criteria. Hocus00 ( talk) 01:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Temporarily coming out of retirement to oppose this motion for deletion. We are not talking about soldiers suffering casualties here, these are journalists, and we are not talking about the territory of former NKAO, this event occurred on undisputedly Azerbaijani territory, during a period of relative peace, making it one of the most notable events in the region since the 2020 NK war ceasefire. We have 54 sources, among them American, Ukrainian, Russian, Turkish, Iranian, and international sources. You have the Human Rights Watch, the Council of Europe, the OSCE, and the International Federation of Journalists reporting on this. You have embassies/ambassadors of France, Italy, Israel, Russia, Iran, and Georgia in Azerbaijan acknowledging the event and offering their condolences. Ultimately, a well-sourced article about a notable topic. - Creffel ( talk) 07:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Article is well-written and has numerous WP:RS's that are reliable with significant coverage. Clearly passes WP:GNG. Hocus00 ( talk) 01:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment 13 of the 15 sources in the International section are Azeri sources. The explosion has gotten practically no significant coverage outsider of Azerbaijan. -- Steverci ( talk) 04:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Seriously? The article has 50+ sources cited. Which do you believe are unreliable? Because a secondary source comes from a certain country does not make it unreliable. Regardless, even a cursory Google search brings back the following sources:
Al Jazeera;
Barrons;
Reuters;
Reporters without Borders;
Radio Free Europe
Hocus00 (
talk)
17:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry to barge in, but Azerbaijan ranks 177th out of 196 countries in terms of press freedom. I agree with your fundamental argument and position, Hocus00, but citing Azerbaijani sources—usually connected to their quasi-totalitarian government—is risible at best. BaxçeyêReş ( talk) 18:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Seriously? The article has 50+ sources cited. Which do you believe are unreliable? Because a secondary source comes from a certain country does not make it unreliable. Regardless, even a cursory Google search brings back the following sources:
Al Jazeera;
Barrons;
Reuters;
Reporters without Borders;
Radio Free Europe
Hocus00 (
talk)
17:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep A notable event whose article possesses many, notable, and variegated (i.e. non-Azerbaijani) sources. BaxçeyêReş ( talk) 18:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep A journalist death in disputed territory after a war over that terrority is very notable, which caused a minor diplomatic crisis. This is right in the lead, please don't just ignore what the article has to say for it's own self. Many of the votes here reek of people who haven't read the article at all. Swordman97 talk to me 03:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete this Azerbaijani propaganda article. It is not neutral because of overweight of Azerbaijani sources. -- 91.20.3.97 ( talk) 20:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC) this ip's only contribution to en wikipedia is this edit. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep As the event easily has notability. Jackattack1597 ( talk) 10:53, 27 June 2021 (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.
- 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. There is consensus that the international coverage is sufficient to allay any WP:NOTNEWS concerns. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 21:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Explosion near the Susuzlug village
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Explosion near the Susuzlug village ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Per WP:NOTNEWS, the incident is very minor, not notable for a standalone article. Noonewiki ( talk) 14:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 12. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 14:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - The event is very important and has been on the world agenda for several months. UNESCO, OSCE, Council of Europe, Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders and others also responded to the explosion.-- Rəcəb Həsənbəyov ( talk) 10:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep notable, well-sourced (56 sources!), long article about an event that has received good coverage. Super Ψ Dro 18:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Doesn't meet WP:EVENTCRIT. Many sources is not always about notability. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան ( talk) 19:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The incident is so minor that even the UNESCO, OSCE, Council of Europe, Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders etc. has responded. -- NMW03 ( talk) 12:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete and merge to the border crisis article. Current article has been inflated with irrelevant content. if every mine and mine explosion (estimated at a million citation needed) will have an independent article then we have a lot of irrelevant content yet to add to Wikipedia. - Kevo327 ( talk) 14:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Strong delete This article is Azerbaijani propaganda and a hoax. Azerbaijan's state media claims that the mines were newly placed by Armenian reconnaissance groups despite the explosion occurring 11 km from the line of contact. Every single source in the International section cited to international figures and representatives is actually cited by an Azeri source. And almost all of the international reactions are simply expressing condolences for the deceased, without even making a single mention of Armenia. These sources are being falsely attributed to supporting the Azerbaijan propaganda narrative. Given that much of the article is built on "the Azerbaijani side blamed Armenia", something not even mentioned by the international sources, the explosion itself is just news, and the article should be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS. -- Steverci ( talk) 03:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- It is so disturbing for you to label two journalists getting killed as a "hoax". Some organizations and foreign political figures did accuse Armenia. It isn't that hard to read the article. 185.81.81.12 ( talk) 17:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The topic is notable enough to have its own article as its detailed, and was touched upon by numerous international organizations like UNESCO, OSCE, Reporters Without Borders etc.-- Nicat49 ( talk) 18:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The article follows the standards of Wikipedia so there is no issue. AustroHungarian1867 ( talk) 18:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep If the incident had been so small and insignificant, so many states and international organizations would not have reacted. The article is well prepared and has 53 references. So there is no issue for discussion.-- Qızılbaş ( talk) 07:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per Kevo327. Should be merged with the border crisis article. We don’t create separate articles for every mine explosion. ZaniGiovanni ( talk) 07:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Notability cannot be questioned. The event received wide international coverage and reaction from many international organizations. Grand master 15:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Duh. Do we have a separate article for every explosion in Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict or in any conflict? If yes, then let's keep this one, if not (it's not) then the lead of this overinflated piece can be compressed and easily fit into the aftermath of NKR war, or AA border as a sentence or a 2-3 sentence paragraph as a maximum. I cannot understand the tendency (that comes from az.wikipedia.org) of making WP a news channel - there are magazines and news websites for that, what's the encyclopedic significance of this? --Armatura ( talk) 20:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 00:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 00:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Easy to write this as someone who was (seemingly) unaffected by the explosion. Regardless, WP:GNG is what is considered as criteria for notability of standalone articles on Wikipedia-- not your criteria. Hocus00 ( talk) 01:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Temporarily coming out of retirement to oppose this motion for deletion. We are not talking about soldiers suffering casualties here, these are journalists, and we are not talking about the territory of former NKAO, this event occurred on undisputedly Azerbaijani territory, during a period of relative peace, making it one of the most notable events in the region since the 2020 NK war ceasefire. We have 54 sources, among them American, Ukrainian, Russian, Turkish, Iranian, and international sources. You have the Human Rights Watch, the Council of Europe, the OSCE, and the International Federation of Journalists reporting on this. You have embassies/ambassadors of France, Italy, Israel, Russia, Iran, and Georgia in Azerbaijan acknowledging the event and offering their condolences. Ultimately, a well-sourced article about a notable topic. - Creffel ( talk) 07:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Article is well-written and has numerous WP:RS's that are reliable with significant coverage. Clearly passes WP:GNG. Hocus00 ( talk) 01:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment 13 of the 15 sources in the International section are Azeri sources. The explosion has gotten practically no significant coverage outsider of Azerbaijan. -- Steverci ( talk) 04:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Seriously? The article has 50+ sources cited. Which do you believe are unreliable? Because a secondary source comes from a certain country does not make it unreliable. Regardless, even a cursory Google search brings back the following sources:
Al Jazeera;
Barrons;
Reuters;
Reporters without Borders;
Radio Free Europe
Hocus00 (
talk)
17:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry to barge in, but Azerbaijan ranks 177th out of 196 countries in terms of press freedom. I agree with your fundamental argument and position, Hocus00, but citing Azerbaijani sources—usually connected to their quasi-totalitarian government—is risible at best. BaxçeyêReş ( talk) 18:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Seriously? The article has 50+ sources cited. Which do you believe are unreliable? Because a secondary source comes from a certain country does not make it unreliable. Regardless, even a cursory Google search brings back the following sources:
Al Jazeera;
Barrons;
Reuters;
Reporters without Borders;
Radio Free Europe
Hocus00 (
talk)
17:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep A notable event whose article possesses many, notable, and variegated (i.e. non-Azerbaijani) sources. BaxçeyêReş ( talk) 18:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep A journalist death in disputed territory after a war over that terrority is very notable, which caused a minor diplomatic crisis. This is right in the lead, please don't just ignore what the article has to say for it's own self. Many of the votes here reek of people who haven't read the article at all. Swordman97 talk to me 03:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete this Azerbaijani propaganda article. It is not neutral because of overweight of Azerbaijani sources. -- 91.20.3.97 ( talk) 20:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC) this ip's only contribution to en wikipedia is this edit. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep As the event easily has notability. Jackattack1597 ( talk) 10:53, 27 June 2021 (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.