The result was keep and history-merge into the newly written Armenian National Congress (1917). The new article was created after the AfD, which means it would normally count as a content fork. But whatever the technicalities, it is now so well sourced and so substantial that the "delete" votes here have been made obsolete, especially in view of the fact that the AfD was evidently affected with tendentious and sock editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete - This article needs to be deleted, because:
EyyubVEVO ( talk) 14:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete - Please delete this page as it does not refer to any reliable source, which is expected, as there were no such Congress. Ricardo Shaxvelyan. 94.21.93.77 ( talk) 14:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC) — 94.21.93.77 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Delete - It tries to give false information about an organization that never existed and no reliable source since it had been created. ahuseynov86 14:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahuseynov86 ( talk • contribs)
Strong keep (Now REDIRECT - see below) Evidence that this existed is given, for example, by Stephen F. Jones in Socialism in Georgian Colors: the European Road to Social Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2005), page 259: "In late September [1917], the Congress of Eastern Armenians was convened, representing all parties and organizations. The Dashnaksutiun had 113 of the 200 or so delegates." Google Books reveals other references to its existence. -- Folantin ( talk) 14:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete No sources provided, dubious article. Hittit ( talk) 15:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete Article has no reliable sources, facts cannot be confirmed neutrally. -- Verman1 ( talk) 16:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete - As you mentioned, I read in the book "Socialism in Georgian Colors" one sentence about "Armenian Congress of Eastern Armenians". However, I don't think that one sentence mentioned in one place is enough to create one wikipedia article. Alismayilov ( talk) 19:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete per all the above "delete" arguments and per user:Folantin. "Strong keep" implies a POV position, especially if it is based on a one-sentence (or one time, I have not read the book) reference in a book which is not a monography. -- E4024 ( talk) 21:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment While we are discussing here, one of the users defending the "strong keep" option at the beginning, later a merger (merger with an article that s/he is the creator of :-) makes me feel like we are being kind of ... (could not find an approppriate word). Do other people not think there is something weird here? Am I the only one who feels this way? Admins, please, this is a snow and speedy delete. (Not voting twice.)We are facing a smoke-screen here. -- E4024 ( talk) 23:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Armenian National Congress (1917). Looking at google book search results it seems to be alternative name for same entity [1].-- Staberinde ( talk) 14:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC) reply
...and...as for E4024.. In ictu oculi ( talk) 18:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep and history-merge into the newly written Armenian National Congress (1917). The new article was created after the AfD, which means it would normally count as a content fork. But whatever the technicalities, it is now so well sourced and so substantial that the "delete" votes here have been made obsolete, especially in view of the fact that the AfD was evidently affected with tendentious and sock editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete - This article needs to be deleted, because:
EyyubVEVO ( talk) 14:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete - Please delete this page as it does not refer to any reliable source, which is expected, as there were no such Congress. Ricardo Shaxvelyan. 94.21.93.77 ( talk) 14:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC) — 94.21.93.77 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Delete - It tries to give false information about an organization that never existed and no reliable source since it had been created. ahuseynov86 14:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahuseynov86 ( talk • contribs)
Strong keep (Now REDIRECT - see below) Evidence that this existed is given, for example, by Stephen F. Jones in Socialism in Georgian Colors: the European Road to Social Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2005), page 259: "In late September [1917], the Congress of Eastern Armenians was convened, representing all parties and organizations. The Dashnaksutiun had 113 of the 200 or so delegates." Google Books reveals other references to its existence. -- Folantin ( talk) 14:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete No sources provided, dubious article. Hittit ( talk) 15:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete Article has no reliable sources, facts cannot be confirmed neutrally. -- Verman1 ( talk) 16:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete - As you mentioned, I read in the book "Socialism in Georgian Colors" one sentence about "Armenian Congress of Eastern Armenians". However, I don't think that one sentence mentioned in one place is enough to create one wikipedia article. Alismayilov ( talk) 19:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete per all the above "delete" arguments and per user:Folantin. "Strong keep" implies a POV position, especially if it is based on a one-sentence (or one time, I have not read the book) reference in a book which is not a monography. -- E4024 ( talk) 21:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment While we are discussing here, one of the users defending the "strong keep" option at the beginning, later a merger (merger with an article that s/he is the creator of :-) makes me feel like we are being kind of ... (could not find an approppriate word). Do other people not think there is something weird here? Am I the only one who feels this way? Admins, please, this is a snow and speedy delete. (Not voting twice.)We are facing a smoke-screen here. -- E4024 ( talk) 23:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Armenian National Congress (1917). Looking at google book search results it seems to be alternative name for same entity [1].-- Staberinde ( talk) 14:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC) reply
...and...as for E4024.. In ictu oculi ( talk) 18:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC) reply