The result was keep. This is an article with difficulties in neutrality. This is however no reason to delete. Arguments are brought forward that the word massacre in itself is problematic for neutrality (that is not saying it should be avoided at all costs in all situations, but, as Gingsengbomb puts it, "the word "massacre" is extremely potent and tends to make it difficult to incorporate opposing views in the same article". There are no arguments brought forward that this issue would only leave the option to delete the article, while there are other options like renaming open. There is consensus that the events that are the subject of this article are notable, and that deleting is not the only reasonable option to prevent NPOV, so keep it is. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 13:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Sources are all one sided or the only third party sources available do mention any massacres directly. Another article like this was deleted I nominated it also. It goes against Wikipedia policies and this article should be deleted from Wikipedia, as no reliable sources exist. Unfortunately this article does not meet notable criteria on Wikipedia, no scholarly references are available to give it a status here.(See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agdaban massacre) Nocturnal781 ( talk) 22:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment for closing admin As you have probably realised this article relates to one of those between two conflicting parties. Therefore, its nomination for deletion is the intentional decision of one of the sides. The article is well-sourced and meets Wiki criteria (though it has already been vandalised several times, including last editing). Now it requires that any uninvolved editor experienced in coordinating dispute between two parties, join in the talk page, and assess the neutral sources provided there: Rao Johannes, the German expert on Caucasian issues, Charles van de Leeuw, the Dutch journalist, and one more source by Charles van der Leeuw published by Finnish expert, all supporting the massacre event, in addition to other international sources such as HRW, Cornell etc. supporting term “ethnic cleansing” and “eviction” of people, and various links with testimonies of victims, documents etc. Uninvolved editors who joined in the discussion of this article previously at first glance would accept suggested sources and requested the arguing party to provide their sources against the article. This request was left unanswered and not a single source has been provided putting the article under a question. In such a situation, the uninvolved editor in search of compromise requested more supporting sources from one side that kept providing them continuously throughout the whole talk (this request was really unfair). This had been clarified too. In an attempt to make both sides happy, he simply got confused with his requests, or felt incompetent to make any judgement on the issue and withdrew. I would very much appreciate if you approach the article with the simplistic eye, based on Wiki rules, just saying the Dutch journalist, German expert and Finnish expert and other supporting sources listed here are neutral or not, if not, then why. The decision on this article neither is resolving the dispute nor fuelling it up. Uninvolved editor is required only to assess the neutrality of sources provided, without a headache to try to make everyone happy or to dig into the debris of the conflict. Thank you. Angel670 talk 11:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC) reply
“ | This article does come from an Azeri author, but based on that it seems there are claims of massacres that merit mentioning. I should add that the editor nominating this article has been nominating several articles on alleged massacres of Azeris by Armenians during the Nagorno-Karabakh War. Seems there may be an ulterior motive for these nominations (one of the articles this editor has nominated already got scrubbed even though the source above demonstrates there have been claims of a massacre there as well). WP:NOTCENSORED means some offensive claims should be included if there are reliable sources to back it up. At the very least we have sources attesting to widespread claims of a massacre and I imagine with a bit of snooping we would find better sources to establish those allegations being discussed by independent sources if such sources are not already provided in the article. | ” |
a) Antero Leitzinger, Caucasus and an unholy alliance, Kirja-Leitzinger, 1997, p. 55
b) Johannes Rau: Der Nagorny-Karabach-Konflikt (1988-2002). S11. Verlag Dr. Köster, Berlin 2003, ISBN 3-89574-510-3
c) Charles Van der Leeuw. Azerbaijan: A Quest for Identity (Caucasus World). p 171. Palgrave MacMillan. ISBN 0-312-21903-2
a) Croissant, Michael P. (2006). The Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict: causes and implications. Praeger Publishers. p. 78. ISBN 0-275-96241-5
b) Goldman, Robert K. (1992). Bloodshed in the Caucasus: escalation of the armed conflict in Nagorno Karabakh. Praeger Publishers. pp. 24–27. ISBN 0-275-96241-5
c) Svante E. Cornell. Small Nations and Great Powers: Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus. A study of ethnopolitical conflict in the Caucasus. p 79-81. Taylor & Francis Group. London and New-York, 2001. ISBN 0-203-98887-6
d) Kathleen Pellatt (2008). Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia and Chechnya: Violence and autonomy in Eurasia's secessionist conflicts. A Thesis submitted to the Division of Graduate Studies of the Royal Military College of Canada. ISBN 978-0-494-47900-1
I haven't included here the book by Azerbaijani historian as a compromise and the links which are secondary supporting sources to the article.
I hope this helps. Angel670 talk 22:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. This is an article with difficulties in neutrality. This is however no reason to delete. Arguments are brought forward that the word massacre in itself is problematic for neutrality (that is not saying it should be avoided at all costs in all situations, but, as Gingsengbomb puts it, "the word "massacre" is extremely potent and tends to make it difficult to incorporate opposing views in the same article". There are no arguments brought forward that this issue would only leave the option to delete the article, while there are other options like renaming open. There is consensus that the events that are the subject of this article are notable, and that deleting is not the only reasonable option to prevent NPOV, so keep it is. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 13:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Sources are all one sided or the only third party sources available do mention any massacres directly. Another article like this was deleted I nominated it also. It goes against Wikipedia policies and this article should be deleted from Wikipedia, as no reliable sources exist. Unfortunately this article does not meet notable criteria on Wikipedia, no scholarly references are available to give it a status here.(See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agdaban massacre) Nocturnal781 ( talk) 22:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment for closing admin As you have probably realised this article relates to one of those between two conflicting parties. Therefore, its nomination for deletion is the intentional decision of one of the sides. The article is well-sourced and meets Wiki criteria (though it has already been vandalised several times, including last editing). Now it requires that any uninvolved editor experienced in coordinating dispute between two parties, join in the talk page, and assess the neutral sources provided there: Rao Johannes, the German expert on Caucasian issues, Charles van de Leeuw, the Dutch journalist, and one more source by Charles van der Leeuw published by Finnish expert, all supporting the massacre event, in addition to other international sources such as HRW, Cornell etc. supporting term “ethnic cleansing” and “eviction” of people, and various links with testimonies of victims, documents etc. Uninvolved editors who joined in the discussion of this article previously at first glance would accept suggested sources and requested the arguing party to provide their sources against the article. This request was left unanswered and not a single source has been provided putting the article under a question. In such a situation, the uninvolved editor in search of compromise requested more supporting sources from one side that kept providing them continuously throughout the whole talk (this request was really unfair). This had been clarified too. In an attempt to make both sides happy, he simply got confused with his requests, or felt incompetent to make any judgement on the issue and withdrew. I would very much appreciate if you approach the article with the simplistic eye, based on Wiki rules, just saying the Dutch journalist, German expert and Finnish expert and other supporting sources listed here are neutral or not, if not, then why. The decision on this article neither is resolving the dispute nor fuelling it up. Uninvolved editor is required only to assess the neutrality of sources provided, without a headache to try to make everyone happy or to dig into the debris of the conflict. Thank you. Angel670 talk 11:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC) reply
“ | This article does come from an Azeri author, but based on that it seems there are claims of massacres that merit mentioning. I should add that the editor nominating this article has been nominating several articles on alleged massacres of Azeris by Armenians during the Nagorno-Karabakh War. Seems there may be an ulterior motive for these nominations (one of the articles this editor has nominated already got scrubbed even though the source above demonstrates there have been claims of a massacre there as well). WP:NOTCENSORED means some offensive claims should be included if there are reliable sources to back it up. At the very least we have sources attesting to widespread claims of a massacre and I imagine with a bit of snooping we would find better sources to establish those allegations being discussed by independent sources if such sources are not already provided in the article. | ” |
a) Antero Leitzinger, Caucasus and an unholy alliance, Kirja-Leitzinger, 1997, p. 55
b) Johannes Rau: Der Nagorny-Karabach-Konflikt (1988-2002). S11. Verlag Dr. Köster, Berlin 2003, ISBN 3-89574-510-3
c) Charles Van der Leeuw. Azerbaijan: A Quest for Identity (Caucasus World). p 171. Palgrave MacMillan. ISBN 0-312-21903-2
a) Croissant, Michael P. (2006). The Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict: causes and implications. Praeger Publishers. p. 78. ISBN 0-275-96241-5
b) Goldman, Robert K. (1992). Bloodshed in the Caucasus: escalation of the armed conflict in Nagorno Karabakh. Praeger Publishers. pp. 24–27. ISBN 0-275-96241-5
c) Svante E. Cornell. Small Nations and Great Powers: Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus. A study of ethnopolitical conflict in the Caucasus. p 79-81. Taylor & Francis Group. London and New-York, 2001. ISBN 0-203-98887-6
d) Kathleen Pellatt (2008). Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia and Chechnya: Violence and autonomy in Eurasia's secessionist conflicts. A Thesis submitted to the Division of Graduate Studies of the Royal Military College of Canada. ISBN 978-0-494-47900-1
I haven't included here the book by Azerbaijani historian as a compromise and the links which are secondary supporting sources to the article.
I hope this helps. Angel670 talk 22:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC) reply