Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/History: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:39, 26 July 2013

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to History. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|History|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to History. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/History/archive

Purge page cache

watch

History

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} 07:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Press coverage of the Armenian Genocide

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

This is just a list of links to newspaper articles about the Armenian Genocide – essentially an "External links" section split out into an article. It violates WP:ELPOINTS ("External links should not normally be used in the body of an article") and WP:NOTREPOSITORY ("Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of external links"), and there's no clear selection criteria. The list won't ever be comprehensive, and since this is a controversial subject, editors could be accused (and indeed have already been accused) of abusing POV guidelines by cherry-picking headlines. The subject of "press coverage of the Armenian Genocide" might well be notable enough to deserve an article, but to have any kind of encyclopedic value, it would have to actually discuss the topic in some depth, which this article plainly doesn't. DoctorKubla (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article talks about the newspapers in depth. The lead helps provide that insight for us. The subject is definitely notable and external links may be removed if that seems to be a grave issue. Other avenues can be used to help suggest that for us. We must consider them. For example, we have tags for these. Why send to deletion when a mere suggestion of removing external links can be easily expressed in the talk page of the article? The nominator himself states the articles notability. Don't see why such a notable subject as this shouldn't merit an article. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean that the "External links" section is a problem – I meant that the entire article, with the exception of the lead, seems like one big "External links" section. And failing to meet notability standards isn't the only reason to delete an article, it's just one of many possible reasons for deletion. So even though the subject of this article may be notable (I've only done a cursory Google search), it could still be deleted because it falls down in other crucial areas. DoctorKubla (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I told you that the external links of all the articles may be removed if this is such a grave concern. However, I do not believe an AfD is substantiated or necessary to make such a point on your behalf. I mentioned above that there are other avenues to express your concerns rather than attempting to entirely delete a noteworthy and notable article. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, I see what you mean. But simply removing the links wouldn't address the problem that this article is nothing more than a list of newspaper headlines, with no analysis or critical commentary even attempted. I'm not filing this AfD to make a point, I'm doing it because I believe this article is so unsuitable for Wikipedia that it can't be salvaged. You disagree; that's fine. I suggest we both disengage now, and wait to see what the rest of the community thinks. DoctorKubla (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The analyses is provided in the top of the article with a 2,000+ character lead. The article is definitely "salvageable", all it takes is just one edit. Unfortunately however, the AfD sure makes it a lot harder for me to conduct the necessary steps to resolve all the mentioned issues. According to this this AfD, the entire article shouldn't be deleted since your only complaint is what the listed items contain external links. What about the lead? There's a wonderfully sourced lead with many sources including peer reviewed journals that depicts a subject that even you as a nominator said is notable enough for a stand alone article. Therefore, as I mentioned earlier, the AfD is unsubstantiated and unnecessary. I shall remove the external links in my next edit. All I need is one minute. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTREPOSITORY/WP:NOTDIRECTORY, without prejudice to recreation as an article that doesn't fall afoul of WP:NOT. I'm unconvinced that the article talks about anything "in depth", and removing the links would essentially render it useless. Ansh666 19:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- With the removal of the external links, this article is now more than useless, and fails WP:LISTN/WP:LISTPURP. Again, I think it could be a decent article, but not in the current form. Ansh666 21:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per AfD nomination, there is no doubt the subject is notable. Per LISTPURP, "The list may be a valuable information source." and organized in a chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists" which is exactly what the article contains. I don't see it much different than other featured lists such as, "List_of_Digimon_video_games". Perhaps I can add a table soon and make it look even more organized. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Armenian Genocide recognition. There's nothing when you strip the external links, and when I first saw this article I thought it was going to talk about how newspapers either turned a blind eye to the genocides or called out the Turks for it; that's essentially what Armenian Genocide recognition is about. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 21:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe... but the article does "called out the Turks" for the event in the lead, let alone the hundreds of listed newspapers and sources acknowledging and reporting the atrocities. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

definitely keep: newspapers of the era widely reported the Armenian massacres and they are a very important component against the official Turkish denial that claim there was no systematic killings. "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article" Let this article be not "normal" then. I insist this article to be kept, because its content is more than notable and very significant in the Armenian Genocide topic and the Armenian-Turkish relations. --Երևանցի ^talk 21:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "I insist that..." is much more likely to make neutral observers ignore your comments as obviously partisan than to make people agree with you. If you want this to be kept then evidence is what is needed, not insistence. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! I'm not denying my partisanhip, am I? It's not hard to guess that I'm Armenian. My userpage isn't closed to the public. --Երևանցի ^talk 04:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly projectify (like userfy, but to a Wikiproject subpage or to a subpage of the talk page). These are useful resources for users working on the Armenian genocide article, but not encyclopedic information. The analysis at the top is not adequately sourced to support a separate article - only one source actually analyzes the coverage, and whether or not it's reliable at all (I'm not familiar with it), one source isn't sufficient. The rest of the sources in the lede are backing up general background information about the Armenian genocide and so on, not supporting the existence of "press coverage of the Armenian genocide" as a theme. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Point taken about external links from main text, and a spot of work on that would be a good thing. But I think any researcher or student working on the events of the period would be grateful for this article. There can, as we see above, be reasonable disagreement on doctrinal grounds among regular WP editors, but trying to see things from our readers' point of view I consider this article a good thing to have. – Tim riley (talk) 09:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This entry discusses books and articles specifically about the press coverage of the Armedian Genocide. Clearly the topic has received significant coverage and scholarship. I'd call this a no-brainer. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Though I agree that the article perhaps need a expansion of actual text I think the subjects of this article passes WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per all the keep !votes. In addition to being a notable subject, the wide and unique perspective afforded by the scope of the article to any student of the History of the Armenian Genocide is not only remarkable but also interesting and educational. In that regard, I agree with similar points made by other editors here. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTREPOSITORY and WP:NOTDIR. Article is merely a list of external links and newspaper articles. Nothing worth saving or merging. Perhaps, in the future, if the topic is found notable, it can be recreated, but none of the material currently in the article will be useful. Actually, this list reeks of nationalistic promotion as well. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does one "promote" genocide using old newspapers? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the nom - cherry-picking headlines can make it seem like coverage was exclusively tilted towards one side, which would become a WP:POV page. Not that it is right now, but it could possibly be used for such. Ansh6 6 6 01:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My question was based on the statement that "this list reeks of nationalistic promotion" already. I can't detect any of the old newspapers of some 100 years ago, describing the events as they happened, "reeking" of anything. Also could a statement like that also be made for the Holocaust or is such treatment only reserved for the Armenian Genocide? Of course this is a rhetorical question. Noone, apart from the lunatic fringe, seriously doubts that the Holocaust occurred or raises accusations that it was promoted for nationalistic reasons. What makes the Armenian Genocide ripe for such treatment? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing "two-sides" of the story goes against the general consensus of Wikipedia and the arbitrary regulations under WP:ARBAA2. The side that presents the genocide as fact has been the one adopted by the Wikipedia community through a consensus, while the other side, a minority position pushed by the Government of Turkey, has not. More importantly, this article isn't about massacres...it's about a genocide or in other words, the systematic and purposeful massacre of a race. The race in this case is the Armenian race. Current Wikipedia consensus does not allow us to present any the other "side of the argument" and present it as fact. In fact, if that happens, the user may be risk being banned from editing any articles related to Armenia under WP:ARBAA2. Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I was merely answering your question, not referring to the statement you were yourself referring to. However, I would say that your last statement about the holocaust is false - see Holocaust denial and Anti-semitism. Ansh6 6 6 02:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the statement adding "apart from a lunatic fringe". Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thank you PB for your policy-based analysis. But I want to go further than that. I just wanted to know why the Armenian Genocide receives such treatment from some quarters while other Genocides are sacrosanct and not subject to such comments. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They really aren't. For example, Holocaust denial isn't really a "lunatic fringe" - it's a huge movement including high-profile figures like former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. As an outsider, I find it strange that Arbcom has chosen a side in this issue, especially if a national government has taken a side, since that seems like it's building a WP:POV into the project. But we digress... Ansh6 6 6 02:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage was exclusively tilted towards one side, anyone who has about a hour in a major library to check microforms of newspapers covering 1915-16 will come to that conclusion. Jedi Master 02:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But this isn't about 1915-16; there IIRC are articles from the 1890s that sai it wasn't happening even as it was. Ansh6 6 6 03:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some include the Hamidian massacre, Adana massacre and what happened during the Turkish war of independence. On Russian Wikipedia, the main article covers the previous massacres. Jedi Master 04:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I know I'm say off-topic, but where in WP:ARBAA2 does it say this? I'm on mobile so I might have missed it... Ansh6 6 6 02:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Denialist literature, whether it be the Holocaust or the Armenian Genocide, is always held separate from Armenian Genocide/Holocaust related articles. In fact, denialist sources and references are considered unreliable and thus unacceptable in terms of Wikipedia WP:RS requirements. Denialist sources and information can all go into the Denial of Armenian Genocide article but never into Armenian Genocide/Holocaust related articles. Yes, Arbcom takes the position seriously, see Admin Sandstein's remark here and here. The user was formally warned for his constant assertion of denialist information and sources and as of this point may be banned if he/she continues. Proudbolsahye (talk) 02:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand what you meant now, thanks. Ansh6 6 6 03:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The headlines clearly demonstrate how much coverage the genocide got during that time period. It is useful for anyone who wants to find news articles about this. This is an important moment in history. Dream Focus 09:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't believe what I'm actually reading here, this article clearly fails WP:DIRECTORY and also it does not conform with WP:LISTS, because its current format fails three basic criteria, and the article does not reflect upon the reality, it may be a valuable information source (its parent article should have all these coverage used as reference, so it is WP:REDUNDANT), it should be useful for navigation and lists are useful for development of maintenance purpose. This is clearly a unacceptable content fork and all its content should be integrated within its parent article. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a useful WP:List, not a regular article. Actually, it should not discuss the topic in any depth, as the AfD proposer seem to believe. My very best wishes (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't understand why so many people, both those saying "keep" and those saying "delete", keep saying that this is a list article, when it has 600 words of prose supported by sources about press coverage of the Armenian Genocide rather than examples of such coverage. We can get rid of the list if necessary (that is a matter for talk page discussion) but still keep the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:43, 30 July 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.

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter James (historian)

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

No independent source to establish the notability of the subject. A notability tag has been on the page for over a year. Zanhe (talk) 09:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, although he's a fringe, intensely controversial figure. Centuries of Darkness was very controversial on release as these links will show.[1][2][3][4] Reviews of other works[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:04, 24 July 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Colapeninsula's sources establish that he is a notable and controversial figure. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The popular press reviews listed above need to be added, as do the many reviews in academic journals (primarily of Centuries of Darnkness -- they are listed on the author's web site, but the originals should be found and cited. I think it might exemplify the maxim that the way to get noticed in the academic world is to publish something drastically wrong on a subject of great interest. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources have been provided here to establish nobility.LM2000 (talk) 07:19, 8 August 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.

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 not-delete, in that AFD ultimately has just two possible outcomes, and this definitely isn't a delete. The question of whether to merge, redirect, or perform other editorial actions can be taken further either on the article talk page or directly under WP:BOLD. Stifle (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

White Genocide

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

The article lacks specific focus. The term 'White Genocide' is really only mentioned once in the introduction, while the rest of the text includes a brief recount of this article followed by random census data of Armenians and their command of the Armenian language, with no reference to the term 'White Genocide' or its definition whatsoever. In fact, only one of the 19 sources addresses the term. A Google Books search provides various and often contradictory definitions for 'White Genocide', so the point of this article is quite unclear. Parishan (talk) 06:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Armenian Genocide This was poorly written by some folks that want to POV push, but yes, this is an actual topic of study.[13][14][15][16] These sources seem to agree that the genocide consists of Armenian assimilation into Europe and the Americas. I think merging this content into Armenian Genocide would be better. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added new sources and have rewrote a little and completely removed the problematic section. --Երևանցի ^talk 06:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this article is merged, I request that the redirect be protected in order to prevent white supremacists from writing an article about white assimilation. Such claims have been repeatedly inserted into the article. Andrew³²⁷ 12:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yerevanci's edits have brought focus and removed that unnecessary census filler from a legitimate subject. If the article is merged, I second Andrew's request to protect the redirect. Blackguard 21:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect -- What is described is not a genocide, according to any normal definition: the word measn the killing of a people, usually mass murder on account of their ethnicity. It is a case of what typically happens to refugees, who successfully settle in safe countries. In the case of US, this is a typical case of the melting pot nature of the country. A merge leaves a redirect. This will certainly need to be edit-protected against those pushing a white supremicisit POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to Armenian Genocide or (going out on a limb here) Armenian diaspora, as the article mentions more than just the Armenian Genocide. There is still not enough information to justify its keeping, especially as "adding sources" included having some sentences with up to seven references at the end. One reference at the end of a sentence? Absolutely! Two? If you need to justify a point, sure! Three? Depends on the case! Seven? Never necessary. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 17:57, 25 July 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.

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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 09:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia

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

The article list several events in a period of 80 years and more. I wanted to improve it, but it is not possible. First it presents the incidents having happened during the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan in 1918-20s, which resulted in the eviction of population from both sides. Then the decision taken by the Soviet authorities in 1947 to resettle Azerbaijanis, signed by the Azeri side by Bagirov during the Population transfers in the Soviet Union. Then the incidents of late 1980s and beginning of 1990s between Armenia and Azerbaijan. That's mostly what the article is all about. Several unrelated events mostly during the clash between Armenia and Azerbaijan. JediXmaster (talk) 04:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Note also that there is another article of the same kind which includes the said deportations titled: Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia Is it accepted in Wikipedia to have two articles about basically the same subject? JediXmaster (talk) 20:10, 16 July 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 July 16. Snotbot t • c » 04:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and/or Rename to "Deportations of Azerbaijanis from Armenia". The article clearly shows that Armenia lost much of its Azeri population due to forceful and often state-sanctioned relocations, which many sources (cited in the article) refer to as deportations, and that this was a continuous process throughout the twentieth century. While many of those cases took place as a result of armed conflicts between Armenia and Azerbaijan (which does not undermine the fact of a deportation), some happened in the time of peace, e.g. in 1948–1950. The article is well-sourced, and I am truly puzzled as to how this huge body of useful, neutral and relevant information can be nominated for deletion. Parishan (talk) 06:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really puzzled? This is equivalent to creating Deportations of Armenians from Azerbaijan and including 1905-07 clash, the events in the 1918-20s, which includes Baku massacre, Shushi, Nakhichevan etc., and the more recent events from the 80s and 90s. Each event is unrelated and can have its own article, one article including them is the creators synthesis and choice on what to include or not, and that's unencyclopedic. JediXmaster (talk) 06:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, why are you requesting the article's deletion, when you could just request a split? To have such a huge and well sourced article deleted, you really need to bring up some substantial arguments, and "I wanted to rewrite it, but I couldn't" is simply not enough. All this documented information cannot just "perish" in a simple deletion. Let us see what your argumentation is based on:

You accuse the article of covering consequences of armed conflicts, but that does not "undo" the fact of the deportations. Furthermore, the deportations clearly took place at non-war times as well, such as 1948–1950.
You claim that the 1948 decree was signed by Baghirov, of which I saw no proof in the article. What I did see, though, is neutral sources such as Donald Bloxham and Vladislav Zubok referring to this act as a case of deportation initiated at the insistence of Grigory Arutyunov.
You stated that the article covers isolated incidents, however all of these cases underlyingly had the same motivations, as noted by De Waal who lists them together in Chapter 5 of Black Garden and also Suny who writes: "A second reason for Armenian unity and coherence was the fact that progressively through the seventy years of Soviet power, the republic grew more Armenian in population until it became the most ethnically homogeneous republic in the USSR. On several occasions local Muslims were removed from its territory and Armenians from neighboring republics settled in Armenia."

I honestly do not see anything "unencyclopedic" about this article. Parishan (talk) 06:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that the article was suggested for deletion prior. I agree with spliting it, but the original has then to be removed for that. Regarding the motivations being similair for the different events, I disagree, and one or two book is not sufficient to all make them related. Concerning Bagirov, he sent a letter on Dec, 10, 1947 in which he gave consent. See Jamil Hasanli book Stalin and the Turkish Crisis of the Cold War, 1945-1953, pg. 271. The event was not as simple as discribed, besides the Armenians implemented to replace them left in the 50s. I just wonder though, would you agree to the creation of an equivalent article on Armenians from Azerbaijan? JediXmaster (talk) 06:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would, if that were really the case, which it is not. There were no systematic deportations of Armenians from Azerbaijan, except in the early 1990s, and there is already an article on that. It was Yerevan that went from being 49% Azeri in 1897 to 0.7% Azeri in 1959, as opposed to Baku where the Armenian population was constantly on the rise, just like in all of Azerbaijan. In any event, cases of deportations of Azeris are not mentioned in "one or two books", and if you really believe so, you should have done better research before nominating this article. For your information, the very book you are quoting (I mean Jamil Hasanli) also describes it as a deportation in the paragraph you are referring to, regardless of who signed for it. Again, I do not see why this article should be deleted: even a split does not presuppose that. Parishan (talk) 07:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see, the article was never nominated for deletion. JediXmaster (talk) 07:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I confused it with a different article; which, however, does not spare the nomination from being well substantiated. Parishan (talk) 07:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that was really the case? So, Nakhichevan Armenians did not have the same fate, neither those in Shushi, or Baku in 1918-20? Besides, you are comparing apples with oranges, Armenia integrity was threatned from the refugees it recieved from the Ottoman Empire, you can't compare. JediXmaster (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was never a documented case of deportation of Armenians from any of those places. Parishan (talk) 07:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The content is encyclopaedic, and supported by multiple third party sources. The events described in the article are linked by third party sources, in particular Thomas de Waal [17]:

Yet by the twentieth century the Azerbaijani people, who had lived in Eastern Armenia for centuries, had become its silent guests, marginalized and discriminated against. The Armenians asserted their right to their homeland at the expense of these people. In 1918 – 1920, tens of thousands Azerbaijanis were expelled from Zangezur. In 1940s, tens of thousands more were deported to Azerbaijan to make way for incoming Armenian immigrants from Diaspora. The last cleansing, in 1988 – 1989, got rid of the rest.

Thomas de Waal. Black garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through peace and war. NYU Press, 2003. ISBN 0814719457, 9780814719459. p.80.

Grandmaster 07:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and De Waal says many other things, point is that Armenians from Nakhichevan, Baku, Shushi etc. in the 1918-20s had the same fate, as well as those in 88-90s. It's equivalent to splitting the Armenian-Tatar massacre of 1905-07 to only include Tatars without context. Besides 1947-51, the other cases involved both sides. JediXmaster (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Armenians were not systematically deported. There's a difference. Grandmaster 07:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then what are the examples I have provided? JediXmaster (talk) 07:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Parishan already responded to that. Massacres are not the same as deportations. There's no evidence of any forcible deportation of Armenians from Azerbaijan before late 1980s. Grandmaster 20:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One example. Nakhichevan: They point instead to the example of Sharur-Nakhichevan, which has been denuded of its Armenian population,... The Legacy of History in Russia and the New States of Eurasia by S. Frederick Starr, p. 247 Tell me what was different between what happened in Nakhichevan and elsewhere? Besides, why are we debating when there is already already an article covering all those events at Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JediXmaster (talk • contribs) 20:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are really no neutral sources claiming anything of that sort. Even in the one you are referring to, it is not the author's opinion; he is quoting Karabakh Armenians. It is strange that you find that dubious quote enough to conclude that there have been deportations of Armenians from Azerbaijan, while ignoring many more neutral sources which openly refer to Azeri relocations from Armenia as deportations, calling them "one or two books". Anyway, why are we even discussing Nakhchivan here? It is completely irrelevant.

As for your reference to Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia, the latter article is not identical to this one; the anti-Azerbaijani sentiment is a sociopolitical occurrence and has been common regardless of Azeri presence in Armenia. More so, while deportations targeted the Azeri population of Armenia specifically, the article on the sentiment refers to the attitudes of Armenians towards anything associated with Azeris, including the Republic of Azerbaijan. Parishan (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, he is not merely quoting them, what happened in Nakhichevan is recorded, including when it has hapenned, see Maintenance of Peace in Armenia:Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations. The Azerbaijani side evicted the British along with the American relief workers to then massacre and push away the Armenian population. And I am not ignoring anything at all, what I wrote about one or two books, was that only that much could be found dumping all evictions together, and even then, De Waal refers to Zangezur only for the given period, which was not different than what happened in Nakhichevan. Besides, like stated what happened in 1947 was part of a larger policy spamming several decades in the Soviet Union, it also includes the eviction of Kurds from Nakhichevan in 1937, even Armenian eviction in 1951.

On Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia, whatever you say, the other article covers the same thing only worded differently, social or not, it is basically identical in content, something you could hardly deny. JediXmaster (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JediXmaster, I am sorry, but I am not going to argue with you on the fact that when an author writes "Karabakh Armenians point to..." he or she really quotes someone, as opposed to expressing his or her own opinion.

The fact of the matter is that cases of authority-sanctioned expulsions of Azeris from Armenia in a systematic way throughout the twentieth century are quite a well-described historical fact, which Armenian experiences in Azerbaijan (at least until the early 1990s) can hardly be compared to (speaking of which, squeezed-out sources like Maintenance of Peace in Armenia violate WP:PRIMARY). It is all in the article, and should not be deleted only because you think they are not orderly enough or because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or does not exist, for that matter. Azeri deportations were not typical Stalinist population transfers; the latter were implemented against groups that were seen as anti-Soviet or counter-revolutionary, whereas the Azeri deportation was initially disguised as "voluntary resettlement". It was a measure taken to reach a clear goal set out by the Armenian authorities and mentioned in a number of neutral sources, that is the ethnic homogenisation of Armenia. There were no such objectives in Azerbaijan at any point in history.

Again, only because the anti-Azerbaijani sentiment article repeats some of the information here, it does not mean it should be deleted. Deportations were undoubtedly triggered by that sentiment, but they were by far not its only manifestation. Parishan (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parishan, you can argue or not, that quote is not stating according to or the allegations of, it points, the author stat they point. But if you really want more sources, here we go: The Azeris soon looked to Turkish support to oust the Armenians from Nakhichevan, while the Armenians were eager to eject the Azeris from Zanzegur. Johnson, Robert (2007), Oil, Islam and Conflict: Central Asia Since 1945, Reaktion Books pg. 168

Regarding the deportation of 1947-51 being not typical, it's not different than the Kurdish deportation. Also anti-Azerbaijani sentiment is not repeating some, it contains all, by its content, what is included in this article, all. JediXmaster (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Johnson quote does not clarify whether the author meant Armenian troops or ethnic Armenians; I am inclined to believe it is the former since Nakhchivan still had substantial Armenian population at the time of Sovietisation. The Kurdish deportation of the 1930s was one-time and affected all of the Caucasus (Kurds were deported from Azerbaijan in 1937–1938 and from Georgia in 1944, as well) as a "politically untrustworthy element" which was a typical Soviet policy, whereas the Azeris were constantly removed from Armenia for the purpose of ethnically homogenizing (i.e. Armenianising) the country and at the insistence of the Armenian authorities. I hope the difference is clear. Parishan (talk) 04:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the difference is not clear to me. Korenizatsiya and ethnic homogenization was a pan-Soviet nationalities policy. De Waal discusses Azerification and Azerbaijani settlement programs in Nagorno-Karabakh in his Black Garden. Jackal 05:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Korenizatsiya had absolutely nothing to do with ethnic homogenization or deportations; it was simply a measure to increase native representation in the local governments. Azerbaijani settlement in Nagorno-Karabakh never involved any population transfers either, even according to De Waal; it was voluntary and occurring on an individual basis. In any case, drawing loads of hardly relevant examples ranging from Nakhchivan to korenizatsiya is a waste of time. I would like to remind that comparisons are not the best way to argue why you think an article should be deleted. Parishan (talk) 05:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're as guilty for entairtaining the non-relevant examples. If you want right to the point answer, please adequately explain to me on the why for maintaining an article which content is a duplicate of another article. And please this time without the sociological excuse, because this does not change the truth of their duplicate nature. Thank you. JediXmaster (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at the article Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia shows that along with the deportations it addresses a wide range of other issues which are not thoroughly discussed in the article in question, e.g. the destruction of Azeri cultural heritage, toponymy reforms and encouragement of anti-Azerbaijani sentiment after the war both towards ethnic Azeris and the Republic of Azerbaijan. None of this is relevant to the deportation issue, which deserves a separate slot and a more detailed description. Parishan (talk) 07:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All what I had ro write, I did. I'll let the voters vote. JediXmaster (talk) 07:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Korenizatsiya reinforced national identity in the Soviet republics (see Martin, Birgerson) and I would posit that it did have something to do with homogenization and deportations. I will have to get back to you on de Waal–I know I have a copy of that book somewhere. Also, I still believe that the article needs to be put in the context of the demographic exchange between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Jackal 06:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Identity and deportations have nothing in common in this case; please do not engage in WP:OR. "Demographic exchange" does not reflect the situation accurately: there is a fine difference between the constant increase in the Armenian population of Azerbaijan vs. the fluctuation of the Azeri population in Armenia caused by waves of state-sanctioned deportations. If there even was a gradual outflow of Armenians from areas such as Nakhchivan, there is no evidence to call that a deportation or claim that the state was somehow involved. Parishan (talk) 07:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since any passage from any source seems to be fair game in this article (except when it contradicts the narrative it's trying to build), here's one from Bruce Grant's "Cosmpolitan Baku" (which, unlike Zubok's book, for example, specifically focuses on the region): "Between 1989 and 1999, some 175,000 registered Armenians left the city [Baku]; in return, some 225,000 Azeris coming to Baku from Armenia and the war-torn territories of Karabagh registered in their place (Yunusov 2009:65–66), demographic substitutions that transformed the city’s social networks overnight."

Also, "identity and deportations have nothing in common in this case?" Really? How's that again? Jackal 07:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the issue, the title of the article will prevent it from providing contexts, like the events in 1989-90s. I rest my case. JediXmaster (talk) 07:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jackal, a quick generalizing comment by a random author cannot shed enough light on the situation, especially when it claims that 225,000 Azeris arrived in Baku overnight, which they certainly did not (it was a lengthier process and the destinations were various). Yury Pompeev (Кровавый омут Карабаха, p. 87), for example, mentions an instance of the Azeri deportation from Spitak under a military convoy.

"Really? How's that again?" Because korenizatsiya did not engage masses, to begin with; it was merely an administrative measure to appoint natives to key government positions in their respective republics. Parishan (talk) 08:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge There's some kernel of truth to the information written in this article, but not enough to retain it under its current name. There were no systematic deportations of Tatars/Azeris during the disturbances of 1905-06, nor during the independence period of 1919-20. The removal of Azeris during the post-war years is perhaps the only event that closely falls within the definition of expulsion, but I'd still want to see better sources. What happened in the twilight years of the USSR is tragic, but here, too, the use of the word deportation is inappropriate. There were no state-sanctioned moves to depopulate Armenia of its Azerbaijani population and if anything the only deportations that did take place were in the regions of Shahumyan and Getashen, and that was directed against Armenians and carried out by the Soviet Army and Azerbaijani OMON. Let's not forget that tens of thousands of Armenians left Azerbaijan, willingly or unwillingly, because of violence and numerous pogroms. This article is nothing but a mishmash of events separated from one another by much as several decades and brought together under a single, misleading heading. It is perhaps on par with the drivel about Armenians having committed "genocides" (in the plural) against Azeris for the past 200 years. Whatever can be salvaged can just go to the Azerbaijanis in Armenia page.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that the claim of homogenization is contradicted when Yezidis and Muslim Kurds found a relative haven in Soviet Armenia, which proved to be a focal point for the Soviet Kurdish community. While The Azerbaijani leadership... obstructed any rehabilitation: no Kurdish schools in any sense were ever reopened, no books printed. Even the very existence of Kurds in Azerbaijan was often deemed unmentionable. Azerbaijani scholars generally did not publish on the Kurds of their republic,... [HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION OF THE YEZIDI MINORITY IN THE TRANSCAUCAUSUS (ARMENIA, GEORGIA, AZERBAIJAN)] JediXmaster (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

De Waal links the events in 1918-1920, 1940 and late 1980s as a chain of systematic efforts on homogenising the ethnic composition of the population of the Republic of Armenia. That is clearly not Azerbaijani propaganda, and not original research. Grandmaster 20:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So a page can be built on the basis of the opinion of a journalist (see my comment about one or two books)? Besides, he mentions only Zangezur for the events of 1918-1920, which statistics of Azeri fell from one census to the next. How was that different than what happened in Nakhichevan, where the Armenian population melted from 53,000 to 11,276 from one census to the next? The homogenising the ethnic composition claimed by De Waal is contradicted by a report commissioned by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on the situation of Yezidis and other Kurds, which claims that Armenia was haven to the Kurds while in Azerbaijan they were discriminated and assimilated. JediXmaster (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can find info about forcible cleanisng and massacre of Azeris in Zangezur in other sources too. Bloxham, for instance: [18]

On the Armenian side, many of the key perpetrators were the former leaders of the volunteer battalions and Turkish-Armenian 'self-defense' operations. From mid-1918, Andranik was prominent in the destruction of Muslim settlements during the purging of the Armenian-Azeri border region of Zangezur. Hovannisian describes his actions as the beginning of the process of 'transforming Zangezur into a solidly Armenian land'. Alexandr Khatisian, one-time Prime minister of Armenia, used similar language, averring that 'it was not the will of the diplomats which was to bring about homogeneous populations in this or that region, but through the course of elemental behaviour'. Andranik was stopped from expanding this policy into Karabakh by the local British commander, who had his own distinct political agenda.

Andranik brought with him 30,000 Armenian refugees, mostly from eastern Anatolia, particularly Mush and Bitlis, where, under the protection of fedayee forces lead by Ruben Ter Minassian, they had managed to resist the Turkish assault and escape to the Caucasus. Some refugees stayed in Zangezur, but Ter Minassian, a former member of the Armenian national council, ordered the transfer of many of them to the Erivan and Daralgiaz regions, where they replaced evicted Muslims in a move to ethnically homogenize key areas of the Armenian state. One of the fedayees accurately described this as ethnic cleansing, and the parallels to the settlement of muhajirs at Armenian expense in the late Ottoman empire are obvious.

And I don't see how Kurds are relevant here. They were deported by Stalin from all 3 South Caucasus republics. The decision was clearly made in Moscow, and not locally. How could Armenia be a haven for Kurds, when all of them were exiled to Kazakhstan in 1940s? And those who returned were ethnically cleansed from the “haven” in Armenia in 1980s and found refuge in Azerbaijan, where they supposedly are "discriminated". This defies logic. Grandmaster 23:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster, why are you quoting this, since I am not claiming it did not happen. What I wrote is that what happened was that both killed eachothers and evicted eachothers, that's supported by the author you have cited, see the end of his intro.

On the various Tukish advances into the Caucasus, the power equation was decidedly in Azerbaijan's favour, and Armenians suffered accordingly, but there is no doubt that extensive atrocities were committed on all sides, and according to the same rationales.

Then he proceed with what you have quoted. Also,volunteer battalions and Turkish-Armenian 'self-defense' operations, the Armenian government was not implicated, from Taner Akcam book: The hero of the Turkish Armenians was persona non grata and would be disarmed if he entered the bounds of the Republic. That both were implicated is also supported by Turkish sources of the time, one that Taner Akcam cite in the section devoted to the Caucasus, from Yusuf Kemal Tengirsenk, the foreign minister of the Ankara government:

...The two sides are murdering one another. This, unfortunitly, is a common practice in both countries.

Also, Armenian Army corps commander Nazarbekoff claimed that Antranik was beyond the reach of the Armenian government. Fact is that unless we're refering to 1947-51, and that can have it's article, this article is the authors synthesis by excluding the other sides tragedy; but for the rest, what happened, happened to both sides, but this article singles one group and use a controversial claim of deportation. From De Waal, p. 127

In Nakhichevan, the westernmost, Azerbaijan consolidated control that year, with Turkish support, driving out thousands of Armenians.

Regarding the Kurds, there are more than 40,000 Yezidi Kurds in Armenia, and yes Armenia was a safe haven for them, that's what the report is claiming, did you take the time to read it?

In sum both Yezidis and Muslim Kurds found a relative haven in Soviet Armenia, which proved to be a focal point for the Soviet Kurdish community. For Muslim Kurds, however, this haven came to an abrupt end with the onset of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict and displacement to Azerbaijan.

They had schools, publications, a theatre etc., none of those in Azerbaijan. The claim of homogenization does not stick when considering how the Kurds were treated. Also, many of the Kurds left for Russia and not Azerbaijan, and they had no choice, because besides Armenia there is no haven for them to choose from. JediXmaster (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have no source to support the claim that Armenians were systematically cleansed from Azerbaijan. It is not true anyway, because until the start of the conflict in 1988 there were large Armenian communities all over Azerbaijan. The situation with Azeris in Armenia was quite different. These people were systematically driven out of the country under various pretexts at various times throughout the 20th century. It is not just my opinion, this is what de Waal writes, and he is an acknowledged expert on the region. As for the Kurds, I don't see what they have to do with displacement of Azeris. The only thing that connects them to Azeris is that Muslim Kurds shared the same fate with Azeris, and vast majority of them found refuge in Azerbaijan, where they are "discriminated". It makes no sense to run from a safe haven to a place where one would be discriminated, does it? That is clearly illogical. And Kurds were deported from Armenia not once, but twice, first by orders of Stalin, and second time by the Armenian nationalist forces. So situation with Kurdish minority in Armenia was far from idyllic, they were under the constant threat of deportation, by Soviet or Armenian authorities. Grandmaster 09:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what you are arguing about, even De Waal claims Armenians were driven out from Nakhichevan. The only event which was different was the resettlement of 1948-51. Had there been no 1948-51, per capita excluding NK, there would have been as much Azeri in Armenia as there were Armenians in Azerbaijan. As for the Kurds, you have no case to stand on, call it illogical, it is sourced, you can't dismiss the report and the armada of sources which can be provided. JediXmaster (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge 1918-1920, 1940-1950s, late 1980s were periods of large demographic changes, don't act like it effected Azerbaijanis only. Ossetians were expelled from Georgia, Georgians were expelled from Abkhazia, Azerbaijanis were expelled from Armenia, Karabakh, Armenians expelled from Azerbaijan, Russians, Slavs, Armenians were expelled from Chechnya. Where are the Armenians of Shamakh, Ganja, Baku, Symgait, Shaki, Nakhichevan? I have to agree with Marshal. The expulsion of Armenians from Azerbaijan is described in Armenians in Azerbaijan and Armenians in Nakhchivan articles. --Երևանցի ^talk 21:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve -- This is far from an ideal article, in that it is written from the Azeri point of view. There have been similar expulsions in other directions. includinmg Armenians from Azerbaijan. I understood tha tthe ethnicity was Azeri and the nationality Azerbaijani. This suggests amending the ethnic description of non-Azerbaijani Azeris in the article. I would have preferred to have a general article on ethnic segregation in ther Caucasus, with articles on individual incidents on each of the periods of deportation, cvoering what all sides did. With the wealthy of sources, this cannot be called WP:OR. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - irrelevant article with intention to create confusion? Jarjaris (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC) — Jarjaris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I agree with Parishan. --Esc2003 (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: It would be great to have more opinions from users who are not ethnic Armenians nor Azeri, and who were not involved in the ethnic conflicts in the past.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 11:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but improve -- This is not an ideal article and no one claims that it is so. The article needs some improvements as many articles in Wikipedia. As Wikipedia editors our duty is to help to improve the articles, but not to delete one which quite well sourced. All editors are free to make their edits with respective sources (and after getting consensus, if needed). Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides, Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia and Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia contain some amount of information in common with each another. But one who reads can see that the articles are about completely different topics even they are related: WP:RELAR. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Besides Peterkingiron, there are yet to be an unbiased vote. His keep and improve was far from being yours. As he is suggesting to broaden the article to include both sides. Jedi Master 01:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, all editors are free to make their edits with respective sources. If there are alternative views (with the reliable sources) on the events that occurred, feel free to add them. Or create an article to show deportations of Armenians from Azerbaijan, as you wish. Or even merge the both articles. Still better solution than deleting a well-sourced article, reasoning it with the fact that there is some shared information with another article (which is, in fact, not a violation of Wikipedia policies). Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 02:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Parishan.--Urek Meniashvili (talk) 08:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. This is a difficult decision. The article as it stands appears to be unbalanced in a way that favors an Azeri perspective. This, I hope, can be corrected through editing, although I think there may be a more fundamental POV conundrum at work here: one could argue that the very existence of the article constitutes a POV violation. If one were looking at it from the Armenian side, one could argue that the idea of a systemic, planned deportation of Azerbaijanis across different eras of the 20th century is an Azeri construct. Thus, the Armenian could argue, the article's very existence gives credence to the Azeri perspective at the expense of the Armenian one. I think we can put to rest this concern, however, by pointing to the first quote above from Grandmaster from Thomas de Waal, which seems to show that the subject has been covered as a cohesive unit. A cursory check seems to show de Waal is a relatively reliable source, even if he has been criticized by Armenian partisans. There appears to be enough above to show significant coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG. The article should be improved to give a more neutral perspective on the subject and the events surrounding it. Cover the controversy, in other words, instead of pushing perspectives. --Batard0 (talk) 13:50, 6 August 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.

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 delete. Stifle (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're History

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

This book fails WP:BK. There are no independent sources cited and I can't find any reliable reviews. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only significant coverage that I can find is a one paragraph review from The Guardian. SL93 (talk) 17:08, 13 July 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Only coattails on the notability of other people. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:41, 26 July 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.

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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Stoltzfus

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

Does not meet WP:PROF - there's no indication of significant impact of his work, hasn't won an award, been a part of a society, or satisfied any of the other criteria. The statements calling his book notable are not sourced. He seems to have only actually written one of the books listed; the others he co-edited. He also does not inherit notability because a notable person writes a forward to a translation. MSJapan (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject did win an Fraenkel Prize from the Weiner Library in London, but that award is pretty obscure, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment His main book "Resistance of the Heart"/"Widerstand des Herzens" does seem to have sparked discussion of the event covered; however possibly already adequately covered at Rosenstrasse protest. Possibly not enough for biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 06:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (see below) ~~Comment~~ How can you judge if the Fraenkel Award in Contemporary History is obscure? It is awarded by the Wiener Library, "one of the world's leading and most extensive archives on the Holocaust and Nazi era". According to the information from this institution "The Wiener Library awards the internationally renowned Fraenkel Prize on an annual basis" and Nathan Stoltzfus is listed here:[19]. A book of Nathan Stoltzfus became also the "book of the year" of "The New Statesman" in 1997. It is easy to find secondary sources of this information, but the most important source would be The New Statesman itself. Unfortunately, I do not have access to the archivum of this journal (New Statesman;12/05/97, Vol. 126 Issue 4363, p42, according to [20]). By the way, the book was translated into German and French and it had about 11 editions. Does'nt it mean a notability? Moreover, there are several movies based on this book. According to Barbara Ass (Recovering Rosenstrasse)[21]: "his research led to several German- and English-language documentary films, for which he was writer and consultant. He’s now under contract as a consultant to an independent London film maker, who is writing a screenplay based on his book, Resistance of the Heart: Intermarriage and the Rosenstrasse Protest in Nazi Germany. Published in 1996 by W.W. Norton & Co., the book has been highly acclaimed by the English press and by historians.". There is one more statement which I would like to comment: He also does not inherit notability because a notable person writes a forward to a translation. (by MSJapan). Of course, it is truth but please do not stop on the fact that Joshka Fisher had written the foreword to the book of Stoltzfus. Instead of that, please read what Joshka Fisher wrote about Nathan Stoltzfus and about his role in revealing the "shocking" history of Rosenstrasse Protest in nazi Germany. Tescobar (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep New Statesman book of the Year is sufficient for notability as an author. I am not familiar with the Fraenkel Prize, but it can only add to it. DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't read the New Statesman for some years but I don't recall it ever awarding a single Book of the Year? What I do recall is that - as with Sunday papers, The Spectator, etc. - in December each of their reviewers selected several of their own favourite books of the year. The wording in this article does say "a" rather than "the" Book of the Year, and judging from the link above Joan Bakewell chose it as one of her three; a compliment in itself, but not quite the magazine's Book of the Year. AllyD (talk) 04:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I followed up on this, and this article (as well as the others in the search) makes it clear that these are contributor choices of multiple works, and no other source uses the singular in reference to the magazine's annual list. MSJapan (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article from Die Zeit (one of the most important newspaper in Germany): [22] and its second part: [23]. The article mentions that Nathan Stoltzfus started a public debate about one of the most controversial episode of the Nazi German history - the Rosenstrasse protest. His research was crucial to reveal some facts about the protest and also for its interpretation in the context of the discussion of possibility of defeating nasizm by means of peacefull protests. Also the "Die Zeit" editors in the introduction to an article of Nathan Stoltzfus (30 October 2003) identified Resistance of the Heart as the "standard work" on the Rosenstasse protest.
Calling the Fraenkel Prize obscure reflects the paltry knowledge of the editor who wrote this. The winners are listed at: [24]. They include - in category A, which Nathan Stoltzfus received - various academics at the top of the field of contemporary European History, many of them having Wikipedia biographic articles, or at least cited as authors of papers and books. Tescobar (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paltry? Claim any sort of degree you want; I don't claim any.

I have yet to see any academic literature on the prize where it isn't being mentioned in passing as relates to a winner. Besides, if the Fraenkel Prize doesn't have an article in Wikipedia, how notable could it be? Chris Troutman (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Tescobar, the article in Die Zeit is simply a claim that a previous article in Die Zeit written by Stoltzfus was influential. It is neither independent nor significant coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~.(see below) I have access to the cited issue of The New Statesman and can confirm that Joan Bakewell was one of many prominent people to name their three books of the year, and there is no more than a bare mention of the book. I can't see any other claim of notability or significant coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let us compare the Fraenkel Prize with the other prizes and awards in the field of history. I checked number of google search results for this prize and several other (draft by random from the category:History awards) :

the Fraenkel Prize - 107 000 results
the Hattendorf Prize - 2 130 results,
the Gladstone Prize - 45 500 results,
the Holberg Prize - 116 000 results,
the Thirlwall Prize - 33 800 results,
the Cundill Prize - 8 700 results,
the Dexter Award - 12 000 results,

Of course, these results are very rough, some of these awards are known under other (full or shortened) names, but it is very likely, that the Fraenkel Prize is much more popular and renowned than a vast majority of awards already described in wikipedia. By the way, there is a page List of history awards - "a list of notable awards given to persons, group of persons or institutions for their contribution to the study of history". Please read this list. It is completely random, don't you think so? Summerizing, please do not use a presence of an article in Wikipedia as a criterion for notability. Notability should be a criterion for a presence in Wikipedia, but the opposite statement is not true. Tescobar (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument, and this is actually a prime example of why that is so; here you are very much comparing apples and oranges. The awards you listed are given out in history (to varying degrees), but for very different reasons and under very different criteria. Hattendorf is given out by the Naval War College for the area of new academic naval history, every two years. The Gladstone is annual, for books published in Britain on non-British history. The Holberg is ten years old and is given in Norway in the wider area of humanities. Add to that that the subject didn't win any of these, and there's no real reason to follow this line of thought. Now, focusing on what he did win, and looking at Fraenkel criteria and winners here, it's often a jointly (and when Stoltzfus got it, triply) awarded prize in two categories at once, given by a library that focuses on Holocaust studies for books in its areas of interest. A better view of GHits is that the third one I got was the H-Net posting for entries, confirming that authors submit their own work without any screening prior to submission. Thus, there are no independent reliable sources for this award - it's either the library itself, or the schools announcing that their faculty have won it. So if the prize isn't notable, neither is anyone who wins it notable for doing so. MSJapan (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral. (see below on 21 July for comment re: !vote revision) I look to WP:AUTHOR for this one rather than wp:prof, since his book seems more notable than his professorship. It is not, however, notable enough to make it's author notable. The only criteria that has a chance here is "person has created...a significant or well-known work ... that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I don't find evidence of that here. PS: the discussion of the Fraenkel award seems moot to me. Were it a major award, it would confer notability on the book, not necessarily the author. (IMHO) - Wine Guy~Talk 00:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let us assume that the Fraenkel Prize is meaningless and moreover does not contribute to the notability of Nathan Stoltzfus, but only to the notability of his book. As far as his professorship is concerned, I would not say that he is notable as an academic professor. But as a researcher, he - certainly - is notable. He is the first and most important expert on Rosenstrasse protest - his work revealed the facts which have been ignored in post-war Germany and shed new light not only on the Rosenstrasse protest, but also on the problem of responsibility for Holocaust. According to Barbara Ass opinion[25]: Until Stoltzfus began researching the Rosenstrasse incident in 1985, the protest had received little attention, aside from a handful of brief newspaper articles. Nobody knew about it, it was like a non-event. Stoltzfus contradicted leading German historians, who had tried to remove responsibility of "ordinary Germans" for the expansion of fascism. This is not my opinion, I am trying to summarize the statements of Barbara Ass: The notion that an ordinary German could do nothing against the Holocaust, that a handful of crazed Nazis were responsible for the murder of Jews, has been the official accepted wisdom in Germany since the war. The aforementioned article (of Barbara Ass) convinced me, that Nathan Stoltzfus not only researched one of the most important chapter of contemporary history, but also has changed its perception / interpretation. This is the reason why I added his biography to the Wikipedia and why I am sure that he satisfies the first criterion of WP:PROF, i.e. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline and also the 7-th: The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.. The awards, as well as his career as an academic professor, are matter of minor importance. According to the biographic notes from "Who's who in the world" and "Cambridge University Press"[26] he was named an H. F. Guggenheim Foundation Research Scholar and has received research grants from the Fulbright Commission, IREX, the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, the German Academic Exchange Commission (DAAD), and the Albert Einstein Institution. - even if these achievements make them an "average professor", his research and impact of his research is outstanding and much more notable than the professorship by itself. Tescobar (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in reply ... I'll try to make this quick. I do appreciate your passion for the topic, unfortunately you have bolstered my opinion that while Prof. Stolzfus may be an excellent historian, he's not notable by WP standards. Lots of great people aren't. A few points: 1) Barbara ASH (not Ass as you have referred to her) appears to be a Communications/Media Relations Manager at the same University as Stoltzfus, she's promoting the work of one of the universities professors. 2) While Marquis Who's Who is can be considered a reliable source, it is generally not considered enough to establish notability. This has been discussed periodically over the years, here's one discussion, there are several more like it. 3) Many, many professors have gotten plenty of research grants, in many fields they wouldn't be professors if they didn't. I could go on, but I think that's enough to make my humble opinion known. -Wine Guy~Talk 15:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the tragicomic misspelling of her name - the English language is full of traps... Right, she is related to the same university, so that her review should not be taken into consideration. I did not knew about it. Tescobar (talk) 20:50, 18 July 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, postdlf (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In its "Books of the Year" section New Statesman asks the "best living reviewers" to identify the "best books of the year" (three books each. The section leads with prominent Reviewer JOAN BAKEWELLwho leads her choice of three books with: "Resistance of the Heart by Nathan Stoltzius (Norton, L21) tells the story of the Rosenstrasse protests in Nazi Germany when women married to Jews rebelled and won their freedom. Here is human interest interwoven with scholarship. Had resistance to Hitler been as outspoken as were these brave women, he would have caved in." Average available space per book is ca. one sentence. Other academic historians on this same 1997 list --rare on this New Statesmen list --are: Richard J Evans' In Defence of History (Granta,L15.99) Charles S Maier's Dissolution (Princeton University Press, L21.95) See Books of the year (Dec 5, 1997): 42-46. at http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/docview/224378415/abstract/13F6211220369E5159C/31?accountid=4840

As for the Ernst Fraenkel prize, the one Stoltzfus received was "category A," the most prominent of two annual awards with a prize of $6,000. (http://www.wienerlibrary.co.uk/Fraenkel-Prize). It is given for the best new manuscript in Twentieth Century History (not "on Holocaust studies."). Stoltzfus was not one of three winners as "Stoltzfus got it, triply awarded" might suggest, but was co-winner with Mark Mazower. The process of selection for the Fraenkel is questioned here, but the prize is selected by the Institute's library's Academic Advisory Board: Prof Richard Bessel, Prof Jane Caplan, Prof Christopher Clark, Prof Sir Richard Evans, Prof Elizabeth Harvey, Prof Cornelie Usborne (http://www.wienerlibrary.co.uk/Governance). Judging by the recipients of the Category A Fraenkel Prize, the selection process works well: a recent (2012) winner is Mary Fulbrook preceded by Paul Betts, Neil Gregor, Stanislao Pugliese, Atina Grossmann, Helmut Walser Smith, Mark Roseman, Robert Moeller, Joanna Bourke, Vicki Caron, Jeffrey Herf, Marion Kaplan, Omer Bartov, and Richard J Evans as well as Nathan Stoltzfus. These were chosen among others chosen because their research, in the words of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) "has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline." In various cases the Fraenkel Prize is the sole book prize these awardees have since more famous prizes like the Pulitzer for example are very rarely issued to historians of modern Europe.

An article by Barbara Ash is criticized as unreliable simply because Ash is a writer for the university where Stoltzfus teaches, but discrediting can occur only by pointing out inaccuracies.Similarly, criticism that information on Stoltzfus' page is found on a Wikipedia page for the Rosenstrasse Protest is also inapposite since Wikipedia guidelines are that "If the article duplicates another, you can redirect it to the other one; there's no need for it to be deleted first."

Stoltzfus' page is established primarily for his impact. As Die Zeit just reported on February 27, 2013 ( http://www.zeit.de/wissen/geschichte/2013-02/fabrikaktion-rosenstrasse-berlin-ns-protest-1943): After the war the protest action in the Rosenstrasse was a long almost forgotten episode of Nazi history. When U.S. historian Nathan Stoltzfus wrote in 1989 about the demonstration he unleashed an "ongoing controversy." Writing of his impact generally, then German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer wrote in 2000 that "The women of the Rosenstrasse will, thanks to Nathan Stoltzfus, take their well-deserved place in the so contradictory history of the German resistance against the brown barbarism." (see the translation on http://www.chambon.org/rosenstrasse_fischer_en.htm)

In the mid-1980s Stoltzfus had Fulbright Commission and IREX grants to live in East and West Germany to study the Rosenstrasse Protest as the first to publish scholarship on this protest. His publications on the Rosenstrasse Protest in public intellectual forums included Die Zeit (July, 21, 1989, [International edition, July 28, 1989]) in German and the The Atlantic Monthly, September, 1992, in English. He published an article on the Rosenstrasse Protest in Geschichte und Gesellschaft 21(2), Spring, 1995, and his book Resistance of the Heart (WW Norton: 1995) was translated into German, French, Greek and Swedish. His co-edited book Social Outsiders in Nazi Germany including his work on intermarried couples in Nazi Germany was translated into Turkish, and his work has also been published in Russian: “Protest Nemetskih v usloviyah total’noyi voiny,” in Women and War, 1941-1945: Russia and Germany, N. Vashkay, ed. (Volgograd: Volgograd Center of German Studies: 2006).

The impact of Stoltzfus' work could be documented in many ways other than translations and the many responses it has generated inside and outside of academia. In its German translation Resistance of the Heart placed second on the Bestenliste of Best non-fiction books, October 1999. In Swedish it was the Main Selection, March-April, 2004 Clio-Den historiska bokklubben (Clio-The Historical Book Club), Stockholm. According to Joschka Fischer (http://www.chambon.org/rosenstrasse_fischer_en.htm) Resistance of the Heart tells of "humanity against a total dictatorship bent on human destruction, a dictatorship against which, according to one of the most persistent post-war legends went, 'one supposedly couldn’t do anything anyway.' The other legend was: 'We didn’t known anything about it.' . . . There is a second message in this book, which lifts it above the vast literature about National Socialist times. Stoltzfus wrote this remarkable chapter from the darkest years of German history in such a way, that the dimension of freedom of decision and therefore individual responsibility does not disappear. . . The courage and the unexpected success of the women of the Rosenstrasse are like a light in the abysmal darkness of those years. But what about all the others?"

The academic impact can be measured by citations according to Wikipedia which suggests using the Web of Knowledge database to identify citations. This measure, comparing other academic historians in Stoltzfus' field who have a Wikipedia page, is based on a search using complete names as well as last name and first initial.) Historian with Wikipedia article in field Number of Citations Andreas Daum 16

Wolf Gruner 15

Harold Marcuse 12

Richard Steigman-Gall 9

Nathan Stoltzfus 17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milnae (talk • contribs) 18:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While you wrote a lot, you didn't at all address Wikipedia notability criteria. You mentioned that the previous winner of the Fraenkel Prize was Mary Fulbrook. As a history undergrad, I've read her work and she's a well-known researcher of German history. Same goes for Konrad Jarausch. Neither one of them meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Please accept that not every accomplished prolific academic is worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- widely held book by a top press, plus substantial reviews, and appearances on significant lists (New Statesman book of the Year) satisfies WP:PROF#C1; One of the delete votes said that there would need to be multiple, independent reviews of the book. Both the article's citations and a check on worldcat or JSTOR shows that this is definitely true. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, this was not a New Statesman book of the year. It was one of Joan Bakewell's books of the year. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MSCuthbert. Without the prize book/auther still notable. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On further investigation and reflection prompted by Mscuthbert I accept that reviews at JSTOR 41444602, JSTOR 41401397 and JSTOR 1433589, along with the 722 library holdings listed by Worldcat, are enough for notability. Tescobar and Milnae, who have remarkably similar writing styles, might like to note that a clear, succinct argument based on evidence is far more persuasive than lengthy, mostly irrelevant ramblings. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you, please, write me which part of my argumentation is "irrelevant rambling"? Thanks in advance - Tescobar (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on !vote revision above. I too have investigated and reflected further, and have revised my !vote of 17 July from delete to neutral regarding Prof. Stoltzfus. It seems to me that a great deal of the rather lengthy discussion here revolves around the book Resistance of the Heart, not around the author, Stoltzfus. I have come to believe that the book is indeed notable, and would support keeping an article about the book, if WP had one. We don't currently have such an article, so I can't recommend redirecting Nathan Stoltzfus → Resistance of the Heart. I remain unconvinced that the prof./author is notable in his own right; I don't see that he "has made significant impact in [his] scholarly discipline, broadly construed", but perhaps I'm being overly semantic. So, it is in the interest of consensus building—and in the hope that it will help prevent the closing admin from tearing their hair out—that I've revised my opinion. -Wine Guy~Talk 18:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just have changed my first vote from "comment" to "keep". I did not know that I could vote (in Polish wikipedia the main author of an article cannot vote). Tescobar (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems to me that according to the guidelines it is clear that the article should remain. As indicated by the wide discussion and debate he has spurred (as indicated by the articles, reviews, and prizes he has received, many of which specifically cite the pioneering nature of his research) Stoltzfus is notable for his impact, both in his field and in the broader intellectual community. He is also widely cited, according to the citation source recommended by the guidelines as well as other authoritative sources. His impact is not limited to his book Resistance of the Heart, although that is his most well known work, but is based on the ideas he advances not only in that wbook but in other books and articles as well. I would also note that the argument for deletion seems to be charactized, at least in some of the comments, by "excessive zeal," which the guidelines cite as a negative point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frege1978 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Another keep vote from a brand-new user. I'm curious how this discussion became so popular so quickly. Say what you want about zeal, the criteria for notability are what they are. I'm an inclusionist and prefer to keep content on the wiki, but we all have to play by the rules. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious too. Yet, as an experienced user / editor of pl.wikipedia, I can say that the number of brand-new users in AFD is proportional to the notability of a subject. There is also another possible reason of voting as an anonymous user rather than as a regular (but not well known and respected) user - it is the probability of retaliation. How does it work? Some logged user X, with non-zero contribution, votes in AFD. Another user Y, much more experienced than X, checks contribution of X and nominates his/her articles for deletion. Using sock-puppets, although illegal in votings, could be a method to avoid such a revenge-action. Unfortunately I did not know about this when I voted for "keep" in this discussion. Several hours later all my articles (i.e. this one:-) were nominated for deletion. This is how it works. I am sure, that the nomination of Nathan Stoltzfus for deletion, 4 years after I had created this article, was strictly related with my "keep" vote in another discussion. Of course, the reason of nomination does not matter - if a subject of nominated article does not meet the criteria of notability, the article should be deleted.Tescobar (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the notability criteria for academics are met here, as discussed above, in particular criterion number one. It is met in several ways: the number of citations, including according to numbers obtained using one of the two sources listed in the rules under "citation metrics," web of knowledge; significant awards and prestguous fellowships (Frankel prize, fullbright). Stoltzfus also seems to come under the notability criteria for creative professionals, specifically criterion number 3; he has created significant work that has been the subject of multiple independent reviews. I comment here only on the article itself, rather than other users, consistent with discussion guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frege1978 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to share Tescobar's and Milnae's lack of focus on the relevant. There are reasons to consider Stoltzfus notable, but getting a research grant from the Fullbright Commission is far from being one of them. As regards Web of Knowledge, when I do a search with

AU=(Stoltzfus N*) Refined by: Web of Science Categories=( HISTORY OR SOCIAL SCIENCES INTERDISCIPLINARY OR HUMANITIES MULTIDISCIPLINARY ) Timespan=All years. Databases=BKCI-S, SSCI, BKCI-SSH, SCI-EXPANDED, A&HCI, IC, CPCI-SSH, CPCI-S, CCR-EXPANDED

I find find five citations, one of them a self-citation. What parameters are you using to find more citations? Phil Bridger (talk) 06:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Phil, that the new users who haven't contributed elsewhere make me question whether a keep vote (which as I said above I believe is right) actually will help improve the encyclopedia and keep it neutral. But I will say that in the humanities it's well known that Web of Science is absolutely terrible at finding citations in part because it doesn't understand humanities footnote formats (esp. references in discursive footnotes). I publish in science and humanities forums (digital humanities being like that...) and I know from my own searches/reading journals, that I get about the same number of cities in each. But almost every citation I get from science journals/proceedings/etc. gets picked up by WoS, Google Scholar, etc. only a tiny fraction (maybe 10%?) of the humanities citations get picked up there, and that's only in the past 3 years; before that, when humanities journals online weren't native PDFs, but just OCR scans, it was even worse. Hence why I think library holdings of books are much more accurate. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is true, and I have already given a keep opinion partially based on library holdings. I was just interested to know what the basis was for Frege1978's claim that Web of Science came up with a significant number of citations, because, even allowing for the anti-humanities bias, I don't think that four non-self citations can be considered significant. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I read that part of his comments as listing some of the ways that people have generally been considered notable, not as an argument for notability of NS. I see now that your interpretation was right, but it doesn't matter here. As we've both said, there's enough else out there. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: His book Resistance of the Heart seems to me to have made a sufficient impact to render its author notable and for us to have a page on him useful. In addition to the "things" about it mentioned in the text the following reviews might be helpful:

Bessel, Richard 1997. "Resistance of the Heart - Intermarriage and the Rosenstrasse protest in Nazi Germany". Times Literary Supplement: 27.

Schilde, K. 1997. "Nathan Stoltzfus: Resistance of the Heart. Intermarriage and the Rosenstrasse Protest in Nazi Germany. New York/London 1996". ZEITSCHRIFT FUR GESCHICHTSWISSENSCHAFT -BERLIN- VEB DEUTSCHER VERLAG DER WISSENSCHAFTEN. 45 (9): 862.

Haag, John. 1998. "[Review of] Resistance of the Heart: Intermarriage and the Rosenstrasse Protest in Nazi Germany". The Georgia Review. 52 (2): 384-387. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Wikepedia's notability criteria for academics includes, as nimber one, number of citations. The criteria include a section called "citation metrics" that states: "the only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journal articles in most subjects is to use one of the two major citation indexes, Web of Knowledge and Scopus." I entered Nathan Stoltzfus as "author" in Web of Knowledge and found 17 citations. Wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_"academics" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frege1978 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you found 17 papers by Nathan Stoltzfus, not 17 citations to those papers. In fact your search finds no citations whatsoever, because his only papers with any citations were published under N. Stoltzfus, not Nathan Stoltzfus. To do the search properly you need to put Stoltzfus N* in the author field and then use the panel on the left to refine the search by deselecting mathematics and pharmacology from the categories because those papers are clearly by other people called N. Stoltzfus. Selecting "create citation report" will then tell you that my figures above are correct. This discussion is a bit of a side issue because there is a clear consensus, including me, to keep the article on other grounds. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:34, 26 July 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.

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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ōhama Domain

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

This article has no specific verifying support other than a link to ja:大浜藩 which cites only 二木謙一監修・工藤寛正編「国別藩と城下町の事典」東京堂出版、2004年9月20日発行(351ページ). A review of Nihon jinmei daijiten here is unhelpful. A quick search of Google books produces no information. The stub article does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Enkyo2 (talk) 13:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Enkyo2 (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are ref. in ja. See the middle of the page, [27], [28], and [29]. Oda Mari (talk) 08:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has an entry in Japanese Wikipedia, 国史大辞典 and other Japanese-language sources as indicated above. There's no reason that Nihon Jinmei Daijiten would be expected to be helpful here; "Jinmei" means "name of a person"... This is a place. Bueller 007 (talk) 04:51, 11 July 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, postdlf (talk) 19:45, 16 July 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, L Faraone 23:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as above. Bondegezou (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Readding to log. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 11 August 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.

History Proposed deletions

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 14#Category:Public history

History categories

for occasional archiving

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 12#Archaeological sites in Greece by period
- Propose merging Category:Ancient Greek archaeological sites in Greece to Category:Ancient Greek sites in Greece
- Propose merging Category:Roman archaeological sites in Greece to Category:Roman sites in Greece

Category:History of Hanukkah, December 8, 2010, CfD
Category talk:Land of Israel - name change proposal. --Shuki (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals

The Holocaust was changed to Holocaust, see follow-up discussion, (26 July 2013).
Proposal to rename Munich Massacre to 1972 Munich hostage crisis, see discussion, (4 April 2013).

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 ==Proposals==
+*[[The Holocaust]] was changed to [[Holocaust]], see [[Talk:Holocaust#Follow-up discussion about a hasty decision|follow-up discussion]], (26 July 2013).
 *Proposal to rename [[Munich Massacre]] to [[1972 Munich hostage crisis]], see [[Talk:Munich massacre#Requested move|discussion]], (4 April 2013).