Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Mountainous Armenia

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 July 10.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Simply stating 'There are no sources' and 'There are sources' is not enough to generate consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Mountainous Armenia

It's unclear as to what reliable sources this article is based upon. Seems to be just another piece of original research and non-neutral POV pushed to become an encyclopedia article.

Delete. Per summary. Atabəy (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone check in non-English books for references? A failed nonrecognized state might merit an article if it got sufficient coverage. See State of Franklin for a failed non-recognized state which is notable and discussed in history books. Edison (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Preferably from third-party sources which are not affiliated with the region. Atabəy (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reliable sources are required, but historians are often "affiliated with the region" they are about. I would not exclude British historians as sources for British history, for instance.Winston Churchill is a source for UK history, even though he was "affiliated with" the government. I would exclude a blog of a nationalistic political movement. Reviews and scholarly opinion can help us determine the status of a work. A general encyclopedia in the country would be a source to verify some of the information. Edison (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The problem is that the lands claimed by this article belong to more than one modern-day country. Subsequently, this becomes a classical example of historical invention driven by nationalistic sentiment. Hence, unless there exist sources from a variety of involved countries, the claim, that pretty much no one knows about, has no merit as an article. Atabəy (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Several books come up in a Google book seaarch for Republic of Mountainous Armenia See [1] The assertion that the areas in the failed state now belong to several states is completely and absolutely irrelevant to discussion of the failed state in question. Edison (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As you can observe in Google Books search result, there are only sources with Armenian authors which claim such "state" has existed. So, obviously, article violates not only WP:OR but also WP:NPOV. I can proclaim that entire Caucasus belongs to Azerbaijan and even find references for it from Azeri sources, does not mean, I can create an encyclopedic article to assert such claim as a recitation of historical fact.Atabəy (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very clearly you do not understand that WP:OR only applies to the work of Wikipedia editors, and not to books published by authors. The fact that they are from one country does not make them original research. We have many articles with references only from one country. Edison (talk) 04:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Edison, please, do refer to the first paragraph of WP:OR for clarification below:

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no such republic. Chippolona (talk) 05:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The question is not "Is there?" but "Was there?" Edison (talk) 04:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, if the district of Los Angeles is called today Little Armenia due to significant presence of Armenian-American population, can it be claimed some 100 years later as a part of the "Republic of Californian Armenia" if someone makes such a fantastic claim? Atabəy (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single source; let alone reliable sources, this is like a fantasy-republic. Baku87 (talk) 09:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The republic existed and was declared but due to the brevity of its existence and lack of single accepted name for it, sources in English seem to be limited. However, despite this, Google books has hits for it which proves its existence and deserving of a Wiki article. - Fedayee (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This article does not read to me like pure invention, which is usually what is meant by WP:OR. I do know that there were a series of conflicts in the Caucasus at the end of WWI, but know little detail of them, except that there was a British invervention and somebody called Thompson (possibly Thomson) was subsequently blamed by Soviet propaganda for certain events. It might be useful to have an overview article on that, but that is a distinct question. In the meantime, this article should be kept, but strongly tagged for improvement. It might be better with the alternative title of Republic of Karabakh-Zanghezur, which is indicated to be a translation of the Armenian name for it. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per Fedayee and Peterkingiron. The republic existed, although it's understandable that some sources do not use the same precise wording as the title to describe, given the fact that it was never recognized. The prominent historian, Richard G. Hovannisian, clearly alludes to it in the chapter "Armenia's Road to Independence" in his The Armenian People From Ancient to Modern Times, Volume II: Foreign Dominion to Statehood: The Fifteenth Century to the Twentieth Century (1997),
"General Andranik, denouncing the Russian Armenian leaders, and his former Dashnakist comrades for abandoning Western Armenia, refused to acknowledge the Republic of Armenia. With loyal followers, and a mass of Western Armenian refugees, he marched toward Persia in the hope of joining up with the British Expeditionary Force. When he encountered a Turkish division near Julfa, Andranik backtracked and ascended into the highlands of Zangezur, where for the duration of the war he overran one Muslim village after another." (p. 300)
His other work, Armenia on the Road to Independence (1967) and the first volume of The Republic of Armenia (1967) most probably makes mention of Andranik and his efforts in greater detail.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The description asked for WP:NPOV sources. Richard G. Hovannisian, who is an Armenian-American, BY FAR does not fit the bill of a neutral source on this subject. Even the Wikipedia page dedicated to him has not a single non-Armenian reviewer. Atabəy (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Its unclear if this republic did excist or not and the fact it doesnt cite any sources only makes it looks like a myth. RetlawSnellac (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fedayee and Marshal Bagramyan. Sardur (talk) 05:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of credible sources. --Aynabend (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure to find reliable sources to assert its existence. Sounds like a hoax. Ateshi-Baghavan 13:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since all those who have voted to Delete speak Turkish (including Elsanaturk and Aynabend who just got out of the woodwork to participate in this AFD) I present you this source in Turkish which I found in the Turkish Wiki version of this article: ^ Robert M. Cutler, "Kayfasya'daki Kriz Kaynakları ve Bölgeleri", Haz: T.C. Genelkurmay Başkanlığı, İkinci Uluslararası Sempozyum Bildirileri (İstanbul 27-28 Mayıs 2004) "Türkiye, NATO ve Avrupa Birliği Perspektifinden Kriz Bölgelerinin İncelenmesi ve Türkiye'nin Güvenliğine Etkileri", Genelkurmay Askerî Tarih ve Stratejik Etüt Başkanlığı Yayınları, Ankara, 2004, s. 107. (PDF dosyası) I suppose yall are going to change your votes now right?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Eupator WP:AGF in your comments, please. Below is the text:

1920 Aralık ayında Karabağ’ın neredeyse bitişiğinde Ermenistan’daki Güney Syunik bölgesinde Karabağ’ı da içine alan Syunik Özerk Cumhuriyeti’nin kurulduğu ve Ermenistan içinde özerk bir yapıya sahip olduğu ilân edilmiştir. 1921 Nisan ayında Syunik Özerk Cumhuriyeti bağımsızlığını ilân etmiş fakat birkaç hafta içinde bozguna uğramıştır. Yukarı Karabağ bölgesinde ismen var olmaya devam etmiş ve kısa sürede adı Dağlık Ermenistan Cumhuriyeti olarak değiştirilirken 1921 Temmuz ayında Sovyet Kızıl Ordusu bölgeyi işgal ettiğinde dağılmıştır.

The source claims that in April 1921, Syunik Autonomous Republic was proclaimed in Armenia including Syunik and Karabakh but was demolished within few days. The part of it existing in name only in Mountainous Karabakh was renamed to Mountainous Armenian Republic, though disbanded in July 1921 after the takeover by Soviet Red Army.

Apart from being a single source by energy security expert (not historian) Robert Cutler (interestingly the graduate of UMich, the center of Armenian claims), the basic facts are cited wrong. Nagorno-Karabakh was taken over by Red Army not in July 1921, but in August 1920 ("On August 10, 1920, Armenia signed a preliminary agreement with the Bolsheviks, agreeing to a temporary Bolshevik occupation of these areas until final settlement would be reached" (Walker, Christopher J. Armenia: Survival of a Nation. London: Routledge, 1990 pp. 285-290 ISBN 0-415-04684-X). Dashnak Armenia fell to Soviets in November 1920, not in 1921. Hence the claim is based solely on Armenian sources, not on any neutral piece of serious historical work. Atabəy (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but change the article's title to something more accurate. And try to get rid of the inaccuracies in the article, such as "In January 1919, with Armenian troops advancing, the British forces (Lionel Dunsterville) ordered Andranik back to Zangezur". That is obviously wrong - Dunsterville was in Baku in 1918 and did not play a part in this the region after the fall of Baku. Meowy 19:58, 7 July 2009 (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.