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, POV-fork of Udi people. Intrestingly, interesting article is not a valid keep contention. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian-Udi[edit]

Albanian-Udi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article "Albanian-Udi" lacks references and contains unsupported and POV claims and barely gets any results from notable sites throughout search engines. Nareklm 01:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the subject gets few hits, and the article contains no sources. --Mardavich 01:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: search engines may not be the best criterion of notability for such topics. Pavel Vozenilek 02:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well then try Google Books, you still won't find a single result [1]. --Mardavich 07:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree, but the article had such things written, that made it seem as though it was notable, although there is no information found nor reliable or verifiable on the sites or elsewhere. Nareklm 02:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - inadequately sourced, no way to judge veracity Shaundakulbara 11:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think the article is notable, Its very obscure, but relevant, but it is hard to find sources, I say Keep but I do understand the reasoning for its nom, more sources need to be found and a little more work done on it, and the wording cleaned up of any POV claims. --Kathanar 14:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - An article is interesting, uncovers a minor ethnic group but it lacks references and needs expansion. I added some links - now I believe it has some sources. Generally, it is worth to keep but appropriate work should be done further.--Dacy69 14:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is about the Albanian church in the village of Kish, which according to some sources is the oldest church in the Caucasus. The article should be renamed to Kish church or something like that. I will work on expansion and NPOV-ing of the article. Grandmaster 16:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless someone can show that this is not covered at Udi people which claims 'most Udis belong to the Armenian Apostolic Church' Nuttah68 17:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete If the article is renamed first anf foremost and the text re-written with reliable and neutral references than it should stay. I don't see that happening ergo my vot.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• merge and redirect to Udi people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Niffweed17 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• delete if the page is in excess. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you should reconsider your position, this article comes from an already existing article, the section neutrality and factuality is still questioned with no corrections provided. So I don't see the point of merging when the article comes from another existing article. Fad (ix) 22:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're correct. My apologies for only looking at the Udi people article. For that reason, the article could be deleted. But as it is, the article is nominated for deletion due to POV concerns, which would be inappropriate; the information presented in the article is definitely of notability and can be expressed in a NPOV manner. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Given that this article as is, is copypasted from a section of the article Religion_in_Azerbaijan, there is no other way than requesting its deletion. First, if we were to delete every non-sourceble parts of this article, no more than three lines would remain, and I am optimistic there. Fad (ix) 22:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename or at least merge with Religion in Azerbaijan, but it would be better to keep it and wait for expanding it. I have added some sources to the article. The existence of this community seems indisputable. As to its notability, at least it appeared on BBC News: [2]. See also [www.nhe-az.org], although I don't know how to make a permanent link to this page. Why can't Wikipedia have an article for a marginal religious community while it has plenty of articles for marginal villages, locations etc? Besides, it seems to me that Wikipedia actually has articles for marginal religious groups in USA, Europe etc. Is Azerbaijan different? Colchicum 03:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the relevent links, check Religion in Azerbaijan, this article is already there, it was copypasted to creat a new article. Fad (ix) 03:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, consider that Udi people has already its article. Fad (ix) 03:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article is not NOV; some references are actually provided as links. Biophys 03:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article is still not referenced, its not our job to look for the references plus all the references are non-reliable or from an Azeri source, mainly non-reliable, or even bias. There's still citations requiring filling. Nareklm 04:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nomination for deletion, fact-checking and search for references are different things. Here we discuss deletion. Colchicum 04:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless Colchicum, you request to keep it and rename it, there already is an article on the Udi people, or requested it to be at least merge to Religion in Azerbaijan, all the content of this article word by word is on Religion in Azerbaijan. So, its content word by word is already in an article, and there already is an article on the Udi. So, there still is no rational for this article. Fad (ix) 04:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Udi people is about a people, not a religion. If you insist that this article has to be deleted, could you please explain why Wikipedians keep e.g. Old Order River Brethren? Nothing personal. Colchicum 15:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Albanian Udi is a religion? Before assuming bad faith and accusing voters of things, please visit both articles I have cited, more particularly the one on Religions in Azerbaijan. The only reason this article talk about religion is because it was created by copypasting from another article. Its content word by word exist in another article, and its subject also has its own article. Albanian Udi and Udi people is the same thing. Fad (ix) 16:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I am not accusing, I am guessing. Please, assume good faith yourself. I have read all the articles you had mentioned, but my point of view is different from yours. I don't see anything wrong in creating an aricle by copypasting from some part of another article, expecting that the new article will be expanded by someone. Many WP articles have emerged from parts of other articles. That's all. I am not going to spend my time discussing this anymore. Bye. Colchicum 18:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article is in poor condition. It lacks references and contains POV claims. Also this subject gets few hits when I did google search. ROOB323 08:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google Search indicates only that the article is improperly called. Udi Christians yield many hits: [3] Colchicum 15:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude are you reading what I am saying? They already have an article, and they are included word by word in another. It is like creating two article, one titled "Armenian people" and another "Armenians" Fad (ix) 16:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note that many of those who support the deletion (User:Fadix, User:ROOB323, User:Eupator, User:Mardavich, User:Nareklm) indicate on their pages that they belong to the Armenian Apostolic Christians or are otherwise linked to Armenia. As according to the article Udi Christians have conflicted with the Armenian Apostolic Christians, there is a possibility for some bias. Nothing personal. Colchicum 15:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What on earth are you talking about? I am neither Armenian nor belong to the Armenian Apostolic Church. Please read WP:AGF. --Mardavich 15:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Colchicum, this might help you to know, that I am born as Catholic and not Apostolic, and rejected every religious beliefs. Also, was not born, nor ever visited Armenia. So which link you're talking about. I am Armenian true, but my ethnicity is of no relevency here so I expect an apology from your part. Fad (ix) 16:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want my apology, I hereby apologize, although I have not stated that you are AAC. I wrote: that they belong to the Armenian Apostolic Christians or are otherwise linked to Armenia. If it is irrelevant here that you guys are linked to Armenia, excuse me. I just guessed that it could be relevant. Certainly, it could be irrelevant as well. Nobody knows. Again, nothing personal, but as to Wikipedia, I am an inclusionist, and I can hardly understand people who strive to eradicate such harmless articles. They may be not very interesting as of now, but certainly they are not hoaxes and there is a chance that they will be improved. Colchicum 17:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Does it matter anyway? stop posting irrelevant crap in here. Nareklm 17:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Of course it should be kept, as it shows very vauable historic and related information, has attracted attention from the famous Norwegian researcher Thor Heyerdahl, and the Udin people, as the keepers of the Caucasian Alban apostolic and autocephalous Church's heritage have been thanked by Pope John Paul II during his visit to Azerbaijan: "Praise to you, Christians, who have given so much, especially through the ancient Church of the Albans, in shaping the identity of this land." [4]. Many more sources will be brought to this page in a few weeks, that will undoubtedly enrich this article. By the way, I've been to Kish village and have seen the Church both before and after its reconstruction by the Norwegian and British experts, and made several photos, which I can also upload and release copyright. --AdilBaguirov 18:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article appears to be a less credible version of Udi people. The bulk of its information is uncited and unverified. -- Aivazovsky 18:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • An article on a people is relevent, and POV does not justify deletion. What justify deletion is when there is already an article about Udi people, the copypasted material from the religion article could have been pasted on that article, but another article was created insteed. Fad (ix) 22:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Fadix comment. Jamaana 16:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  09:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - And following the logic of deletion supporters: Why then have Nagorno-Karabakh and Artsakh pages?-- Atabek 07:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a stupid comparaison sorry. Artsakh is a historic geographic place when Udi people and Albanian Udi are just synonimous. Artsakh and NK could be compared with Constantinople and Istanbul, while Udi-people and Albanian-Udi could be compared with 'Amenian people' and 'Armenians.' They're both a redirect of the same thing. Requesting keep just because Armenians happened to vote delete, without even bothering to understand the arguments amuses me, really. Fad (ix) 13:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page was started by non-Azeri user - check history page. It is you and other users who brought ethnic dimension to this article. And now you claims that we vote 'yes' because you vote 'no'.--Dacy69 03:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Interesting article with valuable information, verified sources and references. --Batabat 08:27, 12 February 2007 (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.