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 on the articles nominated here, but there is a consensus amongst many participants that this nomination was a WP:TRAINWRECK and never going to yield a workable result. Individual AfD discussions for some of the nominated articles are likely warranted, and it has been suggested that other matters be discussed at more appropriate venues like WP:ANI. Relisting of this discussion is highly unlikely to result in a clearer outcome or consensus on the bundle of articles that were nominated. Liz suggested a procedural close during an earlier relist, but decided against that due to the editor resources involved in the discussion; regarding that, I would suggest that relevant discussion and analysis from this discussion be referred to in any AfDs on the individual articles that might be opened later. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Salyan[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Battle of Salyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a single neutral source or source from a credible publisher or website for this article, plus violation of WP:GS/AA – articles created by non-extended confirmed user. I am also nominating the following related pages because of same reasons, to enforce WP:GS/AA among other issues such as:

- Kevo327 (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, this only concerns edits as said here "Extended confirmed restriction: only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, subject to the following provisions:", in itself you have no reason to delete my articles, it contains reliable and considerate sources of schools, you can check them all, in itself you have no good argument. Movaigonel (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You say that my sources are not reliable, are you serious in your words two seconds? I have sources from Cambridge University press and it is not reliable? Your argument doesn't hold water. Movaigonel (talk) 14:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the articles are indeed lacking WP:RS, and most importantly, what do you think publishing entire articles related to Armenia/Azerbaijan is? It's a form of editing, and in this case, editing by non-ECP users hence violation of WP:GS/AA. - Kevo327 (talk) 14:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well let's continue in your logic, I do not publish only on Armenia - Azerbaijan, because as far as I know the Ottoman Empire is not an Azerbaijani empire, right? Once again, my sources are correct and most of them come directly from Armenians who lived through the 1915 genocide, all my pages have been reviewed at the moment, as far as I know, writing articles is not prohibited, and writing about turkic countries is not forbidden too, so swallow your rage and please stop deleting my work with an argument that makes no sense, if you want to argue the legitimacy of my articles you can do it and I will give you all the sources you need, for me this debate is closed, you do not accept as an Armenian to write articles that are not in favor of your country even when sometimes it includes Armenian sources , such as "Battle of Erzurum (1918)", but you don't do the same for Armenian articles which are not accessible and purely false when we check it, such as "Battle of Halizdor", "Syunik rebellion", "Battle of Mastara", and it doesn't cause you any problem because it suits your community, doesn't it? And again the last time you undo what I modified on the siege of Aintab, because it contained fraudulent information, no French sources claim that Andranik Ozanian was present in Cilicia, but you still have undo, lack of faith maybe ? Movaigonel (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you stop with the personal attacks, such behavior is not allowed on Wikipedia. Focus on content, not the contributor. Your created articles aren't just about Ottoman Empire, they mention various info about Armenia and Azerbaijan, including as belligerents, so articles such as these created by non-ECP editor are in violation of WP:GS/AA. - Kevo327 (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I'm sorry if my words touched you,
but you see, we're going to see my articles to contradict the argument that it's about "Azerbaijan-Armenia"
In conclusion 90% of the pages you want to delete have nothing to do with what you described, what I'm going to say is not against you, but I'm afraid you lose your objectivity due to the fact that you are Armenians, don't take what I said the wrong way but that's what I noticed. Good evening to you. Movaigonel (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User_talk:Movaigonel#July_2023 as explained, those are covered by WP:GS/AA. - Kevo327 (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Besides 1TWO3Writer, just checked all my pages, so I would like this debate to be closed because it has no place to be, and that you stop trying to delete my pages. Movaigonel (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I only checked for WP:CV per Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reports/Easy reviews#Unreviewed articles marked for AFD. Me marking them as reviewed does not mean they are notable. 1TWO3Writer (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've elaborated on the rationale of most of the articles, aside from the fact that these were created in violation of WP:GS/AA. Please take a closer look at the explanations. - Kevo327 (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fiachra10003 I elaborated on the deletion reasons and crossed off the articles that could be improved or merged, now only articles that lack notability or reliable sources for their existence are listed. - Kevo327 (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this is a complicated bundled nomination with the nominator changing what they are requesting with several different articles. Participating editors should carefully review the nomination statement as Deletion is not being called for with all proposed articles. I'm almost tempted to do a procedural close so that these articles can be considered in individual or smaller bundled nominations but editors have invested time in this discussion so I will relist it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought of euthanasia as violent, but okay. Last1in (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Part of my concern was that "kill the nom" could be (mis)interpreted as "kill the nominator", rather than "kill the nomination". signed, Rosguill talk 15:08, 21 July 2023 (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.
More