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. This close is without prejudice against a speedy renomination. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khojaly Massacre recognition[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Khojaly Massacre recognition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The given topic does not warrant its own article on a Encyclopedia (WP:N). It is neither disputed nor denied – not even by the Armenian side – that a massacre in Khojaly took place. Therefore there is no need for a "recognition"-article, since there is no denial of it. There is no need for an article on a Encyclopedia listing how each year 1 or 2 US States commemorate the non-denied death of 200+ people during a conflict. Non-notable topic. Markus2685 (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I indeed did have a bit of trouble finding disagreers, but Armenians seems to be the most likely disagreers. I were able to find this webpage: 1, which is to serve as just an example of opposition existing. Maybe the editors who edit the subject matter happen to have a bit of a lopsided viewpoint and thus don't list the opposition views, so they aren't visible here. But they do seem to exist outside of Wikipedia. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are mixing two different topics. The first topic is this "recognition"-article about depicting a recognition of an event – a massacre – which is not denied at all. Even the president of Armenia declared in an interview with Thomas De Waal that a massacre took place. The second topic – which you are mentioning – is the labeling of Khojaly massacre as "Genocide", which Azerbaidjanis try to do, although there is not a single reliable third-party source using the term "genocide" to describe the death of 200+ people. If you look carefully you will see that the headline of the link you posted reads "The Khojaly Genocide Fabrication". Markus2685 (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe the best option would be then to rename the article as Khojaly Massacre controversy or something like that and have both sides' points be presented. There does seem to be great disagreement about what exactly took place and why. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The disagreement is already depicted in the main article Khojaly massacre by describing the positions of both parties in detail. Therefore your suggestion would basically result in just a copy of the main article "Khojaly massacre". Markus2685 (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some few mentions but it seems like both sides' arguments have grown up to take quite a lot of space. The article itself should be fairly matter-of-fact from the perspective of third party sources and then summarize the two sides' views. This controversy article could then explain their stances further... --Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't think we need another article on the massacre itself. There are actually no two side's views. International organizations such as HRW and Memorial which investigated the massacre concur with the Azerbaijani side with regard to the perpetrators, and so do many Armenian sources, including the current Armenian president. The conspiracy theorists are pretty marginal, and I see no point in changing the topic of this article. I think the article in question should remain, as it was split from the main article in order to save space there and keep it focused on the topic. Grandmaster 23:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why did you change the recognitions to "commemoration": 2? The sources talk about recognition. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Recognition" is misleading and just wrong. The sources that you mean are only Azerbaidjani partisan sources using the term "recognition" as part of their agenda trying to give the impression, that this is an event denied by Armenia. The original resolutions are using the term "commemoration": "A Resolution commemorating the 21st anniversary of the Khojaly Tragedy" Markus2685 (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A RESOLUTION Recognizing the 21st anniversary of the Khojaly Massacre and honoring the life and memory of the victims of this horrific tragedy. Grandmaster 00:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Allthough the majority of the original resolutions use the heading "Resolution commemorating…" 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc all sentences were written with "recognizing" by purpose, following the Azerbaidjani agenda of a misleading and manipulative wording as "recognizing Khojaly genocide" – which can be found on all partisan Azerbaidjani sources which are heavily and mainly used for this artcile Markus2685 (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There are those that talk about recognition. Regardless of what you think about them, it is a fact. Grandmaster 21:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you mean, with what I think about them. I didn't say anything about my thoughts. I just stated facts based on original wording of the majority of the original resolutions, and not what partisan Azerbaidjani sources – that are mainly used for this article – fabricated from them (changing "commemorate" to "recognize" or changing "massacre" to "genocide" – and this is the point. Markus2685 (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I provided above a link to the resolution which talks about recognition. No one says that all of them mention recognition, some talk about recognition, others of commemoration. Anyway, this is irrelevant to this AFD. Each resolution in the text should be summarized according to its actual wording. Grandmaster 22:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. "Recognition" does not mean recognising that 200+ people died. It means recognising that this massacre was committed by Armenian troops; an act which Armenia has been vehemently denying since 1992. Six sovereign UN member states and 15 US states whose parliaments have voted in favour of recognising and condemning Armenia's involvement in this act of violence is more than "1 or 2 states commemorating" the death of the people. Parishan (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: Even the president of Armenia declared in an interview with Thomas De Waal that a massacre took place by Armenians, which can be read in the main article "Khojaly massacre". Your accusation is therefore just wrong. There is no denial, and thus no need for a "recognition"-article. Markus2685 (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it were not denied, you would not have all this. Parishan (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree that it is a non notable topic. I don't see any reason for a recognition article when there is no official denial of this massacre. Hayterak (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC) — Hayterak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep. This article was split from Khojaly massacre in order to save space and avoid the recognition section there growing way too large. I think the topic warrants a separate article. Otherwise, all this info will reemerge in the main article, and I think the main article should be more focused on the massacre itself. Grandmaster 23:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article shows the recognition of the events in different levels and ensures that this type of war crimes/genocides/massacres do not happen again. Regards, Konullu (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC) (topic banned user)[reply]

• Again. It shows the commemoration (this is the original wording of the resolution headers) and not the "recognition" (because there is no denial of it!) of these events. Furthermore your comment "this type of war crimes/genocides/massacres" exposes the real intent of this article. Misleading and manipulating the readership. Markus2685 (talk) 10:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree that it is a non notable topic. Terrey Hills (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC) — Terrey Hills (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete No denial of this massacre, therefore no need for a recognition-article of its own. Furthermore the complete article is sourced with biased Azerbaidjani sources.Sysfu (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC) — Sysfu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete heavily based on aserbaidjani partisan sources. Clearly following an agendaSamsun25 (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC) — Samsun25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment What's up with all the SPAs popping up? If someone thinks that those votes will count, he is wrong. Grandmaster 21:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with you. I am surprised as well. However, only the strength of the arguments presented counts. So basically it does not matter if these accounts just popped up, since its their argument that counts. And well, their content is correct. Markus2685 (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see any denial either, no topic for having an article of its own. Sarah Rauscher (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC) — Sarah Rauscher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete Only partisan aserbaidjani sources in use, no objective point of view. Albert Einstein 321 (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC) — Albert Einstein 321 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are a lot of reliable sources about recognition and commemoration of the massacre by different states and organisation. If we describe all of that in Khojaly massacre artile it will take a lot of space there. That is why the separate article is suitable. --Interfase (talk) 20:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect -- I am not saying that the massacre was not a terrible event, but it was a single event; accordingly there should be a single article on the massacre. I appreciate that the main article is getting rather long. My country (UK) has thousands of memorials to WWI and WWII. However, WP does not have an article (or even a paragraph) on every memorial. The coverage in the massacre article of recognition and memorials is as much as we need. The rest is going beyond the encyclopaedic. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - plenty of good sources. list is needed.BabbaQ (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point. --Երևանցի ^talk 20:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-encyclopedic. an attempt to copy the Armenian Genocide recognition article, which is highly relevant. nobody denies this massacre, what "recognition" is this article about ? --Երևանցի ^talk 20:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, and that's exactly the point. This article is trying to paint a false picture of reality, namely that the Khojaly massacre is a masscre denied by Armenia. Which is obviously nonsense. This article has a manipulative purpose, as you said correctly trying to copy the uncomparable and relevant Armenian Genocide recognition article (very likely as part of an Azerbaijani agenda). Markus2685 (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is pretty much just a list of resolutions passed by various states, governments and international organizations. If there are NPOV issues, they could be sorted, but that's not a reason to delete the whole article. Merging this whole list into the main article would consume too much space there. Grandmaster 22:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• So just to sum it up: You want to create an article on its own, on a Encyclopedia, for the "recognition" of a massacre which is neither disputed nor denied that it took place, filling an encyclopedic article with listings of how mainly single US states commerorated this death of 200-600 people. I highly doubt that this needs an article of its own. And still because of the manipulative wording whis was used by purpose there is the suspicion of the articles real purpose trying to mislead the readership. Markus2685 (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't want to create anything, the article already exists. The denialist position exists in Armenia, there are conspiracy theorists there who try to blame the massacre on Azerbaijanis themselves. But leaving all that aside, as I explained above, the main purpose of this article is to save space in the main article by splitting all commemoration and recognition resolutions into a separate article. There's nothing unusual about it, it is a normal practice here, and NPOV issues, if any, could be addressed without deleting the article. Grandmaster 19:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment concerning user Grandmasters last note: The point is, we are discussing the issue, whether this article or better said the content itself needs to be in a Encyclopedia at all, either as a article on its own or part of another article. So your argument, that you are repeatedly stating (namely, to save space in the other article), does not have to do anything with all the deletion arguments and doubts stated above (misleading, manipulative, notability etc.). By the way, there is a big difference between an existing denial of a massacre as such (which this article suggests but which de facto just does not exist) or the questioning of who is responsible for it (and even this was clearly stated by the Armenian president, plus there are not only these "conspiracy" voices in Armenia, but also in other countries, even in Azerbaidjan, but this is not the topic here so we should not discuss about this in this AFD). Markus2685 (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Your comment raises many questions. Why exactly recognition or commemoration resolution by an independent country or a US state is not notable for inclusion in a Wikipedia article? And which wording exactly you believe is "manipulative" and "misleading"? And why any such wording, if it actually exists, cannot be fixed without deleting the whole article? If you have problems with the word "recognition", as I understood from your comments above, then I see nothing wrong with this particular word, as it is actually used in some resolutions. We just need to make sure that the summaries are in line with the actual wording of each resolution. Grandmaster 22:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as POV fork. Merge content back into main article on massacre.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as questionable for its own article, unlikely needed separately. SwisterTwister talk 00:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into the main article--it would make more sense there, and would be where anyone would expect to find it. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I am also willing to a merge. SwisterTwister talk 02:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge into main article as per DGG. Not enough for its own article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into main article. Neither side seems to deny the massacre, so there is no need to have a separate page for the recognition of it (and I can't find sources that speak to the recognition of it, contra what actually happened). That said, it is worth noting on the main article, so I think it being merged there is the best outcome. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge anything worth saving back to Khojaly Massacre. I'm not seeing what encyclopedic value there is in a laundry list of every single elected official anywhere who has ever discussed the issue; it's pretty much indiscriminate information. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:37, 16 March 2016 (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.