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. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shusha massacre (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)

I nominate this article for deletion due this article includes only armenian side of the claimed event, which is direct breach of WP:NPOV. Most of the sources for the article is just out of the context on Azerbaijani people and not-historical proven facts, which is breach of WP:BIAS. Moreover, the article is full of copy-paste material for an encyclopedic entry. The article uses fake sources such as "Audrey L. Altstadt. Azerbaijani Turks: Power and Identity Under Russian Rule", which is not related anyhow to the massacre. I think this is more than enough information. No other country except armenians are writing about this so called event. Yacatisma (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2014 (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/2014 August 21. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep AFD is not for solving possible POV issues. Besides, this article has plenty of non-Armenian sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• keep All the reasons given are reasons to edit the article not reasons to delete it. GB fan 00:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article's sources are trivial mentions and closely connected source of dubious reliability. Unless someone can identify some neutral sources, it seems that the subject fails WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janavar (talk • contribs) 01:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Care to explain exactly how this book is not a neutral source? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article contains non-Armenian sources as well. If we were to delete this article then we should delete Guba mass grave, Capture of Garadaghly, Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre, etc. as well as all of those articles only contain Azerbaijani sources and, as Yacatisma stated above, "No other country except azerbaijanis are writing about this so called event." Ninetoyadome (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OR and Wikipedia:Essays. Totally arbitrary collection of opinions, mainly about armenian genocide, which, of course, already has its own article. Some of it appears to be about the definition of genocide, which is covered in the armenian genocide article, to which the title could be redirected.--Torpaq (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anyone can read the article and see that it is more than an "arbitrary collection of opinions." It's sourced from a variety of academic sources from scholars from various uninvolved nations. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - WP:SOFIXIT seems to apply here. POV issues are solved by editing the article to provide a balanced view, not by deleting the whole thing. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Before voting, commenting, or responding, please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NovaSkola. The nominator of this AfD and the vote-stackers voting delete are under serious suspicion of SPI. The master sockpuppet, NovaSkola (talk · contribs), has been banned indefinitely from editing articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan due to his/her disruption in Armenian related articles. So, welcome to WP:AA2 fellas!!! Also, @Ohnoitsjamie:, @GaryColemanFan:, @GB fan:, I hope you got this message. Cheers! Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you shouldn't trust Étienne Dolet's false claims as arbitary collection didn't made the decision. He is clearly accusing me of somebody that I'm not related.--Torpaq (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is a notable event that is well documented by acceptable sources. I'd suggest a name change though - perhaps to Shusha Pogrom. AfD proposer needs to understand that alleging an article is one-sided is not a valid reason for deleting that article (and claiming one-sidedness while also claiming "no other country except armenians are writing about this so called event" is displaying a high level of doublethink). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: The suggestion to delete the article smacks of a bad-faith attack and should be investigated. Hablabar (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: Quite aside from the perfectly valid comments above, and with a (threadbare) assumption that this is in good faith, the nom makes a common error regarding WP:NPOV -- that Wikipedia's never permitted to say anything naughty about any person or group which objects to the characterization. This is a critical misreading of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. We are under no compunction, in light of such a heavily-documented and sourced event, to spare the feelings of the perps. Ravenswing 19:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 23 August 2014 (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.