File:Azerbaijan Democratic Republic 1918-1920 Map.jpg – Close endorsed but immediate relist by someone who understands the subject permitted The DRV brings out a further discussion of the sources of the article that lead towards the conclusion that the map is original research, but these doubts were raised and refuted in the IFD so that there was not sufficient weight to allow the closing admin to delete. This discussion does not have a clear consensus either and since DRV is for reviewing closes not round2, we need to be careful not to substitute the conclusions of DRV for Xfd discussions. Its quite obvious that there is an OR issue with the image and its not being used on any article so I see no reason that someone who knows the subject could not immediately relist the image with a clearer explanation of what the issues with it are. Hopefully this will lead to a more focused discussion the the last one that gives greater clarity on the quality of the sourcing. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Azerbaijan Democratic Republic 1918-1920 Map.jpg (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (article`\|`XfD`\|`restore) Nv8200p archived this debate according to him (and I agree with him on this point) "because I saw that there was no consensus". There is however another problem, which I think allow this review: this file (a map) is supported by no sources (what is written in the file summary is not true). People could say a lot about the PoV characteristic of the map (i.e. boundaries of Azerbaijan in 1918-1920), but, in my opinion, this is not the main problem. The main problem is that the map is using modern boundaries Armenia-Turkey and Armenia-Georgia, which makes it completely anachronistic; and it's also why the map is not supported by sources (which use the 1918-1920 boundaries). Sardur (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] This isn't fair. Doesn't this map violate the same justifications you claim above? Atabəy (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] No it doesn't because contemporary borders are used, not modern ones. And to answer to Grandmaster : a new version has been uploaded, correcting the Armenia-Turkey one, but the problem is still there whith Armenia-Georgia. Sardur (talk) 06:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] But it can be fixed without deleting the map, right? Just ask the creator to make corrections, I'm sure he will do that, if there indeed is a mistake. Grandmaster 07:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] The second anachronism is mentioned above (and on the talk page of the file since yesterday, btw), so no need to repeat it again. And no, I don't think it can be fixed without deleting the map: if it is fixed, it becomes a derivative work based on unfree sources, which raises a copyright issue. If it's a derivative work, there's a breach of copyright. And if it's not, then it's OR. Sardur (talk) 12:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Derivative work is not a copyright violation, on the contrary, it is the only way to avoid copyright problems. Hewsen's maps used in the articles about Armenia are also derivative works, yet you do not want them deleted. So the issues that you cited as a reason for deletion are not valid concerns. Grandmaster 05:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] There's no copyright violation if the derivative work shows a certain degree of originality, and we are therefore back to OR. As for the map of Armenica supported by Hewsen, do you know what is an OTRS ticket? Sardur (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Does Armenica have a permission from Hewsen to use his maps and distribute them to free use by others? Grandmaster 06:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Same answer as below. Sardur (talk) 06:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Relist, It strongly supports User:Sardurs point that File:Azerbaijan Democratic Republic 1918-1920 Map.jpg and File:The First Armenian Republic 1918-1920.gif show completely different borders between Armenia and Iran/Persia. I'm not an authority on this by any meaning of the word but it probably motivates a check against RS for the same - and since a cursory inspection on google makes me think the latter is the correct border [1], [2] a reslisting with more thorough discussion will probably see this removed. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 01:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Andrew Andersen, to whose maps you refer, is a self published author. Everyone can create a website and publish his opinions there, but we should refer to third party published sources. I cited some of such sources below. Grandmaster 05:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] I agree, which is why I suggested a check against RS and made no claim of having completed that through my "cursory inspection on google". The fact that two maps, both on wikipedia and both claiming to be verifiably true, are completely different is a problem, whichever way you twist it and whichever map you discredit. One of the maps must be wrong and while (unreliable) sources vary in their drawing of this border, nothing I've seen suggests that the Iranian/Armenian border was that far north. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] The thing is that neither Armenia not Azerbaijan had de-jure recognition on 1918 - 1920, and thus had no internationally recognized borders, so the maps you can find in reliable sources actually reflect the way Armenia and Azerbaijan wanted to see their borders. So both maps are sort of correct, but one should understand that those maps reflect the position of Armenia and Azerbaijan, rather than reality. In any case, deleting one map and keeping the other does not resolve the problem. Grandmaster 05:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Delete per consensus to delete at FfD. There looks like a clear consensus to delete at the XFD as this map is a WP:OI and is original research. There were no valid arguments to keep. The only weak argument to keep was that a map of Wilsonian Armenia supports this map however Wilsonian Armenia never came into being and only sought to define the borders between Turkey and Armenia after WW1. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure. There was no consensus to delete it the first time, and the decision to keep it was the correct one. The map is supported by reliable third party sources such as these: [3] [4] [5]. Also, Sardur cites as a reason for review that the map is "using modern boundaries Armenia-Turkey and Armenia-Georgia", however if you look at the present version of the map, it has no Armenian - Turkish or Armenian - Georgian borders. I don't know if there indeed was such a problem, if there was, it appears that the image has been improved, and if any other corrections are needed, please raise the issue on the talk page. I'm sure it is possible to fix any problems without deleting the file, if one brings them to the attention of the image creator. Grandmaster 05:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment. I would like to highlight the fact that Azerbaijan in 1918-1920 had no de jure borders. De facto condition of several disputed territories changed drastically at the time, month by month and day by day (as one can see here or here and here). Noteworthy, user User:Baku87 (the author of the map in question) first removed a map from the ADR article which distinguished disputed territories from proper Azerbaijani territories and replaced it with his self-made one which shows them as unquestionable Azerbaijani lands (see here). The issue is, that if Azeri users are allowed to make maps were disputed territories between the ADR and the DRA/DRG are shown as part of the first, Armenian/Georgian users will also feel free to make maps which will show them as part of their lands. I myself wait on the outcome of this discussion, and already think of making a map of DRA in a similar way Baku87 did. However it is worrisome that in this way we will get maps that are a source of endless edit wars (already noticeable in connection with the map of Baku87: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]). The Andersen maps are used everywhere in WP articles, his maps of DRA and ADR, which call a spade a spade, are not something I as an Armenian like very well and I'm not sure they are 100% correct, but I understand that using them, rather than maps illustrating nationalistic POV's, is the only way to meet WP:NPOV. --Vacio (talk) 08:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and delete. When the number of users on each side of a deletion discussion is roughly equal, the closing administrator is charged with assessing the strength of the arguments and giving more weight to arguments couched in Wikipedia policy. In this case, the argument that the images violated WP:NOR was not successfully refuted by those arguing to keep the image, and as such, deletion is the correct outcome. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Its not original research but based upon these [20][21] Baku87 (talk) 09:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] This point has already been addressed, and you never answered excepting with repeating the same sentence. But now, that's even more interesting : you're using the same sources to pretend that they support both the previous version of your map and the current one, though they are already quite different. It speaks for itself as for WP:NOR. Sardur (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] I have nothing to hide, I fixed the Armenian-Turkish border and the map is correct, what else dont you agree on? Baku87 (talk) 10:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and delete There are NO sources that support this fictitious map. The two weak links they keep posting (which they discovered after the map was created) do not show similar borders anyway, so why keep posting them? If Andrew Andersen's map is self-published than what do you call this garbage? Nakhijevan was de-facto and de-jure in DRA, Karabakh's de-facto status changed dramatically various times etc. This map makes it seem as if ADR had de-jure and de-facto stable control over these territories when it did not. This map should only remain if it is shown in bold hard coded letters that it depicts ADR's territorial CLAIMS.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 12:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure. The first time there was no consensus to delete it and this was the correct decision. The map is based on sources [22] [23]. The main argument of Sardur is that the map uses modern borders, well the Armenian-Turkish border has been fixed. Either way small problems like these should not be an reason to compleet delete a map, it can all be solved. Baku87 (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and delete (in order to be clear). Repeating again and again the same sentence, without answering what has been said about it several times, including on this very same page, won't make it true. Sardur (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] As the nominator for this discussion, it is already clear that you would like the file deleted. Please don't put another bold faced heading in (with the possible but unneeded exception of "comment") unless you change your mind about this. GRBerry 21:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Sorry, it's the first time I use this procedure... Sardur (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and delete Azerbaijan exercised no authority in the regions shown, neither de facto and certainly nor de jure. Baku87's map is only a slightly less grievous reproduction of contemporary Azeri maps which showed Azerbaijan stretching from the Caspian to the Black Seas! --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Obviously no consensus the main arguments to delete are the alleged inaccuracy of the map, but the map's keepers point out some sources - so, suffice to say, that there is doubt as to the accuracy of the map = no consensus. This issue is endemic in disputed and historical territory maps (e.g., File:Palestine frontier 1922.png, suffers basically the same problem trying to show frontiers and sea levels that its author has fiddled with perhaps correctly, perhaps not). Since there was no consensus, we keep. Personally, I could endorse a change of rules that all non-consensus items are deleted because WP has no consensus to keep them, but alas, the rule and policy are currently in the opposite sense. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] If I may: when there's either a copyright issue or an OR issue (see above), is consensus necessary? Sardur (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] The map is not based on the sources they provided, even those poor sources do not support this map's borders! The map was created by Baku87 without ANY sources merely to support an Azeri version of Lebensraum.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] If as you say, it was created without sources, it cannot be a copyvio as suggested by Sardur - the accusation seems close to a personal attack on its author; and Eupator only reiterates one side of the debate at the FfD: that the map is inaccurate. It is undeniable that this (proto-)state did exist, it's just a dispute over what its borders were de facto or de jure - if disputes permit deletion I'm sure that someone on the otherside would be glad to nominate something having to do with the NKR and its borders. What maps do you have to show what you consider the proper borders of the place were? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] What one side? Here is another map created by Baku87, what does that tell you about the accuracy of this map? Will you use the same rationale to keep that image if it was submitted for deletion? As you can see, Baku87 created a map for the 2000 Baku earthquake article in order to display its epicenter, when the real purpose was obviously to slice Armenia, even against its internationally recognized borders. None from the other side who were monitoring that page have bothered to remove the map. Here is another example of Baku87's fabrications, he added a picture which is supposed to be a memorial for the March Days or Azeri genocide, when the memorial in question is for the Turkish soldiers who fought there. Tell me what is the other side as you call it? Even Azerbaijan's claims from 1918-1920 contradict that map. The maps provided by Grandmaster for example display Akstafa, Kazakh and Poyli in Armenia, not Azerbaijan. The map created by Baku87 includes them. This has nothing to do with sides, but accuracy. Here's a map created by a neutral historian (Robert H. Hewsen) that accurately depicts the borders: [24].-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 02:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] First of all, I don't see how other works by Baku87 justify deletion of this particular map. I already cited at least 3 sources that support the accuracy of this map. As fir the map of Hewsen, it clearly contradicts the sources that I cited: [25] [26] [27], and Wilsonian map too. The thing is that Hewsen is an expert on the ancient history, but never published any works on the modern history of Caucasus. In any case, deleting this map and keeping Hewsen's map (which is not copyright free, btw) would mean that a position of a number of reliable sources is being suppressed in favor of position of one other source. That's not in line with the rules, we should present all the opinions, existing in the scholarly community. Grandmaster 05:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] For "Hewsen's map", see the OTRS ticket. Sardur (talk) 06:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] That is permission from Armenica, but do they have a permission from Hewsen? Grandmaster 06:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Perhaps I was not clear: I know when the sources were added (i.e. long after the map was created), and I share Eupator's conclusions, it's OR. But I also try to address what has been answered, i.e. that the map is supported by the sources. If it is the case (and I don't believe it is), there is a copyright issue. Nothing close to a personal attack. Sardur (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] How come that this map, made by Baku87, has copyright issues, and this one: File:The First Armenian Republic 1918-1920.gif, that has Armenica written at the bottom and claimed to be made on the basis of the Hewsen's map, does not? Grandmaster 06:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] For your two last questions: you have to see the OTRS ticket or to ask to Armenica. Sardur (talk) 06:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Ok, I will try to check that. As for the copyright, show me a rule that says that if you make a map on the basis on someone else's map, you infringe the copyright. In that case we should delete all the maps that are used in Wikipedia, as they all rely on maps created by others. Grandmaster 06:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] If anything, these 2 maps are copyright free, as they were published by the government of Azerbaijan in 1919: [28] [29] Grandmaster 07:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Hewsen allows all of his work to be posted freely as long as he is cited as the author. Even the originals from the Atlas can be posted if a good scan is available. E-mail and ask him. Sardur, Gm's claim that those sources support Baku87's map are flase. Those sources are simply the only ones they were able to find long after the map was created. That's all they got, hence the redundancy. See my above post about the inconsistencies.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 11:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Eupator, I know ^^ Sardur (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] You obviously (again!) did not read my comment, please explain the contradiction between the maps you provided and the irredentist drawing by Baku87. I'm tired of you repeating the same old refuted arguments without moving forward. I can only interpret such behaviour as stonewalling. Moreover, the first map is compleatly worthless, since it does not provide any borders to begin with. Do you think by just posting any links people are goign to take them at face value? Your comparison with Hewsen's map does not make any sense, Hewsen's map is supported by Hewsen's scholarly work, Baku87 drawing is not even supported by the sources you provided which he didn't even know existed when he created the map. If you have any new arguments, please provide them, you are repeating what has been already refuted. Above you also claim that neither Azerbaijan nor Armenia were de Jure recognized. This is not true, the United States of America recognized Armenia, de Jure, Armenia even signed an official treaty (Sevres) as a de Jure recognized Nation. Even with the treaty signed between the Ottoman Empire and Azerbaijan, the Ottoman Empire did not recognize Azerbaijan as an independent nation (while it did with Sevres). Lastly, Hewsen's map is supported by the near replica produced by National Geographic, which visited the Republic of Armenia at the time. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 11:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] We don't need any original research here. Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia had only de-facto recognition, which was not equal to de-jure recognition, and they had no internationally recognized borders. I suggest you have a look at this book: [30], called Stefan Talmon. Recognition of Governments in International Law: With Particular Reference to Governments in Exile. Oxford University Press, 1998. ISBN 0198265735, 9780198265733. It says: Page 61: The de facto recognition of the Governments of Georgia and Azerbaijan was also referred to as 'recognition of de facto independence' IL no 77. at 922-5: ibid.. IIL no 655. at 768. On the de facto recognition of the Armenian Government in general, see Hovanisian, The Republic of Armenia (1982) For the interchangeable use of 'de facto recognition' and 'recognition as a de facto government' with regard to the recognition of the Armenian Government, see also [1920] III FRUS 775-8 Page 64: See also the US recognition of 'the de facto Government of the Armenian Republic' on 23 Apr. 1920 ([1920] III FRUS 778). From the correspondence between the US Ambassador to France, Mr Wallace, and the Department of State it becomes clear that what was intended was 'de facto recognition'. Compare ibid.. 775-8. See also the circular of the Swiss Political Department of 22 Sept. 1920, which states that Armenia is 'recognized only de facto by the Allies': Klarer. Schweizerische Praxis der volkerrechtlichen Anerkennung (1981). In the meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, held in Paris on 10 Jan. 1920 the British Foreign Secretary. Lord Curzon advocated the 'recognition of the 'de facto' Governments of Georgia and Azerbaijan'. What was meant was de facto recognition. Page 83: On 10 January l920 the Supreme Allied Council at Paris gave de facto recognition to the Governments of Georgia and Azerbaijan. On 15 January l920 the meaning of de facto recognition was explained to the Georgian and Azerbaijani Delegations to the Paris Peace Conference at the Quai d'Orsay. M. Jules Cambon stated that 'from that moment the Conference could enter into regular relations with the delegations of these Republics, and the delegates, and the delegates, on their part, could present to the Conference the necessary materials, notes, etc. So as you can see, Armenia and Azerbaijan both had de facto recognition, and there are conflicting sources on which territories they actually controlled. So I see no point in deleting one point of view and keeping the other. Grandmaster 13:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Notice how Grandmaster again completely ignored all of the points above and went offtopic. Cherry picking again, since it was recognized De Jure. See also: Histoire et géopolitique des Balkans de 1800 à nos jours by Ernest Weibel p.641. Another one, a legal publication, Revue génerale de droit international public, droit des gens, histoire diplomatique, droit pénal, droit fiscal, droit administratif Publié by A. Pedone, 1922, p. 368. DRA signed a legal treaty, in which it is said that its independence is recognised, including by Turkey.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC) See here: [31] The recognition extended to Armenia was 'to the government of the Armenian State as a de facto Government on the condition that this recognition in no way prejudges the question of the eventual frontiers': ibid. pp.[reply] Recognition in International Law. CUP Archive. ISBN 1001284348, 9781001284347 Thus, no frontiers were officially recognized. Grandmaster 13:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] As for the claims that this map somehow infringes copyright, they are baseless. This map is not a verbatim copy of the maps used as sources, as you can see this map is colored, and does not repeat any artistic elements (if there are any) of the source maps. It only shows the same borders as those shown in the source maps, and the facts are not copyrighted. By the same token we should delete all other maps in Wikipedia, if the borders shown on them happen to coincide with those shown on some published maps. Plus, 2 of the source maps were published by the government of Azerbaijan in 1919, so they are PD. Grandmaster 13:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] The facts ? Which facts ?? and your parallelism with other maps doesn't stand if their sources are free or if their use is allowed. Sardur (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Moreover, your view on copyright are not right, as I know of a similar problem on Commons resulting in a map being deleted. Sardur (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] So you are basically saying that when creating maps users should not use any sources as references and rely only on their fantasy? It is the same as writing the articles, one should refer to reliable sources, and it is not copyright violation. Same with the maps, if you refer to a source, you do not violate copyright. You just cite a source for the information. Grandmaster 14:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] No I am not. I'm saying that when creating maps users should use free sources or should ask to the author for permission to use a map. If they don't, either there's a copyright issue, or there's an OR issue. Which is the case with this map. That's of course completely different with text. Sardur (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure. This map is legit and provided by sources so I don't see any reason for deletion. Alakbaroff (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] User:Alakbaroff (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] "legit"?? about the sources: see above. Sardur (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure. Historical map of Azerbaijan with sources [32], [33], [34]--Baki66 (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] The first "source" is showing quite different maps. The second "source" has absolutely no comment. For the third "source", see above. Sardur (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Let's not forget to note that those maps from the highly partisan Azerbaijani website have wiped the word "Armenia" from all the maps, whether it's the Arshakuni kingdom or the Bagratuni.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure. It seems that map was based on the official map prepared by ADR Foreign Ministry. Ateshi-Baghavan 21:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] How do you explain that it displays a modern border which is different than the equivalent border of 1918-1920 then ? see my very first post here. Sardur (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure. Borders of Azerbaijan on the map are the reflexion of those declared by the government of ADR in 1918. I personally do not see a reason to ponder over this any further. Parishan (talk) 01:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Azerbaijan declared all of south eastern Transcaucasia as part of its territory; nevertheless, that didn't make it part of Azerbaijan and that didn't reflect the reality on the ground, especially in Karabakh and Nakhichevan. Must we really remind everyone that Azerbaijani maps in 1918-1920 showed Azerbaijan stretching from the Caspian to the Black Seas (i.e. present-day Turkey)? The admins are advised to take a look at Baku87's more egregious offense comes up with this supposed depiction of Azerbaijan in the year 2000, which should be nominated for deletion ASAP. Once more, not a single source that has depicted those borders precisely has been presented as of yet. Lebensraum indeed.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Can I see a source for the claim that "Azerbaijani maps in 1918-1920 showed Azerbaijan stretching from the Caspian to the Black Seas (i.e. present-day Turkey)"? Of course, this is not true. And how Baku87's other maps are relevant to this discussion and this particular map? If there are issues with them, they should be discussed separately. And the sources have been provided. Grandmaster 05:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] For info: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 26#Baku Earthquake 2000.jpg Sardur (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] See Richard G. Hovannisian's article "The Republic of Armenia" in The Armenian People From Ancient to Modern Times, Volume II: Foreign Dominion to Statehood: The Fifteenth Century to the Twentieth Century on page 317. Baku87's other fake map just shows how he either does no research to support his claims or just copy pastes everything that is found on Azeri websites. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 07:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] I've never seen the maps of Azerbaijan extending to the Black see. The official maps of Azerbaijan are the ones discussed here, and they are not extending that far. Does any neutral source agree with Hovanissian about that? Also, note that this author kind of agrees that Armenia had no control over Nakhichevan. On the same page 317: The Muslim-populated districts to the south of Erevan refused to acknowledge the authority and officials of the Armenian republic and, with arms and money from Turkey and Azerbaijan, maintained a semiautonomous existence. Grandmaster 13:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Is that so now Parishan? From the same logic this map of Germany should have the same rationale. But wait a minute, this Reich map actually has a source. Since your claim has already been dismissed, Baku87's map does NOT even match Azerbaijan's irredentist claims. Here are their claims, Kazakh was clearly in Armenia even according to their map. This has been repeated multiple times and you are rehashing what was refuted. The closing admin should consider what Stifle suggested, concensus or not, the decision should be geared towards policies.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 11:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] That's the incorrect reading of the map, Eupator. The map you refer to shows the territories in different former governorates of the Russian empire painted in different colors. You see a different highlighting for the territories of Azerbaijan in the former Baku, Elisavetpol and Erivan governorate. Thus, Kazakh is not in Armenia on that map, it is in Azerbaijan, on the territory of the former Elisavetpol governorate. Grandmaster 13:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and delete Not supported by sources, completely ignores ADR's other claimed territories, ignores the fact that Kazakh was under Armenian controll etc. In short nationalist wet dreams of Baku87. VartanM (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Mind your language VartanM, be civil. Baku87 (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment to the closing admin: the map which is voted on comes from this site here, as seen from the other maps on the site, like this and this the map was originally created to represent present day Azerbaijan. This can be further proven from the fact that Baku87 created a map of Baku Earthquake epicenter (in the year 2000) which presented the same borders. More evidence is that we see Xankandi instead of Stepanakert on the map, Xankandi is a modern rename of Stepanakert (there was no city but several villages at that site prior to the foundation of the city). Given this, the map in question is a fabrication coming from an irredentist website which modified the current borders. VartanM (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Another anachronism, proving that this map is completely OR/OI. Thanks! Sardur (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

File:Azerbaijan Democratic Republic 1918-1920 Map.jpg – Close endorsed but immediate relist by someone who understands the subject permitted The DRV brings out a further discussion of the sources of the article that lead towards the conclusion that the map is original research, but these doubts were raised and refuted in the IFD so that there was not sufficient weight to allow the closing admin to delete. This discussion does not have a clear consensus either and since DRV is for reviewing closes not round2, we need to be careful not to substitute the conclusions of DRV for Xfd discussions. Its quite obvious that there is an OR issue with the image and its not being used on any article so I see no reason that someone who knows the subject could not immediately relist the image with a clearer explanation of what the issues with it are. Hopefully this will lead to a more focused discussion the the last one that gives greater clarity on the quality of the sourcing. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Nv8200p archived this debate according to him (and I agree with him on this point) "because I saw that there was no consensus". There is however another problem, which I think allow this review: this file (a map) is supported by no sources (what is written in the file summary is not true). People could say a lot about the PoV characteristic of the map (i.e. boundaries of Azerbaijan in 1918-1920), but, in my opinion, this is not the main problem. The main problem is that the map is using modern boundaries Armenia-Turkey and Armenia-Georgia, which makes it completely anachronistic; and it's also why the map is not supported by sources (which use the 1918-1920 boundaries). Sardur (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't fair. Doesn't this map violate the same justifications you claim above? Atabəy (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't because contemporary borders are used, not modern ones. And to answer to Grandmaster : a new version has been uploaded, correcting the Armenia-Turkey one, but the problem is still there whith Armenia-Georgia. Sardur (talk) 06:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it can be fixed without deleting the map, right? Just ask the creator to make corrections, I'm sure he will do that, if there indeed is a mistake. Grandmaster 07:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second anachronism is mentioned above (and on the talk page of the file since yesterday, btw), so no need to repeat it again. And no, I don't think it can be fixed without deleting the map: if it is fixed, it becomes a derivative work based on unfree sources, which raises a copyright issue. If it's a derivative work, there's a breach of copyright. And if it's not, then it's OR. Sardur (talk) 12:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work is not a copyright violation, on the contrary, it is the only way to avoid copyright problems. Hewsen's maps used in the articles about Armenia are also derivative works, yet you do not want them deleted. So the issues that you cited as a reason for deletion are not valid concerns. Grandmaster 05:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no copyright violation if the derivative work shows a certain degree of originality, and we are therefore back to OR. As for the map of Armenica supported by Hewsen, do you know what is an OTRS ticket? Sardur (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does Armenica have a permission from Hewsen to use his maps and distribute them to free use by others? Grandmaster 06:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same answer as below. Sardur (talk) 06:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relist, It strongly supports User:Sardurs point that File:Azerbaijan Democratic Republic 1918-1920 Map.jpg and File:The First Armenian Republic 1918-1920.gif show completely different borders between Armenia and Iran/Persia. I'm not an authority on this by any meaning of the word but it probably motivates a check against RS for the same - and since a cursory inspection on google makes me think the latter is the correct border [1], [2] a reslisting with more thorough discussion will probably see this removed. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 01:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Andersen, to whose maps you refer, is a self published author. Everyone can create a website and publish his opinions there, but we should refer to third party published sources. I cited some of such sources below. Grandmaster 05:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, which is why I suggested a check against RS and made no claim of having completed that through my "cursory inspection on google". The fact that two maps, both on wikipedia and both claiming to be verifiably true, are completely different is a problem, whichever way you twist it and whichever map you discredit. One of the maps must be wrong and while (unreliable) sources vary in their drawing of this border, nothing I've seen suggests that the Iranian/Armenian border was that far north. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that neither Armenia not Azerbaijan had de-jure recognition on 1918 - 1920, and thus had no internationally recognized borders, so the maps you can find in reliable sources actually reflect the way Armenia and Azerbaijan wanted to see their borders. So both maps are sort of correct, but one should understand that those maps reflect the position of Armenia and Azerbaijan, rather than reality. In any case, deleting one map and keeping the other does not resolve the problem. Grandmaster 05:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per consensus to delete at FfD. There looks like a clear consensus to delete at the XFD as this map is a WP:OI and is original research. There were no valid arguments to keep. The only weak argument to keep was that a map of Wilsonian Armenia supports this map however Wilsonian Armenia never came into being and only sought to define the borders between Turkey and Armenia after WW1. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. There was no consensus to delete it the first time, and the decision to keep it was the correct one. The map is supported by reliable third party sources such as these: [3] [4] [5]. Also, Sardur cites as a reason for review that the map is "using modern boundaries Armenia-Turkey and Armenia-Georgia", however if you look at the present version of the map, it has no Armenian - Turkish or Armenian - Georgian borders. I don't know if there indeed was such a problem, if there was, it appears that the image has been improved, and if any other corrections are needed, please raise the issue on the talk page. I'm sure it is possible to fix any problems without deleting the file, if one brings them to the attention of the image creator. Grandmaster 05:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would like to highlight the fact that Azerbaijan in 1918-1920 had no de jure borders. De facto condition of several disputed territories changed drastically at the time, month by month and day by day (as one can see here or here and here). Noteworthy, user User:Baku87 (the author of the map in question) first removed a map from the ADR article which distinguished disputed territories from proper Azerbaijani territories and replaced it with his self-made one which shows them as unquestionable Azerbaijani lands (see here). The issue is, that if Azeri users are allowed to make maps were disputed territories between the ADR and the DRA/DRG are shown as part of the first, Armenian/Georgian users will also feel free to make maps which will show them as part of their lands. I myself wait on the outcome of this discussion, and already think of making a map of DRA in a similar way Baku87 did. However it is worrisome that in this way we will get maps that are a source of endless edit wars (already noticeable in connection with the map of Baku87: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]). The Andersen maps are used everywhere in WP articles, his maps of DRA and ADR, which call a spade a spade, are not something I as an Armenian like very well and I'm not sure they are 100% correct, but I understand that using them, rather than maps illustrating nationalistic POV's, is the only way to meet WP:NPOV. --Vacio (talk) 08:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. When the number of users on each side of a deletion discussion is roughly equal, the closing administrator is charged with assessing the strength of the arguments and giving more weight to arguments couched in Wikipedia policy. In this case, the argument that the images violated WP:NOR was not successfully refuted by those arguing to keep the image, and as such, deletion is the correct outcome. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not original research but based upon these [20][21] Baku87 (talk) 09:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This point has already been addressed, and you never answered excepting with repeating the same sentence. But now, that's even more interesting : you're using the same sources to pretend that they support both the previous version of your map and the current one, though they are already quite different. It speaks for itself as for WP:NOR. Sardur (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to hide, I fixed the Armenian-Turkish border and the map is correct, what else dont you agree on? Baku87 (talk) 10:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete There are NO sources that support this fictitious map. The two weak links they keep posting (which they discovered after the map was created) do not show similar borders anyway, so why keep posting them? If Andrew Andersen's map is self-published than what do you call this garbage? Nakhijevan was de-facto and de-jure in DRA, Karabakh's de-facto status changed dramatically various times etc. This map makes it seem as if ADR had de-jure and de-facto stable control over these territories when it did not. This map should only remain if it is shown in bold hard coded letters that it depicts ADR's territorial CLAIMS.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 12:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. The first time there was no consensus to delete it and this was the correct decision. The map is based on sources [22] [23]. The main argument of Sardur is that the map uses modern borders, well the Armenian-Turkish border has been fixed. Either way small problems like these should not be an reason to compleet delete a map, it can all be solved. Baku87 (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete (in order to be clear). Repeating again and again the same sentence, without answering what has been said about it several times, including on this very same page, won't make it true. Sardur (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator for this discussion, it is already clear that you would like the file deleted. Please don't put another bold faced heading in (with the possible but unneeded exception of "comment") unless you change your mind about this. GRBerry 21:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it's the first time I use this procedure... Sardur (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete Azerbaijan exercised no authority in the regions shown, neither de facto and certainly nor de jure. Baku87's map is only a slightly less grievous reproduction of contemporary Azeri maps which showed Azerbaijan stretching from the Caspian to the Black Seas! --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously no consensus the main arguments to delete are the alleged inaccuracy of the map, but the map's keepers point out some sources - so, suffice to say, that there is doubt as to the accuracy of the map = no consensus. This issue is endemic in disputed and historical territory maps (e.g., File:Palestine frontier 1922.png, suffers basically the same problem trying to show frontiers and sea levels that its author has fiddled with perhaps correctly, perhaps not). Since there was no consensus, we keep. Personally, I could endorse a change of rules that all non-consensus items are deleted because WP has no consensus to keep them, but alas, the rule and policy are currently in the opposite sense. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I may: when there's either a copyright issue or an OR issue (see above), is consensus necessary? Sardur (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The map is not based on the sources they provided, even those poor sources do not support this map's borders! The map was created by Baku87 without ANY sources merely to support an Azeri version of Lebensraum.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If as you say, it was created without sources, it cannot be a copyvio as suggested by Sardur - the accusation seems close to a personal attack on its author; and Eupator only reiterates one side of the debate at the FfD: that the map is inaccurate. It is undeniable that this (proto-)state did exist, it's just a dispute over what its borders were de facto or de jure - if disputes permit deletion I'm sure that someone on the otherside would be glad to nominate something having to do with the NKR and its borders. What maps do you have to show what you consider the proper borders of the place were? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What one side? Here is another map created by Baku87, what does that tell you about the accuracy of this map? Will you use the same rationale to keep that image if it was submitted for deletion? As you can see, Baku87 created a map for the 2000 Baku earthquake article in order to display its epicenter, when the real purpose was obviously to slice Armenia, even against its internationally recognized borders. None from the other side who were monitoring that page have bothered to remove the map. Here is another example of Baku87's fabrications, he added a picture which is supposed to be a memorial for the March Days or Azeri genocide, when the memorial in question is for the Turkish soldiers who fought there. Tell me what is the other side as you call it? Even Azerbaijan's claims from 1918-1920 contradict that map. The maps provided by Grandmaster for example display Akstafa, Kazakh and Poyli in Armenia, not Azerbaijan. The map created by Baku87 includes them. This has nothing to do with sides, but accuracy. Here's a map created by a neutral historian (Robert H. Hewsen) that accurately depicts the borders: [24].-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 02:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I don't see how other works by Baku87 justify deletion of this particular map. I already cited at least 3 sources that support the accuracy of this map. As fir the map of Hewsen, it clearly contradicts the sources that I cited: [25] [26] [27], and Wilsonian map too. The thing is that Hewsen is an expert on the ancient history, but never published any works on the modern history of Caucasus. In any case, deleting this map and keeping Hewsen's map (which is not copyright free, btw) would mean that a position of a number of reliable sources is being suppressed in favor of position of one other source. That's not in line with the rules, we should present all the opinions, existing in the scholarly community. Grandmaster 05:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For "Hewsen's map", see the OTRS ticket. Sardur (talk) 06:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is permission from Armenica, but do they have a permission from Hewsen? Grandmaster 06:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was not clear: I know when the sources were added (i.e. long after the map was created), and I share Eupator's conclusions, it's OR. But I also try to address what has been answered, i.e. that the map is supported by the sources. If it is the case (and I don't believe it is), there is a copyright issue. Nothing close to a personal attack. Sardur (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How come that this map, made by Baku87, has copyright issues, and this one: File:The First Armenian Republic 1918-1920.gif, that has Armenica written at the bottom and claimed to be made on the basis of the Hewsen's map, does not? Grandmaster 06:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For your two last questions: you have to see the OTRS ticket or to ask to Armenica. Sardur (talk) 06:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will try to check that. As for the copyright, show me a rule that says that if you make a map on the basis on someone else's map, you infringe the copyright. In that case we should delete all the maps that are used in Wikipedia, as they all rely on maps created by others. Grandmaster 06:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, these 2 maps are copyright free, as they were published by the government of Azerbaijan in 1919: [28] [29] Grandmaster 07:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hewsen allows all of his work to be posted freely as long as he is cited as the author. Even the originals from the Atlas can be posted if a good scan is available. E-mail and ask him. Sardur, Gm's claim that those sources support Baku87's map are flase. Those sources are simply the only ones they were able to find long after the map was created. That's all they got, hence the redundancy. See my above post about the inconsistencies.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 11:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eupator, I know ^^ Sardur (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously (again!) did not read my comment, please explain the contradiction between the maps you provided and the irredentist drawing by Baku87. I'm tired of you repeating the same old refuted arguments without moving forward. I can only interpret such behaviour as stonewalling. Moreover, the first map is compleatly worthless, since it does not provide any borders to begin with. Do you think by just posting any links people are goign to take them at face value? Your comparison with Hewsen's map does not make any sense, Hewsen's map is supported by Hewsen's scholarly work, Baku87 drawing is not even supported by the sources you provided which he didn't even know existed when he created the map. If you have any new arguments, please provide them, you are repeating what has been already refuted. Above you also claim that neither Azerbaijan nor Armenia were de Jure recognized. This is not true, the United States of America recognized Armenia, de Jure, Armenia even signed an official treaty (Sevres) as a de Jure recognized Nation. Even with the treaty signed between the Ottoman Empire and Azerbaijan, the Ottoman Empire did not recognize Azerbaijan as an independent nation (while it did with Sevres). Lastly, Hewsen's map is supported by the near replica produced by National Geographic, which visited the Republic of Armenia at the time. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 11:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need any original research here. Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia had only de-facto recognition, which was not equal to de-jure recognition, and they had no internationally recognized borders. I suggest you have a look at this book: [30], called Stefan Talmon. Recognition of Governments in International Law: With Particular Reference to Governments in Exile. Oxford University Press, 1998. ISBN 0198265735, 9780198265733. It says:

Page 61: The de facto recognition of the Governments of Georgia and Azerbaijan was also referred to as 'recognition of de facto independence' IL no 77. at 922-5: ibid.. IIL no 655. at 768. On the de facto recognition of the Armenian Government in general, see Hovanisian, The Republic of Armenia (1982) For the interchangeable use of 'de facto recognition' and 'recognition as a de facto government' with regard to the recognition of the Armenian Government, see also [1920] III FRUS 775-8

Page 64: See also the US recognition of 'the de facto Government of the Armenian Republic' on 23 Apr. 1920 ([1920] III FRUS 778). From the correspondence between the US Ambassador to France, Mr Wallace, and the Department of State it becomes clear that what was intended was 'de facto recognition'. Compare ibid.. 775-8. See also the circular of the Swiss Political Department of 22 Sept. 1920, which states that Armenia is 'recognized only de facto by the Allies': Klarer. Schweizerische Praxis der volkerrechtlichen Anerkennung (1981). In the meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, held in Paris on 10 Jan. 1920 the British Foreign Secretary. Lord Curzon advocated the 'recognition of the 'de facto' Governments of Georgia and Azerbaijan'. What was meant was de facto recognition.

Page 83: On 10 January l920 the Supreme Allied Council at Paris gave de facto recognition to the Governments of Georgia and Azerbaijan. On 15 January l920 the meaning of de facto recognition was explained to the Georgian and Azerbaijani Delegations to the Paris Peace Conference at the Quai d'Orsay. M. Jules Cambon stated that 'from that moment the Conference could enter into regular relations with the delegations of these Republics, and the delegates, and the delegates, on their part, could present to the Conference the necessary materials, notes, etc.

So as you can see, Armenia and Azerbaijan both had de facto recognition, and there are conflicting sources on which territories they actually controlled. So I see no point in deleting one point of view and keeping the other. Grandmaster 13:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice how Grandmaster again completely ignored all of the points above and went offtopic. Cherry picking again, since it was recognized De Jure. See also: Histoire et géopolitique des Balkans de 1800 à nos jours by Ernest Weibel p.641. Another one, a legal publication, Revue génerale de droit international public, droit des gens, histoire diplomatique, droit pénal, droit fiscal, droit administratif Publié by A. Pedone, 1922, p. 368. DRA signed a legal treaty, in which it is said that its independence is recognised, including by Turkey.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC) See here: [31] The recognition extended to Armenia was 'to the government of the Armenian State as a de facto Government on the condition that this recognition in no way prejudges the question of the eventual frontiers': ibid. pp.[reply]

Recognition in International Law. CUP Archive. ISBN 1001284348, 9781001284347

Thus, no frontiers were officially recognized. Grandmaster 13:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the claims that this map somehow infringes copyright, they are baseless. This map is not a verbatim copy of the maps used as sources, as you can see this map is colored, and does not repeat any artistic elements (if there are any) of the source maps. It only shows the same borders as those shown in the source maps, and the facts are not copyrighted. By the same token we should delete all other maps in Wikipedia, if the borders shown on them happen to coincide with those shown on some published maps. Plus, 2 of the source maps were published by the government of Azerbaijan in 1919, so they are PD. Grandmaster 13:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The facts ? Which facts ?? and your parallelism with other maps doesn't stand if their sources are free or if their use is allowed. Sardur (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, your view on copyright are not right, as I know of a similar problem on Commons resulting in a map being deleted. Sardur (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you are basically saying that when creating maps users should not use any sources as references and rely only on their fantasy? It is the same as writing the articles, one should refer to reliable sources, and it is not copyright violation. Same with the maps, if you refer to a source, you do not violate copyright. You just cite a source for the information. Grandmaster 14:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not. I'm saying that when creating maps users should use free sources or should ask to the author for permission to use a map. If they don't, either there's a copyright issue, or there's an OR issue. Which is the case with this map.

That's of course completely different with text. Sardur (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. This map is legit and provided by sources so I don't see any reason for deletion. Alakbaroff (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alakbaroff (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"legit"?? about the sources: see above. Sardur (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Historical map of Azerbaijan with sources [32], [33], [34]--Baki66 (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first "source" is showing quite different maps. The second "source" has absolutely no comment. For the third "source", see above. Sardur (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not forget to note that those maps from the highly partisan Azerbaijani website have wiped the word "Armenia" from all the maps, whether it's the Arshakuni kingdom or the Bagratuni.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. It seems that map was based on the official map prepared by ADR Foreign Ministry. Ateshi-Baghavan 21:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do you explain that it displays a modern border which is different than the equivalent border of 1918-1920 then ? see my very first post here. Sardur (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Borders of Azerbaijan on the map are the reflexion of those declared by the government of ADR in 1918. I personally do not see a reason to ponder over this any further. Parishan (talk) 01:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan declared all of south eastern Transcaucasia as part of its territory; nevertheless, that didn't make it part of Azerbaijan and that didn't reflect the reality on the ground, especially in Karabakh and Nakhichevan. Must we really remind everyone that Azerbaijani maps in 1918-1920 showed Azerbaijan stretching from the Caspian to the Black Seas (i.e. present-day Turkey)? The admins are advised to take a look at Baku87's more egregious offense comes up with this supposed depiction of Azerbaijan in the year 2000, which should be nominated for deletion ASAP. Once more, not a single source that has depicted those borders precisely has been presented as of yet. Lebensraum indeed.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can I see a source for the claim that "Azerbaijani maps in 1918-1920 showed Azerbaijan stretching from the Caspian to the Black Seas (i.e. present-day Turkey)"? Of course, this is not true. And how Baku87's other maps are relevant to this discussion and this particular map? If there are issues with them, they should be discussed separately. And the sources have been provided. Grandmaster 05:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For info: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 26#Baku Earthquake 2000.jpg Sardur (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Richard G. Hovannisian's article "The Republic of Armenia" in The Armenian People From Ancient to Modern Times, Volume II: Foreign Dominion to Statehood: The Fifteenth Century to the Twentieth Century on page 317. Baku87's other fake map just shows how he either does no research to support his claims or just copy pastes everything that is found on Azeri websites. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 07:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen the maps of Azerbaijan extending to the Black see. The official maps of Azerbaijan are the ones discussed here, and they are not extending that far. Does any neutral source agree with Hovanissian about that? Also, note that this author kind of agrees that Armenia had no control over Nakhichevan. On the same page 317: The Muslim-populated districts to the south of Erevan refused to acknowledge the authority and officials of the Armenian republic and, with arms and money from Turkey and Azerbaijan, maintained a semiautonomous existence. Grandmaster 13:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that so now Parishan? From the same logic this map of Germany should have the same rationale. But wait a minute, this Reich map actually has a source. Since your claim has already been dismissed, Baku87's map does NOT even match Azerbaijan's irredentist claims. Here are their claims, Kazakh was clearly in Armenia even according to their map. This has been repeated multiple times and you are rehashing what was refuted. The closing admin should consider what Stifle suggested, concensus or not, the decision should be geared towards policies.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 11:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the incorrect reading of the map, Eupator. The map you refer to shows the territories in different former governorates of the Russian empire painted in different colors. You see a different highlighting for the territories of Azerbaijan in the former Baku, Elisavetpol and Erivan governorate. Thus, Kazakh is not in Armenia on that map, it is in Azerbaijan, on the territory of the former Elisavetpol governorate. Grandmaster 13:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete Not supported by sources, completely ignores ADR's other claimed territories, ignores the fact that Kazakh was under Armenian controll etc. In short nationalist wet dreams of Baku87. VartanM (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mind your language VartanM, be civil. Baku87 (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the closing admin: the map which is voted on comes from this site here, as seen from the other maps on the site, like this and this the map was originally created to represent present day Azerbaijan. This can be further proven from the fact that Baku87 created a map of Baku Earthquake epicenter (in the year 2000) which presented the same borders. More evidence is that we see Xankandi instead of Stepanakert on the map, Xankandi is a modern rename of Stepanakert (there was no city but several villages at that site prior to the foundation of the city). Given this, the map in question is a fabrication coming from an irredentist website which modified the current borders. VartanM (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another anachronism, proving that this map is completely OR/OI. Thanks! Sardur (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Threshold knowledge – Obvious consensus that this does not meet A7. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Threshold knowledge (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) Misapplication of WP:SPEEDY and article clearly notable. I created threshold knowledge some while ago, but it was recently speedily deleted by Deb. I approached Deb about this (you can see our discussions here and here), but Deb said, "I don't mean to be rude, but I don't see any reason to give priority to this discussion", curtailed our discussion and referred me here. I present two arguments. First, the article should not have been speedily deleted according to the policy in WP:SPEEDY. Second, threshold knowledge is notable under WP:GNG in that there are multiple reliable source citations to the idea. Threshold knowledge, as an article, was not eligible under WP:SPEEDY. Deb speedily deleted the article under A7. As I said to Deb, WP:SPEEDY states A7 "applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people and organizations", so an article on an academic theory is not covered by A7. WP:SPEEDY even explicitly states that, "Failure to assert importance but not an A7 or A9 category. There is no consensus to speedily delete articles of types not specifically listed in A7 or A9 under those criteria." Deb did not offer any particular rebuttal to the A7 issue, but said, "I can assure you there are other speedy categories under which it does qualify." I asked for clarification and Deb suggested the article could be speedied "as lacking context" (i.e. A1). I find it hard to see how the article as created, complete with a clear citation, falls under A1. Deb also said, "it would be reasonable to tag it as a dictionary definition": I disagree and that is not a reason for speedy deletion (A5 only applies after an article has been transwikied and so does not apply here). I can see no criterion on WP:SPEEDY that applies. Moreover, if there is uncertainty about what criteria an article may fall under, WP:SPEEDY advises, "Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead." I suggested to Deb that it would be more appropriate to take his/her concerns to a WP:AFD, but Deb deferred. I entirely admit that the article that I created was a stub, three sentences + a citation. As I think I said in my initial edit summary, I was being bold. Deb suggested at one point, "you expect other people to do the work necessary to bring it up to standard". I think what I initially created was of some value, but basically, yes, I do expect other people to improve the article. Isn't that precisely how Wikipedia works? Wikipedia encourages boldness and collaboration and I acted under those principles. Speedy deletions are a very important tool in Wikipedia, but WP:SPEEDY exists as policy and I have sought to apply WP:SPEEDY here. I propose the speedy deletion be overturned and, if anyone so wish, the article be Listed as an AfD. Threshold knowledge is notable. Threshold knowledge is a theoretical structure in studies of higher education. It was introduced by Meyer and Land, and I included a key reference by them in the article I created: Meyer JHF, Land R (2003). "Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge – Linkages to Ways of Thinking and Practising" in Improving Student Learning – Ten Years On. C.Rust (Ed), OCSLD, Oxford. Another would be: Meyer JHF, Land R (2005). "Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning" Higher Education, 49(3), 373-388. That paper has already been cited by 8 others according to ISI Web of Knowledge. Meyer and Land have written about threshold knowledge, threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge in several papers, but the idea has also now been used by other researchers; for example: Park EJ, Light G (2009). "Identifying Atomic Structure as a Threshold Concept: Student mental models and troublesomeness" International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 233-258 Baillie C, Goodhew P, Skryabina E (2006). "Threshold concepts in engineering education-exploring potential blocks in student understanding" International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(5), 955-962 Clouder L (2005). "Caring as a 'threshold concept': Transforming students in higher education into health (care) professionals" Teaching in Higher Education, 10(4), 505-517 Google Scholar throws up plenty more candidates, as I said in my prior discussions with Deb. Bondegezou (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Note from the deleter: I will not be participating in this debate, except to explain my reasons for deletion. As you see from my talk page, the creator of the article and I had several exchanges, during which it became clear that s/he had no intention of bringing the article up to standard. Had I restored the article because the speedy deletion was possibly on incorrect grounds, I would immediately have deleted it again as lacking context (as I explained in the initial discussion). I could not see how this would resolve the issue, so I spent my time on other things which I felt to be more constructive. Deb (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] If I might respond to Deb's comment, I find the assertion that I "had no intention of bringing the article up to standard" to be somewhat lacking in good faith as well as in accuracy! In addition, again, I suggest this seems to be missing the whole point of Wikipedia as a collaborative enterprise. It is surely not the responsibility of the creator of an article to make it perfect, as WP:BB and WP:OWN make clear. I remain unclear how Deb's rationale otherwise concords with policy as laid out in WP:SPEEDY. Bondegezou (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn as A7 only applies to people, groups of people, companies, organizations, and web content, and this article was none of those. Stifle (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn as not meeting CSD but list for AfD so a discussion can take place for the validity of the GNG claim. DRV is not the forum for a decision on whether the content should be retained - merely to ensure that it is given fair assessment in context of policy and guideline. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 17:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn As Stifle says it is not in any of the A7 categories so does not meet that criteria and I cannot see that it would meet the A1 no context criteria either, its seems to be an ok starting stub. Davewild (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn As stated above Doesn't fit A7, and I disagree with the idea that it could have also been speedied under no context. I'm not sure that it needs to go straight to AFD, however if someone wants to, that's their choice.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn Clearly improper CSD. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and I am really surprised that an experienced admin would defend speedy in a case like this. All active admins probably make occasional mistakes, but its our obligation to correct them when pointed out. I checked this discussion--it's on Bondegezou's talk page and I'm even more surprised at the failure to AGF; I hope this is an isolated instance. DGG (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn There are referenced sources on this; http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/threshold-knowledge-test-TKT.html; http://dro.dur.ac.uk/1882/ - so it is not a speedy deletion candidate. --Litherlandsand (talk) 09:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Note: Thanks for those references. The first is actually to an unrelated but similarly named idea, the threshold knowledge test. Bondegezou (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn per several preceeding editors. Due process & proper procedure is of utmost importance in deletion cases. I'd say this one is in WP:SNOWBALL territory; in fact, I considered closing it myself, but as it's only been open for one day (and I've been far less active here than at WP:CFD), I will leave that task for someone else. Cgingold (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] 'Comment A brief comment on my talk p. [35] has unfortunately made it evident that the administrator involved has the intention of continuing to make similar deletions. I am not sure what should be the next step, besides watching carefully for similar and bringing appropriate ones here. DGG (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] The usual dispute resolution processes will come into play if needed. Stifle (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn, "A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion" is wrong, it only applies to people, companies/organizations, and web content. This is clearly not any of those. ViperSnake151 20:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn per not A7. --Kbdank71 20:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Threshold knowledge – Obvious consensus that this does not meet A7. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Misapplication of WP:SPEEDY and article clearly notable.

I created threshold knowledge some while ago, but it was recently speedily deleted by Deb. I approached Deb about this (you can see our discussions here and here), but Deb said, "I don't mean to be rude, but I don't see any reason to give priority to this discussion", curtailed our discussion and referred me here. I present two arguments. First, the article should not have been speedily deleted according to the policy in WP:SPEEDY. Second, threshold knowledge is notable under WP:GNG in that there are multiple reliable source citations to the idea.

Threshold knowledge, as an article, was not eligible under WP:SPEEDY. Deb speedily deleted the article under A7. As I said to Deb, WP:SPEEDY states A7 "applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people and organizations", so an article on an academic theory is not covered by A7. WP:SPEEDY even explicitly states that, "Failure to assert importance but not an A7 or A9 category. There is no consensus to speedily delete articles of types not specifically listed in A7 or A9 under those criteria."

Deb did not offer any particular rebuttal to the A7 issue, but said, "I can assure you there are other speedy categories under which it does qualify." I asked for clarification and Deb suggested the article could be speedied "as lacking context" (i.e. A1). I find it hard to see how the article as created, complete with a clear citation, falls under A1. Deb also said, "it would be reasonable to tag it as a dictionary definition": I disagree and that is not a reason for speedy deletion (A5 only applies after an article has been transwikied and so does not apply here). I can see no criterion on WP:SPEEDY that applies. Moreover, if there is uncertainty about what criteria an article may fall under, WP:SPEEDY advises, "Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead." I suggested to Deb that it would be more appropriate to take his/her concerns to a WP:AFD, but Deb deferred.

I entirely admit that the article that I created was a stub, three sentences + a citation. As I think I said in my initial edit summary, I was being bold. Deb suggested at one point, "you expect other people to do the work necessary to bring it up to standard". I think what I initially created was of some value, but basically, yes, I do expect other people to improve the article. Isn't that precisely how Wikipedia works? Wikipedia encourages boldness and collaboration and I acted under those principles. Speedy deletions are a very important tool in Wikipedia, but WP:SPEEDY exists as policy and I have sought to apply WP:SPEEDY here. I propose the speedy deletion be overturned and, if anyone so wish, the article be Listed as an AfD.

Threshold knowledge is notable. Threshold knowledge is a theoretical structure in studies of higher education. It was introduced by Meyer and Land, and I included a key reference by them in the article I created:

Meyer JHF, Land R (2003). "Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge – Linkages to Ways of Thinking and Practising" in Improving Student Learning – Ten Years On. C.Rust (Ed), OCSLD, Oxford.

Another would be:

Meyer JHF, Land R (2005). "Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning" Higher Education, 49(3), 373-388.

That paper has already been cited by 8 others according to ISI Web of Knowledge. Meyer and Land have written about threshold knowledge, threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge in several papers, but the idea has also now been used by other researchers; for example:

Park EJ, Light G (2009). "Identifying Atomic Structure as a Threshold Concept: Student mental models and troublesomeness" International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 233-258

Baillie C, Goodhew P, Skryabina E (2006). "Threshold concepts in engineering education-exploring potential blocks in student understanding" International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(5), 955-962

Clouder L (2005). "Caring as a 'threshold concept': Transforming students in higher education into health (care) professionals" Teaching in Higher Education, 10(4), 505-517

Google Scholar throws up plenty more candidates, as I said in my prior discussions with Deb. Bondegezou (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note from the deleter: I will not be participating in this debate, except to explain my reasons for deletion. As you see from my talk page, the creator of the article and I had several exchanges, during which it became clear that s/he had no intention of bringing the article up to standard. Had I restored the article because the speedy deletion was possibly on incorrect grounds, I would immediately have deleted it again as lacking context (as I explained in the initial discussion). I could not see how this would resolve the issue, so I spent my time on other things which I felt to be more constructive. Deb (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I might respond to Deb's comment, I find the assertion that I "had no intention of bringing the article up to standard" to be somewhat lacking in good faith as well as in accuracy! In addition, again, I suggest this seems to be missing the whole point of Wikipedia as a collaborative enterprise. It is surely not the responsibility of the creator of an article to make it perfect, as WP:BB and WP:OWN make clear. I remain unclear how Deb's rationale otherwise concords with policy as laid out in WP:SPEEDY. Bondegezou (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn as A7 only applies to people, groups of people, companies, organizations, and web content, and this article was none of those. Stifle (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as not meeting CSD but list for AfD so a discussion can take place for the validity of the GNG claim. DRV is not the forum for a decision on whether the content should be retained - merely to ensure that it is given fair assessment in context of policy and guideline. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 17:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn As Stifle says it is not in any of the A7 categories so does not meet that criteria and I cannot see that it would meet the A1 no context criteria either, its seems to be an ok starting stub. Davewild (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn As stated above Doesn't fit A7, and I disagree with the idea that it could have also been speedied under no context. I'm not sure that it needs to go straight to AFD, however if someone wants to, that's their choice.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Clearly improper CSD. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and I am really surprised that an experienced admin would defend speedy in a case like this. All active admins probably make occasional mistakes, but its our obligation to correct them when pointed out. I checked this discussion--it's on Bondegezou's talk page and I'm even more surprised at the failure to AGF; I hope this is an isolated instance. DGG (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn There are referenced sources on this; http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/threshold-knowledge-test-TKT.html; http://dro.dur.ac.uk/1882/ - so it is not a speedy deletion candidate. --Litherlandsand (talk) 09:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Thanks for those references. The first is actually to an unrelated but similarly named idea, the threshold knowledge test. Bondegezou (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per several preceeding editors. Due process & proper procedure is of utmost importance in deletion cases. I'd say this one is in WP:SNOWBALL territory; in fact, I considered closing it myself, but as it's only been open for one day (and I've been far less active here than at WP:CFD), I will leave that task for someone else. Cgingold (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment A brief comment on my talk p. [35] has unfortunately made it evident that the administrator involved has the intention of continuing to make similar deletions. I am not sure what should be the next step, besides watching carefully for similar and bringing appropriate ones here. DGG (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The usual dispute resolution processes will come into play if needed. Stifle (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, "A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion" is wrong, it only applies to people, companies/organizations, and web content. This is clearly not any of those. ViperSnake151 20:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per not A7. --Kbdank71 20:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Fred_M._Levin – Correct speedy - confirmed copyvio. Recreation without the copyvio's fine, of course. – Tony Fox (arf!) 17:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Fred_M._Levin (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (restore \| cache \| AfD)`)` Speedy Deletion by BOT, was it really a copyright infringement?. Mwalla (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Mwalla[reply] I fixed the nomination, which had used a wrong template. The deletion was not, in fact, by a bot, but by SchuminWeb. Stifle (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] I can confirm that the article as written was indeed a copyright violation. Anyone can create a new one that isn't. Stifle (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Close of DRV per Stifles input above, a correct WP:CSD#G12, allow recreation - but that may be redundant as non-copyvio recreation of G12 articles is always allowed. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 17:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Fred_M._Levin – Correct speedy - confirmed copyvio. Recreation without the copyvio's fine, of course. – Tony Fox (arf!) 17:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Speedy Deletion by BOT, was it really a copyright infringement?. Mwalla (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Mwalla[reply]

I fixed the nomination, which had used a wrong template. The deletion was not, in fact, by a bot, but by SchuminWeb. Stifle (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that the article as written was indeed a copyright violation. Anyone can create a new one that isn't. Stifle (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close of DRV per Stifles input above, a correct WP:CSD#G12, allow recreation - but that may be redundant as non-copyvio recreation of G12 articles is always allowed. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 17:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:Fad diet – Deletion endorsed – Mango juice^talk 21:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Fad diet (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) This cat has been speedily deleted (G4) based on the discussion of the similar category where the main argument was "this category is not NPOV". The discussion did not seem to include any science/medical editors. Since Fad diet clearly states that these diets are often unscientific, and the ArbCom has ruled that Category:Pseudoscience is okay, I am asking for this decision to be reviewed as the closing admin has declined to undelete. I think it's feasible to populate this category from reliable sources. For instance the American Dietetic Association has a list of fad diets here. So, I'm invoking principle 3, i.e. new information not previously discussed. Xasodfuih (talk) 09:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep deleted, seems to me like an attempt to make an end run around the consensus at the CFD. ArbCom doesn't have jurisdiction on content issues. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Consensus can change—that is the basis for principle 3, listed on WP:DELREV. I think I've outlined above substantial new information not previously discussed, so dismissing this as end-run seems arbitrary to me. Arguing that a small number of editors can forever the decide the future of this category when that discussion was not advertised to the interested WikiProjects is the real end-run around consensus. Xasodfuih (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] It can, but it rarely changes that fast. There is (correctly) no requirement in the deletion process to notify every editor/WikiProject/etc. of a request to delete any page that might concern them, as it would be literally impossible to ensure the process was followed in such a case. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] For the record: I was not aware of the deletion of the original Category:Diet and food fads (or of the discussion that took place there) when I created Category:Fad diet. Xasodfuih (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Strong undelete Diet is important to both WP:MED and WP:SKEPTICS. If a small group behind virtual closed door makes a decision without the involvement of all parties this is not wiki democracy. And thus not a binding decision. I agree with Xaso that this is an important category and that there are good references to justify its existence and which diets should be included.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] But then, as I'm sure you recall, wikipedia isn't a democracy. Also, CfD isn't exactly a "virtual closed door", it's a project page and a part of the deletion process. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 13:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] This needs a new discussion. Consensus can change. DGG (talk) 13:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] While I agree that consensus can change, this CfD was closed only two weeks ago, do we see any tangible evidence beyond the objection of the nom for this DRV that this has occurred? Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 13:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Many articles in the scientific literature refer to fad diets. see Ness-Abramof R, Apovian CM (February 2006). "Diet modification for treatment and prevention of obesity". Endocrine. 29 (1): 5–9. doi:10.1385/ENDO:29:1:135. PMID 16622287. Mobley C (January 2008). "Fad diets: facts for dental professionals". J Am Dent Assoc. 139 (1): 48–50. PMID 18167384. Ruden DM, Rasouli P, Lu X (June 2007). "Potential long-term consequences of fad diets on health, cancer, and longevity: lessons learned from model organism studies". Technol. Cancer Res. Treat. 6 (3): 247–54. PMID 17535033. In evidence based medicine we have a saying called "show me the evidence". Here are three reviews that substantiate this term. One of my concerns is that what we have here is that those who wish to promote fad diets want to disassociate themselves with this term due to its negative connotation. However this term has a negative connotation because it is rightfully deserving of it and this is supported by the literature.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] The discussion here is not whether there are "fad" diets, whether people percieve some diets as "fads" or not, or whether the fad diet page should exist. The concern here is whether it is possible to assign a page about a diet the categorization [[Category:Fad diet]] without inherently breaking NPOV. Generally, whether a diet is a fad diet or not will be debated not only between diet followers but also between medical professionals (see for example Atkins diet - some would call it a fad, others would call it absolute, irrevocable, truth - both are POV). The only way to avoid this being POV would be to introduce a word making it an observation Category:Diets considered fads by some - but that in turn wouldn't be in line with WP:WEASEL. I don't think there is a good case for this. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 16:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Whether a particular diet is sufficiently unscientific to be categorized as fad surely can be discussed based on the level of evidence and the credibility of sources making the assertion, but the deletion of the category prevents any such discussion from taking place. For another example and further reasoning, see my comment further below. Xasodfuih (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep deleted - no clear case for consensus being different then it was 2 weeks ago. This categorization is still inherently POV, no less so than [[Category:Wrong religions]] or [[Category:Bad ideas]]. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 16:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] No, it's more like Category:Pseudoscience and Category:Fringe science because stuff in those categories is usually described that way by most. See Wikipedia:NPOV#Pseudoscience and related fringe theories and NPOV does not mean giving equal validity to both sides. Xasodfuih (talk) 06:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Deletion is fully justified IMHO. Deb (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Why? Xasodfuih (talk) 06:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion, rationale and arguments were sound. I am sure there is scope for a prose article on bogus diet and food fads, but in this case a category is a little hard to maintain in an NPOV fashion - the only diet I don't consider a fad is the ELF diet, but since i managed to lose over 40lb and 8" round the waist in three months while not reducing my food intake, perhaps I am not the best person to judge that. Which is rather the point, in fact. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] The only diet which is not a fad is the DASH diet and the low calorie diets. All the rest are.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] As amply explained above, there are reliable scientific bodies that describe certain diets as fad. We don't have to engage in WP:OR to make that decision. The second point to make is that the goal of a diet need not be weight loss, although nowadays it most often is. Fad diets often make other unscientific claims like curing you of a boatload of diseases etc. Xasodfuih (talk) 06:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] No, the ELF diet (as in: Eat Less Food) is the only one that actually works in 100% of cases :-) Guy (Help!) 23:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Restore If "Category:Fad diet" is merely a subcategory of "Category:Pseudoscience", on what basis should the first category be deleted, but not the second. Of course, the fad diet category should be used with caution, but, where appropriate, it can be useful to the reader, IMO. Whether or not an article is tagged should be discussed on the talk page beforehand as with the pseudoscience tag. --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] If "Category:Fad diet" is restored, it should be included as a subcategory of "Category:Pseudoscience". --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] An example: Fit for Life is a diet I had added to Category:Fad diet. Please note that "fad diet" is attributed to ADA in the text. I don't think it's practical to create Category:Fad diet according to XXX for all relevant organizations (occasionally NHS make this kind of commentary too, etc.) I assume this practical issue resulted in the ArbCom decision on the categorization of what is "generally considered pseudoscience". I have asked the ArbCom to clarify if the decision applies to diets or not. Xasodfuih (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Clarification: The essence of the 2006 Pseudoscience Arbcom decision has been added to the NPOV policy on Feb 12, 2009; I suspect that many are unaware of this change. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] An excellent point Xaso. Basically most diet fall under obvious pseudoscience. A few are generally considered pseudoscience. And only a couple actually have scientific evidence for them. I presume the decisions here are to follow those decided at the ArbComm--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. I don't see what has changed since the CFD. --Kbdank71 14:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion as appropriate response to CFD but support restoration. The deleting admin did nothing wrong by applying G4, given the result of the CFD, but the category is an appropriate subcategory of Pseudoscience and should be kept. There was not adequate discussion at the CFD. THF (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion - The crux of the issue, which seemingly has not been fully grasped by those who are arguing in favor of this category, is that Categories are fundamentally different from Articles. On the one hand, articles about diets can and should address the issues of efficacy and scientific validation, etc. in an NPOV manner, as well as discussing criticism -- always relying on clearly cited sources. That is something that cannot be done with a category. When it comes to category names there is a higher burden with respect to NPOV concerns -- and inherently pejorative terms like "fad" are strongly frowned upon. If your basic objective is to slap a label on these articles in order to stigmatize particular diets, that is a misuse of the Category system. That said, it may be possible to come up with a neutral, non-pejorative term that would allow diets of this general sort to be categorized together so as to better organize the contents of Category:Diets and assist our readers in navigating that category. Perhaps something incorporating the notion of scientific validation (or lack thereof) -- but please don't hold me to that, it's just a "top of the head" suggestion, and I'm sure there are other approaches that could also be explored. Feel free to run your ideas by me on my talk page. Cgingold (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Do you think that "fad diet" is more pejorative that "fringe science"? We have a category for the latter. Fad means "an interest followed with exaggerated zeal". Is that worse than fringe? Fad diet is also an established term (as is fringe theory). Surely we could have a Catergory:Pseudoscietific diets, but that's not as common in medical literature, and could give rise to wikilawyering "source said fad diet not pseudoscietific diet" etc. Xasodfuih (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. Agree with those who explain the particular reasons why a category is unsuitable but the statement "XX is considered a fad diet[1]" in an article could be fine. The category system is largely useless for contestable attributes. Take note of the ArbCom decision not to allow merely "questionable science" to be categorised as pseudoscience. A "fad" diet like Atkins is not pure pseudoscience in the way homeopathy is; the science underlying has been questioned. Colin°^Talk 20:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Thank you, that articulates it much better than I did. Categories are great for some things, not so for others. This is one of those there others. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion (closing admin). I was the admin who closed the CfD and speedily deleted the new category, so obviously I endorse what I did. But I held off on commenting to read some of the submissions here, but nothing here has changed my mind. (Note, of course, that if re-created this should be the plural Category:Fad diets.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - deletion discussion closed correctly, the soi disant new information presented here does not establish a case for overturning. Otto4711 (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:Fad diet – Deletion endorsed – Mango juice^talk 21:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This cat has been speedily deleted (G4) based on the discussion of the similar category where the main argument was "this category is not NPOV". The discussion did not seem to include any science/medical editors. Since Fad diet clearly states that these diets are often unscientific, and the ArbCom has ruled that Category:Pseudoscience is okay, I am asking for this decision to be reviewed as the closing admin has declined to undelete. I think it's feasible to populate this category from reliable sources. For instance the American Dietetic Association has a list of fad diets here. So, I'm invoking principle 3, i.e. new information not previously discussed. Xasodfuih (talk) 09:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted, seems to me like an attempt to make an end run around the consensus at the CFD. ArbCom doesn't have jurisdiction on content issues. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus can change—that is the basis for principle 3, listed on WP:DELREV. I think I've outlined above substantial new information not previously discussed, so dismissing this as end-run seems arbitrary to me. Arguing that a small number of editors can forever the decide the future of this category when that discussion was not advertised to the interested WikiProjects is the real end-run around consensus. Xasodfuih (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It can, but it rarely changes that fast. There is (correctly) no requirement in the deletion process to notify every editor/WikiProject/etc. of a request to delete any page that might concern them, as it would be literally impossible to ensure the process was followed in such a case. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record: I was not aware of the deletion of the original Category:Diet and food fads (or of the discussion that took place there) when I created Category:Fad diet. Xasodfuih (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong undelete Diet is important to both WP:MED and WP:SKEPTICS. If a small group behind virtual closed door makes a decision without the involvement of all parties this is not wiki democracy. And thus not a binding decision. I agree with Xaso that this is an important category and that there are good references to justify its existence and which diets should be included.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But then, as I'm sure you recall, wikipedia isn't a democracy. Also, CfD isn't exactly a "virtual closed door", it's a project page and a part of the deletion process. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 13:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This needs a new discussion. Consensus can change. DGG (talk) 13:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that consensus can change, this CfD was closed only two weeks ago, do we see any tangible evidence beyond the objection of the nom for this DRV that this has occurred? Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 13:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many articles in the scientific literature refer to fad diets. see

Ness-Abramof R, Apovian CM (February 2006). "Diet modification for treatment and prevention of obesity". Endocrine. 29 (1): 5–9. doi:10.1385/ENDO:29:1:135. PMID 16622287.

Mobley C (January 2008). "Fad diets: facts for dental professionals". J Am Dent Assoc. 139 (1): 48–50. PMID 18167384.

Ruden DM, Rasouli P, Lu X (June 2007). "Potential long-term consequences of fad diets on health, cancer, and longevity: lessons learned from model organism studies". Technol. Cancer Res. Treat. 6 (3): 247–54. PMID 17535033.

In evidence based medicine we have a saying called "show me the evidence". Here are three reviews that substantiate this term. One of my concerns is that what we have here is that those who wish to promote fad diets want to disassociate themselves with this term due to its negative connotation. However this term has a negative connotation because it is rightfully deserving of it and this is supported by the literature.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion here is not whether there are "fad" diets, whether people percieve some diets as "fads" or not, or whether the fad diet page should exist. The concern here is whether it is possible to assign a page about a diet the categorization [[Category:Fad diet]] without inherently breaking NPOV. Generally, whether a diet is a fad diet or not will be debated not only between diet followers but also between medical professionals (see for example Atkins diet - some would call it a fad, others would call it absolute, irrevocable, truth - both are POV). The only way to avoid this being POV would be to introduce a word making it an observation Category:Diets considered fads by some - but that in turn wouldn't be in line with WP:WEASEL. I don't think there is a good case for this. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 16:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a particular diet is sufficiently unscientific to be categorized as fad surely can be discussed based on the level of evidence and the credibility of sources making the assertion, but the deletion of the category prevents any such discussion from taking place. For another example and further reasoning, see my comment further below. Xasodfuih (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted - no clear case for consensus being different then it was 2 weeks ago. This categorization is still inherently POV, no less so than [[Category:Wrong religions]] or [[Category:Bad ideas]]. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 16:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's more like Category:Pseudoscience and Category:Fringe science because stuff in those categories is usually described that way by most. See Wikipedia:NPOV#Pseudoscience and related fringe theories and NPOV does not mean giving equal validity to both sides. Xasodfuih (talk) 06:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is fully justified IMHO. Deb (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Xasodfuih (talk) 06:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, rationale and arguments were sound. I am sure there is scope for a prose article on bogus diet and food fads, but in this case a category is a little hard to maintain in an NPOV fashion - the only diet I don't consider a fad is the ELF diet, but since i managed to lose over 40lb and 8" round the waist in three months while not reducing my food intake, perhaps I am not the best person to judge that. Which is rather the point, in fact. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only diet which is not a fad is the DASH diet and the low calorie diets. All the rest are.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As amply explained above, there are reliable scientific bodies that describe certain diets as fad. We don't have to engage in WP:OR to make that decision. The second point to make is that the goal of a diet need not be weight loss, although nowadays it most often is. Fad diets often make other unscientific claims like curing you of a boatload of diseases etc. Xasodfuih (talk) 06:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the ELF diet (as in: Eat Less Food) is the only one that actually works in 100% of cases :-) Guy (Help!) 23:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restore If "Category:Fad diet" is merely a subcategory of "Category:Pseudoscience", on what basis should the first category be deleted, but not the second. Of course, the fad diet category should be used with caution, but, where appropriate, it can be useful to the reader, IMO. Whether or not an article is tagged should be discussed on the talk page beforehand as with the pseudoscience tag. --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If "Category:Fad diet" is restored, it should be included as a subcategory of "Category:Pseudoscience". --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An example: Fit for Life is a diet I had added to Category:Fad diet. Please note that "fad diet" is attributed to ADA in the text. I don't think it's practical to create Category:Fad diet according to XXX for all relevant organizations (occasionally NHS make this kind of commentary too, etc.) I assume this practical issue resulted in the ArbCom decision on the categorization of what is "generally considered pseudoscience". I have asked the ArbCom to clarify if the decision applies to diets or not. Xasodfuih (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification: The essence of the 2006 Pseudoscience Arbcom decision has been added to the NPOV policy on Feb 12, 2009; I suspect that many are unaware of this change. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - An excellent point Xaso. Basically most diet fall under obvious pseudoscience. A few are generally considered pseudoscience. And only a couple actually have scientific evidence for them. I presume the decisions here are to follow those decided at the ArbComm--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I don't see what has changed since the CFD. --Kbdank71 14:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as appropriate response to CFD but support restoration. The deleting admin did nothing wrong by applying G4, given the result of the CFD, but the category is an appropriate subcategory of Pseudoscience and should be kept. There was not adequate discussion at the CFD. THF (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - The crux of the issue, which seemingly has not been fully grasped by those who are arguing in favor of this category, is that Categories are fundamentally different from Articles. On the one hand, articles about diets can and should address the issues of efficacy and scientific validation, etc. in an NPOV manner, as well as discussing criticism -- always relying on clearly cited sources. That is something that cannot be done with a category. When it comes to category names there is a higher burden with respect to NPOV concerns -- and inherently pejorative terms like "fad" are strongly frowned upon. If your basic objective is to slap a label on these articles in order to stigmatize particular diets, that is a misuse of the Category system.

That said, it may be possible to come up with a neutral, non-pejorative term that would allow diets of this general sort to be categorized together so as to better organize the contents of Category:Diets and assist our readers in navigating that category. Perhaps something incorporating the notion of scientific validation (or lack thereof) -- but please don't hold me to that, it's just a "top of the head" suggestion, and I'm sure there are other approaches that could also be explored. Feel free to run your ideas by me on my talk page. Cgingold (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that "fad diet" is more pejorative that "fringe science"? We have a category for the latter. Fad means "an interest followed with exaggerated zeal". Is that worse than fringe? Fad diet is also an established term (as is fringe theory). Surely we could have a Catergory:Pseudoscietific diets, but that's not as common in medical literature, and could give rise to wikilawyering "source said fad diet not pseudoscietific diet" etc. Xasodfuih (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Agree with those who explain the particular reasons why a category is unsuitable but the statement "XX is considered a fad diet[1]" in an article could be fine. The category system is largely useless for contestable attributes. Take note of the ArbCom decision not to allow merely "questionable science" to be categorised as pseudoscience. A "fad" diet like Atkins is not pure pseudoscience in the way homeopathy is; the science underlying has been questioned. Colin°^Talk 20:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that articulates it much better than I did. Categories are great for some things, not so for others. This is one of those there others. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion (closing admin). I was the admin who closed the CfD and speedily deleted the new category, so obviously I endorse what I did. But I held off on commenting to read some of the submissions here, but nothing here has changed my mind. (Note, of course, that if re-created this should be the plural Category:Fad diets.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - deletion discussion closed correctly, the soi disant new information presented here does not establish a case for overturning. Otto4711 (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.