Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khojaly massacre memorials

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Particularly once the SPAs are discounted. Perhaps a merger might gain consensus if proposed on the talk page. Sandstein 08:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khojaly massacre memorials

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Article is heavily based on partisan Azerbaidjani sources (violating WP:NPOV) and dead links – content not verifiable. No Wikipedia quality standard. No improvement of the article since 2014. Notability contested WP:N Markus2685 (talk) 13:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and sourced... I now realized the lister is tagging everything related to Khojaly massacre with an AfD. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Comment: You obviously totally ignored my text for why this article should be deleted. The article is sourced – yes. But not in accordance with Wikipedia guidlines. The sources are partisan non-reliable Azerbaidjani sources and not verifiable dead links. I am not tagging everything related to Khojaly massacre, only partisan, badly sourced articles which are not fulfilling Wikipedia:Notability guidlines. Markus2685 (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is automatically counted to have voted delete, so no need to do it again. If there are dead links, tag them and try to find web archivals. I also don't understand how a source about a memorial existing could be partisan. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has severe issues and is marked as such since 2014. There has not been any changes and improvements to the article since then. Besides, it is the job of the creator of an article to source the content correctly with reliable and verifiable sources. But still there is the main issue of Notability. I don't see why we need an article on a encyclopedia about a list of commemorating memorials. Markus2685 (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those 2014 tags were about neutrality. Again, I don't understand what the existence of memorials has to do with anything like that. When it comes to memorials, listing them separately is fairly common, like List of Armenian Genocide memorials. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With all respect and don't get me wrong, but you can not compare the importance and notability of a memorial list (not article, like in this case) for the Armenian Genocide, or the List of Holocaust memorials and museums – both the most scientifically and historically studied Genocides worldwide with millions of deaths – with this rather "small" event, which is composed of an article, and not a list. Markus2685 (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point was that the concept of the lists is the same. The reason for keeping is that there exist numerous sources... --Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article lists the memorials commemorating the events in different levels and ensures that this type of war crimes/genocides/massacres do not happen again. We need such articles for public awareness and avoid similar events in our peaceful future. Regards, Konullu (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC) (topic banned user)[reply]

No we don't. Furthermore your comment "this type of war crimes/genocides/massacres" exposes the real intent of this article. Misleading and manipulating the readership. Markus2685 (talk) 10:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"...ensures that this type of war crimes/genocides/massacres do not happen again. We need such articles for public awareness and avoid similar events in our peaceful future." That's not what Wikipedia is for. What actual criteria per WP:V, WP:NOTE and WP:RS does this article satisfy? freshacconci talk to me 22:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The content should be mentioned in Khojaly massacre, rather than having its own article. WannaBeEditor (talk) 03:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that the notability is contested. There's no need of having its own article. Hayterak (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC) — Hayterak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete I don't see the Point creating another Page we should follow the Quality Standards and avoid Sub-Topics especially with miserable content. Terrey Hills (talk) 11:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC) — Terrey Hills (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete I agree that it is a non notable topic.Sysfu (talk) 11:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC) — Sysfu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Heavily based on aserbaidjani partisan sources. Clearly following an agenda. Sarah Rauscher (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC) — Sarah Rauscher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete That topic does not consist of reliable sources at all.Albert Einstein 321 (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC) — Albert Einstein 321 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. As mentioned above by others, this article follows the pattern of similar lists to avoid cluttering the main article. Grandmaster 21:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And still, the other ones are lists, but we are talking about having an article of its own. Furthermore there is still the major issue of really bad sourcing (just like the other similar articles here on wikipedia about this topic): heavily and mainly partisan, unreliable, non-third-party sources and dead links being used as "verification". This is not acceptable according to Wikipedia guidelines and this issue has not been resolved although marked since 2014. It's a non-notable topic as mentioned a couple of times. Markus2685 (talk) 11:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A source about a monument being created cannot be partisan. It is only used to demonstrate that a monument exists, nothing else. That's all that is needed. If a number of such monuments exists, then why not have a list article? Grandmaster 19:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination is typical WP:DISC. The list is based on reliable sources. There are a lot of number of Khojaly massacre memorials and we cannot hide it from the readers, even if some of us doesn't like it. --Interfase (talk) 20:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"...typical WP:DISC." Care to elaborate? That's a pretty bad faith claim. freshacconci talk to me 22:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect -- I am not saying that the massacre was not a terrible event, but it was a single event; accordingly there should be a single article on the massacre. I appreciate that the main article is getting rather long. My country (UK) has thousands of memorials to WWI and WWII. However, WP does not have an article (or even a paragraph) on every memorial. The coverage in the massacre article of recognition and memorials is as much as we need. The rest is going beyond the encyclopaedic. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't yet. There's no real reason why we shouldn't have a list though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, why not have a list of UK war memorials? I think it would be useful, especially for those who look for a particular one. It is good to have all listed in one place, with brief descriptions. Grandmaster 21:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having an article about a number of memorials commemorating the same event. Can't see why this should be deleted. All the sourcing needs to do is prove they exist; whether the sources are biased or not is irrelevant as long as the article isn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 00:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain basically as this seems enough for its own article but it's also still questionable for its own article apart from the event itself. Notifying DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 00:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the main article--it would make more sense there, and would be where anyone would expect to find it. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am also willing to a merge. SwisterTwister talk 02:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.