Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Place name changes in Armenia

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. The arguments to keep do not generally dispute that sourcing on this subject is somewhat thin, but rather argue that even at this, it is adequate. The arguments to delete primarily hinge, not only on current issues with neutrality (which, when a fixable problem, is not a criterion for deletion), but that the dearth of sourcing renders the writing of an appropriately neutral article impossible, which is grounds to delete. Neither argument is unreasonable or outside of policy, so the delete arguments have achieved consensus via substantially more support. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[]

Place name changes in Armenia

[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG, the article is based entirely on a single source by Husik Ghulyan. The only other source in the article by Saparov is from a claim directly from Ghulyan's article where he cites the Saparov source, that claim is also not about the topic of this article. I tagged this article with the single source tag over a year ago and asked for additional sources in the talk page, however, I've received no response and the article still is based on a single source. I took it upon myself to search for additional sources but cannot find any reliable secondary sources that directly touch on this topic, it has not received significant enough scholarship for a standalone article. Additionally, and most concerning of all, are the nationalistic WP:FRINGE claims found in the Ghulyan source. For example, the source claims that "academic consensus" places the ancestors of Armenians as migrants to the region and the connection of Armenians to Urartu is based on soviet revisionism. This runs contrary to the modern academic consensus in western sources which can be found in the Origin of the Armenians article. Numerous other claims that are controversial at best exist in the article. It also worth noting the author is associated with Ankara University which also leads me to question the neutrality of the source. In an area as controversial as this, basing the article on a single source is unlikely to fit the Wikipedia guidelines for WP:NPOV making it unsuitable for Wikipedia. TagaworShah (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[]

Edit: I’d also like to add that since this article is entirely based on a single source’s claims, it has a lot of Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and many quotes, including long ones, which also pegs the question on the copyright issues that may exist. TagaworShah (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[]
Also, I don't speak or read Armenian but this book with a partial translation in English appears to be about placename changes in Armenia. It's from 1986. JMWt (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[]
  • @JMWt: Thanks for commenting! The problem with that solution is that the article now is written basically as a summary of the POV of one source, it’s written in the context of place-name changes being systemic anti-Turkic/anti-minority movements as opposed to the source you offered up. Basically, it’s arguing a specific POV that has not been covered in significant scholarship, as opposed to just neutrally presenting that facts of place-names changing in Armenia. The article would have to be entirely rewritten. Cheers, TagaworShah (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[]
Hmm. Well I don't know enough to !vote. It sounds like you are talking about cleanup, and I'm not sure how much would really be necessary if it was just a case of cutting right back until further balance and less controversial sources could be found. The topic seems likely to be notable to me. JMWt (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[]
  • @JMWt: Outside of the articles of specific cities that were renamed, this topic doesn’t really have significant coverage as a systemic process. Emphasis lying on the systemic process of place-name changes as a subset of nationalism which is the scope of this article as opposed to just changes in general. The single source tag has been there for over a year now, it doesn’t look like there is significant coverage in secondary sources to keep this article while maintaining neutrality. TagaworShah (talk)
  • JMWt That is why this article should be deleted for being a WP:FORK of an existing article. --Dallavid (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[]
It’s important to note that besides the Saparov source, which is already in the article and is about Soviet times, the other 2 sources provided only make passing mentions of the subject and do not go in depth to support an entire article. It would be more appropriate to merge the information into another article as significant in-depth coverage does not exist, especially for post-soviet Armenia, the article has been with the single source tag for over a year. TagaworShah (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[]
  1. "For example, the source claims that "academic consensus" places the ancestors of Armenians as migrants to the region and the connection of Armenians to Urartu is based on soviet revisionism"
So you are saying the proto-Armenians always lived in that area, and the IE language they spoke also sprung from there? When one visits the Proto-Armenian language page however (Proto-Armenian_language#History):

The origin of the Proto-Armenian language is subject to scholarly debate. Although the Armenian hypothesis would postulate the Armenian language as an in situ development of a 3rd millennium BC Proto-Indo-European language,[7] the more popular Kurgan hypothesis suggests it arrived in the Armenian Highlands either from the Balkans or through the Caucasus. The arrival of such a population who spoke Proto-Armenian in the Armenian Highlands is assumed to have occurred sometime during the Bronze Age[8][9] or at the latest, during the Bronze Age Collapse around 1200 BC.[10]

Unless you consider the "less popular theory" as a fact, I don't see how Ghulyan's writings about this constitute "fringe".

  1. "and the connection of Armenians to Urartu is based on soviet revisionism"
It literally doesn't state that. The article says: "In addition, although most scholars consider that the original proto-Armenians were probably migrants to the region, in the 1980s a revisionist school of historians claimed that Armenians were the aboriginal inhabitants who had lived continuously on the Armenian plateau since the fourth millennium BCE and that even Urartu was an Armenian state (887)..[5]"
Urartu is considered a predecessor of Armenia, but it wasn't an Armenian state.
  • "It also worth noting the author is associated with Ankara University which also leads me to question the neutrality of the source"
Ghulyan literally writes about the Armenian genocide in the article. If he was on a Turkish payroll/influenced by Turkish historiography, why would he be acknowleding the AG in his writings?
- LouisAragon (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[]
Edit: For the record, the Saparov source in this article, although indeed from a claim directly from Ghulyan's article where he cites the source itself, contains a huge amount of information about this topic. It can easily be used to expand this article. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[]
@LouisAragon: Per WP:SINGLESOURCE a stand-alone article being entirely sourced by one source is problematic, especially in an area as controversial as this, where WP:NPOV is required and inaccurate information is likely to persist without a balance of sources. The fact of the matter is there is not sufficient secondary sources to support a full article, a simple statement of fact that names were changed plus a little context in another article would be far more appropriate. The idea that Armenians are migrants to the region is indeed WP:FRINGE, it is academic consensus that Armenians are an indigenous people of the Armenian highlands, linguistic theories have nothing to do with that and the idea that the Armenian connection to Urartu is made up by the soviets is a Turkish revisionist stance that doesn’t hold academic weight, I hope we can agree on that. The Ghulyan source is problematic, just because it was published by a reliable journal does not mean it is above criticism for its biased and nationalistic fringe claims. The Saparov source is also about Soviet Armenia specifically, there are not enough sources about the Republic of Armenia and if so we should create a new article specifically about Soviet Armenia, although even that has limited sources available and i’m unsure it’s notable enough as well. TagaworShah (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[]
I feel like this is literally a repeat of the same stuff you've already posted, but hey, why not?:
It doesn't say that. It says "Following this guideline, a subject for which only one source can be cited is unlikely to merit a standalone article. ". Yet we have Saparov in addition to Ghulyan, whose article is filled with information about this topic. So we have two sources, one of the them being written by one of the leading scholars in this field (Arsene Saparov). Also, once again, for the record, although this article doesn't contain just one reference, the One Source Template tells us: "A single source is not automatically a problem. Good judgment and common sense should be used. "[5]
  • "The idea that Armenians are migrants to the region is indeed WP:FRINGE..."
Once again, Ghulyan doesn't state that. Quote the exact sentence if you think he does.
  • "and the idea that the Armenian connection to Urartu is made up by the soviets is a Turkish revisionist stance that doesn’t hold academic weight"
Once, again, he [Ghulyan] doesn't state that. With all due respect, but it seems as if you didn't read the article at all? I'm always open to sound arguments, but I have yet to see one covered by proper evidence against this article/Ghulyan. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[]
Louis, you missed the part where it says “Without additional citations providing access to further information about the single source's contents, it is possible for inaccurate or outdated material to persist.” That’s why it’s problematic. This is a controversial subject matter, not a matter of common sense. The POV Ghulyan is representing is not an uncontroversial one and in an area like AA3, where WP:NPOV needs to be taken with extreme caution, it makes no sense to rely on a single source for the entire article due to “common sense.”. Additionally, Ghulyan argues that Armenians are not indigenous (aboriginals) to the region, which runs contrary to modern scientific consensus such as the CELL article I linked. The mention of Urartu and the origin of Armenians in such an article, also reveals that this may not be the most unbiased work on this topic. This is why many editors here, including myself, see it as a WP:POVFORK. The basic statistical information can be merged with the list of renamed cities in Armenia. However, the arguments made by Ghulyan about the connection to nationalism, antiTurkism, and homogenous state identity, which is what this article is about according to your own discussions on the talk pages are not sufficiently supported by reliable secondary sources to prove independent notability. TagaworShah (talk) 06:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[]
@Grandmaster: There is already a List of renamed cities in Armenia, this is just a WP:POVFORK of that article based entirely on the opinions and claims of Ghulyan that are not sufficiently sourced or neutral. And what he said about Armenians being migrants and unrelated to Urartu is in fact false and a fringe theory. Academic consensus is that Armenians are indigenous to the region per the highly respected Cell journal[6] and that Urartians are the earliest identifiable ancestors of the Armenians.[1][2][3][4] This article had over a year to be fixed with proper sources but it’s clear they do not exist because this article is built around a specific pov that has not been studied extensively as opposed to just presenting that facts on renamed cities like the list article that already exists. TagaworShah (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[]
I don't think Britannica would be promoting fringe theories. Their article sees Urartu as distinct people. [7] And this article is not about Urartu, so I don't see why we need to discuss it that much. And a list is not the same as a dedicated article that would cover the process in detail. Grandmaster 00:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[]
@MarshallBagramyan: Any editor is free to expand the article to include material about the well-known Armenian majorities/pluralities/settlements that existed in that area prior to the mass deportations, expulsions and population movements. WP:FIXIT comes to mind. If someone could make a start, I'm definitely willing to lend a hand if time allows. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[]

@Aintabli: Unfortunately street names are outside of the scope of this article, the second source is perfect for the list of renamed cities in Armenia article, however, it does not support the pov argued in this article and thus does not give it any more independent notability. TagaworShah (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[]

References

  1. ^ Chahin, M. (2001). The kingdom of Armenia: a history (2nd revised ed.). Richmond: Curzon. p. 182. ISBN 978-0700714520.
  2. ^ Frye, Richard N. (1984). The History of Ancient Iran. Munich: C.H. Beck. p. 73. ISBN 978-3406093975. The real heirs of the Urartians, however, were neither the Scythians nor Medes but the Armenians.
  3. ^ Redgate, A. E. (2000). The Armenians. Oxford: Blackwell. p. 5. ISBN 978-0631220374. However, the most easily identifiable ancestors of the later Armenian nation are the Urartians.
  4. ^ Lang, David Marshall (1980). Armenia: Cradle of Civilization (3rd ed.). London: Allen & Unwin. pp. 85–111. ISBN 978-0049560093.
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Keep !votes which claim that a single source doesn't make an article non-notable don't really have a grasp of constitutes notability. Just because something exists does not make it notable.Onel5969 TT me 00:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Place_name_changes_in_Armenia&oldid=1147093129"