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

The result was keep. Discussions to merge or rename can certainly continue on the article's talk page. J04n(talk page) 00:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia[edit]

Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article is typical Anti-Armenian propaganda. It talks about the Nagorno-Karabakh War and misinterprets the facts. Երևանցի ^talk 00:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article - not in ideal article, needs improvements. However it is well-referenced at this stage, topic is encyclopedic, there are a lot of articles on similar topics (racism against in one country about other nation). Best, Konullu (talk) 11:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article Could be improved, solid list of sources Hittit (talk) 11:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A lot of reliable sources. If the article is unbalanced, fix it, don't delete it. Just make sure that you don't go too far and make it pro-Armenian propaganda. Howicus (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment you would like to see Anti-Armenianism in Azerbaijan then. No Armenian source is used there and some users still talk about it being unbalanced and even nominated it for deletion.--Երևանցի ^talk 20:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Dear Երևանցի ^talk, did you check that very few of the sources in this article are Azerbaijani ones and their ratio is very low compared to all sources? If you don't like the references for some sentences in the article, you can put citation needed template for those ones. Best, 188.142.246.17 (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I cannot see any problem with notability or sources. Maybe the name should be added the words "and the Armenian Diaspora" at the end. --E4024 (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per above arguments. This article is not intended to include anti-Armenian sentiment. We have Anti-Armenianism in Azerbaijan for that. --Norden1990 (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, or alternatively merge both this article and Anti-Armenianism in Azerbaijan into Armenia–Azerbaijan relations. Grandmaster 09:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete This article is more a mishmash of events and quotations selectively taken and interpreted by the creator of the article. The "Destruction of mosques in Armenia" section in Armenia is nothing but a non-sequiter. It says because there were several mosques in Armenia one hundred years ago and only a few now, they were destroyed as a part of a campaign of anti-Azerbaijani sentiment by Armenia. I suppose anti-religious Soviet policies had nothing to do with it. Maybe Armenians of Chardagly rejected the Azerbaijani sovkhoz director because he was known to be a corrupt official. It doesn't matter because the source itself is so weak that this article is barely able to stand on its own two feet. I don't know why Khosrov bey Sultanov's dealings with the Armenians is somehow connected to anti-Azerbaijani sentiment, but it may have escaped the editor's attention that Sultanov was also responsible for the destruction of a number of Armenian villages and massacre of civilians. This article is borderline WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH; the articles do not purport to show any semblance of consistent hatred of Azerbaijanis in Armenia. In fact, much stronger cases can be (and have been) made against Azerbijan and Turkey for the systematic inculcation of anti-Armenianism, especially in the latter, where it has permeated all parts of society, from school textbooks to politics, where calling a politician's ancestors Armenians becomes a controversy and an offense punishable by law (!)

And, of course, I find it rather amusing how virtually none of the editors asking to keep this article has offered any specific argument on how this article is in any way encyclopedic, their opinions being more akin to vote stacking than anything else. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean to say that the topic of the article is non-existent, and there's no Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia? Then how would you explain the hate rhetoric by the former Armenian president, which was condemned by the leaders of Council of Europe and PACE? With regard to mosques and other Muslim monuments that vanished in Armenian within the last 90 years the article refers to the opinion of the professional archaeologist Philip Kohl, who does not consider the paucity of surviving Islamic remains in Armenia to be just a coincidence. And Soviet anti-religious policies cannot explain destruction of Khan's palace, citadel and other non-religious monuments built in Yerevan by its Muslim population, and which survived the imperial Russian rule, but did not survive the Soviet and independent Armenian republic. And it would be good to assume good faith, accusing absolutely unrelated editors (some of whom also voted to keep the parallel article Anti-Armenianism in Azerbaijan) of vote stacking just because you happen to disagree with their opinion is no good. Grandmaster 18:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the whole article is based on Kocharyan's phrase, then we can also built an article "Anti-Armenianism in Romania", because Traian Băsescu called the doctor who operated on him "the first competent Armenian I have met", referencing the Romanian finance minister Varujan Vosganian, who is of Armenian descent and whom Băsescu considered incompetent. This remark was considered racist by Vosganian.

But I'm not going to start a war with you. Just one request. If there is public or institutional anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia, then just provide us with a source saying that. --Երևանցի ^talk 18:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that ethnic cleansing of the entire Azerbaijani population in Armenia and occupied territories in Nagorno-Karabakh, destruction of cultural monuments, mass killings such as in Khojaly and Garadaghly were not motivated by hate, I beg to differ. Grandmaster 18:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion doesn't matter here. We need sources that state that "Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment" exists in Armenia. --Երևանցի ^talk 19:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, Grandmaster. To call the president's description of the situation as being inconducive for two groups to live by one another is not anti-Azerbaijani by any stretch of the imagination. Whatever the knee-jerk reaction of organizations in Europe, his statement was tame by any standard you measure it by. The actions of the other editors speak for themselves when their only defense consists nothing else but "they're good, reliable sources, why you mad, bro?".--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my opinion, and European leaders who condemned the statement and called it a hate rhetoric are notable for inclusion. Grandmaster 18:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per MarshallBagramyan. The article is clearly a propaganda essay. For instance, in the section "Destruction of mosques in Armenia" there is no source that the mosques (which were not even Azerbaijani, in fact, but Persian) were destroyed because of "anti-Azerbaijani sentiment".--Երևանցի ^talk 18:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Why else would anyone knock down a mosque with a bulldozer at the height of Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict in 1990? Thomas de Waal describes it to be a result of the negative sentiment towards Azerbaijani people in Armenia. So does Robert Cullen from New Yorker. Destruction clearly was not a manifestation of love. Grandmaster 18:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does that singular event deserve its own article?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster, you want the whole list of cases of Armenophobia in Azerbaijan? Again, we need sources clearly stating that "Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment" exists in Armenia. Otherwise, there is no reason to keep this article. --Երևանցի ^talk 18:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a singular event. Kohl considers the elimination of Islamic monuments to be a result of systematic efforts. One cannot seriously argue that 269 mosques were all destroyed as result of Soviet policies, while in neighboring Azerbaijan and Georgia only a small fraction of religious monuments was destroyed in Soviet times. Grandmaster 18:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to argue. We need third-party sources. First, a source that proves that those eight Persian mosques were Azeri and a source that they were destructed because of "Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment" in Armenia. --Երևանցի ^talk 19:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Search google books. Plenty of sources about anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia: [1] Grandmaster 19:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to "Persian" mosques in Yerevan, a city with no Persian population, you can read in the book by Thomas de Waal:

That the Armenians could erase an Azerbaijani mosque inside their capital city was made easier by a linguistic sleight of hand: the Azerbaijanis of Armenia can be more easily written out of history because the name “Azeri” or “Azerbaijani” was not in common usage before the twentieth century. In the premodern era these people were generally referred to as “Tartars”, “Turks” or simply “Muslims”. Yet they were neither Persians nor Turks; they were Turkic-speaking Shiite subjects of Safavid dynasty of the Iranian Empire – in other words, the ancestors of people, whom we would now call “Azerbaijanis”. So when the Armenians refer to the “Persian mosque” in Yerevan, the name obscures the fact that most of the worshippers there, when it was built in the 1760s, would have been, in effect, Azerbaijanis.

Thomas de Waal. Black garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through peace and war. ISBN 0814719457, p. 80. Grandmaster 19:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I need to see one that proves that it exists in Armenia. See below, that is the first pargarpah of Anti-Armenianism in Azerbaijan. As you can see there are three sources (one Russian, two European) that clearly state that armenohobia is part of Azerbaijani state policy and the society.--Երևանցի ^talk 19:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

“

Anti-Armenianism (Armenophobia) exists in Azerbaijan on an institutional level[1] and permeates daily social interactions in that country.[2] According to the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), Armenians are "the most vulnerable group in Azerbaijan in the field of racism and racial discrimination."[3]

”

As I said, such sources are available at google books in abundance. Just one example:

In short, thе nаtiопаlist movement in Агmеniа started in the form of peaceful dеmопstгаtiопs in solidarity with Karabakh Armenians. But in the absence of а favorable solution, Агmеniаn nationalism was radicalized. Anti-Soviet sentiments emerged, and anti-Azerbaijani feelings were furthеr entrenched. Initially, violence сгерt in thе form of thе mudег of Azerbaijanis in Armenia and border skirmishes. Eventually, violence escalated to а full-scale but undeclared wаг between Armenians and Azerbaijanis in аnd around Karabakh (i.e., within Azerbaijan).

Lowell Barrington. After Independence: Making and Protecting the Nation in Postcolonial and Postcommunist States. University of Michigan Press, 2006. ISBN 0472025082, 9780472025084, p. 231

Grandmaster 22:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per sources. As to claims on its neutrality, reliability and original research, I recommend users to discuss on the talk page. Takabeg (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete The article is just a collection of unrelated sections compiled using original research. I attempted to begin improving but an edit war was initiated immediately by User talk:Grandmaster. The section about historical mosques for example does not link any of the mosques with Azeris since almost all of them were Persian, their subsequent absence is not linked to any action by Armenians given how they were all destroyed by Soviet authorities. In conclusion, whatever can be salvaged from this mess should be included in relevant articles if it's not already there otherwise it should be promptly deleted.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Your attempt at "improving" consisted of deletion of a large section without any consensus with other editors. See above the quote from de Waal, he explains how the mosques are declared "Persian" in Armenia to obscure that they were built by Azerbaijanis. And please read carefully what you try to delete, the article clearly says that one of the mosques was demolished with a bulldozer in 1990, at the height of Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. And archaeologist Philip Kohl does not consider the near total absence of Muslim monuments in Armenia to be just a coincidence. Grandmaster 21:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Yet the fact remains that it was a major improvement. de Waal is not an ethnographer or a historian but a journalist, so his opinion on Azeri ethnogenesis is hardly noteworthy. Perhaps the driver of the bulldozer that demolished said Persian mosque was a Ukrainian, under orders from a Buryat, doing so because the old structure was threatening nearby buildings? What does it have to do with anti-Azeri Armenian sentiment? Kohl's statement is conjecture, we cannot have an article based on conjecture.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 22:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Those are reliable sources, you cannot remove them just like that. And here's another one:

In Yerevan оnе night, а friend took mе tо see а pile of rubble behind аn apartment building at 22 Ulitsa Кnunуantsаyа. It had bееn, hе whispered, а small, simple Azerbaijani mosque back in thе days when Azerbaijanis still lived in Armenia. Тhеn, during the cycle оf pogroms and izgnaniya, the Armenians оf the neighbourhood had descended оn the mosque and torn it apart with picks and crowbars, and а bulldozer had соmе to level the pile. Оnсе in а while, after listening to аn Агmеniаn passionately list the uncivilized аnd genocidal acts of the Azerbaijanis аgаinst his реорlе, I would mеntiоn the dеstruсtiоn of this mosque. Almost invаriаblу, the rеsponse was аn indignant denial that such а thing сould have occurred. Even Rafael Papayan, the chairman of the new Supreme Soviet's commission on human rights - a man who served several years as a political prisoner in the pre-glasnost days - insisted that such a tale could not be true. "Absolute disinformation," he told me. "The only mosque that was in the city is still preserved, and I can show you where it is." He was not lying; he simply did not know what had happened. It was not the sort of thing the Armenian press would report. It was not the sort of thing the people of Yerevan would talk about among themselves. To do so would threaten their self-image as civilized victims.

Robert Cullen, A Reporter at Large, “Roots,” The New Yorker, April 15, 1991, p. 55

• You can deny the fact of destruction, but we have sources that describe it. And de Waal also mentions this fact in his book. Grandmaster 23:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  This is only your WP:SYNTHESIS, and this is not what sources say. In terms of modern, reliable, peer-reviewed sources, there is a clear academic consensus that these mosques were not Azeri nor were they intentionally destroyed by an Armenian state apparatus, dozens of churches were also destroyed during the Soviet period in Armenia. Our Wikipedia article should reflect the consensus of existing reliable sources, not try to give undue weight to speculation and conjecture. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no consensus to consider those mosques "Persian". And I don't know what you consider to be an "intentional destruction". In my view knocking down a mosque with a bulldozer is nothing but an intentional destruction. You may consider that an accident, but sources say otherwise. Grandmaster 17:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  They are built by Persians and under Persian rule within a Persian domain, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for the contrary with reliable, peer reviewed academic sources when the matter at hand is so contentious. In addition, you have not provided context for the destruction, for all we know the building was crumbling and threatening the safety of nearby residents.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  How do you know that "the building was crumbling and threatening the safety of nearby residents"? Any sources to attest to that? Cullen and de Waal say that the mosque was demolished because of anti-Azerbaijani sentiment. Grandmaster 17:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  It's hearsay in printed form, that doesn't even meet strict journalistic standards let alone academic ones. "A friend of mine told me that one day..."...it's not serious. For example this source (which unlike the former two is academic), says the those mosques in question and various churches did not survive to this day due to Soviet urban changes:[2].-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not a hearsay, both sources that I quoted are reliable and and have no bias. As for your source, Levon Abrahamian, he provides the Armenian perspective on the issue, but says nothing about why those mosques did not survive the Soviet urban planning. We know that they did not survive the Soviet urban planning, and at least one of them did not survive the NK conflict. We just don't know why more than 200 mosques vanished in Armenia, while in neighboring countries Soviet urban and rural planning did not result in such massive destruction of Muslim cultural heritage. And it is not just the mosques, the whole old Muslim town of Erivan was wiped out, including Khan's palace, citadel, etc. But I think this discussion here is pointless. If you insist that no anti-Azerbaijani sentiment exists in Armenia and mass exodus of Azerbaijani people from Armenia and disappearance of their cultural heritage was a result of some unknown anomaly, you are entitled to your opinion. But I cited sources, and those sources are third party and reliable. This is what the rules require. Grandmaster 21:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's because Yerevan was a backwater village when the Russians incorporated Eastern Armenia into their fold in the early nineteenth century and despite their efforts it remained a dreary backwater village a hundred years later. Tbilisi and Baku were cities in every sense of the word. Yerevan did not neatly match the Soviets' own modern vision of what a city looked like and so in typical Soviet fashion they tore down every structure – decrepit buildings, churches, mosques – that got in the way of Tamanyan's layout. Eupator's right - you can't just selectively pick and choose this and that event from the past hundred years and present it as a phenomenon of anti-Azerbaijani sentiment. Studies on the Armenian curriculum, textbooks, statements by officials – like the numerous ones carried out on Ataturk's Turkey – and the like are far more better sources that what has so far been presented.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  There's nothing wrong with the sources presented. There was a mosque that was destroyed in 1990, it is undeniable fact backed up by third party sources. If you believe that this info should not be there, ask for the community opinion and follow WP:DR. But removal of the whole section time after time without any consensus like you and Eupator did is not acceptable, and next time I will have to draw the attention of the admins to it. We can trim down the list, but the statistics are appropriate to the topic. Grandmaster 00:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources do not purport to support the underlying concept of the article. How do we know that mosque was demolished because of anti-Azerbaijani sentiment and not, as Eupator muted, because its foundation was unstable or any other reason? Just because there is a source at the end of a sentence doesn't mean it necessarily is relevant to the article. You keep citing De Waal but he is not a historian nor a scholar for that matter, and his solitary interview with a Yerevan resident more than ten years after the fact cannot be used as the one narrative to maintain the line about willful destruction. I removed the entire section on mosques because whoever added it just copied the entire section from the Lists of Mosques in Armenia page, thinking that what passes muster over there surely will pass here as well. You should draw the admins' attention to it. If this is not open-shut case of Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS I don't know what is. Again, can you find any sources or case studies done by sociologists or actual scholars documenting a phenomenon known as "anti-Azerbaijanism" in Armenia?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  One does not have to be a historian to report destruction of a religious structure. It is sufficient to be a journalist, and two reliable third party sources reported this. They make it clear that the destruction was motivated by enmity towards Azerbaijani people. You may agree or disagree with it, and in the latter case you are welcome to initiate a discussion about reliability of those two sources at WP:RSN, but it is not a reason to delete this page, or attempt to delete a section without consensus. Grandmaster 20:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither of them witnessed it, though, correct? Neither of them, I am assuming, went back to find an original document ordering the destruction of the mosque and the idea some citizens of Armenia spontaneously decided to find a pickax in the midst of the Karabakh conflict to knock down a building doesn't come off as too persuasive. Recourse to RSN is not an option as I'm not interested in hearing the community's opinion of De Waal as a generally reliable author. The author may be so but the sources he uses can be questionable. The same applies to Cullen, whose information is, to reiterate, hearsay. Again, can you address my previous question?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see any sociologist addressing anti-Armenianism in Azerbaijan. And it is not required anyway. It is a fact that anti-Azerbaijani sentiment exists, and mass murders, deportations of Azerbaijanis were motivated by hate, not by brotherly love. This sentiment is mentioned in many reliable sources in google books, and there are sources in the article too. And if you are not interested in community opinion, then you will have to accept that those sources will remain in the article, as there's no consensus for their removal. WP:DR is the only way to resolve disputes, and edit warring will be reported in accordance with AA2 arbitration ruling. I think further discussion about this is pointless. If you want to challenge the sources about the destruction of the mosque in Yerevan, you can do so at talk of the article. And we can ask the community opinion to establish the notability of those sources, as your opinion against my opinion will not get us anywhere. Grandmaster 23:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Azerbaijanis in Armenia. There is no need for these sorts of POV fork coatracks. Negative sentiments towards a group in a country can be covered in the article covering the subject of the group in the country.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If Armenians truly believe (which they do as De Waal states) that the mosques in Armenia are Persian, how would demolishing them be an anti-Azeri provocation? It could might as well be an anti-Persian, anti-Muslim, or even an anti-Shiite provocation of some kind. Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Whatever little of Muslim heritage survived is declared to be "Persian", even though ethnic Persians did not live in the region in any significant numbers. For instance the only surviving to present day Blue Mosque was built by the Qajar ruler of Erivan, who was not an ethnic Persian, he was an Azerbaijani Turk, but the Armenian authorities still call the mosque Persian. This is what de Waal is talking about. The Azerbaijani cultural heritage is being destroyed, and whatever cannot be is declared Persian. Grandmaster 08:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes you are reaffirming my point. Armenians are not demolishing these Mosques because they personify "Azerbaijan". Why? Because they don't believe they're Azeri in the first place. Unless that is if you can find me a WP:RS which shows that Armenians actually destroyed Mosques because they had preconceived notions that they were in fact "Azeri". Proudbolsahye (talk) 08:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• See above, Robert Cullen from the New Yorker. He refers to an Azerbaijani mosque which dated to thе days when Azerbaijanis still lived in Armenia. Armenian leaders know that those monuments are Azeri, but they do not want to publicly acknowledge it. It is easier to deny the historical presence of Azerbaijani people in the territory of Armenia by wiping out their cultural and historical legacy or when that is not possible by assigning it to other people. This is what the sources say. Grandmaster 08:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No...the source says quite the opposite. Cullen clearly says that "He was not lying; he simply did not know what had happened." The same may go for those who demolished a certain Mosque without having the correct preconceived notions as to which ethnicity it belonged to. Thus de Waal and now Cullen prove my point. Proudbolsahye (talk) 08:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No, read again. Papayan did not know what happened, but those who knocked it down obviously did. And they did it because it was an Azeri monument. And this is about the same mosque from de Waal: [3] Grandmaster 08:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I see your point and I'm not denying anything. I came here with questions and I got answers. However, I don't see an all out program of demolishing Mosques from a governmental and institutional level in Armenia then and now. Especially due to the reasons of the lack of ethnic preconceptions I have mentioned above. A lot of these acts vandalism and demolitions still seem vague since Mosques represent Islam and not a certain ethnicity. Once again, I must reiterated that it is always unfortunate to see any of these Mosques in Armenia or cemeteries in Nakhichevan for that matter get demolished. Proudbolsahye (talk) 09:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It does not have to be a program or a systematic plan. The result is what matters. When people act spontaneously motivated by enmity it produces the same result as some preconceived plot. The article deals with anti-Azerbaijani sentiment, which is not necessarily governmental actions. Actions of individuals or groups motivated by this sentiment also count. And I don't see why would an Azerbaijani mosque be demolished at the height of the conflict if not for anti-Azerbaijani sentiment. At least, the sources leave no doubt about the motives of destruction. It is the recent history of our region, the sad reality. Grandmaster 09:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - evidently notable. Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia and Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan are documented realities. Whether they should be merged, well is that an AfD question? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it is an AfD question. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy where you are only permitted to suggest two possibilities in a given process. If you think there should be a merger, the best merge would probably be the one I suggested, then say so here.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then Merge, either per Devil's Advocate's target Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia to Azerbaijanis in Armenia and the other AfD Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan to Armenians in Azerbaijan PLUS any WP:IRS-sourced content that doesn't fit those articles into Grandmaster's merge target Armenia–Azerbaijan relations. Note however that we do have dozens of Anti-Slavic sentiment Anti-British sentiment type articles in Category:Anti-national sentiment, so Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment and Anti-Armenian sentiment have as much claim (or more) to current notability as any of those other articles. Maybe move what's left of the article after Merges to Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment stub. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR rename An article like this will cause issues. If it was to be kept it should be renamed and made into one article with both information about both groups so it can be seen as a page that is not taking one side.Nocturnal781 (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And what do you think of the parallel article Anti-Armenianism in Azerbaijan, should that one remain? Grandmaster 08:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• We do not serve our readers properly by having articles under titles that inherently push writers towards one point of view of a long-running nationalist dispute. There seems to be some good reliable and neutrally sourced content in this article, but it belongs in an article about the dispute itself rather than under this title. There needs to be some discussion beyond a simple keep/delete decision at WP:AFD about how best to organise our content in this area. I accept The Devil's Advocate's point that AfD can result in a decision other than "keep" or "delete", but, in this case, I don't see how any such decision can be reached without consideration of the other related articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, and I was the first to propose the merge of both articles. And indeed both these articles need to be reviewed together, not separately, as they are related to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. But right now you can see that supporters of one of the sides of the conflict want to delete the information about wrongdoings on their side, thus the votes to delete this article, and keep or no vote for the other. I think this AFD should be in the format keep/delete, and once we decide on that, we can start an RFC about what to do with the articles (if kept). Grandmaster 23:20, 14 February 2013 (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.