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 speedy keep. Closed per the criteria for Speedy Keep criterion#2 The nomination was unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption and specifically both Criterion #2a obviously frivolous or vexatious nominations and #2b nominations which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption. None of the "Delete" arguments below present recognizable or genuine criteria for deletion.(non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gugark pogrom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The article's credibility is called into question, as controversial claims are made that are backed only by Azerbaijani sources. As it stands, the page on Gugark pogrom is little more than Azerbaijani propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fractuallity (talk • contribs) 16:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

• Delete. Source [4] of the article features an image, supposedly of the Gugark pogroms. However, this photo is from the Armenian Genocide, not the Gugark pogrom as claimed. Source 4 is clearly not reliable. Source [16] does not mention that 21 Azerbaijani were killed in Gugark. It says that only 20 died, 3 them not in the Gugark Pogroms, and the other 17 in non-violent deaths. This claim in this source contradicts the Wikipedia article, which claims bodies were "burned so that they could not be identified". This is seems to be an intentional misinterpretation of Source 16. In fact, thorough reading of the source completely debunks Yunusov's claims and reveals active misinformation efforts from the Azeri side. Source [18] of the article is referencing an Azeri government-run site "Science Development Foundation". As the site itself states it's under the direct control of the Azeri president. Considering the state of freedom of speech in Azerbaijan, this is clearly not a reliable source. Source [19] usage implies that the ethnic infighting mentioned in the article were results of a one-sided pogrom, which is clearly not something the article is trying to convey. In fact, the only deaths mentioned in the article are of Armenians and Azeris in Azerbaijan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorris000 (talk • contribs) 08:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Sock of Fractuallity, struck. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fractuallity. --Blablubbs|talk 14:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Source [20] is no longer a dead link, however a deeper look at the source shows that it regularly publishes pro-Turkish and pro-Azeri opinion pieces, e.g. referring to Armenian Genocide recognition as "anti-Turksh provocation". The source is unreliable.Source [21] is used to support the claim that the pogrom remains largely unknown because of a cover up. The source mentions the cover up in its second to last paragraph, but it does not elaborate on how this cover up was orchestrated, or who it was orchestrated by. There are other claims in this source that are not backed by any evidence, such as that the KGB are responsible for the Khojaly massacre. The credibility of Source 21 is thus called into question. The article fails to provide a source for the listed death count. However, the article often references it. Death count is a crucial part to an article about a pogrom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fractuallity (talk • contribs) 16:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. AfD is not cleanup, so if there are individual claims in the article that are problematic, that is an issue to be addressed on the article talk page. Moreover, there are substantial sources discussing this subject. If the credibility of the event is questionable, provide the sources that question its credibility and discuss this in the article accordingly. The credibility of Bigfoot existing is questionable, but we have an article on the subject. BD2412 T 17:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.There are enough sources and are not backed only by Azerbaijani sources.--Qızılbaş (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick keep there's enough reliable sources which states verifiability. The sources other than Azerbaijani sources also backs up claims. If there's a concern regarding the formatting of the article, that should be addressed on the article, not here. That's not a valid reason for deleting, and may be considered as an instance of "I don't like that article but I am seeking a pretext". Ahmetlii (talk) 11:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will interject and state that non-Azerbaijani sources do not back up the claims, and actually make no mentions of the Gugark pogrom at all. This was devised in a way to mislead editors and viewers into thinking there are balanced sources to this so-called pogrom, when there is no information about Gugark pogrom from historians or any journal outside of Azerbaijan.

• Keep I see that you do not know what happened in Gugark. As a result of these events, hundreds of Azerbaijanis were fired from their jobs and their homes were ransacked. In addition, over a hundred Azerbaijanis were beaten and killed. This was then confirmed by the law enforcement agencies of the USSR. In addition, many free Armenian journalists have written articles on this topic, researched and revealed the truth. As an example, I cite an article researched by journalist Mane Papyan and published on an Armenian website: События в Гугарке. Как громили азербайджанцев в Армении / Events in Gugark. How Azerbaijanis were smashed in Armenia--Rəcəb Həsənbəyov (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your link does not support any of the statements you just provided. It was confusing to read your statement because the link provided only mentions this regarding Gugark: "everyone had fled from Armenia on buses", "after the Sumgayit events in the Gugark region, they began to dismiss the Azeri watchmen who worked at strategic facilities", a total of 624 Azerbaijanis were fired from March to November 1988 in the Gugark region". It is pretty disturbing that with the level of quality here on Wikipedia that you are trying to mislead us by making false statements.

• Keep. There are enough reliable sources (including Russian and Armenian, not only Azerbaijani) describing the pogrom and its details, that also was done in this article. The nominatiion is clear WP:IDL. --Interfase (talk) 10:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite ingenuine to say that there are non-Azerbaijani sources, and therefore reliabally describing the pogrom, considering the non-Azerbaijani sources do not even describe the Gugark pogrom. Of the 21 sources provided, very few are non-Armenian sources. For example, the citation [1] is placed after the words Gugark Pogrom in the opening sentence, but I read the entire article and found only two mentions of Gugark, with no information about this pogrom, when it was, who was killed, how many were killed, or any information at all. Sources [2], [3], [4], and [5] are Azerbaijani. Source 5 however has no mention of Gugark pogrom and is used as a source to state that the Gugark District existed in Armenian SSR. Source 6 is a non-Azerbaijani source, but this source only confirms that a Gugark district existed in Armenian SSR. Source 7 is an Azerbaijani source that only states that Azerbaijanis lived here in the district. Source 8 is a non-Azerbaijani source that discusses that Gugark District was later replaced by the Lori Province. Source 9 is a non-Azerbaijani source, and again like previous non-Azerbaijani sources has no mention of a Gugark pogrom, and is a source discussing that Armenians who were victims of pogroms in Azerbaijan moved to Gugark District. Source 10 is a non-Azerbaijani source and only supports the statement that ethnic tensions were high and that both sides were scared of attacks. Source 11 and 12 are non-Azerbaijani sources that make no mention of a Gugark pogrom. Source 13 is a non-Azerbaijani source and it does mention Gugark in its list of pogroms, but has no additional information other than the mention of the word "Gugark". Source 14 is a non-Azerbaijani source and makes no mention of Gugark. Source 15 is a non-Azerbaijani source mentioning the death of 7 civilians in an unrelated city but no mention of Gugark or a pogrom. Source 16, 17, and 18 are Azerbaijani sources reiterating Gugark pogrom with no evidence provided. [19] is a non-Azerbaijani source that mentions the death of 3 Soviet citizens with no mention of Armenian or Azerbaijani. [20] is a non-Azerbaijani source but the provided article links to a youtube video of an Azerbaijani, and reiterates statements in the article from First Prosecutor General of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Ismat Gayibov. [21] is a non-Azerbaijani source reiterating statements by Abdulayeva about a pogrom in Gugark, again with no evidence provided. With my findings, I conclude that the statement that "non-Azerbaijani sources are provided as well" as a method of making one think that there are credible sources is ingenuine given the findings discussed above. I'm not sure we can entertain this discussion any further. This to me seems like a fabrication, and an additional investigation into a Gugark pogrom leads me to only Azerbaijani sources and no coverage by historians.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.122.119.122 (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If there are controversial claims, it would be better to delete those claims, not the whole article. But after the proof of unreliability of those claims. Apollo (Helius Olympian) 11:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Much better to ammend the article. I have yet to see any valid sources questioning the credibility of the event. If you have problems with the details of the event that's an entirely different issue. From what I have seen so far, seems more like a WP:JDL issue than anything else. - Creffel (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This AfD is being brigaded by the r/armenia subreddit (post here). Be ware of new accounts voting. Kantaroyu (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry but I wouldn't call that brigading, in fact in r/Azerbaijan subreddit the OP is openly calling for a brigade, which seems to have arrived.. Link KhndzorUtogh (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  You can easily tell that 90% of the respondents in this AfD have no working knowledge of Wikipedia procedures (including, obviously the initiator of it) and the keeps are just here for brigading purposes. Nothing productive will come from it, and an article that is essentially a lie will remain on Wikipedia for now because some lazy people can't be bothered to put the work in to make an AfD case properly. 78.149.46.96 (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's fairly obvious from the information discussed here that the Gugark pogrom page has a foundation built on propaganda and poor sources, not considering also that photos used from the Armenian genocide are being used in this page as a fabrication to somehow claim that those photos are from a pogrom initiated by Armenians. I've been following Azerbaijan quite closely as a political scientist and I'm sure many here know that Azerbaijan is ranked 168/180 in the World Press Freedom Index. I'm not sure I trust Azerbaijani sources given their long history of fabrication, propaganda, and misleading statements to undermine truth in history. I am making this statement as a political scientist from Poland; frankly I find these propaganda tactics disturbing and there is no room on Wikipedia for misinformation or fabricated information such as this. I don't believe that this website should be used as a platform to encourage and propagate what is contrary to the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.122.119.122 (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  "there is no room on Wikipedia for misinformation or fabricated information such as this" - unfortunately, past examples show there are a limitless number of rooms on Wikipedia for this sort of material. 78.149.46.96 (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:9900:B1DD:949C:D4BE:4F50:B74 (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC) — 2603:8000:9900:B1DD:949C:D4BE:4F50:B74 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete The only potentially reliable third-party source specifically describing the event is Palyan, and even then it is not clear who Palyan is, and why an article should survive on the basis of a single, potentially-reliable source. This article has previously been criticised for a lack of reliable third-party sources but still further reliable sources have not been found. This article has already been given the chance to improve, and the situation is still the same. Maidyouneed (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You say there's no third party sources but forget to mention New York Times and Radio Free Europe. Not even mentioning the journal on Caucasus. 185.81.81.21 (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Free is quoting Abdulayeva, the chairwoman of the Azerbaijani National Committee of the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights. Abdulayeva is not a third-party source. NYT does not have any specifics as to the Gugark pogrom, other than short-sightedness; The prior paragraphs is about Armenian and Azerbaijani refugees in general not specifically about Gugark. Maidyouneed (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two new sources have been added since. Each of these sources are quoting or referring to Azerbaijani sources. The Helvécio de Jesus Júnior/João Ricardo Guilherme Zimmer Xavier source is referring to a quote by Svante Cornell and Arif Yunusov. Svante Cornell having been criticised for having been funded by Azerbaijan lobbyists via the European Azerbaijan Society. Arif Yunusov being an Azerbaijani author himself. Coyle J.J. is referring to Balayev.Maidyouneed (talk) 02:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no Azeri = wrong in Wikipedia. Also, Yunusov is half Armenian. 185.81.82.150 (talk) 13:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per other contributions regarding the absence of reliable sources. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The New York Times is quoting the Armenian radio, Trud is quoting the Soviet KGB and Ekspress-Khronika is quoting Husik Harutyunyan, chief of the Armenian KGB at the time. How are these "Azerbaijani sources"? Parishan (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't understand why this article gets nominated just a few months after previous AFD decided to keep it. An article cannot be put on AFD so soon after the previous one. This article is sufficiently sourced, the interview of top KGB officers to Trud newspaper and de Waal's Black Garden are reliable sources, so no reason to delete this article. Grandmaster 08:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As others have already mentioned, there are far too little reliable sources in this article. In fact lots of information in this article is contradicted by the sources provided. For example when stating that Armenians massacred Azerbaijanis this source is used which says regarding casualties of the pogrom that "Azerbaijan issued a list of 216 victims of the Armenian massacres. However, the KGB proved that the names on the list were fake, either victims of the recent Spitak earthquake, long-dead people or people living in other parts of the Soviet Karabakh Army" which questions the reliability of this article and the pogrom as a whole. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Even some Armenian sources acknowledge that the pogrom took place, e.g. an article on Epress.am in Russian. Also, there's a letter from the Permanent Representative of Azerbaijan to the UN Secretary-General mentioning Gugark. Brandmeister^talk 18:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks like another state propaganda. No reliable sources, no deep analysis. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This nomination is made by banned user who also used a sock account to vote. Clearly, the only reason for this nomination is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as the article was kept as result of recent previous AFD. So what is the validity of yet another nomination, where we see some quite suspicious votes, and there's a vote stacking going on to get it deleted on reddit and possibly other places? Clearly, many IPs vote here because they were asked to do so. I suggest to close this AFD immediately, and stick to results of previous AFD. Grandmaster 09:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I like how you ignored the fact that on reddit r/azerbaijan openly called for a brigade onto this (and the post got removed an entire day later) and most of the users who created accounts to vote on this AFD are from the Azerbaijani side. If we determined ignored all edits by banned accounts due to socketpuppetry as you seem to be implying, then the now banned user named CuriousGolden who made hundreds of malicious edits on Armenian villages would have had all his edits reverted, however the Azerbaijani wiki editors are preventing that from happening. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2021 (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.