Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia in 1917–1921 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The AFD result did not reflect the discussion, and the closure was also done by a non-admin despite being a WP:BADNAC, as pointed out by Suriname0 and Liz.[1][2] During the AFD discussion, it was established that this article is a combination of a hoax based on original research and a Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia. Much of the articles content is not verified by the citations attached, and there is also several WP:FRINGE and WP:PRIMARY sources that have been debunked by modern sources, such as Taner Akçam. I have also since discovered that a lot of the article content, including the year range and thesis statement ("Azerbaijanis in Armenia were ethnically cleansed on a large scale throughout 1917–1921") come from the very unreliable source Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821–1922 by Justin McCarthy, a historical negationist. Although the McCarthy source was removed, the article is still built on it's undue claims, only instead cited to authors that only write about mutual clashes/persecutions. Please do not just count the amount of users voting one way or the other, there is not a single reliable source for the article topic or that uses the terminology "Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia in 1917–1921". Dallavid (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Vacate NAC, allow an admin to close its generally a bad idea to have an NAC after a relist as consensus is usually not clear and obvious and the discussion would liwlely be at least somewhat controversial. Personally, I think “no consensus” is most appropriate as there are solid policy-based arguments on both sides despite the “keep” side having a numerical advantage of 10-6. I oppose a second relist in this case as the discussion was well attended and I don’t see consensus forming. Frank Anchor 04:36, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn NAC and allow administrative close. While the vote count appears to have been 11 Keep and 6 Delete including the nominator, which is a rough consensus, the AFD was contentious, with too much back-and-forth, and assessment of strength of arguments by an admin is needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Vacate per WP:BADNAC. Not such an overwhelming keep and likely to be controversial due to subject matter. —Alalch E. 08:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn NAC and I'll note this is an area under discretionary sanctions. Do we not have a "Do not try and close a discussion in a discretionary sanctions topic area as a NAC, or even an Admin if you value your sanity." because of WP:BURO or WP:BEANS? Regardless, this needs to be carefully closed by an admin versed in the surrounding controversies. Jclemens (talk) 08:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:.usarnamechoice/sandbox (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

the user who has deleted my sand box alleges that i made unsourced claims in the lead paragraph, but the sources for the lead paragraph are included lower down in the draft, per wp:lede. i believe the user, @AdOrientum has made a mistake. the claims are long standing and persistent, and i deny that it is an attack article. i found that at least two drafts of this subject have been deleted (included at the bottom of the draft) and so i was very careful to phrase the statements in a neutral, sourceable way. .usarnamechoice (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I stand by my deletion. See my comment here. No issues with requesting community review. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have temporarily restored the page in order to facilitate discussion here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn speedy and send to MFD it doesn’t appear that this is exclusively an attack page as it does not threaten or disparage President Biden. It is simple criticism substantiated by reliable sources. I don’t think such content should be on Wikipedia (even in userspace), but WP:G10 and other WP:CSD simply do not apply. Frank Anchor 04:20, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Speedy Deletion and send to MFD. Not a case for G10 or other speedy criterion. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• What do you intend to do with this content, .usarnamechoice?—S Marshall T/C 01:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The correct venue for this question is at a subsequent MFD discussion and not at deletion review. The sole purpose of this discussion is to determine if the WP:CSD were correctly applied (which I personally believe was not the case based on my above comments). Frank Anchor 23:28, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you about all those points. I think the sole purpose of this discussion is, in fact, to decide whether to restore deleted content. I think Ad Orientem's view, that this was an attack article might be a stretch, but I also think Ad Orientem has an arguable case. US politics are toxic and there are Arbcom discretionary sanctions active in the topic area. Arbcom's special rules here both empower Ad Orientem and constrain him to take action. So I think the decision needed here is finely balanced and I feel it's right for us to ask questions.

I also think whether this content is appropriate might depend where it's going to be used. If it's meant for a userspace essay or RFC question then that's one thing, and if it's meant for the mainspace that's another.—S Marshall T/C 00:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, for lack of response by complainant.—S Marshall T/C 11:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• G10 is a stretch, but the deleting admin has a point that a large part of the page was unsourced and that part is very problematic from a BLP standpoint. Certainly a statement that a living person has been evaluated by medical professionals for cognitive problems absolutely must have a source. The OP justified this by saying that the lead doesn't need citations for statements which are made in the article body, but most of these statements aren't made in the page body, so this doesn't apply. I suggest restoring the page and removing everything which doesn't have an explicit citation. Hut 8.5 10:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of response from the respondent? Over a holiday weekend when they haven't edited at all? I'd suggest that this comment be ignored, if there's any imminent closure. Nfitz (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn speedy - attack page seems to be an exaggeration - especially for a sandbox that was being actively edited. Politician not keeping promises is hardly a controversial statement. Surely a better approach would be to simply removing the offending sentence - perhaps with a revdel (though both seem unnecessary to me. Nfitz (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]