Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Place name changes in Armenia

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)[reply]

Place name changes in Armenia

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

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)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. TagaworShah (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - bearing in mind that I know nothing about this issue, isn't it possible to pare down the text to something uncontroversial? For example, isn't the first paragraph a fact? We have a List of renamed cities in Armenia, are you arguing that these a) have not charged name or b) the change is not notable? JMWt (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• @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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• @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)
• WP:FORK of an existing article. --Dallavid (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete- This does not belong on Wikipedia. Nocturnal781 (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Perfectly fine article, meets GNG in my opinion. there are more sources available covering it. It would be better to expand rather than delete. After the Soviet Empire: Legacies and Pathways([1]); The Alteration of Place Names and Construction of National Identity in Soviet Armenia([2]); Nation and Politics in the Soviet Successor States by Ian Bremmer and Ray Taras.([3]); A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 08:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Delete The article is essentially a personal essay of one person who additionally makes
  WP:FRINGE claims in his work as OP mentioned, and the subject doesn’t have enough notability to deserve an article. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete The articles is entirely built on a
  WP:SINGLESOURCE that doesn't appear to be credible. Ghulyan got his Ph.D from Ankara University, which explains why the article is so anti-Armenian; mentioning "Armenian nationalists" every second sentence and referring to the Armenian genocide as "tragic". Inflammatory claims like "prevalent anti-Turkish nationalist sentiments" or "Molokans and Yezidis being labeled as 'foreign' and 'inharmonious'" would need a great deal of reliable citations to have enough due weight to belong on Wikipedia, but such citations do not seem to exist outside of Turkish sources. --Dallavid (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Archives908 (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes
  Taylor and Francis
  . The author, Husik Gulyan, also doesn't seem to have a track record of poor and/or politically motivated scholarship. But please do correct me if mistaken.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@

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)[reply

]

I feel like this is literally a repeat of the same stuff you've already posted, but hey, why not?:

• "Per
  WP:SINGLESOURCE
  a stand-alone article being entirely sourced by one source is problematic..."

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)[reply]

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: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)[reply

]

• Delete: I agree with the nominator. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 09:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per LouisAragon. Also, more sources on this topic could be found, and what Gulyan wrote about Urartu does not go against general scientific consensus, even if Urartu is not the main topic of the source. It is enough to check the articles about locations in Armenia to see that many of them had other names in Russian imperial and Soviet times. Grandmaster 17:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

• Delete: There is already a page called List of renamed cities in Armenia, which provides information on the topic. This article instead seems based entirely on the opinions and claims of one single author, who does not seem reliable, non-neutrality of POV is also a serious concern here. Doesn’t look like there is a good chance to improve or find better and more reliable sources either, so better to delete.Vanezi (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per LouisAragon.
  talk) 01:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete completely unnecessary
  WP:POVFORK, fails GNG. The OR NPOV issues are a serious problem in the entire article, none of it is correctly sourced, so a merge is not an option. If there is a redirect, this should be deleted first.  // Timothy :: talk  03:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I disagree with the aspersions cast against Ghulyan. Even if he defended his dissertation in a country where the genocide is actively denied, that doesn't necessarily negate his findings or make him an unreliable source (though I have heard anecdotally how educational institutions in Turkey often pressure students to express views that conform with the country's official narrative on the genocide). That being said, there's an almost excessive reliance on Ghulyan's interpretation of why the name-changes occurred. Whether it's because he didn't mention it or the editor who wrote it neglected to mention it, there is no denying that up until the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries the region that now comprises the lands of the Republic of Armenia once had a solid ethnic majority consisting of Armenians. It was through migration, forced expulsions, and population movement that their numbers dwindled and led inversely to an increased Muslim Turkic settlement there. Naturally, the names of their former towns and villages were given Muslim names; in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, these locales were in turn restored with their older names or given new Armenian names (depending on the locale). No doubt Armenian nationalism has had a lot to do with some of the renaming in the Soviet and independence years, but whence, after all, do those names come from? Talking about indigeneity up until 1831 is thus very misplaced, or only tells half the story. There is no need to reach all the way back to Urartu and talk about primordialism to know that there was once a significant Armenian population living in towns and villages prior to the Turkic invasions of the eleventh-twelfth centuries. It's the "Context and Background" section that I find the most problematic, because I think you can easily dispute some of Suny's and Ghulyan's conclusions. My two cents. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

• Comment The article would certainly benefit from more sources, not just Ghulyan and Saparov, although they appear to be primary researchers of this topic. I think some sources support a standalone notability for the article, e.g. this says that a Special Commission on Names and Renamings of Geographical Objects was established by Armenian government in 2001 and that throughout more than 10 years of its activity, 58 renamings were made. Brandmeister^talk 12:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per original nom. Archives908 (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm neutral on whether to keep or delete, but I'd suggest redirecting to
  Talkback) 16:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Having a single source is not enough of a reason to delete the page in my opinion. Aintabli (talk) 05:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  After a quick search:

  1. Abrahamian, Serob (2017). "Street Names in Yerevan and Their Effect on National Identity" (PDF). Retrieved 22 March 2023. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) (In order to de-Sovietize the country, many square names, place names, building names, street names and other names were changed.)
  2. Index Anatolicus, a project led by Sevan Nişanyan, which lists the old names of places in Armenia as well as Turkey and other regions.

  I believe these could be helpful. I wouldn't cite these sources in the article, but I believe if we dig deep enough, we can find more sources. Aintabli (talk) 05:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

• Delete This is not a Wikipedia article but a very long synopsis of an article ("Conceiving homogenous state-space for the nation: the nationalist discourse on autochthony and the politics of place-naming in Armenia" by Husik Ghulyan, published in the journal Central Asian Survey in 2021).
  independent notability. -The Gnome (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]