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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish Republic of Lachin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Republic of Lachin) Stats)

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

Wikipedia official, one of the Five Pillars principles in this article first violated. According to the article, "May 18, 1992, was occupied by the armed forces of the Republic of Armenia. Two days later, a group of people in Lachin Kurdish declaration of the Republic." After all, one of 70 people to organize the collection is not enough. From the point of view of how to organize a Republican in every 70 persons seem real. The importance of a newspaper article, this article is not encyclopedic. Therefore, I propose the deletion. --Sultan11 (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: 1.One of the main reasons for this is the lack of reliable sources.

2.Article viewpoint neutral, impartial and fair was not written.

3.There is no additional information for article expansion in future. --Sultan11 (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow keep - nominator has not shown why the subject of this article fails notability; I suspect bad-faith nomination. Plenty of references about this attempt at a republic; article exists across six-languages in Wikipedia. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to doubt. Kurds had left the territory with Azerbaijanis during the occupation of Lachin. For this reason, it is impossible to prove the existence of the so-called lack of social base. Because of the Kurdish population, together with Azerbaijanis became refugees from the occupied territories. Moreover, the Azerbaijani population of the region in terms of the Kurdish population was not much to say. Article 6 languages ​​does not mean its Encyclopedic. English Wikipedia articles based on the article is a stub. In other words, this is no encyclopedic articles does not matter. --Sultan11 (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the ideas of Sultan11. Kurdish community came with Azerbaijani refugess. This is real facts. I think the article should be deleted in the nearest time.--Baskervill (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Unsourced state name. The term “Lachin Kurdish Republic” does not appear in reliable sources. And in article there is such little information that it could be merged into the article of Lachin--Melikov Memmed (talk) 05:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the right approach. The name of the subject is invalid. In fact, an article written about the person who first started. Later he directed in this direction. --Sultan11 (talk) 06:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There indeed was a "Lachin Republic" or "Republic of Lachin", which was populated by Kurds. it was established in 1990. While there is not much published about it, this definitely qualifies for it's own article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Do you have a reliable source of information mentioned above? --Sultan11 (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I lived in Lachin region and did not face facts presented in the article. This is a figment of imagination. --Sultan11 (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note:Please, when you need to write an opinion in accordance with the rules of Wikipedia.--Sultan11 (talk) 20:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. --Sultan11 (talk) 06:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I am having a hard time justifying keep. I ran a Proquest news archive search on "Kurdish Republic of Lachin" and got zero hits. Tied "Kurdish Autonomous Republic" + Lachin and got 2 hits, both form something called Kurdish Life that I cannot identify. The problem is that the conflict in this region was followed intensively by international media, so that if this was at all significant it would appear in a Proquest search. And Lachin itself, of course, is not a province or region, but a very small town, 1,900 inhabitants according to the WP page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:45, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Even if this was a feeble propaganda-driven attempt at generating a state, it became part of the history of the region. Failed attempts at building a nation are still notable. The only possible way for us to avoid making political judgments in areas like this is to e broadly inclusive. A negative search for the term was reported in proquest, but that covers almost entirely English. What about the languages of the region? The article in the deWP does not appear to have been challenged, and they have a higher standard of notability than we do. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• But is there any evidence that it did become part of the "history of the region"? A search in google books (never perfect because of the copyright laws, but still) comes up blank with the exception of a single hit, which is not to this, but, rather to the idea that there could be such a Republic.[1]. a simple google brings up nothing but this article and echoes.[2]. And the article is sourced to [[3]], which cannot suffice, and to 2 books. Has anyone checked those books?E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, if this could be reliably sourced to confirm its existence, then I'd be more inclined to keep, but no proof of the existence of this entity has been provided here, the refs in the article are quite dubious, and my own search didn't turn up anything. Fails WP:V. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. I'm afraid I have to agree with Lankiveil. DGG makes a good point about being inclusive, and I'm willing to bend WP:N to be inclusive, but WP:V is a much more inviolable standard, and based on my own searches, I'm not convinced we meet that. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2016 (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.