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. There are no longer any arguments for deletion. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Khojaly–Gadabay culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This article appears to be a hoax in that no such term exists. I can find no evidence that the phrase "Khojaly–Gadabay culture" really exists as an archaeological term. A Google search for "Khojaly–Gadabay culture" returns a mere 30 hits - and they are mostly blog-type posts that seem to be reproductions of, or rewordings of, the same news report. Also, almost everything is from 2010. If this were a genuine archaeological term (like Kura-Araxes culture for example) it would appear in specialist publications and there would be sources older than 2010. In short, the phrase "Khojaly–Gadabay culture" appears to have been invented in 2010 and has no archaeological meaning. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also note the extremist propagandistic nature of the sources that are from the earlier date (2007) - which excludes their use as credible sources. Also note their faulty English: it actually isn't clear what they (those earlier sources) mean by ""Khojaly–Gadabay culture": it could just be "evidence of human culture in the Khojali - Gadabay region". Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: While the thing may be little known (I did not know of it either until coming to the page), its citations are of reputable sources. I don't think the University of Pennsylvania is promoting a hoax. --Yalens (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What reputable sources are promoting the term? Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of the words "Khojaly–Gadabay culture" on the cited University of Pennsylvania website. I have emailed Lauren Ristvet about the use of her name and the Naxcivan Archaeological Project as a citation for "Khojaly–Gadabay culture". Nakhchivan, btw, is nowhere near either Khojali or Gadabay. Please tell us why you say there are reputable sources using the phrase, or please withdraw your opinion. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And here is a link to the website of the Naxcivan Archaeological Project. The phrase "Khojaly–Gadabay culture" does not appear ANYWHERE on the website. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Snowball keep. There are two references to scholar sources. The topic is just currently understudied and is a stub as such. --Twilightchill t 20:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calling for WP:SNOW is inappropriate: the references are not to scholarly publications. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Currently there is one. Actually there are more reliable sources I missed before: Karabakh.org and Great Soviet Encyclopedia, the subject also made its way into Archaeology Daily. Twilightchill t 22:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Searching for 'Khojaly–Gadabay', most of what I get is a Google blurb that looks interesting but leads to an account of an alleged massacre and no mention of the cromlechs and dolmens in the blurb. (I say 'alleged' because the accounts are distinctly biased and I have not investigated - nor do I plan to as it is not relevant here.) I hate it when this happens. On the other hand, there is the (claimed to be - and probably is) Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences site http://www.elm.az/en/index.php?id=1439 which, while somewhat polemical, does refer to excavations. The page seems more concerned with a modern political point than in giving the details I want. Lauren Ristvit's profile confirms she has worked in the area, but doesn't mention this 'culture'. Currently I reserve judgement on this article, and may do some more work in this area when less hungry... Peridon (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the link above to the website of Lauren Ristvit's archeological expedition. There is no use of the phrase on any of its many pages, and actually mentions objects found were from the Kura-Araxes culture. It may be that the term "Kura-Araxes" is now disaproved of by Azerbaijan - maybe too much of its cultural remains are in Armenia, or too many Armenians have written books about it, or something trivial like that, and "Khojaly–Gadabay" has been coined to replace it. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. This is not a hoax, but neither is it a verified term or valid subject. As far as I can tell, the blogs and newsreleases that the article is based on are more or less propagandistic extrapolations of results achieved by an archaeological expedition that investigated a fascinating area of Azerbaijan. I'd love for someone for Wikipedia:WikiProject Archaeology to weigh in here and prove me and the nominator wrong. In the meantime, though, I do not believe that the available sources (and I've looked at most everything I could find on the internets) objectively verify the notability of the topic. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per dab below; I should have looked for a target to merge this into. Thanks, Dbachmann. Drmies (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• merge into History_of_Azerbaijan#Bronze_to_Iron_Ages, or ideally into a to-be-created Prehistoric Azerbaijan. --dab (𒁳) 21:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how one can merge something that has no sources and which does not exist as a genuine archaeological term? Can you cite a source that uses this term? Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you didn't find any sources? You need to try harder. It's a transliteration issue. Most of this is in Russian. ru:Ходжалы-кедабекская культура. --dab (𒁳) 21:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source. A number of questions are raised. Firstly the phrase in the article you cite is "Khojaly-Kedabek culture" - what is the validity of the name of the article being discussed? After all the "Kura-Araxes culture" article is not called "Kur-Aras culture". Secondly, do you know if this Soviet-period term is still valid at all? Thirdly, will you agree that everything in the article's content beyond the first sentence has no valid sources, and the sources actually say something different. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kedabek is the Russianised form of what in this article is spelled Gadabay. The word also can be found with an accented g and with q instead of g. Compare spellings of Gaddafi/Qaḏḏāfī. Transliteration is a minefield... Peridon (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And "Araxes" is the classical name for the Aras river. That the Araxes name is not used locally doesn't mean the term "Kura-Araxes culture" should be renamed: the established use is paramount and it is used in that form internationally. So, admitting that the culture being discussed exists in some form, it should be "Khojaly-Kedabek culture" if that is the phrase used in specialist sources. And what we have is one line of content (the Nakhchivan content is clearly wrong since there is no mention of "Khojaly–Gadabay culture" on the excavators' website). The "hoax" seems to be the Nakhchivan connection claim. If that were removed, and the name question was settled, maybe the article should remain as a stub, or merge with something else. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, dab - you do realise the difficulties with "Prehistoric Azerbaijan"? Such an article just isn't going to happen. It is even less likely to happen that "Prehistoric United States of America", or "Prehistoric United Kingdom of Great Britian". Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been bold and removed the part of the article that identified recent excavations in Nakhchivan with Khojaly–Gadabay culture. The excavators' own website makes no mention of Khojaly–Gadabay culture. It was this unlikely claim from a dubious source that made me think the whole article might be derived from a hoax news report. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 23:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 23:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 23:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I have dropped a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology about this disussion. LadyofShalott 23:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete. The article apparently lacks neutral sources. Moreover, the reference to UPENN is probably misleading (it points out a person at UPENN but has no mention that she would use the term "Khojaly–Gadabay culture" at whatever circumstances). The title itself seems to be more propaganda rather than something directly related to archaeological values. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 23:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  

Having been supported with Piotrovskiy references it looks much different now, however would be great to have a reference to make sure it is not obsolete in archaeology. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 21:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Different nomenclatures aside, it's obvious this article is about a bona fide archaeological culture. Whether or not the Nakhchivan connection is true is an issue for the talk page. By the way, it's probably a bad idea to try and assess the existence/notability/whatever of articles on archaeology with Google. Even when information about famous and important cultures filters through to the mainstream press they're inevitably very vague on dates and terminology and similar "academic" details (after all they're not really very interesting or important in the grand scheme of things). Searching for a relatively minor prehistoric culture in the ex-Soviet Union, I'm surprised you even got thirty. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 12:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy close this AfD. I have now established that this is a perfectly valid topic, see article talkpage. The merge suggestion stands of course, but that is a purely editorial choice and does not need to be decided on AfD. --dab (𒁳) 13:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll go for a Keep as it stands now. Might be an idea to create redirects from the alternative spellings/names. Peridon (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As the initiator of this AfD, I'm not sure I can vote, or could now vote against deletion. However, I am pleased that the discussion has led to some sources that do attest to the phrase's existance as an archaeological term, though a very obscure term. So if I could vote, I'd vote Keep, but I can see an argument for Merge given its extreme obscurity and lack of content. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can change to Keep - or just say you withdraw the nomination. Happens quite often. Peridon (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge, though not to the target tagged on the article which is essentially a list and thus unsuitable as a target. The subject is clearly obscure and suffers from transliteration issues, probably both between a local language and Russian and between Russian and English. It is not always satisfactory to deal with ancient history according to modern borders and some of those in the Caucasus were only determined in the 20th cnetury, so that I am not convinced of the merits of an Azerbaijan target. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge As it stands now, it seems that we're going to have a difficult time procuring relatively accessible sources, much less reliable, sources which speak about this early culture, so that we can develop and expand. Nonetheless, I am somewhat baffled that sources term this prehistoric culture as "Khojaly–Gadabay", when a more appropriate one exists in the form of the Kura-Araxes culture. Perhaps the disapproval of Armenian history and culture in lands Azerbaijan considers its own has simply found its latest manifestation with this article title, as Scribblescribblescribble suggests above.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is about a culture, studied extensively by Azerbaijani and Soviet archeologists. Most of sources on the subject are probably not online yet. Somebody needs to dig up the archives and make necessary additions. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm late to the party, but here's my 2 cents... I did a lot of reading and research on the early history of the region several years ago, and never came across this term. That doesn't mean it's not legitimate, but it'd have to be fairly obscure. Be wary of local sources; historical scholarship in that region tends toward the nationalistic, so I could believe that this is a term was invented by Azeris to create a separate heritage from that of Armenia (regardless of how little relationship exists between today's ethnic/political boundaries and those of antiquity.) Isomorphic (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2011 (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.