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 no consensus. This discussion basically hinges upon whether the sources given are reliable and relevant. While they aren't top-notch, they will suffice. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sheylanli tribe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Not notable and no reliable sources that describe this tribe. See WP:N and WP:RS.

• Delete. A very lengthy and patient attempt was made to get reliable sources through a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard as well as a discussion of notability was made on the talk page. All that resulted was that one of the sources that use to be a blog was replace with a forum and the title of he article was renamed. This article is obviously not notable as there isn't any secondary (or primary) reliable sources describing this tribe. Currently the article has three sources and none of them are notable, 2 out of the three are forums. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. if can be proved by one more source that such a tribe within the Kurds of Azerbaijan indeed exists. I am not a speacialist in this field but for academic purposes we should have as many articles as it relates to the lost/forgotten people/tribes and ethnicities. --Aynabend (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was a long exhaustive process trying to get reliable sources regarding this tribe but none were found. The article should be deleted with no prejudice to recreation if information can be found down the road. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Pocopocopocopoco has been putting all his efforts to delete articles both about Sheylanli tribe and Sheylanli village because he hasn't been able to push his unrealistic informations into either of these articles. First times to avoid 3RR, he teamed up with many unknown IP's for edit warring and to stop anons I got articles semi-protected. After that Poco started to vandalise articles by his own and warned here. Some of his early unrealistic edits are 1 and 2 (as you can see from its location the village has nothing to do with Lachin corridor). Then he started to attack the articles by many different ways, in contradiction with his edits to the article he claimed that village and so tribe doesn't exist. You can see his whole claims both about Sheylanli village and Sheylanli tribe here. Its obvious that Poco's AfD is not constructive and is another way of trying to get ride of the article (edit warring). This article is about a kurdish tribe and is very important for the history and culture of Kurds in Azerbaijan. Gülməmməd ^Talk 20:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Lack of any verifiable sources to prove this even exists let alone prove notability. Google searches provides only wikipedia hits with google scholar and books providing zero. --neon white talk 22:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sheylanli is a little known, but absolutely real and interesting, from an ethnographic point of view, Kurdish community. They are described in details in the Soviet Academy of Sciences’ journal Sovetskaya Etnografiya ("Soviet Ethnography"), No. 5-6: 1932, pp. 125-135. They are referred to as Шейланы (Sheylany) there. Also, there are several interesting photos from the Sheylanli village in that journal and it would be great to have them on Wikipedia. Another reference to this tribe can be found in Alesker Alekperov’s Studies in Archaeology and Ethnography of Azerbaijan (a monograph in Russian; Baku, 1960), which lists the Sheylanli among other Kurdish clans such as Babaly, Sultanly, Kullukhchi, etc (p. 143). Tatiana Aristova in her Transcaucasian Kurds (also in Russian; Moscow, 1966) mentions Sheylanli among the poorest Kurdish communities of Azerbaijan and places it, along with Zerty and Minkend, in the Lachin district (p. 54). There is also a list of the Kurdish family names found in Sheylanli there (ibid, p. 48). True, there are not many English-language sources on the topic, but we can translate the verified and verifiable information from these Russian publications. We need more on Caucasian ethnology, not less.--Kober^Talk 22:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is little known then it's unlikely to be notable. --neon white talk 22:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are myriads of things that are little known in the West, but constitute an important part of national histories on the other side of the former Iron Curtain. Given the current upsurge of scholarly interest in the Caucasian cultures and a striking ethnic diversity of this region, I find the article completely suitable for Wikipedia.--Kober^Talk 04:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is wikipedia not caucasuspedia or kurdopedia. There's nothing in your obscure sources that shows anything that would indicate notability. We already have an article for the town Sheylanli. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might be amazed but Wikipedia is intended to be Caucasuspedia, Kurdopedia, Russopedia, Zimbabwepedia, etc. This is not a very solid argument to justify your deletionist agenda. My sources are not obscure to those who has ever been interested in the history and ethnography of the former Soviet countries.--Kober^Talk 20:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No its not, it has to meet notability criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. The minor mention in the sources you provided do not indicate that it meets notability criteria. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Per Kober's comment, it is mentioned in many scientific journals/sources and all of us know that such material is notable. If it is not available trough Google search engine, then we should make it available by bringing it up to our encyclopedia from archives. This is one of the main purposes of Wikipedia, otherwise people could find what they need from other sources. Gülməmməd ^Talk 22:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not by any means my expertise, but these sorts of weird niche topics are exactly what many people look to find on Wikipedia - in particular, for the references to more extensive coverage. Can translations of the references be Wikisourced?Patent.drafter (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obscure and minor mention in few old Soviet journals does not warrant an article in Wikipedia. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the sources can be translated, sure they do. Protonk (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please note that a Soviet journal and two monographs I have cited are the sources which I found in a very quick research. I am not an expert on the Kurdish population, and there may be many other sources published in the recent years. --Kober^Talk 05:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • There was a very long and patient attempt to get reliable sources for this article and none materialized. It is safe to delete without prejudice to recreation should something more reliable pop up that establishes notability of this tribe. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Remember, truth is not the criterion for inclusion in wikipedia. This tribe may exist but sources available to us and verifiable by an english speaking editor may not exist. If someone wants to translate some of these journals for us and wikisource it, then we can certainly proceed. Old obscure soviet journals are no less appropriate as sources than many of the current obscure journals we use here. However, if sources cannot be found or made available in english, then there isn't really a good reason to retain the article. Protonk (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note that the sources in Russian are fully accepted in Wikipedia. If in case you need to translate a text from Russian to English, here is the tool for that, Google language tool(although is not perfect). Gülməmməd ^Talk 03:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not how I read the sourcing policy. I don't think the policy disallows them, but all things being equal English sources are preferred. And, frankly, I'm not sure how I would go about using google's translation system to translate an out of print soviet journal. Protonk (talk) 07:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Protonk is correct, foreign source are generally accepted as long as they are not the primary source an article is based on or as evidence of notability. --neon white talk 17:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to stop foreign language sources being the primary sources of an article or evidence for notability. Would we have deleted an article on Special Relativity a hundred years ago because Einstein wrote in German? I very much hope not. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein's work is very likely to have second and third party writings (for example Ludwik Silberstein's book) making it notable, however this subject does not. --neon white talk 17:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's so contrafactual as to not even make sense. WP:V states a preference for English sources over other language sources. If they don't exist, then we can use them, but there is, honestly, a verifiability problem. the source is in russian, then the only people who verify can verify the text are those who speak russian. That doesn't mean that sources should be ignored, but that we should be careful basing an article around sources which can only be verified by a small fraction of the editors. Let's not make this discussion absurd by suggesting that we are ignoring something like special relativity. Protonk (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think this topic is notable enough to merit its own article. It is important for the coverage of the history of Kurdish people in Azerbaijan. Grandmaster (talk) 07:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's only your personal opinion. Wikipedia is not a blog about Kurdish people in Azerbaijan. Articles are required to meet notability criteria. --neon white talk 17:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is only your personal opinion as well. And also, you had better assume good faith when speaking about other nations. Kurdish people exist in Azerbaijan and encyclopedia must have articles about them. The topic might not be interesting for you but it has vital importance for the Kurdish people in Azerbaijan not to loose their history in the darkness of the History. We shouldn't oppose this. Gülməmməd ^Talk 18:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article is well referenced for both verifiability and notability. Just because sources are not available to everyone at the click of a mouse, e.g. because they are not online or are only understandable by someone with the relevant expertise, be it scientific expertise or the understanding of a particular language, it doesn't mean that they are not valid. Do any universities or academic journals in the world tell their students or researchers that they can only cite sources written in one language? Of course not, because that would hinder the advancement of knowledge. So why do so many people try to restrict Wikipedia in this way? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article uses web forums as sources. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 6 out of 8 sources in the article are not forums. Here's another source that indicates that this tribe has been the subject of academic study.[1] Phil Bridger (talk) 07:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • But if you ignore the obscure non-English sources that user:Kober found above, the only sources that describe the subject are forums. The other sources make no mention of the subject. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • What is "obscure" about those sources? Academic sources such as these are the gold standard in reliable sources. And, once again, there is no requirement that sources should be in English. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • If these sources were the gold standard there would be verifiable. I don't see anyone able to verify them. Also, from what Kober describes, even if they were verified they still would not establish notability. They seem to have more material about the town than the people. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Interesting encyclopedic article. Geagea (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Geagea and Kober, interesting article indeed. Iberieli (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that are interesting to you personally is not a criteria for notability. --neon white talk 17:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its none of your business Neon what should stay or what should not, its democratic voting and in my free opinion this article is well sources and is suitable as encyclopedic material, voted so accordingly. Period. Iberieli (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the business of any editor who choose to contribute to an afd. A read of afd wikietiquette is advisable. --neon white talk 15:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and same if it not intersting you that not mean that it should delete.

Geagea (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it isn't a vote. AfD's, just like any other discussion on wikipedia, are an attempt to reach consensus about interpretations of guidelines or evidence. So in this case, if you announce "this article is great and I love it, so therefore it should be retained", you are wasting your time. You are free to voice your opinion, of course, but it will be noted insofar as it contributes to the discussion and leads to a guess at consensus. Also, I find it odd that your vote will count based on your opinion of the article but that Neon has "no business" commenting on the article itself. Protonk (talk) 05:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will repeat myself again: Due to references and sourced materials, also topic content which is offered by this article, it can not and should not be deleted due to its encyclopedic material (which this web site claims to represent). My vote was based on these assessments. End of discussion. Iberieli (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - lack of English language sources is irrelevant. They are preferred but not required. -- Whpq (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It is indeed a fact. Few sources are available but still there are some sources. And encyclopedia is created for the purpose of enlighting people on all big and small issues and facts.--Dacy69 (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2008 (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.