Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Javakhk Autonomous Republic

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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Javakhk Autonomous Republic

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

The article is completely based on one source. The source says "Council of Armenian Organizations (NGOs) of Javakhk highlights demands.... this or that". That organization isn't notable, so isn't the proposal they make. The article also incorporates alot of original research. Such as the unsourced population chart and most of the text. Երևանցի ^talk 05:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the nominator --Երևանցի ^talk 22:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but serious reworking would do well Having looked at (and edited) the page, I would agree that it has issues, notably including a lack of sources. But that by itself doesn't justify deletion- it can be improved. There are other issues to work on, though...--Yalens (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Switch position to delete Kober makes a good point- with only this source, which only mentions a gathering of a mere 30 people, it doesn't seem notable enough. Unless some other (more meaningful) sources show up, it might not be worth a page. --Yalens (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, completely unsourced, blatant OR. The only source cited in the article reports an obscure gathering of some 30 activists and mentions a vague demand of "autonomous territorial status". There is no mention of the "autonomous republic" at all. --Kober^Talk 17:05, 30 January 2013 (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.