| Revision as of 05:02, 2 July 2009 editChippolona (talk | contribs)254 edits →Republic of Mountainous Armenia← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:27, 2 July 2009 edit undoMursel (talk | contribs)7,779 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| ::::'''Comment''' Several books come up in a Google book seaarch for '''Republic of Mountainous Armenia''' See The assertion that the areas in the failed state now belong to several states is completely and absolutely irrelevant to discussion of the failed state in question. ] (]) 02:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC) | ::::'''Comment''' Several books come up in a Google book seaarch for '''Republic of Mountainous Armenia''' See The assertion that the areas in the failed state now belong to several states is completely and absolutely irrelevant to discussion of the failed state in question. ] (]) 02:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Delete''' There is no such republic. ] (]) 05:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC) | * '''Delete''' There is no such republic. ] (]) 05:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Delete''' Not a single source; let alone reliable sources, this is like a fantasy-republic. ] (]) 09:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:27, 2 July 2009
Republic of Mountainous Armenia
- Republic of Mountainous Armenia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
It's unclear as to what reliable sources this article is based upon. Seems to be just another piece of original research and non-neutral POV pushed to become an encyclopedia article.
- Delete. Per summary. Atabəy (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Can someone check in non-English books for references? A failed nonrecognized state might merit an article if it got sufficient coverage. See State of Franklin for a failed non-recognized state which is notable and discussed in history books. Edison (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. Preferably from third-party sources which are not affiliated with the region. Atabəy (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Reliable sources are required, but historians are often "affiliated with the region" they are about. I would not exclude British historians as sources for British history, for instance.Winston Churchill is a source for UK history, even though he was "affiliated with" the government. I would exclude a blog of a nationalistic political movement. Reviews and scholarly opinion can help us determine the status of a work. A general encyclopedia in the country would be a source to verify some of the information. Edison (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. The problem is that the lands claimed by this article belong to more than one modern-day country. Subsequently, this becomes a classical example of historical invention driven by nationalistic sentiment. Hence, unless there exist sources from a variety of involved countries, the claim, that pretty much no one knows about, has no merit as an article. Atabəy (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Several books come up in a Google book seaarch for Republic of Mountainous Armenia See The assertion that the areas in the failed state now belong to several states is completely and absolutely irrelevant to discussion of the failed state in question. Edison (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete There is no such republic. Chippolona (talk) 05:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Not a single source; let alone reliable sources, this is like a fantasy-republic. Baku87 (talk) 09:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)