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. Astonishingly little of this discussion pertains to the deletion policy and it seems to have been heavily affected by canvassing on both sides. However, to the extent that policy-based arguments were able to push through, there is a rough, but not unanimous, consensus that this this subject is notable enough for an article. Disputes about the current version's sourcing and adherence to WP:NPOV should be resolved in the usual ways. –  Joe ( talk) 08:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Zangezur corridor

Zangezur corridor (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

The official text of 2020 November 9th trilateral ceasefire agreement signed after 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war by leaders of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia does not contain either "Zangezur" or "Corridor" words: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/64384. "Zangezur Corridor" or "Nakhchivan Corridor" is a propaganda term invented by Azerbaijani government and promoted by Azerbaijani media that implies a strip of land to across the Syunik region of Armenia, which, as Azerbaijani president said, they will get "by force", thus allowing "the Azerbaijani people to return to Zangezur". https://jam-news.net/what-will-become-of-the-zangezur-corridor-comments-from-azerbaijan-and-armenia. The ceasefire agreement mentioned only transport communications / transport links within the context of unblocking the transport communications in the region. Zangezur/Nakhchivan Corridor is something that has never been agreed on and something that does not exist. --Armatura ( talk) 16:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. --Armatura ( talk) 16:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. --Armatura ( talk) 16:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. --Armatura ( talk) 16:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. --Armatura ( talk) 16:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per the reasons above (I am the proposer of deletion) --Armatura ( talk) 23:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Zangezur is a historical name of the region of Syunik in Armenia, used in the Russian empire, inter alia. The ceasefire agreement clearly mentions such a corridor or a transport link in the article 9: As agreed by the Parties, new transport links shall be built to connect the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic and the western regions of Azerbaijan. The only connection between these regions could be made via Zangezur/Syunik, and it actually existed in Soviet times. But even if we agree that it is a propaganda term, it is still a notable topic for an article. Being a propaganda term does not make something not notable. Also, the term is not used just by Azerbaijani sources. Russian state news agency RIA Novosti writes: В планах Баку соединить трассу Гадрут — Джебраил — Шукюрбейли с магистралью в Зангезуре. Дорога станет частью Зангезурского коридора из основной части Азербайджана в Нахичевань. Translation: Baku plans to connect the Gadrut - Jebrail - Shukurbeyli highway with the highway in Zangezur. The road will become part of the Zangezur corridor from mainland Azerbaijan to Nakhichevan. [1] Grand master 16:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply

If by writing "Russian state news media agency" you wanted to make an impression of important unbiased third party, then it is not the case, Grandmaster, I'd choose my sources more carefully. Russia's role in the border dispute is very dark (due to conflicts of interest), the freedom of media index in Russia is almost as low as in Azerbaijan (150th and 167th places accordingly ^[1]) and that article is by Galiya Ibragimova, who, for example, also writes articles for Sputnik Azerbaijan... https://az.sputniknews.ru/authors/galiya_ibrahimova/ One thing that should not be in Wikipedia is propaganda, be it Azerbaijani, or Armenian or Alien propaganda. Transport connection / communication / link and corridor are very different things, so let's stick to the facts, reliable sources and avoid partisan media and original research and not make Wikipedia a repository of president Aliyev's dreams, as long as a they have not become a reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armatura ( talk • contribs) date (UTC)

I think you don't understand. It does not have to be true to be notable. If it is something that is talked about, then it is notable for an article. And yes, if it is Aliyev's dream that gets coverage, then it is notable for an article. But if it is a dream, as you say, you obviously need to provide sources that describe it as such. Regarding RIA Novosti, again, in this case it is not about general reliability of that source, but about the fact that the term is used in the Russian media, for whatever reason. If Russia has some malicious intentions and you have sources to attest to that, it could be mentioned in the article. Even irredentist concepts and ideas could be notable for an article. See for example United Armenia. Grand master 19:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Grandmaster I already commented on the example of "Russian media" you provided - see above. What I don't understand is how one can remove the "irredentist" description from the article itself, and then argue here for keeping that article as irredentist concept. As for irredentism, see president Aliyev's speech about "Azerbaijani people have to return to Zangezur" when speaking about his "Zangezur Corridor" and it'll be clear. I don't need a specific source to say the sky is blue - it's enough to look at the almost exclusively pro-Azerbaijani sources arduously replicating president Aliyev's out-of-blue "Zangezur Corridor", or being familiar with Azerbaijani history revisionism: Historical_negationism#Azerbaijan. I am sorry to say that president Aliev's dreams are not notable enough to use English Wikipedia as their repository. I admit the situation may be different on Azerbaijani Wikipedia. Anyway, let's give a chance to others to speak as well. --Armatura ( talk) 22:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply

I never argued to keep the article as an irredentist concept. You claimed that it was, without citing any reliable sources. I said that even if it was an irredentist concept, that in itself does not make it not notable for an article, as we have articles on irredentist concepts. Also, while you claim that this corridor is Aliyev's dream, it is something that is being seriously discussed, both in Armenia and Azerbaijan. See this article from Eurasianet: [2] Grand master 23:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply

The irony is that the very article you just referred to is all about "no such corridor". It's not being discussed, it is denied (and rightly so - there is no corridor in the agreement). With the logic you described above, I hope you are not going to take the mere fact that we are discussing the emptiness of that "corridor" invention here as a reason for having an article about "no corridor". And if, for example, president Aliyev comes up with a nightmare about a monster with three eyes and four tails tomorrow, despite no word about it in the agreements he signed, it won't be a reason to have an article about it or its non-existence. It may scare some people and excite some others, but Wikipedia is not a repository of nonsense, sorry. And the trilaterally agreed transport links / communications are appropriately described in the ceasefire agreement article, there is no need (or enough material) for a standalone one. --Armatura ( talk) 00:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC) reply

If such monster gets sufficient coverage, then it satisfies the notability criteria. It seems that your objection stems more from your personal dislike of the idea, rather than the notability criteria. The corridor or transport link is mentioned in the ceasefire agreement, and Eurasianet article discusses different options that are being considered. It is a serious thing, and without any doubt will be constructed within the next 3 years. But all the oppose votes here only want the article to be deleted because it gets more coverage in Azerbaijani sources. That in itself is not a reason for deletion. A topic that gets coverage only in 1 country could be notable, but in this case it was demonstrated that it gets coverage not just in Azerbaijan and Armenia. Grand master 15:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC) reply

I have to stop you on your second sentence - the agreement does NOT say "corridor" - open and read it again, every non-partisan editor here can check it and confirm that there is NO corridor in that agreement text. Now, I assume that by extending this already overflown discussion you genuinely want to understand, so let me explain the difference between "corridor" (which Aliyev promotes and which you, for some reason, keep repeating) and "transport links" (which is what was trilaterally agreed on). Lachin corridor is a real-life concrete single strip of land, about 5 km wide, and there is a wide consensus to call it a corridor, and it is the singular way of going from Armenia to Nagorno Karabakh Republic currently. Now, the "transport links", "transport communications" between Nakhchivan Republic and Azerbaijan Republic mean opening the roads / railroads and even possibly air space and any other possible transportation means for cargo and/or humans to pass through / drive through / even fly through the Armenian territory, but they do not imply ceding a specific strip of Armenian land in Zangezur or any other specific area - there is nothing like that in the openly available ceasefire agreement (read it please). "Unblocking the regional communications" means not unilateral (as Aliyev promotes) but mutual (as "regional" means) unblocking of communications in that common region where Armenians and Azerbaijanis reside. Now, compare this to the isolationist concept of single "Zangezur corridor" president Aliyev and his propaganda machine rave about and you will hopefully get the difference, mate. And if one night Kim Yong-ung dreams of getting a corridor via South Korea and the next day the whole North Korea sponsored media publishes it, it does not mean it should have a Wikipedia article. Even the creator of "Zangezur Corridor" article is happy with deleting it, openly admitting that he was affected by overly partisan media. What ceasefire agreement truly says is already reflected in 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement article, without twists, and Aliyev's personal monsters can go to his personal page for now. If they ever become as notable as Flying Spaghetti Monster, we will create articles about them together, don't worry at all, mate. One last thing, may I please ask you to refrain from hinting at violation of WP:IJDLI principle without basis, thanks. Regards, --Armatura ( talk) 16:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I (the article creator) inform that I will not oppose the deletion of this article as I might have focused too much on pro-Azerbaijani sources. Although I believe such a transport corridor/link/whatever it is called could be notable enough as to have its own article in the future. Super Ψ Dro 16:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much Super Dromaeosaurus --Armatura ( talk) 18:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep This is actually an old thing and was mentioned back in at least 2012 in a Stratfor source. It just receives more coverage now due to recent events. Brandmeister ^talk 19:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Hello Brandmeister. Your brought example is nota good one, as it’s not open access. And not to a surprise, if Googled keywords “Zangezur” and “corridor”, some results may come up, the very majority of them tho naturally in Azerbaijani / pro-Azerbaijani media, some of them already copying what is currently written on Wikipedia. That’s how propaganda works, there is a concept created, then it's put in circulation while being actively promoted initially, and later that concept lives with its own life. Generally, if it is hard to find good references for an article, then the article should not be created, as it's either not notable, or not neutral or another disqualifier. ZaniGiovanni ( talk) 01:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Actually there are multiple non-Azerbaijani sources mentioning it, even before the 2020 war. Further digging reveals Requiem for a Would-be Republic (1994) by Thomas Goltz, Daily Report. West Europe (1995), Caucasus and an Unholy Alliance (1997) by Antero Leitzinger, Turkey and the Caucasus: Domestic Interests and Security Concerns (2000). Let alone some Russian sources which could also be brought up and used. That the concept is more frequent and is of particular interest to Azerbaijani sources is natural and is not a reason to delete. Brandmeister ^talk 07:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC) reply
      • I'm so sorry Brandmeisher, but when I mentioned pro-Azerbaijani sources, that also includes someone who used racists remarks against Armenians in Karabakh, characterizing them as "garlic-growing Armenians." [ 1]. Further digging reveals that too, and as I stated in my vote, the agreement clearly states transport links / transport communications. Absolute majority sources calling this "Zangezur corridor" are partisan pro-Azerbaijani sources, and as a result of this push, some (one or two) Russian news outlets also may used the term (remember circulation). That doesn't mean that it's suddenly notable to have its own article. Among with other issues as well. ZaniGiovanni ( talk) 10:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC) reply
        • It's notable as general notability criteria are met with multiple independent reliable sources. The article needs an improvement rather than deletion, as this discussion has produced sufficient evidence. Brandmeister ^talk 10:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC) reply
          • I’m afraid I have to disagree with you. Not every statement out of Aliev’s mouth is suddenly notable to be an article. This is a non existent corridor, we can’t assume that “it can be created within 3yrs” either like another editor said, and neither it is notable. Azerbaijani media aggressively started to promote the “Zangezur corridor” after the war, and almost exclusively that term is used in Azerbaijani sources. Some of your presented sources are from an Armenophobic racist, who has a clear bias. Some Russian outlet, who just picked up Aliev’s words and used it in one or two articles isn’t sufficient either. If there ever will be mentioned officially “Zangezur Corridor”, and not just by one or two sources and the rest just partisan Azerbaijani sources furthering propaganda, then we can create an article about it. It doesn’t exist and nobody here can personally predict if it will or will not. We have an official ceasefire agreement clearly stating the following: “transport links / transport communications”. The Keep voters seem to be not interested in the official document, and voluntarily or involuntarily promote further an imperialist propaganda term. ZaniGiovanni ( talk) 18:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete "Zangezur Corridor" is a propaganda term used exclusively in Azeri sources and by Azeri representatives. Please stop creating such articles. Two Azerbaijani wiki-users have already been blocked for their propaganda behavior and many of their articles have been deleted. If one day (which I doubt very much), such a corridor will be created, in this case, we will be able to recreate the article. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան ( talk) 19:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply

  It is not about WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Even a propaganda term could be notable for an article. What does the fact that someone got blocked has to do with this article's notability? This is not a battleground. I see no argument in your post about notability of this topic. Grand master 19:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply

  For the record, none of the speedy deletion criteria applies here. You can vote delete, but not speedy delete here. Brandmeister ^talk 10:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I do not see how suggesting that such a corridor exists necessarily means suggesting that "Azerbaijanis must return to Zangezur" or anything of the sort. The term "Zangezur Corridor" has existed for at least the past 29 years, i.e. since Goble's peace plan, and has enjoyed use in independent sources. Such is Gareth Winrow's 2000 book Turkey and the Caucasus: Domestic Interests and Security Concerns, where he says: "In 1992, picking up on a proposal apparently originally drafted by Paul Goble of the US State Department, President Özal and the then Foreign Minister Hikmet Çetin promoted the so-called 'double-corridor formula'. Azerbaijan would abandon the predominantly Armenian-populated mountainous part of Nagorno-Karabakh, which would be connected to Armenia. In return, Armenia would surrender the southern Zangezur corridor to Azerbaijan, thereby linking Nakhichevan to the rest of Azerbaijan." There are also results from Google Scholar showing that the term has also been used by Armenian authors (whereas "Syunik Corridor" has not). Parishan ( talk) 23:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply

You forget that whatever President Özal with his Foreign Minister were trying to promote should be notable enough to be in English Wikipedia. Wikipedia, by definition, is an encyclopedia, not a platform for promoting non-popular, non-notable stuff in order to make it popular and notable. That is the definition of propaganda. And the (mis-)cited ceasefire agreement has nothing to do with that propaganda. By the way, that propaganda (I am sure you are against it) had already "accidentally" sneaked into the articles about the agreement itself, the 2020 Nagorno Karabakh war, the current border crisis, the Lake Sav, etc - I had to clean them one by one today. Just some food for thought. --Armatura ( talk) 00:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC) reply

The point is not whether President Özal promoted the term or not. The point is that the notion of the "Zangezur Corridor" referring to a strip of land in southern Armenia and associated since the 1990s with the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process is an existing notion, as illustrated by its use across many third-party and Armenian sources. There is, in fact, a freshly published article from Jamestown Foundation's Eurasia Daily Monitor using the term in relation to the current Armenia – Azerbaijan border crisis. Parishan ( talk) 01:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Well, thanks for adding articles by Azerbaijani authors only to better illustrate my point that the "corridor" is a purely propaganda concept promoted by Azerbaijan. Vasif Huseynov is an Azerbaijani author from Kelbajar, currently living in Baku, does not matter whether he chooses to publish the propaganda - in Jamestown Foundation monitor or some other resource, it does not make him third-party source: http://khazar.org/uploads/schools/Humanities/Political_Science_and_Philosophy/cv/Vasif_Huseynov-cv.pdf On a different note, this article is born orphan - there is virtually nothing meaningful linking to it other than logistical pages, another supporting factor for deletion. I tried to improve it initially, only to realise that once the impregnated propaganda is removed there is nothing left to the already existing ceasefire agreement article. President Aliyev's threats can go to his page. In the future, if the geopolitical situation changes, we may come back to this, perhaps under regional communications name, but currently it's just empty air, mate, sorry. --Armatura ( talk) 02:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC) reply

It is not acceptable to profile an author by their nationality. Jamestown Foundation is not a blog; if it has accepted an article to be published in its edited volume, it means the author was considered reliable enough. I also quoted a different source above which you seem to have completely ignored. Parishan ( talk) 07:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC) reply

What is not acceptable, Parishan, is (unconsciously, I sincerely hope) wanting Wikipedia editors to believe that a ultranationalist Azerbaijani author's writings can be used as a reliable and independent third-party source. It's not a secret that caviar diplomacy and Azerbaijani laundromat gives Azerbaijan lots of luxury opportunities, including publications in foreign journals supporting pro-Azerbaijan views. A mere glance at Vasif Huseynov's Twitter account would make an uninvolved user unwell - so much nationalistic Armenophobic dirt pouring there. For example, on April 12 he retweets a fellow nationalist who makes abhorrent comparison of Armenian servicemen to NAZIS in justification of the abhorrent Military Trophy Park (Baku) with wax figures of wounded and dying Armenian soldiers president Aliyev notoriously approved, earning an outcry from human rights organizations. If you want your sources to be trusted, please change the methodology of choosing them in the first place. I don't have time to investigate every source you are throwing here - it is your responsibility to first check them for basic criteria of acceptability which the source I looked into so vehemently failed. Regards, --Armatura ( talk) 11:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Fair enough. What would you have to say about Winrow? I hope this does not yield another "I don't have time to investigate"-style answer as it seems oddly "convenient" not to comment on the very first of only two sources I have quoted here under the pretext of not having time to deal with all the "source-throwing" (as if I have quoted a dozen). And yes, it is your responsibility to explain what is wrong with every source because you are the one nominating this page for deletion. I fulfilled my responsibility by providing you with a link to the author's personal page, where his qualifications are listed, and quoted directly from his book. The least you could do is explain to me what makes him an Azerbaijani propaganda source or whatever the rationale for deleting this article is. Parishan ( talk) 21:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC) reply

I would be grateful if you could assume WP:AGF and not cross the line of WP:Civility, Parishan. I am sure that you are familiar with WP:ASPERSIONS, but if not - worth reading and adhering. And if you decided to perpetuate this discussion forever without paying attention to what I already wrote, then I see little point in continuing it. --Armatura ( talk) 22:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Please show me why and how Winrow, a British political scientist and graduate of Oxford University, who mentions the Zangezur corridor by its name and in a context pertaining to the Karabakh conflict, is not a reliable source. Otherwise the argument about the corridor being a product of "Azerbaijani propaganda" does not hold water. Parishan ( talk) 01:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete The ceasefire agreement 1 says that transport links / transport communications (note the plural), it’s not specified where those communication will be passing (doesn’t have only one and doesn’t have to be via Meghri). What’s already known about planned communications / links, is literally reflected in the ceasefire agreement, if there’s more info in the future an article about those communications / links may be created. Currently tho, there’s nothing to add really. And the fact that very the creator of the article is okay with deleting it, confessing he was influenced by pro-Azerbaijani sources, says it all. ZaniGiovanni ( talk) 01:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete: the article is about a non-existant "corridor" whose concept is being pushed by pro-Azerbaijani media, and speculations and interpretations about said concept. Also, this should be deleted per WP:CRYSTAL for now. The vagueness of the article is baffling. - Kevo³²⁷ ( talk) 06:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The topic simply does not exist. Article is WP:CRYSTAL. Khirurg ( talk) 21:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment This appears to be a content/naming dispute masquerading as a deletion discussion. Few arguments above seem to be related to the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. It is, for example perfectly reasonable to have an article about a propaganda term, or a nation-specific concept. Suggest this be closed and moved to an RM or similar more effective forum. CMD ( talk) 14:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I agree with that. Brandmeister ^talk 14:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Disagree, as the subject is mainly speculations and propaganda by one partisan side, we don't have sources that discuss the propagandic aspect of it. I can't see how we could make a balanced NPOV article about the propagandic term for now. - Kevo³²⁷ ( talk) 15:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I disagree with closing the deletion disussion. It's not a vane naming caprice, there is a huge geopolitical difference between corridor and transport links/ communications, and there is a tendency in Azerbaijan (and related editors, as this discussion showed) to define the second as a synonym of the first based on literally nothing. If we imagine for a moment that an article about "hypothetical Zangezur Corridor" as a possible future phenomenon was the aim, WP:CRYSTAL clearly says that "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. There cannot be such certainty here, as the "corridor" is not agreed by anybody with anybody in the region, and it was not even the thing Azerbaijan's president himself trilaterally signed under. The logic of "it does not matter what was officially signed, we can find bogus publications that knowingly or unknowingly misuse the term and therefore modify the name in Wikipedia, allowing (allegorically speaking) a mouse (for which there is consensus and concrete plans) to look like a bear (no consensus and no certainty at all) in Wikipedia" is not acceptable. Creating articles about everything Aliyev rants about on partisan TV is not acceptable either. And WP:NOTADVOCACY clearly says Wikipedia is not for propaganda of any kind - political and national included. It allows an article to report objectively about such things, i.e. - clearly defining them as propaganda concept so there is no ambivalency for a casual uninvolved reader who skims through the article whether the article describes a propaganda concept or not, but it is not what the current article did/does/going to do - leaving it in place is going to result in chronic battle, between the editors who want it to look like "a serious thing with wide notability which is almost certainly going to happen in 3 years", and editors who are going to have a hard time to keep it as an article about pure propaganda. My solution is creating an article "Transport in South Caucasus" instead, taking the example of Transport in Europe article and describing what transport communications already exist in the region, which are agreed on / are almost definitely to be become a reality and mention the propaganda concept of Zangezur Corridor there - as a nation-specific propaganda concept relevant to the scope of that article. Standalone "Zangezur Corridor" makes little sense, at least currently. Regards, --Armatura ( talk) 16:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Agree. I have not seen any arguments demonstrating lack of notability of the topic. The only arguments for deletion are that Zangezur corridor is a propaganda term, but as was noted above, that in itself does not constitute grounds for deletion per Wikipedia policies. In addition to those cited above, there are more sources available that use the term and discuss this corridor. Among them, BBC Azerbaijani Service, which dedicated a whole article to it: [3], JAMnews: [4], and Paul Goble for Jamestown Foundation [5]. Therefore, notability of the topic cannot be questioned, and there is no reason to delete this article. Grand master 19:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Gradmanster, and Parishan, I am just curious, are you aware that Google allows others to check your sources? At which point were you going mention that Goble is the Director of Research and Publications at the Azerbaijan Diplomatic Academy? or that he is considered a skilled propagandist who is suspected to be the agent of a latter-day Promethean Project and CIA/Azerbaijan and that he is willing to cite the propaganda when it suits his purposes?. I am sorry but WP:NOTADVOCACY defines clearly WP policy on propaganda - you are welcome to question the policy itself if you think disseminating Goble's propaganda or any propaganda is okay here. Please, don't cite the likes of Bob Blackman as "reliable", "independent", "non-partisan", "third-party" etc, save the value of those words and our sanity. Beware that presenting things under a different light to promote a particular partisan point of view is frowned upon in Wikipedia community, at the least in the well-supervised English Wikipedia --Armatura ( talk) 20:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply

You still don't understand that something being a propaganda term does not make it non-notable. I'm not going to argue about Goble, who is a well known scholar. The criteria for deletion is notability. If something is being sufficiently talked about, then it is notable. It has already been demonstrated that this topic got extensive coverage in Azerbaijani, Armenian and international media. Thus, it is sufficiently notable. Plus, BBC or JAMnews certainly don't work for Azerbaijan. If you are arguing for deletion, you must demonstrate that the topic of the article is not notable. But simple google search produces lots of hits. Grand master 20:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Please minimise your remarks about other users' understanding capacity, Grandmaster, some users may get offended. The fact that someone disagrees with you it does not mean that someone does not understand what you are saying or has problems with understanding in general. More information available at WP:Civility. There is no "extensive coverage in Armenian and international media", it's just not true (it does not become true just because it's repeated a couple of times), it's been already discussed above, I would advise against going in circles. A "well known scholar" is not a reliable source if he is the author/instrument of partisan propaganda. There is a difference between promoting propaganda concept (what this article did/does/going to do) and an NPOV article about the propaganda concept, which, as another user pointed out above, we cannot realistically have at the moment. The extreme majority of those "lot's of Google hits" are partisan Azerbaijani/pro-Azerbaijani news websites citing president Aliyev's rants - that's the definition of partisan sources and propaganda, sorry. On the other hand, Google Scholar can't find much, and I am sure you know why - because it's more difficult to push propaganda into peer-reviewed journals than for Armenophobic author to get published at Jamestown Foundation website. It's not the main BBC, but the local Azerbaijani Service, there is a big difference and there are big questions about its conscientiousness/impartiality. The description of "Goble's plan" can go to Paul A. Goble's biographical article with a notion about it's propagandistic nature, and it may even become a separate Goble plan article if there really is that much to write about it, but having a standalone article on "Zangezur Corridor" (which perhaps merits a paragraph in Goble's Plan section in the Goble article for the start) is just too much and can't serve anything other than partisan attempts of legitimising the speculations in that propaganda plan. Hence the nomination for deletion. "Transport in South Caucasus" would be a good option for touching on the communications agreed in the ceasefire agreement. Summarising, I have now proposed two better alternatives that would allow (you, Parishan and Brandmeister must have heard this phrase on Russian Wikipedia), "to put things in their relevant shelves" - 1) Goble's propaganda to "Paul Goble article and 2) the ceasfire-agreed regional transport links to "Transport in South Caucasus", it will be fun to collaborate in both. And let's be rational, even the well-known company ABBYY that produces 7,050,000 hits on Google does not have an article on Wikipedia due to notability criteria, what to say about "Zangezur Corridor" speculation... Regards --Armatura ( talk) 22:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply

There is not a single reliable source to describe this corridor as propaganda. If a Wikipedia editor thinks that it is propaganda, that does not qualify as a reliable source. But even if we assume that it is propaganda, and it gets exclusive coverage in Azerbaijani sources, it still does not mean that we should not have an article to describe a propaganda term. "Transport in South Caucasus" is way too general. You can create such an article, if you wish, but I see no reason to create such an article just to delete this one. You call Goble plan a propaganda, but it was something that was supported by the US government at the time [6] And it takes more than Armenia's ombudsman to challenge neutrality of BBC (or its Azerbaijani service). He is just not happy that his statement was called an "accusation", and not ultimate truth. And how about JAMnews? And if ABBYY does not have an article on Wikipedia, it does not mean that this article should not exist. If someone is interested in that company, he can create an article about it, but that is not an excuse to delete other articles in Wikipedia. Grand master 23:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply

I already answered about JAMAnews higher up - it essentially says "Aliyev came up with a rant about forcing Armenians out and wanting something he calls 'Zangezur corridor', but the authors looked into the trilateral agreement and there is nothing like 'Zangezur Corridor', as rightly pointed out by Armenian side (thanks God there is a third side who can attest to that). Also says the news about the start of construction of that 'corridor' were not confirmed. And now you want an article denying the existence of, or consensus on a 'corridor' to serve a basis for having such an article... this just breaks the rules of logic. As for BBC Azerbaijan, I will just cite a very well put argument taken from another similar discussion that has recently taken place:

The Baku-based BBC Azerbaijani Service source still is an Azerbaijani source. Even the BBC Azerbaijani Service source itself is largely based on and repeating the Azerbaijani government website, by its own admission. Context matters, and BBC generally having a consensus of being generally reliable, doesn't mean it is reliable here or in every context. Critically, there is no consensus on the BBC Azerbaijani Service being reliable, let alone being reliable on Armenian affairs. Nor is there any such consensus that Azerbaijani government websites are reliable sources.

The best place to mention that 'corridor' concept is Paul Globe' page (as at least he is notable), within the context of his 'plan' (of which that 'corridor' was just a part of suggestion') or perhaps in pages on Pan-Turkism / Turanism, say, among the excursions of General Khalil and Nuri Bey into Russian Armenia in an attempt to join all of the Turkicdom into one piece by passing through Zangezur. The relationship between that 'corridor' concept with turanism is a natural one, and this context is more notable than whatever superselective version of the 'corridor' you want to have as a standalone article. It's like desperately desiring an article about one of the tentacles of the medusa without bothering about the description of the whlole medusa or the notability of the medusa. --Armatura ( talk) 01:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC) reply

JAMnews article literally has a heading "What will become of the Zangezur corridor?" Gobble plan was proposed by Cyrus Vance, high ranking US official. Accusing him of pan-Turanism is a bit too much. And it is a circular argument at this point. It was demonstrated that the term is used in Azerbaijani, Armenian and international media. Whether it is good or bad, propaganda or not is something to be discussed in the article, but it is not an argument for deletion. I rest my case at this point, let the community decide. Grand master 09:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC) reply

I already pointed out that JAMnews article found literally nothing about that 'corridor' in the agreement. I don't know what you mean by 'circular argument', but I did not 'accuse' any US official of PanTuranism, I am saying that for that speculative 'corridor' concept you favor can be a room in pages on Panturanism (notable and relevant topic) AND/OR Paul Goble (notable and relevant topic) and/or Aliyev (notable and relevant topic), but it does not certainly merit a standalone article on its own. I don't see how it be attributed to Cyrus Vance, though, as "Cyrus Vance"+"zangezur corridor" search in Google return no results that would contain both, maybe you can share here the results of your original research, would be interesting. --Armatura ( talk) 16:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC) reply

JAMnews has even a map of the corridor. And Vance proposed the Goble plan, of which Zangezur corridor was a part. Grand master 17:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC) reply

The map included in JAMnews article does not even specify where that map is taken from (every self-respecting magazine would attribute the included image to the original source), what is it based on or what the lines on that map signify - signs of poor journalism. Moreover, if you look at that map in detail, the names of many places - Turkey, Russia, Azerbaijan, Ordubad, etc are half-covered, which means layers are added haphazardly on top of Google map, making the map you are referring to a bad quality Photoshop from unknown and non-reliable source. There is not consensus in WP that JAMnews (declaring its publication place as "Baku-Yerevan") is a generally reliable source and even articles from generally reliable sources is subject to critical analysis, and this article is not an exception from the rule. Even with all that negative, it finds a courage to say that there is no such corridor in the agreement. There are no reliable sources putting an equation mark between the (trilaterally agreed) transport links and (Azeri-speculated) "Zangezur corridor". I am sure you are familiar with WP:OR principle. Ah, and you did not provide a link for Cyrus Vance thing you are saying. --Armatura ( talk) 17:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC) reply

The map from JAMnews is good enough to show where Zangezur corridor will pass. The agreement clearly mentions a transport link between mainland Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan. You may call it a link or corridor, like NYT did, still the same thing. And I still see no valid argument for deletion. As it was said above, even if it is something that is discussed only in Azerbaijan, that does not mean that we should not have an article about it. But it was demonstrated that the topic is sufficiently covered in both Azerbaijani and international media. That is all that is needed to establish notability. Grand master 23:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC) reply

I can't call it what I want, and you can't call it what you want, in WP we should call things by their true names only, and avoid false/misleading synonyms. Nobody in that agreement said the links are going to be via Syunik (Zangezur), either, so no WP:OR please. And to demonstrate why the speculative concept you want to be an article does not merit to be an article, look at Jacque Fresco's page, and you'll hopefully see why the Zangezur corridor speculation can be a subheading on Paul Goble's page, but not an article - both projects are not notable to merit a standalone article. --Armatura ( talk) 21:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Genuinely baffled by some of the responses here, the deletion feels more like a case of WP:JDLI than anything else. Does the article fulfill the notability requirements? check ✓, does the article have multiple secondary sources discussing it? check ✓, was the subject matter mentioned by heads of state of Armenia and Azerbaijan? check ✓, so what exactly is the issue here? The subject matter was mentioned by American, Russian, Pan-European, and Azerbaijani sources. - Creffel ( talk) 00:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC) reply

NOTE — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Creffel ( talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. ACCOUNT SUDDENLY RETIRED AFTER TENDENTITIOUS EDITING IN AZERBAJAN-RELATED TOPICS: --Armatura ( talk) 02:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Check my vote and my reasoning. It challenges your view. KhndzorUtogh ( talk) 15:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC) reply

your reply kind of implies that you haven't read anything written above. If so, please read so you can understand that you answer has nothing related to the deletion arguments and WP:CRYSTAL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevo327 ( talk • contribs)

1) I read everything carefully, virtually nothing discussed justifies article deletion. Renaming? possibly. Amending the contents of the article? sure. Deleting? no.

Does the article fulfill the notability requirements? check ✓, does the article have multiple secondary sources discussing it? check ✓, was the subject matter mentioned by heads of state of Armenia and Azerbaijan? check ✓, so what exactly is the issue here? The subject matter was mentioned by American, Russian, Pan-European, and Azerbaijani sources.

2) WP:CRYSTAL deals in predicted events, this is not a predicted event. The whole WP:CRYSTAL thing here just seems like an attempt to derail the conversation and make the argument look valid when it isn't. The corridor is an interpretation of one of the clauses of the treaty, an interpretation that has gained notoriety not only in Azerbaijan/Armenia, but in foreign media, and which is also currently a very big point of tensions between Armenia and Azerbaijan. - Creffel ( talk) 09:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Speaking of which, the NYT wrote: Along with withdrawing its army from the enclave, Armenia agreed to ... open a transport corridor for Azerbaijan through Armenia to the Azerbaijani region of Nakhichevan. [7] Grand master 09:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Speaking of which, Grandmaster, you should not get excited when you see a journalist apparently mistranslating the original document - the official English version (which you can read yourself with your own eyes, without any journalist twist, was placed on Kremlin website on 10th November (you can see the date on the document), this allowed Mr Kremner to sneak an inaccurate term "corridor" into his article on Nov. 9th. There are other reasons to dispute his accuracy and impartiality as journalist reporting on this sensitive region - he uses "separatist region" (a term preferred by pro-Azeri media, while neutral sources use "unrecognized republic" or "self-declared republic") and he, interestingly, is reporting from TVER, Russia - a very "third-party" place... ( he apparently lives in Russia). NYT is generally reliable resource, but this particular "formulirovka" is apparently inaccurate due to mistranslation, whether intended or unintended. Even scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals should not be taken blindly, every article is subject to scrutiny and is not protected from mistakes. --Armatura ( talk) 11:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Dear Armatura, I am inviting you to please stop using personal language like "you should not get excited", not appropriate. As for the thick block of text that follows: what exactly does this have to do with deletion? You are leading the argument away from the deletion discussion. Mean no offense, but it feels like you are running bizarre circles around a very simple matter.

Does the article fulfill the notability requirements? check ✓, does the article have multiple secondary sources discussing it? check ✓, was the subject matter mentioned by heads of state of Armenia and Azerbaijan? check ✓, so what exactly is the issue here? The subject matter was mentioned by American, Russian, Pan-European, and Azerbaijani sources. - Creffel ( talk) 11:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Creffel, I am inviting you to read about Big Lie, particularly the part "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.. A friendly advice - be conscious of the existence of such techniques. Fortunately, repeating the same copy-pasted argument even million times is not going to make your argument valid in Wikipedia. It just demonstrates that you choose to ignore the arguments above (which debunk everything you checkmarked as "truths") but want your point of view to prevail nonetheless. Regards --Armatura ( talk) 12:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Armatura, Once again a very bitter tone, I invite you to refrain from personal language, a highly experienced user such as yourself surely knows about the importance of being cordial when trying to reach consensus, right? Once again, it appears you are leading the discussion away from the topic of article deletion and attacking my moral character, ""big lie"" and whatnot. I am inviting you to read about WP:JDLI, particularly the part "When faced with an incontrovertible fact use an emotional response to counter it". The very fact that you, in my opinion, are getting so emotional over the topic, is seemingly an indication that the motion for deletion was not filed in good faith, and seemingly was not filed objectively. Please address my concerns instead of derailing the conversation. My friendly advice - please remember to focus on notability and other things that actually matter. I did not repeat myself "a million times", merely three times. Please address my concerns below:

Does the article fulfill the notability requirements? check ✓, does the article have multiple secondary sources discussing it? check ✓, was the subject matter mentioned by heads of state of Armenia and Azerbaijan? check ✓, so what exactly is the issue here? The subject matter was mentioned by American, Russian, Pan-European, and Azerbaijani sources. - Creffel ( talk) 13:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC) reply

WP:ASPERSIONS would be useful read/refresher at this point, good luck. --Armatura ( talk) 16:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete Due to a lack of sufficient reliable sources as well as it breaking General Notability Guidelines. The first source "РИА Новости" while it is a reliable source only mentions the term "Zangezur corridor" a single time, breaking the "Presumed" part of General Notability Guidelines. Lets look at the second source, which not only is an opinion so as the website has suggested "All opinions in this column reflect the views of the author(s), not of EURACTIV Media network.", but also there is very clear POV in that article. We can see this in the quote "By liberating its occupied territories, Azerbaijan..". "Liberate" is clearly a POV term. This isn't his only article where its rather obvious that he cannot write from a neutral POV The 3rd source talking about "Zangezur corridor" also isn't neutral and thus isn't reliable. In this quote it says "Azerbaijani section of the railway to Nakhchivan, Azerbaijan’s landlocked exclave that passes through the recently liberated territories". The 4th source about Zangezur corridor only mentions the term "Zangezur corridor" when referring to what Aliyev said and when Pashinyan denied the possibility of it existing in the future. The source does not suggest that there is a chance of there being a "Zangezur corridor" in the future, and some Azerbaijani editors have stated that there will be a "Zangezur corridor" in the future, which AFAIK no reliable source suggests. The 5th and final source is mainly just quoting what Azerbaijani and Armenian officials have to say about the alleged corridor. Otherwise, the article puts the proposed corridor by Azerbaijan in quotation marks, downplaying its legitimacy. Therefore no single reliable source in the article Zangezur corridor has gone over the "Zangezur corridor" in detail, which as I earlier stated means that the article violates General Notability Guidelines. Moreover the official ceasefire agreement published by the Kremlin as User:Armatura has correctly noted doesn't contain the word "Zangezur", and the word "corridor" isn't mentioned anywhere other than when referring to the Lachin corridor. The creation of this article is simply giving more legitimacy to the illegitimate and non-existant "Zangezur corridor", thus I am calling upon its deletion, and we can even see that the creator of this article doesn't oppose its deletion. KhndzorUtogh ( talk) 12:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep. That's a rushed nomination for deletion. Obviously the topic of Zangezur corridor is an important part of Azerbaijan-Armenia relations, and the transport communication through Armenia was mentioned in the November ceasefire agreement. According to the news [8] the Armenian government has already allocated land in Syunik for Russian FSB. which means the proccess has already started and there will be a corridor. I suggest that we should keep the article for now and see what will happen next. Mastersun25 ( talk) 10:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC) reply

  I don't get how allocating land to the Russians in Syunik means that there will be a corridor. You seem to be rushing to conclusions. The article doesn't even mention the word "corridor" and it says that "The rationale for the decision says that the country has a need to strengthen the southeastern borders within the framework of a tripartite agreement" which has nothing to do with any corridor. Your vote doesn't address the reliability of the sources used in that article or anything, it's just saying "lets wait and see what happens next". KhndzorUtogh ( talk) 11:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC) reply

  Hi, Mastersun25, I’d suggest that you wait at least till the sockpuppet investigation in which you’re suspected in using multiple accounts to push pro Azeri POV is completed, before throwing more here, this discussion is not a vote or a battleground. The Kommersant article says nothing like what you just boldly deduced (WP:OR). All it says is that Armenia leased Russian federal security forces a couple of locations in its area free of charge to improve the overall security in Syunik. WP is not a place for rumours or speculations, and I’m sorry to say currently it’s all rumours and speculations, as demonstrated by multiple users’s well-put arguments above, and your ‘vote’. Cheers. --Armatura ( talk) 11:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC) reply

  Dear colleague, have you ever heard of presumption of innocence? I don't expect that an Armenian user would believe me, but can assure you that I am a real human with the only living account. If you want to prove that my argumentation is not convicing enough, you can do it without attacking me over other things that have no direct correlation to the topic of this discussion. I also understand your frustration over the name of the article and the word "corridor" in particular, but once again what I suggest is that we should wait a bit and see how things will unfold in future. Regarding the Kommersant article and it's content, I ask you to think a little and connect the pieces together. Why would Russian federal security forces get control of land in Syunik's Kapan, Tekh and Meghri [9], I think we both know why. Cheers! -- Mastersun25 ( talk) 11:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC) reply

  I’ll be only delighted if that AA-topic-relevant investigation proves your innocence. But you still have to adhere to WP:OR. It doesn’t matter what any editor may ‘‘speculate’’ - if you fundamentally disagree with it then I suggest you let the Wikipedia adminship know so they could consider changing that policy. Citing from it - ‘’’“Wikipedia does not publish original thought. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.’’’ --Armatura ( talk) 12:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete, per nominator. Also notice that Solavirum, an indefinitely WP:ARBAA2 banned user who had violated his topic ban just 2 weeks ago and got blocked by User:Drmies, has created almost of all the interwikis for this article 2 days ago after this article got nominated for deletion here, including in Italian, Afrikaans, Portugese, Spanish, Polish and German. Guess that's his way of trying to have some impact on this discussion somehow, even though he was warned by User:El C months ago after his topic ban not to "mention the topic area in any way and don't tell other contributors you read what they said about the topic area." Noonewiki ( talk) 05:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC) reply

  This is a tricky one. Despite Solavirum's broadly tban being on English Wikipedia, these additions to other lang wikis are not completely unrelated to the eng-wiki, as Solavirum also linked the English wikipedia article to the other language articles, hence tangentially touching the eng-wiki version of the article, which falls under his broadly tban. I don't have a definite conclusion here, I'm going to ping @ Drmies: and @ El C: to hear their thoughts. Keep in mind, Solavirum was just unbanned after violating his broadly tban 2nd time, and they're already doing some questionable additions indirectly related to the English wiki. He’s doing that while a case against him is currently active on the noticeboard [ 1], and he's asking for IBAN-ing users who point out his net negative edits related to AA topics instead of improving his behavior [ 2]. And that without even participating in the discussion cause of his tban, he’s “countering” the deletion on the eng-wiki by adding it to other lang wikipedias. Why would someone not knowing those languages suddenly create a bulk of mechanically translated articles on other wikis while the English article is undergoing deletion? Like in the Polish wikipedia as a good example 3, they have virtually no other contribution but this article. So many issues here, this to me seems like a high level of WP:GAMING, I can be wrong tho. Again, would like to hear what the related admins think. ZaniGiovanni ( talk) 13:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nominator. This is a makeshift political ploy by Aliyev. The only sources that take it seriously are biased pro-Azeri sources. The corridor simply doesn’t exist. We can talk about it not existing (because it’s been talked about so much by the Azeri media) on the trilateral agreement article. But this does not merit a stand-alone article by any stretch of the imagination. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 01:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC) reply
• Redirect or selective merge to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement. It's apparently an issue arising out of that agreement. It does exist as a term used by non-local sources, but I'm not seeing standalone notability outside of existing articles about the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. There are already too many of those. Sandstein 12:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC) reply

It existed both as a transport project and a geographic feature well before the 2020 agreement and is decades old. See these sources, for example: [10] , [11]. The 2020 events just made it more prominent in media. Brandmeister ^talk 13:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC) reply

True, but these are also mere passing mentions in the context of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. Which also supports my view that the topic should be covered in existing articles about that conflict. Sandstein 07:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• • Comment. @ Sandstein: Here's a good example of in-depth coverage of the corridor independent from the agreement: [12]
    • I'm not persuaded. That article doesn't even contain the word "Zangezur". It contains the sentence "The Russia-brokered peace deal envisaged the reopening of transport routes, including a corridor linking Azerbaijan and its Nakhchivan exclave that borders Armenia, Turkey and Iran." That's a passing mention, not in-depth coverage, and it reinforces my impression that this is mainly an issue related to the peace agreement. Sandstein 07:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Dear colleagues, I strongly remind that Wikipedia is not a place for political influence. Zangezur corridor doesn't exist, so this provocative article should be deleted.-- Davidgasparyan2001 ( talk) 20:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Note for arbiter — Davidgasparyan2001 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Thanks El_C for pointing this out! --Armatura ( talk) 22:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. per nominator. Most points have already been raised, and I cannot think of any better arguments to delete this page—full of hypothetical scenarious and POV-inspirited assumptions—than those that have already been raised. Not for the life of me. BaxçeyêReş ( talk) 16:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The leap from "transport links... to connect the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic" to claiming notability for the subject "Zangezur corridor" is a case of WP:SYNTH. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep The "Zangezur corridor" makes apperance in lotf of news so it is notable enough to have the page for it. [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]. Please note that, some say the corridor doesn't exist so it doesn't deserve the page. Be careful, the article doesn't say that the corridor exists, It says this is the term for the proposed corridor, and makes it to many news/articles. Also, Zangeaur corridor doesn't mean that this territory will be under Azeri control, Both Lachin cor.(is) and Zangezur cor.(proposed) are territories of their respective countries with Russians providing secure passage to others, paragraphs 10-13 of [24]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dian Nikolow ( talk • contribs) 11:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Note for arbiter: — Dian Nikolow ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. This is SPA with essentially only two inputs over 6 months before this 'vote' - trying to negate the Syrian mercenaries or balance it with unsourced PKK allegation. and repeatedly putting "Zangezur corridor" in Zangezur disambig list 1 2 against WP:PARTIAL. --Armatura ( talk) 21:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Note for arbiter: Two inputs over 6 months doesn't mean nothing. Calling this a vote(even as " 'vote' ") is not correct. "trying to negate...": that was another discussion happen another time, It was discussed, there was nothing off the proportions, so it's unrelated. "repeatedly putting...": there was nothing of "repeated". Accuser is trying to distract. Best Regards. Dian Nikolow ( talk) 17:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC) reply

I don't think anyone here is trying to "distract" anybody. Please avoid casting aspersions on other editors. ZaniGiovanni ( talk) 19:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep - I don't understand why people are afraid of the toponym Zangezur? This name has been used for centuries. For example, I can show this 19th century map. Later in this region during the time of tsarist Russia was the Zangezur province. In addition, even in Armenia, the mountains in this area are called the Zangezur Mountains (Զանգեզուրի լեռներ) . In Armenian sources, the phrase "Zangezur corridor" is used. For example: Ասում են՝ Զանգեզուրի միջանցք ենք ունենալու, մենք էլ ուրեմն Նախիջևանի միջանցք ենք ունենալու, հայտարարում է Փաշինյանը, ՄԻՊ. «Զանգեզուրի միջանցք» ստեղծելու և Հայաստանի բնակչությանը «դուրս շպրտելու» Ադրբեջանի նախագահի հայտարարությունը հայերի նկատմամբ ցեղասպան քաղաքականության ապացույց է, Նախիջևանին կապող ճանապարհը Ալիևի համար դարձել է «Զանգեզուրի միջանցք». I am against deleting the article on this basis. -- Rəcəb Həsənbəyov ( talk) 06:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Zangezur corridor doesn't exist. All these sources refer to Ilham Aliyev's statements. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան ( talk) 11:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Circular argument, Rəcəb Həsənbəyov, you are claiming "if A - > B then B -> A". E.g. there is no issue with toponym 'Zangezur' per se, there is Zangezur Copper and Molybdenum Combine working in Armenia, and that bothers nobody. However, there was not and there is not 'Zangezur Corridor', neither physically, nor agreed, not even unequivocally defined. Aliyev's (or any dictator's) rants should not become Wikipedia articles, this is not a propaganda platform WP:NOTADVOCACY. --Armatura ( talk) 12:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep per mentioned comments in this respect. The comment above (calling a state leader dictator) clearly shows why the article is nominated for deletion in the first place. The notion has been widely covered by many internal and international news outlets which is more than enough to make it stay. Toghrul R ( talk) 16:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC) reply

He is frequently called a dictator, 2, 3. Try to WP:Assumegoodfaith and actually read the provided arguments for deletion before claiming anti-Azerbaijani conspiracy. --Armatura ( talk) 17:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The subject of the article is the corridor connecting Azerbaijan proper with it's exclave under the article 9 of the ceasefire agreement. The OP is incorrect when he states that the corridor has not been established by the agreement, citing that what has been established are merely "transport communications / transport links" – "transport communications / transport links" are precisely what makes a corridor. This makes the nominator's argument illogical. If Azerbaijani politicians are seen as using maximalist rhetoric to expand the meaning of "corridor" in order to lay a claim of sovereignty to a strip of land, that doesn't change the original meaning of corridor, and neutralize the actual subject at hand (I'm not taking a stance here, this is a hypothetical). Whether the current name is bad ("propaganda term" etc.) is a disconnected issue that must not influence the deletion discussion. I find it very appropriate that this corridor should have it's own article, as this is a fairly specific and interesting subject of international law and regional politics. I'm able to find in-depth coverage on this subject independently of the "Zangezur corridor" name, such as here: [25]. This article is consistent with Tetulia Corridor. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 16:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC) reply

The "extensive coverage" you are referring to comes from pro-Azeri Joshua Kucera who's usually busy repeating what Azeri sources write, not a neutral source. Please refrain from cherry-picking sources, personal WP:OR deductions/synonymisations and edit warring in the article. --Armatura ( talk) 21:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Sandstein: Here's a good example of in-depth coverage of the corridor independent from the agreement: [26] — Alalch Emis ( talk) 21:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC) reply

"deal envisaged the reopening of transport routes, including a corridor" sentence from that article contradicts with the agreement text directly. The agreement text is open-access, fortunately everybody can check it and see there is only one corridor mentioned - Lachin corridor, the rest is Aliyev's money talking. Please refrain from picking sources that twist the agreement text, including the ones from Russia and Caucasus. And no need for pinging the same editor ton this page with the same agreement twice. --Armatura ( talk) 22:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Request denied. I will keep picking whichever source I find fitting to make the article better, and you can keep spinning it whichever way you like. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 22:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC) reply

User:Alalch Emis, you appear refusing to see that you efforts of "making the article better" are not that unequivocal for others. You may think that you are making the article better, but when your edit or reliability of source is disputed you cannot just keep adding it, you need to find consensus as per WP:Consensus, otherwise edit war is inevitable. You have not yet apologised for your unacceptable "you are boring" and "your words are hollow" phrases directed to me on your talk page in breach of WP:CIVILITY and yet you are continuing with that tone. I suggest you to cool down a bit, sleep a night or two on it, reflect a bit and then come back for a constructive discussion on talk. --Armatura ( talk) 23:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC) reply

I don't want any advice from you. I can't be fettered, conditioned or influenced in the way you seem to think I can. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 23:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Let me ask an admin. Dear @ El C:, can you please advise whether the tone of the above user is acceptable? I have been in heated disputes before, but this is beyond my limits of tolerance. Thanks. --Armatura ( talk) 23:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC) reply

While you're wasting your time here, and an admin's, I'm making breakthrough improvements to the article. Take a look at that AFP reference with a quote I added. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 00:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC) reply

I had enough of this repetitive intentional crossing of the line of WP:RUDE, with no signs of insight whatsoever that this kind of behaviour is insulting. While you are busy with expanding this article nominated for deletion demonstrating zero knowledge in this extremely sensitive and complex topic, just by Googling stuff, without seeking consensus, I will wait for admin response and then take it from there. If no admin reponse, I will take this to a noticeboard. --Armatura ( talk) 01:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The "Zangezur corridor" is a not so recent geopolitical term that is very relevant for Armenia and Azerbaijan during the post-second-war period of the Caucasus. It also contains multiple WP:RS. The article gets a tick for every arguments for eligibility. -- Nicat49 ( talk) 17:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete The title has no clear definition. The article is a mess of speculations promoted by Azeri side and picked up by some regional media. The ‘corridor’ doesn’t exist and no certainty that it will ever exist. It had not been on the table of trilateral negotiations, the Armenian officials made that clear. Absolutely no connection between the ceasefire agreement text (which clearly says no such thing as the article title) and the illegitimate propaganda concept of the "corridor". This article should thus be deleted. The developments in post ceasefire agreement transport communications can be a section in ceasefire agreement article. -- Steverci ( talk) 04:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC) reply

  Robert Kocharyan, former Armenian president and presently an opposition leader, talks about corridor, but calls it a "Meghri corridor". [27] As I understand, he generally supports the idea, but is against the use of the word "corridor", because there's a lot of speculation in Armenia that it means something more than just a standard transport link, while it is a normal term for a transport connection. For example, the International North–South Transport Corridor, implemented inter alia by Russia, Azerbaijan, Turkey and Iran, does not mean that any of those countries lose sovereignty over any of their territories. Grand master 08:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC) reply

It says Kocharyan "in favor of opening 'communications in the region" only and then goes on explaining why a 'corridor' is such a twisted and inadmissible thing for Azerbaijan to promote. Wikipedia is not container of Azerbaijani propaganda. --Armatura ( talk) 12:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Hello everyone again. I absolutely agree with the other points raised above to delete this theoretical concept that almost only exists in far-right Turanist circles. The so-called "Zangezur corridor" is an artificial attempt to unite the Turkic world, and as long as it is not a serious non-Turanist concept, it should not have the privilege of having its own Wikipedia article; thank you everyone. ClassicYoghurt ( talk) 16:32, 8 June 2021 (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.