Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancient Azerbaijani tribes

:{{la|Ancient Azerbaijani tribes}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ancient_Azerbaijani_tribes Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Ancient Azerbaijani tribes}})

This is a procedural nomination to clean up articles tagged as potential hoaxes. This article has been tagged as a potential hoax since January 2017 and there was some discussion on the subject at that time. However, there has been no effort to refute the hoax claim since then, so I am submitting it to the wider community for a deletion discussion. On the merits I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• Delete this irredeemable, unreferenced mess. So far as I can tell, there's no "tribe" associated with Nakchivan/Naxuana, and most certainly not one called the "Nakchies". The identification of the classical-era Caspians with any extant group of people is highly contentious, as is the identification of the Lullubi with the Kurds. And that doesn't begin to address the claim that most Azerbaijani share a Lullubi heritage (that's [citation needed] because it's probably simply false). The Gargareans, as presented in classical sources, are mythical; although there's probably some initial basis in fact, it wasn't with the creators of the Albanian language (which almost certainly is derived from an earlier language originally spoken in the Balkans, not anywhere near Azerbaijan). There is no Sakh tribe in scholarly literature (or anywhere else, really), and although the etymology of Artsakh is disputed, "Land of Sakhs" isn't generally one of the choices. In summary, I can't tell if this is a hoax per se, or merely uninformed writing that mischaracterizes whatever absent sources it was based upon. But even if we were to agree that an article at this title were warranted (which I'm dubious of), this simply can't be it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
• Weak delete - We have List of ancient Iranian peoples, Pontic–Caspian steppe, and tons of other articles that express early tribes and cultures in this region organized in ways that fit how they are organized in reliable sources. In my opinion, organizing them by, "tribes that inhabited Azerbaijan in ancient times" fails the policy, no original research. Where appropriate, the individual tribes could be mentioned in the Prehistory or Antiquity sections of History of Azerbaijan (and some are), but there isn't anything referenced here to be merged. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
• Delete — Appears to be WP:POVFORK with various other problems. Quoting an older message of mine on that article's talk page which also seems relevant: {{tq|"We already have History of Azerbaijan#Prehistory and Caucasian Albania#History. My initial impression was also that this should be deleted, although since this has already been discussed and the alternative is to improve it, it may be possible. The descendents of Noah claim seemed especially dubious, as all who believe in the Abrahamic Flood Myth consider themselves to be alive because they are also descendents. But it makes sense in the context of etymology, afterall. On the other hand, what can be done if noone improves the article?"}} —PaleoNeonate - 23:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.