Deletion of Genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims

Comment: per . The article was less than 36 hours old when it went to AFD, and I can find no evidence that the nominator expressed concern over the article on its talk page, or to the primary author, before nominating. See also . If the concern is the use of the term Genocide, a move might be in order - which would not require an AFD. There might be other ways to adjust the focus of the article to make it more acceptable, following discussion. I think this article has the potential to inch into |Synthesis and , but the author has done a good job of avoiding that so far. The sources seem to be reliable, and the topic seems to be notable enough to warrant an article. I agree, though, that we should take a look at the proper title - is this article about genocide resulting in the deaths of Turks and Muslims, or genocide committeed by them? Just from the title, it's a little unclear - maybe there's something simpler that would convey more information
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF||WP:BEFORE||WP:SYNTH||WP:OR)

Comment: The change of the article title does not dismiss the  reason and the creation of the article as  in a endentious editing manner. Leaving alone the otability and being a fork
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:SOAP||WP:T||WP:N)

Comment: The Article also fails to comply with 2 other rules for an article to have the "right" to exist on Wikipedia. The first is  (where, BTW, the comment of WP:TE perfectly suits) and it doesn't constitute a otability. There are clear guidelines on articles that are hat Wikipedia is not and it is the deletion of such articles as stated in  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DEL#Reasons_for_deletion |Reasons for Deletion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAP||WP:N||WP:W||WP:DEL)

Comment: for the creator: do any of the sources you have compiled and used compile the information collected into a single historical narrative and labeled these events, collectively, as "genocide" against Ottoman Turks and Muslims? If not how is this, in your mind, not a violation of the wikipedia policy on |original research, specifically the portion that covers the |synthesis of material
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYN)

Comment: This article is a classic example of  in that it combines "material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." While it's probably not impossible to locate a source that supports a claim of a genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims (same as its not impossible to find sources claiming that HIV is a harmless passenger virus and that it doesn't cause AIDS), the widespread historical consensus is not that such an event exists and it does not have a commonly accepted definition (not unlike the overwhelming scientific consensus that HIV does cause AIDS). The burden of proof in this case is put squarely on the editors introducing such material and it's not enough to cite only that all of these events happened but also that they were a part of the wider event as defined by the article. It qualifies as a  theory because it contains "ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or Mainstream (terminology)|mainstream view in its particular field of study." Per , "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included." This article does make exceptional claims and does not have exceptional sources to back up the same claims
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:FRINGE||WP:REDFLAG)

Comment: I could not locate any more than one day of Wikipedia contribution for {{user|IsmailAhmedov}}, not certain but a possible |K|KS Sockpuppet
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry (WP:SOC)