Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Nakhchivan (1406)

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. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Nakhchivan (1406)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article was created and kept unsourced since creation (9 years ago). We can't tell that the event isn't a hoax, and even if it isn't it clearly doesn't pass GNG and NHISTORY notability criteria. After checking the other language versions: the Azerbaijani version's sources are not-RS (the same ones added by an IP and removed by HistoryofIran earlier), and even then they aren't verifiable sources, the Russian version has the same ones and the rest of the language versions are unsourced as well. thus no sources were found. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did try to find WP:RS regarding this, but was unable to. This event may very well have happened, but I don't think it's noticeable enough to warrant having an article. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Azerbaijan. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this page was tagged for speedy deletion by Kevo327 like a week ago. I made an objection against speedy deletion, and asked for a chance to improve the article. Taking it to the AfD straight after the failed speedy deletion does not make any sense. --Abrvagl (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

your argument can be summed that you dislike me, so we should keep the article based on that, regardless that you have no policy based arguments or any sources to support your vote. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have feelings for you Kevo327. I ping you twice to discuss and asked time to improve the article. Although you did not reply to discussion, user Explicit declined PROD on 14:00, 18 April 2022. One hour later you nominated article for AfD. Editors should ensure that enough time has passed since previous nominations for deletion before renominating it again. Obviously 1 hour is not enough time, especially considering that I asked for a chance to improve the article. Abrvagl (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you haven't pinged correctly, I hadn't seen that discussion. Also you haven't done anything to improve the article for a full week beside stating that you would, feel free to do so,. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 09:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, It is in my to-do list. Abrvagl (talk) 10:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Sorry for misunderstanding, now checked, and noted that I forgot to add 327 while pinging. Abrvagl (talk) 10:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I pinged you incorrectly, before immediately nominating article for AfD , you should check the reason why PROD you proposed is canceled. It is just common sense. Abrvagl (talk) 11:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For some reason this nomination was transcluded twice. I have copied the non-duplicative material from the second nomination here and closed it as a duplicate. Also, note to commenters, the usual wording for comments on AfD is "keep" or "delete" rather than "support" or "oppose." Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just found one source that touched a bit about the battle as part of Qara-Yusuf and Timurid rivalry. You guys can take a look at pages 450-460 of this book -> The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia by René Grousset (1939), translated by Naomi Walford (1970), through this link [[1]]. The book contained as well the information regarding the seize of Tabriz. Other than that, there is this book [[2]] titled Ethnic and Political History of Azerbaijan From Ancient Times to the Present Day by Ismail Bey Zardabli (2018) page 226, which also mentioned about Battle of Nakhchivan, although without many elaboration, and whether it is bias or not is unknown. Mfikriansori (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Archives908 (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Irrelevant. Article pass both GNG and NHISTORY. Article already updated and provided with number of non-Azerbaijani reliable sources. Abrvagl (talk) 11:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no, talking about the aftermath of something generally is just a passing mention of the event, there still aren't enough sources that extensively talk about this event, thus it still isnt notable per GNG. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main problem of the article as you mentioned above is about it was unsourced for 9 years since its creation, and for that problem, it is solved. Yeah, there is no source that extensively talk about the event. But we can't deemed the battle as something hoax. In my opinion, this article should be keep. Mfikriansori (talk) 08:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evaluating cross-wiki articles is not reasonable in this case as these are different projects. Taking a look at the sources, I believe they are pretty much notable as the article itself — Toghrul R (t) 11:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Although the article is certainly in need of some cleanup, it is easy enough to verify the existence of this battle and sources that discuss it in detail with a Turkish-language search. A good starting point is this master's thesis, pp. 74-75. Whilst it isn't sufficient in itself, this two-page discussion of the battle does point us towards some decent reliable sources, which are unfortunately offline. Faruk Sümer's article in TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi also discusses this battle in a paragraph. --GGT (talk) 00:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on what I've read above, it sticks with GNG and NHISTORY as noted. Monstarules (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A technical error prevented this AfD from being closed/relisted after the first seven days. It hasn't been properly listed on deletion sorting lists since 18 April, so it should run for at least another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 23:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Azerbaijan. – Joe (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-don't-delete Don't delete this if there is someone ready to improve it. I recommend that something on the keep to drafity spectrum be the correct outcome here. CT55555 (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources uncovered by Mfikriansori 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Proof of a battle having occurred is not the same as proof of a notable battle occurring. The current sources all seem to suggest sporadic mentions. If the whole battle can only be described in two sentences why should we have an article on it? -Indy beetle (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A very fair question, and the reason I haven't !voted is because I'm unable to look at the offline literature to check how in-depth the coverage is. The master's thesis has the most content so far and that's essentially barely a few paragraphs (and it's only a master's thesis). At the very least, however, we can be sure that there is some encyclopaedic content here given that it's covered by multiple RS, so the minimum would be summarising and merging this to some other article. Draftifying is another valid option, I could be willing to work on that draft at a later date when I hopefully have the resources, and it could then be merged if we can't find more in-depth coverage. GGT (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2022 (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.