Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Igbo-Igala Wars

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Igbo-Igala Wars[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)

Contested Draftification, moved back to main space immediately with no edits. Without the prior move to draft I would have draftified this as not ready, insufficient sourcing 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep I see there's nothing on the talk page. What was wrong with this article in the first place such that it was draftified? EDIT: Okay, I went in and formatted the references so we can see what we're dealing with. One book, one questionable source, but mostly serious journal articles. They looked paywalled, so I didn't try to get in there. Due to the vagueness of the titles, I'd have to read the whole article each time to find out if it supports the information cited, but if the claim is "there are no reliable sources," then we've dispelled it, and if it's "the sources are reliable but they don't support the material for which they're cited," then someone does have to go in and check. Has anyone done so already, maybe in the previous discussion in which the article was draftified? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these sources look like they could be there for decoration, but a two-second Google search did show that sources that address the topic directly do exist: [1] Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping me fix the formatting I appreciate it. Everything I added was cited and I asked the person who moved it to the draft to tell me what was wrong or how I should approach the problem of sources, clearly indicating that I would move it back if there was no response. The nairapen source was just to show that the community spoke an Igala dialect and was not used for any serious topic, if that is the decoration source you're referring to. Ddddemonstrate (talk) 04:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not what I was referring to. The Nairapen source was accessible. I recently edited an article in which there were lots of sources posted. One by one, I got the books out of the library and looked up the articles, and I found out that those books and articles did not say the things they were in the Wikipedia article to support. Either the information just wasn't in there or, in one case, the source said "that idea's not true/questionable." I say they were there for decoration because they made the article look credible, but they didn't actually provide support.

Most of the sources in this article on the war are paywalled, which means it's hard for other Wikieditors to go in and confirm that they say what they say. Most Wikipedia articles have a mix of web-accessible and paywalled/paper sources. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
African history isn't that widely documented to where I can find articles that aren't on websites like JSTOR or other paywalled sources, which is why I got my sources from JSTOR. For the first source the first page is all you need as I couldn't access the full article either. For the JSTOR sources all you have to do is make an account and you can read about 100 articles a month, you shouldn't have to pay for them. Ddddemonstrate (talk) 01:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

there are plenty of sources actually Ddddemonstrate (talk) 04:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meet me on the article's talk page and we can discuss improvement further. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Need a better reason to draftify or delete. Srnec (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I fail to find any critical problems with this article. It needs improvement, but that used to be the Second Rule of Wikipedia. For that improvement, there seem to be a lot of perfectly respectable sources based on a cursory reading of a dozen synopses in gScholar. That said, the sourcing that already exists is acceptable for an article of this size and scope. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though this needs improvement, it is a pretty established article with several reliable sources. I do not see a good reason to delete it. HarukaAmaranth (話) 01:44, 24 August 2023 (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.