Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kanem-Bornu Empire

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 no consensus. after relisting 3 times Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kanem-Bornu Empire[edit]

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

These articles are redundant forking, or possibly a PoV fork due to conflicting ethnic and historical viewpoints, with multiple different articles for the same state. I would prefer that the Kanem Empire and Bornu Empire would be deleted, or merged with Kanem-Bornu Empire. Depending on the consensus however, the Kanem-Bornu Empire may have to go instead. I would be willing to rewrite the article(s) about this African country, but the fork(s) have to go first. Chronology of the Sefuwa (Kanem-Bornu) is another fork that has to go for sure, as Sayfawa dynasty already exists with the exactly same content. Ceosad (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 18:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge -- Kanem-Bornu Empire and Chronology of the Sefuwa (Kanem-Bornu) These articles seem to be essentially redundant, being appropriately covered by Kanem Empire and Bornu Empire. Bornu seems to be part of the slightly earlier Karem, but rather smaller. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The issue here is that both the Kanem Empire and the Bornu Empire coexisted during Scramble for Africa for about something like six or seven years according to these articles, so keeping them separate might be justified, as you suggest. However, for most of their history, they were the same state ruled by the Kanuri Sayfawa dynasty originally from Kanem, that just lost and regained their territories across the centuries. (Kanem was invaded, and inhabited, by the Toubou.) Kanem-Bornu is an artificial name invented by historians. I would rather compare Kanem-Bornu to Mughal Empire, that lost its homeland in Fergana, than to Byzantine Empire. We do not need separate articles for "early East Roman Empire" and "late Byzantine Empire". (There is one article for Nicaean Empire thought.) This is why I would prefer to keep Kanem-Bornu Empire, and delete the Kanem Empire and Bornu Empire. Keeping Kanem Empire and Bornu Empire separate might help avoid some horrible future fork for a post-1388 Toubou ruled Kanem state though, as it can be argued that there were multiple different states with the name of Kanem Empire... The map you referred to was Kanem-Bornu Empire before Toubou invasion in 1370s. There is a third (and a horribly bad) way out of this: Keeping articles for both Kanem-Bornu Empire and Kanem Empire, but deleting Bornu Empire. This is a quite a complex problem here with the forks... Ceosad (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 21:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They seem different enough. Steel Wool Killer / Lanolжeð Renforsdfer Tyklovon (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2015 (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.