Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pinyaşi principality

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. (non-admin closure) HistoricalAccountings (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinyaşi principality

[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)

The article was moved to draft space then again submitted for release without any improvements, I tried to find some sources about what it might be, but WP:TNT is best I guess. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here I link to the former deletion discussion.

This was the version it was when it was draftyfied and this the one it was re-released in main space wikipedia. No major improvements made besides a wl and adding categories. And this was made by the releasing editor, not by the creator of the article. Here and here, I link to the discussions I held before nominating it for deletion this time.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to delete the article, just a name dispute?.

frat070699 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frat070699 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not a name dispute. What the article describes now, is what as to me makes some sense, but I really have some doubts if what I wrote is correct. this was the version released in Main space wikipedia. With a phrase like Shahkulu Koci Bey was also killed, and his death was divided into two as Shahkulu gentlemen, Salmas and Somay, and some of them were linked to the Ottoman Empire. What does this mean? Two are some of them and why does it matter that they are linked to the Ottoman Empire? Then Shahkulu Mir Aziz got all the weapons and sent them to Van. For this reason, the Shahkulu Sons were called “Gazıkıran”. What is Gazirkan? The ones who receive weapons in Van? Is the article originally called Shakulu sons about a principality, a dynasty or Gazirkan? If such questions are not answered reasonably, TNT is the best.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you said, I need to improve the article but there is a wrong situation here, not a solution, you can fix where you find wrong. just a name dispute?. Frat070699 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frat070699 (talk — Preceding undated comment added 15:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]

It is not a name dispute, the dispute is about what the article is about and if the subject is notable enough to remain in main space Wikipedia. There is not a single member of the Shakulu sons/principality which can be wikilinked to of from.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I see an article on a minor polity (not a sovereign state). It has a series of citations that look credible to me (though I have not checked them). The dispute (reflected in this AFD) appears to be over detail. If it does not quite make sense, that needs to be resolved by editing or by tagging for clarification. Discussion of these matters should take place on the article's talk page, NOT though an AFD nomination. It is clearly not a case for TNT unless it is utter rubbish and unsupported by the sources cited. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I also do not see the problem justifying deletion. If there is disagreement about the accuracy of contents, it should be reoslved on the article talk p. DGG ( talk ) 10:29, 7 February 2021 (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.