Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Kapisa

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 delete. StarM 02:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Kapisa

This article appears, like others created by the same editor, to be a work of original research by synthesis. I have been unable to find any sources describing a "Siege of Kapisa". Although the article includes a number of citations, they consist of a number of fragments and snippets from Google Books that Ariobarza (talk · contribs) has stitched together to create a description of an event that reliable sources don't seem to cover. This is very much a parallel to what has happened with Battle of the Tigris, by the same editor (see the ongoing AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Tigris). As WP:OR says, "Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion ... then the editor is engaged in original research." That rule has clearly not been followed in this case. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. WP:OR WP:SYN. X MarX the Spot (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--plenty of reason why given by the nominator; more is found on the talk page. But really, calling this 'original research' is not being very friendly to actual researchers. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Heh. How about "research, after a fashion"? X MarX the Spot (talk) 01:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. No source appears to refer to this event. --Nickhh (talk) 02:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be OR. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in some way... or perhaps might have... it suggests... most likely... and In this vague siege it is unknown how long it lasted are just some of the troubling phrases found in this article. Looking at the article and its history, it appears that it was written first and sourced second. Furthermore, the sources provided appear to support that Cyrus conquered Kapisa but don't appear to support any of the other assertions in the article. This is clearly original research and synthesized information. A ni Mate 02:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I will take ChrisO to administrator abuse, this is just ridiculus, he is trying to delete every article that I am currently working on and adding sources, while he is trying to delete it. I also found this on Wikipedia

Alexander populated the city with 7,000 Macedonians, 3,000 mercenaries and thousands of natives (according to Curtius VII.3.23), or some 7,000 natives and 3,000 non-military camp followers and a quantity of Greek mercenaries (Diodorus, XVIII.83.2), in March 329 BC. He had also built forts in what is nowadays Bagram or Begram (Kapisa) in Afghanistan, at the foot of the Hindu Kush, replacing forts erected in much the same place by Persia's king Cyrus the Great c. 500 BC. It is from the Alexander in the Caucasuas article, and it appears that after Cyrus stormed Kapisa, he replaced it with a new city, and one of the sources cited for this article say Cyrus stormed/ captured/ destroyed Kapisa. See definition of siege, and your trying to delete an article full of sources, what the hell is going on here? [1]. If the title bothers you, your welcomed to change it into Storm of Kapisa, and I know it would be silly, second, Siege of the Sogdian Rock was not really a siege either the only source on it ,Arrian of Nicomidia never said it was, then why is it still called a siege? Thank you.--Ariobarza (talk) 05:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

Also it is not a few words of Pliny, Arrian takes of Alexander besieging a small town, a few words too, but why do articles exist for it? AND the first two paragraphs do not have to be sourced, but I sourced them for the sake of arguement, (and guess what it is getting now deleted) a claim ChrisO has made up.--Ariobarza (talk) 05:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOR. --Folantin (talk) 08:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Clearly violates WP:OR, WP:SYN with a dollop of WP:CB ukexpat (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Edward321 (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2008 (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.