Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silig

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. Daniel (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Silig[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)

A 6th-century Sasanian known only from an inscription found on a ring. The article on the find contains little more about the man and I couldn't find much else to satisfy WP:GNG. Possible candidate to merge to Üçtəpə, Goygol, the location of the find - Dumelow (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anecdotally, this ring, and other pieces of evidence has been used to push iranian/pan-turanist claims to Azerbaijan's history as either a turkicist or an iranian territory, at least from what my iranian friends tell me. However, I'm having difficulty finding any RS on this topic, and given that I don't speak persian or turkish, I can't confirm this. I've put a note on wikiproject iran, if any persian speaking wikipedians can chime in, lmk if my friends are full of bs, or if this is indeed substantiated. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 18:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no prejudice against redirect/merge. Barring in-depth discussion in some undisclosed source, there is no evidence that he is a notable historical figure; it seems as though he was a guard commander, which is not enough unless, again, there are sources which discuss his significance. That seems unlikely since his character is known only thanks to a single artifact. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 18:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are no guidelines that state how many sources about a said person is required to make a article about them. There is an academic source of 7 pages about him named A TURK OFFICER OF THE SĀSĀNIAN KING XUSRŌ I, which is more than enough information to add in the article. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources". I've read the journal article, the first three pages are about an old, mistaken interpretation of the engraving on the ring. On the next page we learn that Silig is a Turkic name and that he was commander of the guard of the royal tent. There follows a discussion of Turks in Sassania in general and speculation as to which group of Turks the man might have belonged. I don't see much more that can be added to the article. To be honest there are more compelling grounds for an article on the ring than there is on the man. I'd be interested to read any other sources - Dumelow (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.—Silig has no significant coverage, nor did it radically change our understanding of Turks in the Persian Empire. Silig was not an important historical figure or archaeological discovery. I would argue deleting this if the lead BrxBrx has goes nowhere. --Lord Dweebington1 (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mergeto Üçtəpə,_Goygol Content definitely warrants a mention in said article. Pladica (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect somewhere. My preferred redirect target would be something related to king XUSRŌ I. The truth is that we KNOW nothing about him except his name and position, so that there is no scope for expanding the article other than by original research (i.e. hoax /invention. I have not read the article, but my guess is that this is a discussion of the context, which would be better included in an article on his royal master. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG — Alalch Emis (talk) 09:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Completely fails GNG, BASIC, ANYBIO, NSOLDIER. Their is no SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Sources provided about the ring and inscription do not provide SIGCOV about the subject. // Timothy :: talk 12:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No SIGCOV; fails GNG. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 10:36, 15 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.