Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenia Expedition (630)

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 Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia Expedition (630)[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)

Yet another typical horribly sourced/cited battle/war article that has a Turkic victory and created by a new user. It's basically a expanded version of the mess that is Turkic invasion of Armenia (628), which conveniently uses the same primary sources (well, not anymore, I just removed the Movses citations) and WP:VER citations and which was deleted based on arguments which fit just as well here [1].

Can't be a coincidence that so many of these horrible "Turkic victory" articles come up, there's probably meat/sockpuppetry involved here, though that's another story. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Armenia, and Turkey. Kpg jhp jm 06:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
”Yet another typical horribly sourced/cited battle/war article that has a Turkic victory and created by a new user.“ Well, i've used more sources than the other Article and they are more reliable. Hunnic Enjoyer (talk) 07:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A new user can't make an article about these things? This article is way more detailed than the Turkic Invasion of Armenia, and i used more reliable sources than that other article. When i searched Turkic invasion of Armenia, i didn't find any results. I think we should delete that article instead of this because the wars' date/year is wrong. Hunnic Enjoyer (talk) 07:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And in that article there are no sources/references about the year/time, also Lev Gümilev is used as a reference, who says the year of the battle is 630. Hunnic Enjoyer (talk) 07:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete- per nom. Archives908 (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another article supposedly citing Lev Gumilëv along with other unverifiable "sources". --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ poorly crafted article. Aintabli (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per UndercoverClassicist. Aintabli (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Draftify: AfD needs to judge the notability of the subject, not the quality of the article. This expedition definitely happened and has WP:SIGCOV in a number of published sources (a quick WP:BEFORE on Google Books gives at least four references that are more than a passing mention, and military campaigns have a pretty high presumption of notability (per WP:NEVENT, events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact). Given that the topic is notable, the only reason to delete would be a) it's a copyright infringement, BLP violation or so on, and I don't think anyone's saying that, or b) WP:TNT on the grounds that it would be easiest to start from zero, which to me is a really a vote to draftify and fix rather than to delete. Agreed that Gümilev is not a good source, but he's hardly critical to the article: relatively little would change if he were excised altogether. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep or Draftify~~: Let's not run new editors away. It's obvious the editor has done some research to put this together. We are a little too trigger-happy with the "Delete" impulse. I'm going to post a note over at WikiProject Military history. — Maile (talk) 01:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NEUTRAL - for the time being. — Maile (talk) 01:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue here is this is not the first time this user has made edits suffering from WP:VER and WP:OR issues [2] [3]. They even openly showed their disregard of our rules [4] --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article quality is not a reason for deletion. I am not familiar with the subject but Khazaria in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries, a 2015 work by Boris Zhivkov (I am not aware of the author but it is published by BRILL so presumably reliable) supports the existence of the expedition on page 61: "In 630, the Khazar (possibly) military commander Chorpan Tarkhan was sent by the Turkic khagan to Armenia" - Dumelow (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - The event happened, there are several sources, and there are editors working to improve it. The poor thing is only a few days old. There is no rush to kill it since it's not misleading, unsourced or NN. If it's still awful in a year, renom it and consensus will be easier. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - the article seems valid and has references but needs improvement and clean up. - Indefensible (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A horrible, POV-driven mess of an article. I strongly suspect that it only exists to 'prove' that "The Caucasus was completely under Turkic rule." in the infobox. Otherwise it is a hodgepodge of information and ignores the basic context of these events, i.e. the Byzantine-Persian conflict (it even has the Byzantines as opponents of the Turks, when in fact they were allies), and makes no effort to cover the actual event it purports to detail: it ends in 628, when it claim the event took place in 630. Constantine ✍ 18:28, 11 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.