Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Ghazdewan

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. I interpret the discussion here as lacking a consensus that the article should be deleted now. No prejudice to a future renomination if it later appears that there is no notability, and of course our readership may be better served by merger under a more widely known heading. I'll leave that discussion to more knowledgable parties. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ghazdewan[edit]

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

Content fork fails WP:GNG. Article seems to have been copy-pasted from 1854 book (claimed to be in public domain), with only two passing mentions of subject. Only Google search hit is a WP mirror; nothing in Google Books (including link in footnote), Scholar, HighBeam, Questia or Credo. When I tried to write the lead (article has none), I realized I had nothing concrete to go on. Miniapolis 13:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 21. Snotbot t • c » 14:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't tell if this is a real book or one of those Wikipedia sourced ones, but it exists for what that's worth: Battles Involving the Safavid Empire: Battle of Chaldiran, Battle of Ghazdewan, Battle of Dimdim, Battle of Marv, Battle of Damghan 2010 ISBN-13: 9781157078531. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the account on pages 325-327 of the book linked in the article [1], accounts can be found at [2], [3], [4], The Dictionary of Battle and Sieges suggests an alternative spelling of Ghujduwan which leads to accounts at [5], [6]. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking (and for sourcing the pages from which the article is copied) but those sources you're citing are all passing mentions, not significant coverage. We're still left with the fact that the battle took place in 1512—very little more, and not enough (in my view) for a standalone article. All the best, Miniapolis 15:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just noted that the Persian version of the article in Persian Wikipedia has [7] as its main reference. The Persian translation of the book has been published by an important publication house.Farhikht (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that maybe G‘ijduvon is an alternative name for the place of battle.Farhikht (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 15:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question. It is a content fork of what? Content forks should usually be merged back together. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Potential keep -- Assuming the source cited is a real book, this is a valid (if poorly presented) article. If the book is reliable, it will have sources, probably in the form of Persian or Urdu histories or chronicles. On the other hand, the name will be a transliteration from Persian or some other oriental language. Such transliteration is fraught with difficulties. Are we sure that we do not have another article on the battle under a different spelling? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To answer SmokeyJoe first, {{Campaignbox Babur}} has many obscure battles which have apparently already been deleted; this is one of them. A merge to Babur would probably work; while it has a refimprove tag, it's in much better shape than this page. Peterkingiron, I don't think a single source meets WP:GNG. All the best, Miniapolis 18:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Potential keep: The information is interesting and relevant. Additional authorities required to verify accuracy. Kabirat (talk) 06:07, 1 July 2013 (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.