Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Algiers (1710-1830)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Sandstein 09:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Algiers (1710-1830)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Kingdom of Algiers (1710-1830) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clear duplicate of Ottoman Algeria, bypassing discussion at Talk:Ottoman Algeria where consensus does not favour a split (see e.g. Talk:Ottoman Algeria#Splitting proposal). Aside from the needless duplication, the article is full of inconsistencies and WP:OR, its scope is unclear, and it might simply be an attempt to introduce a WP:POVFORK that avoids the scrutiny of editors at the long-established Ottoman Algeria article. R Prazeres (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As one example of a recent POV fork issue: the flag used in the infobox of this article ([1]) was previously added by an editor to Ottoman Algeria ([2]) but reverted by another editor claiming it was WP:OR, with some subsequent edit-warring ensuing there (see that article's history in early April 2023). R Prazeres (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete IIRC an article with a similar title was deleted last year. Useless fork of Ottoman Algeria at best. The fact that a few European sources used the term “kingdom” among others to describe the regency doesn’t provide a basis for a stand-alone article. Mccapra (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi ,
    the article has nothing to do with ottoman algeria, on the contrary the article concerns the kingdom of algiers created by Baba ali chaouch in 1710-1830 this article contains reliable sources and absolutely does not concern the ottoman empire since after you the regency of algiers = 1500-1830 while the regency of algiers is 1516-1710 and kingdom of algiers completely independent of the ottoman = 1710-1830 it is a bit like elayet of egypt and independent kingdom from Egypt so this article must remain and not be deleted 105.235.135.214 (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    almost all the sources of this period mention kingdom of algiers, regnum algerium, and royaume d’alger , this kingdom totally independent of the ottomans to itself was cited by the kingdom of france and the ottoman empire and other country in this time , the name is not a reason, out of history confirmed by all historians confirms that the kingdom of Algiers, an independent kingdom was founded under the reign of Baba Ali Hamza3110022 (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi 105.235.135.214, are you one of the main contributors to the article (Alg1567, Hamza3110022, Tayeb188, or Seddik909)? If so, please log into your Wikipedia account. R Prazeres (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, dunno if I’m allowed to reply as i was the one who made the kingdom of Algiers flag and tried to put in the Ottoman Algeria page, this was refused.
    so i would like to put some rectifications here, the kingdom of Algiers actually started not in 1710 but in 1659, or the so called the agha period, the pasha appointed by the Ottoman empire was fired and the janissaires took control of Algeria, this was viewed as rebellion by the grand vizier mehmed kuprulu pasha and denied Algerian corsairs any acess to ottoman ports, the Algerian officials regained the favours of the ottomans only after his death and replacement by grand vizier Ahmed fazil kuprulu pasha who sent another official in Algiers, yet they were deprived of any significant political powers, this agha period saw also the first ever peace and trade treaty written in arabic between charles the 2nd and chaban Agha of Algiers in 23 april 1662, also Hussein mezomorto dey prohibited the pasha again from entering Algiers and was the first dey to have helt the titles Dey-pasha
    according to turkish historian aziz sameh ilter’s book, Ottoman turks in north africa (arabic version).
    So the agha period was the period of real political independence from the Ottoman empire, and it was preceded by a period of anarchy in which the ottomans failed to effectively manage matters in the regency
    i hope i can contribute more to this page. Nourerrahmane (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    the Agha period was a turning point pretty much, both in foreign and domestic policy, the european powers started to deal with Algeria directly without adressing the ottoman porte, the agha and early dey period saw a lot of military and diplomatic activity in the mideterranean, real buisness started with france in this agha and early deys period with the war in jijel and Algiers ending up with the conclusion of the 100s years peace treaty between King louis 14th and dey chaban (not to be confused with chaban agha mentionned earlier), also major political changes happened inside as the military was now in charge represented by the divan which is an assembly that elected the ruler whith the benediction of the porte, the aghas and deys only payed homage to the sultan since he was considered the caliph of the islamic world.
    So baba ali chaouch was only a man who ended a short period of anarchy after the maghrebi war with tunis and morocco-fez, and the first recapture of the city of Oran from the spanish, he reorganised matters in the state and deprieved the janissaries of political power with the help of the pasha sent from istanbul, since the pasha despite being deprieved of power was behind many assasinations of prominent officials and even deys, yet chaouch was not the one who made the big change in the Algerian political status. Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind, I see you logged in to make your second comment. R Prazeres (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your argument does not stand, it is literally mentioned everywhere during that period. Tayeb188 (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hello there,
I understand that you are proposing the deletion of the article in question, citing it as a "clear duplication of Ottoman Algeria's article" and suggesting that there is no consensus in favor of a split. However, I must disagree with your reasoning.
Firstly, the article in question is not a "clear duplication of Ottoman Algeria's article" because it discusses the Kingdom of Algiers, which cannot be defined as "Ottoman Algeria." In fact, the main article itself should be split because the Kingdom of Algiers has nothing to do with the early Ottoman presence in Algiers. From 1671, Algiers began its independence process from the Ottoman Caliphate, to the point where it was independent in every aspect, only recognizing the spiritual leadership of the Ottoman Sultan as he was considered the Caliph of Islam. The Kingdom only printed the Sultan's name on the Algerian coins (a practice used in the Muslim world since the Abbasid Caliphate) and helped the Ottomans in their wars, considering it a jihad by Algerians (similar to the Pope's call for war against the Muslim world during the Crusades).
Furthermore, the Kingdom was entirely independent in its diplomatic, administrative, and political affairs. This justifies why European diplomats referred to it as the Kingdom of Algiers. More than that, the main "Ottoman Algeria" article needs to be split because, by not doing so, you are ignoring a complete century of the history of Algeria. This period has nothing to do with the majority of information cited in the Ottoman Algeria article as you are generalizing that period and completely ignoring the fact that there were two periods with the Kingdom of Algiers being an independent state.
In conclusion, I strongly suggest that the article in question should not be deleted, and instead, the main article needs to be split to give proper attention to the Kingdom of Algiers. Thank you. Tayeb188 (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, it is important to note that discussing the Kingdom of Algiers in an article titled "Ottoman Algeria" is misleading as it does not apply to the Kingdom and can be confusing for those who are seeking information about the history of Algeria in the 18th and 19th centuries. Therefore, a separate and proper article is necessary to cover this period, as there is a lot to talk about.
The current Ottoman Algeria article is mixing the two distinct periods in one article, which can lead to a misunderstanding of the history of Algiers for those who do not have a deep knowledge of the subject. It is similar to combining the Ottoman Egypt and Khedivate of Egypt in a single article. Thus, I believe that deleting this article because we don't want to screw up the "long established Ottoman Algeria article" would not contribute to the development of the history of Algeria and would mislead people.
If there are any concerns regarding the citations or information used in this article, I invite you to conduct proper research and make the necessary edits to further develop this new article. Tayeb188 (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside all the WP:OR here, you just explained yourself that this topic is already covered at Ottoman Algeria. Hence, it duplicates the scope of that article, or is otherwise an undiscussed topic split based on WP:OR. Every issue you just argued, whether it's about scope, article title, or topic splitting, belongs first in a discussion at Talk:Ottoman Algeria, which did not happen. R Prazeres (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article currently lacks coverage on Ottoman Algeria and it is suggested that a separate article be created for it. This is similar to the situation with the Beylik of Tunis or the Eyalet of Egypt, where each period has its own distinct article. Separating the periods into individual articles can benefit those with basic knowledge of the subject by providing a clearer view of each period, instead of blending them into one period. Additionally, editors can focus more on each period and provide more appropriate information. It is important to note that these periods are completely distinct from each other, and therefore require separate articles. Tayeb188 (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does not benefit readers, precisely because it would force them to look in multiple places for information they could find in one place, and divides the efforts of editors unnecessarily. That's why we don't split topics all the time. Ottoman Algeria, which covers this entire period, is neither long enough nor developed enough to warrant a split; and again, the place to argue otherwise would have been at the talk page. So now we have two lower-quality articles instead of one.
Beylik of Tunis is precisely the example not to follow, because as already discussed here, it overlaps tremendously and unclearly with Ottoman Tunisia and has led to an unclear, semi-arbitrary scope, creating a mess that will now take a lot of work to fix. If you want to improve coverage of Algerian history, avoid this. R Prazeres (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's your point of you and don't try to impose it on others you are trying to fit two separated periods into a one messy article witch is illogical it's like putting almoravid and almohad kingdom's into a one article mixing everything around,also article's must treat on something specific otherwise it would be complicated to further develop it because it would be very dense and THAT would certainly not benefit the readers.and when you said poorly developed, obviously what did you expect from a brand new article that will certainly be developed in the near future but again your solution is illogical you can't put this period of the kingdom with the other one and please think of it from a logical aspect other than a personal one because, i'dont know why but you are taking it very personal 37.169.165.210 (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I already said above, please log in to your account when commenting and editing. You are obviously not a random IP user and commenting here while logged out could appear like sockpuppetry, which I'm sure is not your intention... R Prazeres (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just noting that there is a possibility of this discussion being influenced by off-wiki canvassing ([3]). Historically, new editor accounts semi-regularly pop up to promote this kind of POV either on this topic or related topics, with varying degrees of disruption, and off-Wiki discussion is possibly involved in those as well (e.g. see end of this discussion). Hopefully that won't be the case here. R Prazeres (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I genuinely don't understand why you brought this up but to clarify, I simply invited him to discuss further development of the article because it is new and requires more research and citations. Tayeb188 (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're not planning to use it to influence consensus, then it won't be an issue. R Prazeres (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV fork. Srnec (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    instead of saying two words please give valid reasons why this article should be deleted Tayeb188 (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article Ottoman Algeria should really be expanded with this info properly sourced. Equine-man (talk) 07:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but tag for improvement -- but this may need tagging for improvement. The potential merge target Ottoman Algeria is currently a bad article as it says nothing on this period. It is possible that this is the result of material being removed from that target (a matter that I have not investigated). That article ends its coverage to 1713 with a short conclusion "Coup of Baba Ali Chaouche, and independence", which is then followed by accounts of attacks by European powers, mostly in the period after 1710. Note that 1713 seems to be a random date in relation to Algeria. It then ends with a section on the French conquest in 1830. There is apparently no account in that article on the internal affairs of Algeria in the period in the period 1710-1830, only of foreign wars. One of the "wars" is largely about much earlier conflicts and is out of order. The rest would make together a section on foreign wars of Algeria, if the Ottoman article should end at 1710. I am not qualified to know whether the content of the article is right or contains errors, but in either case the appropriate course is to Keep, correct, and link as a main article to Ottoman Algeria, a "main" article dealing with the period 1710-1830. Conversely, the account on the pre-1710 period in the article under discussion may need to be pruned. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what you mean by Ottoman Algeria "ends its coverage to 1713" or "it says nothing on this period": there is clearly content dealing explicitly with issues and events after 1710 throughout multiple sections, and the scope is explicitly stated in the lead. There is even a section explicitly about the post-1710 status here, and many of the subtopic sections like "Education", "Healthcare", "Architecture" etc have been composed to cover the whole period from 1516 to 1830, not artificially before or after 1710. So the issue remains why would one create a largely unsourced content fork, when you could simply improve the main article. R Prazeres (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV fork Whatever748 (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not clear to me that this is a POV fork. I cannot decide. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    there is no POV fork over here,we are just doing our best to cover the history of Algeria without miss-leading people as its not a one period so it cannot be covered in a single article otherwise it would be very difficult to develop the article as it would be very dense and messy because the period is extremely rich in history and there is a lot to talk about,just as same as Khédivat d'Égypte and many other examples. Tayeb188 (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's useful at this point, let's address some of these issues more directly:
    The POV of the article is not the main problem but may be an underlying factor. The IP's earlier comment above ([4], I assume Tayeb188), stating the new article "has nothing to do with ottoman algeria" contradicts any review of reliable sources on the matter. That kind of comment suggests the article's recent creation is motivated by an objection to the scope and current title of Ottoman Algeria, rather any actual need for a new article. If the word "Ottoman" is actually a concern, this can be brought up at Talk:Ottoman Algeria instead, but it doesn't justify a content fork. Among other references to consult:
    The later de facto independence of the state, while still under nominal Ottoman suzerainty, is explained in many of these references. Cutting off one part of its history after 1710 and labelling it a separate, unrelated state, has no basis in the sources. That the new article cites nearly no sources throughout should make that clearer.
    Nor are there any sources claiming that from 1710 onward the same state became known as "Kingdom of Algiers", this is pure WP:OR: the entire "Name" section in the new article is predicated on some old French maps showing the words "Royaume d'Algiers", and that's all. No historians make any such claim.
    Additionally, the Economy and Architecture sections of this article (and perphaps others) copied parts of the same sections in the Ottoman Algeria article, without attribution and without the citations of the original material, and despite the fact that these were written with the whole period (1516-1830) in mind. That's another way in which the new article merely duplicates Ottoman Algeria in order to try to give it the appearance of a full topic of its own, which it isn't. R Prazeres (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is simply not enough material here to support a stand alone article. Once you remove the duplicate info, unsourced content, and POV, at best you have an unnecessary StubFORK.  // Timothy :: talk  19:19, 17 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kingdom_of_Algiers_(1710-1830)&oldid=1155697766"