Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kutlushah

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, defaults to Keep Nakon 04:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Kutlushah

Kutlushah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The names of perhaps several hundred Mongol commanders appear in the primary sources. Kutlushah does not need his own article. The article includes none of the information normally present in biography. We know only that he was active at the beginning of the 14th century and participated in an invasion of the Levant. In addition Kutlushah includes much disputed information already present at Franco-Mongol alliance. It is my belief that this article functions only to promote further a specious and idiosyncratic interpretation of events that has for some time now been under discussion at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance. Aramgar (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Though Kutlushah was indeed a Mongol officer, there is very little known about him, and all we have are some passing mentions of his name, along with passing mentions of many other Mongol officers as well. There's not enough biographical information to create a separate article. The main purpose of this article seems to just be as a WP:COATRACK, as a shell to contain some biased WP:POVFORK information, in an attempt to dodge consensus at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance. Further, though the article appears to have many sources, most of them are just copy/pasted in from the Franco-Mongol alliance, and have little or no information whatsoever on Kutlushah. The actual "sources" are mostly Luisetto, Demurger, and Nicolle, who just have passing mentions. The article clearly appears to have been created in bad-faith, and should be deleted. --Elonka 20:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Information on these two generals is fairly slim, but still allows for a proper article. Please kindly keep your accusations of bad faith to yourself. This is untrue, and as far as I know, this constitutes a personal attack. PHG (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Like Mulay, this article is also not about Kutlushah but the battle. Content can be split but only correctly. This is currently misleading the reader that the article is about Kutlushah when its not. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I actually added quite a lot of biographical information on both. Regards. PHG (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • No, article still contains some battle/non-Kutlu. related information which should be moved into the main article. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. It is a biographical entry which deserves a place. I see no reason why the article could not possibly be altered in the future to be more biographical. Unlike the other pages nominated as part of this same dispute, this article at least deserves a place in theory and so I strongly suggest we keep it. I have no problem with articles on any Mongol general for whom there are a few passing references, so long as it is encyclopaedic and well-sourced. Many figures get articles on just as slim primary sources. And this article seems to follow the life/career of Kutlushah. Srnec (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a Biographical article on a major and well-known Mongol general. There is no reason whatsover to delete this article, as already stated by several editors who are highly knowledgeable of this subject (Talk:Mongol raids into Palestine). PHG (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Notable subject that can be expanded further.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 14:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete Another in the Mongol Alliance walled garden of original research. The amount of sources cited has no bearing on whether the sources actually say what is asserted in the article. This article appears to be a coatrack for pushing the Mongol Alliance POV. Jehochman ^Talk 15:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep although it should probably be pruned down a bit to lose some of the unneeded/unused sources and the unneeded original source quotations. Ealdgyth | Talk 23:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. AFD is not for content disputes; please use dispute resolution to discuss mergers and splitting of articles.Biophys (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

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.