Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Pasargadae Hill

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Pasargadae Hill[edit]

Article lacks inline sources. The references mentioned are so vague that they do not properly substantiate the tenuous historical claims made in the article. On top of that, the English is so difficult and muddled, and the structure so unclear (even at the paragraph level), that it is practically impossible for other editors to clean up the article, let alone source it, even if the historicity of these events was relatively easy to establish--and in that respect this might well be WP:OR. The talk page suggests that sources are to be provided, but that note (by the sole author of the article) has been there for half a year. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Drmies (talk) 02:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ - Hard to tell if this is a case of WP:NOR or a notable article with multiple typos and poor grammer. One thing I will say, is that in 550 BC. a RS is going to be hard to find. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--in 550BC, maybe, but we're not even talking about what's historical fact; we're talking about what we can verify, using both reliable and unreliable sources. And there are sources or evaluations thereof more recent than Rawlinson's 19th c. work. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - per Battle of Pasargadae, to main Pasargadae article. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True enough about Rawlinson - using a 19th century source as if it represented current historical thinking is very dubious. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research and synth. The lone source listed is quite vague about what happened at Pasargadae, and admits that there is little information about what exactly occurred during the battles. The author of this article and Battle of Pasargadae has a history of writing articles about battles that Cyrus the Great was involved in, despite there being little or no information about them other than the fact that they occurred. This is the third or fourth that I have run across at AfD, and it's getting a little trying. A ni Mate 04:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article is not original research because I never typed in it (except of course, the title and first sentence). The rest of the text comes Max Dunckers book about the work of Nicoluas of Damascus's book on Persian history, and he compares it to Herodotus', Xenophon's writing to at the end for similarities in the events, which there is a lot. It comes from here p.351 start reading from The mountain was...(it's were this articles text starts from too, [1], and the title is based on the fact that it say's it happened in the final stage, that the Siege was on a Hill in Pasargadae. So no OR, POV, but word by word cited, thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

If it is copied from a book that is in copyright, it is a copyright violation. And Max Dunckert is not listed as a source, so this is a violation of Wikipedia policy on acknowledging sources. This does not look good. --Alvestrand (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- see my commetns on Battle of Pasargadae AFD. If it is not WP:OR, then the sources should be properly cited, prefereably as footnotes. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any useful information should be in an article covering Cyrus's military campaigns. I agree with Animate. dougweller (talk) 06:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as "notability not established". I found an online version of the source at [2]. The whole thing seems to be one giant quote from Dunckler's book, which was published in 1881 (and so is out of copyright), but Wikipedia rules require that quotes get identified as such. --Alvestrand (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ariobarza[edit]

Since the number of comments by this editor, and comments on those comments, overwhelmed the list of !comments by other editors, I've refactored them here. --Alvestrand (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see my comments on Battle of Pasargadae AFD. This is not WP:OR of course, so please read the other AFD, I gave perfect examples to why merging this article is utterly wrong, and never really done before, each sources tells me that these Pasargadae battles SHOULD be seperate, they are mentioned seperately.--Ariobarza (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]
Comment Article is now fully sourced, and needs better grammer, and more sentences added from the others books for better verification. Now the sentence with sentence citing must begin. AFD for this page must end now. AND this battle will be mentioned in the Persian Revolt article, so no need to merge. Thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]
- I actually looked up all the sources you provided, and while I don't doubt that a battle occurred, I strongly disagree with your conclusions. All the sources agree that a battle happened, but few of the claims in our article are supported by them. You seem to not understand that every single battle or skirmish isn't notable. Instead of wasting your energies trying to bend sources to fit your ideas about these individual articles, perhaps you might merge all of these questionably notable battles into one article titled Military campaigns of Cyrus the Great or something like that. The majority of these articles deserve mention in and would fit perfectly in an article about the military struggles of the time, but what you're trying to create just isn't possible with the sources available... especially considering all of the sources basically say they're not sure what really happened. A ni Mate 03:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This and pasargadae battle and sieges are ALREADY in the campgainbox of Cyrus the greats battles template, you do not need on GIGANTIC article to fit everything, you did not answer my previous questions about merging other articles that seem to appear just like this article (heres a question, would you merge Siege of Gordium and make a article for Alexander the Great military campgains of Asia Minor? I can keep going... WHY do you go after well established (as you try to downgrade this) battles of Persian History, but you leave non Persian battle articles out of dispute? I smell somethin fishy (its like rotting fish, it smells bad). I hope you do not share the same mentality of who is wrong, my way or the highway, and or hostility causing views of ChrisO. AND so you go only after Persian articles, pleeeaaase click on the link provided in this message, it's an eye-opener! --Ariobarza (talk) 04:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]
Weird When I go to edit this page it says this, oldafdfull page=Siege of Pasargadae Hill date=6 November 2008 result= keep, so this is over?
- Nope, that's just the way the template renders while an AfD is active. A ni Mate 04:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I change my mind, now seeing that your going to merge this article WRONGFULLY, then for now, I agree to DELETE this article, as when I create it again it will be fully sourced. So your made up revisionist policy of Deleting stubs has prevailed.--Ariobarza (talk) 08:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

Comment: First of all, please refrain from personal attacks and agenda-suggestions, especially if you don't name the 'opponent.' I don't see how this article is now 'fully referenced.' There are still no in-line references, let alone citations; while there are page numbers given in the entries in the reference section, there is no indication of what might be found there, let alone how notable scholars have weighed in on the importance of this particular battle--and certainly not how notable scholars would support your conclusions (and to make matters clear, if they don't, it's Original Research). The language used is still barely comprehensible--for instance, punctuation in the opening sentence is ungrammatical and the section on 'motivations' begins with the description of an unnamed mountain (not a hill, I note). In which country does this take place? Who is Oebares? The ARTICLE itself should explain this. WP is also for laypeople, remember. Finally, the difference between 'references' and 'bibliography' is entirely unclear (a bibliography should not consist of wikified proper names, for starters). Now, all these editorial observations, combined with the contentual comments given above about the scholarliness of the article, only confirm, not change, my original assessment that this article should be deleted. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment above=(Utter not knowing anything about the subject theories)

Comment: This article is a stub currently that is why this article not really 'fully referenced.' There are no in-line references, let alone citations; while there are page numbers given in the entries in the reference section, there is a indication of what might be found there (WHen you Googlebook it! And you would see how notable scholars have weighed in on the importance of this particular battle--and certainly how notable scholars would support my conclusions (and to make matters clear, if they do, it's not Original Research). The language used is still barely comprehensible--for instance, punctuation in the opening sentence is ungrammatical and the section on 'motivations' begins with the description of an unnamed mountain (not a hill, I note [BUT your wrong if you read the battle it says the final day the Persians retired on a lower hil and made the last charge in which they defeated the Medians). In which country does this take place? [LOOK at infobox] Who is Oebares? [NEED to make an article for him] The ARTICLE itself should explain this [And it mostly does, but you demand too much]. WP is also for laypeople, remember [I know tell me about it]. Finally, the difference between 'references' and 'bibliography' is entirely unclear (a bibliography should not consist of wikified proper names, for starters) this is true. Now, all these editorial observations, combined with the wrong-contentual comments given above about the scholarliness of the article, only confirm, not change, my original assessment that this article should be kept. Becuase this book and others confirm the the title, they list Pasargadae under siege, and it says it was in the highlands hill of Fars=Persis= Pasargadae, Persis is where the siege took place in the first place, so confirmation! This is the main search, Siege Pasargadae which means you can not merge a notable battle siege and city in ONE article! and this is the book I am talking about which lists notable sieges and battles in alphabetical order, Siege of Pasargadae Hill.

It comes mainly from here too, p.351 start reading from The mountain was...(it's were this articles text starts from too, [3], and the title is based on the fact that it say's it happened in the final stage, that the Siege was on a Hill in Pasargadae. So no OR, POV, but word by word cited, thanks--Ariobarza (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk Thank you.--Ariobarza (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

(to Alvestrand)

THEN we just need to cite the sentences not deleted!--Ariobarza (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

A mention in an 1881 book is not sufficient for notability. --Alvestrand (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The boldened is were the text comes from, and the rest give more details to the battle, thanks;

+Max Duncker, The History of Antiquity, tr. Evelyn Abbott. London, Richard Bentley * Son (1881) p. 351-352. ISBN 2792979279 +Rawlinson, George (1885). The Seven Great Monarchies of the Eastern World, New York, John B. Eldan Press, reprint (2007) p. 121-123. In 4 volumes. ISBN 9781428647 +M. A. Dandamaev, A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire, tr. W. J. Vogelsang, BRILL Press, (1989) p. 16-17. ISBN 9004091726 +Fischer, W.B., Ilya Gershevitch, and Ehsan Yarshster, The Cambridge History of Iran, Cambridge University Press (1993) p. 145. In 1 volume. ISBN 0521200911

There might be hundereds more, and these sources are already listed on the main page of the article, it just needs to be updated, the end.--Ariobarza (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[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.