Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Anamur

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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Anamur

[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)

Quite apart from the intentionally confusing references, the poor grasp of English and the WP:OR to create the title "siege" or "battle", there is no indication of meeting WP:GNG at all. All sources which I have found describe the campaign as a whole as fairly minor, so having individual articles on extremely minor skirmishes is ridiculous. Either nuke them all or merge to the main article.AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Islam, and Turkey. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also the below articles on the same logic:

Procedural close. This is too complicated of bundled nomination to properly evaluate as a group. No prejudice against a speedy re-nomination of each of these articles in their own separate AFD.4meter4 (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May I inquire where the complexity lies? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as dodgy and likely OR. There is a rash of these alleged battles and sieges from editors who seem to be pushing an agenda of historical glorification, which involves using dubious offline sources to suggest that random skirmishes or even non existent events were notable. Mccapra (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’d be prepared to reconsider if anyone can find any in-depth coverage in RIS for any of these alleged events. Mccapra (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified other editors who are more capable of finding potential sources, or reviving the mess that are the existing ones, than I. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I have been thinking the exact same as Mccapra every time I've seen each of these horrible articles. All these articles suffer from WP:VER, WP:PRIMARY, and WP:RS issues. They are all made and primarily edited by (often brand) new users (which I honestly find questionable and not a coincidence, though that's another story). --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possibly some material should be merged into Cilician campaign of Kayqubad I, which is a valid article. Possibly these are valid redirects. Still, given the pattern, I'm not going to worry about it. None of the works by Claude Cahen I consulted had sufficient detail for this level of coverage. Srnec (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I, too, have been seeing these articles crop up reviewing the new pages feed and they are of concern. As others wiser than I have noted, sourcing is patchy/obfuscatory, minor actions are blown up (see what I did there?) into 'battles' when history has not conferred that title on them and the whole lot are indeed redolent of someone creating a parallel universe of NPOV. They need to go until something more honest can be done. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, too much reliance on Primary sources and partially written out sources that fail WP:V at every turn. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2022 (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.