Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scythian European Kingdoms

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. To be honest, this is really more a closure with "no action required", as the concern is that this article requires a lot of cleanup and that any useful content needs to be merged into Scythia. As of this time, I note that there are {{cleanup}} and {{mergeto}} tags in this article, so I think it's safe to close it as no consensus at this time. If no further action is taken to address the concerns raised in this AfD, the best course of action would be to simply redirect this article (without merging) to Scythia as redirects are cheap and I'm sure some content from this article has already been merged there anyway. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The result was Already merged to Scythia. The talk page notes that the article is already merged, so I'm going to finish the merger up and redirect the article. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scythian European Kingdoms

Delete This page should be deleted for several reasons:

• It is poorly written.
• It is made by a user who has been caught fabricating sources and evidence in the past.
• It is made by a user who runs and or is affiliated with a pan Turkish website, which is clearly a website full of POV, origional research, and goes on to claim such things as "the Etruscans were Turkic" (See here: [1]).
• The useful content on this page should be moved to the Scythia/Scythians page.
• This whole article is not properly sourced. Khosrow II 21:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Hello32020 21:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Question Is there evidence that the material in this article is inaccurate or fabricated (beyond your assertion that one of the editors has done so in the past)? I certainly agree this article needs greater citation but as it does at least have two references at the bottom, this article seems a Cleanup issue, not an AfD. However, I may be missing some information. -Markeer 22:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The user that has created this article has been quite active at trying to push his POV on Scythia related articles. He has continuously been proven wrong yet still insists on pushing his POV. I believe two of the articles he has created have already been deleted. Also, I already said that usable information from this page should be transferred to the Scythia page.Khosrow II 22:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Khosrow, in answer to my question if you have any evidence beyond your assertion of past behavior, you have responded with an assertion of past behavior. I'm not an admin, but looking at an item on User:Barefact's [talk page] I see that both you and he entered a process of mediation with administrator User:Alex Bakharev three days ago (Oct 1) regarding "dispute over Ossetian Language, Scythia, and other disputes" (User: Barefact's words and assertion, not mine) which leads me to consider that this AfD is part of an ongoing user dispute between the two of you. I also see that admin User:Alex Bakharev was [notified] regarding the creation of this article on that same day.

There appears to be more going on here than a blank AfD nomination, this needs to be taken to admins, not the wikipedia voting public (in my opinion). I will leave a comment on User:Alex Bakharev's talk page pointing him to this AfD. -Markeer 22:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This is only on going because Barefact insists on putting his false information in. Also, I dont on which discussion page it was on, but User Ali Doostzadeh proved to everyone that Barefact falsified a quote to suit his opinion. What Barefact did not know was that Ali had the book that Barefact got and distorted the quote from.Khosrow II 23:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I find it ironic in an AfD arguing about "proper sourcing" that you are a) unwilling to look up said discussion page to prove your point, or far more importantly: b) provide evidence that there is inaccuracy in the current article under AfD. If this user has improperly sourced in the past that is certainly cause for concern, but has nothing to do with the value or contents of THIS article. So far your only clear argument is that the article needs sources, which is certainly true, but suggests a Cleanup vote from AfD. Everything else appears to be a Straw man argument (including the argument about poor writing -- this article tends to severe run on sentences, but expresses itself decently), and that fact again suggests a Cleanup, not a Delete.

I've left a [note on the admin's talk page. In my opinion this AfD needs admin review. -Markeer 23:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

it is simple epmiricism, not a personal attack, to say that Barefact's contributions have been a useless waste of time. However, this is about deletion of the "Scythian European Kingdoms" article. The title should be deleted, see below; some (little enough) of the content can be merged into the Scythia article (also see below). dab (ᛏ) 09:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The evidence is some where in a long talk page, and I personally dont have the time to dig it up.Khosrow II 21:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Any useful content from the article can be brought into the discussion page of the Scythian article and then after grammatical and spelling corrections, inserted in that article. There are many sentences from the article that does not seem to contain any sources. --alidoostzadeh 22:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• move, cleanup: this should be taken as the opportunity of the long proposed {{split}} of Scythia and Scythians. Much of the content of this article would pertain to the "Scythia" article. After the move, get rid of the "Scythian European Kingdoms" title because it is useless (wrong capitalisation, "European" is not a good concept in this case since the kingdoms in question were located in "Western Eurasia", squat on the 'boundary' of Europe and Asia. In fact, in classical terminology, 'Europe', 'Asia [minor]' and 'Scythia' are three terms on equal footing). dab (ᛏ) 09:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I've been bold, moving most content to the newly branched Scythia and slapped that with {{cleanup}} - please help. dab (ᛏ) 10:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• While I'm glad to see someone working to improve the article, I've reverted your edits on Scythian European Kingdoms for the moment dab, apologies. Please see the guidelines in the AfD box there regarding not blanking an article until the AfD discussion is closed. I have not changed your edits to your move point as it may of course be useful if the outcome is to move or merge. I agree "European" is a tricky subject point (particularly since one of the subject kingdoms seems to only be located in the Crimea/Black Sea region). -Markeer 13:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep.. Why don't you guys remove the unsourced statements and add references to improve the article.. :)) Baristarim 09:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • because the title is crap to begin with. this is what AfD is for, remove article titles that have no hope of ever becoming anything that makes sense. dab (ᛏ) 10:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Not to be overly-argumentative dab, but AfD is not to destroy an article because it has some problems or a bad name. It's an open call to wikipedia editors to consider the possibility that an entire article should be removed in toto, based on the criteria in the Wikipedia guidelines. Not being particularly familiar with this subject, I only entered this conversation as the nominating criteria above are NOT generally reasons for deletion, only for improvement and editing, which is generally discussed on the article discussion page. Based on his comment on my talk page, an admin will investigate if this article contains original research, which IS a valid reason for deletion. -Markeer 13:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• you seem to be confused. OR is no reason for deletion. An unsalvageable title is. Fwiiw, I have "investigated" this article and opted to move parts to Scythia. At this point, the deletion debate is about the title and edit history. Since I have copy-pasted some bits over to Scythia, we should not delete this one, strictly speaking, we should keep it for its edit history. I therefore suggest we move it to Scythian kingdoms and make that a redirect to Scythia, and then delete the new redirect at Scythian European Kingdoms. does that make sense? dab (ᛏ) 14:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• move, delete redirect, cleanup as per dab. --Pjacobi 07:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete title is flawed, duplicates coverage; merge any useful, well-written material into Scythians.--Jpbrenna 17:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all. --ManiF 20:58, 8 October 2006 (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.