Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Greater Mongols

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. - Mailer Diablo 08:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Greater Mongols

History of Greater Mongols (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I can't figure out if this article is maybe about a book, or about the peoples mentioned, or yet about something entirely different. In either case, it is far from an encyclopedic text and lacking any useful context. Latebird 14:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete: non encyclopedic article, taken out of context. --Oxymoron⁸³ 18:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I think it is about a book, but without attribution of the book's notability beyond this "huraldai" society (for which there are scattered GHITS but little information that can be gleaned, at least in English). --Dhartung | Talk 19:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There's apparently something called the "Mongolic People Huraldai Society", and it has a book by this title, discussing people called Proto-Mongols, and political entities called "Xiongnu", the "Xiongnu States" and "Tuoba Wei". No sources, not even another Wikipedia article about the society, the protos, or the states. That's about all we know. Mandsford 21:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

To be fair: Despite the text missing links, we do have articles on the Xiongnu, the Tuoba, and quite a few other peoples that are usually considered "proto mongolic". But most of the relationships between them (and to the actual Mongols) that the text states as fact can at best be considered hypothetical. --Latebird 15:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC) (PS: I've just been pointed to this article by the same author, and still not quite sure what to think of it either.)

• Delete This article is a mix--part about a book, part about the history it covers. Either might be acceptable, but not both. JJL 14:34, 29 September 2007 (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.