Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Kurdistan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was Keep. pschemp | talk 00:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
===Kingdom of Kurdistan=== --Cool CatTalk|@ 23:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC) According to the article two "kingdom of kurdistans" exist.
- Both existed for a very brief period of time (one being only two months).
- Article has very very little coverage and portrays what appears to be "rebellions" as independent nations.
- First choice: delete
- Second choice: broken into two articles with a better title
- --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding the second choice, what would you have the articles be named? Kingdom of Kurdistan (1922-1924) and Kingdom of Kurdistan (1925) with Kingdom of Kurdistan as a disambiguation page? - FrancisTyers 18:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- The suggestion is good, only I would recommend teritorial, rather than temporal disambiguation: Kingdom of Kurdistan (Sulaymaniyah) and Kingdom of Kurdistan (Palu), because the time way may misleadingly say that it was one and the same, only at different time periods. Mukadderat 19:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- I really think perhaps a merge in to History of the Kurds may be better (a recent suggestion below). The two entities did not last 3 years combined, there really inst much, articles cant develop much. I am not trying to delete information, but this "article" can't develop. --Cool CatTalk|@ 23:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding the second choice, what would you have the articles be named? Kingdom of Kurdistan (1922-1924) and Kingdom of Kurdistan (1925) with Kingdom of Kurdistan as a disambiguation page? - FrancisTyers 18:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep The article is cited and whilst only a stub has the potential for improvement - I would be amenable to a disambiguation page upon completion of two separate articles, but I think for the time being that one will do. I will assume good faith, but this nomination does seem suspect, Cool Cat hasn't discussed this on the talk page at all. - FrancisTyers 18:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- keep Fad (ix) 21:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Heja Helweda 02:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep a real historical thing. I expanded it a bit, giving correct names and places, to make further searches easier.Mukadderat 05:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, I am not suggesting it isnt notable however the entities did not last long enought to be article worthy. One "country" lasted 2 months (with no recognition) another only 2 years with british occupation until British decided they didn't want this country. There isn't much else to say about them aside from who their only leader was. History of the Kurds explains the matter and this article alone cant grow beyond a stub. This article could redirect to History of the Kurds. --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Please aloow me to respectfully disagree. "History of Kurds" is a big topic, with potentially a very big article. "Kingdom of Kurdistan" is a small but a separate topic. It is in wikipedia tradition to create separate articles by cutting fdrom big ones, not vice versa. The statement "can't grow" is also probably made in polemic haste. I am sure that in due time Allah will guide a Kurdish editor to expand the article. I am not an expert in this historic time and place, so I added only some basic details, but in fact I've already seen much more in the internet. Mukadderat 19:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, I am not suggesting it isnt notable however the entities did not last long enought to be article worthy. One "country" lasted 2 months (with no recognition) another only 2 years with british occupation until British decided they didn't want this country. There isn't much else to say about them aside from who their only leader was. History of the Kurds explains the matter and this article alone cant grow beyond a stub. This article could redirect to History of the Kurds. --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete no need for this poor quality article when History of the Kurds exists and is a high quality article. MLA 09:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- I am afraid this opinion is made with poor judgement. History of the Kurds, as good as it is, does not say a single word about the topic you want to delete. And this is reasonable: such a general topic cannot be contained in a single article. History of the Kurds must be a broad overview, with details scattered in subpages. Mukadderat 19:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- My judgement is based on the following: - there exists an article called History of the Kurds and in this article is a section called History_of_the_Kurds#Modern_History_of_the_Kurds with a link to a main article called Modern history of the Kurds which is currently redlinked. The section in question covers the period 1828-present day. There currently isn't any reference to the two items of information in Kingdom of Kurdistan which are an attempt at independence from the British mandate which did not last long and an attempt at independence from Turkey which did not last long. These two pieces of information are part of the modern history of the Kurds and should be referenced there. An article about independence struggles in Kurdistan would have more than just two basic pieces of information and would not be called Kingdom of Kurdistan. There should in my view be an article on the modern history of Kurdistan and at most, the information presented in Kingdom of Kurdistan would be a small section within that. MLA 19:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- The key words in your kind reply are "redlinked" and "should", which only confirm my opinion that the nomination for deletion was a bit of misunderstanding. You just don't delete information from wikipedia just because it should be a part of the article which does not exist yet. I am not in a position to evaluate the validity of the term "Kingdom of Kurdistan"; I may understand the position that if someone proclaims himself King, this does not necessarily mean that there is a "Kingdom". But this is a different issue, and again, you just don't delete a correct and significant information from wikipedia. We already have an article about Republic of Mahabad, which was just as shortlived. Mukadderat 22:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm.... Republic of Mahabad was also called kingdom of kurdistan... I for one am confused in this flood of 3 kingdoms with identical titles. Even a disambiguation page would be hard to create. Since all 3 of the kingdoms existed/ceased to exist repetively in the same time period. It is perfectly fine to explain this under a "modern hostory of kurds" rather than pathetic individual articles that cannot grow beyond stubs. Each article can hardly fill a stub.
- Where was the RoM called the Kingdom of Kurdistan? Well, disambig pages are for clearing up confusion (ambiguity)! :) Again your baseless assertions that the articles can "hardly fit a stub", please prove this or refrain from reiterating it. We have huge articles on demonstrations that only lasted one day, so to say that a country or rebellion that lasted in one case 2 years and in another a number of months can't fill an article is pure propaganda. - FrancisTyers 09:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Mukadderat the nomination was not a misunderstanding, when I nominated the article for deletion there was only two lines of information. The article improvement drive converted the article into a BARE stub explaining two diferent kingdoms. How many kingdom of kurdistans were there?
- --Cool CatTalk|@ 23:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Reading your all last replies I regret to reiterate that it is a misunderstanding. If the article is poor, the proper solution is to "merge and redirect" using be bold approach. The historical entity "Kingdom of Kurdistan" did exist, and people may search for this term, so deletion is totally inappropriate. Mukadderat 19:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm.... Republic of Mahabad was also called kingdom of kurdistan... I for one am confused in this flood of 3 kingdoms with identical titles. Even a disambiguation page would be hard to create. Since all 3 of the kingdoms existed/ceased to exist repetively in the same time period. It is perfectly fine to explain this under a "modern hostory of kurds" rather than pathetic individual articles that cannot grow beyond stubs. Each article can hardly fill a stub.
- The key words in your kind reply are "redlinked" and "should", which only confirm my opinion that the nomination for deletion was a bit of misunderstanding. You just don't delete information from wikipedia just because it should be a part of the article which does not exist yet. I am not in a position to evaluate the validity of the term "Kingdom of Kurdistan"; I may understand the position that if someone proclaims himself King, this does not necessarily mean that there is a "Kingdom". But this is a different issue, and again, you just don't delete a correct and significant information from wikipedia. We already have an article about Republic of Mahabad, which was just as shortlived. Mukadderat 22:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- My judgement is based on the following: - there exists an article called History of the Kurds and in this article is a section called History_of_the_Kurds#Modern_History_of_the_Kurds with a link to a main article called Modern history of the Kurds which is currently redlinked. The section in question covers the period 1828-present day. There currently isn't any reference to the two items of information in Kingdom of Kurdistan which are an attempt at independence from the British mandate which did not last long and an attempt at independence from Turkey which did not last long. These two pieces of information are part of the modern history of the Kurds and should be referenced there. An article about independence struggles in Kurdistan would have more than just two basic pieces of information and would not be called Kingdom of Kurdistan. There should in my view be an article on the modern history of Kurdistan and at most, the information presented in Kingdom of Kurdistan would be a small section within that. MLA 19:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- I am afraid this opinion is made with poor judgement. History of the Kurds, as good as it is, does not say a single word about the topic you want to delete. And this is reasonable: such a general topic cannot be contained in a single article. History of the Kurds must be a broad overview, with details scattered in subpages. Mukadderat 19:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and let develop. --dcabrilo 18:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Article is of poor quality and unsourced, probably nonsense talk by Kurd nationalists --Kash 10:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Poor quality is a value judgement, please make complaints about article content on the talk page. Unsourced is not true, the article has several sources. Please try and remain civil and don't characterise other users edits as "nonsense talk". Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 10:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and improve the article. The article is part of Iraqi and Kurdish history. It's still is a stub and will become an informative article.Diyako Talk + 13:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Why delete??? It's important historical info. -- infinity0 17:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Seems to provide information not available elsewhere. I wouldn't support a merge for the sole reason that [[[History of the Kurds]] is already a huge page. Does need some cleanup and sourcing, though, no argument there. --InShaneee 20:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The Ezo Republic lasted less than a year, and I don't see people trying to delete that. Naelphin 10:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Although the historical information is important, it should be discussed in a page dedicated to the unsuccessful attempts/rebellions/... by Kurds to establish independent states. Unsuccessful rebellions should not be presented in Wikipedia as though they were real states. In short, keep the info, but present it impartially and in a page dedicated to the whole issue of attempts to build a Kurdish state. Shervink 15:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)shervink
- From your description it follows that you mean "merge and redirect", rather than "delete", because your problem is with the title, rather than content. Please read the deletion policy about options in voting. Mukadderat 18:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- There is lots of problems with the content as well. Those few issues mentioned in it which qualify as historical studies must be merged into another article. For the most part, in line with others in favor of deleting the article, I think the article is simply a fabrication of history, portraying rebellions as though they were states. I have also stated that very clearly in my previous comment. I definitely think it should be deleted. Shervink 16:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)shervink
- The article is still a stub, There are many issues which still have not been discussed. deleting that article although will satisfy Turkish and Iranian nationalism for a very short time (but It never happens!) but it does not help wikipedia. This is why this article should kept.Diyako Talk + 16:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- There is no need to repeat yourself. You already voted, and we both have made our points clear. Shervink 17:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)shervink
- Keep per FrancisTyers and others; Nomination doesn't offer substantial arguments for deletion rather than improvement and/or reorganizing.--Sean Black (talk) 03:04, 6 March 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.
