- 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 keep. There is consensus that the subject is notable and a valid split. Though there are concerns about the style of this article, AfD is not the place to address those. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 23:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Campaigns of Nader Shah ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article doesn't have any source for its notability. There's no source explicitly mentioning "Naderian Wars" or "Campaigns of Nader Shah" with its fictitious timeline. Clearly it's full of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH mess, It's just impersonating Napoleonic Wars. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 12:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I looked at the equivalent articles on other wikis and most are barely sourced spam but the Italian one is extensively written and has numerous sources. I don’t think the nominator has clearly established that no sources use this term.
Mccapra (
talk)
13:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- There is indeed no source defining "Naderian Wars" or "Campaigns of Nader Shah" as a whole. At this rate anyone can create articles on the campaigns of any other personalities, but we have to make sure that sources do cover such campaigns or wars instead of covering some battles. Unlike Napoleonic Wars, it doesn't have any source for defining "Naderian Wars". Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 13:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Iran. Shellwood ( talk) 15:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I find it a bit ironic that the nominator themself just recently made an article that is exactly the way they have described this one
[1], whose deletion
[2] they are opposing. --
HistoryofIran (
talk)
23:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's not ironic when I have myself asked to draftify the article so it can be improved. Could you please go through
WP:AADP?
Based.Kashmiri
(🗨️)
13:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Draftify will not fix a
WP:OR and
WP:SYNTH mess that shouldn't exist in the first place (also, you initially pushed for a keep very hard, so you're not being completely honest here). If anything, you're the one who needs to go through our guidelines.
HistoryofIran (
talk)
13:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- @ HistoryofIran Well, at least the sources I have cited do cover Devapala's conflicts with Tibet but that's not the case here. Can you give us a source where "Naderian Wars" is covered notably. And I still don't get why you are bringing other topics to this discussion. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 13:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Draftify will not fix a
WP:OR and
WP:SYNTH mess that shouldn't exist in the first place (also, you initially pushed for a keep very hard, so you're not being completely honest here). If anything, you're the one who needs to go through our guidelines.
HistoryofIran (
talk)
13:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's not ironic when I have myself asked to draftify the article so it can be improved. Could you please go through
WP:AADP?
Based.Kashmiri
(🗨️)
13:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. A quick search at Scholar finds a multitude of sources. There is no reason whatever to claim that a source is off-topic just because it doesn't have two specific phrases. Just search for "Nader Shah" and lots of sources that describe his campaigns come up. The article is about a historical phenomenon, not about a phrase. The article at present is not well written and needs a lot more inline sourcing, but that is not an AfD issue.
Zero
talk
03:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- And at the same time, we don't find a source explicitly covering "Naderian Wars". Hope we are not creating "Campaigns of X" and "Campaigns of Y" just because there are lots of sources on X and Y. The article is full OR and SYNTH at best.
Based.Kashmiri
(🗨️)
13:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- You don't seem to understand the role of article titles. There are only a
few articles where the title is the subject of the article. Usually the title defines the topic and there is no need for the sources to even mention the words that are in the title provided they address the same topic. Also if the article has OR and SYNTH that's reason to clean it up, not reason to delete it. The role of AfD is to decide if the topic is suitable for an article, not to decide if an article is well written.
Zero
talk
14:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- That said I can work on "Campaigns of
Khalid ibn al-Walid" or "Campaigns of
Bajirao I" if I want? And also in these cases there are many sources dealing with their military career. Moreover I find in the above HistoryofIran's comment contradicting you; Draftify will not fix a WP:OR and WP:SYNTH mess that shouldn't exist in the first place, I guess we need more participation in this discussion.
Based.Kashmiri
(🗨️)
12:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- You can work on any topic that meets the guidelines for having an article. Also, HistoryofIran is mistaken about the role of OR and SYNTH at AFD, and has also not provided any evidence of those defects being present. The only relevance would if there was something about the topic that prevented a policy-conformant article, which is obviously not the case.
Zero
talk
13:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I think there has been a misunderstanding here. I was not referring to this article. HistoryofIran ( talk) 17:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- You can work on any topic that meets the guidelines for having an article. Also, HistoryofIran is mistaken about the role of OR and SYNTH at AFD, and has also not provided any evidence of those defects being present. The only relevance would if there was something about the topic that prevented a policy-conformant article, which is obviously not the case.
Zero
talk
13:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- That said I can work on "Campaigns of
Khalid ibn al-Walid" or "Campaigns of
Bajirao I" if I want? And also in these cases there are many sources dealing with their military career. Moreover I find in the above HistoryofIran's comment contradicting you; Draftify will not fix a WP:OR and WP:SYNTH mess that shouldn't exist in the first place, I guess we need more participation in this discussion.
Based.Kashmiri
(🗨️)
12:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- You don't seem to understand the role of article titles. There are only a
few articles where the title is the subject of the article. Usually the title defines the topic and there is no need for the sources to even mention the words that are in the title provided they address the same topic. Also if the article has OR and SYNTH that's reason to clean it up, not reason to delete it. The role of AfD is to decide if the topic is suitable for an article, not to decide if an article is well written.
Zero
talk
14:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- And at the same time, we don't find a source explicitly covering "Naderian Wars". Hope we are not creating "Campaigns of X" and "Campaigns of Y" just because there are lots of sources on X and Y. The article is full OR and SYNTH at best.
Based.Kashmiri
(🗨️)
13:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Obviously notable topic and fair split from main biographical and region history articles. Sourcing and citations could be improved and infobox trimmed, but those are editing problems, not deletion criteria.
Folly Mox (
talk)
11:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Just asking. Is it fair to combine all the campaigns and wars of historical figures in one article even if it's not given pass by reliable sources? Doesn't that come under
WP:SYNTH?
Based.Kashmiri
(🗨️)
18:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- It is normal to use multiple sources to create articles. It only becomes SYNTH when we use a combination of sources to draw conclusions that are not drawn by any of the sources. Zero talk 13:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Just asking. Is it fair to combine all the campaigns and wars of historical figures in one article even if it's not given pass by reliable sources? Doesn't that come under
WP:SYNTH?
Based.Kashmiri
(🗨️)
18:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: plenty of sources exist, and I would echo the comments above that grouping together related topics does not necessarily constitute WP:SYNTH: indeed, editors are encouraged to merge and split articles as a way of controlling article length. UndercoverClassicist T· C 15:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Should be on his main article, just the more important content. FreeZoneF ( talk) 00:53, 8 June 2024 (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.
- 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 keep. There is consensus that the subject is notable and a valid split. Though there are concerns about the style of this article, AfD is not the place to address those. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 23:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Campaigns of Nader Shah ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article doesn't have any source for its notability. There's no source explicitly mentioning "Naderian Wars" or "Campaigns of Nader Shah" with its fictitious timeline. Clearly it's full of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH mess, It's just impersonating Napoleonic Wars. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 12:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I looked at the equivalent articles on other wikis and most are barely sourced spam but the Italian one is extensively written and has numerous sources. I don’t think the nominator has clearly established that no sources use this term.
Mccapra (
talk)
13:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- There is indeed no source defining "Naderian Wars" or "Campaigns of Nader Shah" as a whole. At this rate anyone can create articles on the campaigns of any other personalities, but we have to make sure that sources do cover such campaigns or wars instead of covering some battles. Unlike Napoleonic Wars, it doesn't have any source for defining "Naderian Wars". Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 13:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Iran. Shellwood ( talk) 15:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I find it a bit ironic that the nominator themself just recently made an article that is exactly the way they have described this one
[1], whose deletion
[2] they are opposing. --
HistoryofIran (
talk)
23:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's not ironic when I have myself asked to draftify the article so it can be improved. Could you please go through
WP:AADP?
Based.Kashmiri
(🗨️)
13:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Draftify will not fix a
WP:OR and
WP:SYNTH mess that shouldn't exist in the first place (also, you initially pushed for a keep very hard, so you're not being completely honest here). If anything, you're the one who needs to go through our guidelines.
HistoryofIran (
talk)
13:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- @ HistoryofIran Well, at least the sources I have cited do cover Devapala's conflicts with Tibet but that's not the case here. Can you give us a source where "Naderian Wars" is covered notably. And I still don't get why you are bringing other topics to this discussion. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 13:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Draftify will not fix a
WP:OR and
WP:SYNTH mess that shouldn't exist in the first place (also, you initially pushed for a keep very hard, so you're not being completely honest here). If anything, you're the one who needs to go through our guidelines.
HistoryofIran (
talk)
13:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's not ironic when I have myself asked to draftify the article so it can be improved. Could you please go through
WP:AADP?
Based.Kashmiri
(🗨️)
13:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. A quick search at Scholar finds a multitude of sources. There is no reason whatever to claim that a source is off-topic just because it doesn't have two specific phrases. Just search for "Nader Shah" and lots of sources that describe his campaigns come up. The article is about a historical phenomenon, not about a phrase. The article at present is not well written and needs a lot more inline sourcing, but that is not an AfD issue.
Zero
talk
03:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- And at the same time, we don't find a source explicitly covering "Naderian Wars". Hope we are not creating "Campaigns of X" and "Campaigns of Y" just because there are lots of sources on X and Y. The article is full OR and SYNTH at best.
Based.Kashmiri
(🗨️)
13:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- You don't seem to understand the role of article titles. There are only a
few articles where the title is the subject of the article. Usually the title defines the topic and there is no need for the sources to even mention the words that are in the title provided they address the same topic. Also if the article has OR and SYNTH that's reason to clean it up, not reason to delete it. The role of AfD is to decide if the topic is suitable for an article, not to decide if an article is well written.
Zero
talk
14:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- That said I can work on "Campaigns of
Khalid ibn al-Walid" or "Campaigns of
Bajirao I" if I want? And also in these cases there are many sources dealing with their military career. Moreover I find in the above HistoryofIran's comment contradicting you; Draftify will not fix a WP:OR and WP:SYNTH mess that shouldn't exist in the first place, I guess we need more participation in this discussion.
Based.Kashmiri
(🗨️)
12:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- You can work on any topic that meets the guidelines for having an article. Also, HistoryofIran is mistaken about the role of OR and SYNTH at AFD, and has also not provided any evidence of those defects being present. The only relevance would if there was something about the topic that prevented a policy-conformant article, which is obviously not the case.
Zero
talk
13:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I think there has been a misunderstanding here. I was not referring to this article. HistoryofIran ( talk) 17:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- You can work on any topic that meets the guidelines for having an article. Also, HistoryofIran is mistaken about the role of OR and SYNTH at AFD, and has also not provided any evidence of those defects being present. The only relevance would if there was something about the topic that prevented a policy-conformant article, which is obviously not the case.
Zero
talk
13:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- That said I can work on "Campaigns of
Khalid ibn al-Walid" or "Campaigns of
Bajirao I" if I want? And also in these cases there are many sources dealing with their military career. Moreover I find in the above HistoryofIran's comment contradicting you; Draftify will not fix a WP:OR and WP:SYNTH mess that shouldn't exist in the first place, I guess we need more participation in this discussion.
Based.Kashmiri
(🗨️)
12:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- You don't seem to understand the role of article titles. There are only a
few articles where the title is the subject of the article. Usually the title defines the topic and there is no need for the sources to even mention the words that are in the title provided they address the same topic. Also if the article has OR and SYNTH that's reason to clean it up, not reason to delete it. The role of AfD is to decide if the topic is suitable for an article, not to decide if an article is well written.
Zero
talk
14:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- And at the same time, we don't find a source explicitly covering "Naderian Wars". Hope we are not creating "Campaigns of X" and "Campaigns of Y" just because there are lots of sources on X and Y. The article is full OR and SYNTH at best.
Based.Kashmiri
(🗨️)
13:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Obviously notable topic and fair split from main biographical and region history articles. Sourcing and citations could be improved and infobox trimmed, but those are editing problems, not deletion criteria.
Folly Mox (
talk)
11:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Just asking. Is it fair to combine all the campaigns and wars of historical figures in one article even if it's not given pass by reliable sources? Doesn't that come under
WP:SYNTH?
Based.Kashmiri
(🗨️)
18:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- It is normal to use multiple sources to create articles. It only becomes SYNTH when we use a combination of sources to draw conclusions that are not drawn by any of the sources. Zero talk 13:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Just asking. Is it fair to combine all the campaigns and wars of historical figures in one article even if it's not given pass by reliable sources? Doesn't that come under
WP:SYNTH?
Based.Kashmiri
(🗨️)
18:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: plenty of sources exist, and I would echo the comments above that grouping together related topics does not necessarily constitute WP:SYNTH: indeed, editors are encouraged to merge and split articles as a way of controlling article length. UndercoverClassicist T· C 15:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Should be on his main article, just the more important content. FreeZoneF ( talk) 00:53, 8 June 2024 (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.