The result was keep. No great love for a delete outcome from the discussion below; if some of the participants want to propose a merge, we have such a procedure. ( non-admin closure) BusterD ( talk) 14:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
According to AfD on plwiki this incorrect article is being translated to multiple wikis (""...In the Kazakh steppes, additional tribes joined, forming a new tribal union: the Huns. [...] Attila, a Hunnic chieftain [...] plundered Roman lands, seeking loot and tribute, not territorial conquests. [...] When Attila died [...] his confederation quickly collapsed. The Huns melted back into the steppe, occasionally appearing as Roman mercenaries.[...] Despite their ferocious reputations, the Huns, east and west, were never a threat to the existence of China or the Roman Empire." " P. Golden, "Central Asia in World History", pages. 33-34", Peter B. Golden: An introduction to the history of the Turkic peoples: ethnogenesis and state-formation in medieval and early modern Eurasia and the Middle East mentions that it at the best case Atilla created confederation, certainly not state/empire) Bulwersator ( talk) 10:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC) reply
It seems that repeated AfDs are getting no consensus. Perhaps if we can reach consensus on the intended scope of this article we can come up with something acceptable to everyone? What, in other words, is reasonably described as the Hunnic Empire, and what is more appropriately described as the activities of politically divided groups with some degree of cultural unity? I'd suggest that the Hunnic Empire is the realm of Attila, including the nature, basis, results, and extent of his rule, and the rest of their history is the history of the Huns, but we may debate this. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 09:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No great love for a delete outcome from the discussion below; if some of the participants want to propose a merge, we have such a procedure. ( non-admin closure) BusterD ( talk) 14:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
According to AfD on plwiki this incorrect article is being translated to multiple wikis (""...In the Kazakh steppes, additional tribes joined, forming a new tribal union: the Huns. [...] Attila, a Hunnic chieftain [...] plundered Roman lands, seeking loot and tribute, not territorial conquests. [...] When Attila died [...] his confederation quickly collapsed. The Huns melted back into the steppe, occasionally appearing as Roman mercenaries.[...] Despite their ferocious reputations, the Huns, east and west, were never a threat to the existence of China or the Roman Empire." " P. Golden, "Central Asia in World History", pages. 33-34", Peter B. Golden: An introduction to the history of the Turkic peoples: ethnogenesis and state-formation in medieval and early modern Eurasia and the Middle East mentions that it at the best case Atilla created confederation, certainly not state/empire) Bulwersator ( talk) 10:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC) reply
It seems that repeated AfDs are getting no consensus. Perhaps if we can reach consensus on the intended scope of this article we can come up with something acceptable to everyone? What, in other words, is reasonably described as the Hunnic Empire, and what is more appropriately described as the activities of politically divided groups with some degree of cultural unity? I'd suggest that the Hunnic Empire is the realm of Attila, including the nature, basis, results, and extent of his rule, and the rest of their history is the history of the Huns, but we may debate this. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 09:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply