Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baloch civil wars
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 was no consensus. Sandstein 20:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Baloch civil wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
While the topic may itself be notable, the article establishes no new information other than that stated in other wikipedia articles. No references, inline citations for verifiability. Flewis(talk) 10:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. andy (talk) 10:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep I created this article and I object to delete it. After the placing the deletion tag, the article has been improved at some extent and also two good inline citation have been included. It will take some time to fully comprehensive on the topic. So please don't remove this article. Thanks. Marrigreat (talk) 06:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article now contains new information, references, and inline citations for verifiability, so the nomination is moot. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Article seems to be mainly about Mir Chakar Rind (and in fact the "30 Years long War" section is copied verbatim from that article). Any other information is covered in better detail in History of Balochistan. The single useful source seems to back this up, being an account of the history of the region rather than expanded detail of this one historical event (which is actually what I would expect). There doesn't seem to be any reason to single this conflict out; put simply, notability of this event is not asserted. OBM | blah blah blah 10:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that this article fails the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 11:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. What do you mean by "lack of citations from reliable sources"? There are two in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm unable to verify those. Stifle (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You can verify the first one online, and the second by going to a library. Again, there is no requirement either in verifiability policy or notability guidelines for sources to be freely available online. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm unable to verify those. Stifle (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. What do you mean by "lack of citations from reliable sources"? There are two in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Contrary to Stifle's opinion, this is properly verified. As the nominator states that it's a potentially notable topic, and as the problem of no references has been fixed, there's no reason that this should be deleted. Nyttend (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm still concerned that this is a stub of a larger article that only duplicates information. The sources are more general histories of Balochistan, rather than solely about the civil war(s). As I'd said before, I would expect the sources to be dealing with the specific event, as opposed to a general summary that briefly mentions it. Being familiar with this, I'm still not sure why this one event is more worthy of an individual article than the region's other conflicts. OBM | blah blah blah 14:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it is; I don't know much about this subject. All I see is that the article is sufficiently referenced, so it shouldn't be deleted; I'm not going to say anything about the propriety or impropriety of merging this with anything else. Nyttend (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The lack of articles on other notable regional conflicts is no reason to delete this one: it's a reason to create articles on those other conflicts. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't suggesting that as a reason for deletion; I'm simply saying that the references don't point to this conflict being notable in the history of this region. Also, the bulk of it is copied verbatim from the article on Mir Chakar Rind... as such it talks about him, rather than going into more detail about this event and its importance in history. I've tried to find sources that assert that this conflict is notable in its regional sphere, but I'm not having any luck. OBM | blah blah blah 07:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm still concerned that this is a stub of a larger article that only duplicates information. The sources are more general histories of Balochistan, rather than solely about the civil war(s). As I'd said before, I would expect the sources to be dealing with the specific event, as opposed to a general summary that briefly mentions it. Being familiar with this, I'm still not sure why this one event is more worthy of an individual article than the region's other conflicts. OBM | blah blah blah 14:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep An important and notable topic with references to verify the facts. JASpencer (talk) 08:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.