Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chilaun

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. I would personally like to keep this, but I don't see how any of the "keep" opinions have provided anything approaching SIGCOV. ATDs aren't discussed in any depth, but this doesn't preclude a redirect, or a future article with better sourcing; perhaps there is sourcing in other languages. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chilaun

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A minor figure in the history of the Mongol Empire, Chilaun does not meet WP:GNG because no reliable source provides significant coverage on him. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and Mongolia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Only reference is a very old source and the current article does a poor job of a making a case for notability. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:ATD can be a redirect/merge to his father Sorqan Shira. Curbon7 (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively spelled Chiraun. Curbon7 (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. So "non-notable" that pretty much every drama film or series about Genghis Khan has featured him as a character. That says something about his place in the story of Genghis Khan, surely. There appear to be plenty of references in the articles on other Wikipedias (e.g. Japanese). -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERLANGS/WP:TRIVIAL. The Japanese version is primarily a genealogy and secondly a summary of a thirteenth-century chronicle. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I'm perfectly sure you're aware, neither WP:OTHERLANGS nor WP:TRIVIAL actually relate to what I wrote. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - On the contrary, you outlined two arguments for Chilaun's notability Necrothesp: 1) that most entertainment about Genghis Khan features him, and 2) that other Wikipedias have articles on them with references in them. 1) is addressed by WP:TRIVIAL: "In order for a subject to be worthy of a standalone article, significant coverage that addresses the subject in detail is required, to the point that original research that involves extracting information is not needed." Entertainment about Genghis khan is not "significant coverage that addresses the subject", and "That says something about his place in the story of Genghis Khan, surely" is original research. 2) is addressed by WP:OTHERLANGS—just because interwiki articles are referenced does not mean that the references are reliable. Remember, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Best wishes, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's not what WP:OTHERLANGS says though. It merely says that just because a subject has an article on other wikis that doesn't mean it's notable enough for English Wikipedia. What I said was that there are references on other wikis, which is a different thing. As to WP:TRIVIAL, that doesn't refer to what I said either. My point was merely that the fact he is featured in most versions of the story of Genghis Khan suggests that he is a notable figure in that story. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - very notable. Known as one of Genghis Khan's "Four Knights", he was one of 4 commanders of Genghis Khan's personal guard. This Google translation of the Mongolian Wikipedia's article gives a good summary of Chilaun's importance.

The article already cites as a reference The Secret History of the Mongols which is described this way:

- "The Secret History is regarded as the single most significant native Mongolian account of Genghis Khan… The Secret History is regarded as a piece of classic literature in both Mongolia and the rest of the world."

Chilaun joins Genghis Khan's army in chapter 4, section 137, page 65 of this translation of the Secret History. (They're referred to as Čila'un and Cinggiss Quahan in that text). After that Chilaun appears frequently in the history.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- A. B. I wasn't aware that a 13th-century semi-legendary chronicle was considered a WP:RS—my rewrite of our Genghis Khan article would have been a lot easier if that was the case. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I know zilch about the Mongols but if a character has been fake news since the 13th century isn't he/she/it just notable as part of the legendarium that's grown up around the definitely real Genghis Khan? This guy sounds like an important part of the storytelling if maybe not the historical record per se? jengod (talk) 05:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what you mean by this Jengod. He was not "fake news", he was a real person who lived in the 12th and 13th centuries. He is just not described enough in WP:RS to be notable and thus have a Wikipedia article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @AirshipJungleman29 I was thinking he was something like Friar Tuck in the Robin Hood stories. Like he's not necessarily historical but he's in most of the stories. Like if the unreliable sources are very old, and then people keep repeating those tales, even if they're provably incorrect or something, doesn't that myth making become notable in its own right? Like, "he shows up in movies X Y and Z but they're just making up stuff and it's ahistorical and fictive." The other thing I was thinking of is Sisi's mother-in-law and their relationship which has this whole public fanfic element that's been going on since the 1950s movie that is maybe not at all what it was like. I'm so totally not a Mongol person so I shoulda probably just kept quiet but it seems like (maybe?!) this guy needs some context where we explain--he's in zero reliable primary sources on the Mongols, but here's where people are getting their ideas about him and here's where that quasi-historic de novo character who was created ex post facto appears in the next 600 years of Mongol literature. Ok now I'm shutting up sorry jengod (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't agree with GNG. Apparently he was an important person. I added some new sources. It didn't take much time to find them. Instead of deleting we can find more sources and modify the article. Aredoros87 (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:SIGCOV, Aredoros87. Two of your "sources" are clearly Google Books searches for "Dai Chopan", whoever that is, another does not mention Chilaun, and the fourth simply says "eles e o filho do guarda, Chilaun, eventualmente se tornaram generais de Genghis Khan". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Right now it looks like "No consensus". A source analysis of the references cited in the article and discussion would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG. There are no sources for a merge, no objection to a redirect. Source eval:

Comments	Source
About a genetic test, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	1. Wen, Shao-Qing; Meng, Hai-Liang; Li, Hui (May 2021). "A genetic test for three historical hypotheses of the Mongolian Golden family origin of Tusi Lu's family, a response to a commentary on molecular genealogy of Tusi Lu's family reveals their paternal relationship with Jochi, Genghis Khan's eldest son". Journal of Human Genetics. 66 (5): 551–553. doi:10.1038/s10038-020-00861-2. ISSN 1435-232X. S2CID 254116339.
About a social group, does not mention Chilaun, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	2. ^ Elizabeth Emaline Bacon (1951). The Hazara Mongols of Afghanistan: A Study in Social Organization. University of California, Berkeley. p. 32.
About a social group, does not mention Chilaun, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	3. ^ Robert L. Canfield, Gabriele Rasuly-Paleczek (2010-10-04). Ethnicity, Authority and Power in Central Asia: New Games Great and Small. Routledge. ISBN 9781136927508.
Name mentioned, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	4. ^ "Gengis Khan". history-maps.com. Retrieved 2023-12-13.

The Keep votes provide opinions, but no sources to eval except an unsourced Wikipedia article [1]. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. No other wikipedias have sources with SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 20:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy, you omitted the most important ref. You noted that I provided a link to the Mongol Wikipedia article. I did not cite that as a source but rather to provide quick context for editors at this AfD without their having to read the entire Secret History of the Mongols.

The reference I cited was The Secret History of the Mongols including links to a translation as well as chapters and sections.

There are arguments above as to this famous piece of literature/history's reliability. As Jengod noted, that may not make a difference. The Bible is the main source of Juedo-Christian history about Abraham. Did Abraham really exist? Is the Bible historically reliable? Abraham is notable however you answer those questions. I argue that the same is true of Čila'un/Chilaun. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: As was explained above by AirshipJungleman29, The Secret History of the Mongols is not a historically reliable source, and it does not contain WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 22:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So no more Abraham or Bible, then? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You must be kidding. There is an entire academic discipline dedicated to the study of these topics. In case you are unaware A. B., these are what we call reliable sources. The Bible is not a reliable source, and neither is the Secret History of the Mongols. Thanks TimothyBlue for doing the source analysis. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: If your comparison was valid (the Bible with the Secret History of the Mongols), you'd be able to show plenty of reliable sources showing notability and the discussion would be closed. I'm not taking your discussion bait on the Bible or Abraham, the discussion needs to stay focused on sources and guidelines, not speculative OTHERSTUFFEXISTS claims. // Timothy :: talk 22:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We’ll see. Right now, Timothy, I don’t think there’s consensus either way. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Timothy I don't believe GNG is met, and I'm not persuaded that we should ignore GNG in this situation based on the arguments above. Daniel (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2023 (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.