Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Balkhara

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. This is more clear-cut than the numbers suggest; if the sources provided don't mention the subject, then the keep !votes based on them cease to carry weight. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Balkhara[edit]

[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)

This fringe theory appears to be so fringe as to have never even had a mention in mainstream scholarship. Verification has been lacking since 2008, and this looks unlikely to be solved. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Bulgaria. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pseudoscientology. Beshogur (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I don't support this theory, I don't think that this article should be deleted. Jingiby (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Even if it is pseudo-history (not pseudoscientology - whatever that is), the list of sources and further reading listed is sufficient to show that this was widely discussed. It may indeed be utter rubbish (I do not know), but if it has been discussed that much, we need an article to explain that it is rubbish and why. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: To be clear, it has not been established that any of the sources provided even mention any "Kingdom of Balkhara". None of the three citations with actual links (2, 3 and 4), even mention the name "Balkhara", neither do the other two linked alleged sources below that. I would note that none of the other books listed as potential sources mention any relevant page numbers or chapters either, so it is not clearly established or verifiable that any of these sources mention the subject. As it stands there is not a single readily accessible source provided on this page that demonstrably verifies even the name of the page, let alone its contents. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As far as I can tell from the sources, there is no mention of this theory in any of them. Clear violation of WP:NFRINGE because there are no independent sources that discuss it. I admittedly relied on translate for the non-english sources. There may be scope for noting the theory in another article like Bulgar but I have my doubts because it may be so fringe that, per WP:DUE, it does not belong in Wikipedia. Jtrrs0 (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Peterkingiron. W C M_email 14:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wee Curry Monster, as the nominator has pointed out and as far as I could confirm, none of the sources actually discuss or even the topic of the article so they don't support its notability. I am happy to be corrected if you have found something in the sources that I missed, but I don't see a reason why the sources actually support keeping the article when they might as well be a random series of links. Jtrrs0 (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wee Curry Monster: Yes, I am also confused. I left the list of sources on the article so that people could perform their own WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST checks, but it seems like that may have been a mistake, since the long list of sources is clearly misleading people. To be absolutely clear, none of the sources demonstrably even mention the subject or even just the name "Balkhara". There is no evidence the theory is seriously discussed, let alone to a significant degree. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've now thoroughly scoured the sources and what we're left with is exactly two dubious and fairly unreliable looking web sources making passing references to the ideas in question, along with five allegedly connected Bulgarian language sources in further reading and a final source in further reading that appears to be a self-published piece of work in Wikisource by Lyubomir Ivanov. Overall, we are left with an utter absence of verifiable reliable, secondary sourcing on the details of this fringe theory, and nothing near the multiple reliable sources needed to establish notability. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Apcbg: is a well respected and long term contributor to Wikipedia, personal attacks in a deletion discussion is unhelpul. If you mention an editor it is only right you should ping them as they have a right to reply. W C M_email 09:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for for moderating your comment [1]. W C M_email 10:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Further, given the disturbing lack of content found in the offline refs, this is at best WP:OR and at worst a WP:Hoax.4meter4 (talk) 02:22, 16 October 2022 (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.