Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurdish principalities

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. If anyone wants to make anything useful out of this content, such as a category, here is the content of the article in its entirety: Baban, Ardalan, Bahdinan, Chol, Hakkari, Bohtan, Milan, Bitlis, Akhlat, Bayazid, Chamishkezek, Baraz. Sandstein 15:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish principalities[edit]

We do not sort principalities based on ethnicity. It would be ridiculous to have a 'list of white principalities' and etc. Such lists should have solidly established borders for inclusion criteria. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kurdish mountains --Cat out 14:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Could you cite the policy you're saying that we do not do this thing? Furthermore, white is not a comparable statement to Kurdish. A much closer comparison would be the members of Category:Historical regions. I could also include Italian city states and even List of regions of the United States. Sorry, but I just don't see what your problem really is. FrozenPurpleCube 01:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kurdistan is defined by whoever is defining the borders. Unlike countries there are no official established or proposed borders. There are sources that suggest Half of Northern middle east is a part of Kurdistan including half of Turkey, half of Iraq, half of Iran, good portion of Syria, good portion of Azerbaijan and good portion of Armenia^[1] other sources give Kurdistan a much much smaller area ^[2]. This one was drawn by a former US gov employee ^[3]. There is a wide variety of maps on google image search, ^[4] which also divides most of middle east as random countries. --Cat out 09:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, there's a variety of definitions of Kurdistan. Does that mean we should delete all articles on Kurds? No, it means the article should cover all the disagreements. The fact is, the Kurdish people do exist, and they had had prior minor governments. In any case, difficulty in writing an article doesn't mean deletion. Where is your citation to policy regarding the existence of this article at all? FrozenPurpleCube 17:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After some thought though, I believe a Redirect to [[History of the Kurdish people might be more appropriate here, same as the others I brought it up on. FrozenPurpleCube 18:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename it as Historical Kurdish Principalities if the decision is to keep it. Current title, coupled with a total lack of any introduction that specifies criteria for inclusion, implies that these principalities currently exist when they are historical entities. --The Way 07:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not certain if these are claimed to be "historic". Not certain if they are 'kurdish'. They should not be linking to modern day pages anyways. --Cat out 09:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After checking all the blue links on this article, which is just a list, I am really convinced it needs to go. These 'principalities' weren't all principalities nor were they all Kurdish, some were simply cities. One link goes to a disambiguation page concerning two topics that are related to Mayans which obviously had nothing to do with the Kurdish people and one of the links is to Milan which is Italian. No sources, a very dubious list and no definition or criteria for inclusion. --The Way 09:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I do not think Milan is a Kurdish principality. --Cat out 10:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While the Italian city of Milan is indeed not the Kurdish group, that only means somebody was clumsy about constructing the page. There is, however, some indication of a Kurdish group known as the Milan as seen here. [5]. I found that with a quick look. So I assume the original author of this page, not being an experienced Wikipedian, made a mistake. FrozenPurpleCube 17:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is now, it's difficult not to judge it unsourced and confusing crap.--Aldux 16:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional rename and keep per The Way, if somebody decides to make this mess a proper article - otherwise delete. I think that criteria based on ethnicity are acceptable, but the article as it is now looks messy, and needs cleaning+an encyclopedic "touch".--Yannismarou 20:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification Just to clarify my position, I'm not totally opposed to the concept behind this article. If there were indeed actual Kurdish principalities then an article on that is fine. However, such an article needs to state that it is historical rather than contemporary so, if kept, it must be renamed to illustrate this. Clearly, there are no contemporary principalities of any sort. Secondly, the article needs sources which it currently lacks and must be cleaned, the information in the article as it stands is misleading and incorrect. There has to be at the very least an introductory paragraph discussing what precisely constitutes a 'Kurdish Principality.' As it stands now this is just a list which isn't really acceptable, at least with the current title. I'm still not convinced that there were true Kurdish principalities, just as I'm as of yet unconvinced of the existence of true Kurdish City-States which is another AfD most of us are involved in. If this article is kept it needs to have sources that do show there were actual principalities of ethnic Kurds. --The Way 21:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second that.--Yannismarou 21:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd like someone to make a proper article or category on it at a later date, but this article's got nothing going on. --Wizardman 04:36, 4 January 2007 (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.