Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadji-Dawud

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. Timothy's argument is compelling because it invokes WP:V, a core policy. The issue of notability aside, the article is entirely unsourced, and therefore unverifiable (verifiability means that references are cited in the article and support the text, not merely that they exist somewhere). Therefore, the content is worthless and the article, if the subject is notable, would need to be rewritten from scratch, citing sources. Sandstein 15:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hadji-Dawud

[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)

Can't find many if any reliable sources on this topic. A standard Google search turns up absolutely nothing, with all hits being either irrelevant/off-topic content, or blatantly unreliable sources like blogs, commentary, and definitions. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Islam, Iran, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the ru.wiki article looks massively refbombed and I can’t evaluate those sources but the equivalent articles in other languages don’t appear to lack sources. Mccapra (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Try "Hajji Da'ud" (or Davud) or "Da'ud Beg" or many other variations. Srnec (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you name a single source that either of those will get us? Uncle G (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Politics of Trade in Safavid Iran, p. 227, Cambridge University Press, 1999, ISBN 9780521641319
  - Persia in Crisis: Safavid Decline and the Fall of Isfahan, p. 223, Bloomsbury, ISBN 9781838607074
  - Baumer, History of the Caucasus, Volume 1, p. 164
  - The permutations of names like this that combine titles and/or honorifics with given names, all derived from Arabic but not from an Arabic-speaking context and that have to be transliterated into the Latin alphabet in different ways depending on the target language... makes it very difficult to do proper searches unless you know what to look for. It is unfortunate that some topic areas are plagued by bad-faith editors. Good-faith but ill-informed deletions, however, only encourage bad faith. Srnec (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - So why has it taken you, who did know what to look for, 3 weeks, several requests from Liz, and an outright direct prod from me to come up with anything at all? You claim to be best positioned, but you didn't put any effort in. Even now, you didn't bother to tell us whether these were books, journal articles, or something else, and make it absurdly difficult for other people when you have the information. I've had to hunt to find out what the Hell you were even citing and fill in the information above. Please stop complaining about good-faith nominations and start actually helping other editors. Otherwise you are the problem. Uncle G (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whilst there appears to be a confusion over characters on naming convention from original written language, jumbling the letters and diacritics a certain way shows plenty of sources and notable coverage. Dock Mock (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)(sock strike) oknazevad (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. All sourced and verifiable. --Frankie Photographer (talk) 10:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC) (sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC))[reply]
- That is an outright falsehood, given that there is not a single source citation in the entire article. Uncle G (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Despite a consensus to Keep this article, it remains unsourced and none of the discussion participants has brought any new references to this discussion. I don't see how any editor can say all sourced and verifiable without demonstrating a single citation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But the article needs some proper sourcing. killer bee  05:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- We need to see some sources, K6bee9, because right now, there aren't any. Care to do a search? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Checking out ru:Хаджи-Давуд#Примечания and some of the things that it points to it does seem that this is a well-recorded historical figure, but largely only if one can access and read academic and book sources published in the Soviet Union. That comment by Frankie Photographer (talk · contribs) above, who is also responsible for edit warring over 19KiB of sourceless content in the article's edit history, is shameful for being such a blatant falsehood about sourcing. I turned up a Dutch history Hedendaagsche historie; of het vervolg van de Algemeene historie from 1767 that mentions Lesji and a Dawg Beg in 1721, and a 20th century French source that apparently mentions one "Dawud-beg, chef des Lezghiens", both agreeing with the Russian Wikipedia's Дауд-бек; so I suspect that the problem is bad editors like NapoleonTHEvictorious (talk · contribs) and Frankie Photographer (talk · contribs) dumping stuff into the article, edit warring, and falsely claiming that it is sourced, rather than this being someone who is not in the history books. Quite frankly, I think that we can do without the edit warriors who outright misrepresent the absence of sources in their edits such as Special:Diff/1188225011. Uncle G (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Still not a single source.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar: right now, the Russian Wikipedia version has 139 references and the Azerbaijani Wikipedia version has 63. Left guide (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Left guide, can you add any of these sources that you think are reliable into the article or at least mention a few of them here? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hello Liz, unfortunately that seems unlikely, since I'm not fluent in reading either of those two languages, but I will see if I can find English sources. Left guide (talk) 02:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Left guide, that would be helpful! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not going through sources, because even if sources are found, this needs TNT to make room for a proper article. Since nothing in the article is sourced, the article history is has no value. The entire article could be deleted down to a title microstub simply based on a WP:V challenge. A future article shouldnt be tied to this unsourced content and a future editor shouldn't feel the need to try and source what looks to be a significant amount of OR. // Timothy :: talk 08:20, 30 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.