Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nalchik War (1720–1721)

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 delete. Going slightly against the grain of Liz's relist here, but I believe there is consensus that the article as presently defined isn't notable enough for a standalone article. If anyone wishes to propose mergers or renames they are welcome to do so, and I would be willing to provide a userspace copy to anyone who desires it. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nalchik War (1720–1721) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've tried to find sources to verify that this war actually occurred and I'm frankly not able to. As such, even if this is not a hoax, I believe that this war has not been covered significantly by multiple independent reliable sources and therefore fails WP:NEVENT. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Revising my reasons: the source cited in the article has been used elsewhere, so it's plausible that these events did take place (Nalchik refers to the river Nalchik). However, there is so far only the same single source behind all non-RS tertiary references to these events so fails notability per WP:NEVENT. I am also concerned there may be OR in the framing of several events as part of a single "war". Surely, a war of months-long duration would have other sources attesting to it.OsFish (talk) 03:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This source, which is RS, says "Après la signature du traité de Passarowitz, le khan mena une expédition punitive contre la Kabarda (1720-21)." This source: "In Spring 1720, Sa'adet-Giray Khan camped on the border of Greater Kabarda..." and "the Crimean Khanate ... together with Nogays, raided Circassian lands in 1710-1717 and 1720". I'm convinced it's not a hoax, so unless the cited article is bogus... I need more evidence that it is truly non-notable. Article should probably be re-titled. Srnec (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both those sources are footnotes. One does not tie any battle in 1721 to events in 1720 and basically exists to say that the source material it comments on is probably confused over the identity of two different leaders, which seems a little worrying. The other does not describe any specific events in the time frame. The problem is in taking these events as a coherent whole as an article. OsFish (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title is tosh, but the 1721 invasion is listed in ru:Крымско-ногайские набеги на Кабарду. Keep and rename. Ghirla-трёп- 11:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. Most conflicts in Category:Wars involving the Circassians are also poorly documented and need reviewing. Ghirla-трёп- 11:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for tracking that down. I noticed that in that Russian page, the claim is also sourced to "Мальбахов Б. К. "Кабарда на этапах политической истории (середина XVI — первая четверть XIX века), Москва, «Поматур», 2002 г. ISBN 5-86208-106-2". There appears to be some disagreement about this as a source, with this edit, albeit from an IP, claiming it's not RS, although there's no talkpage discussion about it. So we may want to be cautious here. What's also notable is in that Russian page, there isn't a coherent "war" listed from 1720-1721. There it says a small-scale battle ("бой") near the River Nalchik takes place in 1721. So I am concerned that the time frame of the article may be WP:OR. I'm not sure that the battle in 1721 by itself is notable. I'd need to see more than one reliable source mention it (especially as I'm not sure how accurately the text of this article reflects the Mal'bakhov source). Or, the article title needs to be changed to reflect the general Crimean Tatar campaign.OsFish (talk) 06:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      It's hard to find non-partisan, reliable sources on the subject. Circassians tend to blow their anti-Turkic military campaigns out of proportion, while Balkars, Karachays and other Turkic authors tend to deny that Turkic incursions into North Caucasus ever took place. See Kanzhal War (1708) for one example. That said, Malbakhov seems to be a reasonably well respected historian. Ghirla-трёп- 14:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      It would really help if @A poor son of Adam: could provide us with quotations from the Mal'bakhov source, particularly where these events are unified under a single title like the "Nalchik war". This may help to determine how widespread this historical framing of events is. As it stands, I'm inclined to delete on notability grounds, but am open to how notability is applied to poorly document historical events like this. My reading of WP:NEVENT is that it fails.OsFish (talk) 01:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 06:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning towards deletion but would like additional evaluation of the new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- There is still only one reference listed in the article itself. I cleaned up the references in the article to make that more apparent. As for the other sources proposed by srnec, the posted excerpts don't seem like more than mention of raids, skirmishes, or small battles, which may have been worthy of comment about some larger scenario. But to me, they don't show evidence that this was anything that is in-and-of-itself notable enough. I wouldn't mind renaming it if a suitable title could be found and if the possible OR could be better documented. Radzy0 (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The argument that started this is "this didn't happen and if it did it wasn't important". The sources I located in <5 minutes of searching online support in broad terms the content of the article, which is cited (it seems) to RS. It is three paragraphs long. What is the problem here? How will deleting this improve the encyclopaedia? Srnec (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: FInal relist. There seems to be a basic division on the reliability of the sources mentioned or in the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:21, 13 September 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.