- Battle of Byshek (1467) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
In this war article published in the past, a page without sources, unreliable and infrastructure was opened. I reopened this same page with new information, new regulations and academic resources. I used a total of 9 sources, giving 8 visible sources. But since the page was opened in the past, it was deemed appropriate to delete it, and I object to this. Because the page was opened in a much more orderly and academic manner than before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keremmaarda (talk • contribs) 14:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As the admin who most recently deleted the article, I won't join in with my opinion on any possible outcome here. However, I do need to share that the article's previous version was under a different title, with that article's AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Burshek. In addition, that earlier article was also created by Keremmaarda and had 9 citations in it, including some of the same citations that appeared in the new version I deleted on October 5.--SouthernNights (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but the previous article had no visible source and contained sporadic references. I edited the page and added more, using visible sources, so it meets all the requirements for a war article. I find it unnecessary to delete the page just because it has been opened in the past. After all, this is a big encyclopedia. If someone else opens it instead of me one day, will it be deleted? Keremmaarda (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you mean by no visible sources. As an admin, I'm able to view deleted pages. I did this when I compared the original article to the new one before speedy deleting it. The original article did indeed have citations that could be seen. Anyway, I'll leave the decision here to others. SouthernNights (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources I mentioned as visible sources are the sources in which the text is readable in PDF format. There were only book titles on the old page, but what they wrote in the book was not visible, so there were problems with the source in the old discussion site. But this time, you can see the events written in the books I gave you when you click on the link. Keremmaarda (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the closing of the AFD as Delete. It could not have been closed any other way. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the G4 deletion, relying on the judgment of admin User:SouthernNights that the article deleted by the AFD and the recreation were substantially the same. If the appellant and the deleting admin disagree as to whether the article deleted by AFD had sources, one of the two editors is trusted by the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow Creation of Draft with the provision that another admin may compare the draft against the article that was deleted by AFD to determine whether to pass the draft on to AFC for review by a reviewer who does not have admin glasses. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I've created a draft of the article at Draft:Battle of Byshek (1467) as the article existed at 5 October 2023, at 11:37 right before I deleted it. This will allow everyone to examine the article and determine if it should be kept. As a note, I checked the citations and have concerns they don't back up the article's information. For example, citation #3 "Gibb, Hamilton Alexander Rosskeen. THE ENCYCLOPAEDİA OF ISLAM" mentions Buzurshek in passing but not a battle. Citation #4, which supposedly supports the statement "The toughest battle for the Ottoman army in this campaign was in the Buzurshek valley." doesn't appear to mention the battle or a valley at all (but please double check that b/c I'm using Google Translate). SouthernNights (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd need to see the article originally deleted at AfD to judge if the G4 is proper. For something like this (a historical battle), I'd inclined to suggest that the matter make it (back) to AfD. But instead I'll ask the nom: can you please list the 3 best sources for this topic? I'll take a look and if they seem decent, I'll push for a new AfD. Hobit (talk) 03:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It's hard to evaluate this but I'm not sure it's a good idea to restore this. The text was significantly different from the AfDed version and some of the sources are different. It's hard to evaluate the sources, as lots of them are Turkish books which don't have text in Google Books, and lots of them are cited for background or aftermath rather than about the battle itself. I'm also not sure if they're all reliable. They don't necessarily provide significant coverage either, for example reference 2, cited in the lead to confirm a statement that the battle happened, just says "Winning a bloody battle at Buzurshek...". Given that there have been concerns raised about whether this battle happened, or whether it's appropriate to refer it as a battle like this, I'd expect to see crystal clear confirmation that it did in fact happen. Since the sources seem to be talking about this engagement in the context of a wider military campaign, of which it was a fairly small part, I'd suggest trying to write an article about the wider campaign instead. Hut 8.5 18:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
|
