Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Age of the Islamic Gunpowders


 * 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 and redirect to Gunpowder empires. Ultimately this seems to be as much about Gunpowder empires as it is this article. There is support that needed content is missing at Gunpowder empires, but that has no bearing on whether or not this article should exist. Instead there is consensus that this article is a fork of Gunpowder empires not allowed by our policies and guidelines and a weak consensus that it contains original research. There seems to be a consensus that this could be a valid target for articles hence the redirect after the deletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Age of the Islamic Gunpowders

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Content is Original Research which has been copied from Gunpowder Empires after that article was stubbed. I'm not sure Notability has been established for an entire article on this subject, and in its current form it is completely unacceptable as a Wikipedia article. Merlinme (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The references for Age of the Islamic Gunpowders are all googlebooks searches. The closest to something actually establishing notability is probably Streusand, "Islamic Gunpowder Empires". The other references seem to be a mish mash of searches for Islamic Gunpowder Empires. Note, none of the sources cited actually establish any precedent for use of the term "Age of the Islamic Gunpowders" except in the Wikipedia article.Merlinme (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's such a mess. It's now been renamed Islamic Gunpowder empires, which I suppose is better than the previous name. I'm still not sure the term is commonly used enough to justify an entire article. Even if it is considered notable enough to have its own article, it surely has to be stubbed. Everything in the article after the first sentence is questionable. 90% of the lead is not properly sourced and does not reflect what's in the body of the article. Sample reference: "Unlike in Europe, the introduction of gunpowder weapons prompted changes well beyond military organization." Reference is Khan page 54. A more accurate reading of the reference would be something like, "As in Europe, the introduction of gunpowder weapons prompted changes well beyond military organization, although the exact changes were modified by local circumstances." I've got no idea what the next two sentences have to do with the subject of the article. The first section of the body is, at best, confusing, with unclear relevance to the article subject. If anything it seems to question the whole existence of the article subject at all. We then have three sections on the gunpowder weapons of the three empires. But the subject of the article is supposed to be Islamic Gunpowder Empires, not Islamic gunpowder weapons of the 16th and 17th centuries. The infobox is written as if they were one unitary empire that lasted over 200 years, when clearly there are massive differences between the Mughals and the Ottomans. Practically the entire article is Original Research, irrelevance and/ or misinformation. Merlinme (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete per nom. The relevant lemma is Gunpowder empires. There is no separate Islamic phenomenon that would justify an article of its own. Recreating a stubified article with the same contentious material under a different name is a creative circumvention of WP policies. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The page has been linked in many articles. Maps of the Islamic Gunpowders can also be found. The googlebooks searches include published books and can be referenced in manual style of wikipedia. There was such Islamic phenomen. The word Islamic Gunpowders has been used to express the three Muslim empires of the early modern period. The Muslim Empires of the Ottomans, Safavids, and Mughals by Stephen F. Dale can be taken into consideration. Maria José Afanador-Llach commented on Kris Lane's "The Emerald in the Age of Gunpowder Empires Hardcover":

The stubified article can be merged, otherwise it can be totally merged with Douglas E. Streusand, "Islamic Gunpowder Empires" (book) or The Emerald in the Age of Gunpowder Empires by Kris Lane.--Kapokbirdnotflying (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Among the magnificent gems and jewels left behind by the great Islamic empires, emeralds stand out for their size and prominence. For the Mughals, Ottomans, and Safavids green was—as it remains for all Muslims—the color of Paradise, reserved for the Prophet Muhammad and his descendants. Lane demonstrates that emeralds flowed mostly to the Islamic gunpowder empires of Asia such as Mughal India and Safavid Persia.
 * Keep There are available sources concerning the concept, and the article cxould be expanded in ways that gunpowder empires could not. Dimadick (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete as an unnecessary content fork of gunpowder empires. Merge any good material there. Srnec (talk) 02:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes, there are issues with the article, but most of this results from a series of unfortunate mistakes made in naming the article.
 * Some sources used the term "gunpowder empires" as a shorthand to describe and discuss these states collectively within their documents. The WP article for this subject was first created as Gunpowder Empires -- as if this name was a proper noun.
 * Per this discussion, the article was renamed Gunpowder empires to at least fix the capitalization. This only part of the title problem, however.
 * Since the article name didn't specify "Islamic" or any other distinction for what gunpowder-using empires were exclusive to the subject, various editors added various other empires, diluting the article. A follow-up discussion to fix this and clarify "Islamic" in the title was not concluded.
 * Meanwhile, an editor gutted the whole article back to only being about the shorthand term used in some sources -- probably not a subject worthy of an article. (As it stands, I would !vote for its merge/deletion and made a redirect to this article.)
 * This article was then created in an attempt to cover the original intended subject: several specific Islamic gunpowder empires of early modern history. Yet, again, it was titled poorly as Age of the Islamic Gunpowders.  In the middle of a discussion to correct the title, it was moved to Islamic Gunpowder empires, with the "G" capitalized for some reason.
 * All this doesn't change the fact that the subject exists, is coherent, has sources, and is linked from many other articles. The title can obviously be fixed, and should probably be Islamic gunpowder empires to properly identify the subject.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  00:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: The forked article consists solely of copy and paste material from Gunpowder empires and thus suffers from the same deep flaws outlined on its talk page (SYN and OR). Aside, none of the scholars cited in favour of "Islamic" gunpowder empires makes a case for them being a distinct phenomenon from the others in Europe and Asia. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, flaws exist, but are addressable. Claiming the sources are simply wrong requires a separate discussion.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  22:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources are not wrong per se, but they are arranged in a thoroughly synthetical fashion. Most sources that are cited discuss weapons technology but on its own terms. They do not relate it to the concept of a gunpowder empire, much less to a supposedly specific Islamic version that would warrant an article of its own. The term is just introduced as a vessel which is then filled with unrelated material on warfare. This is WP:SYN. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete this article but discuss and restore further content to the Gunpowder empires article.
 * The new article should be deleted as "Gunpowder empires" was stubbed after a deletion discussion and this should have been discussed with the nominator and the closer, rather than copying disputed content into a new article.
 * However it should be possible to restore more content about the Ottoman, Safavid and Mughal empires as gunpowder empires, and move the original article to Islamic gunpowder empires. "Islamic gunpowder empires" is a notable subject based on the books by Marshall Hodgson, Douglas Streusand and Stephen Dale already mentioned. The June 2018 version of "Gunpowder empires" covered the three Islamic empires and appeared to be well referenced. Since June 2018 content on China, Japan and Europe was added as student projects, but didn't fit into the original article, and further questionable material was added to the lead and infobox. TSventon (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge back to Gunpowder empires. However this will still leave an unbalanced article.  This needs sections: (1) concept (2) gunpowder in western Europe (3) gunpowder in Islamic Empires (4) historiography - including criticism.  It might in fact be better if the merged article were more focused on the adoption of gunpowder as a propellant in different places and only dealt (1) Western Europe (2) Ottomans (3) India (without emphasising that they were Islamic) and only then deal with the gunpowder empires concept and the criticism of it.  There is the making of a worthwhile article here, if missing material on Europe is added.  At present, the article(s) present the subject from a POV that overemphasises the Islamic aspects.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Islamic Gunpowder empires is a fork and an unattributed copyvio from the 6 March 2020 revision of Gunpowder empires which was stubbed following an AfD discussion. The current article cannot be kept as a fork, and the arguments about original research will have to be conducted at the original article. Johnuniq (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete If the main article could result in mass cleanup then we really don't need this WP:POVFORK which indeed violate copyrights by copy pasting without attribution. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete The article is certainly WP:OR and WP:POVFORK from past versions of Gunpowder empires. Orientls (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Gunpowder empires . I am against deletion as the term is searched for on the internet. I am against merging as it will open a new can of worms as to what content is to be added and what is to be left out. Gunpowder empires was just recently stubbed so there is no need to go through that all again. Redirect is the best solution, as people who search for the term will be able to find the information in Gunpowder empires. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep the article has been linked with other important pages. The topic is pretty remarkable, but I wonder about its title. Age of the Gunpowders is not only built upon the three Muslim powers of the 17th century.--Vitalpantaryan (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC) NOTE: As mentioned by A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III Meanwhile, an editor gutted the whole article back to only being about the shorthand term used in some sources -- probably not a subject worthy of an article. The Fork is not the primary issue, as it was made much later. If the page is merged, it should be renamed Islamic Gunpowder powders and all removed contents (good works) should be added back. The AfD discussion was just a rapid one, participated by few editors, therefore not a valid discussion.--Kapokbirdnotflying (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe that name should be "Islamic gunpowder empires".
 * I agree that claims of fork is not an issue, as the two articles currently share virtually no content after the lone-editor gutting of the first. I do agree only one article is needed, and that if this subject doesn't merit an article, then the other article would also be deleted as having even less merit.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  16:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Note if kept, someone should provide the full reference for "Pagaza & Argyriades 2009" (current ref #1) &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:COPYVIO concerns. There's more than ample space for any useful information to end up on Gunpowder empires. CMD (talk) 08:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * CMD, copyvio or fork?Kapokbirdnotflying (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The lack of initial attribution meant that the original fork was a copyvio of the previous article. I don't think the later note added in the history suffices, as it is not definitively worded. CMD (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep or restore the previous article. The original article should never have been deleted in the first place. It's odd that the shortened stub that it has been replaced with mentions none of the Islamic gunpowder empires which are mentioned several times when searching "gunpowder empires" using Google. Whatever the case for attribution may be, the linkage between the term "gunpowder empires" and the three Islamic empires seems to be a persistent one and the article gunpowder empires currently does not reflect that. GPM also has a history of deleting article content focusing on Asian history and replacing or changing it to favour Western history, often using obscure or fringe sources. See for his run in with me and another editor.Qiushufang (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete The article is a WP:POVFORK and unattributed copyviolation of Gunpowder empires.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.