Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aztec army


 * 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 of the debate was Keep. kingboyk 21:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Aztec army
Reason why the page should be deleted There has been more than enough time to have the author list sources and verify the info in this article and it has not been done. I have attempted to research and find anything to support the article and have been unable to do so. At this time there is no evidence that this article contains correct information. Nigelthefish 19:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I randomly searched two weapons. One was the atlatl, which is in fact what the article claims it is. The second weapon I searched, the one with a 'Q', google gave me one result (i.e. the article page). However, I'm not convinced that google is exhaustive when it comes to the army of the Aztec people. This article needs an expert and a wikify tag. Pepsidrinka 20:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Article is not cohesive and coherent. School section is unrelated (and info is already at Aztec.  Aztec Army section has a little information that is not covered at Aztec, but this is not sourced.  Weaponry section is of some value if it were properly sourced.  Ideally, what I would like to see done here is a Move to something like Aztec Military as a fork off of the main Aztec page with subsections for Military structure and Weaponry... all properly sourced of course.  Aztec army could then be deleted or redirected. If consensus agrees with me I'd be willing to do the grunt work.--Isotope23 20:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Move as per Isotope23 - the weapon information is definitely worth keeping and moving to a Weaponry section in Aztec Military and for this I nominate Isotope23 for this grunt work :P.
 * Off the top of my tiny head, most of the information is accurate but it duplicates information on other pages like Eagle warrior and Jaguar warrior and definitely needs some references. Green Giant 22:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep cleanup and verify. The Aztecs had an army which makes it notable enough for mine and I'm sure that there are plenty iof verifiable sources. Given that they didn't have a navy or an air force, I don't see the need for a move but if it ensures consistency and Isotope 23 is prepared to do the work I can live with it. Capitalistroadster 00:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That is an excellent point... No F-16's in their arsenal eh? Let me do a complete rewrite when I have a chance tomorrow, with links to the other articles rather than just rehashing existing info.  A move can always be initiated at a future date if necessary.  I'll concentrate on content first.--Isotope23 01:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * In researching this, it appears this article is cobbled together from the main Aztec article with some copyvio sentences lifted from an about.com article.--Isotope23 14:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment, I've been doing some research and started writing a draft, but other than the About.com article that half the text here is lifted from, I'm having a bit of trouble finding good, verifiable information. My rewrite ended up being a rehash of what is already at the Aztec article, so I didn't post it; at that point it's a useless fork.  IMO, the weapon information is the only thing worth saving so a move of that info to a new Aztec Weaponry article is probably the best solution and a mention of said article could be inserted into Aztec with appropriate link.--Isotope23 15:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep after some cleanup and verification it will be a good article. I agree that it should fork off of Aztec.  Cool3 00:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, I don't see a serious reason to delete on content grounds anyway. I make no assertion, one way or the other, about copyright. Stifle 21:57, 3 March 2006 (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.