Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Al-Kadid)


 * 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 merge to Ghalib ibn Abd Allah al-Laythi per late-developing consensus. Star  Mississippi  20:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Al-Kadid)
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

As per this discussion, recommended taking this to AfD. Basically, I was unable to find enough material in secondary sources to sustain an article. Relevant material has already been added to Ghalib ibn Abd Allah al-Laythi, so there is nothing to merge. VR talk 01:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  02:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  02:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  94rain  Talk  02:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  94rain  Talk  02:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ─  The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  05:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect this and all such short articles to List of expeditions of Muhammad to where they belong the best. The list article however needs various improvements. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  15:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep -- This is very much not my subject. I suspect that this concerns something where we know little beyond what is in ancient sources; if so we cannot get more.  Redirecting is destructive, since it removes from WP what little we do know; it would be necessary to add a further column to the target article giving details, which would upset what is intentionally a list article.  Some one who knows the sources should be able to sort out such of the missing citations as are solvable.  One of the problems is the use of a battlebox, which requires information with a precision that ancient sources do not give.  The article cites several secondary sources.  That there is conflict between them is the result of historians making inferences, beyond what is known.  It is legitimate for the article to set out this conflict.  IN the absence of further primary sources, any attempt by a WP-editor to resolve the conflict would itself be illicit original research.  As this is a Muslim subject the primary sources will be in Arabic.  What does the Arabic WP say on the subject?  I do not know Arabic, and anyway as a Christian I do not edit articles about Islam.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * the Arabic WP article doesn't look good. It has only one source and that is a link to wikisource that appears to be from Sirat al-Halbiya. I couldn't find much about this book to know if it is reliable (or even the date it was published). However, its page on wikisource says the book "combines what is true and what is denied". That doesn't sound like reliable to me.VR talk 22:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Merge or redirect to Ghalib ibn Abd Allah al-Laythi, where this material would fit well; no indication of standalone notability.  Sandstein   10:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Ghalib ibn Abd Allah al-Laythi. Although does not feel confident of expressing a recommendation, he does summarize the core issue that there aren't good sources and it is highly unlikely that there will be new sources. The parent article has a one-line reference to this expedition so the material could easily be "saved" by incorporating it appropriately there.  Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 14:41, 24 January 2022 (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.