Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hunnic Empire


 * 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   keep. No great love for a delete outcome from the discussion below; if some of the participants want to propose a merge, we have such a procedure. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Hunnic Empire

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

According to AfD on plwiki this incorrect article is being translated to multiple wikis (""...In the Kazakh steppes, additional tribes joined, forming a new tribal union: the Huns. [...] Attila, a Hunnic chieftain [...] plundered Roman lands, seeking loot and tribute, not territorial conquests. [...] When Attila died [...] his confederation quickly collapsed. The Huns melted back into the steppe, occasionally appearing as Roman mercenaries.[...] Despite their ferocious reputations, the Huns, east and west, were never a threat to the existence of China or the Roman Empire." " P. Golden, "Central Asia in World History", pages. 33-34", Peter B. Golden: An introduction to the history of the Turkic peoples: ethnogenesis and state-formation in medieval and early modern Eurasia and the Middle East mentions that it at the best case Atilla created confederation, certainly not state/empire) Bulwersator (talk) 10:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * link - pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2012:06:20:Imperium Hunów Bulwersator (talk) 10:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The map in this article is totally incorrect, the Huns have never controlled southern Lithuania, Pomerania and Mecklenburg. There are not any hunnic artifacts found in the southern coast of Baltic Sea. Hoa binh (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - the term "Hunnic Empire" is used in academic work widely, see, , , a gscholar search turns up lots more. I've yet to see a source which disputes the existence of this empire other than the ones mentioned in the nomination. I'm seeing a balance of academic sources in favour of this existing. A mention in the article about whether this is an empire or confederation might be merited. Even if most sources said that this is a confederation rather than an empire, a simple move rather than deletion would be the best solution. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 12:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nomination states perceived problems with the article, but not grounds for deletion.  The term "Hunnic Empire" appears to be in pervasive use, and a quick-and-dirty search finds many more hits at GBooks and GScholar for "Hunnic Empire" than for "Hunnic confederation"; in any event these issues appear to belong at the article's talk page, not here.--Arxiloxos (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "more hits at GBooks and GScholar for "Hunnic Empire" than for "Hunnic confederation"" - how it changes anything? Hunnic confederation is a redlink. Bulwersator (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The term "Hunnic empire" is often used, mostly beacuse it is convenient to have another synonym, but the fact that such a state exist is a different question. First of all it wasn't state, much less an epmire. And I advise read Maenchen-Helfen, who said that Dacian king Burebista held almost the same territory, and what? We make an article Dacian Empire? This article only doubled the informations we have in "Huns"--Krzychu (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The stated grounds for deletion are that certain historians think the Huns had a loose configuration rather than a proper empire, and that isn't enough of a reason to delete the article. It's entirely proper to mention a dispute between notable historians in the article, and maybe you want to propose moving the article to a different title, but AfD isn't for disputes about content or article titles. This should be discussed on the article talk page, and you should try to reach consensus about a move, rename or other change there, where experts are likely to be found and the debate is less rushed. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that if we admit that it wasn't any "empire" of the Huns, we don't have any reasons for having another article that describe that federation of trbes than "Huns". Yes, the "Huns" is proper article about that tribal federation, and this article is completely superfluous. We write about the same topic two times.--Krzychu (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Passes WP:N. Monterey Bay (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Much discussion has occurred in the recent past regarding whether to merge this article into the Huns article. Arguments put forward dealt with whether the Huns really had an empire or not.  No consensus was achieved.  While recognizing that the article has some incorrect information, while recognizing that the map is poor, these problems in themselves do not constitute a reason to delete.  I bemoan what I see as the same exact merge arguments coming up again in this AfD.  As I stated in the RfC on the merge, the article is in great need of improvement by those with the time and knowledge.  Outright deletion is premature.  Merge is still appropriate if the article cannot be adequately improved.  If you see something that is incorrect, please feel free to edit it.  That is the Wikipedia way.  --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 04:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - as Sborsody has also mentioned, few months ago there was a quite long discussion about this (Merge with Huns and delete) on the Talk page of the article, where several pro and contra arguments were presented, but no consensus was reached, even though an RfC was also initiated. I also agree that the article needs improvement, but in itself it is not enough for a deletion and the topic is certainly notable. K &oelig;rte F  a   { ταλκ }  04:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The term Hunnic Empire does have WP:N as a generic term. Perhaps this article could be merged with Huns as a previous contributor suggested. --Artene50 (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge with Huns, redirect to that page - while this article describes a real and notable entity, it has no information beyond what is, appropriately, in Huns and Attila, nor can it ever do so. There is no more recorded information and given the tenuous and illiterate nature of the empire, quite possibly there never was. Pace User:Bulwersator above, the article being poor is not a reason to delete; pace Colapeninsula, the exact nature of Attila's realm isn't the issue, "empire" is certainly close enough. The term is used in both in Huns and Attila. But this article is redundant and can only remain so. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep multiple sources including some historical encyclopedias and pass WP:N, nominator did a WP:BADFAITH nomination. ApprenticeFan  work 01:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is quite funny that you are randomly accusing of bad faith and linking to Assume good faith at the same time Bulwersator (talk) 04:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt in my mind that the nomination is in good faith, accusations of bad faith should either be backed up with evidence or not made at all. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 21:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge with Huns. The only excuse for having an article like this would be if it were providing further detail, which reasons of brevity omitted from that article.  I have not checked how much additional detail there is, I I supect it is not much (if anything).  This is not capable of being a parent article to "Huns".  I have no doubt of the author's good faith, but it is covering much the same ground is the other (better) article.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I guess the European editors can't bear that Asians ruled over them in history. It is just the truth and the history and it should be kept. Huns are Mongols and Huns were in Europe. 67.190.36.6 (talk) 08:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You sir have a very good sense of humor. I lolled... 2A02:2308:0:0:216:3EFF:FEED:42EF (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is always great when you meet some imperialist who have better humour, if he could call "Empire" something with which he identify yourself. And, after all, Huns are probably turkic people, but have nothing in common with Mongols.--Krzychu (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - No question, this term is also used by the history of science. The Huns article should contain the history of the people, while the Hunnic Empire article about the political entity. So I can not support merger of two topics. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – This is a very reasonable content fork of the Huns article. Perhaps merge information about the Hunnic Empire from the Huns article to this one. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Refactor debate and move it to Talk:Hunnic Empire?
It seems that repeated AfDs are getting no consensus. Perhaps if we can reach consensus on the intended scope of this article we can come up with something acceptable to everyone? What, in other words, is reasonably described as the Hunnic Empire, and what is more appropriately described as the activities of politically divided groups with some degree of cultural unity? I'd suggest that the Hunnic Empire is the realm of Attila, including the nature, basis, results, and extent of his rule, and the rest of their history is the history of the Huns, but we may debate this. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:16, 28 June 2012 (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.