Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hunnic rulers


 * 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. As DGG points out (and consensus agrees with him), lists can, and most times will, duplicate information of prose-articles in order to allow easier overview and access to information. As such, the nominator has not made a policy-based argument in favor of deletion (problems with sources and references can and should be adressed through editing). Regards  So Why  10:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

List of Hunnic rulers

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This page consists mostly of highly contentious and inadequately-referenced comments; anything of value is already on related pages Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Question Which related pages? Should this be redirected to one instead, or cleaned up and kept? It seems like an obvious search term. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and source properly from modern secondary sources. The related pages are the two overlapping articles: Huns and Hunnic Empire--but it is appropriate to provide a chronological listing in a clear format as well as the descriptions there. List articles for the sucessive rulers of a people or nation are always very valuable navigational devices. Incidentally, I see that the  frWP and deWP articles on this subject area are probably a little better than the enWP, and might be used to improve them.  They both have the advantage of being free from the pervasive influence of the old Brittanica.    DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Assuming that those are the articles Richard referred to then definitely keep per DGG's arguments. This list seems to easily fall under WP:LISTPURP which specifically mentions chronological lists among other things. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I'm stunned that this seems to be the only list that we have of rulers of the Huns, and that it is so poorly sourced. Sadly, anything of value is not already on related pages.   For a people who, at their peak, controlled most of Eastern Europe, the topic hasn't gotten very scholarly coverage. Mandsford (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Again suggest delete. I may have been a little too polite earlier, but the only undisputed ruler of all the Huns was Attila, and even he ruled with his brother for some years. I have removed the unsupportable comments that claim members of other later groups as Huns, and a couple of names whose attribution and even existence is dubious. That leaves very little, about tribal rulers of uncertain dates (so somewhat resistant to conventional list format) and, I repeat, the valuable stuff is already in the articles Huns and Hunnic Empire. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:28, 25 November 2009 (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.


 * Keep I strongly suggest to keep, because, there´s almost nothing about the line os successors. I had a great battle to buy a book about Arpad´s Dinasty and link something to hunnic rulers, here and in Mugel ruler. Tha battle itself, were to find a book from somebody from eastern Europe, who could be reliable. Before this Muageris were never mentioned before. So How the fragments can fit? What´s the criteria to keep or delete? Everybody knows, there´s lot of hidden history, specially in Russia. Strangely, nobody here, descends from people who were under rule of Attila. Guess what, Bulgarians, learn about Attila. Khazars, and hungarians learn about Attila. Different history. We can not use only greek and romanian historiers. I´d like to raise another discussion here. There´s a theory told about Bernard Cornwell, saying a a next generation born people, usually adopts the name of a earlier hero. This is a strong theory, and can be observed till these days. So, if it´s in this way, why there´s so many "Attilas" in Hungary, and an Arpad for example can´t be linked to him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenereth (talk • contribs) 00:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)