Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of casualties in Husayn's army at the Battle of Karbala


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

List of casualties in Husayn's army at the Battle of Karbala

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

ZERO reliable sources discuss this so called "list". It is basically a coatrack propped up by OR. I wanted to clean it up, then I realised that a "cleanup" will delete 95% of the article, resulting in nothing but the lede(even that is debatable to be frank). Therefore I propose deleting this. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. The fascinating thing about this list, is that only 72 people in Husayn ibn Ali's army died at the battle, and yet the list has 107 names.--  Toddy1 (talk) 07:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah I think the other are the 30 or so wiki policies that got murdered during the creation fo this article. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Hey Toddy1, You must selected keep vote instead of comment because you are working in this article. I'm surprised your behavior!!! FreeatlastChitchat There are several reliable sources that mentioned the name of persons who killed in the battle of Karbal. The subject is notable. You must suggest new name for the article not nominated for deletion. This work is like the work of new users and beginner. Please read again the Stand-alone lists. The number of killed person is different in various sources and 72 is frequent number in sources. Your sentence (Yeah I think the other are the 30 or so wiki policies that got murdered during the creation fo this article.) is very bad and is ridiculously. Please be polite.Saff V. (talk) 08:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can be kind enough to please "mention the sources which discuss this in depth as a group". At the present time the article is a mockery of wikipedia, feel free to improve it, rather I would urge you to improve it. But in its current state the article is in deplorable condition, and to be frank should be nominated for speedy. Btw my sentence is ridiculously what? ridiculously accurate and hilarious at the same time? Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep In and of itself, it seems like something which is notable enough to be a page - given that written sources have noted it for a long period. But clearly the page layout needs some attention if there are more names than the traditional number of those killed.. JMWt (talk) 08:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    10:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    10:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    10:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    10:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge to Battle of Karbala per WP:EVENTCRITERIA. SpyButeo (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not a viable solution. Whereas there are sources containing lists of the people allegedly killed on the rebel side, there are no equivalent lists of people killed on the government side.--  Toddy1 (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that a merge would not be viable. The issue probably is how important the list is for Shia Islam, and how useful the article is to Wikipedia readers. It is not a list of military casualties in a modern sense, or probably even an accurate record of actual casualties. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:EVENTCRITERIA and WP:OR, Merge any Properly sourced info to Battle of Karbala. SpyButeo (talk) 06:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article (WP:NEXIST). Saff V. (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * YES but when there are zero RS in the article and nill presented at AFD, it is safe to assume that non exist. Strawman much btw? Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - perfectly notable list of casualties; note article exists in several languages. I suspect this AfD suffers from systemic bias. I'm not sure why anyone is saying there are zero RS. I also don't understand why article is tagged as "COI" -  who could possibly have a "close connection" with a battle 1500 years ago!?  —Мандичка YO 😜 23:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete The list appears to be a violation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL as well as a WP:COATRACK of Battle of Karbala. Edward321 (talk)
 * Comment Delete is not a way to solve WP:COATRACK. Please see What to do about coatracks. Also, I can not understand relation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL with deletion. Please explain more.Saff V. (talk) 09:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So basically you admit that this is a memorial and a coatrack, but you still want to save this from deletion? Can I please refer to you as "The guardian" of this article? Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not understand why you claim that the article is a coatrack. Except for the introduction it is a list of names of people in the rebel army allegedly killed at the battle.  A coatrack is an article that whilst nominally about one subject, has large chunks that are really about other subjects.  That is not the case with this article.


 * One valuable service this article does is to link a number of really awful POV articles. This should be valuable to anyone wanting to find articles to clean up.


 * There is at least one reliable source for rebel casualties at the battle. This is Tabari's history.  One of the worst condemnations of the current article is that it is based on less than reliable web-sources, and not Tabari.  However this could be fixed by using Tabari as a source and by having a table that showed which sources had which names.  It would also help if the article listed the names of male prisoners who were not killed.  This would not be a complete list, as not all are listed in Tabari.  We do know that some of the male children spared grew up to become murderers when they were adults - Tabari mentions some of the murders they did.--  Toddy1 (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, and one of the other problems with the current sourcing is that the pages cited do always not have the names they are cited for. That could be fixed - especially if the name list were drawn up from the sources, instead of trying to fix the existing badly/wrongly-sourced name list.  That an article has a fixable problem, is not a reason for deletion.--  Toddy1 (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I do not think the WP:NOTMEMORIAL argument is applicable to this list. WP:NOTMEMORIAL says: "Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements."  The position here is similar to the deletion discussion of articles on Playboy centrefolds.  It was judged to be appropriate to keep lists of all the Playboy centrefolds, but being a Playboy centrefold did not necessarily make a woman notable enough to have her own article.  Many but not all the biographical articles on Playboy centrefolds were deleted; each was judged on a case-by-case basis in May 2011, e.g. 1, 2.  It might be a very good idea to do the same exercise for all the biographical articles linked to by this list.--  Toddy1 (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC) modified--  Toddy1 (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Toddy1 I agree with you and this article can improve with using better source and fix the list. Please put your Keep vote until prevent delete the article.Saff V. (talk) 07:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - I do not understand why there is so much bad blood about this article here and on the article's talk page. This seems to be a perfectly fine spinoff to avoid bloating the Battle of Karbala. WP:SPINOFF / WP:SPINOUT Just fix it instead of arguing. This is what the stand-alone lists are for, and this is how they should be used! Ceosad (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2015 (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.