Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mükeddem dynasty


 * 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 redirect to Maragheh Khanate. Tone 09:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Mükeddem dynasty

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced but I have no prejudice against recreation if notability can be established. Keivan.f Talk 06:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * This source might be able to support a little of the article, although it at best suggests the article is too simplistic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Also spelled Moqaddam in English and in Azerbaijani - Müqəddəm. The ruwiki entry is quite developed and well sourced. A source in English - .Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Icewhiz. A search for "Moqaddam" produces coverage in GBooks etc that satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To consider Hijiri's redirect suggestion.
 * Redirect The article's creator added the exact same content to Maragheh Khanate at roughly the same time, so this is a clear-cut WP:DEL5 case at best. Having it duplicated on two pages does not help readability or navigability, and given how terribly written and unsourced it is, having it in two places not only serves no constructive purpose but is a net negative. I'm neutral on whether the subject is notable enough for a separate article. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –&#8239;Joe (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect per Hijiri88's recommendation, with no prejudice against recreation if enough additional material is found to warrant a separate article. PohranicniStraze (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:52, 15 September 2018 (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.