Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mulay


 * 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 No Consensus, defaults to Keep Nakon  04:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Mulay

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Sources from the period include the names of many hundred Mongol commanders - it is difficult to see why we should have an article on one rather than the others when there is little to be said about the general. The article is mainly a copy of content from other articles about the battles detailed - see for example Mongol raids into Palestine, Franco-Mongol alliance and Franco-Mongol alliance (1297-1304). This article just serves to replicate details already in other articles under a new title - very little discusses the specific general. It does not help that the accuracy and neutrality of the material is disputed at Franco-Mongol alliance. The material's spread across many articles seems to make it increasingly difficult for editors to arrive at a consensus on what content Wikipedia should have about these events and how best to factually and neutrally represent them. WjBscribe 20:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as part of the Mongol Alliance walled garden of pseudo-history. Wikipedia is for facts, not fictions. Jehochman  Talk 20:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Jehochman. This is all highly referenced material, and an attempt to integrate most of what is known on the subject. This has nothing to do with fiction. Regards. PHG (talk) 09:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete; sorry PHG, as I said this should be an article about Mulay, not the battle. Until you find those sources to talk about Mulay, we should keep this off the main article space. Merge back to the alliance articles for now. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have intergated more biographical information and will keep looking for what's available. Regards. PHG (talk) 09:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all the battle related and non-Mulay related information and merge back into the main article. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I am extremely familiar with this period of history, and though Mulay was indeed a Mongol general, there is very little known about him, and all we have are some passing mentions of his name, along with passing mentions of many other Mongol generals as well.  There's not enough biographical information to create a separate article.  The main purpose of this article seems to just be as a WP:COATRACK, as a shell to contain some biased WP:POVFORK information, in an attempt to dodge consensus at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance. --Elonka 20:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)~
 * Untrue. This is all highly referenced material, and an attempt to integrate most of what is known on the subject.PHG (talk) 09:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article is part of the protracted dispute at Franco-Mongol alliance. There are no biographical data on Mulay, while significant commanders under Ghazan Mahmud for whom we do possess information (e.g. Nawruz) do not even have stubs. Whatever scraps we have about Mulay ought to go to Mongol raids into Palestine (which incidentally has also been infected by Franco-Mongol wishful thinking). Aramgar (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nawruz has his own article here: Nawrūz. I created it 6 weeks ago in my attempt to have more info on Mongol generals/emirs. Regards, PHG (talk) 09:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is a biographical entry which deserves a place. I see no reason why the article could not possibly be altered in the future to be more biographical. Unlike the other pages nominated as part of this same dispute, this article at least deserves a place in theory and so I strongly suggest we keep it. I have no problem with articles on any Mongol general for whom there are a few passing references, so long as it is encyclopaedic and well-sourced. Many figures get articles on just as slim primary sources. Srnec (talk) 02:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a Biographical article on a well-known Mongol general. There is no resean whatsover to delete this article, as already stated by several editors who are highly knowledgeable of this subject (Talk:Mongol raids into Palestine). PHG (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable subject that can be expanded further.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 14:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep although it should probably be pruned down a bit to lose some of the unneeded/unused sources and the unneeded original source quotations. Ealdgyth | Talk 23:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. AFD is not for content disputes; please use dispute resolution to discuss mergers and splitting of articles.Biophys (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This article helps to clarify the distinction between its subject and Jacques de Molay.Wageless (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC) — Wageless (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * 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.