Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origin of the Bagratid dynasties (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Bagrationi_dynasty. Clear consensus against keeping. I'm not sure if there's truly a consensus to redirect here, but it was mentioned a few times, seems harmless, and is in keeping with WP:ATD. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Origin of the Bagratid dynasties
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This poorly referenced and incoherent article is unnecessary. It adds nothing new to the discussion of dynastic origin that is not already covered under the Origins subsection of the main dynasty article. In fact, the few properly referenced portions of the nominated page concern biblical origin theories, which essentially replicates Claim of the biblical descent of the Bagrationi dynasty. When stripped of unsourced material, the nominated article would at best merit a redirect to the corresponding subsection of Bagrationi.

This page was nominated for deletion earlier this year but kept because a user thought that "This article has room for improvement". Unfortunately, the user is rarely active on wikipedia and has made no effort to change anything. The original author of the article was notified many months ago to see if an expansion was possible, but he did not show interest either. I personally don't see how this page can or should be salvaged, the other articles already provide a better overview.--Damianmx (talk) 03:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: nothing to add Damianmx's arguments are good.-- g. balaxaZe   ★  17:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: as a likely WP:POVFORK. I don't understand why long-term users have been protecting this content. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: I see no advancement on the delete opinions expressed in the previous AfD, so I will repeat the keep reasoning I gave in that previous AfD. An article titled "origin of ...." can hardly be called unnecessary because the origin of any ruling dynasty forms an essential part of the study of that dynasty. There are plenty of sources that have content on the Bagratuni / Bagrationi origins. The article deals with the common origin of both the Bagratuni and Bagrationi branches, and possible expansion could include content on its other branches too (there were more than just two). Of course the Bagratuni dynasty and Bagrationi dynasty articles will have content that is duplicated in this article, but this article can explore the subject in more detail, detail not appropriate for these other articles (which cover a far wider time scale). The proposer's argument, that it all should go into the Bagrationi article (the Georgian branch of the dynasty), appears nationalistically pov since it will have the effect of disenfranchising the Bagratuni from its history. The proposer's assertion that the Bagrationi dynasty is the "main dynasty" is incorrect, the senior dynasty is actually the Bagratuni. "The Armenian familiar label Bagratuni and the Georgian forms Bagratuniani and subsequently Bagrationi (which helped to obscure the  family's Armenian ancestry) denote the house of/established by Bag[a]rat" - S. H. Rapp, Recovering the Pre-National Caucasian Landscape, p40. Retaining this article is the neutral option. "Article could have been improved months ago but it hasn't been - so it should be deleted" is not a valid argument for deletion. If it had the potential then, it still has it now. Neither is an unreasoned WP:povFork claim. Chris troutman, what do you consider it to be a fork of and in what way is it a pov one? I can't speak for other longterm users, but this one recognizes it as an entirely legitimate topic to have an article on. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This article leads like so many imaginative nationalistic faerie tales to me. The other articles that discuss this topic are both better sourced and better written. I don't have a dog in this fight. I think an unfinished house is a real problem, too, so I'd support userfication rather than keep this eyesore visible assuming there was content here worth saving. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * To actually claim that the existence of the Bagratid dynasty - the most important, longest lasting, and furthest reaching dynasty to have existed in the southern Caucasus - is an "imaginative nationalistic faerie tale" is a rather impressive display of ignorance. Remember, you are not advocating rewriting or removing problematic content from the article - you have opinioned delete for the actual subject. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No. An article, even if about a real subject, if based on un-reliable sources and written from a POV, shouldn't be retained per WP:NUKEANDPAVE. The fact that this article re-creates existing content removes any argument for retention. If, perhaps, you're a partisan I don't blame you for disagreeing. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually the content in question predates ALL other articles as user Kober originally created it within this article.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 01:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So, if anything is a POVFORK it is the other two articles! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding Chris Troutman's "partisan" comment, I am not defending ANY of the current content (except the short paragraph I added recently) - I am defending the subject, Origin of the Bagratid dynasties, as being worthy of having a stand-alone article. WP:NUKEANDPAVE, an essay not policy, is about deleting article content not deleting articles. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to start a new draft if you think this subject can be responsibly covered. From the present article I don't think that's so. For that reason, I can't !vote keep on the logic that the subject might be notable but we have neither appropriate content nor sourcing for same. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 17:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect. The second paragraph can be copied into the Bagratuni dynasty page. The rest of it is either uncited or already covered in the longer article about the Bagrationi claim. – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep It's not in good shape but that's no excuse for deletion since other related articles don't cover the topic in detail and a single article is needed to elaborate on Bagratunis and Bagrations. The Biblical origins article is useless, it should be merged into this one. --  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 19:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Why hasn't the proposer of this AfD proposed the deletion of the Biblical origins article? Why does he want it kept? I made the point on the last AfD that it would be a ludicrous situation to have deleted this article, about a legitimate subject with legitimate content, and kept the crazy Biblical origins one. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Unnecessary as there are allready two articles that include the respective origin claims. This topic has been a subject of flaming for years now. While I certainly stand to facts and won't dismiss academic research the article - and as a matter of fact all the debates revolving around this are highly POV stained, almost a phenomenon. Claims wise it is also weirdly one sided considering the fact that the Georgian branch ( if there really were historicaly two ) existed much longer and has a recorded history. Tourmanoff's research is being repeatedly used as the opinion of "many modern scholars" yet he is the primary and only source for said claim. The same applies to the dismissal of Georgian claims on the dynasty - many modern scholars < no sources for that. Sounds more like personal opinon. I also don't see how completly dismissing the Georgian version originating from actual medieval chronicles is a deal at all - even when some of those claims go as far as biblical origins. The others do not. I think it would only aggravate the dispute. Especialy the guaranteed individual POV edits TheMightyGeneral (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The "respective origin claims" of the two branches are myths, self-created when they became powerful and needed to justify their authority by inventing an illustrious pedigree. All the acceptable sources agree on that. I do not know what sources you are seeing that claim the Geogian branch is older. I have given you a quote by the most notable scholar currently working in the field, Rapp, who is nether Armenian or Georgian, and who unambiguously states that the dynasty's origin is in Armenia. We have two branches of the same dynasty - there are articles about the two branches containing content about the various individual rulers over many centuries, but this article is (or should be when it is improved) about the actual historical origin of the dynasty. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If we are objetive and real on this issue you can't simply use just one academician's research with background - which sources are then re-used in other research - and completly dismiss actual chronicles. For example, where is it originaly written or claimed that it was all made up ? - the research mainly speculates on that. If there are no sources to confirm those are yet more claims that can just as well be discarded as simple myths. Latter is usualy more common when lack of actual historical material to work with in order to validate. "All the acceptable sources" - are primarily ones, actual texts and illustrations from the respective period. Georgian ones do provide that information to some extent, not regarding the biblical origins. Wheter it was "self-created" or not is a bold statement considering no such claims exist and the "Georgian" dynesty never shifted. But even then, a common root can be considered, due to the name itself. But that also is a matter of discussion. It is noteworthy that besides Tourmanoff there are only sources present that utilize him as source in their own research. Maybe some modern Georgian research could provide a little clarification. It would most certainly provide more balance on the issue.TheMightyGeneral (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that TheMightyGeneral was canvased to be here by the AfD's proposer, and that the proposer has also now been blocked as a sock puppet of a blocked user. This is not a criticism of TheMightyGeneral, just that the invitation has the perception of skewing the overall opinion - an Afd proposer is hardly likely to invite someone he knew would oppose the deletion Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I see. That is true, but on the other hand if I saw this on my own I'd still see this article as rather damaging if the POV edits won't cease. Besides and please don't take this personaly, but you also don't seem to be the most settle person around here. Best regardsTheMightyGeneral (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: This discussion might be a part to new article about so called Armenian obsession with Armenization of everything. I found very boring to read in almost all article on Georgian culture or history phrase "Origin is disputed among scholars". It looks like these words are copied by Armenian authors to every article and as the rule lacks of sources, arguments etc. Wikipeople please take more attention to such behavior. And let's study this phenomenon in separated article. Search word Armenianizm in google, epecially in Russian website, and you will find surprising "facts" that Georgian alphabet was initially armenian, that Shota Rustaveli is Ashot Rustavelian, President Saakashvili is Saakian, Tbilisi is Armenian city, Princess Diana was Armenian, etc.. Please delete and close this topic. Armenian users please read "The Life and Tale of the Bagratids the history of the Bagrationi dynasty of Georgia from the beginnings until c. 1030. by Sumbat Davitis Dze"  ZviadPochkhua (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The above editor should keep his nationalist diatribes to himself. Nothing expressed in the above is a valid contribution to an AfD discussion. However, it does show the pov reasons behind some of the delete arguments. He actually cites the 11thC text that invented the Bagrationi branch's mythological origin as if it were detailing true history! Retaining this article is the only neutral option. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: this article is most like based on self research and it does not fit to main articles of Bagratuni and Bagrationi dynasties. even if there are some ties between them, it must be noted only in main articles. --Georgiano (talk) 08:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, surprise no surprise, up pops yet another editor whose spends his time on Wikipedia inserting Georgian nationalist propaganda into articles, such as Speri (historical region). However, if the content of this article "does not fit to main articles of Bagratuni and Bagrationi dynasties" this is a reason why it should be kept! There is no "self-research" in the basic historical fact that the Bagratid dynasties had an origin, and many sources have written about that origin. Of course the reason Georgiano wants this article deleted is that it goes against current Georgian nationalist propaganda that there is no connection between the Bagratuni and Bagrationi and the fanciful medieval faking of the origin of the Bagrationi is based on truth - despite the fact that all credible sources clearly and unambiguously state they share the same origin and dismiss the mythical origins of both branches of the dynasty. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Tiptoethrutheminefield please define what you call Georgian nationalist propaganda? And when you say this you have to prove (and not with your subjective view). In other case it is simply slander.-- g. balaxaZe   ★  13:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You want me to cite sources that state that content like what Georgiano has been adding to articles derives from Georgian historiography created by pseudo-historians who consider that history should follow current political ideology, and that such pseudo-history is very common in Georgia right now? I have already quoted Rapp who states that the name Bagrationi arose to help obscure the dynasty's Armenian ancestry. The Speri (historical region), created by Georgiano, is full of bizzare contradictions as crude Georgian pseudo-history is combined with legitimate content. It is an "historical Georgian region" we are boldly told in its lede, yet there is content correctly stating that in the fifth century "Armenia was divided between Byzantine and Sassanian Empire, the western part of Armenia, including Speri was under Byzantine control". In it we content stating that Ispir was a Bagrationi possession, yet I can present non-Georgian sources stating that it was actually "a Bagratid domain in the fourth to sixth centuries" and that their domain in Speri included Bayburt which is well outside the claimed "historical Georgian region" (see Sinclair, Eastern Turkey, vol 1, p275). Rapp (in "Recovering the Pre-National Caucasian landscape", p13-15) writes "as a specialist in pre-modern Caucasia .... I have been struck by the persistent telescoping of modern configurations of identity, attitudes, and rivalries back into the remote past, a condition which plaques the historical discipline as a whole" and "The Armenian, Georgian, and Azerbaijani (narrative) varieties are as sophisticated as they are self contained" and "all share an explicit political purpose - they seek to validate and exercise political sovereignty". I suggest it is the desire to maintain that self containment that lies behind this AfD request, have two completely separate self-contained articles and no third article detailing the common origin of the subjects of the two articles. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete and the Redirect if needed as the consensus seems to mention this is still questionable for its own article and I also see this thus Delete. SwisterTwister   talk  17:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:48, 18 June 2016 (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.