Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persian Cataphract


 * 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   merge to cataphract. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Persian Cataphract

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable military weapon, see Google. Delete. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. All this page does is assert that the Persians used cataphracts. It asserts no claim of notability to Persian cataphracts in contrast to any other cataphract. &#8212;Largo Plazo (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to cataphract A cataphract is a military formation, not a weapon. That Google search includes Googlebooks hits for reliable sources about Persian cataphracts.  As the article cataphract shows, the Persians successfully used the type of unit for hundreds of years and inspired the Greeks, Romans, and Byzantines to create their own cataphract units. Edward321 (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge as suggested.DGG (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge. The Persians were the par excellence users of cataphract cavalry. What applies to them applies largely to cataphract cavalry in general. There is no reason to have a separate article. Constantine  ✍  18:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a little curious about the Merge recommendations because I don't see that the article has anything that can be merged! It's got a five-line quote that could be useful except for the fact that there isn't any indication where it came from, and the few other assertions it makes aren't referenced either. &#8212;Largo Plazo (talk) 09:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, Largo, I've found the quote in a reliable source called Wikipedia! Oh yeah... take a look at Clibanarii.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storkynoob (talk • contribs) 18:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a valid source. How can you think that it is when anything can be written in it by just anybody? Besides, that quote isn't referenced in the Clibanarii article either and ought to be deleted if no one can cite a source for it. Besides that, the fact that the quotation is already on Wikipedia means another article whose primary purpose is to present the same quotation is redundant and should be eliminated on those grounds. That truly leaves nothing to merge. &#8212;Largo Plazo (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2008 (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.