Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Usiris (Persian)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 21:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Usiris (Persian)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

If there's only one classical source, then that doesn't bode well for notability does it? The subject does not seem notable; commanding an army and getting defeated is not in itself enough to confer notability and the subject fails WP:GNG. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 18:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe is not uncommon for historical subjects of certain periods to be mentioned in only one secondary source. E.g check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menostanes, he is also present in one classical source and also known for being defeated by Megabyzus Ramses.Rodriguez.Martinez (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 01:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think that is correct. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge into Megabyzus. While it's not unusual for an individual's name to appear only in one early source, the lack of mention in modern secondary sources is a bit concerning. He is mentioned in passing at Encyclopædia Iranica under Artaxerxes I. Definitely more notable than someone who played six cricket matches for money in the 1900s, which I'm aware is WP:ATA, but I'm saying it anyway.Dude will probably be a permastub unless someone can dig up his name in Farsi and there happens to be more about him in that language. The article actually goes into more detail than either of the modern sources, which is not super uncommon for ancient folk, since editors tend to rely on freely available early sources as starting points. Folly Mox (talk) 01:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak Keep. The sources listed are, IMO, just enough to establish WP:N. The fact that additional sources are likely to be non-English (and therefore difficult for me to search) and offline is enough for me to vote to keep it. Jacona (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2023 (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.