Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xiangkhouang rebellion (1834)


 * 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. and I don't see one on the horizon given language issues and time frame. Suggest if editors are interested, a conversation could continue editorially as to whether a merger would be appropriate and where to given multiple targets identified in this discussion. Star  Mississippi  13:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Xiangkhouang rebellion (1834)

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

Not sure if this event satisfies WP:GNG. The book source provided only dedicates one paragraph (beginning of p. 147) to the rebellion and its immediate context. I can't find any other sources that cover this rebellion or even mention it in passing. Indeed, most of the article as-is covers a broader scope of history—information which may reside better elsewhere—and does not provide additional details on the rebellion. Happy to reconsider if additional (e.g., foreign-language) sources with significant coverage turn up. ComplexRational (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Laos,  and Vietnam. ComplexRational (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - Only one sentence of that article actually deals with the subject. Which is pretty much a copy/paste from the source https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Kingdoms_of_Laos/hSxTAQAAQBAJ (Search inside for "1834"). That sentence if anything could be included in the 'aftermath' section of Lao rebellion (1826–1828) JeffUK (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as more sources are likely to exist. The content in The Kingdoms of Laos, though brief, suggests the event was significant. It reads in full:
 * "In 1834, the people of Xieng Khouang were driven to revolt, but the rebellion was put down with such brutality that whole areas of the kingdom were depopulated. The Siamese promised asylum on the Right Bank of the Mekong, but when some 6,000 people crossed the river they learnt that they were to be deported to areas around Bangkok. 3,000 tried to return, but when they did so, they found in their old homelands only a desert patrolled by Vietnamese soldiers. Most of those who tried to return perished."
 * Failing that, Merge the "Rebellion" and "Later events" sections into Lao rebellion (1826–1828) and Redirect to the same. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. This mentions the deportation of 6000 Phuan in 1834, based on another source (presumably Thai) from 1959. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably https://library.soas.ac.uk/Record/569922 this. But it seems to be the only source that mentions the event.  So I'm not sure it's significant coverage. It's literally a footnote. JeffUK (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

-comment As the above passage indicates, the correct name appears to be "Xieng Khouang" (note spaces and spelling). I do get hits but not necessarily enough to justify a separate article as opposed to a passage in some broader topic. Mangoe (talk) 05:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: Hopefully, a consensus will arise after a week's relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete in absence of identified significant coverage. Arguments along the lines of there must be sources are not persuasive (see WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST). The single-paragraph length discussions do not, in my view, reach significant coverage. All that said, I'll happily change my !vote if someone actually identifies the missing WP:SIGCOV. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I have removed the above passage from the article as it was very clearly 'close paraphrasing' of the 'Simms' source. Same sentence structure, just swapping out words in a few places. There's now very little left about the actual event except background and aftermath! JeffUK (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I believe Snit Smuckarn and Kennon Breazeale, A Culture in Search of Survival: The Phuan of Thailand and Laos (Yale University Southeast Asian Studies, 1988), cover this, but have no access at the moment. The page could be expanded to cover the whole Thai–Phuan conflict and renamed accordingly. Srnec (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete You get more value for searching Xiang Khouang as two words, but even these results mostly refer to the 1827 event, although it appears to have been one of a number of revolts involving the Siamese. It's all pretty involved and way outside my comfort zone, TBH, but sense would seem to be to port the pared back and salient content (ie: the one sentence) from this article to Xiangkhouang and delete this. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thai sources describe the event not as a local rebellion but as part of the war between Siam and Vietnam. The event is currently covered in Wikipedia at Muang Phuan and Siamese–Vietnamese War (1831–1834), and either would be a better redirect target than the 1826 rebellion, if redirecting is to be the outcome. There are extensive sources discussing the forced resettlement of the Phuan population (and the wider depopulation of the Lao hinterland) by Siam, but it's quite a different topic. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. A rebellion, even a failed rebellion, that resulted in 6,000 refugees is obviously notable. This wouldn't even be a question in any Western country. SpinningSpark 16:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Muang Phuan, per my above comment. Sources are scarce that explicitly describe event as a rebellion, and basically everything in the current article is already there. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:58, 20 July 2022 (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.