Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Kurdistan (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 KEEP. Despite the subject only existing for a short time, it meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. The time frame argument also lacks support because other similar subjects, such as the California Republic, also existed for short spans of time. SouthernNights (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Kurdistan

AfDs for this article:
Kingdom of Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I put forward the Deletion of the article WP:Stub of the so called ”Kingdom of Kurdistan” for the following reasons:

  • As there has never been an actual state called Kingdom Kurdistan, with any designated borders, government, institutions, diplomatic relation, ceremony, inauguration or a proclamation of a Kurdish “King” based any sufficient and credible sources to state otherwise. This article has severe issues with verifiability see WP:VERIFY the very few and limited references to sources are simply not enough to turn tribal rebellions, which have been put down in to an “unrecognized” Kingdom. In case one needs to point out to Kurdish Rebellions there are designated Wikipedia pages for that, there is no point to make something out of nothing just to get it visibile into the Internet domain via Wikipedia.
  • This article lacks notability see WP:IMPORTANCE, the topic and the actual term “Kingdom of Kurdistan” lacks sufficient coverage, the whole article is based on 4 references, which cannot be verified. The mere usage of the term “Kingdom of Kurdistan” here and there does not make it notable enough for a separate article. Wikipedia cannot be an indiscriminate collection of information as this article is just a soapbox WP:SOAP. The simple fact remains that such a place recognised or unrecognised called Kingdom of Kurdistan never factually exisited, perhaps nothing more than a figure of speach refering to the events from the different Kurdish rebellions. Hittit (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing malformed deletion nomination on behalf of User:Hittit. His original nomination rationale is here[1]. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article has existed since 2005 gaining a lot of support at its first AfD in 2006. There has been thoughtful and constructive discussion at Talk:Kingdom of Kurdistan. So, this article should not be discarded without careful thought. It seems to me the problem raised here is mainly with the title, which may well be problematic on grounds of politics and ambiguity. However, I see in Google Books and Scholar sufficient appropriate references to make me think the expression "Kingdom of Kurdistan" is indeed in use in a historical context. Moreover, even the references presently in the article are quite sufficient for notability for a stand-alone article – WP:GEOLAND is clear that places lacking legal recognition may still be notable per WP:GNG. I think editorially it might be wise to merge the article's contents with History of the Kurdish people, Iraqi Kurdistan and Turkish Kurdistan and, indeed, Kurdish rebellions. This is far too involved to mandate at AfD which is why I am !voting keep. Any merge should retain attribution so a redirect from here to History of the Kurdish people might be best. Whatever happens, the article should not be merely deleted – it has been written and referenced in a responsible manner and the material needs to continue to be used appropriately. Apologies for my complete ignorance of the subject matter. Thincat (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the nominator's arguments. --E4024 (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think there are enough sources for this to be a credible article. Josh1024 (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome Josh. You opened a WP account on 1st February and today you're here; congratulations! Man, it took me months to discover these pages... I think they're waiting for you at the Teahouse in vain. --E4024 (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at Josh's contribs, he's no newbie SPA even though the account is recently created. Looks to be beyond Teahouse level to me... Peridon (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Flankly, Sheikh Said rebellion is irrelevant topic. Takabeg (talk) 09:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Takabeg (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Takabeg (talk) 04:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also to point out due to the creation of this stub the term it self "Kingdom of Kurdistan", while being searched in the Internet, is mostly referenced from this bogus Wikipedia article. What happens is that Wikipedia content is being used to generation hits and references and in this case wrongfully so. Hittit (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If one of these kingdoms lasted from May to June, that's as long as the Republic of California lasted. The other lasted 11 months or so. Lack of recognition doesn't matter - the unrecognised Somaliland has been going for 12 years or so there while official recognition is given to the anarchic Somalia. I hope I'm wrong in thinking I detect some rather bitter sounds here. It does happen in topics involving Kurds, Armenians, Georgians, Turks, Greeks, Macedonians etc etc. What is needed is attention to facts. Is the content of the article being stated to be false? If the references do not show it to be true, then the article should go. If they do, its future is to be decided as keep or merge. I see no problem with an article containing the same material as two others. We don't allow an article that merely mirrors another. But you can't redirect from one title to two places. Perhaps this title could be used for a disam page to the two 'kings'. Or is it really the 'Kingdom of Kurdistan' that's causing the problem? If it existed (albeit unrecognised) for a month, it existed. Political revisionism is not what Wikipedia's about. Peridon (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Peridon, you got the point very well. There is intolerance for the word of Kurdistan. This Kingdom had its own flag, cabinet(government) etc. And the nominator's claims are personal. When Mahmud Barzanji proclaimed himself as King of Kurdistan, it was published in the official newspaper of government, Rojî Kurdistan. In another official newspaper, Bangî Kurdistan,(that was published by Mustafa Yamulki, minister for education in the Kingdom of Kurdistan), Mahmud Barzanji has named as Melîkê or Hikumdarê Kurdistan which means King of Kurdistan. Maybe Kingdom of Kurdistan didnt recognize by Turkish government but that doesnt mean, it didnt exist. There is turkish government in Northern Cyprus more than 30 years and it recognized only by Turkey. So, we should say; no, there is not such government?--Gomada (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are people claiming that they own land on Mars and the Moon, factual evidence is another matter, just to see how distorted this term is you can visit Mahmud Barzanji Wiki article and see that some one has put as his place of birth again = Kingdom of Kurdistan, he must of have been self styled king long before 1922 then (I hope you see my point). The correct historical term for his birth place should have been Ottoman Empire. There are many self styled kings, there was one guy proclaiming him self as the Emperor of the United States. Hittit (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? You talk as; you were in the Kingdom of Kurdistan in 1922 and you know all better than everyone, and you despise the situation. As i see, your point is just to be againist. Coz you started with no sources, proclamation, government etc. And now you talk about some mistake in another article. If you care wiki, you could change it until you write here. But dont worry, i did it for you, you can sleep well ;) Gomada (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Again as I said there are no sources supporting existance of a place called Kingdom of Kurdistan (the few sources used are just isolated mentionings from here and there, and derive in some cases from the same author), just reference for Barzanji proclaiming hims self as a self-styled ruler. The facts of the matter relate to Kurdish rebellions or article relating to Barzanji, first supported by Turkey against the British (case of Barzanji) and in later years Kurdish tribal feudals supported by the British agains Turkey. Article is pointles and should be deleted as main contents could be found in Kurdish rebellions articles. Flag of this obscure Kingdom is also bogus, no actual references of it being ever used, just from one source. There seems a general flaw in logic, everytime some Kurds have rebelled these have not actually put up a state, seems these claims are pandemic. There is more logic in creating an article relating to Turco-British conflicts between 1919 - 1931, where Kurdish tribes were part (were in fact used) of a bigger conflict between newly created Republic of Turkey and the British for demarcation and oil fields of Mosul.Hittit (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These are your personal claims. There are enough sources and you have said, the flag is bogus. Take a look at here. You just try to impose your idea on us. We dont need it.Gomada (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, there is only one source refering to this flag, no others are found + in the pic it does not say if this flag is the Kurd Kingdom flag, could be Barzanjis own rebel flag. Sufficient sources should be provided and preferably from multiple sources, one word there one word here, a single picture without author or clear description. If you state an existence of a Kingdom from 1922 for sure more evidence must be out there to have a credible article. Hittit (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Peridon to add, the fact of the matter is that such a place as "Kingdom of Kurdistan" has never exisited, any reference to this come from only few weak sources, that are possible corrupt by refences where Barzanji is said to have proclaimed him self as King (two of the few references state "styled him self as the "King of Kurdistan"?) this is far from actually having a Kingdom called Kurdistan. Hittit (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Despite what's implied in the nomination, the Article does not even purport to describe an actual state, but rather, an unrecognized state. The initial premise is thus wrong, and the Article does appear to be sourced. Granted, the References Section is poorly formatted and somewhat confusing. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 09:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recognised or not-recognised, it was not a state. It is essential to distinguish between a state and a self-styled ruler who has proclameid him self as a tribal King. Thus the main points are summarised in the articles for Barzanji and the different Kurdish rebellions. Hittit (talk) 11:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kingdom_of_Kurdistan_(2nd_nomination)