Hakkari Expedition 1916 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article relies on a single primary source, and its tone is unbalanced. For a long time, no additional sources were added, and it is difficult to find references for such a minor battle. Although the Assyrians retreated during this battle, it is still considered a victory because the source comes from a book written by one of the Assyrian leaders who participated in the war. However, the part stating that the Assyrians retreated has been removed. Here is the old version of the article [1]. Sikorki (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Sikorki (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Iraq, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The single source is not a primary source - this indicates a misunderstanding of what a primary source is. Moreover, it is irrelevant at AfD whether an article relies on primary sources (completely acceptable), uses only a single source (not preferred, but okay), is non-neutral or incomplete (because WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP) - this indicates a misunderstanding of this process. That being the case, the impulse is to toss this nomination without further ado. A google search turns up multiple references. [1] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hawkeye7 note that GNG does generally require multiple secondary sources: "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Also note WP:OR: Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. The book describes itself as "first-hand", which suggests that it's a primary source (though I have not looked at the source itself so this could be misleading). But none of this matters because it looks like it's self-published. The article should be kept if those references you've added give significant coverage, but it's hard to tell from WP:GOOGLEHITS. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The mistake that many newbies make is assuming that the sources required by GNG to establish notability must be those used in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Possibly to the Assyrian volunteers or the Persian campaign (World War I). There is a lot of information about the genocide and the overall fighting in that region of the world, but I am not finding anything referring to this as an Expedition. Moritoriko (talk) 04:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Weak consensus at present that there is material to preserve, unclear whether as stand alone, or elsewhere, no clarity on target if elsewhere. Further specific source analysis and clarity on possible target would be helpful in developing the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]