Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franco-Mongol alliance (modern interpretations)

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 Delete Nakon 04:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Franco-Mongol alliance (modern interpretations)

Franco-Mongol alliance (modern interpretations) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

POV fork of Franco-Mongol alliance, which has accuracy and NPOV disputes. I think this is obvious from the title. You can't have a neutral article by separating out the opinions of modern historians on the event. The master article needs to give due weight to historical analysis from all period to achieve a neutral article. WjBscribe 20:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete As a useless elaboration of the Franco-Mongol alliance pseudo-history that has been based on misinterpretation of sources and tendentious editing. Jehochman ^Talk 20:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete. This is just a POV fork which was created to dodge consensus at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance, such as the concerns about misinterpretation of sources, and the use of unreliable sources. For example, see Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 3#Concerns about Dailliez, where several editors raised concerns about the use of controversial quotes by historian Laurent Dailliez. PHG edit-warred to keep those quotes in the article, and then when it was obvious that there was consensus on the talkpage to remove the information, instead of abiding by consensus, PHG just created this "modern interpretations" POV fork. It, and the several other POV forks he has created, should be deleted. --Elonka 20:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Jehochman and Elonka. That which has been rejected through consensus at Franco-Mongol alliance winds up here. Basta! Aramgar (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete with the merge proviso that any information here which is useful ought to be in the Franco-Mongol alliance article and I wish no information to be lost by deletion. That said, a separate article on "modern interpretations" of anything is unnecessary and not "Wikipedian". Srnec (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The whole page has been developed cooperatively between Elonka and myself essentially, listing the various academic interpretations on the issue. It was also usefull to have this article to reduce the size of the main article. PHG (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No, this page was not developed cooperatively, and if you'll look up a few sentences, you'll see that I want it deleted too. --Elonka 08:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Let me remind you that most of this content was created by you Elonka: the second half Franco-Mongol alliance (modern interpretations)#Reasons for failure, and most of the quotes. When you insisted on keeping this material (I had deleted it once as I thought it was just an essay), I only added quotes presenting the other point of view as well. PHG (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete but merge back into the main article. This is useless if it is a separate article. In fact the main article should focus more on this and less on the mishmash of info that currently exists. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that some of the content in this article appears to have been taken out of the main article by consensus. If that is the case, the material should be removed rather than merged. Creating a POV fork is not the way to circumvent consensus. Any merger should be done by an uninvolved party who has familiarized themselves with past discussions. Jehochman ^Talk 17:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. PHG is one of the most tendentious editors I have come across. All this behavior expands to an unmanageable proportion the ridiculous material he has been adding for some time now. john k (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I'm not sure how to describe the page, but it certainly isn't encyclopedic. Ealdgyth | Talk 23:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. AFD is not for content disputes; please use dispute resolution to discuss mergers and splitting of articles.Biophys (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge: Merge these back into the main article until disputes are resolved. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep A content dispute is not a cause for a deletion of a well referenced article with a potential for more expansion.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:52, 23 January 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.