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 redirect to Pasargadae. MBisanz ^talk 02:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Pasargadae[edit]

Article is wholly unsourced and appears to be the fruit of original research; compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Pedasa and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Tigris, concerning articles by the same editor, which suffer(ed) from the same problems. I have found a handful of references to a "battle of Pasargadae" in 19th century sources but it seems to be only fleetingly covered there, and not at all by modern sources. Possibly a historical hypothesis that was put forward in the 19th century but abandoned thereafter? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 01:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly merge this (and Siege of Pasargadae Hill) into the main article on Pasargadae. The only source for either article (seen here) states that "we have only a few scattered notices from which to reconstruct the closing scenes of the war." There just isn't enough here to justify one much less two articles. Possible references I found on google books are equally vague. Both articles, created by the same user, have a dose of original research and not enough source material to support them. A ni Mate 01:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both to Pasargadae: if we have reliable sources for such ideas being proposed, these wouldn't be unreasonable search targets, but these articles surely seem to be at best OR, and at worst totally nonexistent. Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I say, and I don't say that just because I just AfDed the companion piece--before I saw that this one had been added also. In this case, the writing alone should be reason enough, since its vagueness practically ensures that the question of verification cannot even be properly asked. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I notice Siege of Pasargadae Hill is also on AfD. ~~I suggest merging under the title Battle of Pasargadae as "Battle of ..." is the usual form in English-language histories.~~ I admit both articles are poorly-written and unsourced. However Wikipedia:Deletion policy repeatedly says improvement is preferable to deletion. A quick Google got me the book "A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire" pages 15-17 gives enough info to get an article off to a good start. The battle was historically significant, as it founded the Persian Empire and thus set the scene for the entire Persian-Greek conflict from the Battle of Marathon to the conquests of Alexander the Great, and the Persian-Greek conflict set the scene for the Athenian empire and the Peloponnesian War, not to mention the historical writings Thucydides and Xenophon. I'd do it myself but am currently busy with a zoology article, GA reviews of 2 articles I've edited and myself GA reviewing 4 articles. The last article I saw on AfD where I could see the potential at a glance, Precambrian rabbit, has just been featured in DYK. --Philcha (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep/ No merge Firstly, the two events are completely different battles, imagine merging Battle of Issus and Battle of Gaugamela together. Secondly, it is Cyrus's most famous battle with the Medians, which created the Persian Empire. ALL we can do is update it, there are a lot of books and suprisingly different sources that explain this event, Battle of Pasargadae, so it needs time, and it happened. It should not be entirely up to me to update this article, if one does not know, I am human too.--Ariobarza (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]
I see your point about Siege of Pasargadae Hill, as there appears to have been a series of battles there - it was the HQ of Cyrus the Great, who was at that time the rebel commander. I'm sorry that I'm too busy to help you, and hope you find some helpers. I see 3 Wikiprojects and 2 taskforces listed on the article's Talk page - try pointing out the historical importance of this campaign at the project pages and asking for help there. --Philcha (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pasargadae. X MarX the Spot (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- The probelm with this article like other recent ones from Ariobarza is that we are getting multiple articles covering much the same ground. I very much doubt that there is sufficient material in ancient sources to warrant more than one article on the whole campaign around the hill. The problem ultimately is with his love of applying templates, and the need to have an article to accomodate them. However an enclyopaedia is about text not templates. All the articles on the battles seiges etc need to be merged. There might just be enough for these to be an article linked by a "main" template to Pasargadae. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a well talked about, known siege, that occured 1 year before Battle of Pasargadae and it is not Pasargadae, sure lets mentioned it in Pasaragadae, but you want to merge it? It is like merging all the US battles with Japan into one article, why don't you do that, or merge all of Alexander's battles? Merging on a fringe POV is invalid, and irrational. NO merge please, this battle is already in the template of Cyrus's battles, it could be added to a Pasargadae template, but that is like making a template for Memphis USA and adding Battle of Memphis to it. Plus, now that most are agreeing to keep this article, I request we wait for a more broader community oversight, before we merge anything.--Ariobarza (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza[reply]
Comment Article now is fully referenced, needs a background, battle, etc... More books are on the way. AND this battle will be mentioned in the Persian Revolt article, so no need to merge. The end of AFD.--Ariobarza (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ ~~This article is still not properly sourced, and I'm afraid Ariobarza has a history of finding sources that actually don't say what he says they say.~~ ~~Maybe some mention in an article on Military campaigns of Cyrus the Great if proper sources could be found. dougweller (talk) 07:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
Comment Dougweller, for crying out loud (I am not in real life), DID you bother to check the sources I provided, or should I put a link by them if you can not assume good faith and believe me, I have never lied on Wikipedia, so check it yourself. The first paragraph does not need to be sourced. And Military campaigns of Cryus the Great will never exist, because other conquerers get full articles, while Cyrus gets one article, is this fair? I have found enough sources to make this article an GA article, when you create that page, the content will literally not fit, so do not bother, I know this, imagine merging his every battle, it will longer than this, Roman Empire. Its also like merging every battle in the Greco-Persian Wars pluse more, it will hard for people with slow computers to view it. You can not merge a place with a battle, if the battle has a lot of sources, and adequate information, it deserves its own article.--Ariobarza (talk) 07:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]
Comment I change my mind, now seeing that your going to merge this article WRONGFULLY, then for now, I agree to DELETE this article, as when I create it again it will be fully sourced. So your made up revisionist policy of Deleting stubs has prevailed.--Ariobarza (talk) 08:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]
Ariobarza, calm down - getting angry makes it seem to some people that you're more interested in pushing a personal opinion than in serious history - I'm not accusing you, I'm just describing the impression that angry behaviour from anyone is likely to make. If you have reliable sources (check WP's policy on this), list them here with 1-phrase summaries. The more aspects you can cover with these sources the better, e.g. why the Persians rebelled, how many combats at Pasargadae, historians' assessments of the consequences, etc.

Everyone else, how many reliable sources would be enough to make you think that the article may have serious potential? --Philcha (talk) 09:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentPhilcha thanks for the advice, but I am always calm, I am just addicted to the caps lock key. I could find this much sources for it, Battle of Pasargadae. And some books spend 20+ pages about it, so WheN I say that merging it is inappropriate and would not not ultimately fit into one article, I have made a point on available evidence. There even might be more books out there talking about it, than what is listed on Google Books, which already lists hard to find books, and Herodotus and at least 3 other well known historians with him spend at least 2+ pages giving the details of that single battle. So please check this out.--Ariobarza (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]
Merger or Keep Ariobarza, if you would search on phrases I'd pay more attention to you. You really must search on "Battle of Pasargadae" in quotes, not with 'Battle' and 'Pasargadae'. That cuts 644 GHits down to 20, but at least they all use the phrase. Less than 20 in the end, as some are basically the same book and one is some book of dates, but that's not a problem. You really do need to quit your use of caps lock key, it hurts your credibility (as did the creation of so many unsourced articles). dougweller (talk) 06:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dougweller has just given you a useful hint, Ariobarza. I've created a few short articles, mainly to support larger articles by giving further info on specific topics. In these cases I aim to cite at least 2 good sources, using inline citations. This seems to work, as none has appeared on AfD. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that the quality of sources is every bit as important as their quantity, Ariobarza. You've several times tried to present sources that are anything up to 120 years old as being representative of modern historical thinking. You need to look at what modern historians are saying - antique sources can be useful in showing how views have developed, but they're certainly not reliable sources for current thinking. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I know, this is Cyrus' most famous battle, it is elaborated in a lot books, ranging from 20-600 books. Which is already enough to constitute that this should be its own article {no merge, maybe with Siege of Pasargadae Hill[this battle came right after that siege]}, and so for this article all we need to do is find and make inline citations from unique sentences that talk about this battle in the books. This is it.--Ariobarza (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

Strong comment So, here are the modern sources for, better verification of title, no needing to merge, and definitely no reason to delete; Plus some of these links also provide details to the Siege of Pasargadae Hill too!

+[1] +[2] +[3] +[4] +[5] +[6] +[7] +[8] +[9] +[10]

And this is just the tip of the iceberge, there are perhaps 30 more books I can find from the 1900's to 1980's, and more, so more are on the way, thanks everyone.--Ariobarza (talk) 10:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

Ariobarza, just finding a list of book titles is not enough - you really need to read and understand WP:V and WP:RS thoroughly, from beginning to end.

Of the books you listed:

From Cyrus to Alexander looks excellent and appears to have the scope I mentioned in my "keep" vote. The best thing you can do in order to save Battle of Pasargadae is to summarise in Battle of Pasargadae all the important points you can find in this book about the battle's background, combat events, short-term consequences and long-term consequences. Each point you summarise must be supported by an inline citation, including a page number or a short range of pages specific to the point you're summarising.
The Seven Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World looks interesting, and includes a detailed account of one of the battles. However although Google Books gives its date as 2001, the author lived 1812-1902, see Project Gutenberg, and the book is over 100 years old. So if a more modern book contradicts it, you should follow the modern book's view. On the other hand a lot of our knowledge is based on ancient histories by e.g. Herodotus, and I expect Rawlinson summarises these well enough.
The Cambridge History of Iran looks excellent.
A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire looks very useful.
Ancient Persia is more about archeology, architecture, etc. I suspect other books will give you a larger amount of usable material for less effort.
Google books does not offer extracts of the other books you listed. Remember what I said about the need for page numbers. Claiming that these books support the article will just destroy your credibility if you cannot quotes text and page numbers.

Start using the best of these sources to improve the article now. Eliminate any statements that are not supported by at least one good source. Avoid emotive or over-enthusiastic language - the facts will speak for themselves.

Everyone else, there are 3-4 good sources in that list. I suggest putting this discussion on hold for a week to give Ariobarza time to improve the article. --Philcha (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unusual, but I'm happy if that can be done. dougweller (talk) 11:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks guys, time is all that I need, therefore invalid conclusions will cease, I will now begin my week long improvement of this article. Thanks again.--Ariobarza (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

Comment - surely it won't take a week? X MarX the Spot (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You see, I have a tight schedule, check out persin problems page, Marsyas battle will be deleted on the 8TH, the next 3 battles including this one will be deleted on the 11th, how can I salvage all these articles, I am working on Marsyas battle, then I will begin, as I suppose you said you were going to give me a week, working on the Pasargadae siege and battle, and maybe doriskos. Thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

The articles can be userfied, ie put on your subpages. But you don't have to fix them now if you can find good, solid references and put them on the AfD pages such as this one. I'd oppose giving you any more time on any of the other AfDs (and for some of these you've had about 9 months.) dougweller (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2008 (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.