Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Iași (1653)

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Battle of Iași (1653)}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Battle of Iași (1653)}})

A single publication by an unkoen expert by nonnotable publisher is insufficient for notability of an event, whose description per se is barely two phrases: "they attacked, they retreated" The cited source does not even mention the term "Bate of Iasi".- Altenmann >talk 22:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Moldova, and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

:Tomasz Ciesielski is a professional historian and the claim that he is not an expert as you claim is total nonsense and stupidity of the submitter of this article I am in favour of keeping the article AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

::Please provide an evidence that he is a recognized expert. - Altenmann >talk 18:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

:::you have on the Polish nicely written who he was after all he is even the director of the History of the University of Opole [1], he has various scientific works, and his sources are used by the English wikipedia, the Polish wikipedia and the Ukrainian one, please do not write nonsense next time just check it out. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

::::I see, sorry. Somehow I missed him in Google among numerous other Tomashes Ciesielskis. - Altenmann >talk 18:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

:::::so why do you not retreat the Deletion request? Axisstroke (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Per AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 07:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• : We !vote here not per wikipedians, but per Wikipedia rules, which say "multiple reliable sources that cover the subject in detail" Now, which sources discuss "Battle of Iasi (1653)", in your opinion? - Altenmann >talk 16:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete with regret after wading through a bunch of machine-translated sites. I couldn't find any RS in English so I tried searching "Bătălia de la Popricani" for Romanian results as well. The ones that looked best were: [https://books.google.com.au/books?id=DXmpw3QXfZcC&ots=9-NtL8XQqX&dq=%22B%C4%83t%C4%83lia%20de%20la%20Popricani%22&lr&pg=PA456#v=onepage&q=%22B%C4%83t%C4%83lia%20de%20la%20Popricani%22&f=false] (not exactly SIGCOV though); [https://www-vice-com.translate.goog/ro/article/93beba/povestea-domnitorului-vasile-lupu-toca-bani-scos-moldova-evul-mediu?_x_tr_sl=ro&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc&_x_tr_hist=true] (Vice has no consensus in terms of reliability, and I'm not seeing any sources in the article that we could follow for more info). There might be something in [https://www-vice-com.translate.goog/ro/article/93beba/povestea-domnitorului-vasile-lupu-toca-bani-scos-moldova-evul-mediu?_x_tr_sl=ro&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc&_x_tr_hist=true] but I think someone fluent in Romanian would be needed to translate. And even assuming it's reliable and there's at least a few pages on the battle, that's two sources at best if we also accept the Vice article. There simply doesn't seem to be enough. StartGrammarTime (talk) 09:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• :It doesn't really matter if there is one or two sources what matters is its credibility I know the rules say more than one but if it is credible and recognised in the historical community such as books from Cambridge university then I don't understand removing article one. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• :*Please tell us which books you have in mind which write about Battle of Iași (1653). - Altenmann >talk 18:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• :*Regardless, in Wikipedia there is a clear distinction between "credibility" and "notability". Expert historians with years of research in some time period would probably write somewhere about every Battle of Asshole Pass ({{langx|pl|Potyczka na Dupskim przełęczy}}); that's what experts do and are respected for. But not every skirmish makes its way as a separate entry in encyclopedias. - Altenmann >talk 18:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of sigcov. Yilloslime (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear opinions from more editors. This will probably not take a full week but please offer policy- and source-related arguments instead of "per X" ones.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

::

• Draftify/Weak keep: The event is real and not spamy. But, there is no reliable resource that support the event over Internet. But, I think there could be hard copy materials in Libraries and maybe some interested individuals would bring them and include to the article so it is better to give editors chance to edit it. Instant History (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Yes, the event has been mentioned in multiple places, but there is no SIGCOV to establish notability of the battle. There are n number of battles but this is not something which is covered in detail anywhere. The sources aren't convincing enough to warrant a standalone article. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:12, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.