Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domain of Moor

:{{la|Domain of Moor}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Domain of Moor}})

Contested prod. Of the three sources listed, two do not even mention this area; the third states, correctly, that it was conquered by the Arabs (from the Byzantines, who took it from the Vandals). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. Hoax. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect to Vandals. I do not accept that it is a hoax, but the subject is much more fully covered in my target to which Vandal Kingdom, which might be a better title, is a redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep but rename (and rewrite as I have partly done). I also do not accept that the article is a hoax - it looks to me as if the original author (whose first language, I would guess, is not English) thought he was filling a gap in Wikipedia with a broadly accurate article but actually made a number of mistakes, which I hope I have now mostly corrected. And I really don't know where the article's current title came from - it needs to be called something like Roman-Moorish kingdoms (plural rather than singular - there were apparently a number of them). Also, I do not believe that a redirect to Vandals would be appropriate, as the article seems to have been intended to relate to areas over which the Vandals rarely if ever seem to have had firm control and which do not seem to be currently covered in Vandals - but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise on this. PWilkinson (talk) 22:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

---

• Keep but rename. The article does not seem to be a hoax. I have mentioned the map that shows a province or kingdom of some sort that seems similar to this "domain of Moor." Perhaps its sources may explain something. Anyway, I think this article is based on a real domain of some sort (a different article name would be better), and the current revision looks fine. DCI2026 17:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• Merge - This appears to be a legitimate, if minor, history topic, but the sources seem very few and far between. Would the material be better off in a parent article, such as Praetorian prefecture of Africa? --Noleander (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep, but rename The subject of Roman-Moorish kingdoms seems to legitimately exist, as discussed here. The Amazigh State seems to be another example of this. All of the sources i'm going through, when discussing Roman-Moorish kingdoms, seem to point out that it is a very, very obscure part of history that isn't very well known at all. There is also some discussion of such a place in the footnote [http://books.google.com/books?id=KswPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA392&dq=Mauretania+Moorish+kingdom&hl=en&ei=4RE7Tvb4I8agtgea6PXqAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Mauretania%20Moorish%20kingdom&f=false here]. Some discussion [http://books.google.com/books?id=rILJHC1KsM0C&pg=PA13&dq=Mauretania+Moorish+kingdom&hl=en&ei=4RE7Tvb4I8agtgea6PXqAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Mauretania%20Moorish%20kingdom&f=false here] as well. Silverseren^C 21:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 00:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 00:29, 5 August 2011 (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.