Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Kurdistan (2nd nomination)

Kingdom of Kurdistan

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

I put forward the Deletion of the article WP:Stub of the so called ”Kingdom of Kurdistan” for the following reasons:

As there has never been an actual state called Kingdom Kurdistan, with any designated borders, government, institutions, diplomatic relation, ceremony, inauguration or a proclamation of a Kurdish “King” based any sufficient and credible sources to state otherwise. This article has severe issues with verifiability see WP:VERIFY the very few and limited references to sources are simply not enough to turn tribal rebellions, which have been put down in to an “unrecognized” Kingdom. In case one needs to point out to Kurdish Rebellions there are designated Wikipedia pages for that, there is no point to make something out of nothing just to get it visibile into the Internet domain via Wikipedia.
This article lacks notability see WP:IMPORTANCE, the topic and the actual term “Kingdom of Kurdistan” lacks sufficient coverage, the whole article is based on 4 references, which cannot be verified. The mere usage of the term “Kingdom of Kurdistan” here and there does not make it notable enough for a separate article. Wikipedia cannot be an indiscriminate collection of information as this article is just a soapbox WP:SOAP. The simple fact remains that such a place recognised or unrecognised called Kingdom of Kurdistan never factually exisited, perhaps nothing more than a figure of speach refering to the events from the different Kurdish rebellions. Hittit (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing malformed deletion nomination on behalf of User:Hittit. His original nomination rationale is here[1]. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Keep The article has existed since 2005 gaining a lot of support at its first AfD in 2006. There has been thoughtful and constructive discussion at Talk:Kingdom of Kurdistan. So, this article should not be discarded without careful thought. It seems to me the problem raised here is mainly with the title, which may well be problematic on grounds of politics and ambiguity. However, I see in Google Books and Scholar sufficient appropriate references to make me think the expression "Kingdom of Kurdistan" is indeed in use in a historical context. Moreover, even the references presently in the article are quite sufficient for notability for a stand-alone article – WP:GEOLAND is clear that places lacking legal recognition may still be notable per WP:GNG. I think editorially it might be wise to merge the article's contents with History of the Kurdish people, Iraqi Kurdistan and Turkish Kurdistan and, indeed, Kurdish rebellions. This is far too involved to mandate at AfD which is why I am !voting keep. Any merge should retain attribution so a redirect from here to History of the Kurdish people might be best. Whatever happens, the article should not be merely deleted – it has been written and referenced in a responsible manner and the material needs to continue to be used appropriately. Apologies for my complete ignorance of the subject matter. Thincat (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator's arguments. --E4024 (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there are enough sources for this to be a credible article. Josh1024 (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Josh. You opened a WP account on 1st February and today you're here; congratulations! Man, it took me months to discover these pages... I think they're waiting for you at the Teahouse in vain. --E4024 (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added some new sources and each article doesnt need hundreds of sources. There are enough sources about Kingdom of Kurdistan. That would be strange to delete it.Gomada (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or Merge to Mahmud Barzanji/Mahmud Barzanji revolts. Takabeg (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Takabeg (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]