Talk:Battle of Nakhchivan (1406)

Objection against proposed deletion

Dear Kevo,

Hereby I inform you about my objection against proposed deletion. There are sources, and I will add them later. Please remove proposed deletion.

Thanks, and regards,

--Abrvagl (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Kevo ping. --Abrvagl (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Template removal

Hi all, I would like to open a discussion regarding the removal of both "article for deletion" and "unreferenced" templates from Battle of Nakhchivan (1406) in order to reach Consensus. If we proceed and agreed, as soon as possible, I will remove both template. My argumentation is the article now eventhough still needs many additional citation, at least has more than one source which can be verified, so the second template (unreferenced) is no longer valid. Thank you. Mfikriansori (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors Abrvagl, HistoryofIran, Kevo327, El_C, and Tbhotch. I mention you here because I want to know what's your opinion regarding my proposal. Because the article now has citations, eventhough I myself view them as not enough and the article clearly needs more, I would like to have a discussion with you all, because we are amongst the latest editors that edited this page. I want to propose that this article is remove from the deletion proposal, as well as we change the to , because in fact, the former is no longer valid. I hope to see and discuss with you soon. Thank you. Mfikriansori (talk) 06:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

90% of the article is an aftermath section. The battle section has one well 1 sourced line that is actually about the battle itself. I still don't see why this article should stand. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Eventhough the body of the article doesn't really reflect the name, as you said, the battle is not elaborated and described properly, The Battle of Nakhchivan (1406) was added to the deletion proposal because for nine years, this article didn't have any source, at all. As per Wikipedia policy, unsource materials can be removed. So, it is not about the nobility of this article, as it was a real event, happened in the history of mankind, but more inclined to the fact it was unsource for many years. I truly think the article should stand and I am committed to the betterment of this article. Mfikriansori (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

It is normal, what important in battles is before and after math...I think so. Abrvagl (talk) 11:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• I don't know why I was pinged but you don't need consensus to replace an unreferenced tag with a refimprove tag if the page is clearly referenced. Also, the removal of any article for deletion is not up to discussion. The process runs as it is. Once the process is over the tag is removed (if kept) or the page gets deleted altogether. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

  Hi, I pinged you because you are amongst the latest editors that edited this article. I have a dark history of editing, largely because of my bias and POV, and they were lack of consensus as well as mostly disruptive. That's why currently, whenever I touched upon a sensitive article or article that face deletion like this one, I tried to communicate with other in order to reach a consensus. I don't want to be perceived as disruptive editor anymore. Anyway, thank you for changing the template. Mfikriansori (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)