Deletion of Franco-Mongol alliance (1258-1265)

Comment: One article on Franks and Mongols is probably more than enough.  This series constitutes a walled garden of original research.  See .  The creation of these article appears to be an attempt at circumventing the consensus at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Complete bollocks (WP:BALLS)

Comment: the only proper use for a fork is an article providing detail linked to a more general one by a "main" template.  Having two separate articles covering the same ground is bad in principle, because they tend to get altered in differnet ways, withe the result that WP starts contradicting itself.  We seem here to have a historiographic dispute.  It is legitimate for the main article to set out both views, unless one side of the argument consists of a small group of mavericks (whose views are not worthy of discussion).  It is possble the detail of the historiographic arguments should be kept out of the main article and set out in a forked article (being a sort of appendix).  I am a historian, but not a specialist on this area.  I suspect that all this is built on the interpretation of a handful of medieval chronicles.  Accordingly, there is a legitimate disagreement among historians as to the course of evetns and how they should be interpreted.  WP should provide a  setting out all arguments.  However this should not be done by producing duplicate articles, so that they can contradict each other
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)