Kazakh-Cossack War (1709–1724): Kazman322 ( talk ) 17:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions .  Kazman322 ( talk ) 17:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Kazakhstan ,  and Russia .  Shellwood ( talk ) 20:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Without more info, this seems to be a rush to deletion .  The article is a week old and appears to have valid, sourced info (I don't read the languages in question).  Sources should be hammered out by nominator and other editors in the article and its Talk -- a Talk that is currently completely blank , so no real attempt has been made.  If proponents cannot overcome the objections of the nominator, then come back to AfD.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 18:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC) With more info, this is a very strong Delete for WP:OR and WP:SYNTH .  In fact, considering the distortion of facts uncovered by Kazman322 and Kges1901 , I am extremely concerned about the potential lack of WP:GF with an eye toward WP:V , WP:HONEST and WP:NOTFALSE .  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 00:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can analyze the sources cited in the article 1) Erofeeva, who does not speak about the whole war of Kazakhs and Cossacks, only mentioning the raid of Abulkhair as a separate fact.
 2) The second source already uses the term Kazakh-Cossack war (Казахско-казачья война), Its author is a certain professor Abdirov.  At the same time, a cursory search on Google Scholar or Google Books does not give any results.  We can safely assume that the term is an invention of Abdirov and the separation of clashes into a full-fledged war is not popular in historiography.  Abdirov himself, judging by the second source, is biased towards the Dzungars and from somewhere he takes the fact of Russia's military assistance to the Dzungar Khanate.  At the same time, in historiography, the invasion of the Dzhungars in 1723 does not in any way come into contact with the attack of the Cossacks from the west, this is a strange compilation.
 3) The fifth source is a book, no pages indicated, just a book.
 4) In the last source, Abdirov says that the Kazakh-Cossack war lasted 200 years (I remind you that this is his personal term, which is not mentioned anywhere else), but the author takes a strange time frame of twenty years and inserts it into the title.
 From which we can conclude that the article is an excerpt from the works of Abdirov, who coined a term that is unpopular anywhere, called minor clashes a full-fledged war, and the author of the article simply retold his vision of the world.  And the author also compiled some other events of these collisions.   Note that the article contains the term Kazakh-Russian war which is not mentioned at all in the sources.  Kazman322 ( talk ) 19:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even if you pay attention to the content of the article, the intervals of clashes are several years, that is, all these are separate incidents that are not distinguished in science into a single conflict.  Kazman322 ( talk ) 19:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The author of the article realized and changed the time frame of the war to another random date, that is, the article and its concept are invented before our eyes.  Kazman322 ( talk ) 10:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Abdirov appears to be a credible historian , but parts of the article disort the sources to record events as a Kazakh victory.  Source four is a Kazakh eighth grade textbook that says Abul Khair's forces were driven back with significant losses by Russian troops, the opposite of the article's claim.  Roudik (source 5) doesn't support what he is cited for, and actually describes the ambush of a Russian peace expedition to Khiva, while not mentioning Kazakh actions at all.  Judging from Abdirov's work, there was definitely conflict, but we don't need an article that blatantly distorts sources to exaggerate Kazakh successes.  Kges1901 ( talk ) 03:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 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.

Discussion outcome: delete