Siege of Kalonoros: What little coverage these events do have in reliable sources is minor, usually just a sentence, and contradicts what is written in the articles.  For example, Cilician campaign of Kayqubad I claims that "Armenians came under the Seljuk rule again" but the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia existed until 1375.  @ AirshipJungleman29 : had previously nominated many similar articles created by these two users for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Anamur and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cilician campaign of Kaykaus I for the same reasons.  Here are some remaining articles that should be removed.  Here are the other articles with the same issues: Cilician campaign of Kayqubad I ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Cilicia Campaign of Baybars ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Siege of Alanya (1221) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Seljuk civil war of 1211–1213 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Battle of Keban (1218) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) KhndzorUtogh ( talk ) 23:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Support Thank you KhndzorUtogh for nominating these poorly researched, POV-ridden articles for deletion.  -- Kansas Bear ( talk ) 01:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Support - per nom.  Archives908 ( talk ) 01:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per my rationale at previous nominations.  ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 21:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (partially).  I believe the siege of Kalonoros/Alanya is notable and probably the Cilician campaign of Kayqubad I also.  No opinion on the rest.  For the siege see this , the Medieval Fortifications in Cilicia and any number of other sources (e.g., Claude Cahen).  Enough to write a short article for an important event.  Srnec ( talk ) 21:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Srnec : When the Seljuq Sultan Alaeddin Keykubad set out to conquer Alanya, then named Kalonoros, in 1221, he was unable to do so.  The lord of the castle, an Armenian named Kir Fard, was bought off.  This is very different from the "successfully mounted victory" the article speaks of.  The source says nothing more of the siege, not enough to base an article on.  -- KhndzorUtogh ( talk ) 22:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A fuller quotation, with emphasis added: The walls of Alanya and an account of the city's taking by the Seljuqs provide clues relating to the issues of talismany and apotropaism raised above. They also return to that quality of ancient constructions—their fineness and solidity of construction—most admired by Theodore Lascaris. Alanya, on the south coast of Anatolia, had once been a great Hellenistic fortress. When the Seljuq Sultan Alaeddin Keykubad set out to conquer Alanya, then named Kalonoros, in 1221, he was unable to do so. The lord of the castle, an Armenian named Kir Fard, was bought off. Extensive rebuilding of the Hellenistic fortifications in and around the main entrance to the fourth sector of the castle and the Ehmedek, or landward citadel, point to the presence, even in the preSeljuq medieval period, of defenses that would have made a siege of the fortress difficult. The account of the siege given by the Seljuq chronicler Ibn Bibi contains one passage associating a talismanic quality with one particular kind of stone: marble. The sultan ordered that the mangonels of the besieging army be furnished only with projectiles of marble because, as he maintained, no other stone could fly as far. This order seems to have caused a considerable delay in the siege since, as Ibn Bibi rightfully reports, no marble occurred naturally on that castle rock. Remember that this is just one easily accessible source in English. And problems with the article are reasons to fix it , not delete it. Srnec ( talk ) 00:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete all: per nom, fails GNG and NEVENT. Nothing found that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth/detail. If in the unlikely event sources are found it would still be much better to start over with a fresh article, I am not seeing anything properly sourced which is worth saddling an (improbable) future article. // Timothy :: talk 22:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Srnec's objection to two of the articles proposed for deletion. This might require more digging than a simple "per nom" statement. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Liz I can understand the argument to keep Kalonoros, although it would need to be almost entirely rewritten. But no sources have been provided for the campaign article, which is similar to this article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cilician campaign of Kaykaus I that was created by the same user. The article presently does not even have a real citation. -- KhndzorUtogh ( talk ) 00:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , but I do not oppose keeping some of the articles with a sound rationale (notability) as pointed out by Srnec.  In any case, those we could keep would have to be rewritten in one way or another, because they largely rely on primary sources (Ibn Bibi, Muneccimbasi, Ayni, and so on).  As they appear to be a part of a wave of problematic article creations, deleting all could save us time, and an experienced editor can recreate some of the notable ones.  Aintabli ( talk ) 04:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , full agreement with Aintabli and TimothyBlue; unless someone steps forward to pull a WP:HEY save on the Siege of Alanya, it's better to delete it.  (I'm not convinced the siege itself is worth a standalone article in any case.) -- asilvering ( talk ) 23:58, 17 January 2024 (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