Battle of al-Qarn (1160) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

The article fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. There is hardly any coverage of this battle in English-language sources. The sole English source cited does not reference "al-Qarn" and only briefly discusses hostilities between the Almohads and Arab tribes. The remaining four sources, which are in French, either briefly mention the fighting in passing or don't even mention "al-Qarn" at all. Skitash (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Skitash (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is an important battle in the history of the region at the time, same as the battle of Sebiba (which still dosent have an article, il think of maybe making) or the Battle of Haydaran the Battle is well described using the 1962 Book 'Berberie Orientale sous les Zirides' that describes most of the battles context. And the battle isnt as briefly explained, if its english sources that you need i will add more if you will let me move it back to a draft.

Thank you Algerianeditor17 (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Tunisia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There is hardly any coverage of this battle in English-language sources. Not a valid deletion criterion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per nom; fails WP:GNG, in-passing mentions in the provided sources. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Passing through passive mentions is not want we want. No proper reference. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 19:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify. It sounds like @Algerianeditor17 is claiming that non-English sources are available that pass WP:GNG, so perhaps they can work on it in draftspace and have it reviewed in WP:AFC? --Richard Yin (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Striking this !vote as a compromise no one else seems to be interested in. --Richard Yin (talk) 08:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom

Firecat93 (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:SIGCOV, "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." The sourcing in this article is not good (3 of the French sources provide information about Muhriz ibn Ziyad (under the spelling Mohriz), but do not mention the name al-Qarn (or not under that spelling)), although La Berbérie orientale sous les Zīrīdes, Xe-XIIe siècles has information about this on 4 pages. However, there do appear to be sources: on a quick Google Books search, I found Cahiers de civilisation médiévale, Volume 11 (1968) and Ibn Khaldun and the Medieval Maghrib Volume 1 (1999), both of which only provide snippet views - but having at least two sources in English suggests that more would be available in French or Arabic. The article needs more sources that actually reference this battle. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Both of the sources you cited provide only passing mentions of the topic. They provide little meaningful information and fail to justify the need for a standalone article.

  For instance, this source states "La counquête de l'Ifriqiya (1159–1160), précédée d'un soulèvement des villes occupées par les Normands, se termine, elle aussi, par une grande défaite hilalienne au Gabal al-Qarn (1160)." = "The conquest of Ifriqiya (1159–1160), preceded by an uprising of the cities occupied by the Normans, also ended with a great Hilalian defeat at Gabal al-Qarn (1160)."

  As for the other source, while I have limited access to it, it appears to echo the same point in passing—that the Hilalians lost to the Almohads in 1160. Skitash (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Non-english sources must be considered fully when discussing notability. The discussion is unclear, so far, about whether the French sources are sufficient to establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Three of the sources provided clearly describe the battle. Two don’t that I can see and an Arabic search didn’t throw up anything else. Possibly redirect to Almohad Caliphate#Caliphate and expansion as ATD if there’s no consensus to keep. Mccapra (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. So far, we have arguments to Delete, Keep, Draftify and even Redirect. If we can't come to a consensus here, this discussion is likely to close as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The reasons brought forward for deletion are insufficient, especially the lack of English-language sources, which is never a requirement for anything. Cortador (talk) 11:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have analysed the chronology and coverage of the Almohad campaigns in English and other-language sources. This article is a heavy corruption of the events detailed in Battle of Sétif, a battle which occurred in 1153. If you compare the two articles, you will see that the events are largely identical, with slightly altered names (Djebbâra ben Kâmil vs Gabbara ibn Kamil, Mas’oûd ben Zemmâm el-Ballât’ vs Ma'sud ibn Zaamam, etc.) I kindly ask Cortador, Mccapra, and RebeccaGreen to review the above argument and their !votes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete changing !vote to delete based on the case set out by AirshipJungleman29. There isn’t enough here to support an article. Mccapra (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per AirshipJungleman29, with thanks for the source analysis. --Richard Yin (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]