Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Gordium

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Siege of Gordium

Siege of Gordium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I cannot find any sources for this, even looking under the spelling Gordion. Searching the book referenced using Google books gave me nothing either. All I can find is that it was where Alexander and Parmenion met up and seems to have been used as a garrison for a short while. dougweller (talk) 10:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as not notable and unsourced. Author of this article have many dubious edits, of whom are many deleted. --Yopie 13:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
• Delete If it really existed beyond a shadow of a doubt, it would be notable; but the lack of sources and the highly suspicious nature of the author (as noted by Yopie) make deletion a default. Nyttend (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No sources. The book, used as a reference in the article, does not mention the siege of Gordium or Gordion either. -- Crowsnest (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Like Doug, I've been unable to find any references to a siege or even a battle at Gordium/Gordion, even in the book . Unfortunately this seems to be yet another example of an article where Ariobarza (talk · contribs) has used imagination to stitch together poorly-interpreted snippets from Google Books. It's a classic case of original research by synthesis. See also related AfDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Doriskos and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Tigris, also User:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems for background. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
• Delete verifiability via reliable sources is essential to the quality and accuracy of Wikipedia. It is not a site for people to spin yarns or to create myths or to synthesize history that might have been from snippets and present it as fact. Edison (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. This completely fails WP:V. I too have searched independently for sources and simply cannot find reference to any siege conducted by Alexander or his proxies here at all. It does not even seem to be a topic of speculation for historians. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:RS. X MarX the Spot (talk) 07:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Doug Weller's nomination and Ariobarza's final comment. Mathsci (talk) 09:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I've found a mention in Russian source, A.V. Shishov, 100 Great Military Commanders, Moscow, 2000, p. 40: "Alexander conquered... Phrygia (there he took a strong Persian fortress Gordion") ("Александр покорил... Фригию (в ней он взял сильную персидскую крепость Гордион)". --Brand спойт 12:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Metacomment. It seems to me clear from sources that Alexander took control over Gordium (that's where he cut the Gordian knot). I haven't seen any sources for how he and his army did that (siege, stealth, storm, bribery, threat or any of the numerous other methods for taking control of a city). --Alvestrand (talk) 13:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, even if the siege took place in fact, we now virtually nothing. Apparently Shishov endorsed a speculative claim. --Brand спойт 10:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom & others above. Never heard of it; checked books yesterday and this morning, but ended up empty-handed.

  After taking a look at the general situation, I recommend at the very least to ban Ariobarza from article namespace (main namespace), to spare some knowledgeable editors the time that double-checking his every edit would entail. - In my opinion, using the process of writing Wikipedia articles for teaching basic concepts of research to persons who lack such education/habilities would be too much of a drain on our already very limited resources (particularly in areas like Persian history, where making articles comply with our policies is already time-consuming). Our aim is creating an encyclopedia, not running a school. - Ev (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

  Comment: I agree with the above in its entirety. Much as I love the idea of democratic editing, I despair of this place when editors who know what they're doing have to spend 90% of their time clearing up others' poop. And when 70% in turn of that poop remains undetected. Er, where was I? Delete - no sources, as finally but bizarrely admitted by User:Ariobarza (together with strange claims that they somehow did not start this article) --Nickhh (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment Wow, this is unexpected, Ev I already have things to worry about, please do not make yourself one of them. Please do not be one sided. The sentences I added to this article already existed on Wikipedia's Gordium article. Therefore I did not initially create anything here, if you try to ban me from this topic, your are making an ill fated and innapropriate mistake, that will have Wikipedia consequences. You people can not think outside of the box. Please think clearly before trying to piss me off more. Imagine that ever time you try to assume good faith another smarty comes along and pokes you. Cornerning me just gives evidence to what I have said before about equal representation of editing, and making a POV encyclopaedia is not the way, excluding somewhat unreliable sources is not for us to decide, because there are better encyclopaedia's out there that include all the information. Yet, here information is limited because of certain revisionist policies begun by Wikipedia's new police force. If this is really happening, then God help us all, thank you. Ev, if you want to ban from a certain topic, say it to my face (talk page), not sneak it somewhere on a deletion page, unless you want this to be secret? I would not be surprised if you got this idea from a certain user... So please reconsider, thank you.--Ariobarza (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza

Ariobarza, you're not doing yourself any favours with comments like that. I think Ev has a point - you simply don't seem to understand the basics of source-based research. Nobody's saying that's your fault. It's a skill that has to be learned, and maybe you just never learned it? Unfortunately that does put you at a disadvantage here. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ariobarza, my comments were rather misplaced, as in principle comments at this venue should focus on each entry's merits, and avoid such digressions. It was only my intention of not becoming directly involved in this whole affaire (and in subsequent discussions that could take place elsehwere), and the fact that ChrisO had already mentioned the general situation above, that led me to state here my opinion on that general situation, "for the record" as it were (so that others can cite it at will).

Far from "keeping my opinion secret by whispering it in an obscure deletion discussion", I expected all the main participants to read it, including you (rather obviously given your level of participation in that discussion).

Now, regarding the "Siege of Gordium" entry (and looking in detail, for absolute clarity), the sentences you added to this article did not already exist on Wikipedia's article on Gordium.

Using one sentence from the article on "Gordium":

The garrison stayed there until the last months of 334, when the Macedonian commander Parmenion captured the city.

(despite the fact that anonymous Wikipedia entries by themselves are most definitively not reliable sources, but mere guides pointing to certain bibliography)

...you started an entry framed as the "Siege of Gordium" with one sentence (diff.):

The Siege of Gordium , which was part of a low key siege at the city of Gordium in which Alexander the Great captured, and according to myth cut the Gordium Not.

...without having any source that mentioned such thing (that a siege took place, much less that it was "low key"). Not even the sentence from "Gordium" mentioned a siege. It was just a product of your imagination.

The sentence was then further developed into (diff.):

The Siege of Gordium , which was part of an infamous siege at the city of Gordium in which, in the absence ofAlexander the Great, his commander Parmenion captured the city.

...now adding that it was infamous! (in other words, notorious). And, again, without any source whatsoever to back up those claims. And so it remains to this day.

Our policies are clear. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. – The Verifiability policy states that "[i]f no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

If even now you're unable to follow these core policies when dealing with one single sentence taken from an easy-to-check Wikipedia article, I tremble at what could take place with the whole Google Books library at your disposal.

I'm sorry to be blunt, Ariobarza. But please understand that here, inappropriately conducted research implies that other people have to set aside a lot of their time to rectify articles' content, so that they comply with our policies. Ultimately, we're always talking about time... about knowledgeable persons who have to divert their valuable time from other, more productive -and/or enjoyable- occupations. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Are saying your sorry, as you won't want topic ban on me? This is what I find funny, The only part I used my imagination on was saying it was a "low key siege," I should have and did say "infamous," because I could not find any sources for it, for example, even ChrisO agreed it should be deleted (he could not find anything either, so he said DELETE like he always does), while I kept an open mind. Anyways, if you check the link here, the only thing I added to the existing sentence was, "it was in Phrygia," this is fact, but it is not sourced. And here it is, others edited this article too, (while) your accusing me of the wrong things here, [1]. Why don't you contact this fellow, the actual creator of this red link, which I made blue, User:Brandmeister, he named it "Siege of Gordium", I read history, and I have never heard of a siege there, except Alexander cutting the Gordian Knot. And according to the most recent comments, I think someone has found this siege to be true, am I right? Don't worry I am improving, this is a old forgotten article.--Ariobarza (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

There's a basic problem with knowledge of English here. "Infamous" does not mean "not famous". Rather it means "famous for reasons that reflect badly on the subject". The other problem is of course that whether Brandmeister or Ariobarza made the first mistake is totally irrelevant to whether or not the article should be deleted; neither person WP:OWNs the article, it's the sources that matter. --Alvestrand (talk) 04:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ariobarza, the general method is incorrect: you come up with a certain text first, and then proceed to search for sources to corroborate it. – You should be doing the exact opposite: first find reliable sources that deal with a certain issue, and only then write a text that accurately reflects what those sources state.

In this particular case, instead of looking for sources, you took "Parmenion captured the city" from one Wikipedia article (in great part copied verbatim from livius.org) and "Siege of Gordium" from a Wikipedia template, and combined both fragments into a novel, entirely imaginary "Parmenion captured the city in a not famous siege", which even includes your own opinion that lack of sources implies little fame. – In fact, it appears that no source mentions how the city was taken, much less a siege or how famous it is. And that is the only relevant issue to consider. The mention of this "siege" will be removed from the template for the very same reason. – Ev (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Delete As yet another unsourced battle article from a contributor that seems to have no desire to learn to contribute well. AfDs are rarely the place to comment on a contributor, but a standing offer to help the creator of this article understand how to write sourced based articles has been accepted and then completely ignored. This certainly isn't the place to debate a topic ban, though floating the idea on a noticeboard or through an RFC/U wouldn't be a bad idea. AniMate 20:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I was going to close this debate as delete per WP:SNOW, but then I saw this. Since I have little experience closing AfDs that are more complex than 3 deletes and no keeps, I'm going to defer this to another admin. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

  Oh, if it's really necessary for me to say this, considering I was about 5 seconds away from deleting the page, you may treat this as a delete !vote. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I am dissapointed at your statement here AniMate (as I disscussed why on your page). But, Ev, if you think getting a topic ban on me will help improve articles, it would not. It would not help me update the articles, and would give an excuse to the all powerfull ChrisO to delete them. Therefore, here it hard for me to have good faith, a (Balkan/ Slavic) group coardination to ban me from somewhere does not smell like good faith. I would not be surprised if you were contacted by ChrisO, so I warn you to stop before I am forced to expose you. This discussion is over, goodbye.--Ariobarza (talk) 09:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Comments from Ariobarza

Factoring out the comments from this single user, and comments on those comments, since they are not strictly statements about whether or not to delete the article. --Alvestrand (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment See people, this is why I have trouble assuming good faith, mostly with the user ChrisO, he is again accusing me of using my imagination. Considering other articles that were deleted, in due time, he will regret his decision. This article already existed in red, before I added sentences to it. So it is not initialy my creation, but I will try to help out by trying to look for sources, then just simply agree to delete it. Either way I am not against or for the deletion of this article. If this was from my imagination, why does it say this in the Gordium article;

  "The (Persian) garrison stayed there until the last months of 334 BCE, when the Macedonian commander Parmenion captured the city. During the winter, his king Alexander the Great joined him, traditionally cutting the Gordian Knot in the palace."

  There is even one reference in this article, why don't you guys check that out. Cheers.--Ariobarza (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobaerza talk

Comment 'Red' articles don't exist, that's what the red means. Who knows why the Gordium article has that unsourced sentence. You can't use it as a source. And it seems that Crowsness, Chris and I have looked at the book and not found anything to back this up. And you should not be attacking Chris for saying you've used your imagination, a number of other editors have said the same thing, not because of Chris but because that is their own opinion. Unless all those other editors are wrong, you do have a problem, and that isn't a personal attack it is an observation -- we all have various problems. Hopefully you are learning how Wikipedia works, which is quite different from the way you work as a student for instance. dougweller (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The very fact that I might stick up for this article proves that I am not Persian-centric, as I have edited other Greek articles, this is one thing ChrisO has overlooked. And please stop giving the wrong impression by calling my normal responce to ChrisO an attack, Doug you seem to love over exxagerating things lately, please change the tone. There is no reason to be in a defence mode. As I said before, I may or may not be for the deletion of this article. And that I added the sentences from the Gordium article that was already on Wikipedia. Thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 02:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk
• Final Comment I too have looked for sources, and can not find them, it seems this time you guys are right and that I am right too, because I said I do not have a opinion of FOR or AGAINST the deletion of this article. Whoever added those sentences of the siege, in this (Gordium) article, should walk the plank. Because ChrisO has blindy accused me of using my imagination, (guess this is another thing I will add to list of ChrisO misconducts, which will be published in a book and will be a worldwide best seller, and will bring a revolution of freedom to Wikipedia by studying if the rules can be improved for future generations) of that person [I added what they wrote] to this article, and therefore it turned into blue and came to life. Feel free to delete, it would have been interesting if there was a siege, but guess not, nothing happened at Gordium. Bye.--Ariobarza (talk) 07:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

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.