Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of seibal

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of seibal

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

Farmed off from Seibal. Not enough information available to justify a separate article, not even if there really was a siege. Only given one reference, which is a blog. There is nothing here which isn't included in the main article. It is unlikely that there will ever be enough information available to produce a worthwhile description of the siege, almost certainly not enough to justify a separate article. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (perhaps redirect back to Seibal). Looking at that article, it seems to me that the suggestion that the population decline or abandonment was due to a siege is wp:OR, but I do not know. On the other hand, it is a pity that this AFD nom was made when the author had not had a chance to complete it: DONOTBITE. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It looks like an article on this subject could be made (though I would call it "Battle of Seibal" - seeing it wasn't a long siege (presently described 1 day - don't know if that's accurate) - but there is strong evidence this occurred in 735). However the current article is atrocious. No sourcing (sorry - one blog which doesn't contain info on the "siege"). The text itself is mainly about Seibal. The sole content is the infobox - and I'm not certain how accurate it is. The text in the Seibal article actually has some details. In short - this could probably be improved into a standalone article - but at the present state it should go.Icewhiz (talk) 11:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The page creator edited Seibal to insert a reference to a siege where before there was only a reference to an attack. Big difference.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:26, 14 August 2017 (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.