Hosta

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Social science. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Social science|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Social science. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science/archive

Purge page cache

watch

This list includes sublists of deletion debates on articles related to language and history.

Social science

Social policies of Phyllis Schlafly

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

Majority of article comes from WP:PRIMARY sources. Relevant info can be merged into Phyllis_Schlafly#Viewpoints but there isn't enough to justify its own article. मल्ल (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and Politics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete - no independent reliable sources for the subject. - Altenmann >talk 19:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see a number of books listed as references, Feminism and the New Right and such. These are all primary sources? I wouldn't think that the political policies of one activist would merit an article separate from the article about that person, but if people have seen fit to write this much about them... It looks like the issue is notability. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Village communities

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

This article was created [1] as a copy of a 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article and the Who Wrote That? tool shows that 89.1% of the current text is the same as 1911. What initially struck me as odd was the article's complete and total focus on Europe. The 1911 encyclopedia's explanation for why it was "sufficient to confine the present inquiry ... to nations of Aryan race" was "principally because the Aryan race in its history has gone through all sorts of experiences" (it also said that it "might also be reasonably urged" that the Aryan race was most important, yikes). The section explaining the Aryan focus was removed from the article in 2008, [2] and since then the total focus on Europe has been unexplained. So there are the content issues, and now here is why I think the best path forward is deletion. I thought about merging Village communities into Village but I do not consider any of the info in Village communities to be worthy of inclusion. I'm disconcerted by phrases like "we hear that" and "a good clue to the subject is provided by a Serb proverb" that suggest a tenuous relationship to verifiable fact. The 1911 Britannica might be a reliable source in articles like University court or Castle-guard, which deal with old European history, but I don't think it's a reliable source here. Plus even if I were to improve it, the content would overlap with the village article. Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: ? I guess... This exists [3], [4] or [5]. Simply copying the text from an 100 yr old encyclopedia is a no-no. Two of these sources are older than the Britannica, one more recent. Oaktree b (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like the Theory of Village Communities was part of the study of the history of economics in the second half of the nineteenth century - this article by Denman Waldo Ross is an 1880 review describing various sources (not all in English, and many looking at non-European cultures, albeit from a colonial perspective). Maybe we should have an article about the theory, but it'd need to be more critical and better-sourced than the current article. Adam Sampson (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, Social science, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While an article on the study of village communities may be suitable, this article on the study of village communities is not. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Choice Lab

AfDs for this article:

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

This was nominated for deletion 10 years ago but didn't really address the lack of reliable sources covering this research group (the few that were linked to just mention it in passing). Also not addressed was the fact that the entire article was a copy-and-paste of the official media release, which makes this self-promotion. In 10 years the article has gotten no content edits or inbound links, so it's still that official release word-for-word. The Choice Lab seems to have largely rebranded as something else but I still can't find any real sources actually about it. Details like who founded it and who the members are, what its funding is and who provides that funding, where it's specifically located - the core of an encyclopedia article on this topic would be - it just doesn't seem to exist in reliable sources. Combined with a decade and no real encyclopedia editing occurring on the article makes me think this just isn't an encyclopedia topic. Perhaps it should redirect to Norwegian School of Economics but I didn't want to do that unilaterally. Here2rewrite (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 16:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

redirect as proposed. I agree with your analysis. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social science Proposed deletions

Language

François Thibaut

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

Article subject does not look notable generally or as an academic or educator. All of the citation links in the article are actually to the same New York Times article, which only briefly mentions the article subject: "In 1994, the school had fewer than 50 students learning Spanish; now, there are 180, said Francois Thibaut, the school's director. A class had to be added this fall to accommodate the increasing demand, he said." [6]. I was not able to locate most of the other links/sources, and what I found did not mention the article subject. – notwally (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Language. – notwally (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lawunuia language

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

Fails verification that a language of this name exists. (I do not consider the existence of an ISO 639-3 sufficient verification.) If verified, it could redirect to Northwest Solomonic languages. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Oceania. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, it exists, its alternative name being used in the title of a 1976 paper, for example: Banoni, Piva and Papuanization. And it's mentioned in some other sources, like [7] and [8]. So, I'm not sure if there's enough coverage out there to justify a separate article, but I oppose deletion, and support at the very least a redirect. toweli (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep We list 2 sources beside ISO. We'd only merge if it's arguably not a distinct language. Otherwise, the consensus is that languages get articles. If a language doesn't have an article, we create one, so this would just be recreated. If we discover it doesn't actually exist, we petition ISO to retire the language code, but SIL even updated the speaker population recently. — kwami (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bad Afd based on wrong premises. "Fails verification" means that the source Ethnologue has a complete entry (with info about location, speakers etc.) about a non-exisiting language? That's a bold claim. Leaves us with WP:N, but real languages are notable. For those in doubt in this case, see User:Toweli's list of sources above. –Austronesier (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M-T pronouns

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

Almost exclusively from a single source, and fails to establish WP:N. Practically zero mention of the concept outside of that single source and veers dangerously into WP:PROFRINGE territory with the WP:OR links to fringe theory language families like Nostratic, which aren't mentioned in the source. Without establishing notability this seems to not really belong here, and I'm unable to verify that this is at all taken seriously in linguistics.

For anyone unfamiliar with this topic:

"The M-T pattern is the most common argument for several proposed long-distance language families, such as the Nostratic hypothesis, that include Indo-European as a subordinate branch. Nostratic has even been called 'Mitian' after these pronouns."

Nostratic is emphatically a fringe theory within linguistics and is not mentioned in any of the sources, and this article seems heavily like WP:ADVOCACY. Any sources linking Nostratic to M-T Pronouns are inherently fringe sources, but even then many of the claims here are entirely un-cited. It doesn't seem this article can be saved. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Feels like Original Research to me. Only two sources though the Google search gives plenty sources. Whether they back up the article and are reliable or not I have no idea. Not my field — Iadmc♫^talk 10:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Asia and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not advocating for Nostratic. This is simply a piece of evidence claimed by those who do, and Nostratic has been deemed appropriate for a WP article.

As noted, the M-T pronominal pattern is well attested in the lit. I relied on a single source to create the article, but others could be added.

Some conclusions drawn from the pattern, such as Nostratic, are FRINGE. Yet we have articles on them. WALS is most certainly not a fringe source. IMO it's worth discussing one of the principal pieces of evidence given for fringe hypotheses when we have articles on them. A similar pattern in America, N-M, has been used to justify the FRINGE hypothesis of Amerind. Yet it is discussed in non-fringe sources, which conclude that it's only statistically significant for western North America, and disappears as a statistical anomaly if we accept the validity of Penutian and Hokan. That's worth discussing, because it cuts the legs out from under Amerind; without it, people might find the argument for Amerind to be convincing.

I have yet to find a credible explanation for the M-T pattern. But the lack of an explanation for a phenomenon is not reason to not cover it. There are many things we can't convincingly explain, but that's the nature of science: we don't refuse to cover them. — kwami (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ seems to be motivated to object to this because they think I have a PROFRINGE statement on my user page. What I have is a sarcastic statement, one that other WP linguists have laughed over because it is obviously ridiculous. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ fails to see the sarcasm.

An equivalent might be to say that our personalities are governed by Arcturus, which is in Gemini; therefore we're all Geminis and have share a single hive mind. That wouldn't be advocacy for astrology. (Though I'm sure people have come up with more imaginative ways of mocking it.) — kwami (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not exactly obvious sarcasm when you’re making articles that advocate the perspectives of fringe theorists, but sorry if I missed that. It wasn’t my intention to have it sound like an attack. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not advocating the perspectives of fringe theorists, I'm describing a pattern that they have used to justify their theories. I've done the same for Amerind; there the conclusion is that if we accept Penutian and Hokan as valid clades, then the statistical anomaly (and thus the purported evidence for Amerind) disappears. I don't know of any similar conclusion in this case, but the pattern remains and is worth discussing if we're going to have articles on Nostratic and the like (and we have quite a few of those articles!)

What comes off as advocacy to me is covering FRINGE theories in multiple articles and then refusing to discuss the evidence, when consideration of that evidence would cast doubt on the theories. That would be like refusing to discuss the evidence posited for astrology or UFOs, leaving readers with only the perspective of advocates to go by. — kwami (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP:Original research, by your own words, and has no place in the encyclopedia. Use a blog to promote your personal research. Delete — Iadmc♫^talk 12:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nostraticists have a long and storied history of claiming basically anything they can as evidence. These claims aren’t taken seriously among linguists for good reason. I’m unaware of a single piece of scholarship that’d pass WP:RS (or even not those that’d pass) claiming this as evidence for Nostratic, and frankly I find your accusations here inappropriate so I’ll bow out of engaging and let the rest of the AfD play out. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note — kwami is the creator and sole contributor to this article— Iadmc♫^talk 12:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm speaking as a non-expert, but I would like to get more context on the matter. Do such patterns, outside of advocating for certain theories, have any value? Could, for example, there be a place in the Nostratic article to add a few more of these details to the Proposed features section? I'm not familiar with the sources in the article, what is their reputation generally? AnandaBliss (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as credible sources go, which is just the one page linked as the main source in the article, it's a statistically noted feature but no signifficance has yet been attributed to it. Certainly not to Nostratic. Nostratic is itself a fringe theory and likely doesn't need more on the proposed features as none of the proposed features are real, and nobody is proposing a link to Nostratic because of this as far a sourcing goes except the author of the article and perhaps some blogs. This article has, frankly, some big "teach the controversy" energy.

@Austronesier is a little less viscerally anti-Nostratic-on-wikipedia and may have a different perspective, however. Also, I think this should probably be my last reply here lest I WP:BLUDGEON.

Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or probably expand and modify its scope to include the other notable pronoun pattern (N-M) along the lines of the WALS page cited in the article. As is, it is underreferenced, but we can easily get more sources by following the trail of Johanna Nichols's paper on this subject and subsequent papers by other scholars who take a typological look at the matter. Sure, this pronoun pattern is cited as evidence by Nostraticists, but they don't own the topic. Yet, you can hardly leave Lord Voldemort, uhm I mean Nostratic unmentioned in relation to this notable topic, because most mainstream linguist writing about the topic of global pronoun patterns will at least mention the fact that Nostraticists have tried to build a language relationship hypothesis out this real observable. You can't blame observables for the bad and motorious hypotheses that are made to explain them.

Finally, this is not advocacy, and to believe so earns you a megatrout, @Warren. Kwami has built literally hundreds of language family and subgroup articles in WP from a mainstream perspective, generally leaning towards a "splitter" approach (ala Hammarström or Güldemann). Ok, unfamiliarity with kwami's role in this project is one thing, but jeez, labelling an important piece of Nichols's research as fringe just because of an indirect association to the Nostratic hypothesis is a knee jerk that makes the knee jerks in WP:FTN look like an élevé. –Austronesier (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For all the "delete" !votes because of WP:OR issues, there's WP:NOTCLEANUP. Here's more sources covering the topic:

"Selection for m : T pronominals in Eurasia"[9] by Johanna Nichols (co-author of the WALS chapter)
"Personal pronouns in Core Altaic"[10] by Juha Janhunen

Needless to say that these book chapters do not promote or endorse long-range fringe speculations. –Austronesier (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this to 'M-T and N-M pronoun patterns' might be worthwhile. The latter is already written and referenced, so we only need to merge it in. Nichols et al. note that these are the only two patterns that jump out in a global perspective. There are others at a local scale, of course, such as the Č-Kw pattern in the western Amazon, but these tend to not be all that contentious as arguments for the classification of poorly attested or reconstructed families. They also don't lend themselves to fringe ideas, because really, who but a historical linguist (or the people themselves) care whether Piaroa and Ticuna are related?

I wonder whether a Pama-Nyungan-like pronoun pattern extends beyond that family, as a pan-Australian feature. If it does, that -- and how people explain it if they don't believe it's genetic -- might be worth discussing as well. — kwami (talk) 06:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is definitely original research. The article presents this as related to Nostratic and Etruscan language families, neither of which are mentioned in the source the article is based on. A lot of the article needs to get deleted, probably. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At the very least, this is a non-notable topic propped up by a healthy dose of OR. There's a single source for the main article topic along with who-knows-how-much-personal-observation in the article currently, such as "However, doubling the number of pronouns to be considered in this way increases the possibility of coincidental resemblance, and decreases the likelihood that the resulting pattern is significant." Where does this come from? Where does any of these statistical conclusions come from? It's not in the source. This is a pretty concerning case and may warrant further scrutiny. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that this isn't a fringe theory, but it does seem hard to find secondary sources on. Keep assuming any other secondary sources exist. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, make that Delete unless at least one more secondary source can be identified, after looking at the article again. Almost all of it is not based on the source it actually uses, and it seems difficult to write an article given nobody seems to have any other sources than that one. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Labingi

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

Fails WP:GNG seems like an list disambiguation. Both articles link to each other in the lead. Could possible be redirected to Westron language? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Fictional elements, and Science fiction and fantasy. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Appears to be real, but so trivial as to not merit a mention in Bilbo's article as it stands now. Is there more context to these supposed names that would fill out a stub, or another article that explains the context here? Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Disambiguations. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, certainly real and readily sourced, and a reminder that we should certainly make more of Westron names, in fact the whole language, throughout the WikiProject. The prime concern across the project has been notability, given that there was a large legacy of what seemed to be fan-created articles with (at best) primary sourcing. Now that that's been fixed, looking at the development of names and of characters, all the legendarium side of things, is an obvious next step: i.e. we should add the "Labingi" element to many articles. I'd hope it'd go without saying that you can't decide notability by looking at Wikipedia's gaps, but perhaps that's worth repeating here. Tolkien devoted enormous effort to the names in multiple languages, complete with Pseudotranslation from Westron to English; scholars are starting to catch up with these legendarium (Silmarillion without italics) aspects, so there is potentially large scope for article improvement in this direction. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question Judging from the description in Template:Surname and many examples I see, it seems that name pages do work differently with regard to notability requirements as compared to "normal" articles. They seem to be more or less a special type of disambiguation page. Is that correct? Daranios (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That's right, they are basically navigation lists. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The thing is this is a fictional name with only two uses. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  When things need disambiguating, it doesn't matter if there are 2 or 20. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs in YES order, part 1 of 4

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

I believe this and the other lists below do not meet WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, and China. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons why the article is put on the wiki main space include:

1. Lists are a kind of wiki articles in Wikipedia;

2. Similar articles such as List of CJK Unified Ideographs, part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4 have been on the main space for ages.

3. Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs in YES order, part 1 of 4 etc. are sorted in YES order for easy lookup and include stroke orders information.

By the way, the article has been reviewed twice since its publication last month and has been rated List-class by the first reviewer. Ctxz2323 (talk) 01:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ther are 4 relevant sources in the brief introduction in front of the list. And more are available in the parent article, as mentioned there. Thanks for your attention.

Welcome to add more sources to make the article more notable. Ctxz2323 (talk) 02:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

Comment you seem to have bundled different-style articles that go with List of CJK Unified Ideographs, part 1 of 4. The stroke-order one is the only one I would consider deleting. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walsh90210, Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs (YES order) indicates that they are all related—perhaps they are not, I don't know. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oh no wait, you're right. This is rather embarassing.~~ EDIT: or maybe not, I'm deeply confused. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article links were wrong. Stroke_orders_of_CJK_Unified_Ideographs_in_YES_order,_part_3_of_4 is part of the set recently created by a single author. You tagged List of CJK Unified Ideographs, part 3 of 4. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhh. I see. What's best to do now—transfer the AfD tags to the stroke order lists Walsh90210? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, everything is fixed now Walsh90210? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks correct; you might want to bundle Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs (YES order) as well. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I have no strong opinion on whether this stroke-order information should be on Wiktionary articles like wikt:锗; but it should not be an encyclopedia article. Per nom, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More information for reference: All the 4 articles have just been reviewed on June 15, 2024, by Vanderwaalforces (talk · contribs). (Thanks, Vanderwaalforces) Ctxz2323 (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The review was to take the article off the NPP queue and not to give it an outright approval. This discussion will determine if they’ll stay or be deleted. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 04:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a great and useful work but in violation of WP:NOTDICT. The Appendix of Wiktionary looks like a potential place for this; I would suggest to transwiki there. (Any Wiktionarians around?) —Kusma (talk) 07:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like a good suggestion. Thanks!

I will try it. New to Appendix of Wiktionary, it may take time. Ctxz2323 (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dalleth

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Organizations, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources and none when I search. Not notable— Iadmc♫^talk 15:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Have added references. Looks notable to me, and I think there will be additional coverage in offline sources and in Cornish-language texts - both whilst it was operating, and in memoirs and historical discussion of this period of the language movement. Tacyarg (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May the odds be ever in your favor

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

There appears to be no WP:SIGCOV. Of the 10 sources:

1 is the original book with the phrase (WP:PRIMARY)
2 link to a non-reliable site designed to promote the phrase
1 just mentions the phrase
the rest are somewhat OK-ish sources that do not actually even mention the phrase (I have simply searched them, so a mention or two could have escaped my attention) Викидим (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Викидим (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge anything reliably sourced that turns up to the main Hunger Games article. While the phrase itself doesn't appear to meet the WP:GNG, it's common enough that somebody might search for it here. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Hunger Games: I could not find any significant coverage, and none of the material in the article is suitable for merging. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, current sources 6 and 7 probably belong in a cultural impact section. Jclemens (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once we zoom out and look at The Hunger Games, and not just at the phrase, there is indeed a large cultural impact. It is therefore documented in a score of research articles (see doi:10.3138/jrpc.25.3.372 and [11] as very different examples showing the breadth of material available from the researchers), so journalism from daily newspapers is not needed as a source at all. Викидим (talk) 06:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to The Hunger Games. There's not enough here for a spinout article on the phrase itself, at least not yet. Jclemens (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Hunger Games. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. Doesn't meet the WP:GNG but a selective merge could preserve what is in reliable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Hunger Games per others. Notable in that context, but not for a standalone article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E@I

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

Notability. I'm just not finding secondary coverage of this. Nor anything primary that's really convincing me of its significance. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing found for this educational conference, only things hitting on Euler's complex numbers. Sourcing used appears primary. Oaktree b (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Education, Technology, Internet, and Slovakia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This organization is well known in Esperanto-speaking circles, and I would expect most sources to be in that language. This search found a number of articles in news org sources that discuss the organization: [12] (takes a moment to load the results). I think they're enough to demonstrate notability. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded articles

History

Nizam's Carnatic campaigns (1725-27)

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

This article is solely based on author's own research and is not supported by any reliable source. Even the sources which the author has used in this article contradicts his claims for example author has used New History of Marathas Vol2 by Govind Sakharam Sardesai in his article and that book's Pg 85-90 (here is the link for book) [13], says there were two campaigns one from 1725-26 and second from 1726-27 both led by Bajirao called "Bajirao's 1st Carnatic Expedition" and "Bajirao's 2nd Carnatic Expedition" the author simply combined those two conflicts kept a name as per his choice which violates Wikipedia guidelines. Also result section has a problem; the same source stated above gives a Maratha victory see Pg 85, quoting 1727 April: Karnatik Chiefs submit to Bajirao, so Nizam victory is also inappropriate.Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, India, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A separate article is not warranted for this much content. Capitals00 (talk) 02:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above-mentioned comments.Rawn3012 (talk) 04:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mewar–Delhi Sultanate Wars

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

The article is nothing but a complete product of original research. There is not a single WP:RS that treats the conflicts between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate as involving all the Sultanates (Mamluk dynasty, Khalji dynasty, Tughlaq dynasty, and the Lodi dynasty) allied together against Mewar. Ironically, the timeline of the war/conflicts presented in the article is completely fabricated, and no sources support this notion. There was no single war between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate, as these were not unified entities. Mewar was ruled by the Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty, while the Delhi Sultanate was ruled by the aforementioned dynasties. The author synthesized multiple conflicts and combined them into a single article, even claiming a "Mewar victory" without any evidence. The article is completely a product of WP:SYNTH and OR. Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Pakistan, and India. Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment:Note for the closer: Please analyze the background and contributions of the voters, as meatpuppetry is common among Indian military-history articles. Do not consider the votes of newly created users or common PoV pushers as valid, whether for Delete or Keep. Ironically, I noticed that the author of this article supported the deletion of a similar article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maratha–Nizam wars, yet surprisingly promotes this article by linking to other articles. --Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have named the article "List of Battles between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate" but a user named Flemmish changed it to the current name. I suggest the name of the article to be changed to the previous one, "List of Battles between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate", and this is a list where as your article Maratha-Nizam was a conflict which is entirely different from this one. Both articles can't be compared, use common sense at least Imperial. Also, I did not remove the dynasties (Guhila, Sisodiya, Khalji, etc.) another user named Padfoot2008 removed it so you better have this discussion with him. Also when did I add Mewar victory in the article, if some editor adds it (which nobody did you could see page history), you could simply undo that edit, nominating the article for deletion isn't appropriate. And there are several similar articles in Wikipedia like List of wars involving the Delhi Sultanate so why can't this be? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: These battles did happen between Mewar and Delhi Sultanate over a long period of time as both vied for control in northern India. What did u mean by this:

There was no single war between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate, as these were not unified entities. Mewar was ruled by the Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty, while the Delhi Sultanate was ruled by the aforementioned dynasties.

How Mewar wasn't a unified entity? Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty are not distinct, Sisodia are a sub-clan of Guhila. Krayon95 (talk) 04:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a single WP:RS that treated the conflicts between Sisodia+Guhila vs Mamluk+Khalji+Tughlaq+Lodi as a single war. So, a clear synthesis is presented here. And your user talk page history is full of clearing warnings and AFD notices on caste-related issues? Imperial ^[AFCND] 05:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialAficionado Well, indeed, battles took place between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate as they were both powerful entities, particularly Mewar as it was going towards its peak, but as explained by you, there is no source mentioning the war overwall, or, in a better way, an organised millitary standoff. Hence, I would request to rename the article to its older name, which is "List of battles between the Kingdom of Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate," or another name, which is Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Conflicts. Let's have a consensus.

Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Devarakonda

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

Couldn't find a single reliable source mentioning a battle called the "Battle of Devarkonda." This makes it clear that the article is fabricated. It was created and modified by socks who were disrupting articles related to Indian military conflicts. The article lacks notability, and no sources cover this conflict in detail or refer to it as the "Battle of Devarkonda." Created by socks/continuous disruptors for self pleasure. Imperial ^[AFCND] 09:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and India. Imperial ^[AFCND] 09:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment- The repeated mentioning of "Muslim" in the lead itself is enough to identify the the target of the creator (ofcourse, the user is blocked).Imperial ^[AFCND] 09:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 10:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being unsourced is a not a reason for deletion because it can be fixed through editing. In this case, however, notability does not appear to be established. C F A 💬 15:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think this is a hoax. It is briefly mentioned in some pages online, like this blog/article. Regardless, it certainly doesn't meet WP:NMIL with this little coverage. C F A 💬 15:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clearfrienda We have seen numerous unreliable sources that discuss rewritten and inaccurate history, often contradicting well-established sources. I do not consider those blogs and write-ups to be credible, especially since such biased South Asian blogs are widely available online. The site linked above itself contains praise and many biased writings. Imperial ^[AFCND] 16:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Source by Dr. M.A. Haque, lecturer in history, Regional college of Education, Bhubaneswar, Orissa on page 33 talks about the battle at Devarakonda. Page needs to be fixed with background where Bahamanis sieged Devarakonda. More reliable sources will be helpful. 2 other sources, I was not able to verify. RangersRus (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete for notability. The first source is a paper book that I cannot access online. The second ref (Subrahmanyam 1957) links back to the article. The third source, a book from 1980, looks legitimate but only mentions the battle on one page (which you can access by entering "Devarakonda" into the search function provided). So we have enough accessible sources to show that the battle took place and a few basics about who fought and who won. I say draftify if even one person volunteers to make improvements. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana Genealogical and Historical Society

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

Local history society that does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. The below is a high-level analysis of sources present in the article at time of nom:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Sources 1-4		~ Blogs and user sites	Basic listings	✘ No
Sources 6-7	WP:SELFPUB	WP:SELFPUB	?	✘ No
American Press article			~ Although this is predominantly coverage of the person, and notability is not WP:INHERITED, there is some SIGCOV of the society.	~ Partial
Sources 9-13	~ Varies	~ Varies	Many of these sources do not even mention the article subject; at best they are WP:PASSING mentions.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Other coverage that I have been able to locate essentially falls into one of these same three categories: WP:ROUTINE mentions in genealogical material; WP:PRIMARY sources published by the org themselves - not an indicator of notability; and trivial mentions in sources concentrating on other subjects.

While this appears to be an active organisation, it also appears to be at best a case of WP:LOCALFAME. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Louisiana. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed on the above assessment. Not a widely-known or widely-referred-to organization.

WmLawson (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Village communities

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

This article was created [14] as a copy of a 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article and the Who Wrote That? tool shows that 89.1% of the current text is the same as 1911. What initially struck me as odd was the article's complete and total focus on Europe. The 1911 encyclopedia's explanation for why it was "sufficient to confine the present inquiry ... to nations of Aryan race" was "principally because the Aryan race in its history has gone through all sorts of experiences" (it also said that it "might also be reasonably urged" that the Aryan race was most important, yikes). The section explaining the Aryan focus was removed from the article in 2008, [15] and since then the total focus on Europe has been unexplained. So there are the content issues, and now here is why I think the best path forward is deletion. I thought about merging Village communities into Village but I do not consider any of the info in Village communities to be worthy of inclusion. I'm disconcerted by phrases like "we hear that" and "a good clue to the subject is provided by a Serb proverb" that suggest a tenuous relationship to verifiable fact. The 1911 Britannica might be a reliable source in articles like University court or Castle-guard, which deal with old European history, but I don't think it's a reliable source here. Plus even if I were to improve it, the content would overlap with the village article. Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: ? I guess... This exists [16], [17] or [18]. Simply copying the text from an 100 yr old encyclopedia is a no-no. Two of these sources are older than the Britannica, one more recent. Oaktree b (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like the Theory of Village Communities was part of the study of the history of economics in the second half of the nineteenth century - this article by Denman Waldo Ross is an 1880 review describing various sources (not all in English, and many looking at non-European cultures, albeit from a colonial perspective). Maybe we should have an article about the theory, but it'd need to be more critical and better-sourced than the current article. Adam Sampson (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, Social science, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While an article on the study of village communities may be suitable, this article on the study of village communities is not. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust Encyclopedia

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

Doesn't pass GNG. There is supposedly one review(?) of this on JSTOR from "Reference & User Services Quarterly" but it was being odd and wouldn't show it to me. Even then, not enough. Redirect/merge to United States Holocaust Memorial Museum?

FWIW this is not about the book The Holocaust Encyclopedia, which is notable but we don't have an article on it. This is about the USHMM online resource. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to the Museum as suggested seems fine. This is basically an extension of the collections housed by the Museum. Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, History, Judaism, Websites, Germany, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as proposed. Part of the museum and can easily be covered within. Star Mississippi 02:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crien Bolhuis-Schilstra

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

I can't find evidence of notability, the only indepth source is this, published by Scouting.nl, i.e. the organisation she worked for (not an independent source). The other sources are primary sources or passing mentions. Fram (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into section of Vereeniging Nederlandsch Indische Padvinders, removing biographical info, keeping the scouting CV, POW information. The content is notable, even if the author is not notable enough. -Bogger (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, Military, Scouting, Indonesia, and Netherlands. Fram (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sufficient details here to merit keeping the article. --evrik ^(talk) 13:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a policy based reason to keep or delete articles. Which sources are independent and indepth? Fram (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well referenced figure, historically notable. –DMartin 02:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject is notable and reliably sourced. WC gudang inspirasi (^{Read! Talk!}) 14:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: My vote is obviously to keep it; I wrote the article as I deemed it historically significant and notable. Cflam01 (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if anyone would actually address the nomination, and indicate which sources are (as required) independent of the subject and giving indepth coverage. The only indepth coverage I see is from a Dutch scouting site, so not independent (an organisation writing about aspects of its own history). Fram (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a clear WP:GNG failure. Without any sources that support notability, it is unclear if and how much content should be moved to Vereeniging Nederlandsch Indische Padvinders (correctly identified as a potential target by Bogger). So a BIG NO to merge. Redirect isn't right either, as Bolhuis-Schilstra was not organically included in the body of the target (only as possible other reading). Hence this should default to delete. Thanks to Fram for nominating. By no means the first time we see excessive Dutch scouting biographies. gidonb (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, this article is the best I could find, and isn't good enough: „Mijn leven in Indië", door een oudleerlinge van de Koloniale school.. "Haagsche courant". 's-Gravenhage, 11-03-1937. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 16-06-2024, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=MMKB04:000149139:mpeg21:p018 gidonb (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the keep !votes above are extremely weak and should obviously be dismissed by the closer, while a quick look at the "well referenced" article shows a distinct lack of WP:SIGCOV at all. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per AirshipJungleman29's comments directly above.
Axad12 (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian colonisation of Khotan

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

Another messy pov ridden and non-notable article (WP:POVFORK) by User:Jonharojjashi, this time relying on legendary stories to Indianize the Kingdom of Khotan, despite the WP:RS in the latter saying something completely else (that they were founded by Sakas). Wouldn't be surprised if Jonharojjashi had misused some of the WP:RS in this article as well, wouldn't be the first time [19]. Heck, Jonharojjashi is even citing William Bayne Fisher here, though has purposefully omitted the part where he states the Kingdom of Khotan was founded by Sakas,^[1] which is mentioned in the Kingdom of Khotan article.

Instead of obsessing over uncorroborated legends and create a whole article out of it, Jonharojjashi should perhaps look into the consensus in WP:RS instead of ignoring it (such as they did to the WP:RS in Kingdom of Khotan), such as this pretty relevant excerpt; "In the version of the Travels, it is the ministers of the son of King Aśoka (ca. 272-31 BCE) who fled India and founded Khotan, where the earth rose in the form of a breast. In the Life (Beal, 1888, p. 203) and in the Tibetan Prophecy of the Li (that is, Khotan) Country (Thomas, pt. 1, pp. 100 f.; Emmerick, 1967, pp. 19-21), it is the banished prince himself who, having been fed by the breast from the earth, later founded the kingdom. Although found in two independent sources, which shows that the story was widespread, it is a legend devised to claim a noble origin of the lineage and should not be confused with historical data (against this see Emmerick, 1979, p. 167; Idem, 1983, p. 263). No colonialization of Khotan by India in the 3rd century BCE is to be considered seriously." This is written by Hiroshi Kumamoto [20], an expert in Khotanese history (eg [21]).

I think this excerpt from Jonharojjashi's report [22] sums it up pretty well; "It seems sufficient that this editor (Jonharojjashi) is habitually citing poor sources, misusing better ones in an OR matter, and PoV-forking at will, all to push a viewpoint that is clearly counter-historical and India-promotional." HistoryofIran (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: At best, parts of the contents of the article could be added to an "alternative theories" section on the Kingdom of Khotan article. But as it contradicts reliable sources, it does not merit its own article.

^ Fisher, William Bayne; Yarshater, Ehsan (1968). The Cambridge History of Iran. Cambridge University Press. p. 614. ISBN 978-0-521-20092-9. One branch of the Sakas who founded a kingdom in Khotan (in the Tarim Basin) were zealous Buddhist....

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, China, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note. The reference above should be attributed to its author rather than the series editors:
Gabain, A. von (1983). "Irano-Turkish Relations in the Late Sasanian Period". In Yarshater, Ehsan (ed.). The Cambridge History of Iran, vol 3: The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanid Periods, Part 1. Cambridge University Press. p. 614. doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521200929.021. ISBN 978-0-521-20092-9.
Folly Mox (talk) 04:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skirmish at the Chukchi Peninsula

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

Seems like a non-event where the vast majority of the page is about things before and after which are largely unrelated to the skirmish. A misunderstanding, some shots, no casualties, that's it. A very minor episode in the Vega Expedition, not even mentioned there until you added the "see also" for it. Fram (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Russia, and Sweden. Fram (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What if it was re-named to "Stay at the chukchi peninsula" Dencoolast33 (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer "Incident at the Chukchi peninsula" skirmish might exaggerate the events while "Incident" does not. Gvssy (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But the name doesn't solve the lack of notability; the whole incident isn't even mentioned in the first source, a description of the expedition[23]. Nor is it described in the more extensive second source about the expedition[24]. I can't find it at page 10 of the third source[25], which was the page given as the reference. It seems to appear at page 19, where one crew member describes it, while the "skirmish" is missing from the diaries of two other crew members who just say that they encountered the local people. Fram (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, shots were fired at the Chukchis. However, page 19 of [26] suggests – to me at least – that the shot was fired (probably in the air) to restore order either while, or before, the Chukchis were aboard. In that case, it would probably not be seen a skirmish or anything alike. The citation "Nordenskiöld (1880)" leads me nowhere to confirm; is a proper skirmish described in there? If not, I'll support the removal of the article (while some information could be moved to Vega Expedition). Imonoz (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it'd be entirely possible to write an encyclopdic article on the interactions/relationship between the Vega expeditions and the Chukchis who came into contact with it. There's the scholarly article by Åsa Olovsson, thirty pages focused on this topic, as well as other work. But the skirmish in itself is a very brief mention there, mentioned more or less in passing. I think there's a good foundation here, and that this article can be kept – but that it would be necessary to broaden the topic to the general relationship between the involved Swedes and Chukchis rather than this brief interaction. /Julle (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Vega Expedition. The parent article gives the relevant background information and is currently very short. Merging this information there will improve it. If the parent article expands significantly, then this can be again split to a separate article. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Vega Expedition. Procyon117 (talk) 15:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umpiring in the 1946–47 Ashes series

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

My fourth afd in this Anglo-Australian cricket fancruft deletion drive I have taken on. We have articles on cricket umpiring, seriously? I dont believe this should exist on Wikipedia, and I also am against a merge because all that really needs to happen is a mention of this on the respective tour pages Pharaoh496 (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

Pharaoh496 (talk) 12:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket, England, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What policy-based reasons are there for deletion? There certainly seem to be enough independent sources to meet GNG.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We'd delete an article about the Umpiring of Angel Hernandez because that simply isn't grounds for a good article outside 'he's terrible and here's why', which is what this series of articles is equivalent to. Yeah, it's packed with sources, but this isn't a proper article style at all (they read more like a retrospective episode of First Take) and belongs on a cricket-focused wiki, certainly not here. Nate • (chatter) 23:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary WP:CFORKs that are mostly POV controversy articles, so nothing worth merging into main articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pharaoh496, Nate and Joseph2302 sum up my feelings about such articles completely. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All incidences of controversial umpiring are covered in the main article, making these unnecessary WP:CFORKs. AA (talk) 09:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOPAGE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:43, 16 June 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.

Herbert Sutcliffe's cricket career (1919–1927)

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

My third big afd nomination in the Anglo-Australian fancruft forrest on here, planted in the 2000s. Its simple, this time as it is a set of articles about Herbert Sutcliffe, where exactly identical articles were successfully called for deletion here just today Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, History, Cricket, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If you can't describe a person's career in their own BLP article in several paragraphs, that might be a sign you should learn to edit, not infodump into three separate chronological articles. Nate • (chatter) 23:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Peshawar (1758)

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

Does this pass GNG?

Its not a battle (even a minor one) and seems to have only the briefest of mentions in sources (one line, at most). Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 13:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had previously closed this as a soft delete, but only just realized that this article was formerly considered at AFD in 2022 under the title "Battle of Peshawar (1758)", see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Peshawar (1758). Thus, it was ineligible for soft deletion. Relisting for further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment pinging User:Mohammad Umar Ali who made the following case that the article does pass the general notability guidelines on my talkpage here. I assume this user wants to add these comments below. Malinaccier (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The editor who nominated it for deletion argued that it did not pass WP:GNG[27] but it actually does pass it. WP:GNG deals with following points mentioned below I have explained how this article passes every point.

1.) "Presumed" It's not an assumption but a fact as per the sources cited in the article (I have mentioned the sources in 4th point). Moreover it does require its own article as it helps to demonstrate the territorial peak of Maratha Confederacy which was in 1758 just after the capture of Peshawar Fort. Also it helps to understand the regional history of Peshawar which you could see as it has been included in History of Peshawar Wiki article.

2.) "Significant coverage" It does have significant coverage not just in one or two WP:RS but almost every WP:RS which deals with Maratha history or Afghan-Maratha wars, etc. Even various news articles including The Times of India have covered this event see this link; [28]

3.) "Reliable" As told before it's supported by multiple WP:RS sources. And as per the the wiki guidelines availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

4.) "Sources" All the below sources are considered reliable WP:RS.

i.) Advanced Study in the History of Modern India 1707-1813 - Jaswant Lal Mehta - Google Books link [29] pg 237 quoting; Thus nature did provide a golden opportunity to the Marathas to establish their sway over whole of Punjab and northwest India, upto Attock and Khyber pass, although the spell of their rule proved very shortlived.

ii.) Pletcher, Kenneth (2010). The History of India link [30] pg 198 quoting; Thus in 1757 Ahmad Shah's son Timur, appointed governor of Punjab, was forced to retreat from Lahore to Peshawar under the force of attacks from Sikhs and Marathas.

iii.) Pradeep Barua,The state at war in South Asia link [31]page 55; quoting: The Marathas attacked soon after and, with some help from the Sikhs, managed to capture Attock, Peshawar, and Multan between April and May 1758.

iv.) The Marathas - Cambridge History of India (Vol. 2, Part 4) : New Cambridge History of India link [32] pg 132 quoting: First, we shall look at the expanding areas controlled by the Marathas, and there were many. Maratha leaders pushed into Rajasthan, the area around Delhi, and on into the Punjab. They attacked Bundelkund and the borders of Uttar Pradesh. Further east, the Marathas attacked Orissa and the borders of Bengal and Bihar.

v.) Moreover, Govind Sardesai, New History of Marathas Vol 2, It has a whole chapter based on this article and conquest of Punjab by Marathas (See the below links)
Above book Pg 400 link [33] quoting; At Lahore, therefore, Raghunath rao and his advisors found the situation easy and favourable. Abdussamad Khan who was a prisoner in Maratha hands, with characteristic double dealing offered to undertake the defence of frontier agasinst Abdali on behalf of the Marathas. From Poona the Peshwa dispatched Abdur Rahman with all haste to Lahore with instructions to Raghunath to make the best use of him in the scheme he was now executing- Raghunathrao, therefore, consigned the trans-Indus regions of Peshawar to these two Muslim agents, Abdur Rahman and Abdussamad Khan, posting them at Peshawar, with a considerable body of troops.

5.) "Independent of the subject" All the sources stated above are independent as it includes both Indian as well as foreign authors. All these sources are considered reliable (WP:RS). Advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not included in the sources (4th point).

So, it clearly does pass WP:GNG for which it was nominated for deletion.
Also, I am not so active on Wikipedia nowadays due to certain reasons so I might not frequently reply to any replies (if any) to my comment here, don't take it as my unwillingness to participate in the discussion, kindly wait for my reply. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those do not even seem to discus its capture. Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murree rebellion of 1857

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

Well it has needed more sourcing since 2014, much of the content seems to be about other events, and there is no real; evidence of notable coverage.

As well as some of the sources being a bit iffy. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Pakistan, India, and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that more sources should be added, maybe also an infobox to sum everything up since it's a pretty long article. However I could find multiple reputable sources with a quick google search such as articles by the University of the Punjab, the Pakistan Perspective, the United Service Institution of India, and a book titled Murree Rebellion of 1857 by Barnabas Crist Bal. I think it's important that we expand on this article instead of deleting a piece of history. Thomas Preuss Harrison (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the article needs improvement but the event recorded was not an insignificant one in the context of the chaotic developments of 1857. Saul David's 2002 history The Indian Mutiny records the concern expressed by Sir John Lawrence as "disaffection and mutiny spread" during August of that year and that this included the Muslim tribal unrest in the Murree Hills. Buistr (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor, unreliable sources and many fails verification. Some of these unreliable sources are WP:RAJ era and primary sources. The event was not significant and if reliable sources with coverage is to be found, it can very well be merged to Indian Rebellion of 1857. RangersRus (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bridges construction

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

I declined User:Flemmish Nietzsche's speedy ("dup of Bridge") because it's more of a subtopic/content fork. However, as it stands this article does not actually make the case for being a coherent topic. The parent article is not large and this child article appears to have few if any cites that support its topic claims (historical facts, engineering opinions, etc.). The cites are for small specific details. There are too many different types of bridges, each with own construction method, and each already has its own article. And I agree bridges already has both well-cited history and a well-linked summary-style of the types. DMacks (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As the nominator for deletion under A10. Of course not all the content is an exact duplicate, but it appears to be a translation from the Russian article, and "Bridges construction" is essentially the same topic as bridges, so I thought A10 would work here under WP:SNOW of this ever being a keep at AfD. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The same editor as created the enwiki article is the only substantive contributor to that ruwiki article. That's not a license problem. DMacks (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying it is a license issue, rather it's an issue with the ruwiki contributor trying to push their translation of their russian article onto enwiki when we already have an article on bridges, which again is essentially the same thing as "bridges construction". Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Obviously not disputing that aspect. DMacks (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the "Bridge" page there is no information about the methods and stages of constructing bridges. Therefore, the "Bridges construction" page is planned primarily to describe various technologies for creating bridges, and these two pages will not compete with each other. VasilijB (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Engineering, and Transportation. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Having something on this seems a good idea. Not sure what we have is it. But not sure it's unsalvageable either. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (selectively) into bridge. The overlap is too great. gidonb (talk) 01:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or Merge any previously unused reliable sourcing into Bridge). Agree with DMacks view ("many different types of bridges, each with own construction method, and each already has its own article"). Paul W (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sack of Wiślica

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

As

a follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135) (nominated by User:TimothyBlue; closed as no consensus on 6 April 2024); and
a formalised continuation of the informal discussion at Talk:Sack of Wiślica#Historiography (2–5 June 2024, with an extensive examination of the sources used, and its complete absence in Kievan Rus' / Ruthenian chronicles where one would expect the 1135 raid and the alleged 1136 counter-raid to be mentioned); and
a parallel to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish raid on Kievan Rus' (1136) (currently has little participation, but seems to be heading for a weak delete),

I hereby formally propose to either draftify Sack of Wiślica (if any editor is willing to adopt it), or to redirect it to Wiślica#History. (Note: Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135) was renamed to Sack of Wiślica on 3 June 2024‎ by agreement between NLeeuw and Piotrus on the talk page, so this could be regarded as a 2nd nomination of Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135)).

Rationale: WP:NOPAGE; fails WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG for a stand-alone page, and the sources used so far create WP:POV issues as well. It is one of several dubious articles written by now-blocked User:SebbeKg (previously we agreed to delete SebbeKg's article Bolesław II the Bold's expedition to Kiev (1076–1077) on 27 May). Editors seem to agree that the event took place, but nothing for certain can be said about in detail, as all the sources cited are either WP:PRIMARY (Kadłubek, and in the case of Długosz someone who wrote centuries later and added details that are not historically credible), or WP:USERGENERATED & WP:POV (in the case of KWORUM), or WP:SELFPUB (in the case of Dawne Kieleckie). Everyone agrees that the only substantial WP:RS is Benyskiewicz (2020), and that this source alone is not enough.

The disagreement is that User:Piotrus would like to keep a stand-alone page based on RS that are yet to be found, and that someone else should find and add these yet-to-be-found RS (citing WP:BEFORE), whereas User:Marcelus and I think that this event could easily be summarised in 1 to 3 sentences in Wiślica#History by reference to Benyskiewicz (2020), at least for now. Alternately, Marcelus and I think the current article could be draftified for now, but Piotrus has declined my offer to adopt it as a draft, citing having too little time to do it himself, and proposing to add Template:Sources exist to motivate other users to do it instead. However, the template does not allow such usage (see also Wikipedia:But there must be sources!). I have argued that the present situation of keeping the article in the mainspace as is, is not acceptable either, because it evidently is not ready for the mainspace (if it ever merits a stand-alone article at all).

So, if nobody is willing to adopt the draft, Marcelus and I are proposing to redirect Sack of Wiślica to Wiślica#History until an editor (Piotrus or someone else) finds enough material, based on WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS, written with an WP:NPOV, for a stand-alone page, and has written that page. I already created such a redirect WP:BOLDly, which was BOLDly reverted by Piotrus, and that is fine per WP:BRD. But if there is consensus in this AfD to create a redirect, this may not be reverted BOLDly again until the conditions above for a stand-alone page are met.

Other than that I would like to say that I have generally enjoyed cooperating with Piotrus on this topic amicably. But a formal decision seems to be necessary to break the deadlock on the future of this article, and Piotrus has suggested that taking it to AfD a second time might settle the matter, so here I am. Good day to everyone. :) NLeeuw (talk) 06:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Poland, and Ukraine. NLeeuw (talk) 06:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Poland. Owen× ☎ 12:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I said on article's talk page, we have one in-depth academic source already, and indications that more sources exist (but are hard to access due to being Polish and not digitized well): "BEFORE search in GBooks in Polish strongly suggests other sources exist. Ex. this book by Gerard Labuda mentions keywords "Wiślicy" "1135" (together) on five distinct pages (but sadly I can only get snippet view for two or three). That book is a bit old (1962), but here for example is a more modern one, from 2006, that mentions those keywords together on 15 (!) pages (seems reliable, published by an academic organization, and the writer is a historian associated with Jan Kochanowski University, no pl wiki article yet). I could look for more sources, but I don't have time & will and I think this shows that we can reasonably assume sources on the sack of Wiślica in 1135 exist and the topic is notable." The article needs to be expanded from those academic seconday sources (it is trye much of what we have is PRIMARY), but WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. The topic seems notable.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and good summary of my position by the nominator Marcelus (talk) 09:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or userfy - we cannot keep indefinitely an article without reliable modern coverage. - Altenmann >talk 23:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of conflicts in Canada

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

WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN WP:UNSOURCED. Follow-up to

List of battles in Albania Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Albania
List of battles in Algeria Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Algeria
List of battles in Belgium Draftified
List of battles in Croatia Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Croatia
List of battles in Afghanistan Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Afghanistan
List of battles in medieval India Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in medieval India
List of conflicts in Egypt Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of conflicts in Egypt. NLeeuw (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Canada. NLeeuw (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you mind linking the AfDs? It would be more helpful than the red links above. Conyo14 (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. NLeeuw (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I lean delete for this, if not for the fact that we have Military history of Canada, but also that the grouping of conflicts/battles are better suited as a category. I couldn't find anything off a basic google search for this grouping, but maybe there's a book or something. Conyo14 (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Conyo14 Good point. Alternately, what we could do instead, is integrate this list into List of Canadian military victories, which would then be reworked to a standardised List of wars and battles involving Canada instead, while purging all wars and battles which took place on what is now Canadian soil that did not involve "Canada" as such. The current List of Canadian military victories relies on a single source, and conveniently leaves out all Canadian military defeats, and all conflict results which were a bit "meh" (also known as "inconclusive" or "indecisive"). NLeeuw (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, let's first take stock of which lists we've already got, because there seems to be a lot of WP:OVERLAP.
List of conflicts in Canada: 1003 – 2022 (so far)

List of wars involving Canada: 1003 – present

List of Canadian military victories: 1609 – 2010 (so far)

List of Canadian battles during the First World War (Canadian Expeditionary Force): 10 March 1915 – 5–7 November 1918

List of Canadian military operations: 1947 – present

Canadian peacekeeping#List of UN missions: 1948–present

NLeeuw (talk) 07:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still looks like there is some debate about the content of this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Sweetser

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and has no particular claim to notability. JFHJr (㊟) 05:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Politics, Education, Europe, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've been able to locate a few sources on Sweetser. Per this book, Sweetser's (1888-1968) was a journalist and League of Nations' staff member whose dense and global relations almost completely escaped historians' attention, so it seems like he was an important figure but just hasn't been written about too much. I was also able to find some biographical coverage in a few different pages of this book. Additionally, this contemporary journal article provides coverage of him and one of his books. If this article is kept, this brief note contains biographical info which can be used to source it. There are around 2,000 mentions of him on newspapers.com for the period between 1915 and 1945; I haven't gone through all of them of course, but [34][35][36] were some big mentions that came up. Additionally, his obituaries ([37][38]) provide further biographical information which can be used to source the article if it is kept. Curbon7 (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This as well, gives a few paragraphs to his career to that point [39] and a book review here [40] Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please scroll to the bottom of the article and the Authority control databases. There are international results there, meaning his works are published in those countries. The Library of Congress returns 20 resources on his works. . — Maile (talk) 03:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest of Hadoti

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

Another "Conquest of X" article with 2-3 lines of passing mention: "In the battle that took place at Maholi many Hadas were killed and their families were brought to Mandu. The fort was handed over to Qadam Khan." Clearly it fails SIGCOV, not enough coverage to warrant a standalone article. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 10:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found this, which has a whole page dedicated to the subject at page 122. Also search on Google Scholar locates "Sharma, R.K., 1985. MILITARY SYSTEM OF THE KOTA STATE (C-1250 to 1947 AD). Скорина и скориниана, 13, p.65." I can't view the second one so I can't get any comment on how much content is devoted to the subject. TarnishedPath^talk 11:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath that is the whole different event around 1436. The whole page except the last para deals with the conquest of Hadoti by Rana Kumbha, It's the only last para of 4 lines which covers relevant content:
The political situation soon changed, when Mahmud Khilji came to throne in Malwa, He had undertaken several expeditions to bring Hadoti under his sphere of influence. Kumbha adopted a successful policy to give sufficient support to the Hadas against the invasions of the Sultan of Malwa. And that too doesn't describe the outcome. As I said it fails SIGCOV and it's just a meagre part of a different event. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 13:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're making an argument for updating the article, not deleting it. TarnishedPath^talk 13:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not. What I meant is that the given source is completely unrelated to this event which happened in 1459 not 1436 per above given source. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 15:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, It is clearly a POV article focusing on establishing the dominance of the Malwa Sultanate over the Kingdom of Mewar. The article does not have proper detail of events, and the WP:RS does not have enough mentioning of events like how the seige went and how the fort was conquered. Rawn3012 (talk) 11:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please describe how the article fails NPOV. TarnishedPath^talk 14:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, concerns that don't raise to the level of HOAX but seriously concerning stuff in regards to notability, NPOV, and wikipuffery that mean this article is not encyclopedic. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 20:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MicrobiologyMarcus. Mccapra (talk) 06:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while I know it is not a proper argument for deletion, I would note there's an SPI that relates to the major contributor of the article, such that I don't know if this article would reach a conservative reading of the threshold of WP:G5 but relates to my concerns above. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 14:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polish raid on Kievan Rus' (1136)

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

WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:PRIMARY, WP:GNG, WP:NPOV. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bolesław II the Bold's expedition to Kiev (1076–1077). User:SebbeKg created this article on 18 February 2024, 4 days before he was blocked indefinitely for Adding poorly sourced content, false accusations of vandalism. We still need to clean up the rubbish he added, checking whether there is anything left of value, and throwing away the rest. Bolesław II the Bold's expedition to Kiev (1076–1077) was deleted on 27 May. Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135) was AfD'd previously, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135), resulting in no consensus. But Marcelus did the right thing by removing all informations referenced to primary sources, as obvious OR. I decided to WP:BOLDly turn it into a redirect to Wiślica#History, where I added 1 sentence to summarise the incident based on a source which Piotrus and Marcelus agreed was RS.

As for this article itself, it is clearly written completely from a point of view of later Polish chroniclers who invented lots of details out of their own volition, dramatising and exaggerating stories they had heard or read about. This whole text is basking in emotions of "revenge for Wiślica". Evidently, there was a Volhynian raid on Wiślica in 1135, but I have not been able to find any sort of "Polish" retaliation against "Kievan Rus" in the next year. It is striking that not a single toponym is mentioned in this article, except the vague " Entire communities surrounding the Principality of Volhynia". No standard history work on Kievan Rus' I consulted mentions this event. Not even the Kievan Chronicle, that has quite detailed entries for every year, says anything about 1135, let alone 1136. (There was a raging conflict between the Monomakhovichi of Kiev and the Olgovichi of Chernigov in the north and centre, but no hint of a conflict between Poles and Volhynians on the western edges of the realm). If there really was a frenzied massacre, sparing no Ruthenian soul in Volhynia in 1136, the Kievan Chronicle and modern literature would have talked about it. There is no reason for us Wikipedians to take the fanciful claims of later Polish chronicles at face value, especially from the hands of a now-blocked user with a poor record of using sources on this topic. NLeeuw (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Poland, and Ukraine. NLeeuw (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. First, I'll note that I reverted the de-facto blanking of Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135). There was no consensus to delete the article, so I find what happened since (Marcelus removal of 95% of the article, and then your redirecting it) to be against the outcome of the AfD. Feel free to start a new AfD for it if you desire (although note I've also modernized the article by adding the RS we found, which pretty much states the event might be a fabrication by old chroniclers... - but, IMHO, it is a notable topic).
Now, regarding the article nominated here. I do agree that the creator of this (these) articles was overly reliant on old primary sources. The article nominated here has only one footnote to a presumed modern source, and poorly formatted at that. I would be fine with this being redirected to the "Ruthenian raid...", if we can find a single non-historical mention of this event in modern RS. Otherwise, well, can't justify keeping this due to problematic sourcing to ~1000 year old chronicles whose authors clearly liked to invent history, not just record it :( I.e. in the current state, afer all I wrote, I guess I am not leaning to weak delete this one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus Thanks for your input. I responded at length at Talk:Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135)#Historiography for discussion on the 1135 event. It is interesting, but complicated.

For the 1136 article, did you mean to say "I am *now leaning" instead of I am not leaning? NLeeuw (talk) 08:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw Yes, I am leaning. Sorry, was writing while taking care of a baby :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear from more editors on this one since the consensus is less than clear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. This AfD needs input from a historian who is capable of being neutral. This may well be notable. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 02:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article was PROD'd already so Soft Deletion is not an option. Where are all of our military historians when we need them?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could tag a few, but this is Eastern European history, so certain people shouldn't be pinged. Perhaps... @Ermenrich and Altenmann: is this something you can say anything about? I just thought of you two because of our recent discussion at Talk:Kievan Rus', where a newbie insisted on adding a battle flag based on his own original research. Not sure if this is a subject you might also be able to shed a light on? If not, then no worries. NLeeuw (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice for recreation. No modern sources cited. Also, the style of the article is more of saga rather than of encyclopedic article. - Altenmann >talk 23:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Doljești and Orbic

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

I could not find any sources to prove that these events took place in the dates mentioned, which would fail WP:NEVENT. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Moldova, and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cocobb8: the Romanian Wikipedia page for this article has source(s) by the looks of it. Are those sources sufficient for notability? (I don't know Romanian so not too sure myself). Cheers. Dan the Animator 00:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dantheanimator: perhaps? I'll leave it up to other to check that

. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can anyone check out these sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 keep‎. Malinaccier (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imperium (film series)

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

The article is unsourced. I don't see why this topic deserves an article as there are no sources on the Imperium series, only sources on the individual movies. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, History, and Romania. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this sorted in the Romania-related discussions? Some of the production companies involved are Spanish/German/French but I see no participation of Romanian actors or producers. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to the nom's implicit question is that Wikipedia:Notability, right at the top, says that we can merge up articles into a bigger subject. See also Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)#Should NBOOK cover series or just individual books?, which has almost 150 comments on a closely related subject. See statements like "Where a source contains coverage of one of the books in a series of books, this coverage is deemed to be coverage of the series of books, in addition to being coverage of that book" and "Articles on book series may be created in some cases where there are no series-level sources, drawing on the sourcing of the individual books." WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, what outcome are you arguing for? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not wrong I'm pretty sure he's saying that keep is the answer, even though what he's talking about is the Notability for books. MK at your service. 03:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing indicates in her preferences that she would like to be referred to as she. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, but if you don't have WP:NAVPOPS installed, it's not usually convenient to look up those settings. Innocent mistakes never bother me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, I'm not sure whether it should be kept and converted to an article (e.g., adding paragraphs and sources), kept as a WP:SETINDEX, or converted to a WP:DAB page. But I don't think overall that we solve any problems by deleting it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, last hope for some more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although the series is a loose one, the miniseries that are part of the set are all RAI productions and seem to be part of the same project indeed. I favour a keep, as the page helps navigation as a disambiguation page does. I would rename it but not sure how, because most of the "films" were broadcast as miniseries... Imperium (miniseries series) would be a terrible name! Imperium (TV productions)? Sources would not hurt either. Would redirect and merge to/into Imperium (disambiguation) be a suitable WP:ATD?? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Italy, and United Kingdom. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, France, Germany, and Spain. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a list of related topics that all have articles, therefore useful for navigation. Jclemens (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful navigation list, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:15, 16 June 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.

History Proposed deletions

History categories

for occasional archiving

Proposals

[1] Fisher, William Bayne; Yarshater, Ehsan (1968). The Cambridge History of Iran. Cambridge University Press. p. 614. ISBN 978-0-521-20092-9. One branch of the Sakas who founded a kingdom in Khotan (in the Tarim Basin) were zealous Buddhist....

[1]

Hosta

Social science

Social science Proposed deletions

Language

Prodded articles

History

History Proposed deletions

History categories

Proposals

Recent Comments