Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science

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:
  1. Edit this page 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.
  2. 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.
Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Social science.
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:
Purge page cache watch

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

See also: Science-related deletions and Medicine-related deletions.

Social science edit

Time_discipline edit

Time_discipline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm having trouble finding reliable secondary sources on this topic besides the book that originated this concept and few stray academic articles and blog posts. May fail WP:Notability, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:RS. I find the existing article somewhat inscrutable and it also feels a bit WP:FRINGE, but perhaps someone else is more familiar with this topic. Chase Kanipe (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Chinese wedding edit

Southern Chinese wedding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The topic might be notable, although my BEFORE fails to find anything. I would not be surprised if sources existed in Chinese, but the linked zh article is even worse than ours, and what we have is an unreferenced WP:OR with a single EL to a defunct website that does not look reliable. There is something a bit better at Chinese pre-wedding customs, where a talk discussion suggests a merge of this was proposed a while back. Lack of references prevents us from doing any merge, so redirecting is the least destructive option if anyone thinks this should be preserved. Anyway, to summarize, notability is not proven and the article fails OR and WP:V. PS. Another valid redirect target would be Traditional Chinese marriage where Chinese wedding redirects currently. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpolitan identity edit

Liverpolitan identity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Renominating this per my earlier close. There are a plethora of issues. Its basis is a WP:FRINGE theory with addition WP:original research on top. WP:COMMONNAME does not support it. Previous arguments suggested that it be rewritten into a new article based around the culture and context of Liverpudlian; this page is then in breach of WP:NOARTICLE. Also WP:DICDEF There are insufficient reliable sources presented to support this as being a widespread or common usage. Those available are mostly passing mentions; other sources are from vested interests (e.g. Wetherspoons!) or support the complete opposite of what the article is claiming. Reliably sourced material, such as that from the University of Liverpool Press, actually argues that Scouse is the cultural demonym of Liverpool, compared to how it is being (mis)cited here. Some sources do not even mention the topic; others are merely about people who happen to be from there.

Paging participants at the earlier AfD: @Orange sticker, Phil Bridger, Wcquidditch, Koncorde, Cullen328, Jonathan Deamer, Axad12, Redfiona99, and Liverpolitan1980:. ——Serial Number 54129 15:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I think there is definitely room for improvement and I would welcome other contributors to input improvements to the page. There are almost definite and clear connotations to the term 'Liverpolitan' and its use throughout history, as opposed to Liverpudlian. This needs to be expanded with help from contributors. It is imperative to a fair representation of Liverpool's history. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article does not follow MOS:ID as can be seen by comparing the word 'Liverpolitan' to other terms on Google Ngram or Google Trends. Additionally, it does not meet WP:N as many of the references in the article actually contain arguments which clearly state that the term is not generally used, understood or accepted, such as the quote from Steve Rotheram on BBC Radio, thus contradicting the overall basis of this article. Orange sticker (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article makes it absolutely clear from the very outset that Scouse is the dominant demonym. It's in the lede section. It cites how the Scouse identity became popularised in the mid 20th century. It compares the much older Liverpolitan term to this, the etymology and historical context of the word. The article also explains how the term Liverpolitan has been used in a contemporary sense. The sources are news organizations. The article does not attempt to conflate the Victorian context with that of the 21st century. It merely presents the evolution of the term throughout history. Therefore, there is no attempt to present A+B=C. Each individual citation is explained exactly how they were written. There is no clear explanation as to why anyone here could possibly reach that conclusion, no specific examples, no rationale behind it and no clear attempts to improve the article itself etc...Furthermore, any deletion is also hasty and has not allowed the article enough time to develop or be improved by other contributors. For example, I have identified numerous articles within the British Newspaper archive which compare and contrast Liverpolitan to Liverpudlian. There has not been enough time to input these in to the article yet. I am able to do that as early as next week and the guidance under fringe theory advises not to assume that sources are not available simply because some editors have failed to find them. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, it must be borne in mind here that above where it says:
    Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    The system is struggling because there is a possibility the page has been mislabelled. If you change sources to "liverpolitan" you see results. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't have time to argue with every point that Liverpolitan1980 has made at various venues, but my statement in the original discussion still stands (apart from the original point 1 which was about the AfD discussion itself), as there has been no convincing response:
    1. Nearly all sources for the word I could find (especially book sources) are passing mentions of the magazine.
    2. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary.
    3. "Scouse" is in a different register. The much more commonly (than "Liverpolitan") used word "Liverpudlian" is in a slightly "posher" register as this word is claimed to be. What is the difference? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Re: WP:COMMONNAME, I suggested in the initial AfD that the article breached this policy, but I’ve subsequently realised that I was probably wrong. There are three distinct identities for people from Liverpool: Liverpudlian, Scouse and Liverpolitan – of which Liverpolitan is significantly the least common. As the article is specifically about the third of those identities, it is correctly titled. It is however a clear anomaly that no articles currently exist for the far more common Liverpudlian identity and Scouse identity (an article exists only for the Scouse accent, which is a different thing).
My personal opinion is that the article would be a great deal stronger if its scope was widened to cover all 3 identities for people from Liverpool, e.g. the differences between them, when they emerged, etc. Suggested title ‘Liverpudlian identities’. The section of the present article which concentrates on these sort of issues is significantly the strongest part of the article, which I think demonstrates my point. The real issue surrounding Liverpudlian identities, in my opinion at least, is not around the use of the word Liverpolitan but in the extent to which the term Scouse is embraced or rejected.
However, if the article is to remain solely on the Liverpolitan identity, I have discussed with the author in some detail how I believe he can improve the content to make it read less like a list of occasions on which the term Liverpolitan has been used and instead work better with his material by approaching the topic from different directions (making it about the term, rather than about when the term has been used). I would therefore be inclined to give them the opportunity to make such improvements unless the present article is rejected a priori on scope grounds (in which case I'd suggest that a widening of the scope would be preferable to deletion) . Axad12 (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will write another longer comment, but I really like Axad's idea. Red Fiona (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be a precedent for articles on collective identities at such a localised level (category: collective identity). I would also expect such an article to be very controversial! Orange sticker (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Liverpolitan identity" as a subject of any length is real problem of SYNTH / OR. There's no real discussion of such as thing as a "Liverpolitan identity". You would struggle to find much in the way of articles about "Liverpudlian identity" or "Scouse identity" because it's just not the way anyone would discuss the subject. Instead what we have, at the crux of this debate, is the word "Liverpolitan". Liverpolitan itself is a word of some historicity - but that doesn't mean it's article worthy in its own right, because very little has actually been written about it. Instead the "Liverpolitan identity" article has a bit of a laundry list of times the word Liverpolitan has been used, and in some cases the usage is part of very finite discussions about whether it should be the demonym for people from Liverpool, or more recently a much wider area as a result of the creation of the Liverpool City Region. However that doesn't so much support the idea of a "Liverpool identity" as a subject, but rather demonstrate how limited its usage is and how some people periodically advance it as an alternative and it's generally ignored. This for me falls then firmly within WP:DICDEF territory that can be summarised thusly:
  • Liverpolitan is a historic demonym for the inhabitants of Liverpool.
  • The term had some popularity around the turn of the 19th century, but the more popular demonyms Liverpudlian and Scouser have taken precedence. The term has not found widespread popularity or usage.
Echoing Orange Sticker, a lot of the content in "Liverpolitan identity" is generic Liverpool content, the given source often not mentioning the term, or when it does discuss demonyms it rejects the term, or emphasises the other terms, as the popular demonyms without getting into any further discussion of identity or culture. There's some content that talks about the evolution of the demonym that might be worth merging into the main Liverpool article in some fashion (though I haven't gone through the sources fully, I doubt is controversial, but may be a little bit of WP:OR to resolve). Some of the content is relevant to the LCR specifically or to a lesser extent Steve Rotherham. Koncorde (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:, on the other AFD I said that no matter what, better sourcing was needed. Having taken Liverpolitan1980 up on his suggestion to read the sources, here is a very brief summary (I am assuming good faith that the references I couldn't access (or did not read all of) are solid and relevant [refs 5, 6, 12, 16, 18, 21, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 43, 46, 48, 51, 61).

Mention Liverpolitan as a concept: Refs 2, 13, 15 [but says unlikely to ever be in common usage again], 20, 25, 26, 32, 35, 47 (but claims it to be a controversial name), 50, 57 Mention Liverpool but not Liverpolitan: Refs 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19, 22, 23, 24, 40, 41, 42, 52, 54, 59 Refs all based on the same press release: 27, 29, 30, 53 Refs which discuss other items named Liverpolitan, not in an identity sense: 55, 56, 58 Link to an archive not a specific page so relevance cannot be assessed: Ref 7, 49 Don't mention Liverpool: Ref 9 Not a source for these purposes: ref 1 (dictionary definition) Repeats of previously used refs: Ref 28 (is ref 2 again), 38 (is 16 again), 44 (is 43 again), 45 (is 33 again), 60 (is 20 again).

I would also suggest that if the article is kept, using the structure of ref 26, explaining that it's an old world that people are trying to refresh to give an identity to the LCR, might be the way forward, because that is how most of the references that do mention it describe it.

43/44 could also do with being given its proper reference, not a ResearchGate link.

[Also, conflict of interest statement: I am very much a woolyback so really can't see this taking off.] Red Fiona (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting analysis, which I think supports my suggestion that the scope of the article needs to be widened. Axad12 (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Demonyms for Liverpool could be a possibility (per Demonyms for the United States). However it would need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and to be neutrally written. TSventon (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment I am happy (and have the time) to do one of three things.

1) Move some content in to the parent Liverpool article under the 'Demonym and identity' section. I can certainly take the most notable parts of the article and incorporate them in to the Liverpool article. Taking on board Koncorde above - there's some content that talks about the evolution of the demonym that might be worth merging into the main Liverpool article in some fashion. I can assure him that there is no WP:OR. I have certainly researched the subject though, more than most Wikipedians it seems since the subject is little referenced on the encyclopedia. Anyone would think that Scouser has been the only identity in the history of Liverpool - until I have obviously flagged the subject for further discussion.

2) There are almost certainly articles on the encyclopedia that follow the convention of 'List of demonyms', 'List of adjectivals and demonyms' etc... I am certainly happy for a re-naming of the article to List of adjectivals and demonyms in the Liverpool City Region. I can assure people that there are more than a few. One of the users above uses the word woollyback, one uses Scouser, I use Liverpolitan. The list is not exhaustive. If I do that, I need some assurances that the article would be allowed to develop in that subject without another nomination for deletion.

3) A complete re-write I simply just do not have the time to do by myself. However, I appreciate Axad12's comment above that this is part of a much wider discussion. I agree with her/him. The issue for me is that the topic is little referenced on the encyclopedia as it stands. If people are willing to re-organise and re-name this article along side working with me then I am happy to do that. I am not sure what the title would be, but 'Identities within the Liverpool City Region' could be a start?

It all depends on what way this discussion is going to go. But from where I am coming from there seems little appetite to make constructive changes to the article itself - rather to critique the need for its existence in the first place. I will need some heavy reassurances that there is not going to be a huge amount of controversy or drama with any of these three directions. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that all controversy on the current article relates to the title and the fact that the article relates to a relatively obscure corner of a much larger issue.
I can't speak for others but I'd imagine that any of your 3 suggestions above would remove those problems - as long as the coverage given to Liverpolitan is not WP:UNDUE.
(I don't think the list option works. My understanding is that Wikipedia list articles - e.g. 'List of [x]' - are supposed to list things which (in the main) already have their own articles on Wikipedia. I may be wrong on that, but the list option seems like the worst option of the 3 anyway.) Axad12 (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with option 1, however I would urge caution when writing about a collective identity as it is such a loaded topic. Expanding on your list of demonyms to include a bit more about their origins, etymology and usage would be a strong contribution to the either the Liverpool, Scouse or Liverpool City Region page, I think. Orange sticker (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the WP:OR - statements like:
  • "Over time, the Scouse identity has become entrenched within the local culture and has been intensified by those who identify more with Liverpool's maritime history and connections to overseas than they do to England itself, or the English establishment."
and
  • "The identity has also been adopted in the surrounding areas of Liverpool, most notably in Sefton and Knowsley, and to a lesser degree on the Wirral and in St Helens"
Are both at a glance at source and sentence explicitly OR. For the first sentence there is no mention in the source of maritime history etc Indeed the final paragraph attributes the Scouse identity proxy of "Scouse, not English" to "civic pride and rebellious spirit", a failure of of the Establishment, and the fact there's a lot of Irish descendants. For the second sentence meanwhile being it claims the identity has been "adopted". This isn't put forwards at all by the source and would be a very odd claim to make versus, say, it simply reflecting that Scousers have (over time) moved to those areas. The actual paper is about the impactfulness of the Scouse identity on voting, rather than any attempt to attribute "Scouse identity" to those areas or people, with the numbers used to attribute a coefficient for his statistical analysis. He is in effect saying "I interviewed some people, some said they were scouse - this is what that means for their voting habits". Using the study for other purposes is OR, and the way it is presented in the paragraph is rather blatant WP:SYNTH as it would be inferred that "Scouse, not English" would also be relevant in those other areas (which, again, isn't supported by the sources). Koncorde (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have made some improvements to the Liverpool article for contributor perusal. I feel that this is a completely fair representation of Liverpool's history. I am happy for this page to be deleted and over time perhaps the Scouse page can be expanded. Also, a simple re-direct from 'Liverpolitan identity' and 'Liverpolitan' to the Liverpool article might do the trick. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Does seem largely OR or SYNTH, most uses of the term are a line or two. Could be trimmed back to a DICDEF and incorporated into an article about Liverpool. Seems to be largely an attempt at promoting a point of view. Oaktree b (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And please don't reply with a wall of text as above; I'm frankly not interested. Oaktree b (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: TO ALL PARTICIPANTS: Please be concise. Do not write walls of text. What AFDs need is a decisive consensus and the probability of that happening is generally increased with more thoughtful participation from a diverse group of editors. When you write looong explanations, it makes it less likely that other editors will want to read all of this and participate in the discussion. Also, the options for closure here are limited: Keep, Delete, Redirect, Merge and Draftify (and sometimes Move). Do not propose editorial changes or rewriting of an article unless you are willing to do this yourself. That can be done if there is a Keep decision but are meaningless if the result isn't Keep. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 04:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Move:

My preference would be to re-name it to 'History of Liverpool identity or similar. There is a lot of potential for it to be expanded but it will need to be collaborative. There is lots to discuss such as history of the term Liverpudlian, the debate between Liverpudlian and Liverpolitan. Any rejection or support for those terms. Rejection of a scouse identity etc...but I couldn't put a lot of time in to something if it is going to be flagged rather than contributed to. That's too difficult an environment. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect/Merge:

TSventon raises a good point about Demonyms for Liverpool. If that isn't possible, the article Liverpudlians could contain short sections on the Scouse and Liverpolitans, since I understand "Liverpudlian" to be a hypernym of all groups associated with living in Liverpool. I also support Liverpolitan1980's suggestion to merge it with Liverpool under the 'Demonym and identity' section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSands-12 (talkcontribs) 05:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A history of the identity could be an interesting article. Oaktree b (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Liverpool: After reviewing this quite a few times, I feel this is a rare case where Wikipedia:Editorial discretion should be invoked. The few sources claiming that Liverpolitan was a notable identify are substantially posterior to the period they comment on ('Liverpool', by G. Chandler published in 1957 is the most contemporaneous to the alleged strong use during the Victorian era, however he uses "Liverpolitan" as an adjective 7 times in 515 pages, including for persons as early as the 16th century). There appear to have periods where it has emerged as a moderate-to-rare-use demonym for Liverpool, but the secondary sources seem to be reaching into Wikipedia:Fringe theories, in particular when they state it was in common use in the Victorian era and represented a notable class identity difference based on social class. Looking at compendiums of primary sources such as Google nGram, Newspaper Archive, British Newspaper Archive, there is almost no usage evident before 1902... Which is a direct contradiction as this is no longer the Victorian era. Futhermore, these primary sources should be reviewed further to support any class identity difference, since the hits include many cases where 'Liverpolitan' is not a demonym, in particular many horse racing almanachs and journals reporting on "Liverpool Plate" (a horse that ran frequently in the 1900s and 1910s, and seems to have been advertised as a breeding horse and included in horse genealogical information for several decades after), and mentions of the periodical 'Liverpolitan' which was published seemingly from the 1930s to the 1940s. As an encyclopedia, we should not be aiming to "correct the record" and the above comments are clearly Wikipedia:Original research which should not be included in any article. However, editorial discretion means we should not give undue weight to this minority viewpoint, while many of the sources in this very article mention that liverpolitan is so rare a demonym it is almost unknown of, and proceed to reference ultimately the same few sources (Tony Crowley and John Belchem in particular). The article should be merged into the Liverpool article's section on demonyms and identitiy - which has already largely been done - while paying attention to not overemphasize this viewpoint versus the significantly better established 'Liverpudlian' and 'Scouse', but this last point is going beyond this AfD. Shazback (talk) 06:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Regarding the suggestion to rename the article / redirect to a separate self-standing article such as Demonyms for Liverpool or History of Liverpool identity, I would strongly suggest using the Wikipedia:Writing Wikipedia articles backward approach. Identifying three high-quality sources that can be used as the basis for the article would be highly valuable to avoid cases where passing mentions are relied on too heavily. Although slightly outside the scope of this AfD, sourcing for the article feels a bit like Wikipedia:Citation overkill... Many of the sources are documenting context which is not leveraged strongly by the topic or section it is used in (e.g., the current revision has a section on etymology where none of the six inline citations actually comment on the etymology of liverpolitan, but another source cited in other sections - Tony Crowley's Scouse: A Social and Cultural History has an entire appendix covering the etymology of demonyms for Liverpool), or feel like an indiscriminate list of occasions where a reliable source has used the word. Building a good quality starter article from a limited number of high quality sources would most clearly establish the topic's notability and its relevance for Wikipedia. Shazback (talk) 06:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • My research so far shows that the term Liverpudlian is first used in 1833. There are some suggestions that it was derogatory or humourous. In 1901, I can find an argument in the British Newspaper Archive that the term Liverpolitan should be adopted in its place. The term Scouser as an identifier comes later - during the second world war as a term used in the British armed forces. That research might change but we will not know that without the opportunity to put the subject out there in order for editor discretion to take place naturally.
    The historicity of Liverpool demonyms is, therefore, evolving. I think this is a fascinating subject which is worthy of more discussion and expansion. There is also lots to say about the term Woolyback and how Liverpool identity is perceived both inside and outside of the city boundaries. I would suggest there is scope for a separate article with obvious collaboration, peer review and editor discretion. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 09:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Liverpool. There doesn't seem to be enough significant coverage to justify a separate article, at least under the current title, and it seems to me to involve too much OR/SYN. See also concerns above about NOTDICT and RGW, and Shazback's comments about the sourcing. There may be scope for an article about the Liverpool cultural identity, but this isn't it (and certainly not under this title). Brunton (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IPad kid edit

IPad kid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable enough for its own article, considering we have many articles on the broader subject. Worth merging into a section in another article, maybe Problematic smartphone use § Prevalence. Dan 13:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is moreorless a term describing an event that is happening during a certain point in history. there are many notable sources just about describing the details the impact of what is behimd the term. this is lookijg towqrds being a very prevelant thing that prevails in gen alpha kids. in my opinion, keep for now and let the article be expanded from the sources provided. another suggestion i have is to expand if with sources using the term "brainrot", a new word meaning content presumably of poor value and supposedly could hinder development of adolescent minds

right now the article is very bare and it would benefjr greatly from an expanaion, which i believe contributed greatly to the inititiation of the afd discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.162.206 (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Social science and Technology. Owen× 16:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – While this is more of a dictionary definition, it turns out that this term, whih was stated by sources as coming from TikTok, has been mentioned, but search turns article just using the term without anything indepth. The second sentence may be worth of copy pasted to Problematic smartphone use#Prevalence or related. Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 17:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Kinopiko talk 18:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neologism with insufficient notability and sourcing to amount to anything more than a slang dictionary entry. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* This could probably be merged to the Generation Alpha article (if reliable sources are describing Generation Alpha as 'iPad kids' that is). I see that it's already in there at Generation Alpha#iPad Kids, so delete this standalone article. Some1 (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus to merge, but to what?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🍪 CookieMonster 13:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hammed Kayode Alabi edit

Hammed Kayode Alabi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sources are bunches of unreliable, paid puffery, interviews, passing mentions, which can not align with WP:BLP. Non-notable entity. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Social science, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The first source [1] and the second [2] were quite editorial, but a bit flawless since ita all about a non notable camping. The third source here [3] and the fourth source here [4] were just interviews and doesn't credit to WP:N. The fifth source [5] look like a freelance writing and is generally unreliable (unreliable news web). The sixth here [6] is same as third source–interview. The paragraph, ...became the first young African Board Member at Peace First in 2020. is not a notable achievement and skeptically fails for the seventh source [7] and the eight [8] Obviously a blog. I haven't seen how [9] supports the cited statement when only the line in the source reads: Speaking at the panel session, Kayode Alabi, the founder of Kayode Alabi Leadership and Career Initiative, noted that the organisation had been leveraging technology to enhance learning among children with disabilities and their teachers. Source [10] and [11] seems not noteworthy and were both interviews failing WP:INTERVIEW. Without borders, I am skeptical whether this UN Transforming Education Summit is notable. Well, serving as the delegate doesn't constitute notability though it's note keep by the video in [12]. Seemingly [13] is from an unreliable source Business Ghana while the delegate as claimed wasn't what I saw in [14] which he was placed under "Youth Intervention." Source [15] was same as [11] still an interview that constitutes nothing but just the subject speaking anything about himself. The sixteenth source [16] was well to show the book title : 5 Years: 10 Lessons Life Taught Me and it was also ten tical that it was self published and fails WP:NBOOK. The seventeenth here [17] was a freelance article written on SUS Africa, a generally unreliable source; doesn't target the cited word and was written from a view or self made author bio at the end of a written article/work. Source [18] was an Amazon link which is an unreliable source that leads to the Authors Bio where none of the books presented seems notable. Self published. The next citation [19] is still an interview already repeated in the article and [20] was technically a link from "TED Bauchi" undoubtfully which was a non notable one compared to eg. Ted Euston and more. Western Union Foundation Fellowship is not regarded notable like MacArthur Fellowship, Mandela Washington Fellowship and many more. So, [21] fails while [22] was a well written one seeming sort of paid stuff and the last [23] was a repeated interview. From my analysis, it is also wonderful especially in articles like these when there are many sources even from reliable ones but specifically doesn't contribute to notability or cited words. A critical case of WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social science Proposed deletions edit

Language edit

Adrabaecampi edit

Adrabaecampi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page. Seems like a WP:DICDEF. The only refs I see using the word are direct quotations from Ptolemy. JMWt (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday (time) edit

Yesterday (time) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article should be deleted as per WP:DICDEF, and converted into a {{Soft redirect}} to the Wiktionary definition. The article's content currently consists of a dictionary definition, and a brief touch upon its usage in learning and language. Sources that could be added are flooded out with things named due to the word, but not about the concept itself. Furthermore, as the article itself states, the concept of "yesterday" in time is abstract, and far too broad for a dedicated article, and could reasonably be discussed in spin-off articles, e.g Yesterday in fiction, Yesterday in philosophy, etc. If this nomination passes, I intend to nominate Tomorrow (time) alongside it, since the same rationale applies with that article as well. I'm not opposed to a potential merger of Yesterday and Tomorrow as an alternative to deletion. Bandit Heeler (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Science, and Mathematics. WCQuidditch 00:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not just a dicdef. It includes much more information. It can be improved, but that is not for WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The information is hardly "much more". As I said, it consists of a dictionary definition, and a very brief touch upon its usage in learning and language. I am aware that Afd is not clean-up. Bandit Heeler (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd strongly urge adding Tomorrow (time) to the current AFD instead of waiting for this one to finish, as it's essentially an identical case. I tend to lean delete here, but there is some potential information that might go beyond a dicdef -- namely, some sort of comparison of how different languages denote relative time. But what's here is pretty slight, and would probably be better off in some other article dedicated to that topic (I'm not sure if there is one, or how well one could be carved out though). Also, the Tomorrow article has a note on children's understanding of the term at different ages, but again, that's probably better off at some sort of article about child psychology and time, or something like that. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian studies edit

Macedonian studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ballantyne82 (talk · contribs) has been trying to nominate this article for deletion, with the rationale This topic of Macedonian Studies requires a much broader description than the one sentence provided in this article. (They have offered a nearly identical rationale on the nomination talk page.) Their efforts have been largely malformed (including, but not limited to, using a template intended to be used on articles as part of proposed deletion on this nomination page rather than {{afd2}} and attempting to transclude and replace the 2006 AfD for a previous article at this title); I am fixing this. (From their previous edits to the article — including a declined speedy deletion nomination — and its talk page, they have had issues with this article for some time.) My involvement is purely procedural and I offer no real opinion or further comment. WCQuidditch 00:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing this. Ballantyne82 (talk) 04:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no reason to have this article, as it's just a brief definition of the term "Macedonian studies" and hasn't been expanded beyond that since its creation in 2010. That information could be, at most, rolled into the article on the Macedonian language. There's a list of Macedonian linguists, but if there's enough of those, it's better to list them in an article called List of Macedonian linguists, or create a category for that. Cortador (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was planning on nominating it for AfD too. In the absence of reliable sources which discuss the subject matter, this is the best course of action. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing my vote to keep, due to the addition of new sources. The lack of in-depth coverage about the subject in English-language sources is to be noted though, which is what influenced my precious vote. Despite this, I think that the article can be still improved. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article most certainly requires (and deserve) additional work, yet the topic itself seems almost obviously notable to me. I believe we should be able to identify further reliable and relevant online and print sources in English, Macedonian, Serbo-Croatian, German and other languages.--MirkoS18 (talk) 07:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There needs to be some kind of disambiguation between 'Ancient Macedonian studies' and Macedonian studies as a subfield of Slavic studies. A bibliography for the former can be found at https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780195389661-0140 and can be accessed via the Wikipedia library here. Some more discussion can be found at https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004209237_003 (link for access via WP library). Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There also needs to be disambiguation of Macedonian studies of other peoples of Macedonia generally, if you are only focussed on Slavic studies in this article. Ballantyne82 (talk) 11:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I am involved quite a lot into ethnic minorities topic I would say most certainly and in principle yes, however, in practice we can legitimately request it if we expect the same in case of Croatian, contemporary Greek, German, Turkish or any other area study.--MirkoS18 (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-up Comment after Keep vote. In an effort to propose WP:HEY I introduced a couple of references and some additional content about the discipline. I don't know too much about the topic, but I hope my contribution will help in preservation of the article.--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. Thanks for your contributions. I do still have some concerns:
    - Where's the source that the field covers literature, history, and culture too? I think "comprehensive" might be redundant.
    - Which other post-Yugoslav country is it taught in apart from Croatia?
    - The term "Macedonian specialist" is not found in English-language sources. The term "Macedonist" appears to be more commonly used in a nationalist context, at least in English-language sources. Although, the source Lexicon Grammaticorum: A Bio-Bibliographical Companion to the History of Linguistics does explicitly mention Božidar Vidoeski and Blaže Koneski as "Macedonists" and uses it in a linguistic context.
    It'd be also great if you could provide some quotes here in English so that other editors who aren't knowledgeable with those languages can verify the statements. StephenMacky1 (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All of those are perfectly legitimate questions and if any statement may be controversial for some reason we should look for further references. As for your initial comment, it seems like quite banal and unexceptional statement to me, but if for any reason it is still questioned, we may look further. As for the other post-Yugoslav states, they most certainly include at least Serbia and Slovenia (easily referenced). The last one, I have no idea about this term, it can be removed if you feel the need to do it. Importantly, all of this is about the quality of the article if I am right? This can be addressed on the talk page with appropriate grading of the quality. The article doesn't have to be A class to be preserved. If I can help any further I will to the extent my time permits. And, just not to miss the last part, notable sources may be in any language - if there are some additional in English great, but any language will work. Greetings.--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just added some citations for places where Macedonian is taught at the university level (Albania, Canada, Croatia, Poland, USA). Maybe it's just me, but this article doesn't seem to be lacking when compared to, say, Albanology or Serbian studies. I'll go with Keep here. --Local hero talk 16:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Jingiby (talk) 08:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mordva (slur) edit

Mordva (slur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like a POV fork of the article on Mordvins aimed at convincing the readers that the terms "Mordva"/"Mordvins" are pejorative. Such opinion indeed exists, but it's a fringe one, and no reliable dictionary marks those words as "slurs". The article is mostly unsourced; the only source in the article that might be reliable is the 1990 discussion on whether the titular word may be pejorative or not (both opinions are represented). Other than that, there's only an entry from the 19th century Belarusian dictionary describing a homophonic word that was used as a pejorative term for Jews, but it's clearly unrelated to the main topic (Mordvins don't have anything to do with Jews). Overall, I don't think the word on its own is notable enough for a separate article: a section in Mordvins about the etymology and perceived connotations of the term would be enough. Finstergeist (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Afrikaans exonyms edit

Afrikaans exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Long, unsourced list of translations. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICTIONARY. PepperBeast (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons. WP:NOTDICTIONARY, and even if it were, these are mostly unsourced::

Albanian exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Arabic exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Armenian exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Azerbaijani Turkish exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Basque exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bulgarian exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Catalan exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chinese exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cornish exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Croatian exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Czech exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Danish exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dutch exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
English exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Estonian exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Finnish exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
French exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of German exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Greek exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hungarian exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Icelandic exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Irish exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Italian exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Japanese exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Latin exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Latvian exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lithuanian exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Luxembourgish exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Maltese exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Old Norse exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Norwegian exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Portuguese exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Romansh exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Russian exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Serbian exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Slovak exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Slovenian exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Spanish exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Swedish exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ukrainian exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vietnamese exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Welsh exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Why have you linked to this discussion from the Cornish exonyms article ?  Tewdar  23:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway , my opinion on the 'X exonyms' articles: delete the fucking lot, or delete none of 'em. Just don't single out Cornish for deletion, like some legacy admin.  Tewdar  23:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I linked it from Cornish exonyms because I was rolling a whole list into one nom. PepperBeast (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've temproraily blocked Tewdar for the personal attack above. Sandstein 07:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any personal attack in what Tewdar wrote: what exactly did you mean? Athel cb (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Against whom was the personal attack supposed to be? --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained this on Tewdar's talk page. Please continue any discussion about the block there. Sandstein 16:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've read this, and I still consider it absurdly sensitive to call "like some legacy admin" a personal insult. A (trivial) generic insult, maybe, but not directed to any particular named person, so not a personal insult. Athel cb (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Raised at Wikipedia:Administrative action review#48 hour block of Tewdar by Sandstein Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. WCQuidditch 00:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Unsourced (WP:V), WP:NOTDIC. Sandstein 07:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tewdar has a valid point, most of the attacks are by EDL types who insist on airbrushing out first nation Cornish ethnicity, language etc. So not surprisingly there will always rightly be reactions against racism, racism in any form is never OK. 85.94.248.27 (talk) 08:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, for the reasons given. As the Cornish article is specifically mentioned above, I had a look at it, wondering what the exonym for Devon (the neighbouring county and my birthplace) was. It's not there, though there is one for the more distant Somerset! Plymouth (fair enough) and Exeter are there, but given the great number of places in Devon to which Cornish people (including my great^12 grandfather Robert Cornyshe) moved over the centuries (that's why "Cornish" is a common surname in Devon) there must surely be other exonyms. This suggests that it is just a haphazard list of the ones the creator happened to know. Athel cb (talk) 11:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Latin list, at least; it's actually useful, and you can't just look these up in a dictionary; you'd need quite a lot of sources to hunt them all down, if you could even do it, and that's just not practical. It should, however, be fairly easy to document individual entries knowing what the equivalents are, and that's just cleanup, for which there is no deadline. AfD is not cleanup. For that matter, many of the entries could simply be linked to articles about the places, that already give their Latin names in the article leads. The Latin names are relevant in a way that those in many of the other languages may not be, because most or all of these places were settled or colonized in Roman times, and are found under their Roman names in sources about Roman history.
I can't offer much of an opinion on the other lists nominated here, because I don't know much about those languages or the reasons why the lists exist, but as a member of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, I feel confident that the Latin list has a good reason to exist. I was going to say that the Greek list has a similar justification for keeping, but looking at it, most of the places included are modern names for places that didn't exist as part of the Hellenistic world; this distinguishes it from the Latin list, which consists primarily of places that had Latin names in Roman times. P Aculeius (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does it add anything beyond Category:Lists of Latin place names? (Genuine question.) PepperBeast (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think organization by place (most of the lists of Latin place names) makes more sense than organization by linguistic type (...by exonyms). Therefore, I think the place names in Latin exonyms should be merged to the other lists before deletion. That said, delete all, per WP:NOTDICT. Exonyms for an individual place may be interesting, significant, or notable. And we should definitely mention famous exonyms like 旧金山 somewhere. But having a list of them seems more like a geographic-dictionary thing than an encyclopedia-thing, to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does look like they overlap to the extent that merger is practical. I haven't gone through the whole list to check, but whoever merges the list presumably would. Ironically, however, despite frequently needing the Roman names of various places, I don't think I've seen these lists before, and wouldn't have today had it not been for this discussion! P Aculeius (talk) 03:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kill them all, let Deletionpedia sort them out, for the reasons stated. High time. I have asked on many of their Talk pages what use (or interest) they have, and got a few replies to the effect that they are useful, but none of them said clearly how they are useful. —Tamfang (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, shouldn't the heading say "(nth nom.)"? —Tamfang (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I say keep all the pages. If a language learner wishes to have a list of place names, there should be a readily available list, considering that exonyms and endonyms can have wildly different names in between languages. While the individual pages can be edited so that they are more reliable, it would be extreme do completely obliterate entire pages worth of information instead of simply pruning them. GodenDaeg (talk) 05:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue isn't reliability or usefulness. Maybe you should have a read of WP:NOTDICTIONARY. PepperBeast (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki I checked and https://language.fandom.com/ exist. Good place to send these too. Dream Focus 01:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you look at its front page? It's for "Philosophy and Science of Language", not for language study. —Tamfang (talk) 06:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see its been abandoned for years. I did ask the founder of it to give me administrative rights to copy everything over, but no response yet. Since it is abandoned, anyone can adopt it, then move things over. I have too many fandoms already, someone who cares about languages can go to https://community.fandom.com/wiki/Adoption:Requests and adopt it. Dream Focus 16:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't List of European exonyms be on this list? —Tamfang (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify or TNT-delete them all. Many of these articles have the potential to become encyclopedic content. Exonyms can tell a whole story of historical international relations, and for some of the languages we could present these stories in an OR-free manner based on reliable sources. But the way these articles are currently shaped (i.e. as lists), little or nothing is told about what is actually interesting about exonyms. Even List of Pokémon characters is more encyclopedic than every single one of these exonym articles, except maybe for Arabic exonyms, which has some very interesting material that is scattered unsystematically over various sections (because the exonyms are ordered by the least interesting criterion, viz. by modern countries). –Austronesier (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Always pleasant to find someone agreeing. (I pushed, once upon a time, for Arabic exonyms to be restricted to "interesting" cases.) —Tamfang (talk) 05:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm tempted to close this as a Procedural Keep as opinion is divided between those editors asking for all articles to be treated similarly (whether that is Delete all, Draftify all or Keep all) and those editors arguing for individual articles to be Kept. That is one dilemma with large, bundled nominations like this, unless there is an overwhelming consensus for one particular action, they can fall apart. It's also clear that editors asking for "All" anything have not had the time to evaluate each article individually and given the arguments from editors asking for individual articles to be Kept, they obviously differ in quality and substance leaving me questioning any closure that paints them all with the same brush.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, unbundling will result in "Why are you picking on my pet language and ignoring dozens of others?" (even if they are all separately nominated) —Tamfang (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep. The encyclopedic content of these articles vary widely. I see the point in attempting to have one discussion about the principle, but I don't think it's doable, as shown above. /Julle (talk) 12:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tuckahoe and Cohee edit

Tuckahoe and Cohee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

both subjects already have articles? ltbdl (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is a WP:SAMETYPEFORK of Tuckahoe culture and Cohee, and reads like a WP:DICTIONARY entry. Redtree21 (talk) 09:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Completely pointless dictionary definition that could be merged with either of the articles mentioned above. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I vote to have it merged into Tuckahoe culture.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:04, 20 March 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) 17:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Rawlings edit

Angela Rawlings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. None of the sources in the article are independent of the subject, or SIGCOV for that matter, and I was unable to find any SIGCOV during a search. The best that I could find was an interview from 2018 that didn't contain any independent prose from the author, who also states that she has collaborated with the subject in the past. Alvaldi (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Iceland, and Canada. Alvaldi (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Language, and Poetry. WCQuidditch 14:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: sources seem to support established notability, and she has a new area of notability as the nominated candidate for 2024 Icelandic presidential election on behalf of a glacier. PamD 09:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PamD I might be missing something as I'm not seeing significant and independent sources in the article. Could you please link to what you beleive are the WP:THREE best significant sources about the subject? Note that being a candidate in itself is not enough to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Alvaldi (talk) 10:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added one scholarly paper for a start, 20 pages analysing her major poem. Works based on that same poem have appeared in various festivals. The 2012 Poet-in-Residence post is notability in itself: there will be extensive coverage, possibly in offline sources, in Australian media. PamD 12:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And added a review in The Antigonish Review, not open-access but available online via Wikipedia Library. PamD 14:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I have added some more reviews of the Wide slumber for lepidopterists. Perhaps too many. But these seem to me to help establish notability (subject of multiple independent reviews). (Msrasnw (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Gyat edit

Gyat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOPAGE in my view, and should be redirected to the entry at List of Generation Z slang. Seemingly all reliable sources documenting this word do so in the context of providing brief explanations of what the word is (presumably for an audience of confused parents of Gen Alpha children), and lack substantial cultural or etymological analysis, making expansion prospects for the article dim. Mach61 04:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Internet. Mach61 04:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons stated above, and also arguably as per WP:NOTDICT ArkHyena (talk) 04:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTDICT doesn't really apply here, since the article does considerably more than just define the term, as do reliable sources on the topic. Brusquedandelion (talk) 04:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My first instinct is to agree with everything written above (and to add that as Wikitionary already has an entry for this term, a redirect to List of Generation Z slang really won't result in any loss of useful information), however, I would like to better understand where we draw the line: What, for instance, is the merit of an article like Rizz as compared to Gyat? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you @Cl3phact0 the line is fuzzy so I have dropped a note at WikiProject Linguistics. I am leaning keep in part because the Today article includes a few experts who did provide background into its origins and evolution. S0091 (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably not top-shelf RS, but we have The Sun, the New York Post, et. al. writing about this word (well beyond matter-of-fact "definition, usage, etc."). It might actually be worth slow-walking this, ehem, gyat thing to see how much more SIGCOV it amasses. (If, eventually, it's kept, the article needs to include [more] information on the social or historical significance of the term, per WP:WORDISSUBJECT.) -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cl3phact0 Well, that's why I linked WP:NOPAGE instead of WP:NOTDICT. I agree that there should be a home for this information to exist on WP, I just think that home is List of Generation Z slang. Mach61 19:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I suppose a redirect (and merge of anything worth keeping on hand) would do the trick then. It can always be reversed easily enough in future – say, when "Gyat(t)" is named "word of the year" by some august and hoary institution. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully Gyat is never named "word of the year." TLAtlak 03:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I share your sentiment. That said, I am starting to lean more towards "keep". The arguments being made here for the article's retention are solid. It does appear to meet both WP:WORDISSUBJECT and WP:SIGCOV. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like it got too close for comfort. TLAtlak 01:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: That List of Generation Z slang is fascinating, if not a tad disorienting. Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess because rizz was Oxford's word of the year? ObserveOwl (chit-chatmy doings) 07:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it seemed like a good illustration of an article that would easily be over the line. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I'm the author, I get that WP:NOTDICT is a thing, but Gyat has substantial cultural influence. Apart. from a ton of coverage in tabloids / WP:MREL sources, this article in Today] is likely one of the strongest in supporting substantial cultural or etymological analysis. As S0091 mentioned on my talk page. Probably more needs to be added to the article itself, but the aforementioned substance of Gyat clearly can't be summarized at Wiktionary. WP:WORDISSUBJECT. TLAtlak 01:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was originally leaning the other way, but after examining the sources, it does seem like this word clearly meets and exceeds WP:SIGCOV, and the article as written is more than just a WP:DICTDEF, as others have pointed out. Brusquedandelion (talk) 04:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it should be added to the List of Gen Z slang. HiSisters98 (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there isn't a consensus here and a broader discussion on when terms should have stand-alone articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: meets WP:GNG. The Today, HITC and Dexerto articles are about Gyat specifically (the latter is not used in this article but in List of Generation Z slang, though the word is attributed to Gen Alpha). Other articles such as NYT and RollingStone also support it's social and cultural significance. S0091 (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: passes WP:GNG and the term is everywhere right now… I see no reason for the deletion. V.B.Speranza (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Again, I'm not challenging the notability of the word, I simply think the information currently in the article could be summarized in List of Generation Z slang Mach61 00:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At its current state, Gyat might be able to be summarized there, but I suspect that if the social and culture significance added the story would change. List of Generation Z slang doesn't seem right, as Gyat is used a bit more predominantly by Generation Alpha, both according to the sources and according to Generation Z (me as well). Once List of Generation Alpha slang (likely in the near future) is published, what would we do? TLAtlak 08:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have time and the inclination to do so, why not just add additional information re: the "social and culture significance" of the word? Put it irrefutably over the WP:WORDISSUBJECT line. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cl3phact0 thanks for the idea. I've done that with some major expansion. TLAtlak 14:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is a good idea. :) Seriously, good job. S0091 (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! TLAtlak 01:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mach61, would these changes change your opinion? sorry for ping TLAtlak 11:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article now surpasses most of the criteria discussed above and is supported by sufficient sources. In my view, it is also interesting information and a useful addition. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: due to SIGCOV with plenty of reliable sources. Grahaml35 (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge it in List of Generation Z slang, with a few of the best sources. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Generation Z slang (which isn’t technically accurate as it’s African-American Vernacular slang but it’s better here to merge into the aforementioned article). For one, the word is not notable on its own to have a Wikipedia article and two, the description in the article isn’t an accurate account of the word. A blurb in Generation Z slang serves it best. Trillfendi (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The origins of the word are disputed. GP22248 (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like it also probably isn't technically accurate as it's used by Generation Alpha more. TLAtlak 13:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I second this. I see it's more widely used by Generation Alpha. Pancho507 (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s used by both about equally, however, since the origins of the words are disputed, it wouldn’t be accurate to put it in either. GP22248 (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still divided between Keep and Merge camps. This is just an impression but I think there are some editors who are focusing on the meaning of the word and not on whether there is adequate sourcing to establish notability which should be the primary determinant of whether or not there is a standalone article, not on the nature of the term. At this point, it's either a No consensus closure or one more relist and I'm going with the latter.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – I would note to all those voting merge to List of Generation Z slang that doing so would be factually somewhat incorrect, as the term is more predominantly used by Generation Alpha, based on sourcing online and if you have ever spent time on TikTok: NYT, BI, Daily Caller, et al. TLAtlak 14:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded articles edit


History edit

Battle of Banas (1300) edit

Battle of Banas (1300) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources or historians refer to the military conflict as the "Battle of Banas," indicating that the title is an invented name. We do not invent names for military conflicts such as "Battle of X" or "Siege of X" unless they are mentioned in reliable sources WP:RS. As a result, the article fails to meet naming criteria.

Moreover, the military conflict is part of Alauddin Khalji's invasion of Chittorgarh and could potentially be merged with the Siege of Chittorgarh (1303) as a prelude. The conflict appears to be more of a skirmish than a full-fledged battle and is only briefly mentioned in scattered lines within sources, primarily as part of the Siege of Chittorgarh. Consequently, the article fails to meet the criteria of Wikipedia's general notability WP:GNG and naming standards.Imperial[AFCND] 09:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialAficionado the battle isn't a part of siege of chittorgarh 1303. Allauddin sent the forces to defeat Hammiradeva , and the battle took place at Banas
Khilji sultans in Rajasthan
Thus Ulugh Khan marched with an army of 80,000 to plunder and lay waste the Chthamana country. When the armies, of Islam reached the river 'Varnansa' (Banas), they found it difficult to march through the pass leading to Hammira's territory. Ulugh Khan, therefore, encamped therefor some days and burnt and destroyed the villages of its neighbhbourhood. When the misdeeds of the Muslim army were brought to Hammira, was then engaged in religious rites, for he has not yet completed this 'Muniverata.'2 That Hammira at the moment was busy in the performance of some religious rites has also been stated in the Surjana Charita. So Hammira could not personally take the field and instead sent two of his generals, Bhimasimha and Dharmasiraha, to drive away the invaders. They gained a decisive victory over the Muslim hosateBanas a and large number of the Muslim soldiers were killed inction Narook (talk) 10:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As long as there is no mention of "Battle of Banas". We can't keep it. Thanks. Imperial[AFCND] 10:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Ontala (1599) edit

Siege of Ontala (1599) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reasons are listed below:

  • The article title, "Siege of Ontala (1599)," appears to be fabricated. There are no reliable sources mentioning either "Siege of Ontala (1599) [24]" or simply "Siege of Ontala [25]" that occurred in 1599. This name seems to be invented, as no historian refers to the military conflict by this name .
  • Among all the sources cited in the article, with the exception of "Encyclopaedia Indica: Mughals and Rajputs," all other sources fall under either WP:RAJ, WP:AGEMATTERS, or WP:V. The article lacks coverage in enough reliable secondary sources, thus failing to meet the notability criteria WP:GNG. The information can be easily merged to any of the parent articles. Imperial[AFCND] 09:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Amar Singh besieged the fort of Ontala from Mughals in 1599. [1]1st
siege at Ontala , in Rajasthan , in Jahangier's time an elephant refused to push at a spiked gate , when a Rajpoot Chief placed his body between it and the gate
source 2:
2nd
Page number 15, Siege of ontala is mentioned
Source 3:
3rd
The siege of the frontier fortress of Ontala, which is about thirty kilometres east of Oodipoor, is famous in the annals of Rajasthan
It's a historical battle lol Narook (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mewar & the Mughal Emperors (1526-1707 A.D.)
Page 125- Kayum Khan, the Mughal general of Ontala was killed while resisting the Rajput attack and the fort of Ontala fell in the hands of Amar Singh's men. Narook (talk) 09:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ImperialAficionado aren't these sources enough? Narook (talk) 09:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ImperialAficionado the article should not be deleted
Amar Singh besieged the fort of Ontala from Mughals in 1599. [1]1st
siege at Ontala , in Rajasthan , in Jahangier's time an elephant refused to push at a spiked gate , when a Rajpoot Chief placed his body between it and the gate
source 2:
2nd
Page number 15, Siege of ontala is mentioned
Source 3:
3rd
The siege of the frontier fortress of Ontala, which is about thirty kilometres east of Oodipoor, is famous in the annals of Rajasthan
Source 4 : Mewar & the Mughal Emperors (1526-1707 A.D.)
Page 125- Kayum Khan, the Mughal general of Ontala was killed while resisting the Rajput attack and the fort of Ontala fell in the hands of Amar Singh's men
Narook (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ontala is also pronounced as Untala
The annual of the east- page 136
siege of Untala, who, descending calmly from his elephant, placed his body on the spikes of the high portal, to serve as a cushion for the beast to push against...
Calcutta Review Volumes 104-105 page 8
Volumes 104-105
Rana Amara Sing , who recovered Chitor after its last capture by Akbar , and the occasion was the attack on the fortress of Untala , whose ruins still Stand between Chittor and udaipur Narook (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources are unreliable and not verifiable. The deletion discussion is not a place to make questions against me. If you could do WP:HEY. Go for it. But as long as there is no reliable sources calling it "Siege of Ontala", we can't keep this on mainspace. It's all about naming an event. Imperial[AFCND] 10:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ImperialAficionado Unreliable?? Seriously? Do you think historians who've written these books are fools? Narook (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:RAJ, WP:AGEMATTERS, WP:V, and WP:RS. Not evert historian is reliable. And we are definitely not making articles for each and every military conflicts here. See WP:Guide to Deletion and please do not fill the page with unnecessary messages. Imperial[AFCND] 10:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ImperialAficionado it was a major decisive victory for the kingdom of Mewar, stop Mughal POV pushing Narook (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- the article shouldn't be deleted see WP:RSes. We have multiple sources about siege of ontala 1599 Narook (talk) 10:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ImperialAficionado before adding articles for deletion, please discuss about the article in the talk section Narook (talk) 10:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bandanwara edit

Battle of Bandanwara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the reliable sources WP:RS refer to the military conflict as the "Battle of Bandanwara," nor do any historians recognize it by that name. The title is a fabricated one, which contradicts the criteria for creating an article about a military conflict. The article does not meet the notability WP:GNG, as the sources merely mention it as a military conflict, without dedicating even a single page completely to it. Moreover, there is no record of a battle called the "Battle of Bandanwara" in the specified year mentioned in the article. Imperial[AFCND] 08:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polish-Belarusian ethnic conflict edit

Polish-Belarusian ethnic conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No such coverage in the literature. The article collects isolated incidents and tries to create the impression that Polish-Belarusian relations in the period 1921-1954 (where do these dates even come from?) were characterized by "ethnic conflict." Total OR. Marcelus (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adrabaecampi edit

Adrabaecampi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page. Seems like a WP:DICDEF. The only refs I see using the word are direct quotations from Ptolemy. JMWt (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of elephants in Europe edit

History of elephants in Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

most of the article is an indiscriminate list of historical occurrences where elephants might have been involved. ltbdl (talk) 08:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cebrenii edit

Cebrenii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails general notability guideline. ltbdl (talk) 08:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of unusual injuries or survived experiences edit

List of unusual injuries or survived experiences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subjective list with unclear and potentially indiscriminate inclusion criteria.
Firstly, it's not clearly defined what constitutes "unusual" in this context. For example, there's an entry here for a person who survived a leopard attack by fighting off the leopard, which falls rather short of being unique or unprecedented — and while the person in question does have a Wikipedia article, "survived a leopard attack" isn't the reason why he has a Wikipedia article: he has a Wikipedia article because of his work as a biologist and conservationist and taxidermist, while surviving a leopard attack is just one sentence of trivia within it rather than his core notability claim, and is not important enough in the context of his overall biography to warrant being immortalized in a list of "unusual" incidents.
There are also many people listed here who don't have Wikipedia articles at all, many of whom would never get a Wikipedia article on the basis of what's described here in and of itself, as well as several people who are included without any description whatsoever of what even happened, and many who are listed without sourcing.
And without a clear and objective definition of what constitutes "unusual", this could potentially attract an infinite number of unencylopedic entries for anybody who ever gets a hit or two of human-interest coverage in the context of surviving almost any potentially dangerous incident whatsoever — for example, bridges don't collapse every day, so technically the two survivors of the Baltimore bridge collapse just the other day survived an experience "unusual" enough to merit listing here too — which just renders it effectively open-ended and unmaintainable.
This just isn't the kind of thing that belongs in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - indiscriminate information with ideosyncratic inclusion criteria. WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Medicine. WCQuidditch 19:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with regret as I love this sort of random trivia but we’re building an encyclopedia not recreating Ripley’s Believe It Or Not! Mccapra (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This list could become a category at most. What bothers me most is that many of the people listed don't have their own article or are in the list because of another reason, which makes it a nice to read list with unlimited and undefined scope. Killarnee (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT. I'm going to go along, but for a novel reason: it's a huge mess. I'm not against such a list with proper reasons and rubrics for inclusion, but the entries (other than the first, Phineas Gage), appear to be quite random. The notes are extraordinarily long. Beyond ordinary amounts of editing would have to take place to fix the many problems in this article. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Would make a great listicle somewhere in the web though. --Lenticel (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Aeroflot destinations edit

List of Aeroflot destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I will use the same rationale as I did in the last AfD with examples specific to Aeroflot:

Per the 2018 RfC, there is consensus that lists of airline destinations do not belong on Wikipedia. A discussion at AN advised editors to nominate lists at AfD in an orderly manner and include a link to the RfC in their nominations; it was also recommended that the closer of the AfD take the RfC closure into account. The consensus has been reaffirmed in several AfDs since then.

This list violates WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not meant to host a database of every single city that an airline flies to as of March 2024 or whatever month it is. Nor is it supposed to provide an indiscriminate collection of every destination in history. Even if Aeroflot flew to some city for a few years in the 1960s, it gets added to the list. Not to mention that in Soviet times, Aeroflot flew to over 3,000 destinations! All the former destinations border on airline trivia.

If we look at how the list is referenced, we realize that it is basically a repository for airline data. Someone accessed the airline's route map in December 2018 and cited it for over 100 destinations. When I click the link today, I am only able to download an undated table of Aeroflot's routes. To verify all current destinations, I can instead visit the airline's flight schedule and copy down all the cities that appear when I click the dropdown under "City of departure", or I can consult a third-party aggregator of scheduling data, like Flightradar24 or FlightMapper.net. Then one of these websites can be cited for each current destination. You can add more references, like news stories about a new destination, but they would be redundant. Also, you cannot use such a reference on its own to say that Aeroflot still flies to a given city as of this month. For example, the reference for Lagos is a list of destinations from 2000 and the city is labeled 'terminated', which implies that someone had to check Aeroflot's current schedule to see if it still flies there.

Ultimately we have established that the information in the list is indeed verifiable. But the problem here is not one of verifiability. It is one of suitability – the suitability for Wikipedia of a list that essentially reorganizes data sourced from flight databases.

In addition, maintaining the list effectively makes it a newsfeed of airline destination updates. For instance, the list informs the reader that Aeroflot will resume flights to Chengdu on 1 April 2024, and in December 2023 it noted that service to Sanya would begin on 27 December and to Blagoveshchensk on 31 January. The tracking of these periodic changes in airline schedules goes against WP:NOTNEWS.

There are 187 remaining stand-alone lists of airline destinations. I am only nominating Aeroflot's as a test case for those list articles that include prose. While the list is unsuitable for Wikipedia, the prose has to be addressed separately. Some of it repeats information found in the history section of the parent article, and I have copied over some of the remaining prose. Please see my explanation on the talk page of what prose I copied or did not copy to the parent article. (So if the outcome of this AfD is that Wikipedia should not have this list article, I believe we'd need to redirect it to the parent article rather than delete it to comply with WP:PATT.) Sunnya343 (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A list of past and present destinations provides a better understanding of an airline's operations. The information about past destinations or the destinations of a defunct airline may not be readily available elsewhere. Even if someone has access to a collection of old editions of the Official Airline Guide, such a collection would be less accessible than a Wikipedia article. Aeroflot's route network was not just the routes it could make money on, but included destinations that it served because of the national interests of the Soviet Union. Understanding how destinations were dropped as the result of a trade embargo or other Western response to Russian or Soviet foreign policy is an important part of the company's history. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 18:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A list of past and present destinations provides a better understanding of an airline's operations. If that were the case, instead of having articles meant primarily to present a digest of information found in secondary sources we'd just present raw data and let our readers figure out what they all mean. It's like saying that we should have lists of all the people who've every lived in Moscow because that will help us better to understand Moscow. A live feed of raw data (including, for example, hourly Dow Jones Industrial Average figures since the Dow's inception, right through today's closing bell) just isn't what Wikipedia is. Largoplazo (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will echo what Largoplazo said as well as Beeblebrox's comment in the RfC regarding the difference between information and knowledge. This list is just raw information: "As of March 2024, Aeroflot flies to Yerevan, Baku, Minsk, ..." and "Aeroflot used to fly to Kabul, Algiers, Luanda, ..." It does not impart any of the knowledge that you describe in your last two sentences.

    The list could comfortably exist on an aviation-enthusiast wiki. On Wikipedia, however, WP:NOT defines our scope, and lists of airline destinations like this one lie outside of it. Sunnya343 (talk) 04:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I must note again that merely including up-to-date information like start dates is not a violation of notnews, nor is that a basis for deletion as an aversion for detail can simply be resolved by noting a route is upcoming. There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia maintaining periodic changes, though it may not be necessary to have standalone articles dedicated to a single corporation's business operations like this; my greater concern would be the lack of detail as it's not particularly useful to a reader that a certain airport is a terminated destination (when? from where?). Reywas92Talk 20:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At the risk of bludgeoning, I wanted to clarify that my idea with the NOTNEWS argument is similar to what FOARP said in the AfDs that they started: if you try to keep the list up to date (which is what people in good faith have been doing), what you would have would essentially be an airline news-service, and Wikipedia is not news (source). We can disagree about whether the practice of documenting every single change to an airline's destinations is a NOTNEWS violation. However, even if we discontinue this practice, we are still left with the NOTDB argument, which is my main argument. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't really related to the AfD but per Reywas92's point... it is useful to note terminated destinations for readers in some instances, especially for readers interested in the historical footprint of an airline, such as myself. SportingFlyer T·C 17:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As an aviation enthusiast I, too, am genuinely fascinated by certain destinations, and I do believe there is a place to talk about some of them on Wikipedia. A great example would be the paragraphs that people wrote in the Anchorage and Magadan airport articles about Aeroflot's and Alaska Airlines' flights between Russia and Alaska in the 1990s. Sunnya343 (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is significant prose in this list article, and which destinations were served by the primary carrier during the Cold War is not insignificant in the slightest. I don't think WP:NOTNEWS applies here, and simply listing the destinations of most airlines does violate WP:NOT - except, of course, when it's encyclopaedic, meaning it's beyond mere directory or database, and Aeroflot is one of the airlines where I think the information is clearly encyclopaedic. I would be open to alternatives in how to present the information, though. SportingFlyer T·C 20:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be open to alternatives in how to present the information, though. Regarding historical destinations, we already have a great alternative: Aeroflot § History. Sunnya343 (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's already very lengthy. SportingFlyer T·C 12:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to the people who've opined so far and those who follow: As the nominator noted, this nomination follows from an RFC that already took place. This isn't the place to relitigate it—that would take another RFC. Given the RFC, this is the place to determine whether compliance with it calls for the deletion of this article, or whether there are factors that set it apart from the domain of articles that the RFC covered. Largoplazo (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the airline destination articles which were deleted were simple lists of destinations which violated WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which is what that RfC agreed on. This article is above and beyond WP:NOTDIRECTORY because of the prose involved. It's possibly a valid split. SportingFlyer T·C 12:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my discussion of the prose in this article in the last paragraph of my rationale. Sunnya343 (talk) 02:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • While such a list does seem unlikely to be kept up to date, and I do not see it as particularly useful, It is not obvious exactly what part of WP:NOT it is claimed to violate. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am referring mainly to WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Sunnya343 (talk) 04:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in line with the 2018 RfC. The prose section is relatively short and can easily be merged into the Destinations and History sections of the main Aeroflot article. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per other "keep" recommendations above. I believe that consensus has changed since the 2018 RfC given that there are still nearly 200 pages like this for various airlines, without even getting into such lists that may appear in the articles about the airlines themselves, and the 2018 RfC should be disregarded. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - These historical destination lists are encyclopedic and the RFCs stated do not support this AFD proposal of removing historic destinations. To put a more clear delineation - this AFD request cites discussions and RFC's that are all about maintaining/keeping lists "up to date". Ignoring that isolated focus, the proposed articles for deleted contain lists of historical destinations as a well cited/detailed information relevant to the history of that airline. Removing these historical, indelible/unchanging facts (well cited and structured) runs contrary to the aim of Wikipedia. These historical lists of destinations do not fall afoul of any of the WP:NOT or WP:NOTDIRECTORY. My full reasoning & citations here along with logic in a competing parallel AfD raised by the same editor DigitalExpat (talk) 09:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We should bear WP:VNOT in mind: the fact that information is well cited does not guarantee its inclusion in the encyclopedia. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Metropolitan90 and DigitalExpat. S5A-0043Talk 13:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of deserters from James II to William of Orange edit

List of deserters from James II to William of Orange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The principal source of this article is The Complete Peerage (2nd edition), pp. 658–661 (the 1st edition does not help much here). That part is an appendix titled "Principal Persons who Joined the Prince of Orange", which draws from memoirs of the 2nd Earl of Chesterfield and a book by William Dugdale. Still, it is just Dugdale and Cokayne's judgement of who are "principal" enough to be listed. I do not see that every list from The Complete Peerage is notable as a stand-alone list article, especially given the large number of people deserted to William during the Glorious Revolution. Given that there are quite a few unknown personnel (such as "Squire Bray") in the list, it seems better off to have the deserters in a category rather than a stand-alone list. ネイ (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arrival of the First Africans in English America edit

Arrival of the First Africans in English America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not yet notable: WP:NFILM. No coverage found online in reliable sources, apart from this passing mention in The Virginian-Pilot. None of the awards listed are notable, though a few of them have names quite similar to notable awards. Editors searching for sources please note that the website uses both this title and Arrival of the First Documented Africans in English America (emphasis mine); IMDB uses the latter title. Wikishovel (talk) 11:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Shimer edit

David Shimer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I apologize if this is not a good nomination I don't normally deal with biographies. He doesn't seem that notable based on Wikipedia:Notability_(people) criteria , having only published one book and that book does not seem to be that impactful to me. EvilxFish (talk) 10:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed coat of arms of North Macedonia edit

Proposed coat of arms of North Macedonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Originally researched article (for the most part) and completely redundant since the same information is already covered in National emblem of North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is an unnecessary article. Jingiby (talk) 05:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I note that most of the titles of this article in the other wikis translate to "Macedonian lion". If the Macedonian lion is notable enough, it can have its own standalone article with that title. It is a rather prominent symbol for some ethnic Macedonian orgs (such as VMRO-DPMNE). I otherwise agree that the potential for the lion to become the national emblem can just be covered in the National Emblem article. --Local hero talk 15:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't appear to be notable for its own standalone article. Otherwise there's already content about it on National symbols of North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mordva (slur) edit

Mordva (slur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like a POV fork of the article on Mordvins aimed at convincing the readers that the terms "Mordva"/"Mordvins" are pejorative. Such opinion indeed exists, but it's a fringe one, and no reliable dictionary marks those words as "slurs". The article is mostly unsourced; the only source in the article that might be reliable is the 1990 discussion on whether the titular word may be pejorative or not (both opinions are represented). Other than that, there's only an entry from the 19th century Belarusian dictionary describing a homophonic word that was used as a pejorative term for Jews, but it's clearly unrelated to the main topic (Mordvins don't have anything to do with Jews). Overall, I don't think the word on its own is notable enough for a separate article: a section in Mordvins about the etymology and perceived connotations of the term would be enough. Finstergeist (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mordvins (term for Jews) edit

Mordvins (term for Jews) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not seem to be based on WP:Reliable sources. I checked the English sources and one Russian source in this article, and none of them supports the claims that Mordvins or other ethnic groups mentioned here would have been Jewish (hence the many {{failed verification}} tags in the article). I did not check all the Russian sources, but I suspect the same is true for them. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, History, Judaism, and Russia. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The majority of these, however, were indeed Jews, like Erzyas, likely Meshchers (Mazhars/Mishars), Mokshas, Muromians, Burtas, etc" I'm lost for words. Speedy Delete, and all edits made by the author of this article probably should be checked thoroughly. Finstergeist (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The author of this article is apparently an admin over at Moksha Wikipedia 😐. Brusquedandelion (talk) 11:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed it too, and I can only wonder about the quality of articles on there. At least on Russian Wikipedia, their contributions look nowhere near as bad (probably because such extreme claims would be challenged very quickly on there). Finstergeist (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. As above, lost for words. Would it be wrong for me to tag this article for speedy deletion as a blatant hoax? Also I think someone needs to bring the account creator to administrator attention, since their entire edit history seems to consist of this kind of behavior. Brusquedandelion (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Max Vasmer etymological dictionary has a mention: "Mordva" - a derogatory term towards Jews and children - is widespread up to Smolensk, where the word "mordvin" is also used to mean "troublemaker". I'm hesitant to propose a merge due to the article's quality, but it doesn't seem to be a hoax in its entirety, and a one-sentence mention at Mordva (slur) or Mordvins is possibly warranted. PaulT2022 (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PaulT2022 thanks for noting this—important context for sure. At the related AfD for Mordva (slur), @Finstergeist claims that the pejorative term for Jews is merely homophonic...but it's clearly unrelated to the main topic (Mordvins don't have anything to do with Jews). Thoughts on this?
    Also worth noting, as pointed out at the talk page for the article under discussion here, that the lead seems to be copied from Turk (term for Muslims) with keywords swapped:

    The ethnonym Turks (Greek: Τούρκοι/Tourkoi, Serbo-Croatian: Turci/Турци, Albanian: turk) has been commonly used by the non-Muslim Balkan peoples to denote all Muslim settlers in the region, regardless of their ethno-linguistic background. The majority of these, however, were indeed ethnic Turks.

    Brusquedandelion (talk) 11:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Vasmer doesn't seem to imply homophony, whereas Nosovich (the quote from the lead image in Mordva (slur)) does.
    I don't have an opinion whether either viewpoint is WP:FRINGE. PaulT2022 (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This dictionary entry is actually mentioned in the Russian Wikipedia article on Mordvins, but the chronological and geographical distance is still too big to support the extraordinary claim that this meaning has anything to do with medieval Mordvins (and to my knowledge, no reliable source makes such claims either). Finstergeist (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assault on Gdańsk edit

Assault on Gdańsk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This stub with no interwikis is effectively unreferenced for 10+ years, it only has a general source a bibliography (seems to be a 1906 Scandivanvian encyclopedia, with the entry not on this battle but a wider conflict, based on dates I see in the source). I failed to locate sources that mention this incident in a way that meets WP:SIGCOV, further, the Polish sources I see give the date of this incident as the night of May 22 to 23, not May 25. The sources I see do not also give the name of this small battle; and the article gives effectively six (assault or battle, and three name places - two for Gdańsk and one for Kiezmark. The stubby article ends with a mention of another battle two months later... it's a mess. I suggest redirecting this to Sieges of Danzig (disambig) and moving on. Alternative redirect target can be the wider conflict (Polish–Swedish War (1626–1629)) where this incident is mentioned. No need for a separate article unless sources can be found that allow us to show this can be expanded (and, well, named properly). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Sophia van Schönborn edit

Anna Sophia van Schönborn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: as non-notable purported Dutch royal. Nonsourced stub containing bizarre comment such as "she had a 24th child (twins) and also a couple of miscarriages." Nirva20 (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, Royalty and nobility, and Netherlands. WCQuidditch 04:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources, no way to verify if this person even ever existed. What's to say this isn't all made up? AusLondonder (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What’s to say it isn’t all made up is putting the subject’s name into google search and finding it in dozens and dozens of reliable independent sources stretching over a century. Whether she’s notable or not is harder to say. Most of the refs about her are passing mentions in almanacs or handbooks of the nobility. The few I could find that offered greater depth are 1 2 and 3. Whether that’s enough for a stand alone article I’m not sure, and there may be other sources I didn’t manage to turn up. Mccapra (talk) 08:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying it is in fact made up, I'm saying without sources present there is no way of readers being able to verify information or know whether an article is made up. Just looked at the sources, the second one appears to be the website of a restaurant. Other two could potentially be useful. AusLondonder (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
restaurant in the castle she owned, yes. Mccapra (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Her "Marquess" spouse is equally non-notable. Thus no potential redirect. Nirva20 (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no context is provided. The article was created by someone who appears to have gotten carried away with creating articles on subjects in their region. Better than deleting it, would be redirecting to Schönborn family, HOWEVER, Anna Sophia is NOT listed there. Nor is her husband. Until listed, the article should be viewed as an improper SPINOUT of the family article, and regardless of notability be deleted. Information should not live in a vacuum! gidonb (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Economic repression in the Soviet Union edit

Economic repression in the Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was previously nominated for deletion on June 28, 2016. The result of the discussion was delete. Nevertheless, the article has been recreated. There is barely any indication of any improvement in the article from the previous version—while this version is very slightly longer and does use a handful of sources (the previous version used none), it does not substantively address or remedy the issues raised in the previous AfD (and is in fact inherently unable to do so).

The main criticisms from the previous discussion were:

  1. The article is pretending to be a wide-ranging article, which it is not (as per @Peterkingiron). As before, the article purports to be about "economic repression" in general but its grand total of 7 sentences (that's it; that's the whole article) are entirely about Dekulakization and the Holodomor, already covered at length by existing articles.
  2. This is not a term used in the literature either of mainstream economic history or of Marxism... A generalized treatment under the topic head we have here, at least at this point, would be overreach verging on Original Research. (as per @Carrite). This was was true then, is still true now. The article was tagged for notability concerns, but the template was removed from the article by the main author with the note multiple WP:RS have written about the topic; see the respective articles in the sb for examples. In fact, none of the sources cited in the article (reliable or otherwise) use the term economic repression or even anything akin to it. The few sources the articles uses are about dekulakization and the Holodomor—and we have articles for that.
  3. The first sentence fails to properly define the subject (as per @Arbraxan). Still the case, although the content of the first sentence has changed, the new version still fails to define the subject. Instead, it simply lists two apparent examples of "economic repression": forced collectivization or dekulakization of industry (again, we have articles for this), followed by the apparent motives for such policies: with the intention of artificially stimulating economic growth or confiscating property from individuals for the distribution of wealth. No citations are given whatsoever for why such policies should come under the header of "economic repression", and the motives overwhelmingly appear to be the author's own personal speculation. The reader is left clueless as to what economic repression actually is (as opposed to what some purported examples of it are, or why it happened, in the views of the author).

To summarize this article is at best a needless (and pitifully short) WP:CFORK, and at worst, insofar as it groups them under a title that isn't actually used in the scholarly literature, WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Brusquedandelion (talk) 03:33, 23 March 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 Restore to disambig‎. Further rewriting can be done, but the general consensus is to restore the article to its state as a disambig. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polish–Ottoman Wars edit

Polish–Ottoman Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All of these Wars and conflicts have their own wikipedia page and all Sections are almost unsourced. It makes more sense to make a new article called "List of wars between Poland and the ottoman Empire", just like: Polish-Russian wars and Polish-Swedish Wars Olek Novy (talk) 07:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another proposal Another proposal by me is not deleting the page but Reverting all edits done since January 5th and Rewriting the article with the lists of wars Involving Poland and the Ottoman Empire. Olek Novy (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 22. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 08:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lithuania, Poland, and Turkey. WCQuidditch 16:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment that Infobox is seriously crazy! Mccapra (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to disambig. This was a disambig until a new user rewrote it (sadly, they also got banned, which I don't think was fair, but that's off topic here). Anyway. this should be restored to a disambig. No prejudice to creating an article that is an overview of Polish–Ottoman Wars. In fact, the disambig should be at Polish–Ottoman Wars (singular), so we need a move as well. What the new editor did was to create a poorly referenced overview topics, good effort but the low density of references reminds me of what we used to do 10-15 years ago. Sadly, I cannot recommend keeping their article; if they were not blocked I'd encourage them to work in this in their sandbox. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it makes more sense to make a List of wars just like Polish-Russian wars and Polish-Swedish wars Olek Novy (talk) 08:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to disambig per Pioturs. No prejudice to a future broad concept article, but this is just recycled material that competes with dedicates pages. Srnec (talk) 23:44, 23 March 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.

Bosnian-Hungarian War (1387-1390) edit

Bosnian-Hungarian War (1387-1390) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during NPP. There's nothing in the one on line source given that confirms that this even exists and I could not find anything in a search. I looked sever places on the history of Dalmatia and none of the mentions it. Creator appears to not be present in Wikipedia. Either way not much to lose, the contents of this stub pretty much is already at a table at List of wars involving Bosnia and Herzegovina which I put a CN tag on. North8000 (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I remember there's been a few of these kinds of 'war' articles created with very little documentation... I searched online for rat bosna ugarska 1387 -wiki, and found no clear reference to a war, but rather e.g. this 2011 paper which uses the terms sukob (conflict) but not these specific years, and describes the context of Sigismund pretensions to Bosnian crown, with all the various noblemen in a nuanced set of relationships, and different historians characterizing these differently. WP:TNT probably applies here. --Joy (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Haidru (1828) edit

Battle of Haidru (1828) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete or redirect to Military campaigns of Hari Singh Nalwa. Out of the 5 sources on this page, only 2 are reliable; Hari Ram Gupta and Rishi Singh. The two other sources: "Journal of the United Service Institution of India" as well as "Selections from the records of the government of Punjab" are WP:RAJ era sources written in the 1800s, so under no circumstances can we use them. The last source is a Google books snapshot with no preview available either on Google books or anywhere else on the Internet. Such snapshots have been deprecated in the reliable sources noticeboard.

The coverage in both Hari Ram Gupta's and Rishi Singh's work, the extent of which are only small, singular paragraphs does not justify an entire Wikipedia article and fails Wikipedia's standards for notability-[30] Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tuckahoe and Cohee edit

Tuckahoe and Cohee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

both subjects already have articles? ltbdl (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is a WP:SAMETYPEFORK of Tuckahoe culture and Cohee, and reads like a WP:DICTIONARY entry. Redtree21 (talk) 09:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Completely pointless dictionary definition that could be merged with either of the articles mentioned above. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I vote to have it merged into Tuckahoe culture.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:04, 20 March 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) 17:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Analog-to-digital timeline edit

Analog-to-digital timeline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This will eventually be an unwieldy list of all digital devices (cameras, phones, scales, light bulbs...) Sean Brunnock (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Sean Brunnock (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. WCQuidditch 19:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No valid reason given for deletion. The last invention listed at the end is from 2005. Also what is a analog or digital light bulb? Dream Focus 20:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A lightbulb whose brightness varies with current is clearly analogue. Digital? Perhaps something like this [31] Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This will be a list of thousands of digital devices. Do you think that they stopped making digital devices in 2005? — Sean Brunnock (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was made in January 2009, with so few edits they all fit on one history tab listing. I don't think thousands of devices will be added, nor would that make any sense at all. It list the first of each thing, not every single device there ever was. Dream Focus 22:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a confused mess of OR without anything remotely resembling a clear topic. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is a list article, and WP:LISTN states: Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. I can find no such sources that describe a timeline, as envisaged here, about everything analogue to digital. I can find evidence in specific domains, such as the evolution of music recording, but even there, the information is not generally presented as a standalone timeline without any context. I think this list is misconceived. If we consider the reader, the question is what information might they want or need to know, and how would we best provide that information? An incomplete context free list is not going to help an information need. Instead an article on this wide ranging subject should be written in prose, and may then contain relevant timelines. For instance, would Comparison of analog and digital recording benefit from a timeline? Such a timeline is typically presented as a diagram in sources, rather than as a list. Finally I am unconvinced by the argument above that the page will not become unwieldy simply because no one has edited it. Sure, the lack of interest in touching this page might mean it remains short, but it also means it is very incomplete, and what it contains is editor selected, and thus WP:OR. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment There are a lot of timeline articles just like this one. Category:Timelines by topic Dream Focus 01:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete on TNT grounds. I do think a good timeline article could possibly be written, but this isn't it, and I'm not sure if anything could be salvaged. Currently it's just a list of digital devices. For it to be a timeline of the transition from analogue to digital, there must have been an established analogue thing before the invention of a digital equivalent. This makes perfect sense in some fields (music recordings) but it's absolute nonsense in numerical calculation because Babbage's difference engine didn't replace an analogue equivalent. Yes, there were and are analogue computing devices, but they never did the same job, they never occupied the same ecological niche, and in any case, the article doesn't mention them. Nor does it make any sense to mention the Jacquard loom as there was never an analogue loom because weaving is fundamentally a there-or-not-there process. Book-keeping was always a digital process too; accounts were never analogue. We must be careful not to confuse analogue-to-digital with manual-to-automated. The same applies to most of the stuff about player-pianos. I am prepared to strike my delete if someone is able to do a massive clean-up and reorganisation, but the list in its current form is an ill-defined mess that I feel needs a totally fresh start. Elemimele (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify It is best not to delete it but significantly modify before moving to the article space again. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Michni edit

Battle of Michni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the sources comply with WP:HISTRS. Rattan Singh Jaggi is a litterateur active in the Language department of his institution, with no educational background in history, and primarily specializes in the literary analysis of Sikh holy books and writing hagiographies based off them, as well as translating texts into Hindi and Punjabi. https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/gurmat-scholar-dr-jaggi-chosen-for-padma-shri-8405050/ He is also used as the inline citation for the infobox which makes an astounding claim that 100 Sikhs defeated 5000 Afghans. Bobby Singh Bansal is a self proclaimed historian, with no educational training/credentials in history nor any peer reviewed books or journals or scholarly reviews of his work; his work was also self published (Hay House). The Punjabi Kosh is a vernacular source which also seems to be a hagiography. Autar Singh Sandhu is a WP:RAJ era source as it was written in 1935 and Sohan Singh Seetal is a poet and lyricist; both sources were also deprecated by an admin involved in South Asian topics. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 06:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Autar Singh Sandhu's book was explicitly deprecated by an admin here in the reliable sources noticeboard-[32]. "As Acroterion and Springee indicated, assessment of a source's reliability should take into account a multitude of factors. For example, the Nalwa book is likely an unacceptable source because of its age (1935), publisher, and lack of academic reviews and peer-reviewed articles written by its author (at least I didn't find any on a quick search). The author holding "only" an MA would be the least of the concerns because during the 1930s the PhD degree was not as well-established as it is now and many recognized experts and academics lacked it." Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, Afghanistan, and India. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After relinquishing sources that are either poor or fail WP:V and in non-english language, two sources by historians Autar Singh Sandhu and Bobby Singh Bansal look OK to me where both pass WP:HISTRS. I cannot tell if Bansal is self proclaimed historian from what little quick research I found on him. Raj era is if it's written by Britons or Briton diplomats and administrators or under the guidance and review of Briton administrators. Some of these are like Lepel Griffin, Michael MacAuliffe, Sir John Withers McQueen. I found a source by Autar Singh Sandhu published in 1987 that too has coverage on this event on page 79 of book [33], General Hari Singh Nalwa: Builder of the Sikh Empire. Many other historians like Tahir Kamran, Ian Talbot, have depended on Autar Singh Sandhu's secondary works where they used his book General Hari Singh Nalwa: Builder of the Sikh Empire (New Delhi: Uppal Publishing House, 1987). Bobby Singh Bansal has too been depended upon by same historians and more like Himadri Banerjee and William Dalrymple, including academic professors of social sciences and Humanities, Anjali Roy and journalists like Anita Anand. RangersRus (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Expected as much from you. Bobby Singh Bansal by no means passes WP:HISTRS, he has zero educational background or training in history, nor does he have any peer reviewed books or journals to his name. His books were all self published. In fact, his current profession is a city councillor. This article makes it abundantly clear that the term "historian" was a self conferred title based on interests as opposed to any educational background.
    Autar Singh Sandhu did not publish any book in 1987, the Google Books link your provided is not Autar Singh Sandhu's original work, but rather a reprint by a different publisher. Google Book links are also known to be notoriously unreliable with publication dates. And it seems exceedingly unlikely that someone who wrote a book in 1935-[34], would then write another book on the same subject, 54 years later. There is hardly any information available about Autar Singh Sandhu, apart from the fact that he wrote one book in 1935 about Hari Singh Nalwa; thoroughly unreliable. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Historians like Tahir Kamran, Ian Talbot, have depended on Autar Singh Sandhu's secondary works where they used his book General Hari Singh Nalwa: Builder of the Sikh Empire (New Delhi: Uppal Publishing House, 1987). Bobby Singh Bansal has too been depended upon by same historians and more like Himadri Banerjee and William Dalrymple, including academic professors of social sciences and Humanities, Anjali Roy and journalists like Anita Anand. RangersRus (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Anjali Roy commented on Bansal's documentary, which was not related to historical claims, but rather on the Sikhs in Afghanistan who recently immigrated to the UK. Himadri Banarjee cited a newspaper column written by Bansal, not his books-[35]. You must also be aware that even if a source is used as reference in a reliable secondary source, it does not automatically make that source reliable by association, it must be judged on its own merits; Khafi Khan is cited hundreds of times in various books, but he cannot be used as a source on Wikipedia for example. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 12:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    don't know who Khafi Khan is but if not a secondary source or from 20th century and beyond then inarguably Khafi Khan would be unreliable but not the ones in discussion here. RangersRus (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to read WP:HISTRS carefully. "Historical scholarship is generally not: Popular works that were not reviewed, especially works by journalists, or memoirs" as well the section "What is "recent" scholarship in history?". In the case of Autar Singh Sandhu, an admin has already determined that 1935 is far too old coupled with the lack of academic reviews and scholarly works by the author. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Jadunath Sarkar sources are used that are as old and its because historians today depend on his secondary work and it is same case with Sandhu. RangersRus (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A few cites in later books is nowhere near a mitigating factor since scholarly books cite a large corpus of all sorts of work nor does it prove that historians relied on him in any substantive manner. If that was the case, entering Autar Singh Sandhu's name on the Internet would return far more in depth details and reviews of his work as is the case for Jadunath Sarkar who has an entire Britannica article dedicated to him, as opposed to one Internet archive link to a book. If you insist he is reliable; please provide at the very least one actual scholarly review of his work or at least one other book he authored outside of Hari Singh Nalwa.Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sandhu is in bibliography and notes of other historians. Maybe not wide known like Jadunath Sarkar but in wikipedia you can use scholarly works where possible and if scholarly works are unavailable, the highest quality commercial or popular works can be used. I have my vote and let's give others space to weigh in with votes too. RangersRus (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mentions in bibliographies is not included as a factor in WP:HISTRS, things like the educational background of the author, whether the work was published by an academic/scholarly institution, and scholarly reviews of the book (regardless of whether the source is an academic or popular work) are. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mangal edit

Battle of Mangal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All WP:RAJ era sources (apart from Sharma). Nishant Shashikant Sharma's work was published the International Journal of Research which has been deprecated as a predatory publisher as per here-[36] Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Pakistan. Skynxnex (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are many sources on Google and some are in Hari Singh Nalwa. --Ameen Akbar (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the sources in the page Hari Singh Nalwa pertaining to this battle are reliable. Could you list specific sources which meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability rather than referring to nebulous sources on Google? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources in Hari Singh Nalwa are Sharma's IJR source which cannot be used on Wikipedia, a source published by the Sikh Missionary College-[37], an organization judging by its nomenclature and website meant only to propagate the Sikh religion; by no means is this a salient educational institution nor has it published any peer reviewed books or journals. The last source is a Google snapshot-[38], again from a organization that publishes hagiographies as opposed to rigorous scholarly works. The book cannot even be found anywhere on the Internet apart from that Google snippet. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Castellón edit

Battle of Castellón (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page for many years. I'm not seeing a way to verify the information and it seems way beyond the point where there needs to be verified information from RS to keep the page JMWt (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Spain. JMWt (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As one might expect, there are adequately referenced articles in other language Wikipedias. These references from https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batalla_de_Castell%C3%B3_d%27Emp%C3%BAries might be helpful:
    • Minali, Guillelmo. Historia militar de Gerona, que comprende particularmente los dos sitios de 1808 y 1809 (en castellà). A. Figaró, 1840, p.59-60.
    • «1-1-1809 Sorpresa de Castellón» (en castellà). www.1808-1814.org. [Consulta: 16 agost 2011].
    • Ferrer, Raymundo. Barcelona cautiva, ó sea Diario exacto de lo ocurrido en la misma ciudad mientras la oprimieron los Franceses, esto es, desde el 13 de Febrero de 1808 hasta el 28 de Mayo de 1814 Acompañta a los principios de cada mes una Idea del estado religiosa-politico-militar de Barcelona y Cataluña (en castellà). Brusi, 1816, p. vol.3, p.94.
    • Crusafont i Sabater, Miquel. Medalles commemoratives dels Països Catalans i de la Corona catalano-aragonesa: (S. XV-XX). Institut d'Estudis Catalans, 2006, p.152. ISBN 8472838641. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 10:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok please use these refs to verify all the claims on the page and remove anything unsupported per WP:V
    I'm interested in seeing what these references actually support on the topic. JMWt (talk) 11:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and France. WCQuidditch 10:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135) edit

Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and NEVENT. Nothing found from WP:IS WP:RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Article is sourced mainly from a medieval chronicle. Other sources either fail WP:RS or are brief mentions. Nothing with SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  01:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Poland, and Russia. WCQuidditch 04:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but ugh. The topic may be notable, but the execution is terrible from the sourcing perspective (medieval sources plus some passing mentions in modern newspaper and minor websites). That said, the article is likely essentially correct - as in, it is not a hoax, RS do confirm there was a Ruthenian raid on Poland that year that burned the town of Wiślica. Here's a good reference [39]. Here's another: [40]. It is rather unforunate that the creator was blocked rather than given a probatory sentence and tasked with verifying their low quality sources with better ones. Overall, while the current sourcing, well, sucks, the topic is likely notable. Sigh - we have dozens of articles from that editor to review, with similar quality of sourcing (ex. [[Polish raid on Kievan Rus' (1136)]). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sidenote: @TimothyBlue - how's your Polish / Russian? Are you seriously expecting to find any significant sourcing about this kind of historical event in English? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, complete OR based on the lecture of medieval chronicles. While the raid on Wiślica most likey was a historical event, the circumstances are unclear and only described by Kadłubek. I doubt if the topic is WP:NOTABLE, it seems that mention in related articles (Piotr Włostowic, Bolesław III Wrymouth etc.) should be enough. If not removed the article should be rewritten and moved to Wincenty Kadłubek tale about raid on Wiślica; because it's a tale, not historical record. Marcelus (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus Did you look at https://ingremium.pl/index.php/IG/article/view/292 ? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my opinion is based on this article. Marcelus (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus Well, IMHO that article demonstrates the topic is notable. Destruction (sack) of Wiślica is not challenged by historians AFAIK. We might consider whether the article should not be rewritten into one about that event (battle), but to delete it I think is going to far. It is not a WP:HOAX and if there is WP:OR IMHO it does not raise to the point we need to WP:TNT this. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Destruction of Wiślica probably happened, but it doesn't mean the event is notable enough to deserve a separate article, unless it will be about narratives about the event. Marcelus (talk) 08:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 01:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pothohar Sultanate edit

Pothohar Sultanate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page previously used British-era texts which I removed as per the consensus for Raj-era sources. Now the page has been renamed as the "Pothohar Sultanate" which seems to be an entirely fictional title as a search on Google Scholar, JSTOR, Books etc shows that no such polity by that name has ever existed. For this reason, as the article's name is completely fictional and the article is unsourced, I propose that it be deleted. Ixudi (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources do refer to the rulers of Pothohar as Sultan. A Sultan, according to majority of the dictionaries, is the sovereign of a Sultanate or a Muslim state. Lightningblade23 (talk) 11:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced, may even be a hoax161.69.71.25 (talk) 11:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Early revisions of the article refer to it as the "Gakhar kingdom" and later "Gakhar sultanate". Where does the name "Pothohar" for the entity come from? Looking into the name of their ruler, Muqarrab Khan, I was able to find a few scholarly sources.
[1]
[2]
[3]
Doing the same for Google books brings up some results as well. Also found this article, and while it probably isn't the best source it does cite more citations than are worthy looking into. [4]
All in all, it does seem like a state did exist here but it seems unclear to me if the polity ever even had a name or not, but at least to me "Gakhar" seems more accurate of a name than Pothohar. Pladica (talk) 02:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. An article already exists for Gakhar however so either the contents of this article should be merged into Gakhar or considering this is unsourced, deleted entirely and details of the Gakhar state added into the original article perhaps? Ixudi (talk) 12:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Archaeological Investigations at Rewat Fort – A Muslim Period Monument in Potohar Region, Punjab (Pakistan) | Journal of Asian Civilizations". 5 April 2022.
  2. ^ https://gurmatveechar.com/books/English_Books/English_Thesis_Papers/The.Rise.Growth.and.Fall.of.the.Bhangi.Misal.by.Dalbir.Singh.(GurmatVeechar.com).pdf
  3. ^ "History, Architecture and Urban Form of Rawalpindi, 1857-2017 | Journal of Asian Civilizations". 31 August 2021.
  4. ^ https://www.thenews.com.pk/tns/detail/652594-a-forgotten-tale

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History Proposed deletions edit

History categories edit

for occasional archiving

Proposals edit