Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Moneytrees (talk | contribs) at 22:10, 21 May 2025 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baby Gronk.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Deletion Sorting
Project

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.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Social science. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


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

Baby Gronk

Baby Gronk (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)

As a biography of a minor-- and especially one who has been involved in social media controversy-- we need to be especially stringent with the sources we use and the information we include. (WP:BLP, WP:BLPPRIVACY, WP:BLPMINOR). The subject's most consistent coverage outside of sports blogs and such (which we don't consider reliable sources) isn't solely focused on him; it mostly concerns his father or his interactions with Livvy Dunne and Rob Gronkowski's interactions with him. This causes the article to fail WP:NOTNEWS; the most coverage the subject has gotten was from a few reliable sources over summer 2023. Since then, it's been mostly local news sources, press releases about apparently joking university commitments, and social media geared sites we don't consider when discussing notability (Bleacher Report, etc.) Maybe this kid will be more notable in the future-- but Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. If/when reliable sources cover the subject in more detail, a better article can be written on him. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Sarirete

Ahmed Sarirete (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)

Created by Ahmed Sine who openly identifies as the article subject, this article's only sources not written by Sarirete are merely citations to prior work that Sarirete is claiming to build upon. I was unable to identify secondary, significant coverage to satisfy any of the WP:NACADEMIC criteria in Google, Google Scholar, and Newspapers.com searches. While I marked this user's other article creation, Geocivilization, as reviewed because it is a term widely used in political science literature, Sarirete's impact on it has not been recognized in secondary sources. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 22:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mehzeb Chowdhury

Mehzeb Chowdhury (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)

Other than the sheer obnoxiousness of this article (which is just one long advert about why the subject is the most awesome and interesting man in the world), I'm not totally convinced it meets the notability criteria. Reasons below:

  • Many of the sources are just passing mentions, and they aren't always high quality (e.g. a casting website is used to support the claim he is an actor/filmmaker)
  • A previous editor has marked the article as relying too heavily on sources that may be closely related to the subject. I happen to agree, and the generally sycophantic nature of these articles is off-putting and undermines the case for notability (given his father is a prominent journalist, I wonder if he has some connections with The Daily Star, which is one of the main sources)
  • The big notability claim is his association with MABMAT, and while that is notable, I'm not sure it justifies Chowdhury having an article to himself. Furthermore, this article seems to credit Chowdhury as the sole inventor, whereas The Times was more balanced, indicating he led a team at Durham University that developed it [1]
  • As a researcher he has a low h-index [2]
  • An excessive number of claims rely on primary sources. A few claims aren't even verified (e.g. that he worked for Goal.com as a correspondent) Leonstojka (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Leonstojka (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Journalism, Law, Social science, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (creator) The nomination is strictly reliant on issues regarding the article. Issues regarding an article can be raised in its talk page or Wikiprojects' talk pages (I do agree it needs some touch, and I'm willing to do them once able, but that's irrelevant to an article's notability).
    Just because an article is not up to the mark on some aspects, it does not become non-notable. Many of the sources are just passing mentions- not every source of an article need to be of high quality or of depth. An article fo shizz will contain many sources that might just well be passing mentions, supporting the asserted claims.
    There exist several sources (in Bengali as well) in and out of the article that definitely speak volume for this person's notability. X (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 'An article fo shizz will contain many sources that might just well be passing mentions, supporting the asserted claims' – Sure, but if we're establishing general notability it is best to have more than passing mentions, because lots of people are sometimes contacted by the media to provide comment for stories. I also have concerns about the promotional nature of some of the Bangladeshi sources (e.g. this one), which read like adulatory press releases. Leonstojka (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2025 (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, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table prepared by User:PacificDepths
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
~ Not sure how to rate independence. ~ Not sure on reliability of this. Yes 700 words about subject ~ Partial
~ Not sure how to rate independence: asked in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#c-ActivelyDisinterested-20250516114100-PacificDepths-20250516083000 ~ Not sure on reliability of this. Promotional? Yes Entire article is about subject. ~ Partial
~ Some interview quotes. Not sure how to rate independence. ~ Not sure on reliability of this. Promotional? Yes Entire article is about subject. ~ Partial
~ Some interview quotes. Not sure how to rate independence. ~ Not sure on reliability of this. Promotional? Yes Entire article is about subject. ~ Partial
No Mostly an interview, primary source material ~ unknown No One sentence description of subject ✘ No
No Mostly an interview, primary source material ~ Treat case by case basis per WP:NEWSWEEK No one sentence description and quote ✘ No
No Interview: Primary source ~ Yes ✘ No
No Interview Yes No Little information about the subject ✘ No
No Primary source Yes No One sentence about the subject ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • @PacificDepths Simply discarding sources labeled as "interviews" is flawed. These are features that include quotations and interview segments, as features inherently contain such elements. You cannot broadly dismiss them by merely labeling them as interviews. Claiming they "feel promotional" is your subjective opinion (these features have proper bylines and are not promo pieces, if so, they'd have been designated as such from these reputed pubs). Overall, I strongly disagree with this source analysis table. Additionally, several Bengali news sources, TV appearances, and passing mentions in reputable publications recognize him as a notable person or expert. Collectively, these demonstrate his notability. GNG is fo shizzle met here. X (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • And by the way, common sense should prevail. The newsweek and diplomat sources were mentioned to demonstrate a point that this person also gets called out for their expert opinion, assessing and labeling these 2 as "One sentence description of subject" is utterly asinine, like of course these are passing mentions. And as I stated earlier, not every source of an article need to be entirely about the subject or of depth. An article will contain many sources that might just well be passing mentions, supporting the asserted claims. X (talk) 10:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've re-ordered the sources and edited some. I'm not sure how to judge Business Standard, Daily Star, ICE Today. I don't think The Times should demonstrate notability. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 05:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PacificDepths, and those who are unfamiliar, TBS, DS, Prothom Alo, Ice Today, these all are reputed and generally deemed reliable publications. X (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While numerically, there are more editors arguing to Keep this article I don't find their arguments compelling. We need more editors reviewing and commenting on the source analysis which is a strong argument for Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Kudos to PacificDepths for doing a source assessment. The set of sources cited has changed a little since then. Two thirds of the sources are written by Chowdhury or are passing mentions of him. For the remainder, I'll try to expand on PacificDepths' work and resolve some of the "maybe" entries. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table prepared by User:Worldbruce
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
No Interview, primary source. See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 477#Business Standard Bangladesh tbsnews.net. Yes Yes Entire article is about subject ✘ No
No Interview, primary source Yes Yes Entire article is about subject ✘ No
No Interview, primary source Yes Yes Entire article is about subject ✘ No
No Uses Chowdhury as a source ("Chowdhury says", "he believes") Yes No One sentence identification ✘ No
No Quotations of Chowdhury, primary source ~ Treat case by case basis per WP:NEWSWEEK No One sentence identification ✘ No
No Interview, primary source Yes Yes ✘ No
No Chowdhury talking about Chowdhury Yes Yes ✘ No
Yes Yes No ✘ No
No Uses Chowdhury as a source ("Chowdhury says", "he told", "according to him") Yes No One sentence identification ✘ No
No Press release, identical wording in multiple Bangladeshi newspapers Yes Yes ✘ No
~ No byline, almost certainly a press release Yes Yes ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Delete Despite the large number of sources, there are no sources that are both independent and that contain significant coverage of him. Every source of substance is Chowdhury talking about Chowdhury. The sources repeat what he says uncritically, and without bringing in any other views. Publishers evidently can't find anyone with anything to say about him other than him - no colleague who has read the chapter he wrote, no viewer of his 1-minute film, no listener to his album, etc. Self-promotion is not the route to notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to the article's other top ten (by edits or added text) non-bot registered editors, as concerned editors: (Bearcat—Caeciliusinhorto-public—David notMD—Diannaa—GoingBatty—HeyElliott—MrsSnoozyTurtle—R'n'B) --Worldbruce (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce: I'm shocked that I'm in the top 10 for this article, but apparently adding categories and DEFAULTSORT plus tweaking references two years ago gets me there. While I have no desire to review the 34 references in the article, it would be nice if @X: would add the references they mentioned to the article. GoingBatty (talk) 03:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm apparently in the top 10 by virtue of having edited this article once (to fix an ambiguous link). --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Cultural Interaction in East Asia

Society for Cultural Interaction in East Asia (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)

Non-notable academic society. Lacks RSs and seems unlikely any would exist. Cabrils (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I found no indication of notability and can't find a suitable target for a merge/redirect. I considered whether the article could be rescoped to be about the Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia, but that doesn't seem to be notable either. MCE89 (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Social science Proposed deletions

Language

Tehniyat

Tehniyat (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)

Lack of reliable secondary sources covering this word. BEFORE searches did not find much besides dictionary websites and Wikipedia mirrors. It’s a real word but I don’t think it is covered enough for its own article ApexParagon (talk) 12:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

European Esperanto Union

AfDs for this article:
European Esperanto 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)

No significant coverage independent of the subject. Aŭstriano (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of humorous names in mathematics

List of humorous names in mathematics (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)

Essentially WP:OR, personal taste (or lack of it) whether something is "humorous" ("killing field", hilarious; "mother functor", if you pronounce it completely wrong it almost sounds like, well, you guessed it) and not a defining characteristic for most of these. Fram (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is obviously subjectivity in humour, but firstly there are numerous compilations of these online, even in fairly reputable places refs 1,2,3,4; secondly many of them are deliberate jokes e.g. look at the name origin section on Cox–Zucker machine and lastly there are similar pages e.g. in mathematics Mathematical joke or elsewhere Lists of pejorative terms for people where inclusion or exclusion of examples can't be completely objective.
Feel free to change the list, but you know, have some fun too. WikiNukalito (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to this request to keep, as per Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists and references 1,2,3,4 these terms have ' been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources'. The items are not just personal taste, they're all in the lists in the quoted references. WikiNukalito (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not really similar to this article. Azuredivay (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Yaqub

Emil Yaqub (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)

Subject does not appear to passWP:NPROF. The sources in the Arabic Wikipedia article aren’t any help. Mccapra (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see a pass of Wikipedia:NPROF or of Wikipedia:NAUTHOR at all. Qflib (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete this seems to be hard to evaluate due to lack of sources in English, but it seems that he has entry in this encyclopedia on Arabian linguists which indicates notability. I am not convinced that we can use google scholar to easily assess Arabic linguists as easily as scholars at a Western University. What makes me skeptical is that I could find almost no information about the Suleiman International University where he supposedly works (apparently its an online university). --hroest 16:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The standard for notability is a bit higher than just having been listed in an encyclopedia, unless I'm missing something here, in which case please advise. Qflib (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it depends on the encyclopedia, if its a scholarly work I would argue that this indicates notability per WP:NPROF. --hroest 11:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have added Arabic sources to the article. The subject has clear notability in the Arabic academic community and is the author of significant linguistic dictionaries. --  Mohammed Qays  (🗣) 18:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are there multiple reviews of at least two of those? If so, subject might be notable under Wikipedia:NAUTHOR, but otherwise, just being an author isn't sufficient to establish notability here. Qflib (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Mohammed Qays for non-arabic speakers, can you please elaborate a bit on the sources you added? Are they WP:RS, how are the dictionaries significant (what is their reception in the field? how is this documented with citations / reviews?). It is just really hard to make a judgement in a field and a language that I am not familiar with. --hroest 11:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Finno-Ugric substrate

Pre-Finno-Ugric substrate (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 is a bit of a difficult one. This page covers perhaps four separate topics - the Paleo-Laplandic Saami substrate (which to a lesser extent also occurs in Finnic), the substrate in the Finno-Permic languages (which here is misleadingly described as the Finno-Volgaic substrate even though it also occurs in Permic), the issue of toponyms in Finland, and the substrate in the Nganasan language. Combining these substrates into a single topic of "Pre-Finno-Ugric substrate" is not notable, but the topics individually may have some notability. The Paleo-Laplandic languages topic already has its own article, and the information about the Finno-Permic substrate should probably go to the article about Finno-Permic languages. Toponyms in Finland could maybe get its own article, and the discussion about the Nganasan language can just go to the language's article. Stockhausenfan (talk) 08:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: the term is definitely used at least in Russian-language publications (i.e. Eugene Helimski used it as an umbrella term for 5 separate but related topics) and it's no less legitimate than, say, "Pre-Indo-European languages" or "Pre-Greek substrate". By the way, what I've read on the substrate in Finno-Volgaic languages (Zhivlov & Aikio) make only very few mentions of similar substrate word in Permic. Finstergeist (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this paper Aikio gives several examples that have Permic cognates, see pages 45-46, and he specifically mentions this:
"a surprisingly large part of the vocabulary traditionally reconstructed for
‘Finno-Volgaic’ and ‘Finno-Permic’ (UEW: 605–827) involves irregular sound cor-
respondences and other etymological difficulties."
I.e. Finno-Permic is specifically mentioned (also Finno-Volgaic, but that is a subset of Finno-Permic, and the vocabulary there has the same features such as abundance of š).
Stockhausenfan (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded articles


History

Battle of Lomana

Battle of Lomana (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 sources used in this article are largely unreliable and fall short of Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability, particularly when dealing with historical content R3YBOl (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1948 Palestinian Declaration of Independence

1948 Palestinian Declaration of Independence (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)

Reason: There is All-Palestine Government article, with the same flag. This article is purely sourced, and does not have other language's articles. It is also written on a talk page. The article Palestinian Declaration of Independence leads to 15 November 1988 (by Yasser Arafat). Dgw|Talk 20:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG. Dgw|Talk 22:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pasht Ashan massacre

Pasht Ashan massacre (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 lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. Only one source (Tareq Y. Ismael's The Rise and Fall of the Communist Party of Iraq) appears reliable, which is insufficient to establish notability under WP:GNG. The other sources are either questionable or fail WP:RS. There is not enough in-depth coverage to justify a standalone article. R3YBOl (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Skitash (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pimpladevi State

Pimpladevi State (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)

There is no significant coverage in independent sources about the subject. The article relies unreliable sources of WP:RAJ. 🦅Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So ? The Dang states are referenced on multiple pages on wikipedia, and are part of a larger overarching project to both extensively cover, standardize and organize the articles on Princeyl States in Gujarat.
To quote what I wrote on several articles about the Pandu Mehwas states:
"This article is part of my series of articles on the various Princely States in Gujarat, especially the Dang states amd the Pandu Mehwas . Potentially once all the states have been covered we can decide which ones meet the criteria of merging into some sort of overarching article on the Gujarat states, and we can debate where the cutoff point is, as even before I looked into it we have had articles for years on states just as small or even smaller and less populous. Like Varnoli Nani for example. Then the original links can work as redirects, if we decide to do that." Ummunmutamnag (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in the Avchar article, the user here just asserts officialy released Goverment records are "unreliable", based on nothing, while citing as justification an essay which literally says it has not been vetted and does not represetn any official guidelines or policies.
You literally sent an unvetted opinion piece as justification for why records issued by the British Colonial Goverment should be automatically considered unreliable and deleting articles relying on citing them. Ummunmutamnag (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I move to remove the deletion tag from all three pages. You do not seem intereted in discussing anything, your reason is a subjective opinion which you back up via sharing a non vetted opinion piece, you ignore we have had articles on similar size or smaller states in Gujarat for years, etc. I'm sorry but I can't be bothered to check back several times a day if you maybe possibly respond to a single objection raised. Also the states are very much referenced in other sources, like "H H Or The Bathology Of Princes (1930)" by Kanhaalal Gauba, p. 303-304 https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.238361/page/n303/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.238361/page/n305/mode/2up Ummunmutamnag (talk) 11:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Also, just a cursory search brings references to all three states targeted for deletion here in the following resources:

BK 353 -Gazetteer Of Bombay Presidency Vol 12 Khandesh, 597, 605-606

https://archive.org/details/1880GazetteerOfBombayPresidencyVol12Khandesh353D/page/616/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/1880GazetteerOfBombayPresidencyVol12Khandesh353D/page/624/mode/2up?view=theater

https://archive.org/details/1880GazetteerOfBombayPresidencyVol12Khandesh353D/page/626/mode/2up


The Imperial Gazetteer Of India Pardi To Pusad Vol Xx, 1908

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.284076/page/n149/mode/2up


British Enactments In Force In Indian States, 1930,p. 62

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.98302/page/n89/mode/2up


Quaid-i-Azam Papers First Series Vol 1 Part 2 ca. 1947, p. 142,

https://archive.org/details/qap-first-vol1-p2/page/n49/mode/2up


Imperial Gazetteer Of India Vol. XI Coondapoor To Edwardesabad, p. 147,

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.460484/page/n153/mode/2up


The Statesman's year-book, 1946, p. 171,

https://archive.org/details/statesmansyearbo1946unse/page/170/mode/2up


Shelley In England Vol.ii, 1917, p. 418,

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.114894/page/n479/mode/2up


The Times of India directory of Bombay (City and Province) including Karachi and Hyderabad State, 1940, p. 37,

https://archive.org/details/dli.csl.8905/page/n71/mode/2up

Ummunmutamnag (talk) 11:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chinchli Gaded State

Chinchli Gaded State (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)

There is no significant coverage in independent sources about the subject. The article relies unreliable sources of WP:RAJ. Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will copy paste my response posted in Pimpladevi:
So ? The Dang states are referenced on multiple pages on wikipedia, and are part of a larger overarching project to both extensively cover, standardize and organize the articles on Princeyl States in Gujarat.
To quote what I wrote on several articles about the Pandu Mehwas states:
"This article is part of my series of articles on the various Princely States in Gujarat, especially the Dang states amd the Pandu Mehwas . Potentially once all the states have been covered we can decide which ones meet the criteria of merging into some sort of overarching article on the Gujarat states, and we can debate where the cutoff point is, as even before I looked into it we have had articles for years on states just as small or even smaller and less populous. Like Varnoli Nani for example. Then the original links can work as redirects, if we decide to do that." Ummunmutamnag (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is also invalid, because, as noted on the other two articles where this person copy-pasted their deletion request, his request relies on subjectively declaring official goverment records released by the British Colonial Goverment in India as "unreliable", based on nothing, not to mention not being able to show why they are unreliable in this case specifically, but in an utterly ironic twist cites as justification for his statement an essay whose heading literally says it has not been vetted and that it does not represent any guideline or policy ! Ummunmutamnag (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I move to remove the deletion tag from all three pages. You do not seem intereted in discussing anything, your reason is a subjective opinion which you back up via sharing a non vetted opinion piece, you ignore we have had articles on similar size or smaller states in Gujarat for years, etc. I'm sorry but I can't be bothered to check back several times a day if you maybe possibly respond to a single objection raised. Also the states are very much referenced in other sources, like "H H Or The Bathology Of Princes (1930)" by Kanhaalal Gauba, p. 303-304 https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.238361/page/n303/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.238361/page/n305/mode/2up Ummunmutamnag (talk) 11:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are some additional sources I have found very easily to confirm the information in the article.

BK 353 -Gazetteer Of Bombay Presidency Vol 12 Khandesh, 597, 605-606

https://archive.org/details/1880GazetteerOfBombayPresidencyVol12Khandesh353D/page/616/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/1880GazetteerOfBombayPresidencyVol12Khandesh353D/page/624/mode/2up?view=theater

https://archive.org/details/1880GazetteerOfBombayPresidencyVol12Khandesh353D/page/626/mode/2up


The Imperial Gazetteer Of India Pardi To Pusad Vol Xx, 1908

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.284076/page/n149/mode/2up


British Enactments In Force In Indian States, 1930,p. 62

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.98302/page/n89/mode/2up


Quaid-i-Azam Papers First Series Vol 1 Part 2 ca. 1947, p. 142,

https://archive.org/details/qap-first-vol1-p2/page/n49/mode/2up


Imperial Gazetteer Of India Vol. XI Coondapoor To Edwardesabad, p. 147,

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.460484/page/n153/mode/2up


The Statesman's year-book, 1946, p. 171,

https://archive.org/details/statesmansyearbo1946unse/page/170/mode/2up


Shelley In England Vol.ii, 1917, p. 418,

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.114894/page/n479/mode/2up


The Times of India directory of Bombay (City and Province) including Karachi and Hyderabad State, 1940, p. 37,

https://archive.org/details/dli.csl.8905/page/n71/mode/2up

Ummunmutamnag (talk) 11:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ummunmutamnag (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avchar State

Avchar State (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)

There is no significant coverage in independent sources about the subject. The article relies unreliable sources of WP:RAJ. Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will copy paste my response posted in Pimpladevi:
So ? The Dang states are referenced on multiple pages on wikipedia, and are part of a larger overarching project to both extensively cover, standardize and organize the articles on Princeyl States in Gujarat.
To quote what I wrote on several articles about the Pandu Mehwas states:
"This article is part of my series of articles on the various Princely States in Gujarat, especially the Dang states amd the Pandu Mehwas . Potentially once all the states have been covered we can decide which ones meet the criteria of merging into some sort of overarching article on the Gujarat states, and we can debate where the cutoff point is, as even before I looked into it we have had articles for years on states just as small or even smaller and less populous. Like Varnoli Nani for example. Then the original links can work as redirects, if we decide to do that." Ummunmutamnag (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also "unreliable sources" according to who ? Official goverment records are not reliable how ?
Also the ironic thing is you yourself cite something which is not a policy or guideline.
"This is an essay.
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints."
So you say my officially released goverment reports published by the British Goverment are "unreliable", based on sending me an essay that has no policy weight whatsoever !
This is totally baseless and just shows your bias.
Official Goverment data is not reliable, says a person citing a source whose heading literally says it is not vetted and should not be used to dictate policy. Ummunmutamnag (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I move to remove the deletion tag from all three pages. You do not seem intereted in discussing anything, your reason is a subjective opinion which you back up via sharing a non vetted opinion piece, you ignore we have had articles on similar size or smaller states in Gujarat for years, etc. I'm sorry but I can't be bothered to check back several times a day if you maybe possibly respond to a single objection raised. Also the states are very much referenced in other sources, like "H H Or The Bathology Of Princes (1930)" by Kanhaalal Gauba, p. 303-304 https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.238361/page/n303/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.238361/page/n305/mode/2up Ummunmutamnag (talk) 11:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]


These are some additional sources I have found very easily to confirm the information in the article.

BK 353 -Gazetteer Of Bombay Presidency Vol 12 Khandesh, 597, 605-606

https://archive.org/details/1880GazetteerOfBombayPresidencyVol12Khandesh353D/page/616/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/1880GazetteerOfBombayPresidencyVol12Khandesh353D/page/624/mode/2up?view=theater

https://archive.org/details/1880GazetteerOfBombayPresidencyVol12Khandesh353D/page/626/mode/2up


The Imperial Gazetteer Of India Pardi To Pusad Vol Xx, 1908

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.284076/page/n149/mode/2up


British Enactments In Force In Indian States, 1930,p. 62

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.98302/page/n89/mode/2up


Quaid-i-Azam Papers First Series Vol 1 Part 2 ca. 1947, p. 142,

https://archive.org/details/qap-first-vol1-p2/page/n49/mode/2up


Imperial Gazetteer Of India Vol. XI Coondapoor To Edwardesabad, p. 147,

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.460484/page/n153/mode/2up


The Statesman's year-book, 1946, p. 171,

https://archive.org/details/statesmansyearbo1946unse/page/170/mode/2up


Shelley In England Vol.ii, 1917, p. 418,

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.114894/page/n479/mode/2up


The Times of India directory of Bombay (City and Province) including Karachi and Hyderabad State, 1940, p. 37,

https://archive.org/details/dli.csl.8905/page/n71/mode/2up

Ummunmutamnag (talk) 11:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ummunmutamnag (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aulikara−Hunnic War

Aulikara−Hunnic War (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 subject matter doesn't meet notability according to WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT. It has not received enough coverage in reliable secondary sources; primarily, the content is original and speculative. There is also significant overlap with existing articles on Aulikaras and the Alchon Huns, making the entry a copy. The Red Archive (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bletchley Park Museum

Bletchley Park Museum (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)

New page created a couple of weeks ago:

  • a clear WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Bletchley Park given the very large overlap in the content (entire paragraphs, section headings...)
  • the title (capital 'M') implies that there is an organisation called "Bletchley Park Museum", but as far as I can see this is neither an official name nor a WP:CommonName – the museum is simply named "Bletchley Park"
  • the title fails WP:Criteria because it's not clear to the reader what the difference in remit between the new article and the existing Bletchley Park article would be (as evidenced by the fact that the 2 articles need hatnotes to try to explain it)

I think this was intended as a WP:Spinoff, but for the reasons above I don't think it works as one, and if Bletchley Park is too long it would be better to use summary style. I mentioned all this last week at Talk:Bletchley Park#Splitting article to Bletchley Park Museum and got no response. Given there might be a lot of work to unpick the split from subsequent edits, it would be good to find a consensus before anyone does any more work either way. Joe D (t) 13:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've asked @Steinsky to withdraw this on the talk page for Bletchley Park as a good faith measure as I did not see the notification there last week. That's the better place for that discussion. The article was created so that the details around Bletchley Park could be separated from those around the site and the museum trust. A summary style wouldn't work as a lot of information would be lost. As Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, the better alternative would be splitting the Bletchley Park Museum article - which has taken the hydra like quality of the pre-split Bletchley Park article, into constituent articles for things like the trust, the country house aspects, the human interest aspects, etc. But that discussion is better for the article itself (and I promise that if I'm tagged I will endeavor to answer, although I'm on holiday so give a couple of days) and come on here if there isn't consensus in the article. 13:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JASpencer (talk • contribs)
Note There's discussion on the Bletchley Park article that isn't reflected on this page. (1) there is strong opposition on the page from long standing editors to remerging the two articles and (2) the nominator has expressed willingness to withdraw the nomination while this gets flashed out on the Bletchley Park talk page. JASpencer (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First Jahangir invasion of Tibet

First Jahangir invasion of Tibet (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 battle is not significantly covered in the scholarship. There are issues with WP:OR since the content is not supported by the sources. One source comes from Gulshan Books while another one is [[ Abdul Hamid Lahori]] from the 17th century, though he hasn't been represented properly. Wareon (talk) 09:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Albania's role in the Kosovo War

Albania's role in the Kosovo War (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)

Unnecessary split from Kosovo War that isn't properly sourced and possivle WP:POVFORK. I don't see any other articles in the format of "...'s role in the Kosovo War". Should be merged back into the Kosovo War page. Laura240406 (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

United Bengal

United Bengal (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 page suffers from multiple critical issues. It lacks sufficient inline citations for many significant claims, contains confusing structure and presentation, and has an unfocused narrative that blends unrelated historical details with the actual 1947 proposal. Much of the background is not directly relevant to the United Bengal proposal and appears to be original synthesis. BharatGanguly (talk) 10:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gupta–Kidarite conflict

Gupta–Kidarite 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)

Lacks notability as a standalone topic; minimal sourcing, limited content, and better covered within broader articles like Gupta Empire or Kidarites. Duplicative and does not meet WP:N. BharatGanguly (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kumaragupta's invasion of Aparanta

Kumaragupta's invasion of Aparanta (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 have notability and makes a conjectural interpretation based on insufficient amounts of suspect evidence (coin hoards and vague literary references) without enough importance from primary sources. The event does not have enough detailed coverage from multiple independent reliable sources and would better off being added to the article on Kumaragupta I. BharatGanguly (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep :Though the article has only 3 sources , it doesn't changes the fact that Gupta coins are found in the region for the very first time ,that too in abundance and concentrated hoards ,thus contradicting any possibility that these coins came into this region via trade.

CelesteQuill (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Article is supported by scholarly secondary sources such as Goyal (1967), Sharma (1989), Mookerji (1947), and RC Majumdar (1946). I'm not confident about Majumdar but other are better sources. Chronos.Zx (talk) 11:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources are surely scholarly but a quick check reveals that except Goyal(1967) none of the other sources mentions Kumaragupta I's invasion of Aparanta.
    While RC Majumdar only gives an insignificant Idea of this invasion.[5] pg.173

    A large hoard of Kumāra-gupta's coins, found at Satara in Bombay, has been taken by some as a possible indication of Gupta influence in the South-Western Deccan', though obviously we cannot draw any definite conclusion from this or the find of 13 coins of his at Ellichpur.

    BharatGanguly (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom SolarSyntax (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT, as the current article misrepresents a historical theory as certain fact. None of the cited sources goes beyond suggestions and hypotheticals. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of mass escapes from German POW camps

List of mass escapes from German POW camps (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)

We already have List of prison escapes, List of prisoner-of-war escapes, and German POW camps in WWII, so possibly merge? But no sources, making things confusing and hard to verify (home run?) and has been edited maybe ~50 times in the 15 years since its creation. GoldRomean (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Haj Omran (1966)

Battle of Haj Omran (1966) (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)

Battle may or may not exist, none of the three sources are verifiable. One goes to a dead link, another to a newspaper article that does not exist per the newspaper's archive, the third is a print book that is not available online and has no preview on Google Books. There was a battle on a different date during the Iran-Iraq War, but nothing noted by Google or Google books for 1966. I was able to find a CIA document that might be what the dead link was supposed to point to, it mentions Haj Omran but is about a visit in 1974 and only mentions that there was fighting in 1966, it gives no details. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made a quick check to the article and checked one of the links, specified under the name of the "CIA" and it was a dead link. I support the Delete of this article R3YBOl (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All three sources are inaccessible. Skitash (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ashitha Revolt 1843

Ashitha Revolt 1843 (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. No sources on this exist. None of the sources in use in this article support 99% of the text in this article 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the Wiki page has its sources, no reason for deletion, Jsanihsjsn (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking through the sources, Aboona 2008 devotes an entire section spanning several pages to "Armed Revolt at Asheetha, November 1843". The Seyfo Center devotes 3 paragraphs to a revolt in 1843. Nala4u.com seems to be of dubious reliability, and citations 2-5 are incomplete to the point of being almost useless, but I think there's enough to go on from the first two to surmise that additional sources likely exist, albeit potentially using different spellings of Ashitha and not necessarily calling it "Revolt" in a canonical sense. The article does indulge in unencyclopedic tone, although it is worth noting that our best source thus far, Aboona 2008, does describe atrocities at length. signed, Rosguill talk 20:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – It has good sources describing in detail what happened and it was an important event that took place in Hakkari in the 1800s. Termen28 (talk) 23:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Support per nom. R3YBOl (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Gervais II wreck

Saint Gervais II wreck (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 needs more WP:RS sources to support its notability. Czarking0 (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Dragonfly

Operation Dragonfly (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)

Article has been sitting since its creation on 25 October 2023, having not been expanded at all since then. It is about a unique, out of many, Ukrainian strike against Russian forces. The only reason why it could be notable would be for it being the first instance of ATACMS usage by Ukraine in the war, according to the article.

The first results when looking up "Operation Dragonfly" on Google aren't even about the invasion of Ukraine. In five pages of results in Google, I could only find the following sources about this strike: [7] [8] [9].

I could find more sources without using the "Operation Dragonfly" name. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. The most recent source is the latter, from 23 October, six days after the strike happened. I do not believe the strike has long-lasting coverage in sources. Simply by reading the article, the strike surely was not nothing, but it doesn't seem worth a Wikipedia article. Super Ψ Dro 20:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect It's true that the article is relatively short and the page might not have merit to exist on its own, but that doesn't mean the content is not worthy to exist at all. It would be better if the information are merged onto a larger page that discusses airstrikes in the war, because this page is certainly not the only one and there are many more similar to this one in Category:Attacks on military installations in Ukraine or Category:Ukrainian airstrikes during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I would also prefer this page become a redirect after the merge as it is still the first result after a google search. TeddyRoosevelt1912 (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Dromaeosaurus, @Shwabb1, @NickK, @Aleksandr Grigoryev For discussion TeddyRoosevelt1912 (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the invitation. Hard to say:
  • On one hand, this is likely the first ever use of ATACAMS by Ukraine, with significant (from military point of view) result. As such this is a notable enough military operation and it has enough sources.
  • On the other hand, it is very likely that no further information about this operation will be released until the war ends (for obvious reasons). As a result, this article will likely stay in current state for a while.
I would read this that fundamentally this is a notable military operation, but practically we will not be able to improve this article further for unknown period of time — NickK (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that's the case as well. Overall I don't mind the idea of merging this into a larger article that lists major airstrikes including this one, as this article is quite small on its own and, as you've said, we're not getting much more info on it any time soon. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 01:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Also, User:TeddyRoosevelt1912, you need to identify a Merge/Redirect target article. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 27 May 2025 (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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Basivka

Battle of Basivka (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. Sources do not seem to treat this engagement as a notable event. In fact many news articles don't even bother with mentioning the village's name in the headline [15] [16] [17] [18] [19].

Literally all information is already present in parent article 2025 Sumy Oblast incursion. The exception are the following two senteces: According to Ruslan Mykula the Russian forces tried to advance into Loknia but failed, all eight soldiers involved in the attempt have been killed. (information about a small raid, not even a date is given, the info might not even be worth merging); and On April 9, Ukrainian military observer Kostyantyn Mashovets reported that Russia’s 76th Air Assault Division and 83rd VDV Brigade had successfully seized Basivka. (with the 24 April confirmation, this is superfluous).

Parent article currently has 1,503 words of prose [20], very far from the recommended 6,000-word threshold after which a split is plausible [21]. The village in question had 644 people in 2001. It is a small, probably unstrategic village, sources do not particularly highlight its importance. Many users in this topic area insist on creating articles that are evidently not notable, for random engagements. Super Ψ Dro 19:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support I don’t even understand why such an article was created in the first place. Basivka as it stands is effectively irrelevant in the larger picture of this war. It serves effectively no strategic value, nor is the settlement notable or relevant in media. This article was created as a spur of the moment when Russia launched its incursion into Sumy Oblast, and is effectively covered in its entirety by its parent article. IiSmxyzXX (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC) Non-extended confirmed editor. Mellk (talk) 10:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per reason Above Bukansatya (talk) 11:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per notability issue 78.81.123.235 (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC) The current date and time is 27 May 2025 T 23:01 UTC. Non-extended confirmed editor. Mellk (talk) 10:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting per all of the above, including the struck comments; article is a content fork describing an event that fails notability requirements and has been given its own made-up name: Google returns no other results for "Battle of Basivka". Concur with SuperDro that there has been a bit of problem for a while of people rushing to create "battle of" articles. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2025 (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.

Battle of Khankala (1735)

AfDs for this article:
Battle of Khankala (1735) (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)

Poorly sourced. The only source used is some book Хожаев, Д. (1998). Чеченец (in Russian). Khozhaev seems to be a Chechen field commander, brigadier general and doesn't seem to be a reliable source, since no degree in history. And I couldn't find the book on the Internet, must be WP:RSSELF. Devlet Geray (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Devlet Geray (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's first nomination in fact Devlet Geray (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't think "Poorly sourced" is in the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. More relevant is "articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" and "articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". Has WP:BEFORE been done? I also am dubious that you have to have a degree in history or history books you write will be considered unreliable. It seems that plenty of authors have written histories without a formal degree in that subject (one even got a Nobel prize for theirs). But even in that case, our own article on Dalkhan Khozhaev states "In 1983 he graduated from the faculty of History of the Chechen-Ingush State University" and that he was a researcher at the Chechen-Ingush Republican Regional Museum, the author of works on the history of the national liberation movement of Chechnya in the 19th century and Head of the Archives Department. It seems strange you've copied "Chechen field commander, brigadier general" from the start of our article but chosen to edit that from the full description "Chechen historian, field commander, brigadier general and author with numerous works on the centuries-old confrontation between Chechnya and Russia". Given his publication history, he was an academic and writer before his military service, and continued the former during the latter. The article on the Russian wikipedia has quite a bit more on him and has a number of his books listed. The source used in the article is his 1998 «Чеченцы в Русско-Кавказской войне» (Chechens in the Russo-Caucasian War), published in Grozny by Seda Publishers (isbn and catalogue listing here). That you only suspect he might not be reliable, you assume that the source must be self published, these weren't really strong arguments for deletion without having done a proper WP:BEFORE. And given that these things have been disproven, there's nothing left in the nomination. Spokoyni (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'll also further add that Khozhaev's book is not "the only source used", there's another in the article, and a WP:BEFORE would have shown there were originally four sources in the article, two of which the original author later removed on the incorrect rationale that they did not add any additional content to what the other sources stated. Spokoyni (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I clearly wrote that he does not have a degree in history, he is not a specialist in the history of Chechnya (no PhD thesis). How can he be used as a source for a topic like this? Makes absolutely no sence. Moreover, the figures and data presented in the article are initially implausible. In addition, the links are given for show, since it is impossible to verify them. Plus, zero cross-wiki and no information on this "battle" on the Internet, makes the article absoulte original research Devlet Geray (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since none of that makes any sense, suggest speedy keep under "the nominator failed to give intelligible grounds for content deletion". He has a degree in history, he is a speciality on the history of Chechnya, and if you are suggesting only history books written by those with a phd in history are reliable, you need to go and change the entire nature of what makes a WP:RS. If you mean sources rather than links, they are published accounts and are verfiable (that you personally can't or won't verify them is not an acceptable reason). The absence of articles on other wikis is not a criteria for deletion here, nor is lack of google hits. You tried to get this speedied as a hoax, that was declined. Then you prodded it "because it never happened", and that was declined, and now you're attacking one of the two (out of originally four) sources in the article as a reason for deletion because the book's author doesn't have a phd. I can see your desire to get this deleted for some reason, I'm just not seeing any actual rationale for it. Why do you think this is a hoax, or an invented instance? Spokoyni (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:BURDEN, the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Devlet Geray (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
‌‌‌‌‌Meanwhile, I found a pdf version of the book «Чеченцы в Русско-Кавказской войне» (Chechens in the Russo-Caucasian War), published in Grozny by Seda Publishers and there is no mention of such a "battle". Devlet Geray (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen D. Martin

Stephen D. Martin (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)

Doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. Regarding his medical career, scopus shows 9 publications with an H-index of 9, with most of the citations coming from mid-authorship papers. For example, on his most highly-cited paper (Meltzer et al., 2003) he is one of 88 authors, and is listed only in the trialist, not in the main authors (checking the pdf). Visiting professorship at the University of Sunderland in the 90s doesn't meet the 'named chair' criterion. Other outputs seem typical for a typical academic in the humanities. LTLC flute is very impressive, but performance interpretation/outputs are supported only with self-citations. Klbrain (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete. I am having trouble checking his publications; Scopus is often too low. That said, at least two in the page look like comments or just abstracts, plus the claims in the page do not seem to merit consideration as notable.Ldm1954 (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that Scopus is lower than some counts because it has stricter quality standards for citing papers ... that makes it more reliable. Klbrain (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC) [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hafez al-Assad's cult of personality

Hafez al-Assad's cult of personality (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 is largely copied from elsewhere, with the copyvio tool showing a 74.4% similarity with existing sources. There's also a lot of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH here. Skitash (talk) 11:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The copyvio is only of 2 paragraphs that can be removed. You didn't show anything about WP:OR or WP:SYNTH on the talkpage so I cant really talk about that. But, this topic is really notable and has lots of RSs reporting on it and deserves an article of its own. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that much more of the article is copied from sources that aren't flagged by copyvio tools, such as Google Books. Also, large portions appear to be copied from other Wikipedia articles (such as Presidency of Hafez al-Assad) without attribution.
    WP:SYNTH/WP:OR claims include things like:
    • "Assad's skill as a cool, proud, tough, and shrewd negotiator in the post war period enabled him to gain the town of Kuneitra and the respect and admiration of many Arabs"
    • "Syrian Ba'ath Movement ideologically elevated Hafez al-Assad as its 'Immortal', 'god-like figure'"
    • "Arab Socialist Ba'ath party initially manufactured Hafez al-Assad's cult of Arab socialist heroism in consultancy with Soviet state propagandists, mimicking the pervasive personality cults prevalent across Soviet Bloc dictatorships like Romania and North Korea"
    • "In schools, children were taught to sing songs of adulation about Hafez al-Assad. Teachers began each lesson with the song 'Our eternal leader, Hafez al-Assad'"
    And more. All of these are either unsourced, not directly supported by the sources, or poorly sourced (i.e. lacking page numbers). Skitash (talk) 11:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Syria. Shellwood (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Tashkent (1607)

Battle of Tashkent (1607) (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 am unable to find any sources in Latin or Cyrillic script about a battle of Tashkent in 1607. Mccapra (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They may exist but I couldn’t find them. Mccapra (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the first book, Казахское ханство очерки внешнеполитической истории is available here[23] Jahaza (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that source says “In violation of the treaty with the Kazakh khans, they tried to return Tashkent, which had been in the hands of the Kazakhs since the end of the 16th century, under their rule. Already in the fall of 1603, according to the "Bahr al-Asrar" by Mahmud ibn Wali, Baki-Muhammed Khan attempted to capture the city, but was defeated by the troops of the Kazakh ruler of Tashkent Keldi-Mu-hammed Khan.” That’s all it says about the 1603 battle. About the 1607 battle it says “In 1607, a vassal of Vali-Muhammad Khan named Muhammadmed-Baki-biy Kalmak managed to capture Tashkent. However, he was not allowed to rule the city for a long time, he was driven out of the city by the troops of Yesim Khan.” That’s it. So we know there was fighting in Tashkent but there is nothing that indicates this was a notable battle. Mccapra (talk) 08:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't seem like significant coverage.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Tashkent (1603)

Battle of Tashkent (1603) (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 am unable to find any sources in Latin or Cyrillic about a battle of Tashkent in 1603. It may have happened but it does not seem to have been notable. Mccapra (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it means that when I did a search, the English language source did not come up so I can’t verify that it is indeed a source for the material claimed. Mccapra (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What did you search? I was able to read it on Google Books[24], it's available from the publisher's web site, and WorldCat lists more than 300 libraries as holding it. Jahaza (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks unfortunately the relevant pages don’t show in my Google books view so I can’t verify it. Mccapra (talk) 03:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I believe this comes up on the odd occasion, where refs (and even their articles) are challenged because someone wasn't able to see/read the source to "verify" it, whether it's a web article behind a paywall, or a web page with some other form of restricted access, or physical books and other media, that "can't be found at local library or for sale online", etc., etc. I don't recall that itself being a reason to remove a ref, and delete an article, (I could be wrong). I don't believe it should be a reason either, whether it's having faith in the fellow editor that added it, or just the fact that there are numerous articles on WP, with even more refs that can't be easily and readily accessed, yet there hasn't been (to my knowledeg) any widespread efforts to initiate any massive deletion campaigns because of this. (jmho) Perhaps there's a guideline that covers this, but none have been cited here as of yet. - \\'cԼF 10:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
unfortunately in recent times some editors have taken to creating many articles about battles which are completely fictitious. These articles are decorated with pseudo-references to offline books in other languages. Other editors like to create battle articles based on a couple of passing mentions. If I look for sources and can’t find anything that supports what the article says then AfD is the place for it. Mccapra (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I apologize in advance if there are any mistakes in my words — I am writing through a translator. All the articles I have written are based on real books, but the problem is that some of them are not available in open access. So how do I have them? — I bought them. And as for the fact that they are hard to find online — the answer is simple: the history of Kazakhstan develops more slowly than that of other countries.
I write articles, and I know that the way I cited the sources is poorly done — I will try to fix that as soon as I have the time. Онеми (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The discussion is helpful but we need some opinions about a preferred outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian–Kurdish conflict

Assyrian–Kurdish 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)

This article is a wp:nor mess. Some of its content is lifted from articles that I wrote, but I have seen no evidence that the article topic exists. It makes about as much sense as an article about the "Asian - African conflict" throughout North America from 1700 to present. For most of history there have been more conflicts between different Assyrians and Kurds and it still doesn't make sense to consider either of them a cohesive group that is involved in an armed conflict. (t · c) buidhe 16:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My idea was to move this page to Assyrian–Kurdish relations as we already have many pages describing bilateral relations, but I got pushback and was reverted. I will also note that an older version of the page almost seems to be about a different topic entirely - and one presented coherently - so my (tenuous) vote is to Keep and revert to version as of 3 May 2025. Changed vote, see below Koopinator (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The bilateral relations articles are about relations between two state or state like entities, not between different ethnic groups that don't have an institution representing them. I am still skeptical about that framing as well as the "land dispute" one, which I don't think it's supported by the cited sources. The characterization that there is a land dispute between the Kurdish and Assyrian people or between Assyrians and the KRG (as opposed to individual Assyrians and Kurds) is disputed. But the chosen article title makes it seem like a fact. (t · c) buidhe 15:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be be better to have an article about land usurpation in Iraq, which leaves more room for covering non ethnic causes because it lacks the biased framing that presumes a conclusion. (t · c) buidhe 15:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: As someone who created this article (which has been significantly altered as I can see), I will be a little biased of course, hence my position. But we have to be honest with ourselves that there is some preexisting Assyrian-Kurdish conflict (which is still ongoing) and as well as some landgrabs by the KRG (as per the sources in the page). Also, Kurdistan is a semi-autonomous federal region that controls land (so it is a "country" in a way), whereas Assyrians don't have much power there. Bringing up "Asian-African conflict" is misrepresenting and heavily trivializing the history in the region, and it's comparing apples and oranges – Africans and Asians are NOT native to North America. Whereas, Assyrians and some Kurds too are native to Upper Mesopotamia, and the conflict there (which the media doesn't really focus on much) is not something to be ignored or scoffed at. Oh, forgot to mention that, thanks to the recent editor of the article (Ilamxan), the article has been excellently and thoroughly sourced. It will be a huge waste if it's deleted. Yucalyptus (talk) 09:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kurdistan is not a single political entity. If the intent was to write an article about Assyrians in the KRG governed areas I think "Assyrians in Iraq" would be a better location for the content. There is no basis for shoehorning in content about the Ottoman Empire, Syria, etc. We do not have sources covering the entire topic so it doesn't meet the criteria for having an article. (t · c) buidhe 13:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I created the article, I did not include the Ottomans (if you check the earlier edits). Another user included such content (in good faith though). You are right. The Ottomans pillaging and massacring Assyrians in the early 20th century have nothing to do with the modern day Kurdish-Assyrian land disputes/conflict. I would hope that somebody would remove content about Ottoman Empire, as it is already covered in other articles regarding modern Assyrian history. Yucalyptus (talk) 11:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you'll be frustrated if this page gets deleted. (Un)fortunately, pages must abide by our policies and guidelines. There's hope though: if this discussion results in a deletion, you can ask for it to be draftified via WP:REFUND. I'd love to see this reworked into a proper page about Land usurpation in Iraq, but you'd have to examine factors besides ethnicity. Koopinator (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: While the article’s structure and framing may need refinement, deletion is not the appropriate course of action. There is a clear body of reliably sourced content documenting tensions, disputes, and episodes of violence between Assyrian and Kurdish groups across different historical periods and regions. This is not a synthesized or invented topic-the subject meets notability under WP:GNG due to sustained coverage in reliable sources. Comparisons to fabricated constructs like an “Asian-African conflict in North America” are both inapplicable and dismissive of the real and tragic history of marginalized groups in the Middle East. Deleting this article would erase a significant and underrepresented regional dynamic, undermining Wikipedia’s mission to document the full scope of notable human history. ElijahUHC (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I have never seen this much information compiled in one article on the subject matter. This type of information is only available in bits and pieces which I have seen in the last 10 years. For the sake of history this must be kept. Gevergiz (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Could be reworked but the only reason to delete or merge this article would be to remove and/or hide potentially negative aspects of Kurdish nationalism - There's been well documented attacks committed by Kurdish polities (whether or not in service of an empire or by their own volition) against Assyrians, and vice versa.
⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 14:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think it's worth reposting my talk page message:
This is a massive WP:COATRACK article discussing a bunch of barely related historical incidents and trying to fit it all in a narrative of an ethnic conflict that has supposedly been ongoing since the 19th century. Just some lovely excerpts:
  • When Kurdish rival tribes fought each other, the bulk of the violence was directed at the Assyrian subjects of the opposing tribe.[6] Assyrian tribes would often fight each other on behalf of their Kurdish protector tribes.[7]
    • This is fighting between Assyrians
  • During the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878, the Ottomans armed the Kurds to fight Russia. At the end of the war, the Kurds refused to return the weapons, putting the Assyrians at further risk.[8]
    • An incident in a war that tangentially relates to Assyrians
  • On 10 May 1915, the Assyrian tribes met and declared war against the Kurds and the Ottoman Empire.[20]
    • This one is particularly gratuitous - Kurds were fighting Assyrian rebels in their capacity as Ottoman rank-and-file - this is best understood as an episode of World War I rather than some ethnic conflict that began in the 19th century.
My initial instinct was to bring this to AfD, but I recognise there has been an effort to gather historical facts. We already have many pages describing bilateral relations - in that light I suppose that this article could be salvaged as long as it's not WP:SYNTHed into a "conflict". Thus, I will move this to "Assyrian–Kurdish relations".
— Myself, on Talk:Assyrian–Kurdish conflict. I was reverted and then this AfD happened.

Koopinator (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the issue pertaining to WP: COATRACK (on my part). I removed content that is not related to the Assyrian-Kurdish conflict, such as Ottoman attacks in the 1910s and other unrelated incidents and battles in the 20th century that have nothing to do with the modern conflict in subject. Yucalyptus (talk) 07:59, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's check the first five sources to see if the "COATRACK" issues have been resolved or in fact most of the article's cited sources don't support the existence of the stated topic:
  1. opinion article, not a reliable source
  2. [25] doesn't support the contention that there is a general "Assyrian Kurdish conflict". Briefly mentions that Assyrians accuse the KRG of land grabbing on Assyrian heritage sites.
  3. [26] Also doesn't support the contention that an Assyrian Kurdish conflict exists. The report discusses discrimination against different minorities under KRG governance, but also states, "it is unclear whether Christians are targeted [for land alienation] because of their religion, or their non-Kurdish ethnicity, or simply because of the minority’s relative political weakness as compared with some of the KRI’s Sunni Kurdish residents"
  4. [27] states that " thousands of internally displaced people " are squatting in properties owned by Assyrians. Puts it in context: "Across all parts of [Syria], people face increasing difficulties protecting their property rights since the onset of the war. This is partly due to the legal chaos created by war and the collapse of institutions, but also because parties to the conflict have illegally seized homes, land and property left behind by displaced people and refugees." Few references to ethnicity of the squatters.
  5. opinion piece, not reliable
  6. As a bonus, I know that the next several sources don't support the existence of an "Assyrian–Kurdish conflict", as this part of the article was copied from text I wrote.
(t · c) buidhe 02:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: support per nom. R3YBOl (talk) 08:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: After observing the discussion (and specifically the examination of sources), I don't think the article can be salvaged from its WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK issues in its current state. If this is indeed a notable topic, then WP:TNT applies. Koopinator (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Modern influence of Ancient Greece

Modern influence of Ancient Greece (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)

Just a selective WP:CFORK assortment of other articles on Ancient Greece, doesn't actually contain any information on modern influence. Psychastes (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As noted by the nominator, there is nothing explicitly discussing the influence of Ancient Greece on modern society. It's a weird collection of famous Greek places/people/ideas that are already covered elsewhere. Doesn't feel like a content fork even --- more like a wholly unnecessary reverse fork. I could imagine an article with this title being appropriate for wikipedia, but if someone wants to tackle that we can start with WP:TNT. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per both above. This is simply a random selection of extracts from existing wikipedia articles about ancient Greece, which largely do not address the supposed topic of the article. I raised this a while back at Talk:Modern influence of Ancient Greece#Scope but did not get a satisfactory answer. There are several existing articles on the legacy/reception of ancient Greece (the broadest-scope ones being Transmission of the Greek Classics, Classical tradition, and Classics) which cover more of the things one would expect in this article than it actually does. An article on the legacy of ancient Greece to parallel Legacy of the Roman Empire could be written – but given this doesn't contain any material not already to be found elsewhere on Wikipedia, and barely discusses the supposed topic, there's no point starting from here. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. by definition, these iconic figures are central to Western Civilization. each section explains why. and compiling from various articles is one valid method for creating an article. --Sm8900 (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Henry O'Hagan

Henry O'Hagan (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)

Being one of the secretaries of Hugh O'Neill, Earl of Tyrone, doesn't confer notability on its own per WP:NOTINHERITED, and his actions listed in his article appear to be fairly minor. He is mentioned just once in O'Neill's Dictionary of National Biography entry. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree of the Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek kings

Family tree of the Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek kings (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)

Opening introduction explicitly admits to "This family tree (and the trees below it) is based on a combination of Tarn's and Narain's genealogies of the Greco-Bactrian kings, which are not necessarily fully correct, as with all ancient family trees." The combination of these two trees is the entire basis of the article, which seems like not good enough for an article. It is highly speculative and not verifiable and the original authors (Tarn and Narain) have been criticised in more recent scholarship for speculative inventions. ForWhomTheSunShines (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ForWhomTheSunShines, I understand the concerns and understand that Tarn and Narain may be inaccurate, but these are the texts that I have. I know that other authors say something different, so when I get those texts, I (or someone else) will revise the trees. Additionally, I give the kings several different fathers (for example, see Apollodotus I in the tree, who has 5 different possible fathers, so I am taking all possible considerations into account here). I also put dotted lines for some kings when the relationship is very unclear, making it being speculation clear. So I am making it clear these Greco-Bactrian trees, just like an Egyptian one (like the 1st Dynasty), will not necessarily be fully accurate. As for the speculation and unverifiable of the tree, well, we do have Greco-Bactrian coinage. The reason I said "This family tree (and the trees below it) is based on a combination of Tarn's and Narain's genealogies of the Greco-Bactrian kings, which are not necessarily fully correct, as with all ancient family trees." is because I want to make it very clear that is a probable layout for how the various kings are related to each other and is not supposed to be taken as dogma, just like many ancient family trees. If you want me to find different authors and replace Tarn and Narain, I will. I just wanted to use two of the most important Greco-Bactrian historians who helped establish the discipline.
OrthodoxByzantineRoman (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: couldn't this be saved simply by identifying the differences between the two authors' reconstructions, either by presenting different versions of the trees, or by showing the different positions taken by each author using the varying line and border options? If other scholars disagree with their opinions, that can also be noted on or adjacent to the trees. I will suggest that the trees might need to be less horizontal and more vertical. I never stretch my browser window to the whole width of the screen, and without that the trees exceed the width of the page. But this, like noting disagreements between the authors named and other scholarship, can be achieved through ordinary editing; the page does not have to be deleted in order to improve it to Wikipedia standards. P Aculeius (talk) 13:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for this comment. I agree that it could be saved this way, and I will add the position of the various authors too. OrthodoxByzantineRoman (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The authors' proposals themselves are questionable and unreliable. The first citation for the first tree is clear that it is “pedigree of the Euthydemids and Eucratides to show the fictitious descent from Alexander." (emphasis added). Tarn, William Woodthorpe (1966). The Greeks in Bactria and India (2 ed.). New York, U.S.: Cambridge University Press. p. 568. ISBN 9781108009416. Retrieved 30 December 2024. The placement of a daughter of Euthydemus I marrying a Chinese emperor and bearing is son is based on speculation from an uncited paragraph. There's mashing together of speculative theory throughout the page.
    This seems to be a violation of reason for deleting #6, "[a]rticles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes." The combination of multiple speculative, unreliable articles into one family tree is effectively the construction of an original theory or conclusion. It also violates ForWhomTheSunShines (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but if we ignore the descent from Alexander, doesn't Tarn still state everything else, according to The Greeks in Bactria and India pgs 71ff? And I agree that the connection to Qin Shi Huangdi is spurious, I just added it on the off chance it could be correct. It was taken from Christopoulos, Lucas (September 2022). "SINO-PLATONIC PAPERS: Dionysian Rituals and the Golden Zeus of China" (PDF). Sino-Platonic Papers. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.: University of Pennsylvania. pp. 84–86. Retrieved 4 January 2025. Also, if we clean up and or/delete this article (hopefully not because I did work hard on it), we must clean up the individual articles on the Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek kings too, as sources need to be cited for each king's article and other changes need to be made. However, we don't have to delete this article, as it can be cleaned up to remove it of any "speculative theory." OrthodoxByzantineRoman (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "the off chance" is not a reason to add something to an article. And you are correct, many of the Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek king articles should also be cleaned up. ForWhomTheSunShines (talk) 04:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I mean, it is my first article that I made. I did not know those rules. But tomorrow, I will delete Qin Shi Huangdi, as I see now that the Lucas reference in the Xiutu article was removed. OrthodoxByzantineRoman (talk) 04:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft. Not ready for main space. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm....other editors allowed my article to be published back in December. Why would we put it back into draft? OrthodoxByzantineRoman (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it's "Not ready for main space". If it's not moved, it should be deleted as a badly-formatted and ill-cited mess of original research and speculative fiction. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Maqsoud Liberation Forces

Sheikh Maqsoud Liberation Forces (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)

article rely on speculative and unverifiable claims about the group activities, structure & history, which violates WP:NOR. Chronos.Zx (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stay the history of the group must be understood, that is why there are sources and they are not speculative, they are real, Sources are taken from Battle of Aleppo (2024) and Operation Dawn of FreedomFarcazo (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I responded to the WP:GOCE copy edit request without realising it was up for deletion; I have assessed it as Stub, added a category and some minor fixes to the prose. I don't see any good reason to delete it, and I would tend to agree with Farcazo's point that the article for the Sheikh Maqsood locality should be separate from one about its armed militia. This is exacerbated by the fact that the locality article is almost entirely about the civil war, and barely mentions anything about its population, geography, amenities, landmarks, etc. that one would expect of a locality article. Perhaps instead of deleting this article, it could absorb more material from the locality article. — Jon (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, he should stay because Sheikh Maqsoud is not the same as the militias that are there (that was what I tried to explain to Azuredivay but The Bushranger accused me of supposedly insulting him) and change the city's page, as you say, it has nothing to do with the city (neither its tourist sites nor its climate) and only with the Syrian civil war, I plan to merge the page with Ashrafieh Liberation Forces. Farcazo (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sheikh Maqsoud -- in my opinion the militia is better discussed in the context of the history of the neighborhood with respect to the civil war in general, which is well discussed in the Sheikh Maqsoud article. It places it in context. Plus, Sheikh Maqsoud probably won't have too much trouble fitting the militia stuff and additional stuff about the locality itself -- it's not as of yet that long. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bruneian–Igan War

Bruneian–Igan War (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)

Contested Prod without improvement. Other than the single reference listed, searches turned up zero in-depth coverage of this event. Searches in A History of Brunei by Graham Saunders did not even see a mention of it. Similarly, nothing was mentioned in Brunei - History, Islam, Society and Contemporary Issues. Onel5969 TT me 09:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Thurii

Battle of Thurii (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)

Found while browsing Wikipedia:Database reports/Forgotten articles. Cannot find any books or sources that mention this supposed battle that predate the creation of this article in 2007. The only "citations" this article has are incomplete citations which just say a book title and nothing else. No authors, no year of publishing, no ISBN, nothing. And the "source" titles are extremely vague, like "History of Rome" or "Antiquity".

(Note: I know there were actual battles between Tarantos and ancient Rome for control of the area, but I cannot find evidence that "Battle of Thurii" was one of those battles, or that there was any "naval battle" for the region.) ApexParagon (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The editor who created this stub seems to have been inactive on Wikipedia since 2013, but nothing on his/her talk page suggests that it was created as a hoax (I was looking for warnings of various sorts). Given that the part about Thurii is only a single sentence, while the rest concerns Rome's conflict with Tarentum, I wonder if perhaps the editor was confused about the sequence of events—perhaps including the dates. My first thought was to check the history of the cities in the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, and see if it mentioned something similar to a battle at this time. Under "Tarentum", at p. 1097, if you scroll down the first column there's a description of Rome and Tarentum coming into conflict over Thurii, though this is supposed to have occurred in 302 BC, while the Tarentines didn't call in Pyrrhus until 281, when the Romans declared war on Tarentum.
This sounds like what the article creator had in mind, but unless the description is in error—which is possible, though it's hard to see "302" as a typo for "282" under "Tarentum"—the editor might have been confused by a less precise description such as the corresponding passage under "Thurii", top of the first column on p. 1193. I believe both are citing Appian's Samnite Wars, though additional sources are cited in "Tarentum" that might also shed light on this. I agree that the existing citations for this article are not very helpful, but thankfully knowing what sources describe the conflicts may help sort out whether there's enough here to salvage (at the very least, it can probably be merged under Thurii, Tarentum, and Pyrrhus, which would technically not be a deletion).
I expect Broughton can also be cited. I did not resort to PW, because wading through pages of densely-annotated German that I have to translate by retyping passages that I think are relevant on Google can be quite time-consuming! Not sure where else I would look besides the Greek and Roman authors cited in the DGRG, but perhaps someone else has some ideas on that. In any case, I think we can conclude that the article is not a hoax, but it might not be focused on its purported subject—Thurii—and might be better off mentioned in other articles than as a stand-alone one. P Aculeius (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have an analysis of above additions?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fourteen Days' War

Fourteen Days' War (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)

Note tag. Supposed to be historical fact but can't verify it as no page numbers. No indication of significance. Unable to verify it in gbooks, refseek, internet archive. Fails WP:GNG. scope_creepTalk 08:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat agree with the deletion. The event however do exist but the source for it is very lacking and the original article mostly just anti communist fantasy. I've edited it to make it more neutral but still, proper academic source such as university research is hard to find. Dauzlee (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dauzlee: That is the core of it. Normally I wouldnt' sent such an article to Afd. In fact I don't think I've done that before and probably wont do it again. I spent close 4 hours back and forward while I was working in the garden on Sunday and couldn't find a thing on it of worth. I must have looked at it about 8 times and couldnt determine if it was valid or not. I don't think it was a war, more like a massacre or an action but either way I could verify it. I searched for an alternate name perhaps from the opposing side and couldn't find anything there either. scope_creepTalk 04:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, no arguments and both a Merge and Redirect were suggested but without target article suggestions. I'd like to ask User:Wcquidditch if they could deletion sort this AFD for Military History, too. One skill I have yet to master here. Thanks in advance.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tercio of Idiáquez

AfDs for this article:
Tercio of Idiáquez (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)

Practically everything that has been written to expand the article in order to prevent it from being deleted is false (other than the Thirty Years' War section). The previous user who withdrew their AfD nomination did not fact check any of the sources or information added. The article has been expanded incorrectly and mostly falsified (though it's likely, or at least I'd like to think, that it wasn't done on purpose and the editor who expanded the article just wanted to help improve it). If you wish to help improve the article, please use proper sources which correlate with the information written. Bubba6t3411 (talk) 05:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy-based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History Proposed deletions

History categories

for occasional archiving

Proposals

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Social_science&oldid=1291544775"