Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Social science|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science/archive

Purge page cache

watch

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

Social science

David Fasenfest

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

Not noteworthy enough to be in an encyclopedia Historyexpert2 (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:PROF 1c as the honoree of a festschrift, Interrogating the Future: Essays in Honour of David Fasenfest (Studies in Critical Social Sciences) ISBN 978-9004541788. Jahaza (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to 1c again it is a very low-impact journal (in Q4) so one can argue it would not count. Historyexpert2 (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The festschrift is a book and not a journal (published in hardcover and e-book by Brill and in paperback by Haymarket), so I don't understand what you mean by "it is a very low-impact journal". Jahaza (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also Fasenfest himself is the series editor Historyexpert2 (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't explained what you mean\ by calling it a journal. Doug Weller talk 07:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:PROF 1c. I also note the concern expressed by User:Liz on the nominat'rs talk page. They are still far too new at less than 100 edits to be creating AfDs. Doug Weller talk 08:04, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Social science and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Four reasons:

Looks like a low-citation area, so an h-factor of 20 is fair, #C1.
Editor of a decent journal, #C8
The festschrift, which should be added
Lack of experience and no strong reasoning by nominator.

Combined this lean me to keep; one or more alone would not be enough. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about the festschrift being a conflict of interest since he himself is the publisher Historyexpert2 (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He's not the publisher (which is Brill Publishers and Haymarket Books), he's the series editor. (He's also not the volume editor, which is two other folks.) I agree that this is something of a conflict, but a whole bunch of other folks thought that a festschrift was worthwhile as authors, editors, and publishers. Regardless, @Ldm1954 provides other good reasons to keep. Jahaza (talk) 23:58, 2 June 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 speedy keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina Gainza

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC: low h-index, few or no significant reviews of her work, and no major awards or recognitions. Also doesn't meet WP:NPOL as a ministerial undersecretary lacking significant independent coverage Mooonswimmer 13:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. NAUTHOR pass has been confirmed by LEvalyn, no need to drag this on. Mooonswimmer 14:32, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Chile. Shellwood (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While the h factor is low, she is an important scholar in the electronic literature field. Please retain for electronic literature LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that she is notable as a pioneering female figure in recent Chilean politics and has spearheaded movements for universities, as added in the political citations. LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 01:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Gainza is notable in the field of electronic literature, and as noted in WP:ACADEMIC h-indexes tend to be lower in the humanities than in experimental sciences. Gainza has been described as "one of the most important pioneers of Luso-Hispanic Digital Cultural Studies" in the book Language, Image and Power in Luso-Hispanic Cultural Studies. Lijil (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This woman is eminent in multiple fields. I completely concur with Liljil. Gainza's h-index is of little concern. I would delete half of Wikipedia before I would consider deleting this article. Sincerely, Buaidh talk e-mail 22:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ With so many books and other works published, I'd check for WP:NAUTHOR. If she has 2-3 books which each have 2 reviews (thus passing NBOOK), that's a pass of NAUTHOR. (It can function as a sort of counterbalance to the low h-index in the humanities, that almost any really established prof in a humanities field will pass NAUTHOR for their books.) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, now that I've taken a look, I found two books each with two reviews (added to the article). She has a third book too but I didn't look into it (almost certainly a third NBOOK pass). I don't see any slam-dunk NPROF evidence, but I'm satisfied that this is an NAUTHOR pass. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Carolina Gainza is an important figure in Latin American electronic literature and it is vital that the English Wikipedia showcase these international literary figures

Criterion C1 itself only asks for "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" and this should not be related solely to h-index counts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samya Brata Roy (talk • contribs) 23:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I did not see an immediate NACADEMIC or NPOL pass when I checked this page during New Page Review, but LEvalyn has confirmed an WP:NAUTHOR pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:NAUTHOR pass. For transparency: as "one of the most important pioneers of Luso-Hispanic Digital Cultural Studies", the subject is of interest to WP:WPWW. Sincerely, WPWW founder, --Rosiestep (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What is the procedure for removing the deletion tag from the article? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoveElectronicLiterature (talk • contribs) 10:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When an admin gets around to it, they will "close" this AfD like usual and the tag will be removed then. Since the nominator has withdrawn, it will likely be an easy "keep" close. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since there are no delete !votes, I believe this is eligible for a non-admin closure even from an "involved" participant. I will close it now. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:08, 3 June 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.

Trump Always Chickens Out

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

Meme that most people don't know about and will be forgotten in a month. Not relevant. Yilku1 (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Yilku1 (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Social science, and United States of America. – The Grid (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, easily passes WP:GNG with significant coverage that is independent of and primarily about the subject. It's too early to tell whether or not it'll still be relevant in a month, but notability is not temporary. It's funny that you mention the "meme" part of this, as that's another part of the article that needs to be expanded on... —Locke Cole • t • c 18:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it has the same notability as Let's Go Brandon. Radiohist (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
100% agree here. CNC33 (. . .talk) 20:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Thegoofhere (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let's Go Brandon was made a week after the coverage busted, featured charting songs, and did not see coverage slow down. Meanwhile this article was made within half-a-day (and interest's already slowing down, if the Google Trends compared to that of Let's Go Brandon is anything to go by). The sources provided below to establish Sustained are nowhere near that for Let's Go Brandon. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:56, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Tariffs in the second Trump administration CNC33 (. . .talk) 20:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Conman33: Above you 100% agree with a "Keep" !vote that stated it has the same notability as Let's Go Brandon, so... are you sure you meant to !vote "Merge"? —Locke Cole • t • c 21:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'll clarify and say "keep" the material but merge it into the Tariffs article. CNC33 (. . .talk) 23:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a by the book definition of WP:TRUMPCRUFT. Trump responds to a question in a crazy way and it goes viral. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article isn't about Trump's reaction to the phrase, it's about the phrase itself. This is a blatant misunderstanding of the article Thegoofhere (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let's Go Brandon argument feels strong, despite WP:OTHERSTUFF. I don't think it's WP:RECENTISM (/ WP:TRUMPCRUFT) either, there's something revelatory, that'll no doubt be merged later. Widefox; talk 21:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It does appear to have many similarities to Let's Go Brandon. And there is international coverage happening. If the term ends up not having any longevity or usage in say academic circles in the future, then it can just be merged later. It should also be noted that WP:TRUMPCRUFT is an essay and thus has zero weight as an argument in this discussion. So any editors above using it without any other argument being made above will likely (and absolutely should) be completely disregarded by the closer. Silver seren^C 21:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep:

"Meme that most people don't know about and will be forgotten in a month"

Please cite the policy that states most people should know about the subject in order for it to have an article. Notablity is determined by the reliable sources that cover the topic, not random people.

"Not relevant"

What. The article is about a phrase about something Trump is currently doing, how isn't this relevant? Thegoofhere (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you said TACO "won't be remembered in a month" despite the phrase coming from a news article from a month ago. Thegoofhere (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep wide spread usage in the media with Trump already referencing it --LukeTriton (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Already has significant coverage (including coverage of Trump's reaction). Merger into tariffs article would be, at best, premature; as Jonathan V. Last has pointed out:

It’s universal. You can apply it to any situation. Trump pulls back on tariffs? TACO. Trump gives in to Putin? TACO. Trump increases the national debt? TACO.

JamesMLane t c 23:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete: WP:TRUMPCRUFT, fails WP:SUSTAINED. (@Thegoofhere The nominator's point was that there was no significant/sustained/enduring coverage after the month was past.) I would've said draftify if all the coverage weren't localized within two months ago. A suitable merge target is Tariffs in the second Trump administration; I do not see why this content would not be better covered contextualized within the article about this series of events. Everything within Wikipedia:Merging#Reasons for merging except for #1—"Duplicate"—applies. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TRUMPCRUFT is an essay with no practical use as a WP:PAG to cite for deletion. WP:SUSTAINED is already addressed in the article (the term was first used just weeks ago, sources are still discussing the term to this day). Any other reading of WP:SUSTAINED is just WP:CRYSTALBALL in reverse... WP:MERGEREASON is an information page, not a policy or guideline. Certainly if there is a WP:PAG-based reason to merge or delete and the outcome is decided as such, those are good things to consider but they're not really relevant in a deletion discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The MergeReason information page is mostly a great and concise summary of the WP:NoPage guideline. (Other points addressed below under Parankanyaa.) Aaron Liu (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOPAGE is part of WP:N, of which WP:GNG is a part of, and if an article meets GNG, it is presumed to merit a standalone article. You appear to be hanging your hat on the context bullet at WP:NOPAGE, and I'll address your idea that it's just about tariffs below. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic. And not just context, all the other points apply as well. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify... you want them to apply, but they in fact, do not. I think I'm going to disengage from this discussion, as it's gotten very bad when I have to ask if you understand what a calendar is. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How does a calendar have to do with whether this topic would be much better served surrounded by its essential context? Aaron Liu (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized the references say May, not March (which I presumed it to say because I just had a "March vs. May" discussion irl...). What I said about Sustained and merging still applies though. I technically support a draftification but I think a merge is better than draftification. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete every single thing Trump has done or will do will get a week of attention in the news. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editors when it comes to reading the article they want to delete:

Seriously, what weed are you smoking? Trump's TACOS have literally worsened public views of the US, America's international relations, and the US stock market. And you are saying people only cared about it for a week. Are you European perhaps? Thegoofhere (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide reliable sources that show coverage sustaining. Inclusion of a standalone article on Wikipedia, besides the merge criteria and "encyclopedic" criteria the latter of which this no-doubt satisfies, requires good coverage in reliable sources so that we may have a neutral contextualization (among other things). See the misleadingly-titled Wikipedia:Notability guideline page. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Liu Please provide reliable sources that show coverage sustaining. The term was first used by the media at the beginning of the month. The most recent sources are from today. Why do you need to be told this when it's in the article currently under discussion? —Locke Cole • t • c 01:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article that created the acronym was from the Financial Times in May 2, 2025. Link to the article in question, paywalled though. Financial Times is reliable, as shown in these reviews I found: [1][2][3] The article from FT is from May 2th, which was 28 days ago, not at all a "short" time. Thegoofhere (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not sustained coverage. Even if you presume one month counts as sustained coverage (which contradicts my experience in software discussions), everything in this article save one sentence is sourced to a single burst from Trump's reaction.

And to Thegod's claimed lasting effect above: The article is about the term TACO, not the article on Trump's tariffs, whose effects you appear to be correctly identifying. I won't believe that Trump's reaction to or the existence of the term "TACO" will worsen international relations and image and stock markets until a reliable source says that. That's, as Locke said, CrystalBall.

As WP:NRV mentions, the onus to demonstrate notability is on those who want to keep. When speculating in both directions are equally CrystalBall, that doesn't mean we should keep the article. It is not unheard of for an article to be created WP:TOOSOON. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article not about exclusively about Trump's reaction, so I'd assume PARAKANYAA was talking about the tariffs Trump has imposed. Thegoofhere (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, that's about the tariffs and maybe the theory that substantially overlaps with the topic of tariffs, not the term this article currently wants to focus on. I think Parakanyaa didn't mean to say there's nothing Trump does that could be considered notable, a statement that's obviously false. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regular readers will not be surprised by Unhedged’s view that the recent rally has a lot to do with markets realising that the US administration does not have a very high tolerance for market and economic pressure, and will be quick to back off when tariffs cause pain. This is the Taco theory: Trump Always Chickens Out. But why doesn’t that translate to resurgent growth hopes, higher yields and more expensive oil?

Financial Times: The US market’s surprise comeback

PARAKANYAA, this reference is from May 2. How does that fit into your "week of attention" claim? Silver seren^C 01:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A whole of one sentence. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Always nice to see that moving the goalposts is something people still shamelessly engage in. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Parakanyaa ever set the goalposts there. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

every single thing Trump has done or will do will get a week of attention in the news. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So an opinion article that attempts to coin and promote this term is attention? If I make the word "sworgaso" to describe this is that attention from myself? Not to mention the opinion is directly addressing the deal with tariffs, not "TACO". The only articles that directly address "TACO" are the ones within the Trump's reaction burst. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily passes the GNG. Trump himself has been quoted in reliable secondary sources as using the term. The article contains encyclopedic information beyond being a DICDEF. Nom and others above give no valid reason for deletion. Andrewa (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it may not be relevant in a month, but this follows the same track record of Donald Trump and Fox News since 2007. More of his garbage, yes, but people are still saying "MAGA" and "Trump is the best president ever", both of which are opinion, not fact, so these terms are still relevant because Trump is still in the news. 2601:203:481:ED20:417C:D538:8F9F:8441 (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per others. Daniel Case (talk) 01:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrewa and others. Meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Radiohist Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 03:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At least as relevant as "Let's Go Brandon", passes the GNG. 2001:569:FB72:7700:E10F:F798:4137:3586 (talk) 07:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrewa and many others ALoopingIcon (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG easily, worn out "neologism" type nonsense arguments are beaten by what should be the Covfefe standard. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – While GNG may technically be met, the coverage of the phrase as a subject (to be distinguished from merely using the phrase) is limited – mostly just its origin, a negative response from Trump, and a positive response from some opponents. Because of its brevity, it can be covered in another article, such as Tariffs in the second Trump administration (perhaps under "Political and legal challenges", but open to suggestions). Consider also that use of the term is almost always a passing mention within discussion of Trump's broader tariff policies (most of the links from Silver seren follow this pattern). See WP:MERGEREASON, particularly #3 (short text) and #5 (context). RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because of its brevity, it can be covered in another article If you looked at all the other sources on this topic, you'd realize it cannot. Nobody is stopping you from adding to the article using these other sources. Consider also that use of the term is almost always a passing mention within discussion of Trump's broader tariff policies (most of the links from Silver seren follow this pattern) As mentioned elsewhere already, this is because those sources are before it took off. Prior to May 28, all use of the term was in relation to the stock market or the tariffs. After that, we are seeing much wider uses of the phrase and the acronym. WP:MERGEREASON is not a WP:PAG, it is purely informational and has no weight in this discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing that there should be some coverage of the topic; I'm just saying that the coverage is better incorporated elsewhere. If you want a PAG link, see WP:PAGEDECIDE to rehash the same idea (but also note that the WP:ATTSIT guideline points to Wikipedia:Merging, where MERGEDECIDE is located, so it does bear weight). And sure, I could add the sources above to the article... but the fact that nobody has is a decent indication that those sources don't really add anything; they simply happen to use the phrase which is the subject of the article. (An analogy: Is every article that mentions the Apollo 11 moon landing suitable as a reference there? No. Similarly, is every article that mentions "TACO" suitable as a reference here? Also no.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 06:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've pointed out WP:NoPage (the same section as WP:PageDecide) to you above already. You can treat mentions of WP:MergeReason as if editors are copy-pasting the entire-section as their own voice if you want.
Last's lone voice in an opinion editorial, albeit representing a newspaper, cannot be treated as a significant view without more coverage in factual articles, not to mention it's still been just. What's the other GNG-qualifying pieces that apply TACO beyond tariff policy? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that you don't or can't read Financial Times doesn't mean it's the same case for others. 2607:FA49:8744:6400:7438:1875:5970:2311 (talk) 04:07, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Let'srun (talk) 12:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There has been tons of media coverage, and the nickname has already permeated meme culture. If Hawk Tuah can have an article, than surely TACO can. OWA187 (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There has not been significant coverage of the topic and GNG is not met. This belongs on Know Your Meme, not Wikipedia. Merging with Tariffs in the second Trump administration and trimming to a paragraph would also be acceptable, but still iffy given how trivial this is. MrTaxes (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MrTaxes, have you actually reviewed the sources and article yourself? Significant coverage means the sources are in depth, and don't require OR to extract the subject. Most of the reliable sources cited explain TACO directly and in detail. Please read the article you want to delete first Thegoofhere (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, after reviewing the article and sources I don't believe it meets the necessary notability criteria, and is a clear example of WP:NOTNEWS. Consider WP:10YT, for example.

You are completely entitled to have a different opinion. That is just the conclusion I have come to after reading the article. MrTaxes (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI that's separate from GNG, though what you mention is one of the reasons GNG only "presume"s a topic's notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources prior to May 28th

Since there seems to be a repeated claim in the discussion above that the term is a recentism that has only existed since Trump's discussion of it on Wednesday, May 28th, despite there being a source clearly in the article already discussing how it was first used on May 2nd, I thought I'd compile some additional sources discussing or using the term from prior to the 28th.

Taco Monday: a big relief, but - Financial Times (May 12th)
The ‘Taco’ factor has spurred markets higher - Financial Times (May 17th)
The ‘Taco’ trade, and whether to take a bite or resist - Australian Financial Review (May 18th)
Tariffs round II: ‘Game theory’ or ‘TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) time’? - The Post (May 25th)
Is Trump about to slug our superannuation again? - Switzer Daily (May 26th)
At debt’s door: US superpower is waning and Trump’s part of the problem - Sydney Morning Herald (May 27th)
Will Trump's tariff game rock markets again? We might be okay - Switzer Daily (May 27th)

Here's just some examples of the usage of the term prior. There's more out there, I'm sure. Silver seren^C 01:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(stole those for the article talk page as I'm sure there's some of these we can use in the article itself) —Locke Cole • t • c 01:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this one is most interesting, because it claims that Anthony Scaramucci was actually the origination of the fully worded term, which the Financial Times writer then turned into the acronym. Silver seren^C 01:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC) [reply]

I wish the source said that, or there was a source that credited Scaramucci for the phrase and Armstrong for the acronym.. right now it'd be WP:SYNTH I think to take the various sources like that. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these just discuss the idea on Trump's tariff policy, some of which only use the term about twice without discussing it. I don't see why it's better to cover this on a contextless standalone page instead of a page that can describe the context much better as a main criticism of Trump's tariff policies that have significant impact. To truly cover TACO in depth, we must cover the tariff's impacts in depth as they are the basis for "TACO theory", and to do so in a standalone article would needlessly duplicate the work at the tariff article and lessen the quality of both articles. This shouldn't have a standalone article just as "anywhere but USA" shouldn't have a standalone article. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these just discuss the idea on Trump's tariff policy The section header should help explain this to you. Of course now that it's gone viral, you can look to sources such as the one provided by @JamesMLane above, which says It’s universal. You can apply it to any situation. Trump pulls back on tariffs? TACO. Trump gives in to Putin? TACO. Trump increases the national debt? TACO. As you can see, it's no longer just about the trade war/tariffs, and so the context argument is less compelling as Tariffs in the second Trump administration#Walk_back currently provides a mention of it, while the article proper goes deeper into further reactions, uses and can be expanded easily moving forward. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And all of these articles, even the burst that fails Sustained, are about tariff policy. None of these sources discuss TACO applied to anything beyond tariffs. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what a date is on a calendar? —Locke Cole • t • c 02:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I don't understand how that relates to what I said nor the fervor displayed here. You've also been mentioning this argument above so I'll elaborate there. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want an article discussing TACO beyond tariffs, there's "'TACO' Is the Secret to Trump’s Resilience". I subscribe to the Times but it might be paywalled, so I'll summarize. A conservative columnist, Ross Douthat, wrote:

Even if he dislikes the barnyard-fowl comparison, though, the acronym gets at something that’s crucial to Trump’s political resilience. The willingness to swerve and backpedal and contradict himself is a big part of what keeps the president viable, and the promise of chickening out is part of Trump’s implicit pitch to swing voters — reassuring them that anything extreme is also provisional, that he’s always testing limits (on policy, on power) but also generally willing to pull back.

. . . .

Trump has bobbed and wove away from his most extreme China tariffs, he has achieved some kind of separation from Elon Musk and he’s started complaining about the “crazy” Vladimir Putin while casting himself as the great would-be peacemaker of the Middle East. And lo and behold, his poll numbers have floated back up, not to genuine popularity but to a perfectly normal level for a president in a polarized country.

With a different president, you might say that this recovery happened in spite of the White House’s various backtracks and reversals (plus various rebukes from the judiciary). But with Trump it’s more apt to say that it’s happened because of these setbacks and recalibrations. Seeing Trump both check himself and be checked by others is what an important group of voters expect from his presidency. They like that Trump pressures institutions they distrust or dislike, from official Washington to elite universities, but their approval is contingent on a dynamic interaction, where he accepts counterpressure and retreats.

It's also relevant to notability to show that the meme is picked up and used in a way not entirely hostile to Trump. JamesMLane t c 17:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this continues into next week and starts getting covered in many non-commentary articles I'd certainly be willing to change my opinion. Aaron Liu (talk) 05:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But looking at a Google search among generally-reliable sources it's already slowing down quite badly. Yesterday there were two-and-a-half pages' worth of results after you filter out the results where Google picked up the sidebar of other headlines; today there's barely one page. Aaron Liu (talk) 05:05, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The term seems to be persisting - it's even being used by Le Figaro, a French conservative newspaper.--A bit iffy (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
’’’Keep’’’ in the same vain as the there is a sleepy joe page, the name is catching on, there for relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizcallers (talk • contribs) 17:45, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While people are comparing it to "Let's Go Brandon", that phrase has far more longstanding coverage in the media stretching over years of continuous use as a derogatory term, while this one fails WP:SUSTAINED and is WP:TOOSOON. It might become notable if people continue using it for a while, upon which time I'd have no qualms about it being an article, but, as of now, it may just be a flash-in-the-pan buzzword. Reminder that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid AfD argument. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:14, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wanted to note that there's a new article in the Financial Times today by Gideon Rachman titled Trump always chickens out on foreign policy too covering things from a non-tariff angle. Silver seren^C 20:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There was no strong argument to keep. I am much more convinced by the votes to delete, like the WP:TRUMPCRUFT guideline mentioned above. Historyexpert2 (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What guideline exactly, Historyexpert2? TRUMPCRUFT is an essay someone wrote. It is explicitly not a guideline. Silver seren^C 00:38, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean it's literally stated in the top of TRUMPCRUFT that it is not a guideline. I think some people aren't even reading the policies they cite. ~~ Thegoofhere (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sourcing is pretty broad. Two of the arguments brought forward by the nominator - this being a meme, and a lot of people not knowing about it - aren't relevant for notability, and the third one, this having been forgotten within the months, has already been shown to be untrue. Cortador (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He said it would be forgotten within a month, not within the month. That can only be definitely seen on June 26, one month after the burst, but the Google Trends is already flatlining, and despite the 5 articles on DNC's Taco Tuesday there's now only 9 articles from GRel sources published within the last 24 hours. 4 sources is only half a page compared to three days ago. This indeed seems on its track to be forgotten by next month. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you're claiming there's only 4 sources in the past 24 hours that aren't about the taco truck event? Huh...interesting. Let's count from a page or two of a Google search for today.

Fox News hilariously defends Trump over ‘TACO’ insult: ‘He’s the bravest man in the world!’ - The Independent (GREL)
The No. 1 Rule for Understanding Trump - The Atlantic (GREL)
This new trend is 'troubling' for Trump - and stats say he should be worried - Indy100 (The Independent subsidiary, so GREL)
Donald Trump's deleted SNL sketch has resurfaced amid TACO Trump meme - Indy100 (The Independent subsidiary, so GREL)
'TACO trade' is all over social media. What does it mean? - Journal & Courier (USA Today subsidiary, so GREL)
Why Trump’s ‘TACO’ Nickname Has Him So Upset - New York magazine (GREL)
Another major company sounds alarm over ‘TACO’ Trump tariffs - NJ.com (Unlisted)
What is 'TACO trade?' The Trump acronym about tariffs, explained - The Palm Beach Post (Unlisted)
How the TACO - Trump Always Chickens Out - trade played out on the JSE in May - News24 (Unlisted)
Sheinbaum Knows That Mexico Can’t Count on Trump ‘Chickening Out’ - World Politics Review (Unlisted)
Guillermo Fesser desvela el mote que han puesto a Trump tras sus vaivenes con los aranceles: "TACO, 'Trump Always Chickens Out'" (Translation: Guillermo Fesser reveals the nickname Trump has been given after his back-and-forth on tariffs: "TACO, 'Trump Always Chickens Out.'") - La Sexta (Unlisted)

I could probably keep going with a myriad of non-English sources. We don't really have many non-English news sources covered on the perennial list. A bit of a general oversight, I feel. Silver seren^C 02:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the full TACO term (Trump Always Chickens Out) has largely been superseded with abbreviating it as Taco Trump, as can be noticed from the sources I listed above. Yes, it's similar to saying ATM machine in its redundancy, don't get me started on American acronym usage. Anyways, if we make a comparative graph between the trend line you linked and Taco Trump, we see the latter term has far greater of a usage, several tens of times over the full term. And with it (currently at least) stabilizing at that high usage (27 to less than 1 as a comparative). Silver seren^C 02:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, that does bring up more results. Searching just GRel sources and without forcing exact matches I got 11, 4, 3, 13, 16, 26, and 14 articles for today, 1 day ago, ... 7 days ago (when Trump reacted) respectively. It does seem like Taco Tuesday is making a new burst, and it'd be interesting to see if that lasts. (Also, about the graph, I think we should ignore the June 4th datapoint for today since that's just an extrapolated estimation based on the last 3 hours of UTC time, and I personally uselessly-speculate that the Taco Tuesday spike still being reflected as a decrease points towards the graph decreasing much further without that. If there continues to be non-trivial bursts over the next month then I'd be willing to change my !vote.) Aaron Liu (talk) 02:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation

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

The information on this page is redundant to the Simon Guggenheim and Guggenheim Fellowships pages and serves no purpose on its own. A majority of recent press seems to be reporting on the Fellowships handed out by the foundation, which would be applicable to the page mentioning the Fellowships. As it stands, the information on this page could easily be held on either, if not both, related pages. 30Four (talk) 04:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Education. 30Four (talk) 04:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Science, Social science, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Guggenheim Fellowship, which is essentially their only function. Bearian (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:03, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crowds (adolescence)

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

While well-cited, this article appears to largely WP:CFORK related topics like Peer group, Clique, and Adolescent clique. Many of the reliable sources cited in the article refer to "peer groups" or "peer networks", not "crowds". Few incoming links, low pageviews. Merge relevant content to aforementioned articles. 162 etc. (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Psychology and Social science. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I've seen much worse. Bearian (talk) 01:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like Bearian I feel no real enthusiasm for this article, but it is sourced to academic works and there are no chunks of unsourced text. I don't know anything about this topic but I compared the cited works in this and Adolescent clique and there is some overlap of authors there is none of actual sources. Lamona (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Lamona. Bearian (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geocivilization

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

This is essentially WP:OR based on an obscure research article with lots of WP:COI added in. It is tied to the article Ahmed Sarirete that was created by the same user presumably as WP:PROMO and which is also currently under consideration for deletion. Essentially the concept seems to be introduced in this obscure academic article https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/ccr/vol66/iss66/9/ which has been cited a total of 7 times in the last 13 years and does not have seemed to have gained any traction. While not totally made up, most of it is WP:OR or WP:FRINGE with some references to existing topics but the term does not seem to be widely accepted in academia as a search in JSTOR and Google Scholar shows. --hroest 17:43, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. hroest 17:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In marking this article as patrolled, I left a talk page message noting that "geocivilization is frequently used in political science research to discuss how geography shapes politics and vice versa, satisfying WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV for retention." Here are some examples of its use:

Sebastian-Gabriel Popescu (2019-04-25). "And Yet the Black Sea Can Be an Essential Geostrategic Pivot in the Solution of Euro-Asiatic Endogenous Conflictuality". Research Association for Interdisciplinary Studies Conference Proceedings. doi:10.5281/ZENODO.2651185.
Ciderova, Denisa; Repasova, Vladimira (September 2019). "Geo-Heterogeneity in the Context of the EU". European Scientific Journal. 9.
Mohanty, Manoranjan (2018). "Sectional President's Address: Alternative Historiography: Tan Chung's Geo-Civilisational Paradigm". Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. 79: 644–653. ISSN 2249-1937.
"Zan Tao: Historical Evolution of Türkiye and Eurasian Geopolitics". Institute of International and Strategic Studies. Peking University. 19 October 2022. Retrieved 23 May 2025.
Shih, Chih-yu (2013). "Global Asian: China as Position between Host and Home". Sinicizing International Relations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. pp. 153–173. doi:10.1057/9781137289452_10. ISBN 978-1-349-45016-9.

While the term is definitely niche, I think it is sufficiently notable given its use across this many contexts and regions. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 03:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:38, 31 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 merge‎ to Kansai University. ✗plicit 11:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Cultural Interaction in East Asia

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Social science, and Asia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:18, 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]
Fine with a merge to Kansai University, although I'd suggest limiting it to a sentence or two, since any more seems like it would probably be excessive for an article about the university as a whole. MCE89 (talk) 07:25, 2 June 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

possible merge to Kansai University, where it seems to be based. I couldn't find sigcov, but it seems encyclopedically relevant, if only somewhat. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:02, 30 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.

Social science Proposed deletions

Language

Pahari (Poonchi)

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

Disputed drafification. WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies. Fails WP:GNG 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Pakistan, and Jammu and Kashmir. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't know if I'm seeing enough here for an article. ~~The lone external link, presumably added to be a citation, does not contain the word "Pahari" at all after a~~ Ctrl+F. Problems with my in-browser PDF reader, thanks to IP for making me re-check. Yes, there are two instances of the word in the document.^[1] I also doubt the reliability of the publication Journal of Language and Linguistics in Society itself. If there is a citation that could back up something said in the article, it could be merged to Pahari language or Poonch District, India (depending on what can be said and sourced) but I'm not sure I'm seeing that right now. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stricken in part and updated. Yes, it looks like the best merge/redirect target would be Pahari-Pothwari#Kashmir, Murree and the Galyat where it is already bolded. I'm not seeing much to merge that isn't already covered by the article. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Poonchi Pahari is a dialect of Pahari, falling under the Western Pahari group. It is closely related to other dialects such as Chibhali Pahari, Mirpuri Pahari, and Kotli Pahari. It is only a dialect and does not require a separate article or classification as a distinct language. Only a few words are pronounced differently, but they are easily understood by speakers of Chibhali or Mirpuri Pahari or any Pahari. Mutual intelligibility is high across these dialects. HistoryofKashmir (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The entirety of what the link says is:
In the southern areas of Poonch and Rajouri, the primary language is Poonchi, also known as Pahari or Potohari. This language is part of the Lahnda/Punjabi family within the broader Indo-Aryan languages
I'm no expert with this stuff (and can't judge the reliability of the source either), but is this just the same thing as Pahari-Pothwari? There's certainly nothing in the source to justify a separate article at the very least. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Nazki, Sameeul Haq (17 September 2024). "The Difficulties of English Language Acquisition in the State of Jammu and Kashmir: A Critical Survey". Journal of Language and Linguistics in Society (45): 33–44. doi:10.55529/jlls.45.33.44.

WordMasters

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

PROD'd by Moritoriko as "Unsourced for 14 years, all news articles that mention it have canned promotional text". De-PROD'd by PawPatroler because "There are citations... just not that much". This is blatantly untrue - there's an external link to the official website, but it's not used as a citation and doesn't verify some of the facts (such as the details of the challenge). This was part of a 10-minute spree of 5 de-PRODs, which while not "illegal" per se does give you an indication of how much time was spent actually checking for sources before de-PRODing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Events. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per my PROD comments Moritoriko (talk) 06:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Not enough sources online to indicate notability. – numbermaniac 08:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, Sources do exist; however, I am uncertain if they would contribute to GNG as they are mostly local newspapers bragging about their kids. Each of the following articles at least contain information that might be usable in our article: [4][5][6] ✶Qux yz ✶ 19:03, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, that kind of routine local news doesn't contribute much to notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I am relatively tentative. Some of my students have appeared in my local news, and while I don't want to degrade them too much, they're achievements really weren't that notable and I would not be writing an article on them. ✶Qux yz ✶ 01:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bolanle Arokoyo

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

Non-notable Nigerian academic. Page seems very likely created by paid account (note image of subject is claimed to be "own work" of author, so at minimum there is an undeclared WP:COI. No evidence that subject meets WP:NPROF or WP:AUTHOR. At best subject is WP:ROTM lecturer. Cabrils (talk) 01:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable scholar, non notable professor, fails WP:PROF, fails WP:ANYBIO, fails WP:SIGCOV, no valid independent secondary source, majority are source from the education institution that only verifies she’s a staff/professor. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 02:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She was promoted to full professor in 2023, though I note that detail was not listed in the article as it existed when nominated. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @DaffodilOcean, I still stand my ground on my delete vote, she might be a professor but she isn’t notable enough to be included on Wikipedia, still

fails WP:ANYBIO, she doesn’t have independent reliable secondary sources, it’s not just passing mentions, most coverage here aren’t independent of the subject, secondly I support the reason why the nominator nominated this article, maybe in few years she would be qualified. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 17:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Language, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass WP:NACADEMIC. Academic citations and H-index level are too low.Goodboyjj (talk) 05:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep She is a full professor at the University of Ilorin, the first female to attain the position of professor of linguistics. I have added coverage of her work in English-language sources (Discover Magazine, ref 7 is the best source; Radio Nigeria is another). Given our ability to search out sources in Nigeria, and what has been found, I am inclined to keep this. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of humorous names in mathematics

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Mathematics, and Lists. Fram (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of unusual names in mathematics or Draftify as a new Category:Unusual names in mathematics. Describing the terms as humorous is subjective, but there is agreement among WP:RS that these terms are unusual. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 15:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to do that WikiNukalito (talk) 19:38, 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]

Delete pure WP:OR. Azuredivay (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would you also delete this article? Obviously more developed than this one but basically the same idea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_humorous_units_of_measurement WikiNukalito (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not really similar to this article. Azuredivay (talk)

Delete as trivial, subjective, and potentially endless. —Tamfang (talk) 20:10, 24 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!} 22:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing quite as fun as explaining jokes on Wikipedia... Taste is subjective but to re-iterate, these are intentional jokes, with well documented and well known stories (The 'Ten Martini Problem', Cox–Zucker machine etc etc.) or if not intentional, then referenced in articles ^[1] about such things.

This kind of list is not unusual on here either Wikipedia:Unusual_place_names, Wikipedia:Unusual articles, List of humorous units of measurement... and the criteria for inclusion is not particularly subjective either - intended to be funny or well accepted to be. If you think some entries on the list don't meet those criteria, delete them. I would have perhaps improved the list if it hadn't been flagged for deletion 10 seconds after I created it. The people applying subjective criteria are the ones calling it tasteless.

Move it to 'List of mathematics considered humorous', if that helps to preserve the sanctity of the encyclopedia which hosts articles like Breast-shaped hill and -ussy WikiNukalito (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://chalkdustmagazine.com/features/things-with-silly-names/

Any more subjective than List of films considered the worst? Just rename along that vein and demand the sources. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That list of films specifies who did the considering. —Tamfang (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This might be considered humorous by a ten-year old boy, but it's basically childish. Athel cb (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "unusual names" and rework the paragraph. Tepkunset (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Mathematical joke. WP:LISTCRITERIA states Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. The current version of the article cites reliable primary sources for considering some individual terms humorous (e.g. Cox–Zucker machine), but only cites one reliable source covering the topic itself (the article in Chalkdust Magazine; e.g. the citations 1,3,4 mentioned above are unacceptable WP:USERGENERATED sources). Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chemical compounds with unusual names (7th nomination), which reached consensus to keep based on two reliable secondary book sources. I was not able to uncover analogous sources covering this topic in Google Books and Scholar. Unless other editors are able to improve the sourcing situation, I recommend either deleting or merging with Mathematical joke (the main article associated with Category:Mathematical humor). Preimage (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want another 'reliable' source, try ^[1]. I did not have to try too hard to find this. As you say, the individual terms often have explanations of their names on their own pages. I would be happy to improve this article, but not if it's going to be deleted soon.

The inclusion criteria is no more vague that any of the many lists of 'unusual' items e.g. Place names considered unusual. As suggested by many, changing 'humorous' to 'unusual' is fine with me, though it seems like a minor difference. WikiNukalito (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely WP:OR. My cursory examination of the sources (a sample of four) doesn't establish that RS believe the names are humorous, rather (it appears) the editor(s) find them humorous. Chetsford (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded articles

History

Tirgar

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

There is no identification of the notability of this article that was created by WALTHAM2 who created many Hoax articles using unreliable RAJ sources, unsourced, fails GNG and not enough coverage. 🦅Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, History, Asia, India, Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan. Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entire article is unsourced. Doesn't appears to be notable as per GNG and SIGCOV. Fade258 (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator has been blocked as a sock. (As another editor has provided a delete opinion, this may not necessarily derail the nomination.) No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of references in books, e.g. five pages in People of India: Gujarat (copyrighted by the Anthropological Survey of India), looks like four pages in People of India: Rajasthan (also Anthropological Survey of India), three pages in India's Communities (also Anthropological Survey of India), a bit in An ethnographical handbook for the N.-W. provinces and Oudh (North-Western Provinces and Oudh Government Press, Allahabad, 1890). Clarityfiend (talk) 06:49, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dodiya

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

Unsourced, not enough coverage, hoax article, There is no identification of the notability of this article that was created by WALTHAM2 who created many Hoax articles using unreliable RAJ sources. 🦅Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, History, Asia, India, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan. Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Totally unsourced. A simple BEFORE yields plenty of people with either name, and also a genus of moth, nothing for a clan per se. UtherSRG (talk) 11:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator has been blocked as a sock; as another editor has already expressed a "delete" opinion, that won't be enough to end this nomination. No opinion on the article or whether its contents are factual. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rao Sonag

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

Fails GNG, totally unsourced, hoax article, not enough coverage. 🦅Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 05:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, History, Asia, India, Gujarat, and Rajasthan. Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 05:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator has been blocked as a sock. No opinion on the article or whether or not its contents are truthful. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:38, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Madan Singh (ruler)

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

Unsourced, not enough coverage, fails GNG. 🦅Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Royalty and nobility, Asia, India, and Rajasthan. Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently expanding the article in question using multiple reliable sources to address concerns regarding notability. Please refrain from deleting it until these improvements are complete. Furthermore, the references I am adding are from reliable sources. Kindly do not remove them while I continue to improve the article. WikiWhizKid1999 (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the subject meets the notability criteria for biographies under WP:NBASIC. The sources provided satisfy the requirements of WP:SIGCOV, and the article is well-supported by WP:RS throughout. WikiWhizKid1999 (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator has been blocked as a sock. No opinion on the article or its sources. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Historical figure, covered in several books.Darkm777 (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See, the nominator is blocked. Let's come to the article discussion, this topic is historically rich having significant coverage on reliable sources. CresiaBilli (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kumaoni Rajput

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

Not enough coverage, contains original research, can be describe in one line. 🦅Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, History, Law, Asia, Nepal, India, and Uttarakhand. Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noted Hindu caste a source of the book has been added to the articleCollegeboy12 (talk) 08:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sub-clan of Kumaoni people, looks like WP:NEXIST in several books. Although, I am on the fence about merge/ with Kumaoni people. WeWake (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator has been blocked as a sock. No opinion on the article. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial order of chivalry

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

I couldn't find sources discussing colonial orders of chivalry as a group like this article aims to do, seems to fail GNG/NLIST. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Africa, Asia, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1985 Malaysian military operation in the Southern Philippines

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

The sources do not verify any of this. Of the four sources cited, one is some unsubstantiated rumors [7], another briefly mentions a response ("a raid on an island") but does not say where, let alone specify "the Philippines" or "Zamboanga island" [8], the third is an opinion column that makes no mention of this purported operation [9], and the fourth, "Moslem community attacked in raid?" from the Spokane Chronicle on Sep 30, 1985, does not appear to exist (I couldn't find it via a Newspapers.com search). I suspect this might be an AI-generated hoax, but even if it isn't, this purported event is not notable. Toadspike [Talk] 12:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Malaysia and Philippines. Toadspike [Talk] 12:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the 1985 Lahad Datu ambush was real, but the military response (if the Marine Police can even be called "military") seems to have been limited, not significant enough for a standalone article. Toadspike [Talk] 12:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Shellwood (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of military attachés and war correspondents in World War I

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

What possible reason is there to join two distinct groups in a "list" that is not a list, when the two groups have their own separate lists? Clarityfiend (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzling: I see now in the talk page that the decision was made in 2022 to split the list in two. However, is still retaining an article (of sorts) the only way to keep the edit history? Clarityfiend (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The attribution history must be preserved, one way or another. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian–Kurdish clashes (1895–1900)

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

Article about of a clash that lasted five years after the onset of the Hamidian massacres. I doubt that there is some original research (especially in the years as described in the title and in the lead) ij the article. The sources are offline, so I could not identify whether they contributw to notability or not, but there is one online source, which is unreliable. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 14:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ToadetteEdit, your nomination appears to have multiple typos in it. Can you please adjust it so that it says what you actually mean? – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nom statement adjusted. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 16:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, my sources are Turkish, or rather Ottoman in origin, because I took them from a Turkish website, and its sources were Ottoman, from Ottoman Archives, If you want, I can send the Website and The Sources in Turkish (I translated the sources to English) Suraya222 (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"'Keep"' – I don't Really see the Reason of Deletion, If there's anything Wrong with the Page, I could fix it, but I don't Really see what is it, Sources are enough and Reliable, And Page doesn't Really Need Anything Tbh Suraya222 (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

offline sources are valid Vofa (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Nominator's rationale is contradictory ("I doubt there is some original research" - well, I'd certainly hope so) and appears to boil down to "the sources are offline". Offline sources are entirely valid; difficulty in accessing them does not make them invalid. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the website, You can check it (page 76 slideshow number 12) I translated the sources and the sources were from the Archives of the ottoman Empire, You can check it out https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/180141 Suraya222 (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of World War II war correspondents (1942–43)

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

Arbitrary criterion (" war correspondents who reported from North Africa or Italy in 1942-43") fails WP:NLIST. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oppose deletion, does not fail WP:NLIST because of established notability Vofa (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Journalism, History, and Military. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of war correspondents#21st century. It's rather weird for this to apparently be limited to those in North Africa or Italy since the title does not reflect that. Anyway, I see no reason to have a list that only has thoses place or these two years, but if there are any blue links not already in the main list, they may be added there. It's broadly a good list topic but needs some organization. Reywas92^Talk 23:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to merger, but 21st century? Clarityfiend (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, 20th century obviously! Reywas92^Talk 23:47, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Zakho (1961)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. It's filled with puffery, and the only mention of the battle is "Zakho,[1] a key border town near the Turkish frontier, was among the most important early victories for the Kurds." Skitash (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Iraq. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first 2 sources that are cited here has not got anything to do with the battle, They talked about an internal rivalry in Zakho between the kurdish tribes fighting each other. on the other hand I checked the third source that was cited here as a "peshmaega (Kurdish) victory" but the source didn't support this claim at all, it has said the opposite, So there is a high POV pushing in this article, I support the Delete of this article for now, I will try my best to expand the article. R3YBOl (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: After checking all the sources, as I said previously I was thinking of expanding the article but it lacks of information, 6 sources were cited as the capture of a city. only one source has talked about the battle in detail which ended as a suppression of the rebels. I totally support the Deletion of this article per nom. R3YBOl (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first 3 sources do talk about it, and are related to it, i advise you to closely look at them again and you will see that it's useless for the page being deleted 185.244.153.200 (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the first 2 sources talk about a kurdish tribes conflict Mustafa barzani, zebari, and harki tribes. The third source claims Iraqi victory R3YBOl (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : This article has sources but they have no page numbers or quotes. Better to keep, reword and clean up the cites.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chuknagar massacre

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

Has very few sources, most of the sources are Bengali sources which are not neutral. Fails WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lt.gen.zephyr (talk • contribs) 06:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. We can find enough reliable sources about the subject online. There might be some POV issues but the article doesn't fail WP:NOPV completely. Any POV related issues can be fixed by editing the article. Mehedi Abedin 07:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of the international media covered this news. The sources are highly controversial, as most of them are Bangladeshi sources which states pro-bengali narrative over a disputed event. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 08:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, there is one BBC source which itself states "controversial" 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 08:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and also a primary source contradicts the subject itself, such as Academic Sarmila Bose, in her controversial book.[4] dismisses claims that 10,000 were killed as "unhelpful", and argues that the reported number of attackers could have shot no more than several hundred people before running out of ammunition.. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 08:54, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These arguments are not policy based. Controversial topic doesn't always mean non-notable. As the topic of the article is not originated from the controversy itself, the topic meets notability. Also, not covered by international news doesn't always mean that has to be deleted. Mehedi Abedin 16:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not covered by international news refers to thing which has no credibility. If WW2 massacres were reported, I wonder why this wasn't reported by any international media. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 13:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it essential to have an international media presence? Can you show this from Wikipedia's policies? Its no need to passes GNG by international coverage, it only need some depth coverage from reliable source. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 17:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lt.gen.zephyr, Undoubtedly Its contain some depth coverage. So What is the abstraction to be natable this article. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 17:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See my statement above and below. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 17:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. Fails WP:NPOV is not a rational for deletion.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 09:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A massacre must be covered by both national and international media. In this case only a few pro bengali sources claim this, and even the sources contradict the article. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 10:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- The updated version has a few more sources, among them most of them are Indian sources applying Pro-Bangladeshi narrative as the alleged massacre was allegedly done by Pakistani forces. However, some facts about this sources —

1) [10] this source about the massacre states A few days after the massacre, on 26 March 1971, Bangladesh declared its independence from Pakistan...
Whereas the infobox states the massacre took place on 20th may. Hence this source contradicts the event.
2) [11] - This source states 30 soldiers couldnt do such a big massacre within a short span of time with the amount of bullets they had. So this source also partially contradicts the article.
3) [12] This source states These figures have been challenged by a critic, given that most witnesses agreed that the number of perpetrators was only between 20 and 40, who had arrived on only up to four vehicles. This would mean, as she objected, that each soldier and officer would have killed 150 to 500 people within about five hours. 65 Was this possible, and could they have even carried so much ammunition
This source also states that this was partially impossible. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 10:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly not neutral and have created this AFD with a battlefield mentality."A massacre must be covered by both national and international media." But why? Is this a content dispute or are you saying the article is not notable? These are two different things. Does the size the massacre change it from being a massacre? Does the nom believe there was no massacre or Bangladesh Genocide? Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of the notable international media covered this, only a few national media did. The sources are faulty enough, they contradict themselves. Other massacres, such as Katyn massacre, Srebrenica massacre, Nanjing Massacre are well documented by neutral sources. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 19:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, History, Military, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. Worldbruce (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly notable massacre. Also disagree with the nom over Bengali sources. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Highly notable with disputed sources which contradicts the massacre itself? 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 17:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dispute over the total number of deaths, however the topic is notable. I would suggest you to remove figures and "motive" from the infobox. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Md Mobashir Hossain (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kanoda State

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

A non-notable princely state. All of the cited sources don't meet WP:HISTRS. Wareon (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable article with WP:RAJ era sources. 🦅Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: An article using Raj era sourcing needs improvement, but not necessarily deletion. These princely states were legally recognized entities, and as such pass WP:GEOLAND#1, which states Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. If this is deleted, a redirect to Rewa Kantha Agency should be considered as an WP:ATD. Curbon7 (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amrapur State (Rewa Kantha)

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

Depends upon raj era sources WP:RAJ, creation of blocked user. 🦅Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Asia, India, and Gujarat. Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Minor princely state. >>> Extorc.talk 09:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: An article using Raj era sourcing needs improvement, but not necessarily deletion. These princely states were legally recognized entities, and as such pass WP:GEOLAND#1, which states Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. If this is deleted, a redirect to Rewa Kantha Agency should be considered as an WP:ATD. Curbon7 (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator has themselves been blocked, as a sock. (As another editor provided a "delete" opinion in the interim, the nomination is likely to continue.) No opinion on the article. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summer 2011 Jabal al-Zawiya operation

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

14 years later, dearth of secondary coverage. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. News coverage of the event is WP:PRIMARY and there is no WP:LASTING or WP:SUSTAINED coverage beyond the initial burst of news. Not every one of the thousands of events during the 14-year civil war is independently notable per WP:GNG. Already covered in its entirety in Early insurgency phase of the Syrian civil war. Longhornsg (talk) 01:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Terrorism, and Syria. Longhornsg (talk) 01:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No obvious claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Backyard History

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

Fails WP:ORG. Insignificant coverage in reliable sources; mostly self-sourced sources or trivial coverage. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Companies. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, none of the media references are "trivial", they are all stories ABOUT Backyard History - which is itself published in 12-20 papers across Atlantic Canada (and has spawned 3 books, a television show, podcast, etc) - and functionally none of the sources are "self-references', they are the NB Authors government site, the province's largest media Telegraph-Journal, CTV, Yahoo News and CBC - those would be among the largest regional news outlets that exist nationwide - in addition to being referenced on the SJ tourism site, his alumni newspaper and other small outlets. (I'm not him, I've never met him, I noticed they are also used as a source on 9 different Wikipedia articles about Atlantic Canadian history). Fundy Isles Historian - J (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did an analysis of the sources originally present on this article, after it was tagged for notability and that tag was subsequently removed. My analysis is available on the talk page for the article, and determined that significant coverage specifically about Backyard History is lacking. I did some major Googling, and turned up some additional sources which were then added, but the bar for web content is decidedly higher and I'm unsure if this has met it. I do however believe that with the references on this article, along with others that discuss Andrew MacLean, an article about him could be created which this could then be redirected to. I would prefer to abstain from voting on this one, and this comment should not be interpreted as support for keeping or deleting this... Just wanted to provide some context. MediaKyle (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Cormier, Kristina (2024-01-03). "Un balado sur les histoires méconnues du Canada atlantique se transforme en livre" [A Podcast About Little-Known Stories From Atlantic Canada Is Being Turned Into a Book] (in French). Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Archived from the original on 2025-05-31. Retrieved 2025-05-31.
  The article notes: "Backyard History est un balado qui explore les histoires méconnues du Nouveau-Brunswick et de l'Atlantique. Ces histoires sont désormais offertes dans un livre. Le livre, disponible uniquement en anglais pour le moment, a vite trouvé preneurs. Ce succès a surpris l'auteur, l’historien Andrew MacLean de Fredericton. La première impression s’est rapidement écoulée et il attend une réimpression au cours des prochains jours. Le balado anglophone Backyard History est né lors de la pandémie. Il transporte ses auditeurs dans le temps afin de découvrir des légendes, des histoires connues ou méconnues du Canada atlantique qui datent de nombreuses années et même de siècles."
  From Google Translate: "Backyard History is a podcast that explores the little-known stories of New Brunswick and the Atlantic region. These stories are now available in a book. The book, currently available only in English, quickly found buyers. This success surprised the author, Fredericton historian Andrew MacLean. The first printing sold out quickly, and he expects a reprint in the coming days. The English-language podcast Backyard History was born during the pandemic. It transports its listeners back in time to discover legends, well-known and little-known stories of Atlantic Canada that date back many years, even centuries."
2. Cochrane, Alan (2025-04-03). "Backyard History author carries on tradition of storytelling: Andrew MacLean has compiled three books, weekly newspaper columns, website and podcasts with actors who bring old stories to life". Telegraph-Journal. p. A10. ProQuest 3186672039. Archived from the original on 2025-05-31. Retrieved 2025-05-31.
  The article notes: "Andrew MacLean has turned his passion for historical research into a brand called Backyard History, with weekly newspaper columns, three books, a website and podcasts telling unusual stories from Atlantic Canada. From the tale of the Dungarvon Whooper in the Miramichi to rum-runners shooting it out with police in Bouctouche, and a Russian bomber landing in Miscou Island, MacLean says he's carrying on the Maritime tradition of storytelling, while researching the facts behind them. ... His three books include "Backyard History: Forgotten Stories From Atlantic Canada's Past," volumes one and two; and "Rebellious Women in the Maritimes," which includes stories about women who have done extraordinary things, told through various letters, diaries and historic documents."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Backyard History to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first source--six sentences long--could be described as "trivial mention". The second source is a bio for Andrew MacLean. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An article about the subject, with the subject referenced in the headline, exclusively about the subject and its creator, is not a "trivial mention". "Trivial mention" is when there's an article about a car accident and it says "a nearby bystander, author Andrew Maclean, whose program hits Bell TV this summer, says the green pick-up truck swerved just before the incident". Fundy Isles Historian - J (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a couple important things to note here. First of all, Backyard History is described in the article as a "history project" - it is a newspaper column, podcast, and 5-episode docuseries at this time. The Telegraph-Journal is not an independent source, as they are one of the main publishers of the Backyard History column, it's still a good source but may not contribute to GNG for this reason. The CBC Radio-Canada article I think would contribute to GNG, but that's really about it - there's much more coverage about Andrew MacLean than there is about Backyard History specifically. MediaKyle (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chattha Dynasty

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

Most of the sources give information about a clan by the name of the Chatthas but nothing about any sort of dynasty. There's already a separate article for the clan any under Chattha (clan) anyway.

Given that it is hard to find any substantive information from a reliable source about a "Chattha dynasty", I feel the article should be deleted and any relevant sources or info can be moved to the article relating to the clan. Ixudi (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Pakistan, and India. Ixudi (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are Multiple sources of a Chattha principality/state.

E.g 1. http://archive.org/details/TheEncyclopediaOfSikhism-VolumeIA-d

2.

https://books.google.com/books?id=rKkPEAAAQBAJ&dq=Chattha+rule&pg=PA83

3.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?redir_esc=y&id=lD9uAAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Pir

As I explained while removing the deletion template. The name of this page is chosen as "Chattha Dynasty" because all of the ruling chieftains were from the same family.

The order being Nur Muhammad and his son Pir and Ahmad Chathha then Pir's son Ghualm Chattha and then Ghulams son Jan Chattha. So that is why "Dynasty" is an appropriate term.

If the name is the issue that can be discussed separately.

The article should stay on wikipedia space because it highlights a significant regional power in 18th-century Punjab and a less known prospect of punjabi history. Jatwadia (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These sources all refer to a Chhatha clan. Not a dynasty. Ixudi (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1 clearly mentions a Chattha state on page 449 if you read carefully.

Source 2 "Occupants of areas such as Rasulnagar on the border between the Punjab and afghan lands" this source proves they were independent rulers and not tributary to Afghans and had thier own teritories such as Rasulnagar.

Source 3 clearly mentions Pir Muhammad Chattha succeding a "principality" from his father.

Again the "dynasty" bit is not the issue the point being is that an independant Chattha state/principality existed which was ruled over by the same family that is why it is called a dynasty. Jatwadia (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Niko de Weymann

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

Non-notable supposed polymath. Claimed notability in numerous fields but fails to meet relevant guidelines an any: fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:NSPORTSPERSON, WP:NCREATIVE, WP:MUSICBIO. Cabrils (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Businesspeople, Sportspeople, Music, History, Engineering, Martial arts, Sport of athletics, Delaware, and West Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The subject does not have any news coverage.Mysecretgarden (talk) 04:52, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I came here because this AfD was in the Artist category, but can't find anything about his work as an artist; no notable shows, collections, reviews, etc. It's unclear exactly what they are notable for. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:CREATIVE, WP:NMUSICIAN. - Netherzone (talk) 02:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to meet any WP notability criteria. There's also no significant independent coverage. In fact, some of the links are dead and his name doesn't even appear in several of the other references. Papaursa (talk) 04:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emirate of Shabiya

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

A search for "Emirate of Shabiya" (including alternate spellings) yields almost no results. The article appears to be a synthesis of scattered historical claims, creatively assembled to portray a continuous political entity under that name. It includes a few citations, but the sources I checked do not verify the claims or support the existence of a sovereign emirate. Some don’t even mention the word "emirate." Mercier refers to the Chabbiïn/Chabbîa as religious leaders of a tribal faction who established a "veritable kingdom" near Kairouan, but this seems to be a figurative description of regional dominance rather than evidence of a recognized political state. Mooonswimmer 01:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Islam, Geography, and Tunisia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Association for the Study of Silk Road Textiles

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:NORG due to a lack of in-depth, secondary coverage about the organization. Let'srun (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, and Archaeology. Let'srun (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the references all seem to be press releases/announcements put out by the organization, often being passed along by partner organizations. Or they don't mention this organization at all. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV. --Here2rewrite (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, this article has already been at AFD so Soft deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1948 Palestinian Declaration of Independence

(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 poorly 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]

~~::Keep. Hannis Biotechnology Inc (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)~~ _{Strike non-ECR user, per WP:ARBPIA}[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Palestine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the nominating statement. Are you saying it's a hoax? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it doesn’t meet GNG. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If an article is poorly written, then we improve it instead of deleting it. What other languages do and what other articles exist is not relevant to whether this one should exist. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien, do you think this subject’s notability is shown? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Palestinian law. This was not notable at the time, and would be better suited in context. Bearian (talk) 23:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability often builds up over time, there's no such thing for the purpose of our notability criteria as being not notable at a past point in time. Notability is based on all sources a available now. MarioGom (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any written document of the declaration? _Dgw|Talk 21:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Keep Obviously passes GNG. I Love the Earth Now 2 (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2025 (UTC)~~ _{Strike non-ECR user, per WP:ARBPIA}[reply]

Delete or redirect to All-Palestine Government. Fails WP:GNG as an independent document due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Longhornsg (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pasht Ashan massacre

(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]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, History, Politics, and Iraq. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Iraqi Communist Party#The party under Ba'athist rule. Yue🌙 03:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - major event, with major political impact. The legacy of the massacre remains controversial, with demands raised from families of victims. In-depth coverage available, [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. Here debated in interview ([18]) on Al Iraqiya. Here debated on TV [19]. See also [20], etc. --Soman (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Book on the subject [21]. --Soman (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's notable enough to have its own article DataNomad (talk) 07:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep its a major event, there is no reason to delete.Ilamxan (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aulikara−Hunnic War

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Hinduism, India, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh. The Red Archive (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 26 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!} 23:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bletchley Park Museum

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and History. 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: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Delete. I was among those who was strongly opposed but, as the debate developed at talk:Bletchley Park, I have come round to the view that a broad concept article is the best compromise solution. So, with regret, I now support deletion of the new article. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Bletchley Park#Bletchley Park Museum: The Museum is not notable by itself, only in the context of the historical site. A fork is not necessary. While there is coverage in RS about the museum, I believe it's inherited from the historical site. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Albania's role in the Kosovo War

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Albania, and Kosovo. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of mass escapes from German POW camps

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing different from what we already have. Koshuri ^(グ) 10:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of prisoner-of-war escapes any entries that can be sourced and don't already exist there or in the linked sublist List of attempts to escape Oflag IV-C. The criterion of 5+ prisoners is arbitrary anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this seems to be a better method of organisation than putting them all in the main article, as the list is rather long. Sources can be added. Element10101 T ~ C 02:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Query: What about the arbitrary cutoff of five POWs? Clarityfiend (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ashitha Revolt 1843

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bro what? The sources are cited, read them, you have no valid reason to issue a speedy deletion. There are multiple sources on this, reported by even contemporary missionaries. Stop excluding the cited sources; which are enough to make the page stay. 2A02:AA1:115D:84B3:ACB2:8E83:1328:5261 (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – how are all the sources fake? DataNomad (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: some specific discussion of what the sourcing looks like would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Dragonfly

(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: [22] [23] [24].

I could find more sources without using the "Operation Dragonfly" name. [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]. 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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Super Ψ Dro 20:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that this was a significant event. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:04, 21 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 ⟨ta co⟩ 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't appear to have had any lasting effect, almost two years later. I don't see sources discussing this, only news coverage4 from the time of the event. I suppose the use of the ATACMS would be notable, but it could be a one liner inserted into an article about the war. Oaktree b (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Khankala (1735)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Battle of Khankala (1735) (2nd 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don’t see anything reliable that tells us this alleged battle ever took place. Mccapra (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Tashkent (1603)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Uzbekistan. Mccapra (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Kazakhstan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this one has an English language source in the article, although the battle, an attempt to conquer Tashkent, reportedly occurred in Ikriyar. But this leaves me a little puzzled about the wording of the nomination. Jahaza (talk) 20:50, 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[30], 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to summarise: of the three sources cited in the article, 1 (Alexeyev) is not accessible: 2 (Burton) is inaccessible and 3 (Atgaev) simply says of this battle “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 all it says. My search found nothing else, so while I suppose there was in fact some combat in or near Tashkent in 1607, this clearly isn’t a notable battle and fails WP:EVENT. Mccapra (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian–Kurdish conflict

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:26, 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:

opinion article, not a reliable source
[31] 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.
[32] 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"
[33] 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.
opinion piece, not reliable
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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: support per reasoning of nom. WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK issues, as stated above. Kierzek (talk) 15:00, 3 June 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 delete‎. asilvering (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Modern influence of Ancient Greece

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 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]

Keep "Article is bad" is not a reason for deletion. The influence of ancient Greece on the modern period is certainly something that's been discussed in academia.★Trekker (talk) 09:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

StarTrekker Actually, that's not quite true. If an article has such irreparable content issues that it would be more effective to simply delete and remake the article rather than keep it, that is a valid rationale for deletion (albeit one which should not be used lightly). See WP:TNT. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 16:38, 28 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]

Delete The article subject is theoretically notable, but the many paragraphs of random content within this article simply does not correspond to the subject which the article title purports to cover. The article is a poster child for the blow it up and start it over principle. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 16:38, 28 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 Thurii

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Greece, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 00:40, 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]

Comment - probably not a hoax. The Catalan article, ca:Batalla de Turis, and the Italian article, it:Battaglia di Thurii, were edited by two different editors who have not edited this article. Both have offline references.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:06, 15 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, the Catalan and Italian articles also have vague sourcing, only listing a page or a book, with no isbn or any sort of online listing. I wouldn't count them as either RS or non-RS... They just look like the "good enough" sourcing that was used back in the early days of Wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just not enough sourcing to keep this... The vague sources used don't really give any indication of how you'd even locate them, if they're in a book, a magazine, or anything else. One of those old Wiki articles that was "good enough" 20 yrs ago and just looks sad these days. I don't even think sending this to draft would help. I can't find sources that talk about this event... We just don't have enough fo show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe not a hoax, but nothing has emerged to suggest that this battle is notable. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History Proposed deletions

Hume Peabody (via WP:PROD on 12 May 2025)

History categories

for occasional archiving

Proposals

^ https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/x-rated-math-words-dirty_n_5547923

[1] Nazki, Sameeul Haq (17 September 2024). "The Difficulties of English Language Acquisition in the State of Jammu and Kashmir: A Critical Survey". Journal of Language and Linguistics in Society (45): 33–44. doi:10.55529/jlls.45.33.44.

[2] ttps://chalkdustmagazine.com/features/things-with-silly-names/

[3] ttps://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/x-rated-math-words-dirty_n_5547923

[1]

[1]

[1]