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

Is women empowerment still relevant

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

This is an essay that expresses the author's viewpoint, not an encyclopaedic article. As such, it violates WP:NOTESSAY, and WP:DELREASON#14 (Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia) applies. TompaDompa (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Social science. TompaDompa (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an essay is not an encyclopedic article. --cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 18:55, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (WP:NOTESSAY) – Ike Lek (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just not something that can become a good article. I think the creator could maybe use some more...idk, direct guidance? CarringtonMist (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The title is not appropriate for an encyclopedia and this reads like a person essay. I'm sure there's an idea behind the essay worth discussing, but presenting it in this manner does not help. Entirely biased and non-neutral. Oaktree b (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree that an essay of this sort can have a place, just not on Wikipedia. Ike Lek (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOTESSAY SDGB1217 (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To whomever made this: The better question is why would you make this Article?

also, when this article eventually gets deleted, make the “if a page you have created has been deleted and you wish to know why” notification just say “why” 2600:8802:1810:A200:44F9:80B1:E4C4:5CCB (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as others have said, WP:NOTESSAY. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:26, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTESSAY. jolielover♥talk 10:37, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clear WP:NOTESSAY failure. MidnightMayhem 06:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should be Speedy delete, this is an essay, really.Aeon Sentinel (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alok Dixit

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

Promotional article about a journalist and activist, who received some passing mentions or trivial coverage in the news articles associated with his ex-wife Laxmi Agarwal and his associate Aseem Trivedi. He also received some mentions in the news articles related to " 'Anonymous' hackers to protest Indian Internet laws", but the subject fails WP:SIGCOV & WP:GNG.

The article was created in 2012 by a Wp:SPA. Zuck28 (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Social science, Internet, India, Karnataka, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh. Zuck28 (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Cities

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

I can find very little to show this project meets GNG at all. The article is very outdated and largely sourced to primary sources. CoconutOctopus talk 16:57, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Social science and United Kingdom. CoconutOctopus talk 16:57, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Role of social media in the modern reparations movement

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

Another article created by a faulty editathon. This article is inevitably full of WP:SYNTH and is likely written using an AI tool, added line by line to inflate their edit counts (if you have the greatest number of edits, you stand to win a cash prize.) Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 06:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Social science, Technology, and Africa. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 06:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TNT, WP:SYNTH, WP:LLM. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:57, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does anyone know how I can communicate with the organizers of this editathon? Basically every single article created because of this has been nominated for deletion or draftified, and many of the participants have been blocked for meatpuppetry and disruptive editing ([1], [2], etc.) Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the page for the event. Event:Africa Wiki Challenge 2025/Home - Meta Oaktree b (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely seems like editors having good intentions, but not being very aware of Wikipedia's NPOV policy and notability guidelines. Most of the topics in their "focus topics" list and the latter half of their article list don't seem notable enough for their own articles, and the wording "advocating for reparations for Africa and its Diaspora" makes it sound like they're trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. ApexParagon (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific person I can contact? The person who created the editathon pages haven't been active in months (and has been blocked in Commons.) I'm willing to take this to ANI or some other venue since this has only led to disruption. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:50, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd open a ticket at the Village Pump [3] and ask... This might have been at attempt to create an Editathon, to sneak in low-quality articles. I have no idea of course. The person being blocked leaves me thinking this isn't on the up and up. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or if an Admin here has a better idea where to ask, feel free to suggest otherwise. I'm a somewhat seasoned Wiki veteran, but not as smart as some of the real gurus here. Oaktree b (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent an email to one of the organizers asking them to communicate in the Village Pump. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 20:05, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. LLM-generated and not notable, lots of SYNTH. At least one cited source is hallucinated. TurboSuperA+_(talk) 08:05, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article page is now blank, I suspect it's being speedied. Oaktree b (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some random account that didn't create the article blanked it for some reason 🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (Edit: Turns out the blanker is a sock of the article creator) (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried to add more links to the article, but around halfway through I noticed that:

- the article was repeating itself over-and-over again

- the article read much more like an essay than a Wikipedia article

- multiple sources were fictitious/non-existent

- it was chock-full of original research and WP:SYNTH

- and it was most likely partially or fully-AI generated.

The topic itself doesn't seem very notable either, since reparations for slavery already has an article. I don't think this is salvageable. ApexParagon (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Really, anything that creates incentives for editing other than for knowledge is going to cause this sort of nonsense. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:37, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the above. Surayeproject3 (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 19:41, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just all kinds of wrongs here, the LLM use, the synth, largely repeating other articles... This badly needs reworking, but I don't see anything useful to be saved. Oaktree b (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SYNTH and LLM use, any such content in future would be better suited to a section on an existing page first before being grown to potentially an entirely separate page. lizthegrey (talk) 10:14, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as LLM generated in a long list of LLM generated articles that are being created in ever greater numbers. Especially for material with bad sourcing. The LLM method does not generally find great sources for these random article creations. Iljhgtn (talk) 11:21, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reduction of working hours in France

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

There is no indication the reduction of working hours in France specifically is notable per GNG. The current article amalgamates various historical information in WP:OR/WP:SYNTH fashion. The only topical source cited explains that the reduction of working hours is a global phenomenon. This is further corroborated by the highly cited paper Huberman, Michael; Minns, Chris (2007). "The times they are not changin': Days and hours of work in Old and New Worlds, 1870–2000" (PDF). Explorations in Economic History. 44 (4): 538–567. doi:10.1016/j.eeh.2007.03.002. which supports the same conclusion. JBchrch talk 12:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@closer: a merge to French labour law is fine by me. JBchrch talk 18:00, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and France. JBchrch talk 12:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:41, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a summary into Working time to the extent these (mostly primary) sources would be useful there. No indication of independent notability. —Rutebega (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, this appears to be an unattributed translation of two of the four sections (lead and timeline) of the frwiki article on the same subject, fr:Réduction du temps de travail en France. That said, that part at least would be fairly easily corrected.
I think there is a reasonable amount of source material that addresses the case of France specifically, such as
- Dufour, Christian (2006). "Reduction of working time in France: a lone knight". In Keune, Maarten; Galgoczi, Bela (eds.). Collective bargaining on working time: recent European experiences (PDF). Brussels: European Trade Union Institute. ISBN 978-2-87452-014-3. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2025-01-10.
- Lallement, Michel (16 July 2009). "Les régulations du temps de travail en France". Informations sociales. 153 (3): 56–64. doi:10.3917/inso.153.0056.
- Michon, François (25 March 2009). From "Working Less for More Jobs" to "Working more for More Money": Recent Development and Issues on Working Time in France. JILPT Workshop on Working Time. Business Labor Trends. JILPT. pp. 12–14.
- Pinaud, Henri (12 January 2018) [Print version first published 2003]. "Worker Participation in the Reduction of Working Hours in France". In Gold, Michael (ed.). New Frontiers of Democratic Participation at Work (1 ed.). Routledge. pp. 224–248. ISBN 978-1-315-19819-4.
There also being sources that address working hours in general would not contradict that. Indeed, while not all sources covering working hours see fit to break it up into region specific reports, there are plenty that do, and those reports address this specific subtopic directly and in-detail as we require. While the main article (at slightly over 6000 readable prose words) is not quite at the point of a SIZESPLIT, I'm reasonably confident that there is sufficient source material available now to expand the article to an appropriate level that a standalone article is appropriate under WP:PAGEDECIDE. However I believe this is more appropriately covered at Working hours in France, for consistency and concision, with the correspondingly broader scope. Another thing to note is that RTT also refers to a statutory 35 hour work week in the early 2000s (see, for example, the JILPT). While it may form a significant part of this subtopic, I think it would be better to have the broader scope, and it is not quite at the point where I would think spinning out an article on that specific policy appropriate. Keep and move. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:44, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a couple of other interesting ones IMO:
Fagnani, Jeanne; Letablier, Marie-Thérèse (1 January 2007). "The French 35-Hour Working Law and the Work–Life Balance of Parents: Friend or Foe?". In Perrons, Diane (ed.). Gender Divisions and Working Time in the New Economy: Changing Patterns of Work, Care and Public Policy in Europe and North America. Edward Elgar. doi:10.4337/9781845428976.00013. ISBN 978-1-84542-897-6. (mostly about the specific 35 hour law, as you can imagine given the chapter title)

Askenazy, Philippe (1 March 2013). "Working time regulation in France from 1996 to 2012". Cambridge Journal of Economics. 37 (2): 323–347. doi:10.1093/cje/bes084.

Thoemmes, Jens (26 August 2024). Time autonomy and work in France, Germany, and China: historical insights and emerging trends. Lanham: Lexington Books. ISBN 9781666969092. (this one has a different focus for once, comparing Germany and France)
Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:10, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alpha, altho the article could use some work. This has been an issue in French elections and France is notable for its labor regulations, which would be a good article if it isnt already. ... Ha, it is: French labour law Metallurgist (talk) 03:37, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Metallurgist: Would you support a merge with French labour law? JBchrch talk 19:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, or Reduction of hours of work, or both. Metallurgist (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:GNG. This article contains information associated with the subject. It is translated from French. It has pages in French, Spanish and three other languages. Taraa Scott (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting here that the other pages are not focused on France aside the French one. JBchrch talk 19:46, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is also Reduction of hours of work, which is a disamb. Metallurgist (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to French labour law. I have no doubt that the subject is notable, per Alpha3031's sources. But I will also note that French labour law, of which this is certainly a subtopic, is woefully sparse. If we were hypothetically discussing a split of this topic from French labour law, the discussion would be strongly trending in the other direction – against a split. The relevant guideline, WP:SIZERULE, is not at all an issue, and covering these topics together is what's best for our readers. So I don't see why, despite AfD being hyper-focused on notability, we shouldn't do the same here. Toadspike [Talk] 18:15, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus, we have arguments to Delete, Keep and Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Rozanna

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

COI/UPE editing was moved to mainspace after being draftified and then declined at AfC. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:55, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Economics, Social science, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:29, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I would also accept drafify. Nothing persuades me that Rozanna passes WP:BIO, but some more time in draft might find some sources that have not show n up my my BEFORE 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:15, 21 July 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Technological theory of social production

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

This article just promotes the work of one scholar. The work does not appear to be highly cited or have sustained academic coverage. The article exclusively cites one scholar, with exception of WP:SYNTH citations to works that do not specifically talk about this theory. Thenightaway (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is just a description of one scholar's niche theory with a bit of added SYNTH. The primary source for this theory has a mid-double digit citation count and does not appear to have been discussed or evaluated in depth by other scholars. The creator also created Vladimir Pokrovskii and Econodynamics, so it seems pretty clear that they have an interest in promoting this individual's work. I can't find any sources that would indicate that this is a notable theory. MCE89 (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics, Mathematics, and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:53, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Editor,

Thank you for your reading and analyzing my contribution ‘Econodynamics’ and ‘Technological theory of social production’.

I agree with comments of the Reviewers.

I think the article ‘Technological theory of social production’ should be deleted, because it is too technical and could not be improved, without removing the technical details. The better exposition of the essentially same topic gives the article ‘Econodynamics’ . Nevertheless, I think the article could be given more concise and suitable for Encyclopedia form to explain to the readers what can be the use of application of thermodynamics to the economy problems. I shall try to do this, if the editors keep the article ‘Econodynamics’ at Wikipedia.

Sincere, The creator of the articles, Madliner 46.39.57.196 (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons articulated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Econodynamics. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:38, 20 July 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Consensus is that this has received the required amount of coverage in reliable sources (which need not be peer-reviewed academic papers) in order to be notable. Sandstein 21:16, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gen Z stare

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

Extremely new social phenomena that has no peer reviewed studies (social sciences) Zedd1997 (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Zedd1997 (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:24, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's new and perhaps there isn't much formal scholarship, but that's not how we determine notability. There's abundant notice in reliable sources, and it passes WP:GNG. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Continuing from what I said above, I hope that whoever closes this will weigh policy-based arguments over arguments that simply disagree with what the sources say. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles on social phenomenons aren't deleted on the basis that there's no peer reviewed studies on the topics. See Millennial pause and articles listed in Category:TikTok trends for example. Some1 (talk) 12:00, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This topic has been significantly covered in multiple independent and reliable sources and therefore passes WP:GNG. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are just columns and columnists love jumping on a trend. It's not like they're peer reviewed or even journalistic reports. Xennial ambassador (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I echo your sentiments. I think it’s risky to give validity to a subject based on throwaway popcorn online articles. I have yet to read any article that features an opinion from an authoritative source. Most articles available on this subject are just quoting anecdotes from users on TikTok. Wikipedia is being bloated by stuff like this. A so called ‘reliable’ source can write anything, if The Times wrote a column tomorrow stating the sky is green without any corroboration from experts is it still really a reliable source? Zedd1997 (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It will very likely be kept. Wikipedia source guidelines have not adapted well to the social media age. There are a large amount of low quality articles that exist because a reputable source has regurgitated tweets on some internet fad no one remembers a few weeks later. 195.99.42.18 (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. It's distasteful to leave this article up. If this stays up I'm going to make the 'Gen Z eating pickles' page because of all the reputable sources on it. Also not sure how this doesn't fit the definition of churnalism. Let's eat grandma (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:POINT. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were joking, but then I looked it up and it is actually a thing, probable notable for a mention on the pickles article or Gen Z article at least. Metallurgist (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove This article has much to say about what the so-called "Gen z stare" indicates about the generation, but has very little evidence it exists in the first place. It would be better placed within the mass psychogenic illness article. Xennial ambassador (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2025 (UTC) — Xennial ambassador (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

(EC) On the contrary. All the sources are news reports from news organizations with a reputation for fact checking and journalistic integrity. Each of these sources, of which there are ten in the Wikipedia article, fit the description for an independent and reliable source on Wikipedia. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding "an authoritative source" - experts are noted to have commented on this phenomenon in this Wikipedia article. And reliable sources in the Wikipedia world are authoritative on the subject each of them covers. Furthermore, saying that these sources are just quoting Tik Tok users is a mischaracterization of the sources, as well as quite the exaggeration. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a certain irony in complaining about too little evidence, then opining that the concept should be covered in mass psychogenic illness without providing evidence for it. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 07:09, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there any serious coverage of this that predates the July 14 NY Times article? Thriley (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Media coverage shows it to be a topic. Later on, if media coverage dries up, it can be merged into staring. You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows, and you don't need peer-reviewed scholarship to know that a topic is part of the zeitgeist. By analogy, Wikipedia had an article on Joe the Plumber long before any peer-reviewed scholarship on the topic (if there ever was any). —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I want to link to this comment on a user talk page, because it indicates that multiple new sources have very recently been published: [4]. I think that further strengthens the case that GNG has been met. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I agree with Xennial ambassador, there seems to be lots of overanalyzing the meaning behind the “Gen Z stare,” perpetuating yet another unnecessarily negative generational divide. There are people from ALL generations that can both give and disapprove of such a stare. Do we really need to add fuel to this buzzwordy trend by having a Wikipedia article about it already? Just let it take shape first. And again, it entirely fails to prove that this behavior actually exists in any meaningful or measurable way. This is speculative and relies on assumptions and stereotypes. Let's eat grandma (talk) 04:54, 21 July 2025 (UTC) — Let's eat grandma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Remove I’m not sure any of this page is factual information, “sources” cited are almost entirely fluff articles from news sources or someone quoting a TikTok user. On top of that, there are conclusions drawn multiple times that have no factual basis. I’m not sure that 80%+ of this article should remain published 2603:3024:2102:C500:7C49:2A3A:3F11:E03E (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2025 (UTC) — 2603:3024:2102:C500:7C49:2A3A:3F11:E03E (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Agree with above that the article passes GNG because of copious media coverage. Whether its a "real thing" or what the "implications" are, it's something that people have identified as existing and reported on in reputable sources. Additionally, the article is valuable to people googling the term this week (which is how I found it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Audiodude (talk • contribs) 21:09, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Soft news churning where newspapers react to social media comments. We shouldn't have an article on this the same reason we don't have an article on Gen Z eating pickles despite both having coverage in reputable sources. 195.99.42.18 (talk) 08:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. No secondary sources. Importance--lower than Low. The current interest in term "Gen Z stare" is temporary, and the whole term will likely be forgotten in a few weeks.

Ion Soggo (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It can be subjective, to distinguish primary from secondary sources, when the sources are in news media, as most of the sources here are. But I think it's fair to say that the sources are independent and multiple, and reflect notice of the page subject. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am sympathetic to many of the concerns expressed above about this topic and I think a major rewrite is needed to address them. However, let's look at the known facts: from 14-22 July we've had a steady drumbeat of international coverage, perhaps around 50 sources or so. This is a global, cultural phenomenon occurring from the Philippines (Manila Standard)[5] to Finland (Hufvudstadsbladet)[6]. Viriditas (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per a variety of WP:SIGCOV-granting sources and the spirit of WP:RAPID (spirit because it's typically applied to event articles). For example, this lengthy Vox piece published hours before this nomination should have been an clear WP:BEFORE catch. Moreover, not one delete !voter (including the nominator!) has supplied an argument that is either factual and/or based in our policies and guidelines. I'd echo Tryptofish's note for the closer about weighting the !votes here. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 07:09, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV easily from a wide array of RSes. If there are encyclopedic problems with how the article is phrased, those can be remedied by changing the content of the article rather than deleting it. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nearly 25,000 views in the last 30 days, really the last week, shows a lot of interest and demand in the topic. There is no academic research on it because it was only recently identified. It is being compared to the millennial pause and is without a doubt notable. It seems like its a recent fad coverage, but this is starting to reach academic interest, as the article notes. Metallurgist (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG is met. Any other personal takes or preferences by definition take a backseat to that. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear! Well said. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:40, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep funny article about a notable subject matter. I do not understand all the "remove" !votes that would appear to have little experience in participating in AfDs. Should have been saying "delete" if that is what they really wanted to argue for. Iljhgtn (talk) 08:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the overload of citations seem to prove it passes WP:GNG. For now, keep. jolielover♥talk 10:44, 26 July 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.

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 redirect‎ to Floodgates principle. I see a consensus against retaining this article for the time being. If anyone wants to merge or work on content in draftspace on their own accord, they are free to do so with proper attribution. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Floodgate effect

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

Possibly specific to Singaporean English as creator might be from Singapore? As a Brit I have never heard this phrase although Brits might say “open the floodgate”. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Singapore. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: By itself, not knowing of a phrase is not a reason for deletion. I'd think the real problem here is that this has been tagged as completely unsourced since December 2009. I don't have any opinion beyond that, though. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:13, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Although the words appear in some book results, there is seemingly no coverage of this as a distinct term, it's not on Wiktionary, and almost every other result I found was about yugioh or some video game. Unsourced since creation in 2005. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 19:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Some uses on GS suggest possible notability, but what we have here is an unsourced stub that merits WP:TNT (a rewrite could be done now, ping me if this is rescued and I'll revise my vote if necessary). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:26, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Floodgates principle or merge into an idiom list (but even that I cant find much sourcing). I want to say keep, but searching a very refined way yields very little. The few things Ive found all refer to essentially that legal principle. Nothing really links to this article, but I am a little hesitant to go for delete. Metallurgist (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I would say the term has a place in the Wiki as per nom, maybe draftify meantime as ATD, the term seems to be a known across different disciplines such as in Law and in economics, but citations to support the term itself seems lacks SIGCOV, closest I would say is the Butterfly effect in terms of similar implications, however not identical, I also came across an existing Wiki article in Psychology but its not same in "implications" Flooding (psychology). Even an AI search like this shows mixed results to the point of hallucination? Perhaps a disambiguation page for Floodgate? or have an Wiktionary entry be made for this?Lorraine Crane (talk) 04:44, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Floodgates principle: per Metallurgist. No standalone notability, and the concept is largely covered at the target. Owen× ☎ 21:05, 25 July 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ReadPartner

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:BEFORE: No evidence of coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. Available references are limited to promotional materials, company‐issued press releases, user reviews on marketing blogs—not sufficient under WP:RS. CivicInk (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Social science, Technology, Computing, Internet, Software, Austria, and United States of America. CivicInk (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I performed my own searches using Google and did not find anything except this, which looks like AI-generated undisclosed paid news crap, and other sources like that (blogs, product listings, articles filled with SEO-optimized affiliate links). There's simply no usable coverage other than the GeekFlare source, which I can't determine if it's usable or not, but even if it is, one source is not enough. OutsideNormality (talk) 21:13, 23 July 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.

Laro people

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

The reference on the page doesn't look to be a RS. The difficulty of identifying sources is that many speak of the Laro language rather than identifying an ethnic group. Whilst it seems obvious that if there is a language there is a corresponding group, it's not really for an encyclopedia to make this assertion. JMWt (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Social science and Sudan. JMWt (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you for checking for other sources before deleting this tiny article without any you find valid. I respect that, it's very responsible and gives these lesser-seen start articles a fair chance. Kaasterly (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
maybe it should be changed to Speakers of Laro language. Sarcelles (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Page 22 of this seems to refer to the existence of a tribe or ethnic group [7] –Ike Lek (talk) 23:35, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It also gives additional names they are referred to by. Page 31 discusses Laro vs. Laru. Ike Lek (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This source discusses them as a tribe with a disctinct identity despite linguistic closeness with neighboring tribes. It mostly refers to them as Laro. [8] – Ike Lek (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also mentioned in this book, albeit with some dated racial terminology. [9] Ike Lek (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 10:10, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - addressing the sources offered by @Ike Lek: above:

source [1] above is titled Laru Vowel Harmony and the paragraph on page 22 says The Laru language is spoken in the Nuba Mountains of Southern Kordofan Province in Sudan. Because of insecurity in the home area, there are large displaced communities in Khartoum, Port Sudan, Sennar, and Atbara. According to the Sudan census of 1984, which excludes speakers living outside the home area, the number of the native speakers is 7600. According to a recent estimate (2003), which may include other tribes that are grouped under the Laru by the area administration, the population is 25-50,000.

page 31 is a discussion about the spelling of a word in English

source [3] appears to be talking about Eugenics

In my opinion the strongest source offered here is clearly talking about a language group. As I suggest above, it wouldn't be a surprise to learn that there is an ethnic group that speaks this language, however it isn't the job of Wikipedia to make this assertion. We can't have pages that are only referenced obliquely. I still can't really see how this information wouldn't be better covered in Laro language until such time as better sources are found. JMWt (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These quotes from the first sources are more what I was referring to, especially as they could provide clues as to what to search for to find more information: "The Laru are known by other Sudanese as Liira or Alliira, which are names given to the Laru by outsiders." and "According to a recent estimate (2003), which may include other tribes that are grouped under the Laru by the area administration, the population is 25- 50,000." Page 31 contains translations for terms such as "Laru homeland" and "person of Laru" separate from "language of Laru".

I suggest we take extra care before making a decision on this AfD, as erasing the existence of an ethnic group group from Wikipedia can have major consequences, especially with LLMs feeding off Wikipedia and then being used to make decisions.

I would say the strongest source is probably the second one, so I would be curious to hear to assessment of it. Also, to be explicitly clear, I do not support human eugenics. I don't think anyone was saying that I did, but just in case, I do not want that to be misunderstood. Ike Lek (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I still do not support eugenics, I do question how you came to the conclusion that it is the subject of the third source I gave. Further review seems to suggest that while it does use pseudo-scientific racial categorization at some points in the book, it does give a historically-based ethno-linguistic categorization of Nuba peoples not directly tied to eugenics. Please let me know if I am wrong about this, as I do not have access to the complete book. Ike Lek (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Laro language – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason why? Ike Lek (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's simply a stub that repeats the lead of the article about the language. Svartner (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So the argument isn't that it is non-notable, but that it doesn't have any information that isn't already covered? If that's the case, I might be willing to do some work on it, but I don't want to invest the time if I am misunderstanding the reasoning. Ike Lek (talk) 23:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Social science Proposed deletions

Language

Alphabets of the South Caucasus

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

This article appears to me to be WP:SYNTH, creating a novel topic by bringing together sources that are reliable in the statements they support to establish a broader narrative that they do not support. Mccapra (talk) 11:20, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Armenia, and Georgia (country). Mccapra (talk) 11:20, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research by User3810486. While we don't do that sort of thing, I would encourage that user to save their work and submit it to an appropriate journal. Bearian (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anuj Tiwari

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

A promotional article for a non-notable author and businessman. Sources are mostly primary, poor and unreliable. Fails Wp:SIGCOV, Wp:RS, Wp:NAUTHOR and Wp:NBUSINESSPERSON.

Article creator is a Wp:SPA with possible COI indicated by their username. Zuck28 (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, Language, Journalism, Literature, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Zuck28 (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm in agreement with the nom. Upon reviewing the article, it appears to have been either created or extensively edited by a COI editor. Low-quality sources and lacks any significant coverage that would meet GNG.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 10:35, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Taabii (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nieuweschans dialect

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

Hoax article per User:Erik Wannee's statement and see its article's talk page in the section "HOAX". JeBonSer (talk) 09:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. JeBonSer (talk) 09:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called sources are useless.

Source #1 gives a page in the internet archive that suggests that it has been written (and copyrighted) in 1999 and written in 2008 (Huh?), but in fact it has been uploaded at 19 July of this year. No author of this article is mentioned, only '©2001-2008 Noajwschansk Sproak'.
Source #2 is a 'Photo of an Newpaper'... What new(s)paper is it then? And why is it unreadable? I cannot determine at all what the (sort of) text is about. And it has been uploaded one week ago.
Source #3 has no relevant information at all. In the Dutch version of this article, it links to a list of words in this dialect, without any author. And it has been uploaded last week, too.
Source #4 is identical to source #1.

The article writes that 'The dialect is spoken informally in a small community of around 18 people', quoting source #4. It is not written what that estimation is based on, and who has done research to that.

The dialect is suggested to be 'developed' in 1999. So should it be seen as an artificial dialect? I think it is probably at most a hobby project without any encyclopedic relevance. Erik Wannee (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at best, it was invented in one day; at worst, it's a hoax. Bearian (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not covered in WP:RS Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:13, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A somewhat invested hoax is still a hoax. gidonb (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of misleadingly-named foods

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:OR listcruft, same reasoning applies as for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of misleadingly-named foods which led to deletion. Fram (talk) 08:24, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Language, and Lists. Fram (talk) 08:24, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete as recreation of deleted clickbait junk list. Mangoe (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: maybe pitch this to buzzfeed, not suitable for wikipedia. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 12:58, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH. It's not even wrong. Bearian (talk)|
Delete WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. jolielover♥talk 10:48, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above Muhandes (talk) 06:10, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian toponyms in Slovakia

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

I found a scholarly source https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/mgrsd-2019-0005 but I don’t think that is enough to show notability Chidgk1 (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Hungary, and Slovakia. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources show that Hungarian names of places in the region have historical significance 1 and 2 and 3 JMWt (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Relevant previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German exonyms for places in Slovakia (consensus was keep) and a relevant merge discussion: Talk:List of cities and towns in Slovakia#Merger Proposal (which was no consensus). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:49, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but I'd support a merge discussion to revisit the merge idea. However I do not support a merge ATD at AfD on the grounds that any discussion should take account of the German exonyms page. In terms of normalising data, there is a good argument for consolidating information somehow, but if we do it page by page, the result is likely to be a trainwreck. In any case, there will be no reason to delete this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, marking it for deletion strongly reflects ignorance of the topic. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian toponyms in Zakarpattia Oblast

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

I doubt this is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Hungary. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete or merge to Hungarian toponyms in Ukraine? Or List of Ukrainian place names of Hungarian origin?Metallurgist (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, present-day Zakarpattia Oblast belonged to Hungary from the late 9th century until 1920, thus Hungarian name variants are often the original forms which also appear in sources (in addition to Latin). --Norden1990 (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ if no sources that discuss the topic are found. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus. If you are suggsting a merge or reditect, please provide an activr link to the target article so we know it exitsts.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a Hungarian community in that part of Ukraine so it would be quite weird if there were no Hungarian toponyms. There are academic papers discussing this which meet WP:NLIST including 1 (pdf) and 2 and I don't speak Hungarian or Ukrainian but I think there's good evidence that this subject is notable and that other sources exist. JMWt (talk) 07:05, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep per above. I cannot access the first source, but I believe this shows a likelihood of meeting WP:NLIST.
Ike Lek (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep per above sources. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to keep as the above make a good point Metallurgist (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greek exonyms

AfDs for this article:

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

Cleanup and sourcing was discussed in the 2007 deletion discussion - I think anyone who wants to cleanup or source this has had enough time by now Chidgk1 (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Greece. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article was part of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afrikaans exonyms mass AfD as well. Warudo (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT: most exonym articles are indiscriminate lists of examples of the trivial and obvious fact that each language adapts foreign names to its own phonology and/or orthography. If such lists were confined to examples about which something more could be said, e.g. those that are unrelated to the endonym or distorted by false etymology, I'd say keep. I'd also preserve places in Turkey from which Greeks were expelled. —Tamfang (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I think your approach is a bit too narrow, I agree with the broad strokes. That being said, if this is deleted, I have no reason to believe that the bits you are saying to keep will be saved. Unfortunately List of Greek exonyms in Turkey has been deleted, granted based on the AfD it may have had quality issues. Ike Lek (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article has already been brought to AFD before so is not eligible for a Soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:08, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and incorporate content into Wiktionary. Hogshine (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Names of Belarusian places in other languages

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Chidgk1 (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Belarus. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Are there any good ATDs for this? You are right that it isn't very encyclopedic, but it is a great index that I would love to be kept in some form. Is there another Wikimedia project that it would fit better on? I would like it to continue to exist, even though this isn't the right place for it. – Ike Lek (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do you use this table and how know the quality is "great" when there are no sources? Is that because you checked a sample by flipping round language links? Perhaps a Belarussian reading this would like to translate it to Belarussian Wikipedia? However I don’t know their rules. Another alternative if you need it in bulk might be to make a Wikidata query. Or could AI nowadays flip round the language links on your request? Or are you saying it is useful to you because some articles don't exist in other languages? In which case without sources how can you trust the info? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have come to realize that the Yiddish translations are maybe a bit rougher than I thought. I was going to manually update Wikidata items, but I've decided against it due to the lack of citations. Sorry to bother you. Ike Lek (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Italian exonyms in Istria

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

TadejM says it is notable but with only one cite on the Italian article I am not sure Chidgk1 (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Italy. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, Croatia, and Slovenia. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Istria has a sizable Italian population. These names are used in the areas with the Italian minority and are commonly mentioned in their media. The Italian Wikipedia provides several citations for them. --TadejM ^{my talk} 18:05, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Italian Wikipedia has more than one citation. I think you may have missed them as they as separate from the "Bibliografia" section. Because of both the history of Italians in Istria, and the current modern significance of the names, Italian exonyms for places in Istria is a notable topic, and a list is not inappropriate. – Ike Lek (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NOTDICT. There are some exonym articles that are encyclopedic, such as Chinese exonyms, but that article contains well-sourced contextual information ~~and mostly restricts the list to exonyms that have received secondary coverage.~~ The Italian version of this article appears to rely mainly on primary sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the sourcing for the list in Chinese exonyms is pretty bad; the list seems to be arbitrarily selected. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists states Some other, non-glossary lists of words can also yield an encyclopedic page, such as List of English words containing Q not followed by U, the condition being that reliable secondary sources for the topic can be cited. (emphasis mine) Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:54, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And even with secondary sources, there's still a WP:NOTDICT argument against having exhaustive lists of exonyms. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retracting this; a list of toponyms seems less crazy than I originally thought, assuming that sources exist, even though it would be quite large. It could be eventually merged into one or more general lists such as List of locations in Istria County. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Coming back to this, I find myself reconsidering whether these names are truly exonyms at all, as many have official status and are used locally by ethnic Italians. If the page isn't even about true exonyms, this changes things significantly. – Ike Lek (talk) 05:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are actually endonyms.[10] --TadejM ^{my talk} 11:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the same is true for the region of Dalmatia and a similar article (List of Italian exonyms in Dalmatia) was recently deleted by PROD. IF the outcome of this AfD is anything other than delete, then the same should apply to that list. Giuliotf (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pages 74 and 75 of this may be of note here [11]. Ike Lek (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting given concerns raised by Ike Lek
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:33, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Czech exonyms

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

When I language link through to the first entry Albánský Bělehrad it seems to be historical rather than a current exonym. I cannot find the article info in the cite. Also I don’t think this is notable. Also Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Czech Republic. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The page description does a decent job differentiating between exonyms and transliterations; however it does not always seem to uphold this differentiation in the list contents. – Ike Lek (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As long as there are other lists of European exonyms, I don't see any reason why this specific one should be deleted. Or there should be one discussion about deleting them all. The page needs significant improvement (e.g. deleting the aforementioned Albánský Bělehrad), but poor condition is not a reason for deletion. And the page is not a dictionary. FromCzech (talk) 10:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was one discussion about deleting them all, in March 2024. It failed (no consensus) as too sweeping; some (Chinese exonyms, Arabic exonyms) are less dictionary-like than others. So now Chidgk1 is nominating them singly. —Tamfang (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but a bundle of European exonym lists, maybe starting with just 5-10 of them, could still make sense. I respect what Chidgk1 is doing, even though I am often arguing to keep them. Such is bureaucracy, I suppose. Ike Lek (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT: most exonym articles are indiscriminate lists of examples of the trivial and obvious fact that each language adapts foreign names to its own phonology and/or orthography. If such lists were confined to examples about which something more could be said, e.g. those that are unrelated to the endonym or distorted by false etymology, I'd say keep. I'd also preserve places formerly under the Crown of Bohemia. —Tamfang (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese exonyms

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

Although the Portuguese article has lots of citations I am not sure that is enough to show notability on English Wikipedia Chidgk1 (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Portugal. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a particularly strong exonym page, although I was disappointed to see it lacked sections for Angola and Mozambique, which would likely serve a more encyclopedic purpose than France or Greece. The Portuguese Wikipedia references seem adequate to me to demonstrate notability. If consensus is keep, ping me and I will try to make some improvements to it in the next couple weeks. - Ike Lek (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a prolific contributor to this article and a native speaker of European Portuguese, I have no reservations about writing the sections on Angola and Mozambique, with a view to enhancing the utility of the article. It is imperative to note that greater care will be exercised in the near future to ensure the inclusion of additional sources. Cantrusthestory (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT: most exonym articles are indiscriminate lists of examples of the trivial and obvious fact that each language adapts foreign names to its own phonology and/or orthography. If such lists were confined to examples about which something more could be said, e.g. those that are unrelated to the endonym or distorted by false etymology, I'd say keep. —Tamfang (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with our opinion. Individuals who do not possess proficiency in Portuguese will encounter significant challenges in adapting toponyms to the appropriate Portuguese phonology and orthography. Cantrusthestory (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then should en.wp include glossaries of everything that a learner of Portuguese might need to mention? —Tamfang (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these exonym articles are generally not notable Metallurgist (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a bold claim to make without providing any evidence or rationale to back it up. Ike Lek (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a prolific contributor to this article and a specialist in linguistics, as well as a native European Portuguese speaker, I posit that articles of this nature are necessary on account of their educational value, cross-linguistic and cross-cultural navigation, and their potential to facilitate translation and multilingual writing. Moreover, they ensure searchability and disambiguation for those who wish to navigate not only any list of Portuguese exonyms, but also any other language, including even endangered languages. Cantrusthestory (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cantrusthestory Thanks for your expertise. Could you possibly add some citations to this article? Perhaps some of those on the Portuguese article. Nowadays most citations (except pdfs) can be easily added by using the “automatic” option in Visual Editor. If you have any difficulty with adding cites please ask or just add them in the right place in a rudimentary way and some helpful Wikignome will tidy them later. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - obviously WP:DICDEF is not a relevant policy as these are not dictionary definitions. There are plenty of references on pt.wiki, which would appear to be more than enough to satisfy WP:NLIST, happy to have a more forensic discussion of those if that's really necessary. RS on en.wiki do not have to be in English.JMWt (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Serrano dialect

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

I can't find any information about something specifically called the serrano dialect, either in English or in Spanish. "Serrano" in Spanish means "mountain range", so the term "dialecto serrano" is very generic, akin to "city slang". It does not seem to refer a specific dialect from a specific place. In fact, a quick Google search shows that many dialects have been called "dialecto serrano" in different Spanish speaking countries. It does not satisfy the notability requirements for a Wikipedia article. JohnMizuki (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm sorry, but I felt obliged to deprod this. Proposed deletion is only for non-controversial topics, and other than politics and religion, nothing is more controversial that whether a certain dialect exists. I have No opinion on the subject. Bearian (talk) 02:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I didn't claim the dialect doesn't exist. I stated that nothing SPECIFICALLY called "Serrano dialect" exists. Once again: the expression "dialecto serrano" in Spanish is a generic term, that has been used in different countries to refer to different dialects. It is the same as the expression "city slang". "Serrano" does not refer to a specific geographic location and is used to refer to any mountain range. This is equivalent to creating an article titled "city slang" that says that "city slang" is the dialect of the city of Paris. It makes no sense whatsoever. JohnMizuki (talk) 13:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded articles

History

Anti-Urinal Law

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

This is a hoax article. All of the references are spurious. I believe the page creator, User:BillyJoeG, also used two vandalism-only accounts to promote the notion of a ban on urinals in Wheelock, Texas: User:God$end and User:Joshtan. Proposition 411 was speedily deleted in 2011. Cheers, gnu 57 14:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Law, and Texas. gnu 57 14:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and look at that, a teenage hoax! Of the three sources, one just links to a website (no article in specific), one is a website for games (yes, even back in 2012!), and I can't even find the last one. Searches for the author, the book, the publisher in all combinations yield nothing - is possible I missed something though. WP:BEFORE search again finds nothing. I checked Google scholar, JSTOR, and newspapers.com. I'm fairly certain this is a hoax. jolielover♥talk 14:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A11 agree this is a hoax, did a separate google and attempted to check the not real sources in the article

Czarking0 (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Changde

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

This article is entirely cited to brief mentions in primary sources: the Ming Veritable Records and History of Ming. In the course of the AfC process, the creator added a large number of citations to unreliable sources, which were removed by me and RovingPersonalityConstruct. The remaining non-primary sources do not mention the subject at all: Early Ming China is available on archive.org [12], the Cambridge History (Volume 7) via TWL; neither mentions this person. The Sotheby's source is also completely unrelated. The four citations to ctext.org provide no indication of where in the 332-chapter Ming Shi we are supposed to look to verify the claims in the article. This leaves an exceedingly poorly-sourced article, with the only somewhat-verifiable citations being four sentences in primary sources – in my view, not enough to meet the GNG. Toadspike [Talk] 13:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, Royalty and nobility, and China. Toadspike [Talk] 13:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(In case it helps, I believe sources using Wade–Giles would call her "Ch'ang-te".) Toadspike [Talk] 13:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Min968 (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Karasounk

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm nominating this article for deletion as it fails WP:V and WP:OR. After checking the cited references, I found they don't actually support the claims made:The Macler source from Cambridge Medieval History doesn't mention the Battle of Karasounk, the "80,000 Muslims defeated," or any specific details described. The Lang citation is also misrepresented - it doesn't discuss this battle and has wrong page numbers.This isn't poor sourcing that can be fixed. The battle details and casualty figures appear to be completely made up rather than based on actual scholarship. Since the sources don't contain the information attributed to them, and the content may be fictional, the article should be deleted. R3YBOl (🌲) 16:36, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Armenia. R3YBOl (🌲) 16:36, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:49, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Behgy (1766)

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

Page created by a sock user of blocked account Yasin1747 – SPI confirmed suspected in violation of the user's ban or block. Per G5. Sources do not mention "Battle of Behgy" or has a heading or chapter of such name. RangersRus (talk) 13:34, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. RangersRus (talk) 13:34, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Afghanistan. Shellwood (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: G12. The article is a slightly modified version of this, a source listed in the article. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Sikhism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:53, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete It's a clear G5 and G11 case.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 10:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Chera Har

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

Page created by a sock user of blocked account Yasin1747 – SPI confirmed suspected in violation of the user's ban or block. Per G5. Sources do not mention "Battle of Chera Har" or has a heading or chapter of such name. RangersRus (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Afghanistan and Jammu and Kashmir. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:22, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:55, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Go with nominator. Dolphish (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it looks from the history that an editor, Noorullah21, tried to fix this and gave up. WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mason County Historical Society

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

This article was originally created in 2007. In June of the same year, it was mentioned on the talk page that this article was likely not appropriate for Wikipedia, namely under notability. A Google search on this Society lists either primary sources or self-published sources. It is also noted here in 2016 that this article violated WP:COPYPASTE in an older version of the article, requiring cleanup. Unfortunately, based on all the available historic evidence and available sources (or lack of reliable ones), I think deletion appears to be the only logical option currently. 11WB (talk) 07:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. 11WB (talk) 07:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, History, Organizations, and Education. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references, some of which refer to the museums operated by the society rather than to the society itself, but it's all the same organization. An acknowledgements page in a book talks about the society and its photographic resources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
References added appear to strengthen the articles notability. A few of the references however may be inaccessible to editors in certain regions as highlighted here. More opinions on whether they go beyond trivial mentions would also be welcomed. 11WB (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added significant information and sources to the article. One of the sources "Michigan Business Registry, Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, State of Michigan" is a reliable source but crappy technology/usablity, as it does not allow for the listing to be linked to. What are the solutions? Screenshot? Myotus (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it isn't a reliable source then it should be removed. Thank you for improving the article! 11WB (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The State Government of Michigan is a reliable source, the information just isn't returned automatically in the link. Users have to do the extra work of typing in " Mason County Historical Society" and doing a search query to return the information that is in the database. Is it much worse than having to go check out a library book to review the same information in a citation used from a book? I am just asking for solutions that may make it more user friendly. Myotus (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst it is good the article has been expanded, the new subsections under Mason County Historical Society#Museums and facilities could be read as slightly promotional. This should be avoided on Wikipedia. I respect the attempts at improvement however. If consensus ultimately goes to keeping the article, I will have no issue withdrawing my nomination. 11WB (talk) 02:56, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can work on improving the section but I would need more guidance on what appears promotional. I have tried to keep it free of puffery and promotional items like listing the hours of operation or program specifics. The museums and research center are core to the organization's notability. However, '"Historic" White Pine Village' is a bit inflated (it is historical not historic) but that is the title they use as their brand for the museum. The wording in the section isn't much different the wording used on GA articles of museums of Low importance. Myotus (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply! Having looked over the sources chosen for that section, this, this and to a certain extent this, appear to exist to promote the Society. The MasonCountyPress.com source is passable in my opinion, however it may be a primary source. Unfortunately, using these types of sources will naturally transfer to the article unless very carefully written. Whilst these sources contain history on the Society, I don't think they are suitable for a Wikipedia article. However, this is of course up for discussion and I am happy to be told otherwise! 11WB (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the first paragraph of that section named 'Historic White Pine Village' to what I believe is a slightly better neutral tone. If the rest of the section can be written in the same way then I think the section issues header would have reason to be removed. 11WB (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish Cause: An Introduction to a Different Israeli History

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

Would seem to fail WP:NBOOK and lacks other notability from verifiable reliable sources. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:41, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. $Destinyokhiria 💬$ 07:43, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Under a prior article title, this previously went to AfD as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Matter of the Jews. (No opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, History, and Judaism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suck at searching in Hebrew but there is 1 review here so it's halfway to passing nbook. Was a source check done? PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There appears to be one review of the book, under the "Critique of the book" external link in the article. I don't see any other reviews in my searches, I don't think we have enough to show notability for books. Oaktree b (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm relying on machine translation and could very well be wrong, but it seems like the external link "About the book, in Segula Magazine for Jewish History" is also a review. It's just a scan of a page and I can't find a way to access the magazine issue, but based on a machine translation it reads and is presented like a second review of the book. Hopefully someone else might be able to confirm? MCE89 (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also noting that there was a previous AfD in 2021 under a previous page title, which ended in no consensus: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Matter of the Jews. MCE89 (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the cited Segula Magazine page is a substantive and non-trivial review of this specific book, discussing its main thesis and explaining Berent's views of the subject as presented in the book. It might be not as long and deep as Dr Levin's review of the book, but it certainly qualifies under Wikipedia:Notability (books) criteria as a second review. Guybas (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The book qualifies under Wikipedia:Notability (books) criteria as having at least two real, non-trivial reviews, in respected sources that are independent of the book itself:

Nine page long, wide and deep Dr Levin's review
One page long, substantive and precise Segula Magazine review — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guybas (talk • contribs) 01:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pass of NBOOK per above. gidonb (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Phagwara

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

The article appears to be violating WP:OR. The battle itself lacks significant coverage. There is nothing to show if this is a notable subject. THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 03:46, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sikhism, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not a significant conflict. Lorstaking (talk) 08:41, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman capture of Zeila

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

The article fails GNG and NEVENT. Minorincident, no sources found showing this has WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Most sources cited are just a passing mention of this incident, absolutely no significant notability to warrant its own article. Socialwave597 (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Somalia, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:13, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, apologies for the late response, this page includes sufficient sources about said event, what exactly do you see as wrong here? Samyatilius (talk) 08:30, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zeila was under the Imamate of Awsa according to manuscripts found in Harar by Enrico Cerulli during that period. Garad Muhammed ibn Garad 'Isa was coronated as the Imam of Awsa in Zaila' in 1626 and it was known as a place were usurpers would rebel against the authority of the Imam.^[1] Garad Lado', the governor of Zeila for the Adal Sultan Muhammed ibn Nasir, built the walls surrounding the town to prevent raids in 1572-1577.^[2]

I support that there isn't enough notability which warrants its own article. As stated before it is a minor incident and the sources briefly mention the event and do not go into detail. Replayerr (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No don't delete I won't even bother to say why this page has sufficient sources and is credible Sha19999 (talk) 16:09 23 july 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Genetics and the Book of Mormon

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

a giant pile of WP:OR and WP:FRINGE theories, i see no reliable sourcing talking about genetics and mormonism in the citation lists Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:55, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the points above. The article is primarily general statements about world history. What information there is specifically about this idea could most likely be integrated into another article. Likely doesn't warrant it's own article. A person of sorts (talk) 03:05, 22 July 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 July 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:07, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Latter Day Saints, and Biology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:11, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is assembled from a warp of original research and weave of synthesis. 107.119.53.130 (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is woven from a warp of original research and a weft of synthesis. My OCD made me do it. -Roxy the dog 07:18, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article is mostly OR and SYNTH. The only source that talks about the topic directly is an article in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. TurboSuperA+_(talk) 08:00, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article seems to be pretty much pure WP:OR and fringe to boot. Simonm223 (talk) 11:51, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. jps (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with above, OR and synthesis. Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Zero Contradictions (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archaeology and the Book of Mormon (2nd nomination) has similar issues. Feoffer (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Everyone knows that we have never published original research. Bearian (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pile of WP:OR and theory which does appear WP:FRINGE and unsupported by RS. Iljhgtn (talk) 11:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

White Flight in Gary

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

I kicked this to draftspace at Draft:White Flight in Gary, but the author contests. It's loaded with unsupported claims and I just don't think it's ready, so I'm seeking feedback from the community on whether this should continue to exist in mainspace or should be workshopped qua draft. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion - It's extremely challenging to suggest it's got so many unsupported claims, and consequently deleted, when it is subject of many articles - both in news media and academic - and is so worthy of an article in its own right. There are around two dozen or so references, and if something isn't supported by those, flag it - but this is not a reason to remove the entire article. Few, if any, statements are unsupported - and the items flagged as unsupported tend to be referred to in previously marked references and so consequently just need to be marked again. Please be bold and improve rather than deleting Berocca Addict (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, what's being proposed here is that the article be incubated and worked on in draftspace rather than in mainspace—not that the article be evaporated. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:22, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination and History. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose both deletion and moving to draft space. I've seen a number of articles in main space that have fewer and poorer citations than this one. Could it use more detail? Yes, but it's unlikely to receive help from other editors if it's in draft space. The most obvious cleanup issue is to remove most of the section headings; we don't need a section for every one, two, or three-sentence paragraph. Indyguy (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Gary, Indiana. This is an extremely specific thing that isnt particularly notable on its own and could be summed up pretty well in the Gary, Indiana article. Metallurgist (talk) 02:21, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would respectfully challenge the contention that it's not notable. It passes all the relevant notability guidelines, with a series of books, articles, academic papers and documentaries on this distinct topic. I do want to expand on this article as there are a lot of data and information from the sources that I would like to see added to give additional shape, but it needs to survive first. I think merging it to Gary would lead it it dominating that article in a way that would make it less of a typical article on an American City. Berocca Addict (talk) 09:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with merge as the topic does seem to be notable enough in its own right. ~ lovkal (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per nom. I disagree with Indyguy's argument above that boils down to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: the fact that other articles are of poor quality doesn't make this one more acceptable. I am also suspicious of some wording choices (like a "Legacy" section starting with Gary became emblematic of the intertwined effects of industrial collapse, racial transition, and suburbanization) that, along with the verifiability issues, lead me to believe that the writing might have been at least AI-assisted. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:58, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please clarify the verifiability issues? Berocca Addict (talk) 07:42, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify The general topic is notable and do feel there is adequate referencing to support being specific to Gary. Unfortunately, as pointed out, there are some problems with the article, such as potential LLM usage, wordage and writing style. It feels/sounds too much like an essay. Drafts do not have to be solo projects, eyeballs and help can be gotten from various workgroups.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:24, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I'm sure that one can take care of some of the problematic wording and improve the article as a whole through active Draft improvement. ~ lovkal (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:12, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see why Gary is much different than any other city; replace Gary with Detroit, or XYZville and you'd basically have the same article. I'm not seeing notability, there is much synth going on. Oaktree b (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is indeed a lot of synth; lots of the information (as of my last check) comes from sources which don't mention or contextualize the information white flight. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:40, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too much synth. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Qarahamid (1510)

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

This article relies entirely on obscure and partisan Safavid-era Persian chronicles that have not been corroborated by any Ottoman historical sources or modern academic works. Notably, leading Ottoman historians such as Halil Inalcik, Suraiya Faroqhi, Caroline Finkel, and Stanford Shaw do not mention any such battle occurring in 1510 under the name \"Qarahamid.\" Furthermore, the article’s sources are limited to internal court narratives without third-party verification or historiographical analysis.

The description of a 15-day siege and heavy Ottoman defeat contradicts known Ottoman military operations of the era and lacks substantiation in modern historical literature. The article does not meet the general notability guidelines nor does it provide sufficient verifiability as required by Wikipedia’s sourcing standards.

Per WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS, this article appears to be based on fringe or nationalist interpretations and should therefore be deleted. Al Jazira Front (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Frost 11:06, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. 2A02:C7C:4D0A:A500:2008:D0F5:6012:D6DB (talk) 11:23, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 2A02:C7C:4D0A:A500:2008:D0F5:6012:D6DB (talk) 11:23, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. 2A02:C7C:4D0A:A500:2008:D0F5:6012:D6DB (talk) 11:23, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. 2A02:C7C:4D0A:A500:2008:D0F5:6012:D6DB (talk) 11:23, 20 July 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 July 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per concerns raised by the nom. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kajmer05 (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While we nominally have quorum and apparent consensus, it will be useful to have some more experienced editors chime in on this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:09, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hunan–Jiangxi Soviet

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

Entirely unsourced and could probably be merged into Jiangxi Soviet or Autumn Harvest Uprising. Also, there is no Chinese-language version of this article, which is curiously odd. Amigao (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and China. Shellwood (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as apparent SYNTH. Mccapra (talk) 05:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is government sourcing that satisfies WP:V: [13]. I saw a bit better sourcing when using searching for "Hunan-Jiangxi revolutionary base area" (in Chinese) so that's a possible path to keeping. Jumpytoo Talk 05:33, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After reviewing Autumn Harvest Uprising, it seems like Hunan is heavily covered there. If it is decided to merge and any new information can be properly sourced, it feels like this would be the better of the two articles you mentioned.

Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:22, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rao Mitrasen

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

The article is largely based on non-academic, regionally published & self-published books with limited verifiability. Multiple sources do not meet the standards WP:HISTRS for historical claims. The article shows signs of WP:FANPOV and contains unbalanced, unsourced glorification and conflicting timelines. Chronos.Zx (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Military, India, Haryana, and Rajasthan. Chronos.Zx (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Even a simple Google search, specifically in the Google Books section, shows that the subject is mentioned in at least five different books. This clearly indicates that there is likely more information available about the subject in offline sources (WP:OFFLINE) as well, although I’m not entirely sure about the full extent of it. Baqi:) (talk) 10:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - since it's not a BLP, WP:BEFORE applies. I combined several references into two sources, and cut out a personal opinion. There is obviously some notability based on what's online and already there. This is not so terrible that it can't be fixed with a few more edits. The article history looks like an editor started to try to fix it and gave up. Alternatively, can this be merged into another article? Bearian (talk) 10:43, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in Columbus, Ohio

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

WP:NOPAGE. I believe previous discussions such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenant harassment lawsuits and cases in Santa Monica and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change in Baden-Württemberg, where a broad topic is given a hyperlocal framing, are relevant here. This article is essentially a history of racism in the United States - the Great Migration, Jim Crow laws, redlining, Brown v. Board of Education, etc. - as applied to a single city. It would not be feasible to have hundreds of articles about "Racism in X U.S. city" with generic content like this. There is nothing extraordinary about the history of racism in Columbus in particular to justify an article. For example, the article currently says that Columbus is the 55th most racially segregated city in the U.S. out of 112 cities - right in the middle of the list. Some of this content can be selectively merged to Columbus, Ohio and Columbus Division of Police. Astaire (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and Ohio. Astaire (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and seems a bit coatracky. Metallurgist (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge first 4 paragraphs of History section to Columbus, Ohio#History, delete the rest. Much of this article (sadly) applies to just about every major city in the US, making this a bit of a WP:COATRACK for a generic topic. Other parts of the article might be merge-able to Racism in the United States, as a city-specific example. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG, as there are plenty of great sources here which are specifically about this large American city. It is fine to have local history in Wikipedia naming particular people, places, and events, even if other cities have comparable circumstances. And other places in Amercica do have similar circumstances, because in Category:History of racism in the United States by state or territory, we have several hundred other articles about location-specific circumstances. The nominators are correct that Wikipedia does not seem to currently have any other "Racism by American city" articles, but I am entirely sympathetic to the idea of documenting the intersection of cultural heritage and places, especially when we have so many sources. I also recognize WeirdNAnnoyed's complaint that lots of the history is repeated from other places, but in this article, I see either uncited claims which have other Wikipedia backing like links to main articles which do have citations (" safe for African Americans to visit... only four survive: the Macon Hotel, the Hotel St. Clair") or kind of routine, but with a local authority cited like https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2714730 . As a general principle, I would support anyone creating articles for any well documented civil rights movement in any city, regardless of potential repetition, just so long as there were local sources and wiki-notable concepts to report. Bluerasberry (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
passes WP:GNG I actually don't think it does. This source is specifically about racism and public health. This source is specifically about redlining. This source is 80 years old and is mainly about "Negro life" rather than racial discrimination. And the other sources in the article are even less useful. Where are the sources that discuss "racism in Columbus" as a whole, uniting the different topics discussed in the article? If there are none, this runs into WP:BADTHINGS issues, as other users have said.

Wikipedia does not seem to currently have any other "Racism by American city" articles Not only are there no other "Racism in X U.S. city" articles, there are not even any "Racism in X U.S. state" articles. As far as I can tell, this is the only subnational article about racism in any U.S. location. And there is probably a reason for that: the creator (who is now inactive here) appears to have been very passionate about creating articles on local Ohio topics. Yes, this is a WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument, but the argument grows in strength when there are hundreds of cities and 50 states, all of which you argue could have their own "Racism in X" article, and yet none of them exist. We should ask ourselves why that is. Astaire (talk) 06:16, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Astaire: Wikipedia's bar for passing GNG is very low - just two articles on the topic. I se no ambiguity about this article passing GNG. For a topic, we need articles which address that topic, and there is no identify a broad textbook with a unifying vision. As you say, we have articles covering distinct aspects. These include racism in Columbus Ohio for housing discrimination, police, protest events, tourism, and social justice programs. There is no source which combines all of these into a unifying narrative.

While we do not have other racism by American articles, we do have demographic by city articles including LGBTQ culture in Chicago and History of African Americans in Houston. Intersectional topics in Wikipedia are inconsistent because they are low-readership and because we have few editors. Despite this, building out local culture is common in Wikipedia and we have many such articles, even if we do not have complete national sets.

The creator - whose page I watch, and through whose talk page I found this discussion - has been prominent in Wikipedia for their views of thoroughly documenting culture by cities. I think this is a good thing, and wish local historians and interested community members would build out whatever local perspectives they like. Wikipedia does not have a size limit, and we have no need to prune content which passes fact-checking and topical relevance just because a topic is local to the level of a city. Even after all these years, it is also still okay to do new things in Wikipedia. Interest in city history is quite common in every city in the world, even if our Wikipedia editorial ancestors hardly did this. I am in favor of every city in America building out articles like this if anyone organizes content of this quality. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no source which combines all of these into a unifying narrative. Yes, this is exactly my point: there are sources which cover aspects of the subject, but no source that directly addresses the topic of "racism in Columbus" as a whole. So the case for GNG is dubious.

Compare this with your example of LGBTQ culture in Chicago, where the "Further reading" section gives three whole books that are directly about the general subject.

There is a stronger case for reworking this into History of African Americans in Columbus, à la your second example, since this article is already halfway there. And there are indeed sources which address that topic as a whole: e.g. [14], [15] Astaire (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Wikipedia wants unifying narratives, and this article is deficient for not having one. Despite that, I still feel that GNG is a much lower standard than that.

It could be nice to have an article titled, History of African Americans in Columbus, but if we did, this content would be WP:UNDUE to merge into that for showing a long focused history on only one aspect. We could not just rename this article to be about culture. Also, I do not think we should delete the content of this article just because it is not connected as a subtopic to something higher in the hierarchy. I could establish a brief parent article if that helped the case for this one, but if I did that, the parent article would be a placeholder for a later editor to add more and contain a subsection on racism which pointed to this article. I do not think it is realistic to attract anyone to build a Columbus focused African history article in the next few years though. Bluerasberry (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think these sources give unifying narratives over decades, from probably 1800s to 1940s. From the wiki article -

"Frank Uriah Quillin, who wrote in his 1913 book The Color Line in Ohio: A History of Race Prejudice in a Typical Northern State: 'Columbus, the capital of Ohio, has a feeling toward the negroes all its own. In all my travels in the state, I found nothing just like it. It is not so much a rabid feeling of prejudice against the negroes simply because their skin is black as it is a bitter hatred for them.'"^[3]^[4]

References

^ Cerulli, Enrico (2013). Islam Yesterday and Today (PDF). Istituto per l'Oriente. pp. 213–220.
^ Cerulli, Enrico (2013). Islam Yesterday and Today (PDF). Istituto per l'Oriente. pp. 221–224.
^ Oliphint, Joel. "Cover: The roots of Columbus' ongoing color divide". Columbus Alive.
^ Himes, J. S. (1942). "Forty Years of Negro Life in Columbus, Ohio". The Journal of Negro History. 27 (2): 133–154. doi:10.2307/2714730. ISSN 0022-2992. JSTOR 2714730. S2CID 149546155.

Bluerasberry (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GNG, there is no guarantee 2 sources will be considered enough. I guess it could happen, if they are great on-topic sources with extensive coverage etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:16, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing notable about racism in Columbus Ohio. Was racism in Columbus more notable than Birmingham Alabama? Racism occurs everywhere, that doesnt make it particularly notable here. There may be a case for History of African-Americans in Columbus, Ohio, as suggested above, but this aint it. Metallurgist (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. 71.231.11.148 (talk) 05:36, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This IP appears to be blocked for vandalism and the vote ought to be discarded or removed. Metallurgist (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP addresses can be shared (I wasn't the one who vandalized). 71.231.11.148 (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:01, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bluerasberry above: "As you say, we have articles covering distinct aspects. These include racism in Columbus Ohio for housing discrimination, police, protest events, tourism, and social justice programs. There is no source which combines all of these into a unifying narrative." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Berber raid against Vandals

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

Article fails WP:GNG and relies on passing mentions that hardly mention the so-called raid at all. Skitash (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Tunisia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Given the lack of citations, this looks dubious. desmay (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fighting between Moors / Berbers (led by Antalas) and Vandals (led by Hilderic) is well attested in the multiple sources that are cited. Some of the sources even refer back to writings by Corippus and Malalas on the topic. Article has room for improvement though, and "raid" may not be the correct word. JBchrch talk 18:16, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When you say WP:SOURCESEXIST are you referring to the ones in the article or some additional unnamed sources out there? Can you add some references to them there? Czarking0 (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Khasa dynasty and Kings

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

Needless fork of Khasa Kingdom. Good content could be merged. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:46, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Nepal, and India. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:46, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Ixudi (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

khasa kingdom is different , and the kingdom who ruled by khasa race is different Imperial khasah (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination is clearly in error. It's not a subtopic or fork of Khasa Kingdom. Khasa Kingdom was a specific kingdom in a specific place in a specific time period, which the list article claims would be but one entry in it, the Khasa people having established many kingdoms in various places throughout history. Per WP:AGF, I would suggest seeking a review from an expert (or working with the article creator and/or any experienced editor with access to all the sources) before moving to delete. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, absolutely terrible article that is an embarassment to Wikipedia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:38, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – does not seem like a fork to me, as 'K Kingdom' is a political entity, while list lists rulers of a particular ethnicity. (List is pretty confusing though, maybe oughtta follow other 'Lists of monarchs' format with dynasties/houses being just a column in a single table/list of rulers?) – Asdfjrjjj (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:TNT. Dolphish (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that WP:TNT is not a policy-supported deletion criterion, but an essay about rewriting an article about a notable topic. Notability is determined by sourcing, not by the quality of the prose here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did do a few spot-checks before I !voted and it checked out. No one has elaborated on their TNT votes and I can not figure out for myself, what it is that would make this one particularly unslavageable of the millions of subpar articles that we have. As I'd hinted above, it's a new editor; we should expect their creations to be subpar. That's part and partial to the model of Wikipedia that to my knowledge is still in effect. Aside from TNT not being policy and there being just as many counter-arguments to it as the page itself makes clear, this is not an article someone else is likely to create better and soon. Someone has searched through the literature to put together a list here that appears to be educational, in a topic area that is otherwise neglected. Are those sources bad? Is the article replete with hoaxes? Have the sources been misused? What? Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bicoli State

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

I don't feel this article meets the general English Wikipedia's notability criteria (WP:GNG). The subject of the article is not widely known, and its status is merely a local government subordinate to the higher Sultanate of Tidore, with territorial changes that may not exist, or are unclear, and there is no evidence that it ever became an independent entity in its own right (WP:GEOLAND). The sources cited also don't go into much detail about the state, Most of the material comes from only one source, and is not found in other sources, or other sources do not discuss this state. ▪︎ Fazoffic _{( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ)} 10:27, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note: This article is also being nominated for deletion on idwiki: id:Wikipedia:Usulan penghapusan/Kenegerian Bicoli. ▪︎ Fazoffic _{( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ)} 23:53, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The presentation here may not be optimal, but there is likely a notable topic in either the village or the district. Currently neither has an article, with East Halmahera Regency being the lowest division. The sources currently in the article that I can access seem to focus on the village. Political history would fit within such as article. (id. wiki has stubs for the village id:Bicoli, Maba Selatan, Halmahera Timur and district id:Maba Selatan, Halmahera Timur.) The question then is whether to rework this article, or that given there might be OR, keep the sources somewhere to start a new article. CMD (talk) 07:56, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 11:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:52, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History Proposed deletions

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

History categories

for occasional archiving

Proposals

[:2-1] Cerulli, Enrico (2013). Islam Yesterday and Today (PDF). Istituto per l'Oriente. pp. 213–220.

[:22-2] Cerulli, Enrico (2013). Islam Yesterday and Today (PDF). Istituto per l'Oriente. pp. 221–224.

[alive-3] Oliphint, Joel. "Cover: The roots of Columbus' ongoing color divide". Columbus Alive.

[4] Himes, J. S. (1942). "Forty Years of Negro Life in Columbus, Ohio". The Journal of Negro History. 27 (2): 133–154. doi:10.2307/2714730. ISSN 0022-2992. JSTOR 2714730. S2CID 149546155.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]