Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science

Social science

This is a list of transcluded deletion debates involving social science, such as psychology and economics. It is maintained by Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting as a test of sorted deletion. This list includes sublists of deletion debates on articles related to language and history. It is included in a larger list of VfD debates related to Science and medicine.

For a list of article deletions sorted by day, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. For a list of observed precedents in VfD voting, please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents. For general information on Wikipedia deletion policy, see Wikipedia:Deletion policy.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 15:48, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Cultural health

This article is a neologism describing user Aunk's original research. User has not provided evidence that anyone other than him/herself uses this term. Bgeer 00:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• comment .

Hetep and Respect Bgeer and Good Spirits

Thanks for you interest in this article and your advise and council. I just came back from rewriting the cultural poisoning article (I hope you can find time to take a look). I have read all your comments and reread what I wrote and I am shocked.

My bad, as the young people say. I made a number of errors contextual and otherwise. If I had to vote again (I know I can't do that) I would "vote keep but rewrite" myself. Give me a minute to get my rewrite pen out and fix some of the errors you have pointed out.

I wrote this early version of the article when I first came to wikipedia. I am up here, on and off, for less then two weeks. Most of my time has been spent learning wiki and the rules. I think I am starting to get the hang of it and would like to thank everyone for your help.

--Aunk 11:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. "Cultural health" -aunk -wikipedia gets about 54000 Gooogles, but it is readily apparent that few of them apply. Since this and the following VfD are closely related, it is germane to observe that "Cultural poisoning" -aunk -wikipedia gets only 150 unique Google hits. "star model" "Cultural poisoning" gets a single hit. "Cultural health" "Cultural literacy" -aunk -wikipedia gets gets 59 hits. "Cultural poisoning" "Cultural health" -aunk -wikipedia gets 13 Googles. Since all these terms must be related from this article's perspective, I am concerned that the usages here may well be original research. Further, looking through the Google hits, at least some of them are from non-authoritative web fora and in some cases links to the apparently personal site(s) of the author. Looking through the first few pages of Google hits, and judging by their summaries, I found this which is unconvincing. By way of reference to Cultural poisoning, listed below, Amazon has this which is, as the nominator implies, by Aunk. The question is then, does an article about an author's theory qualify as original research when the same author has a published text containing that theory? It is published by "Writers Club Press", which "publishes on demand" [1] so in this case, there is no independent publication. By way of defence, I see some references at the bottom of the article. However, and this is important, they are not referenced in the text and carry little weight with me as a result since they are not used to support the text. The "See Also" section can be as long as it likes, without mitigating original research. All of which leads me to a delete. -Splash 01:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research, of the "Here's what I thought after reading these books" variety. Gazpacho 03:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup. The author's view is very un-encyclopediac, but the term "Cultural health" is an accepted one in modern Human Geography studies. Instead of flat-out deleting the article, let's get some good writers in there to tidy it up a bit. --Frag 15:19, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice, if someone wants to come back and re-write the article. It may be a viable term to have an article on. However, I can't see that there is anything here that wouldn't have to be completely re-written. Alternatively, it could be pared down to a tiny stub, and re-written from that. So I'll put "heavy cleanup" as a secondary vote if some sort of consensus needs to be made. --Icelight 16:53, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup per Frag. Briangotts (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, The phrase cultural health is not something new. Putting it in google gets 45,000,000 hits. Millions of people in America are talking about this topic. The article stub needs work to be encyclopedic but the topic is encyclopedic. Someone from the Asian American community at some point in time, will reflect their communities understanding of cultural health. The medical community will do the same. This is a big discussion with many "experts" and the article will grow.

--Aunk 18:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Original research. --Carnildo 19:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• I disagree with Aunk's assessment of the Google test results regarding Cultural health. The 45m figure is for the words seperately, not as a quoted phrase. The search "cultural health" -"health care" -"health club" -nurses -diseases -medical -aunk , gives 17,900 hits, none of which (that I could find) are using the term in the sense this article uses it. Bgeer 20:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Although I am not familiar with this term and the author seems to have written it from a POV, sources are cited although not neccessarily reliable ie Pat Buchanan. I would vote to keep even a decent stub given the currency of the term but would vote to delete this. Capitalistroadster 00:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete "original" research (which isn't even original. See eugenics) from a pathetic pseudo-intellectual that can barely even spell (Is english even your first language?) and claims ideas that are decades, even centuries old, as his own. --TheDoober 08:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. Tearlach 16:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. While this term may be used, its certainly not in this context. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:09, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. From the discussion above, it is clear that this subject has the potential to have a good, unbiased, article written about it, but the current article is so not that article. I suppose you could do a massive cleanup on it, but that would probably amount to a complete re-write. Might as well just nuke it now, and if somebody wants to write the real article, they can go ahead and do that at some point in the future. The alternative would be to Reduce this to a stub, which I wouldn't object to, but don't really think it's the right strategy. --RoySmith 00:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 15:41, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Cultural poisoning

This article is a neologism describing user Aunk's original research. User has not provided evidence that anyone other than him/herself uses this term. Bgeer 00:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Hetep and Respect Bgeer

Bgeer in his Vfd said:"…This article is a neologism describing user Aunk's original research. User has not provided evidence that anyone other than him/herself uses this term…"

There are three claims in Bgeer's two-sentence comment.

1. Cultural Poisoning is a neologism

2. The article describes Aunk's original research

3. Aunk has not provided evidence that some one other then he, uses the term

First let me say I appreciate Bgeer's interest in cultural literacy. For those who do not know Hetep (sometimes pronounced Hotep, means peace). Bgeer I think you jumped the gun. I was having a similar discussion on the discussion page with individuals interested in the article. I am new but was getting ready to make adjustments to the stub. But let me respond directly to your concerns.

1. Cultural Poisoning is a neologism

This is a debatable assertion. See info from wiki below. The difference between debatable and deleteable is considerable. "…When a word or phrase is no longer "new," it is no longer a neologism…. Opinions differ on exactly how old a word must be to no longer be considered a neologism; cultural acceptance probably plays a more important role than time in this regard…" [2]

Cultural acceptance is important. This phrase is accepted in the African American community. I have not run across an African American in cyberspace or on the ground that asserts cultural poisoning does not exist in the African American community. In addition many other ethnic groups use this phrase as a google test verifies. [3]

"Yesterday's neologisms, like yesterday's jargon, are often today's essential vocabulary." – Academic Instincts, 2001[1]

The phrase cultural poisoning is essential vocabulary in the cultural literacy discussion of today. See quote from wikipedian below.

"…used frequently in the cultural literacy cult, I've also seen it in Eastern journalism decrying the poisoning of their culture by Western influences…" user: Jareth.:. see his vote and comment below:.

2. The article describes Aunk's original research

The article has been rewritten as source-based research. See wiki policy below.

"…Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia…"

All information listed under references , in the article comply with following wiki policy.

"… it is essential that any primary-source material used in an article has been published or otherwise made available to people who do not rely on Wikipedia…"

The other reason that "original research" should not apply to this article is as follows.

Aunk is writing as and expert on the terms Cultural Health, Cultural literacy and cultural poisoning as they related to the African American community. See the applicable wiki rule below.

"…No original research" does not mean that experts on a specific topic cannot contribute to Wikipedia. Indeed, Wikipedia welcomes experts and academics. However, such experts do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia. They should refer to themselves and their publications in the third person and write from a neutral point of view (NPOV)…"

3. Aunk has not provided evidence that some one other then he, uses the term

See google test [4] cultural poisoning -aunk -wikipedia 500,000 googles

See quote from page 3 not by Aunk

The Virginian Pilot Ledger-Star, May 4, 1986: Note: Straight ASCII ... In so doing, boomer comedians have become the antidote to a severe case of cultural poisoning,people to whom the baby boom generation probably owes what ... www.richmonder.com/charbeneau/editorial/boomhum.htm - 12k - Cached - Similar pages

See quote from google page 3 not by aunk

Jihad Watch: Terror group threatens Dutch with 'Islamic earthquake' We are starting to experience the first stage of cultural poisoning, the noxious effects are just starting to manifest themselves in truly frightening ways ... www.jihadwatch.org/archives/002866.php - Similar pages

See quote from wikipedian below.

"…used frequently in the cultural literacy cult, I've also seen it in Eastern journalism decrying the poisoning of their culture by Western influences…" user: Jareth.:. see his vote and comment below:.

--Aunk 23:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. See my long comment in the VfD for Cultural health for reasons. -Splash 01:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. However if someone finds an antidote, keep --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research. Gazpacho 03:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. Briangotts (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism, original research. --Carnildo 19:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete What the hell is this even about? --TheDoober 08:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite from scratch. Having tried a Google on "cultural poisoning" -"Aunk", I agree with Jareth's comment below. But the current original research needs totally scrapping. Tearlach 17:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup A real subject enclyclopediatic subject but the article is just badly written. Jimbobsween 05:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone can completely NPOV and remove all original research. I'm familiar with this term, and while its used frequently in the cultural literacy cult, I've also seen it in Eastern journalism decrying the poisoning of their culture by Western influences. The article as it stands is little more than spamvertising and would need a total rewrite to be keep-worthy. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:07, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup Poorly written, difficult to understand meaning at times.Thraesja 15:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

User has 6 edits --Allen3 ^talk 15:41, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 15:12, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Blondphilia

Neologism. 0 google hits.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 03:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Neologism. Wikibofh 03:49, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete <drini ☎> 13:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism. --jonasaurus 21:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The proper Greek would be xanthophilia (ξανθοφιλία). It's actually the name of a disease where you see yellow; Vincent van Gogh reportedly had it. --Jpbrenna 23:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fake word EdwinHJ | Talk 22:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Avalon Bound 21:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Valhallia 11:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was RELIST. Splash 16:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC) Keep-

I find this an extremely valuable topic -- so much so that I just spent my whole day creating a well-linked wikified page based on Connie Barlow's version (including a whole page on Thomas Berry), only to come back and find that someone has created a stripped down version. While I think it has been stripped down a bit too much, it is probably a good holder for now. It is hard to find anything objectionable in it. It can be expanded to be more substantive and useful later, but it is best to start small, I say. I've been writing a lot on this subject lately and, as a blogger, I love to use Wikipedia to provide links to unusual concepts that are poorly summarized elsewhere on the web. So this is a fabulous resource for me. -- Blindeagle cii at igc dot org

Keep-

   Modifications are a good idea for it to fit as a Wiki article, but overall, 

definitely keep. This is a popular topic and it would look bad if we were

silent on it.

-Dr. Jon Cleland Host  (equinoxjjh@yahoo.com)

This is of great importance. For the first time there is a story that can be shared across religions, cultures, international boundaries based on recent scientific discovery. It should definitely be part of Wikipedia. Frances Lorenz (lorenzmf@AOL.com)

Keep but modify The topic is valuable, but even as rewritten by Connie it does not read as a factual/review sort of encyclopedia entry but as a pretty strong advocacy essay for the concept, and with expressions that come across as fairly pronounced hype. I think that might explain some of the discomfort reactions. It may also actually put off a signficant proportion of readers rather than pulling them in. Advocacy is fine on one's own site, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia on which people can rely for neutral and objective information. I think the article should be rewritten to remove the advocacy and hype and to appear and indeed be more or less neutral. I know that's tough for someone deeply involved in the subject, but it might help to imagine oneself as an academic - just describing this concept and its development and versions (theist and non-theist) to their students as one approach out of many. If there have been any critiques of The Great Story approach, mentioning them would also help. Paul Harrison harrison at dircon dot co dot uk

Keep - While there might be a better way to Wikify it the consciousness expressed is far to important to not be in the Wikipedia. Over time, that clean up will take place.

Jim Brauner - jimbrauner@earthlink.net

KEEP The subject matter is critically important to the level of Copernicus, Davinci, Newton and Einstein as to how and why phyical science discoveries have a direct effect on the social aspect of humans and earth itself.

Robert Nemanich rwnemanich@mychi.com

The Great Story

Keep The Great Story is the story of the human relationship to the Earth and the universe through time. Telling the Great Story entails tracing life back to its roots and highlighting the many miraculous occurrences along the way that make it possible for us to be having this discussion. Wikipedia is an appropriate place for a synopsis introducing the public to the Great Story and the thought that has gone into its discovery and dissemination. Brian Higbie (gringodelanoche@hotmail.com)

Unencyclopedic personal essay, possibly original research. --malathion ^talk 20:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: In the first sentence of the article, it says it was coined by Thomas Berry and Brian Swimme in their 1992 book, "The Universe Story". When a source is stated how can it be original research? Sonic Mew | talk to me 20:54, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • But it still seems to be worthy of a delete vote. Sonic Mew | talk to me 21:01, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• It is not the term that is OR, but the article discussing it is either a recounting of one book (POV) or the editor's interpretation of that book (OR). Either way, delete. Robert A West 22:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Unless, of course, someone comes up with a reasonable semblance of an NPOV, researched article. Robert A West 22:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The above readers have misunderstood the importance of the Great Story entry. The Great Story is the story of a new cosmology for all the people of planet Earth. The Great STory is the first time in human history that all human beings have the same cosmology. It is also a story that heals the rift between science and relgion. The Great Story brings together into one narrative everything science has learned about our source in the twentieth century. For the first time we know all the molecules and atoms in our bodies were created in the explosion of a star. We were all "out there" at one time. So were all the other animals and plants on this Earth. We were out there in the forms of atoms and minerals. That means we are all intimately connected - all of us every plant and every animal. This is terribly important and perfect for Wikipedia. Bill Bruehl, bbruehl@bellsouth.net Preceding unsigned comment by 65.4.153.7 The essay is neither the recounting of one book nor the editors interpretation of one book. It is, rather, a short introduction to a fairly large body of research. See here: http://www.thegreatstory.org/what_is.html Michael Dowd, co-editor of entry<mbdowd@bigplanet.com>cell: 425-760-9941 204.210.56.185 (talk · contribs))

It is a complex concept that embodies an evolutionary advance forging the meaning of physical science and mythology of humans, but it should be shortened. As for deleting it altogether it would be analagous to deleting references to Copernicus on 1600.(Unsigned comment by 67.37.50.91 (talk · contribs))

• Comment: The problem is that it is too complex. Rewriting it so that it is easier for those unfamiliar with the subject to understand it may make it more likely to be kept. Sonic Mew | talk to me 13:40, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. The article is not OR (as noted by Sonic Mew above) nor is it a "recounting of one book (POV) or the editor's interepretation of that book (OR)." The editor(s) of the article, Michael Dowd and Connie Barlow, are both published authors and are well known for their leading role in explaining and disseminating information from many diverse sources the various and evolving contributions to the "Great Story." Barlow is a scientist and science writer (Evolution Extended (MIT Press), The Ghosts of Evolution (Basic Books), Green Space, Green Time (Copernicus), et al. Dowd is the author of Earth Spirit: A Handbook for Nurturing an Ecological Christianity and he has written many articles and presented "The Great Story" to many faith traditions. The Great Story has inspired many others: authors, scientists, artists, musicians (even a rap artist), educators (especially Montessori teachers), economists (David Korten, e.g.) children's books (Jennifer Morgan's Born with a Bang and From Lava to Life), and many others. Regarding Day/Night or Left Brain/Right Brain thinking, see Leonard Shlain's The Alphabet vs the Goddess: the Conflict between Word and Image; or more philosophically, see Gregory Bateson's Sacred Unity: Further Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Mainstream? Not yet. The Gaia Hypothesis, first proposed by James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis, and first published by Stewart Brand in Whole Earth Review in 1975, remains controversial 30 years later but it has stimulated a whole new field of "earth systems" and inspired "deep ecology" and "ecofeminism." The Great Story is similarly a seminal idea that is challenging our past views of the relationship, or lack thereof, between science and religion. Debate about the Great Story is welcome, but for those who are skeptical, please consider learning more about it at www.thegreatstory.org. Chuck Lynd <Lynd.7@osu.edu>

I've already expressed my support of this topic in the discussion section, but for what it's worth I will vote for it again here. The Great Story metaphors are provocative and worthy of discussion groups in education, philosophy, and theology. I have followed the writing and speaking of Great Story proponents since 1997 and have been impressed at its adaptability to the theological frameworks of religiously progressive congregations. John Brewer <jbrewer@sunflower.com>

• This has certainly attracted a lot of anons. The trouble is that the article does not make it clear what "The Great Story" actually is. thegreatstory.org did make it slightly clearer to me, but the article stil does not do enough for those unfamiliar with the subject. Rewrite the articleto make it clearer, then come back to defend it. Sonic Mew | talk to me 19:03, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep

It doesn't seem to be within Wiki policy to delete something simply because you don't understand it. ...or because it may appear to challenge your religous belief. Wiki policy states:

You don't have to vote on every nomination; consider not participating if:

   * a nomination involves a topic of which you are ignorant.

Presumably, that would mean that recommending a page for deletion would be included in the above policy.

In other words, I might suggest that Pokemon pages, for example, be deleted because I can not comprehend the appeal and find no value to humanity for them. Those pages seem like commercial advertising rather than an encyclopaedic entry.

• • But it is the fact that this article cannot be comprehended in its present form that makes it deleteable. This is not about comprehending the appeal of "The Great Story". It is the fact that it is not written to help those unfamiliar with the subject understand it. If you can't do that, then this does not deserve to stay. Sonic Mew | talk to me 14:07, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Massive, massive, massive cleanup. I think that it is impossible to tell whether this is encyclopedic in the current form. Also, this just stinks of possible copyvio. It reads like an essay, it's not wikified, it's not in good form, it has tons of POV. I think that a vote on this right now is really inappropriate. Mmmbeer 01:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep for all the reasons given, but clean up to put it into Wiki style. KHerbst August 1, 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. < Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

I vote Keep but to have it put into Wiki style, whatever that is. This is a powerful story and movement providing an inspiring integrative view of the universe, planet, human informing both science and religion globally.

I also vote for Wiki to develop a more intuitive easy human interface for keeping,voting, posting etc to promote this interesting concept. See Craigslist for better ideas on how to do this. Also CD Baby has gotten this concept down pretty well. 8/05 Alan Tower [edit]

KEEP Having read so many, many books that reference the beautiful combining of science and mysticism,and the need for a living cosmology; it is hard to believe this concept would be unfamiliar. The Great Story transcends all religions but one source would be books by Christian theologian, Matthew Fox. In Fox's The Coming of the Cosmic Christ, p. 132 he speaks of mindfulness. "It opens their minds and hearts to the universe, to what is and to where we are: citizens of a vast twenty-billion-year history that is still unfinished and which we are called to complete; citizens of a universe of one hundred billion galaxies, of which ours is a mysteriously small one." 206.162.192.39 15:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)Susan Heitzman

KEEP That folks are unfamiliar with the Great Story concept is precisely why it is so important to have an article like this in Wiki. I am a university professor who uses this idea (Great Story/Evolutionary Epic/Universe Story)as the fundamental framework for a 2-semester Introduction to Natural Science course that integrates physics, chemistry, earth science, astronomy, cosmology, and biology. Given what science has taught us in the last century or so (and especially in recent decades) about the origin and evolution of the universe, Dobzhansky's famous statement that "nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution" must now be expanded to something like "nothing makes sense except in light of the Great Story". The idea that ALL of science fits together into a single seemless creation story is an extremely powerful one, with implications that we are just beginning to grasp. I don't really feel qualified to speak to how (or whether) to "Wikify" this article better, but please keep its essential ideas intact. Jim Lorman (lorman@edgewood.edu)

KEEP I feel it fulfills a necessary function, being the realization of a perceived need for a modern Creation Myth. It is neither Science nor Religion, per se, but points to an awareness that life includes elements of both. In our modern world, with 200 years of mechanistic reductonism in the Life Sciences and 100 years since we proved the basis for Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, we need a view to bridge the philosophical gaps in our worldview. Physics has shown that the mechanistic view is wrong, but people in the Life Sciences point to the success of reductionism, and take mechanism as a given. Mainstream Religion doesn't help us to deal with the issues like the origin of consciousness and the evolution of sentient life, and mainstream Science has few answers, which makes The Great Story a necessary pursuit for those who seek to have a satisfying account of our origins. Jonathan Dickau --67.87.247.33 18:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

KEEP I like Connie's re-write, but I had just completed subtantial edits to inform those new to the Great Story idea. It would be nice if someone could weave in some of my changes, as I don't want to start again from scratch. Either way, I still think the topic is essential. Jonathan Dickau --67.87.247.33 20:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

_________________________________

SUGGESTED REWRITE:

"The Great Story" is an umbrella term for a movement that is manifesting today in scientifically literate cultures whereby new cosmological understandings made possible by modern science are translated into story forms that can provide the same kind of foundation for leading meaningful lives, in service to larger communities, that have traditionally been provided by a people's "creation story." Thomas Berry (born 1915, USA), a Catholic priest, academician, and self-proclaimed "geologian," began in the 1970s urging western culture to integrate the new cosmology offered by modern science into its religious expressions, as a form of update needed not only for religious consistency with the world as we now know it but also for the role he envisioned it would play in evoking "ecospirituality," "Earth Literacy," and a sense of sacred relationship to the natural world that would in turn foster a mutually enhancing relationship between the human milieu and the rest of, what he calls, "the Earth Community."

"The Great Story," "the Story of the Universe", and "the Epic of Evolution" are all synonyms for artful renditions of the new cosmology made available through modern science. The Great Story is science rendered as meaningful, motivating, and sometimes metaphorical narrative. A foundational book in this movement is the 1992 "The Universe Story," coauthored by mathematical cosmologist Brian Swimme and cultural historian Thomas Berry. In 1980 Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" series, which aired on public television, expressed a celebratory understanding of the evolutionary story that was viewed by tens of millions of people. In a 1978 Pulitzer-Prize-winning book "On Human Nature," Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson signaled the importance of this endeavor of modern, factually based mythmaking by declaring, "The evolutionary epic is probably the best myth we will ever have." Anthropologist and religious naturalist Loren Eiseley titled his first book of essays that celebrated evolution, "The Immense Journey" (1957). Around the same time, French Jesuit (and paleontologist) Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, presented the evolutionary story with a mystical and christological emphasis, in his posthumously published book “The Phenomenon of Man.” Aldo Leopold, a leader in the early conservation movement, wrote of the grand evolutionary saga as "the odyssey of evolution," in his 1948 "Sand County Almanac.” And in the early through mid 20th century, evolutionary biologist Julian Huxley wrote humanistic essays and books attesting to the power of regarding this "epic of evolution" as a form of "Religion Without Revelation."

"The Great Story" thus refers to any telling of a cosmic creation story grounded in the modern, mainstream sciences. Peoples throughout the world have, of course, developed cosmologies — that is, understandings of how land, water, sky, plants and animals, humans, the sun and moon and stars all came into being, what purpose each of these elements serves in the whole, and how the human is to live "in accord" (quoting mythologist Joseph Campbell) with all of reality, known and unknown. Traditional ways of transmitting these varied cosmological and ethical understandings have included creation stories, parables, epic poems, songs, dances and other manifestations of the human capacity to convey sequences of events and express relationships in meaningful ways in order to provide the fundamental context for living one's life. For peoples throughout the world who are still primarily embedded in oral traditions, these understandings and teachings are so deeply interwoven into their cultures and psyches that anthropologists refer to the amalgams as "lifeways." For cultures in which symbolic language has been translated into writing, and in which written documents are regarded as the primary (even divine and inerrant) sources for maintaining and passing on cosmological and ethical wisdom, these understandings and expressions are what is referred to by the term "religion."

The new cosmology that undergirds various tellings of "The Great Story" is mainstream science — that is, reality as understood by the collective scientific community that publishes in the leading scientific journals and which is taught in science courses at leading institutions of higher learning throughout the world. Because mainstream science is grounded in an evolutionary understanding of cosmos, Earth, life, and culture, "The Great Story" manifests as creation stories and parables that celebrate an evolutionary understanding of reality: galactic evolution, stellar evolution, planetary evolution, biological evolution, cultural evolution.

The galaxies, stars, planets, and known and possible life forms are all presented by mainstream science to have developed through time by natural processes that can be studied and tested using scientific means. For example, it is possible today to view how galaxies looked in the past simply by using our space telescopes to image galaxies billions of light-years away, which is also, necessarily, billions of light-YEARS distant in time. It is possible to observe the spectra of light radiated from stars and re-emitted by ionized atoms in their surroundings to identify matter existing vast distances outside our own star system. Scientists also employ chemical and thermodynamic calculations to understand how stars today, as well as stars of the past, are forming all the atoms of the Periodic Table of Elements heavier than helium, through processes of "stellar nucleosynthesis." Although scientists cannot similarly witness past biological beings living their lives in real time, they do examine fossils, record the position of such fossils in radiometrically dated geological strata, and study genetic relatedness of living life forms in order to piece together well-supported understandings of how Earth life has evolved. Similarly, the various sciences of physical and cultural anthropology, archeology, linguistics, cultural history, evolutionary psychology, and others allow a vast community of trained experts around the globe, and of all ethnicities and religious faiths, to piece together stories of how the human psyche and human cultures have changed through time.

Scientific understanding of this evolving universe is now so vast, and the scientific disciplines and expertise so fragmented, however, that nonscientists may regard this edifice of knowledge as beyond understanding. Modern peoples may well embrace the applied fruits of the scientific enterprise (traveling in jets and ingesting modern medicines), but many still fail to grasp the cosmological significance of the scientific enterprise, consciously or unconsciously holding instead to pre-modern, non-evolutionary cosmologies. Or, they may be living their lives and teaching their young wisdom and values in fragments, outside the context of any integrated creation story -- that is, outside of a self-consistent and meaningful account of how things are, how they came to be, and what is important.

Thomas Berry has proposed that modern cosmology meaningfully presented should not be regarded as yet another competing religion. Rather, the new cosmology fosters a "metareligious" understanding that will ultimately be expressed in a wide variety of ways in and through each of the established religions and secular worldviews. There are many published (or internet accessible) writings of Christians, Hindus, Taoists, Buddhists, Unitarian Universalists, religious naturalists, pagans, and others who express how this new cosmology can not only reconcile with their spiritual tradition but how it positively enhances it. Some have incorporated this new understanding into established holy days and rituals; some have created entirely new spiritual expressions -- e.g. "The Cosmic Walk," "The Cosmic Communion," and "Great Story Beads,” also known as "cosmic rosaries.” (All of these terms can easily be googled.) Multi-media (DVD) expressions of it are also available, notably titles that feature the work of physicist Brian Swimme, Dominican Sister Miriam Therese MacGillis, evolutionary evangelist Rev. Michael Dowd, and science writer and Unitarian Universalist Connie Barlow. Short multi-media programs are also posted on the internet.

There are secular and religious educational curricula available (for adults and for children) in book or web-based forms. (The website www.TheGreatStory.org is a central node for accessing web forms of these materials.) Curricula accessible through the internet include "evolutionary parables," as well as course outlines and graphics for helping children locate "Birthday Stars" and for learning that "We Are Made of Stardust." "Our Continental Story" provides playful curricula and participatory processes for both adults and kids to learn the 65 million year (post-dinosaur) story of the comings and goings of mammals in North America. "Death through Deep-Time Eyes" examines how a dozen scientific disciplines present a new "creation story" that depicts physical death (of stars and continents as well as life forms) as not only natural but essential for evolutionary development.

The most popular children's books in The Great Story movement are those of Jennifer Morgan and Dana Llyn Andersen: "Born with a Bang" and "From Lava to Life." "The Kids Book of Awesome Stuff," by Charlene Brotman is a popular children's book in workbook form.

Global Education Associates Upper Midwest had published a reader, “Amazing Universe,” that offers text and guidelines for a 6-segment self-guided or group discussion course on The Great Story.

In summary, The Great Story embraces and includes all other stories. It is the science-based epic of evolution that can be told in ways that validate and uplift traditional religious stories by revealing the magnitude of their central truths – truths that have fostered cultural persistence over hundreds and thousands of years. The Great Story not only provides a faithful interpretation of the past; it allows for a deepening understanding of the past, as our awareness and knowledge grow. It is thus “A Story of the Changing Story.” Various tellings of The Great Story also may offer meaningful and empowering ways of understanding the challenges of the present and for entering the future energized by realistically hopeful and inspiring visions.

Rewritten by Connie Barlow - cbtanager@bigplanet.com ________________________________________________________

• Keep I think the rewrite addresses most of the above issues. As I understand it, "The Great Story" is a way of developing a worldview from the story of evolution. This worldview seems comprehensive and inclusive and flexible in a way that honors past and present scientific and religious thinking and looks forward to what may be next. Lisa Carrillo Lcarrillo4tll 21:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• COMMENT. Sheesh, that anons have totally destroyed this VfD page. Anyhow, I rewrote the whole fricking thing. I removed all the POV, killed about 90% of the entry because it didn't explain what "The Great STory" was, and I somewhat wikified. The way it was before was pure propaganda. Anyway, vote away! Perhaps we can bring this back for a revote.Mmmbeer 21:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Nice work. It's looking better already! If we do bring this to a revote, I suggest limiting the amount of voters, (the usual so-many-edits rule,) so that we can do this properly! Sonic Mew | talk to me 18:31, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

KEEP Connie Barlow's new version addresses the issues raised above. elisabet@sahtouris.com

• Keep Mmmbeer's version. The long versions are not encyclopedic -- verbosity is a vice, not a virtue, in an encyclopedia. There is a legitimate kernel of an article in explaining what the term means and putting it into proper context. DS1953 23:34, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, my vote is delete if the anons keep changing this to some sort of forum for proselytizing this belief system. Mmmbeer 00:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

KEEP This topic is important, but I would eliminate Mmmbeers version as it's too uninformative to provide any meaningful insight into the subject, or even a worthwhile definition of what "The Great Story" is and what purpose it attempts to fulfill. Admittedly, some of what appeared in earlier entries was 'fluff,' but a reader should come away with a clear understanding of the basic ideas behind "The Great Story". I think Connie Barlow's re-write does that fairly well. Mmmbeer's severely edited form makes the entry almost meaningless. Jonathan Dickau --67.87.247.33 03:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

KEEP New version with edits as of this time serves the public well to inform about TGS, but is sufficiently brief, encyclopedic, and informative. It suffers from little or no 'fluff' and tells readers what they need to know, to learn more if desired. Jonathan Dickau - jond4u@optonline.net --67.87.247.33 15:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (but a less cumbersome title may be in order). -- BD2412 ^talk 05:09, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

List of fictional characters on the autistic spectrum

50% nonsense, and when that's removed there's not much left. I don't see the point of the list. Tim Pope 18:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nonsense. Nandesuka 18:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • It is no longer nonsense. Factitious 23:11, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, why shouldn't wikipedia users be able to find examples of fictional characters with autism? Kappa 19:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original, um, "research". Or does Melville actually say anywhere that Captain Ahab is "on the autistic spectrum"? Uppland 19:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • There are dozens of sources which say that Raymond in Rain Man is is autistic. Kappa 22:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as much of it is unverifiable original research. FCYTravis 20:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • So why not just edit that out? Kappa 22:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Listing is highly subjective, so qualifies as original research. ManoaChild 21:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain. I would vote to keep if enough is left after the subjective elements are removed. ManoaChild 06:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• delete. Possibly move to fictional characters with autistism if all speculation (Ralph Wiggum? Bert? Come on...) is removed. Sabine's Sunbird 22:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC) Changed to tentaive keep now speculation is removed. Sabine's Sunbird 23:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. What is left if all speculation is dropped? (This is not intended as a rhetorical question.) Certainly most, maybe even all, of the second part of the list would have to be dropped. Can all of the characters in the first section be verified? ManoaChild 23:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Yep, all the second section would have to go. It's speculation. A lsit of characters that have autism from fiction is a potentially useful list (and would be a better page with a small line or two about said characters). A page of unsubstanciated guesses, that is not encyclopedic. Sabine's Sunbird 02:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I'm all for tossing the speculation section of the page, but I think a list of canonically autistic characters is useful and no more unreasonable than any other list. --Ambyr 23:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but delete the speculative part unless the speculation can be documented (e.g. if the speculation was covered in the media). Pburka 01:09, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, speculation and original research. Kaibabsquirrel 15:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Which part of the list do you think is speculation? They all seem verifiable to me. Factitious 23:11, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The topic is verifiable and encyclopedic. The objections above all refer to an earlier version of the list that was easily improvable, demonstrating that this was properly a matter for cleanup, not VfD. Factitious 23:11, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the current version. However, anon appears to intends to add his own speculation - should be watched - Skysmith 08:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Article in its current state is useful. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 19:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This list is interesting. Brownman40 07:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting, and a worthy study, so far as the fiction actually confirms that the character is autistic and not simply implied nor fanon. - Gilgamesh 04:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – malathion ^talk 06:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Sajjad

I did a google check and found no actual results (79,400 hits). My guess is vanity. freestylefrappe 02:12, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete POV. Hamster Sandwich 02:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Well, a POV article is not deletable, Hamster, but the lack of any citation nor clear claim to notability is. -Harmil 03:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless proper and appropriate context is given to establish notability. --Bhadani 16:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion ^talk 06:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Anthropology basic topics

A short list of topics we want covered in anthropology - but all of them have already been covered, and the list hasn't been updated since february 2003. This has seriously outlived its usefulness, and it doesn't have any content worth archiving since it's just a list. Radiant_>|< 13:33, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or move to something like List of basic anthropology topics. But probably delete. Mistercow 18:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete If it isn't useful.... Tobycat 21:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• An obvious delete.→Encephalon | ζ | ∑ 12:43:26, 2005-08-07 (UTC)
• Delete, strange place, content minimal. Pavel Vozenilek 17:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: If it's no longer a "Wikipedia missing topics", then it's obsolete. Peter Grey 17:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion ^talk 06:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Youth finances

First draft of an essay. Unsalvageable. Unclear if the title subject should even be an entry.

lots of issues | leave me a message 22:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete This isn't an encyclopedia article. I'm not sure what it is. Part of it is advice on the dangers of using credit card irresposibly. ike9898 12:08, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV essay. Func( t, c, e,  ) 22:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-encyclopaedic. Stephenb 14:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was the article was blanked by its creator which was taken as a request for deletion and so the article has been speedy deleted. JeremyA (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Note: This article has been renominated for deletion by User:Uppland: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ian Lustick (2nd nomination) -- Essjay · Talk 06:19, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Ian Lustick

I found his name to appear in some websites outside UPenn, but I'm a little confused about his notability other than being a professor.

• Weak Delete: NN (?)/ vanity --Ragib 02:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, seems no more notable than average college prof. Unfortunately, someone seems to be going through UPenn's website and adding resumés of all the professors. Sdedeo 02:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I'm sure someone will add as appropriate if she's actually notable. -Harmil 03:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. I discarded around half a dozen votes prior to vote counting, because the editors looked somewhat sockish or merely new. There were seven valid votes for keep, twelve for delete, two other valid votes. There being no consensus, the article is kept. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Religion and schizotypy

This totally non-notable page is likley to be little more than an paean against religion. Hipocrite 01:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - sounds like the article could do with expansion though. Rob Church 01:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - this article is a work in progress. by the by, is Hipocrite a sockpuppet of DreamGuy? his workings almost EXACTLY DreamGuy's style. Gabrielsimon 02:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment: No, I'm not. Hipocrite 15:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment: No, he's not, and no the style isn't even close (for example, this article is clearly not against religion, it was put there so you could rant against psychiatrists, per your conversations on Talk:Otherkin and Talk:Therianthropy, among others), and you are one to talk about sockpuppets, having written the article in question under one. DreamGuy 02:29, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Which is now proven beyond a doubt, see User:Ketrovin's block. DreamGuy 07:01, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - this acrticle could use some reworking, but its not non notable. Khulhy 02:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Considering the prevalence of sockpuppets on articles Gabrielsimon has been fighting over lately, I will have to call upon the official Wikipedia:Sockpuppets policy and point out that this person doesn't come close to the 100 edits one needs to verify oneself as an actual real person and would note that the edits he/she does have are extremely suspicious, jumping into articles closely related to ones Gabrielsimon worked on but that aren't otherwise related. DreamGuy 02:29, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Khulhy is now proven as sockpuppet of Gabrielsimon. DreamGuy 07:01, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Could be a great article soon. CanadianCaesar 02:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - As described by User:SlimVirgin on the discussion page, "I can see there being a good article on religion and mental illness, but as this page stands, it's POV, unencyclopedic in the style it's written, and it has no sources. My suggestion is that it be deleted, and the creator (or someone else) puts it on a user subpage and works on it there, until it's ready to face the public, as it were." Also, singling out schizotypy as a specific disorder to mention in the title is really quite odd as it's just one minor classification out of a whole range that would be important for a comparison between religion and psychology in general or mental disorders more specifically. If the article stayed around waiting for cleanup it would just get redirectede to a real article on the topic under a better name, and this title is so specific it's really unnecessary as a redirect as nobody would think to go looking for it instead of, say, Religion and psychology or Religion and mental disorders or whatnot. This article is a completely unsalvagable mess. DreamGuy 02:29, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Comment--your outnumbered, dreamguy. guess that means consensus will be keep.Gabrielsimon 02:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Concur with DreamGuy. android79 02:37, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with schizophrenia. Seems NPOV to me, not a paean (or, more correctly, a Jeremiad) against or for anything. But could easily be put inside a larger article, no need to break-out everything. Sdedeo 02:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with schizophrenia or into an article about religion and psychology. — David Remahl 03:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

  ... I didnt gdo anything that last time...Gabrielsimon 03:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. POV personal essay, no sources, strange title, unencyclopedic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:28, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sorry. Vashti 04:29, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- The topic is valid, apply improvement tag as needed. DavidH 04:34, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Xaa
• Delete I'm sorry to see things go down this way, but I see little salvagable here. Redirect to Religion and psychology. Friday 05:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hopelessly POV, and unnecessary. An article on all mental illness and religion? Maybe. This? No. Wikibofh 05:43, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The article as it stands is close to being List of religious leaders who I think are nuts. A new article with a tighter and more technical focus could work, but scrap this one. FreplySpang (talk) 10:56, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • It is possible to change an article without deleting it ... — David Remahl 11:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• But realistically, is anyone going to in the near future? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:34, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

• What SlimVirgin said. Also, I think the hypothetical new article would probably not have the same title. FreplySpang (talk) 12:10, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

  Make it a redirect then. There is nothing in this article that would be unfit to be in the history of the article. — David Remahl 23:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. - grubber 11:29, 2005 August 7 (UTC)
• Delete. - There is real potential here, but the article as written is totally unsourced and inflammatory. Attempts to insert a little NPOV disclaimer language amount to little more than lipstick on a pig. If no one will take responsibility for improving the article immediately, we are better off deleting and letting someone else re-create when they are ready to commit to making a worthwhile article.--Craigkbryant 14:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. - The relationship between religion, spirituality, or the mystical experience and the schizotypic personality (not the same as a schizophrenic) is a topic of significant psychological research. I've dug up some primary and secondary sources, and would like to clean up the article. If there's a consensus to merge it with a larger topic, that's fine, but I'd like it to stick around for a while as I work on it. Much appreciated. Parker Whittle 19:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Valid topic. Potential to offend religious people is no reason for deletion. Martg76 13:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no useful content. Borisblue 14:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, baffling personal essay on an over-specific subject. There's probably no reasion this just can't be in religion, where it would fit nicely and do a solid job of offending religious people anyway...crud, did I just type that? Anyway. Lord Bob 17:51, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Interesting and potentially encyclopedic idea, but it cites no references whatsoever. Burden of proof is on the article's author to establish that his/her contribution is not pure speculation or original research by citing references. I'm willing to change my vote if a reference shows up. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete "Comment" It seems unreasonable to expect a diagnosis of schizotypy in any but the most modern case histories. For instance, how would you say Joan of Arc or Joseph Smith or Mohammed etc etc, (in short anybody who has had some kind of faith based epiphany) were suffering from a schizoid disorder? It would be pure speculation in all of these cases because they can never be clinically examined and diagnosed. We can in hindsight say "oh that person diplayed some or all of the symptoms" but with mental illness there are a wide variety of causation, such as chemical imbalance and physical anomalies. For historical figures as outlined in this article it would be impossible to say definitively what the causation of the visions or voices that may or may not have compelled them to action. Hamster Sandwich 22:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. While there is no doubt in my mind that there is a link between some people's religious experiences and mental illness (in general), the article in question is potentially offensive speculation about important religious figures with no evidence presented. A researched article on mental illness and religion is encyclopedic, this is not. Sabine's Sunbird 23:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is an important part of psychological history. If the tone of the article is inappropriate, please fix the article, but don't delet it. --malathion ^talk 01:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. - If Parker wants to work on it, then it's got a reasonably responsible editor sheparding it. Hipocrite 15:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

'DeleteThough Parker made a lot of edits last night, none were to this article, so I don't believe that it's going to get done. Prove me wrong.Hipocrite 12:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, appears to be a personal essay, not an encyclopedia topic. I will reconsider if genuine sources are cited before the expiry of this VfD discussion. --Stormie 06:47, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Other discussion, please vote above

{{merge|Talk:Religion and schizotypy}}

• This is such a small amount of information that it should be merged into another article. Forcing everyone to wait around a week, and to VOTE on it is stupid and anti-wiki.
• People should simply make suggestions on the talk page as usual and make edits and merges as usual
• It is asinine to generate 5 times more discussion than the amount of text involved here.

So I'm going to cut and paste the contents of this page to talk:Religion and schizotypy. Uncle Ed 11:47, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

There's a VfD going on, you don't just declare yourself right and call it off. This should not be merged or redirected, it should be deleted, and we're still voting on this. DreamGuy 12:05, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Plus, there doesn't appear to be any substantiated information in the article that could be merged anywhere. Vashti 12:07, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I had moved this to the discussion page, but another editor claimed that doing so was an attempt to bypass the consensus building process, so I am moving it back here. DreamGuy 03:11, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I've dug up some good primary and secondary (reputable) sources on the link between schizotypy and religious belief, spiritual experience, and what not. I've offered to clean it up in the comments attached to my vote, above. Either way the vote goes, the info will find a home. Parker Whittle 04:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Consequently, if any editors have some sources they'd like to see used on this topic, please reference them on the talk page for the article (preferrably something that's easily obtained). It looks like the article and it's talk page have been deleted, but go ahead and add references there, anyway Parker Whittle 18:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Whoah, as soon as I wrote that the article/talk had been deleted, it returned, disappeared, returned, disappeared like a virtual particle on the event horizon of a black hole. Funky. Parker Whittle 18:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, I get it. The "merge" template is screwy; it prepends Wikipedia: to whatever link you pass to it. Parker Whittle 18:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Ryan Delaney ^talk 08:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Men and Cats

Article appears to be based on a biased internet rumor. If it is real, more citation should be given and it should be merged into cat anyway. Decapod73 02:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I am a cat, and I disagree with the analysis. Sdedeo 05:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I am a dog, and I disagree with the analysis. No Account 00:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Without citations, this article is just speculation. ManoaChild 05:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Absolute garbage. It's even signed. Del.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ
• Delete. No sources provided, unverified, original research. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. anything good should be merged into cat --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 10:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing useful to merge into cat, since it's not only OR, but is the opposite of the few surveys I've seen (ISTR higher proportion of males than females own cats, relative to owning dogs, with differences below significance levels). Basically, this is a load of barse and should be treated as such. Grutness...wha? 14:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC) (co-signed by Nut and Bolt, kittens of this parish)
• Delete - As both a cat owner and a preferrer of intellectual women, I find this fake apparent scientific study interesting, but the fact remains that it is still fake and does not belong at Wikipedia. There are zero google hits for "Aka K. Molitov," so, even if the scientist exists, he or she is not particularly well known, and, as such, is not a credible source.--Frag 20:55, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as personal essay and original research unless good verifiable sources are provided prior to expiration of VfD discussion. There oughta be a law allowing speedy deletion of any article that says "studies have shown" without citing at least a couple of studies... Dpbsmith (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It seems like a POV essay --Dysepsion 05:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete OR. My cats agree. --Etacar11 23:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• delete. I rather think this is actually a joke. The last sentence reads like a punchline. Sabine's Sunbird 00:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Ryan Delaney ^talk 08:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Knowledgepreneurs

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball of not-yet-notable management terms. Francs2000 | Talk 10:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• You need to think outside the ball!
  • — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faethon387 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 8 August 2005
• Delete - meaningless entry. This is perilously close to nonsense. Naturenet | Talk 10:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Management talk and nonsense are sometimes hard to tell apart, which keeps me from asking for speedy. --DrTorstenHenning 11:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. neologism. ManoaChild 12:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable neologism, with original research. Eclipsed 12:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete managelogism. Buzzwordwise, that's the way the flagpole crumbles. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

Language

Pahari (Poonchi)

Pahari (Poonchi) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Pakistan, and Jammu and Kashmir. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't know if I'm seeing enough here for an article. The lone external link, presumably added to be a citation, does not contain the word "Pahari" at all after a Ctrl+F. Problems with my in-browser PDF reader, thanks to IP for making me re-check. Yes, there are two instances of the word in the document. I also doubt the reliability of the publication Journal of Language and Linguistics in Society itself. If there is a citation that could back up something said in the article, it could be merged to Pahari language or Poonch District, India (depending on what can be said and sourced) but I'm not sure I'm seeing that right now. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  Stricken in part and updated. Yes, it looks like the best merge/redirect target would be Pahari-Pothwari#Kashmir, Murree and the Galyat where it is already bolded. I'm not seeing much to merge that isn't already covered by the article. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  Poonchi Pahari is a dialect of Pahari, falling under the Western Pahari group. It is closely related to other dialects such as Chibhali Pahari, Mirpuri Pahari, and Kotli Pahari. It is only a dialect and does not require a separate article or classification as a distinct language. Only a few words are pronounced differently, but they are easily understood by speakers of Chibhali or Mirpuri Pahari or any Pahari. Mutual intelligibility is high across these dialects. HistoryofKashmir (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. The entirety of what the link says is:

  In the southern areas of Poonch and Rajouri, the primary language is Poonchi, also known as Pahari or Potohari. This language is part of the Lahnda/Punjabi family within the broader Indo-Aryan languages

  I'm no expert with this stuff (and can't judge the reliability of the source either), but is this just the same thing as Pahari-Pothwari? There's certainly nothing in the source to justify a separate article at the very least. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

References

WordMasters

WordMasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Events. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: per my PROD comments Moritoriko (talk) 06:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Not enough sources online to indicate notability. – numbermaniac 08:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
• Neutral, Sources do exist; however, I am uncertain if they would contribute to GNG as they are mostly local newspapers bragging about their kids. Each of the following articles at least contain information that might be usable in our article: [5][6][7] ✶Quxyz✶ 19:03, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  Generally, that kind of routine local news doesn't contribute much to notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  That's why I am relatively tentative. Some of my students have appeared in my local news, and while I don't want to degrade them too much, they're achievements really weren't that notable and I would not be writing an article on them. ✶Quxyz✶ 01:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Bolanle Arokoyo

Bolanle Arokoyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Delete: Non notable scholar, non notable professor, fails WP:PROF, fails WP:ANYBIO, fails WP:SIGCOV, no valid independent secondary source, majority are source from the education institution that only verifies she’s a staff/professor. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 02:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

  She was promoted to full professor in 2023, though I note that detail was not listed in the article as it existed when nominated. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

  Hello @DaffodilOcean, I still stand my ground on my delete vote, she might be a professor but she isn’t notable enough to be included on Wikipedia, still

  fails WP:ANYBIO, she doesn’t have independent reliable secondary sources, it’s not just passing mentions, most coverage here aren’t independent of the subject, secondly I support the reason why the nominator nominated this article, maybe in few years she would be qualified. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 17:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Language, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - Does not pass WP:NACADEMIC. Academic citations and H-index level are too low.Goodboyjj (talk) 05:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• Weak keep She is a full professor at the University of Ilorin, the first female to attain the position of professor of linguistics. I have added coverage of her work in English-language sources (Discover Magazine, ref 7 is the best source; Radio Nigeria is another). Given our ability to search out sources in Nigeria, and what has been found, I am inclined to keep this. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

List of humorous names in mathematics

List of humorous names in mathematics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

  Happy to do that WikiNukalito (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

There is obviously subjectivity in humour, but firstly there are numerous compilations of these online, even in fairly reputable places refs 1,2,3,4; secondly many of them are deliberate jokes e.g. look at the name origin section on Cox–Zucker machine and lastly there are similar pages e.g. in mathematics Mathematical joke or elsewhere Lists of pejorative terms for people where inclusion or exclusion of examples can't be completely objective.

Feel free to change the list, but you know, have some fun too. WikiNukalito (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Adding to this request to keep, as per Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists and references 1,2,3,4 these terms have ' been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources'. The items are not just personal taste, they're all in the lists in the quoted references. WikiNukalito (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete pure WP:OR. Azuredivay (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

• Delete as trivial, subjective, and potentially endless. —Tamfang (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

References

• Any more subjective than List of films considered the worst? Just rename along that vein and demand the sources. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  That list of films specifies who did the considering. —Tamfang (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

  If you want another 'reliable' source, try . I did not have to try too hard to find this. As you say, the individual terms often have explanations of their names on their own pages. I would be happy to improve this article, but not if it's going to be deleted soon.

  The inclusion criteria is no more vague that any of the many lists of 'unusual' items e.g. Place names considered unusual. As suggested by many, changing 'humorous' to 'unusual' is fine with me, though it seems like a minor difference. WikiNukalito (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Definitely WP:OR. My cursory examination of the sources (a sample of four) doesn't establish that RS believe the names are humorous, rather (it appears) the editor(s) find them humorous. Chetsford (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

History

Tirgar

Tirgar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

Dodiya

Dodiya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

Rao Sonag

Rao Sonag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

Madan Singh (ruler)

Madan Singh (ruler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kumaoni Rajput

Kumaoni Rajput (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

Colonial order of chivalry

Colonial order of chivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

1985 Malaysian military operation in the Southern Philippines

1985 Malaysian military operation in the Southern Philippines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The sources do not verify any of this. Of the four sources cited, one is some unsubstantiated rumors [8], another briefly mentions a response ("a raid on an island") but does not say where, let alone specify "the Philippines" or "Zamboanga island" [9], the third is an opinion column that makes no mention of this purported operation [10], and the fourth, "Moslem community attacked in raid?" from the Spokane Chronicle on Sep 30, 1985, does not appear to exist (I couldn't find it via a Newspapers.com search). I suspect this might be an AI-generated hoax, but even if it isn't, this purported event is not notable. Toadspike [Talk] 12:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

List of military attachés and war correspondents in World War I

List of military attachés and war correspondents in World War I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

Assyrian–Kurdish clashes (1895–1900)

Assyrian–Kurdish clashes (1895–1900) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Comment: ToadetteEdit, your nomination appears to have multiple typos in it. Can you please adjust it so that it says what you actually mean? – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  Nom statement adjusted. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 16:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Speedy keep. Nominator's rationale is contradictory ("I doubt there is some original research" - well, I'd certainly hope so) and appears to boil down to "the sources are offline". Offline sources are entirely valid; difficulty in accessing them does not make them invalid. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  Here's the website, You can check it (page 76 slideshow number 12) I translated the sources and the sources were from the Archives of the ottoman Empire, You can check it out https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/180141 Suraya222 (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

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

List of World War II war correspondents (1942–43) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

Battle of Zakho (1961)

Battle of Zakho (1961) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chuknagar massacre

Chuknagar massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:GNG. We can find enough reliable sources about the subject online. There might be some POV issues but the article doesn't fail WP:NOPV completely. Any POV related issues can be fixed by editing the article. Mehedi Abedin 07:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  None of the international media covered this news. The sources are highly controversial, as most of them are Bangladeshi sources which states pro-bengali narrative over a disputed event. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 08:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  Additionally, there is one BBC source which itself states "controversial" 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 08:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  and also a primary source contradicts the subject itself, such as Academic Sarmila Bose, in her controversial book.[4] dismisses claims that 10,000 were killed as "unhelpful", and argues that the reported number of attackers could have shot no more than several hundred people before running out of ammunition.. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 08:54, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  These arguments are not policy based. Controversial topic doesn't always mean non-notable. As the topic of the article is not originated from the controversy itself, the topic meets notability. Also, not covered by international news doesn't always mean that has to be deleted. Mehedi Abedin 16:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  Not covered by international news refers to thing which has no credibility. If WW2 massacres were reported, I wonder why this wasn't reported by any international media. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 13:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  Why is it essential to have an international media presence? Can you show this from Wikipedia's policies? Its no need to passes GNG by international coverage, it only need some depth coverage from reliable source. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 17:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Lt.gen.zephyr, Undoubtedly Its contain some depth coverage. So What is the abstraction to be natable this article. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 17:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  See my statement above and below. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 17:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep passes WP:GNG. Fails WP:NPOV is not a rational for deletion.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 09:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  A massacre must be covered by both national and international media. In this case only a few pro bengali sources claim this, and even the sources contradict the article. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 10:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

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

1) [11] this source about the massacre states A few days after the massacre, on 26 March 1971, Bangladesh declared its independence from Pakistan...
Whereas the infobox states the massacre took place on 20th may. Hence this source contradicts the event.
2) [12] - This source states 30 soldiers couldnt do such a big massacre within a short span of time with the amount of bullets they had. So this source also partially contradicts the article.
3) [13] This source states These figures have been challenged by a critic, given that most witnesses agreed that the number of perpetrators was only between 20 and 40, who had arrived on only up to four vehicles. This would mean, as she objected, that each soldier and officer would have killed 150 to 500 people within about five hours. 65 Was this possible, and could they have even carried so much ammunition
This source also states that this was partially impossible. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 10:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

  Highly notable with disputed sources which contradicts the massacre itself? 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 17:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

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

• Keep Md Mobashir Hossain (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Kanoda State

Kanoda State (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

Amrapur State (Rewa Kantha)

Amrapur State (Rewa Kantha) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

Summer 2011 Jabal al-Zawiya operation

Summer 2011 Jabal al-Zawiya operation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

Backyard History

Backyard History (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Cormier, Kristina (2024-01-03). "Un balado sur les histoires méconnues du Canada atlantique se transforme en livre" [A Podcast About Little-Known Stories From Atlantic Canada Is Being Turned Into a Book] (in French). Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Archived from the original on 2025-05-31. Retrieved 2025-05-31.

     The article notes: "Backyard History est un balado qui explore les histoires méconnues du Nouveau-Brunswick et de l'Atlantique. Ces histoires sont désormais offertes dans un livre. Le livre, disponible uniquement en anglais pour le moment, a vite trouvé preneurs. Ce succès a surpris l'auteur, l’historien Andrew MacLean de Fredericton. La première impression s’est rapidement écoulée et il attend une réimpression au cours des prochains jours. Le balado anglophone Backyard History est né lors de la pandémie. Il transporte ses auditeurs dans le temps afin de découvrir des légendes, des histoires connues ou méconnues du Canada atlantique qui datent de nombreuses années et même de siècles."

     From Google Translate: "Backyard History is a podcast that explores the little-known stories of New Brunswick and the Atlantic region. These stories are now available in a book. The book, currently available only in English, quickly found buyers. This success surprised the author, Fredericton historian Andrew MacLean. The first printing sold out quickly, and he expects a reprint in the coming days. The English-language podcast Backyard History was born during the pandemic. It transports its listeners back in time to discover legends, well-known and little-known stories of Atlantic Canada that date back many years, even centuries."

  2. Cochrane, Alan (2025-04-03). "Backyard History author carries on tradition of storytelling: Andrew MacLean has compiled three books, weekly newspaper columns, website and podcasts with actors who bring old stories to life". Telegraph-Journal. p. A10. ProQuest 3186672039. Archived from the original on 2025-05-31. Retrieved 2025-05-31.

     The article notes: "Andrew MacLean has turned his passion for historical research into a brand called Backyard History, with weekly newspaper columns, three books, a website and podcasts telling unusual stories from Atlantic Canada. From the tale of the Dungarvon Whooper in the Miramichi to rum-runners shooting it out with police in Bouctouche, and a Russian bomber landing in Miscou Island, MacLean says he's carrying on the Maritime tradition of storytelling, while researching the facts behind them. ... His three books include "Backyard History: Forgotten Stories From Atlantic Canada's Past," volumes one and two; and "Rebellious Women in the Maritimes," which includes stories about women who have done extraordinary things, told through various letters, diaries and historic documents."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Backyard History to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

Chattha Dynasty

Chattha Dynasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

There are Multiple sources of a Chattha principality/state.

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

2.

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

3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Niko de Weymann

Niko de Weymann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

Emirate of Shabiya

Emirate of Shabiya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

International Association for the Study of Silk Road Textiles

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/International Association for the Study of Silk Road Textiles
• Articles for deletion/International Association for the Study of Silk Road Textiles (2nd nomination)

International Association for the Study of Silk Road Textiles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

1948 Palestinian Declaration of Independence

1948 Palestinian Declaration of Independence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

WP:GNG. _Dgw|Talk 22:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Palestine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• I don't understand the nominating statement. Are you saying it's a hoax? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

  Delete, it doesn’t meet GNG. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. If an article is poorly written, then we improve it instead of deleting it. What other languages do and what other articles exist is not relevant to whether this one should exist. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Thebiguglyalien, do you think this subject’s notability is shown? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• Merge to Palestinian law. This was not notable at the time, and would be better suited in context. Bearian (talk) 23:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  Notability often builds up over time, there's no such thing for the purpose of our notability criteria as being not notable at a past point in time. Notability is based on all sources a available now. MarioGom (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  Is there any written document of the declaration? _Dgw|Talk 21:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

Pasht Ashan massacre

Pasht Ashan massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, History, Politics, and Iraq. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• Merge to Iraqi Communist Party#The party under Ba'athist rule. Yue🌙 03:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - major event, with major political impact. The legacy of the massacre remains controversial, with demands raised from families of victims. In-depth coverage available, [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. Here debated in interview ([19]) on Al Iraqiya. Here debated on TV [20]. See also [21], etc. --Soman (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• Book on the subject [22]. --Soman (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

Aulikara−Hunnic War

Aulikara−Hunnic War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Bletchley Park Museum

Bletchley Park Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

New page created a couple of weeks ago:

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and History. Joe D (t) 13:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. I've asked @Steinsky to withdraw this on the talk page for Bletchley Park as a good faith measure as I did not see the notification there last week. That's the better place for that discussion. The article was created so that the details around Bletchley Park could be separated from those around the site and the museum trust. A summary style wouldn't work as a lot of information would be lost. As Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, the better alternative would be splitting the Bletchley Park Museum article - which has taken the hydra like quality of the pre-split Bletchley Park article, into constituent articles for things like the trust, the country house aspects, the human interest aspects, etc. But that discussion is better for the article itself (and I promise that if I'm tagged I will endeavor to answer, although I'm on holiday so give a couple of days) and come on here if there isn't consensus in the article. 13:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JASpencer (talk • contribs)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Note There's discussion on the Bletchley Park article that isn't reflected on this page. (1) there is strong opposition on the page from long standing editors to remerging the two articles and (2) the nominator has expressed willingness to withdraw the nomination while this gets flashed out on the Bletchley Park talk page. JASpencer (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

Albania's role in the Kosovo War

Albania's role in the Kosovo War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

List of mass escapes from German POW camps

List of mass escapes from German POW camps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ashitha Revolt 1843

Ashitha Revolt 1843 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. No sources on this exist. None of the sources in use in this article support 99% of the text in this article 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  Bro what? The sources are cited, read them, you have no valid reason to issue a speedy deletion. There are multiple sources on this, reported by even contemporary missionaries. Stop excluding the cited sources; which are enough to make the page stay. 2A02:AA1:115D:84B3:ACB2:8E83:1328:5261 (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  Keep – how are all the sources fake? DataNomad (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

the Wiki page has its sources, no reason for deletion, Jsanihsjsn (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Looking through the sources, Aboona 2008 devotes an entire section spanning several pages to "Armed Revolt at Asheetha, November 1843". The Seyfo Center devotes 3 paragraphs to a revolt in 1843. Nala4u.com seems to be of dubious reliability, and citations 2-5 are incomplete to the point of being almost useless, but I think there's enough to go on from the first two to surmise that additional sources likely exist, albeit potentially using different spellings of Ashitha and not necessarily calling it "Revolt" in a canonical sense. The article does indulge in unencyclopedic tone, although it is worth noting that our best source thus far, Aboona 2008, does describe atrocities at length. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep – It has good sources describing in detail what happened and it was an important event that took place in Hakkari in the 1800s. Termen28 (talk) 23:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete: Support per nom. R3YBOl (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Operation Dragonfly

Operation Dragonfly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

The first results when looking up "Operation Dragonfly" on Google aren't even about the invasion of Ukraine. In five pages of results in Google, I could only find the following sources about this strike: [23] [24] [25].

I could find more sources without using the "Operation Dragonfly" name. [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]. The most recent source is the latter, from 23 October, six days after the strike happened. I do not believe the strike has long-lasting coverage in sources. Simply by reading the article, the strike surely was not nothing, but it doesn't seem worth a Wikipedia article. Super Ψ Dro 20:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

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

• Delete No evidence that this was a significant event. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect It's true that the article is relatively short and the page might not have merit to exist on its own, but that doesn't mean the content is not worthy to exist at all. It would be better if the information are merged onto a larger page that discusses airstrikes in the war, because this page is certainly not the only one and there are many more similar to this one in Category:Attacks on military installations in Ukraine or Category:Ukrainian airstrikes during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I would also prefer this page become a redirect after the merge as it is still the first result after a google search. TeddyRoosevelt1912 (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus, @Shwabb1, @NickK, @Aleksandr Grigoryev For discussion TeddyRoosevelt1912 (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. Hard to say:

• On one hand, this is likely the first ever use of ATACAMS by Ukraine, with significant (from military point of view) result. As such this is a notable enough military operation and it has enough sources.
• On the other hand, it is very likely that no further information about this operation will be released until the war ends (for obvious reasons). As a result, this article will likely stay in current state for a while.

I would read this that fundamentally this is a notable military operation, but practically we will not be able to improve this article further for unknown period of time — NickK (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I believe that's the case as well. Overall I don't mind the idea of merging this into a larger article that lists major airstrikes including this one, as this article is quite small on its own and, as you've said, we're not getting much more info on it any time soon. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 01:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Also, User:TeddyRoosevelt1912, you need to identify a Merge/Redirect target article. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC))

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

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

Battle of Khankala (1735)

AfDs for this article:

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

Battle of Khankala (1735) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Devlet Geray (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• It's first nomination in fact Devlet Geray (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't think "Poorly sourced" is in the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. More relevant is "articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" and "articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". Has WP:BEFORE been done? I also am dubious that you have to have a degree in history or history books you write will be considered unreliable. It seems that plenty of authors have written histories without a formal degree in that subject (one even got a Nobel prize for theirs). But even in that case, our own article on Dalkhan Khozhaev states "In 1983 he graduated from the faculty of History of the Chechen-Ingush State University" and that he was a researcher at the Chechen-Ingush Republican Regional Museum, the author of works on the history of the national liberation movement of Chechnya in the 19th century and Head of the Archives Department. It seems strange you've copied "Chechen field commander, brigadier general" from the start of our article but chosen to edit that from the full description "Chechen historian, field commander, brigadier general and author with numerous works on the centuries-old confrontation between Chechnya and Russia". Given his publication history, he was an academic and writer before his military service, and continued the former during the latter. The article on the Russian wikipedia has quite a bit more on him and has a number of his books listed. The source used in the article is his 1998 «Чеченцы в Русско-Кавказской войне» (Chechens in the Russo-Caucasian War), published in Grozny by Seda Publishers (isbn and catalogue listing here). That you only suspect he might not be reliable, you assume that the source must be self published, these weren't really strong arguments for deletion without having done a proper WP:BEFORE. And given that these things have been disproven, there's nothing left in the nomination. Spokoyni (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - I'll also further add that Khozhaev's book is not "the only source used", there's another in the article, and a WP:BEFORE would have shown there were originally four sources in the article, two of which the original author later removed on the incorrect rationale that they did not add any additional content to what the other sources stated. Spokoyni (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  I clearly wrote that he does not have a degree in history, he is not a specialist in the history of Chechnya (no PhD thesis). How can he be used as a source for a topic like this? Makes absolutely no sence. Moreover, the figures and data presented in the article are initially implausible. In addition, the links are given for show, since it is impossible to verify them. Plus, zero cross-wiki and no information on this "battle" on the Internet, makes the article absoulte original research Devlet Geray (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Since none of that makes any sense, suggest speedy keep under "the nominator failed to give intelligible grounds for content deletion". He has a degree in history, he is a speciality on the history of Chechnya, and if you are suggesting only history books written by those with a phd in history are reliable, you need to go and change the entire nature of what makes a WP:RS. If you mean sources rather than links, they are published accounts and are verfiable (that you personally can't or won't verify them is not an acceptable reason). The absence of articles on other wikis is not a criteria for deletion here, nor is lack of google hits. You tried to get this speedied as a hoax, that was declined. Then you prodded it "because it never happened", and that was declined, and now you're attacking one of the two (out of originally four) sources in the article as a reason for deletion because the book's author doesn't have a phd. I can see your desire to get this deleted for some reason, I'm just not seeing any actual rationale for it. Why do you think this is a hoax, or an invented instance? Spokoyni (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

According to WP:BURDEN, the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Devlet Geray (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

‌‌‌‌‌Meanwhile, I found a pdf version of the book «Чеченцы в Русско-Кавказской войне» (Chechens in the Russo-Caucasian War), published in Grozny by Seda Publishers and there is no mention of such a "battle". Devlet Geray (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Battle of Tashkent (1603)

Battle of Tashkent (1603) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

it means that when I did a search, the English language source did not come up so I can’t verify that it is indeed a source for the material claimed. Mccapra (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

What did you search? I was able to read it on Google Books[31], it's available from the publisher's web site, and WorldCat lists more than 300 libraries as holding it. Jahaza (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks unfortunately the relevant pages don’t show in my Google books view so I can’t verify it. Mccapra (talk) 03:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - I believe this comes up on the odd occasion, where refs (and even their articles) are challenged because someone wasn't able to see/read the source to "verify" it, whether it's a web article behind a paywall, or a web page with some other form of restricted access, or physical books and other media, that "can't be found at local library or for sale online", etc., etc. I don't recall that itself being a reason to remove a ref, and delete an article, (I could be wrong). I don't believe it should be a reason either, whether it's having faith in the fellow editor that added it, or just the fact that there are numerous articles on WP, with even more refs that can't be easily and readily accessed, yet there hasn't been (to my knowledeg) any widespread efforts to initiate any massive deletion campaigns because of this. (jmho) Perhaps there's a guideline that covers this, but none have been cited here as of yet. - \\'cԼF 10:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

unfortunately in recent times some editors have taken to creating many articles about battles which are completely fictitious. These articles are decorated with pseudo-references to offline books in other languages. Other editors like to create battle articles based on a couple of passing mentions. If I look for sources and can’t find anything that supports what the article says then AfD is the place for it. Mccapra (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I apologize in advance if there are any mistakes in my words — I am writing through a translator. All the articles I have written are based on real books, but the problem is that some of them are not available in open access. So how do I have them? — I bought them. And as for the fact that they are hard to find online — the answer is simple: the history of Kazakhstan develops more slowly than that of other countries.

I write articles, and I know that the way I cited the sources is poorly done — I will try to fix that as soon as I have the time. Онеми (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The discussion is helpful but we need some opinions about a preferred outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

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

• Comment to summarise: of the three sources cited in the article, 1 (Alexeyev) is not accessible: 2 (Burton) is inaccessible and 3 (Atgaev) simply says of this battle “In 1607, a vassal of Vali-Muhammad Khan named Muhammadmed-Baki-biy Kalmak managed to capture Tashkent. However, he was not allowed to rule the city for a long time, he was driven out of the city by the troops of Yesim Khan.” That’s all it says. My search found nothing else, so while I suppose there was in fact some combat in or near Tashkent in 1607, this clearly isn’t a notable battle and fails WP:EVENT. Mccapra (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Assyrian–Kurdish conflict

Assyrian–Kurdish conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

My idea was to move this page to Assyrian–Kurdish relations as we already have many pages describing bilateral relations, but I got pushback and was reverted. I will also note that an older version of the page almost seems to be about a different topic entirely - and one presented coherently - so my (tenuous) vote is to Keep and revert to version as of 3 May 2025. Changed vote, see below Koopinator (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

The bilateral relations articles are about relations between two state or state like entities, not between different ethnic groups that don't have an institution representing them. I am still skeptical about that framing as well as the "land dispute" one, which I don't think it's supported by the cited sources. The characterization that there is a land dispute between the Kurdish and Assyrian people or between Assyrians and the KRG (as opposed to individual Assyrians and Kurds) is disputed. But the chosen article title makes it seem like a fact. (t · c) buidhe 15:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I think it might be be better to have an article about land usurpation in Iraq, which leaves more room for covering non ethnic causes because it lacks the biased framing that presumes a conclusion. (t · c) buidhe 15:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Strong Keep: As someone who created this article (which has been significantly altered as I can see), I will be a little biased of course, hence my position. But we have to be honest with ourselves that there is some preexisting Assyrian-Kurdish conflict (which is still ongoing) and as well as some landgrabs by the KRG (as per the sources in the page). Also, Kurdistan is a semi-autonomous federal region that controls land (so it is a "country" in a way), whereas Assyrians don't have much power there. Bringing up "Asian-African conflict" is misrepresenting and heavily trivializing the history in the region, and it's comparing apples and oranges – Africans and Asians are NOT native to North America. Whereas, Assyrians and some Kurds too are native to Upper Mesopotamia, and the conflict there (which the media doesn't really focus on much) is not something to be ignored or scoffed at. Oh, forgot to mention that, thanks to the recent editor of the article (Ilamxan), the article has been excellently and thoroughly sourced. It will be a huge waste if it's deleted. Yucalyptus (talk) 09:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Kurdistan is not a single political entity. If the intent was to write an article about Assyrians in the KRG governed areas I think "Assyrians in Iraq" would be a better location for the content. There is no basis for shoehorning in content about the Ottoman Empire, Syria, etc. We do not have sources covering the entire topic so it doesn't meet the criteria for having an article. (t · c) buidhe 13:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

When I created the article, I did not include the Ottomans (if you check the earlier edits). Another user included such content (in good faith though). You are right. The Ottomans pillaging and massacring Assyrians in the early 20th century have nothing to do with the modern day Kurdish-Assyrian land disputes/conflict. I would hope that somebody would remove content about Ottoman Empire, as it is already covered in other articles regarding modern Assyrian history. Yucalyptus (talk) 11:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I understand that you'll be frustrated if this page gets deleted. (Un)fortunately, pages must abide by our policies and guidelines. There's hope though: if this discussion results in a deletion, you can ask for it to be draftified via WP:REFUND. I'd love to see this reworked into a proper page about Land usurpation in Iraq, but you'd have to examine factors besides ethnicity. Koopinator (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Strong Keep: While the article’s structure and framing may need refinement, deletion is not the appropriate course of action. There is a clear body of reliably sourced content documenting tensions, disputes, and episodes of violence between Assyrian and Kurdish groups across different historical periods and regions. This is not a synthesized or invented topic-the subject meets notability under WP:GNG due to sustained coverage in reliable sources. Comparisons to fabricated constructs like an “Asian-African conflict in North America” are both inapplicable and dismissive of the real and tragic history of marginalized groups in the Middle East. Deleting this article would erase a significant and underrepresented regional dynamic, undermining Wikipedia’s mission to document the full scope of notable human history. ElijahUHC (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Strong Keep I have never seen this much information compiled in one article on the subject matter. This type of information is only available in bits and pieces which I have seen in the last 10 years. For the sake of history this must be kept. Gevergiz (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep: Could be reworked but the only reason to delete or merge this article would be to remove and/or hide potentially negative aspects of Kurdish nationalism - There's been well documented attacks committed by Kurdish polities (whether or not in service of an empire or by their own volition) against Assyrians, and vice versa.

⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 14:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I think it's worth reposting my talk page message:

This is a massive WP:COATRACK article discussing a bunch of barely related historical incidents and trying to fit it all in a narrative of an ethnic conflict that has supposedly been ongoing since the 19th century. Just some lovely excerpts:

• When Kurdish rival tribes fought each other, the bulk of the violence was directed at the Assyrian subjects of the opposing tribe.[6] Assyrian tribes would often fight each other on behalf of their Kurdish protector tribes.[7]
  • This is fighting between Assyrians
• During the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878, the Ottomans armed the Kurds to fight Russia. At the end of the war, the Kurds refused to return the weapons, putting the Assyrians at further risk.[8]
  • An incident in a war that tangentially relates to Assyrians
• On 10 May 1915, the Assyrian tribes met and declared war against the Kurds and the Ottoman Empire.[20]
  • This one is particularly gratuitous - Kurds were fighting Assyrian rebels in their capacity as Ottoman rank-and-file - this is best understood as an episode of World War I rather than some ethnic conflict that began in the 19th century.

My initial instinct was to bring this to AfD, but I recognise there has been an effort to gather historical facts. We already have many pages describing bilateral relations - in that light I suppose that this article could be salvaged as long as it's not WP:SYNTHed into a "conflict". Thus, I will move this to "Assyrian–Kurdish relations".
— Myself, on Talk:Assyrian–Kurdish conflict. I was reverted and then this AfD happened.

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I fixed the issue pertaining to WP: COATRACK (on my part). I removed content that is not related to the Assyrian-Kurdish conflict, such as Ottoman attacks in the 1910s and other unrelated incidents and battles in the 20th century that have nothing to do with the modern conflict in subject. Yucalyptus (talk) 07:59, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Let's check the first five sources to see if the "COATRACK" issues have been resolved or in fact most of the article's cited sources don't support the existence of the stated topic:

1. opinion article, not a reliable source
2. [32] doesn't support the contention that there is a general "Assyrian Kurdish conflict". Briefly mentions that Assyrians accuse the KRG of land grabbing on Assyrian heritage sites.
3. [33] Also doesn't support the contention that an Assyrian Kurdish conflict exists. The report discusses discrimination against different minorities under KRG governance, but also states, "it is unclear whether Christians are targeted [for land alienation] because of their religion, or their non-Kurdish ethnicity, or simply because of the minority’s relative political weakness as compared with some of the KRI’s Sunni Kurdish residents"
4. [34] states that " thousands of internally displaced people " are squatting in properties owned by Assyrians. Puts it in context: "Across all parts of [Syria], people face increasing difficulties protecting their property rights since the onset of the war. This is partly due to the legal chaos created by war and the collapse of institutions, but also because parties to the conflict have illegally seized homes, land and property left behind by displaced people and refugees." Few references to ethnicity of the squatters.
5. opinion piece, not reliable
6. As a bonus, I know that the next several sources don't support the existence of an "Assyrian–Kurdish conflict", as this part of the article was copied from text I wrote.

(t · c) buidhe 02:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete: support per nom. R3YBOl (talk) 08:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete: After observing the discussion (and specifically the examination of sources), I don't think the article can be salvaged from its WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK issues in its current state. If this is indeed a notable topic, then WP:TNT applies. Koopinator (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Delete: support per reasoning of nom. WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK issues, as stated above. Kierzek (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Modern influence of Ancient Greece

Modern influence of Ancient Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

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

StarTrekker Actually, that's not quite true. If an article has such irreparable content issues that it would be more effective to simply delete and remake the article rather than keep it, that is a valid rationale for deletion (albeit one which should not be used lightly). See WP:TNT. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 16:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete The article subject is theoretically notable, but the many paragraphs of random content within this article simply does not correspond to the subject which the article title purports to cover. The article is a poster child for the blow it up and start it over principle. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 16:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Thurii

Battle of Thurii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Greece, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: The editor who created this stub seems to have been inactive on Wikipedia since 2013, but nothing on his/her talk page suggests that it was created as a hoax (I was looking for warnings of various sorts). Given that the part about Thurii is only a single sentence, while the rest concerns Rome's conflict with Tarentum, I wonder if perhaps the editor was confused about the sequence of events—perhaps including the dates. My first thought was to check the history of the cities in the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, and see if it mentioned something similar to a battle at this time. Under "Tarentum", at p. 1097, if you scroll down the first column there's a description of Rome and Tarentum coming into conflict over Thurii, though this is supposed to have occurred in 302 BC, while the Tarentines didn't call in Pyrrhus until 281, when the Romans declared war on Tarentum.

This sounds like what the article creator had in mind, but unless the description is in error—which is possible, though it's hard to see "302" as a typo for "282" under "Tarentum"—the editor might have been confused by a less precise description such as the corresponding passage under "Thurii", top of the first column on p. 1193. I believe both are citing Appian's Samnite Wars, though additional sources are cited in "Tarentum" that might also shed light on this. I agree that the existing citations for this article are not very helpful, but thankfully knowing what sources describe the conflicts may help sort out whether there's enough here to salvage (at the very least, it can probably be merged under Thurii, Tarentum, and Pyrrhus, which would technically not be a deletion).

I expect Broughton can also be cited. I did not resort to PW, because wading through pages of densely-annotated German that I have to translate by retyping passages that I think are relevant on Google can be quite time-consuming! Not sure where else I would look besides the Greek and Roman authors cited in the DGRG, but perhaps someone else has some ideas on that. In any case, I think we can conclude that the article is not a hoax, but it might not be focused on its purported subject—Thurii—and might be better off mentioned in other articles than as a stand-alone one. P Aculeius (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - probably not a hoax. The Catalan article, ca:Batalla de Turis, and the Italian article, it:Battaglia di Thurii, were edited by two different editors who have not edited this article. Both have offline references.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have an analysis of above additions?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

History Proposed deletions

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

History categories

for occasional archiving