Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Social science|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science/archive

Purge page cache

watch

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

Social science

International Association for Business and Society

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

Declined prod. Not seeing any indepth coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is women empowerment still relevant

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete - as others have said, WP:NOTESSAY. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:26, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTESSAY. jolielover♥talk 10:37, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clear WP:NOTESSAY failure. MidnightMayhem 06:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should be Speedy delete, this is an essay, really.Aeon Sentinel (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a good example of one that is clearly inappropriate for inclusion but which does not meet any of the strict criteria of speedy deletion. A10 is the most arguable, but the point of the article was to be an essay rather than to cover the subject in an encyclopedic manner, meaning it isn't exactly the same topic. OP was right to bring it here (or PROD it, but at least this way it can't be restored on request). Local Variable (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is Wikipedia and not Wikissay 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 21:06, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alok Dixit

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Future reviewers here should also be aware that the article has been mostly edited by single purpose accounts. Not finding anything with a cursory search and the subject doesn't seem so different from the standard journalist. As it stands currently, it reads like a promotional showcase. GuardianH 18:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Cities

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reduction of working hours in France

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

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

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

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

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

Thoemmes, Jens (26 August 2024). Time autonomy and work in France, Germany, and China: historical insights and emerging trends. Lanham: Lexington Books. ISBN 9781666969092. (this one has a different focus for once, comparing Germany and France)
Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:10, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alpha, altho the article could use some work. This has been an issue in French elections and France is notable for its labor regulations, which would be a good article if it isnt already. ... Ha, it is: French labour law Metallurgist (talk) 03:37, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Metallurgist: Would you support a merge with French labour law? JBchrch talk 19:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, or Reduction of hours of work, or both. Metallurgist (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:GNG. This article contains information associated with the subject. It is translated from French. It has pages in French, Spanish and three other languages. Taraa Scott (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting here that the other pages are not focused on France aside the French one. JBchrch talk 19:46, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is also Reduction of hours of work, which is a disamb. Metallurgist (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to French labour law. I have no doubt that the subject is notable, per Alpha3031's sources. But I will also note that French labour law, of which this is certainly a subtopic, is woefully sparse. If we were hypothetically discussing a split of this topic from French labour law, the discussion would be strongly trending in the other direction – against a split. The relevant guideline, WP:SIZERULE, is not at all an issue, and covering these topics together is what's best for our readers. So I don't see why, despite AfD being hyper-focused on notability, we shouldn't do the same here. Toadspike [Talk] 18:15, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very good argument. Metallurgist (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Changing to merge to French labour law per toadspike and jbchrch, and also could put the same in Reduction of hours of work somehow. Metallurgist (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Social science Proposed deletions

Language

Germanic parent language

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

I contemplated making a merge proposal for this article instead of a deletion request, but honestly I don't see much of a reason to keep this page as a redirect. A lot of this term's notability (which it already has little of) stems from the fact that this term has a Wikipedia article and not from its actual usage in academics. It would've never crossed anyone's mind to make a redirect page to Proto-Germanic language using this term had this article never been made in the first place. This is not a notable term; its use in academics is negligible and is almost completely confined to works by Frans Van Coetsem or works that directly involved him, and its use outside of academics is almost entirely in relation to this Wikipedia article and not in relation to the actual academics it originates from. Wikipedia should only document notable terms and not be what makes a term notable. This term was not made into a Wikipedia article because it was notable, but rather it is notable because it was made into a Wikipedia article. While talented Wikipedians have contributed to this article, no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. I recommend a read of the talk page of Germanic parent language to understand why this article should be deleted, as editors there articulate why this page shouldn't exist far better than I'm able to do in this deletion nomination. – Treetoes023 (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and History. Shellwood (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete + redirect weak keep I'm leaning toward keeping for a couple reasons:

If a user were to encounter this term elsewhere and come here for further information, this would be a great resource. It's unclear how likely that is, given the seemingly limited breadth of the scholarship. Comparative page views, if we're allowed to consider them.
~~The page is referenced several times from Proto-Germanic language, which itself draws this distinction as a phase between PIE and PG. Because this area of scholarship isn't cut and dry~~

If retained, I think the main improvements would be to simplify some of the complex sentences to make it more accessible and to shift away from 'according to X' sentence structures, unless it's articulating a specific point of contention among scholars.

~~I think a merge and edit down of the content could be beneficial as well, as this is very detailed for the more widely documented PG.~~ Mad Jim Bey talk 23:42, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mad Jim Bey: The term being referenced several times in Proto-Germanic language is one of the reasons it should be deleted. Those references are of undue weight and were added in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage and importance of the term. The existence of this article affects other articles by promoting the term to be used in other articles despite its lack of notability in the academics Wikipedia is supposed to be recording. – Treetoes023 (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Treetoes023 I've been convinced. I dug into the listed sources in the reference material and searched through whatever I could access. Almost none of them actually refer to 'German parent language', but consistently to 'Proto-Germanic'. Those sources generally don't even reference the other mentioned source authors. It appears to be a limit ~4 academics who use this term, so I'm pro-delete (and redirect). Mad Jim Bey talk 01:12, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mad Jim Bey: The same thing happened to me when I first came across the article in May 2024; the article had completely convinced me of the term's notability and I even made some copy edits on the article. I only realized after recent reexamination that the article had tricked me into believing the term had a far bigger part in Germanic linguistics than it actually did and that's what got me to nominate it for deletion. Who knows if it's fooled other people the same way and possibly caused them to perpetuate it? – Treetoes023 (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I'm not sure how the article has been on Wikipedia so long - there's no basis in the sources for a specific "Germanic Parent Language" that is different from Proto-Germanic. However, the term does occur occasionally in the literature meaning Proto-Germanic, and so I think a redirect is a better solution than outright deletion.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Silent commerce

AfDs for this article:

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

I suspect someone coined this term but it never caught on Chidgk1 (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Business. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While this has been tagged as unsourced since 2009 (and a potential GNG failure since 2017), it appears the two sources brought up in the first nomination from 2019 (which ended as "no consensus") have remained unacknowledged both in the earlier nomination (the only other non-nomination comment then pretty much said it was too short to even be a stub, but that is not a reason to delete if expansion is possible) and in the article. I don't have any opinion on those sources or anything else here, though. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sourced and when I checked, there were not any sources about this, they were different things. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 23:24, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabets of the South Caucasus

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

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

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

Delete as per nomination, article is a combination of information about different scripts joined together by an original research concept. SDGB1217 (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anuj Tiwari

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

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

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

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

Nieuweschans dialect

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

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

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

The so-called sources are useless.

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

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

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

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

List of misleadingly-named foods

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

Names of Belarusian places in other languages

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Italian exonyms in Istria

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think they are actually endonyms.[1] --TadejM ^{my talk} 11:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pages 74 and 75 of this may be of note here [2]. Ike Lek (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:57, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The place was Italian until 1947, so it would make sense to have a list. But this is basically unsourced and appears to list every place in the location, from A-Z. So a whole bunch of places had Italian names, in a place that was Italian until around 75 years ago... I don't see the need for this, seems redundant. Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Czech exonyms

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

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

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

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

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

Portuguese exonyms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prodded articles

History

Germanic parent language

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

I contemplated making a merge proposal for this article instead of a deletion request, but honestly I don't see much of a reason to keep this page as a redirect. A lot of this term's notability (which it already has little of) stems from the fact that this term has a Wikipedia article and not from its actual usage in academics. It would've never crossed anyone's mind to make a redirect page to Proto-Germanic language using this term had this article never been made in the first place. This is not a notable term; its use in academics is negligible and is almost completely confined to works by Frans Van Coetsem or works that directly involved him, and its use outside of academics is almost entirely in relation to this Wikipedia article and not in relation to the actual academics it originates from. Wikipedia should only document notable terms and not be what makes a term notable. This term was not made into a Wikipedia article because it was notable, but rather it is notable because it was made into a Wikipedia article. While talented Wikipedians have contributed to this article, no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. I recommend a read of the talk page of Germanic parent language to understand why this article should be deleted, as editors there articulate why this page shouldn't exist far better than I'm able to do in this deletion nomination. – Treetoes023 (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and History. Shellwood (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete + redirect weak keep I'm leaning toward keeping for a couple reasons:

If a user were to encounter this term elsewhere and come here for further information, this would be a great resource. It's unclear how likely that is, given the seemingly limited breadth of the scholarship. Comparative page views, if we're allowed to consider them.
~~The page is referenced several times from Proto-Germanic language, which itself draws this distinction as a phase between PIE and PG. Because this area of scholarship isn't cut and dry~~

If retained, I think the main improvements would be to simplify some of the complex sentences to make it more accessible and to shift away from 'according to X' sentence structures, unless it's articulating a specific point of contention among scholars.

~~I think a merge and edit down of the content could be beneficial as well, as this is very detailed for the more widely documented PG.~~ Mad Jim Bey talk 23:42, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mad Jim Bey: The term being referenced several times in Proto-Germanic language is one of the reasons it should be deleted. Those references are of undue weight and were added in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage and importance of the term. The existence of this article affects other articles by promoting the term to be used in other articles despite its lack of notability in the academics Wikipedia is supposed to be recording. – Treetoes023 (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Treetoes023 I've been convinced. I dug into the listed sources in the reference material and searched through whatever I could access. Almost none of them actually refer to 'German parent language', but consistently to 'Proto-Germanic'. Those sources generally don't even reference the other mentioned source authors. It appears to be a limit ~4 academics who use this term, so I'm pro-delete (and redirect). Mad Jim Bey talk 01:12, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mad Jim Bey: The same thing happened to me when I first came across the article in May 2024; the article had completely convinced me of the term's notability and I even made some copy edits on the article. I only realized after recent reexamination that the article had tricked me into believing the term had a far bigger part in Germanic linguistics than it actually did and that's what got me to nominate it for deletion. Who knows if it's fooled other people the same way and possibly caused them to perpetuate it? – Treetoes023 (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I'm not sure how the article has been on Wikipedia so long - there's no basis in the sources for a specific "Germanic Parent Language" that is different from Proto-Germanic. However, the term does occur occasionally in the literature meaning Proto-Germanic, and so I think a redirect is a better solution than outright deletion.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Urinal Law

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

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

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

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

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

Princess Changde

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

This article is entirely cited to brief mentions in primary sources: the Ming Veritable Records and History of Ming. In the course of the AfC process, the creator added a large number of citations to unreliable sources, which were removed by me and RovingPersonalityConstruct. The remaining non-primary sources do not mention the subject at all: Early Ming China is available on archive.org [3], the Cambridge History (Volume 7) via TWL; neither mentions this person. The Sotheby's source is also completely unrelated. The four citations to ctext.org provide no indication of where in the 332-chapter Ming Shi we are supposed to look to verify the claims in the article. This leaves an exceedingly poorly-sourced article, with the only somewhat-verifiable citations being four sentences in primary sources – in my view, not enough to meet the GNG. Toadspike [Talk] 13:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete per nom. Min968 (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Amigao (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hold on, dude—why do you guys give delete votes without doing any research? SongRuyi (talk) 07:56, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SongRuyi I have read and considered the comments Toadspike made here, as well as reviewed the current state of the article and its sources. So, it's wrong? Every member has the right to express their opinion from their perspective, right? Min968 (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A senior member of the Ming royal family, Princess Changde was a grand princess of the inner court, a position that automatically made her an important figure within the Ming dynasty. The Ming court codified a precise hierarchy for its imperial women, ensuring their status was clearly defined and recognized. An emperor's daughter was titled 公主 (gōngzhǔ), requiring every minister or official to kneel down to pay respect. They also received generous stipends and an official salary of 2,000 dan. That recorded in 《列传第九　公主》.

Upon her brother's ascension, Princess Changde's status was particularly elevated. She was granted the higher title of Grand Princess (长公主), and when her nephew took the throne, her rank became Grand Princess Royal (大长公主), the highest rank attainable by a female member of the imperial clan. Princess Changde held all three titles over the course of her life; this status was not merely nominal. The princess was invested with a golden patent (金冊, jīncè), and her husband, the Prince Consort, received a patent of appointment (誥命, gàomìng). Her marriage was a top-tier political alliance, masterminded by Empress Dowager Sun. Xue Huan was the son of Xue Lu (薛祿), the Marquis of Yangwu (陽武侯) and one of the most celebrated military commanders of his generation. Her political marriage was discussed in 明实录类纂·宫廷史料卷》"Classified Compilations of the Ming Veritable Records: Volume on Court History"—pages 28, 196

Moreover, her story—particularly the resolution of her domestic conflict with her husband—illustrates the limited yet significant authority that imperial women could exercise within the patriarchal framework of the Ming court. In this case, the emperor's response was swift and uncompromising, indicating that an affront to his sister was treated as an affront to the throne itself. He ordered the arrest of Xue Huan, the fuma (imperial son-in-law), who was publicly disgraced by being interrogated by the state judiciary "in the outer court" (法司考訊於外庭). The sentence was unusually harsh: he was condemned to death by beheading (論當斬). The incident officially recorded in the 明代中央司法審判制度 - Page 159 . This incident highlights the institutional framework surrounding the status and protection of Ming princesses.

I have a general background in Chinese history and mythology, and I recently succeeded in challenging the deletion of a historical figure's article—by initiating a Deletion Review Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 July 21#Liu Sai and having the decision reversed. I kindly ask that before nominating an article for deletion (AfD), editors take time to conduct basic research. In this case, the article appears to have received near-instant "delete" votes without much investigation or meaningful consideration. It's important to remember that the AfD process is intended to foster discussion and deliberation, not just tally votes—see WP:NOTVOTE. SongRuyi (talk) 08:54, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SongRuyi I sincerely appreciate your improvements to this article and our coverage of Chinese historical figures in general. I am usually lenient with notability of historical Chinese politicians, especially where it is clear they meet our notability guidelines (e.g. here). However, this article was simply too much for me; it was based on a large number of user-generated, deprecated, or irrelevant sources. Please do not see this as some ignorant purge of Chinese history (which I believe everyone who has commented thus far is very interested in), but as an attempt to uphold basic standards of verifiability. For instance, the article still does not make clear where her purported birth year is sourced from, and I suspect all later mentions of her age are original research. It would be great if you could fix that or, if not, remove those claims.

Often with historical figures we can establish notability via WP:NPOL, though I don't think NPOL applies to princesses, so here we'll need to meet the GNG. I am still not entirely convinced the GNG is met. The best source currently in the article is 明淸笔記史料, which appears to be a secondary source, but I don't have access to it. I am unsure whether the primary sources can contribute to the GNG; I believe there is no clear community position on this (or whether the Veritable Records and Ming Shi are primary at all). Toadspike [Talk] 13:53, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike you need to learn the outcomes of AfD discussions about ancient princesses at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Royalty and nobility/archive, rather than relying on cases involving colonial-era or modern-day PR-stunt princesses. This subject lived over 650 years ago and is discussed in multiple historical books, which is sufficient to meet WP:GNG.

The information of the historical figures was only found in books you labeled as "secondary sources." In my experience, historical books are not considered secondary sources. That is your opinion. This is not a biography of a living person, and different standards apply. I agree that WP:NPOL does not apply to every princess, as there is no specific notability guideline for ancient princes or princesses. Technically, she might meet WP:NPOL, but it's a weak claim.

According to WP:MONARCH, "There are no special notability guidelines about monarchs, nobility, and their descendants. The guidelines for politicians are applied to those who have exercised political authority." She was influential in court as a grand princess and held one of the highest-ranking palace titles, which supports her meeting WP:ANYBIO.

Her notability is also independent, as her high title was conferred by the emperor, so WP:NOTINHERITED not applies. Moreover, her article goes beyond mere genealogy (WP:NOTGENEALOGY); she was involved in a notable scandal, and multiple books cover her receipt of titles. SongRuyi (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You correctly point out NOTINHERITED. She is not notable solely because she was a princess or because she lived 650 years ago. What would convince me that she is notable is if you could list the "multiple historical books" that discuss her. Based on what is currently cited in the article, I am leaning towards keeping, but I will have to think on it. If you have more sources, preferably ones that are unequivocally secondary, then please share them so we can discuss them. If you could clarify what kind of source 明淸笔記史料 is or provide a quote from it, that would also help.

For context, I am unsure about my personal position on whether the Ming Shi and Ming Shilu are primary; this was discussed at length at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 479#Asia with no clear conclusion. I guess this means that whether they count towards the GNG is up to us to decide. Toadspike [Talk] 14:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For source, see the new comment below. Plus, I have selected AfD outcome examples for you to consider when determining notability in future AfDs about princesses. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Helena Gibbs—this Western noblewoman’s article was kept due to coverage of her simple noble life, despite having no political power. Even a 0-year-old princess (no royal title/0 political power) can be kept if there are historical sources; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophia Stuart (1606). Plus, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rangsinobhadol Yugala—a minor Thai princess—was kept because of considerable coverage of her death and the royal attendance at her funeral by Princess Soamsawali, which made her important in modern Thailand. See also the interesting discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Gyeongchang. Princess Changde of the Ming dynasty was covered far more extensively than these individuals. SongRuyi (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found historically significant material showing her involvement in court politics and her official court biography in the 明实录类纂: 宮廷史料卷 (Classified Compilation of the Ming Veritable Records: Volume on Court History Materials). This is sufficient to meet WP:ANYBIO#1, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.

Page 28... The Grand Princess Changde pleaded on their behalf, stating: “The salaries have already been dispensed, and the people of this fǔ (official residence or mansion) are facing hardship in affording food and provisions. We implore that the salaries be granted again.” The Emperor approved her plea. (From the Veritable Records of the Xianzong Era, Volume 49)

Page 195... During the Jingtai reign, the Grand Princess of Changde accused Huan of using disrespectful language toward the princess. At the beginning of the Tianshun reign, Emperor Yingzong initially avoided the matter, but the princess entered the palace to file a complaint. Huan was imprisoned, later warned, and then released. She passed away around this time. The court was suspended for one day, and she was granted a state funeral and sacrifices in accordance with imperial custom.

Page 196... The Grand Princess Changde passed away. She was the third daughter of Emperor Xuanzong Zhang, and her mother was Empress Xiaogong Zhang. She was born in the jiachen year of the Yongle era (1424), and in the dingchou year of the Zhengtong era (1437), she was enfeoffed as the Grand Princess Changde and married the Commandant of fuma, Xue Huan. In the dingchou year of the Chenghua era (1477), she was enfeoffed as the Grand Princess Royal Changde. She died at the age of forty-seven. Upon the news of her death, the court was adjourned for one day, and she was granted a royal funeral and burial in accordance with official regulations. (From the Veritable Records of the Xianzong Era, Volumes 81 and 83).

The historical account records her scandal in front of the emperor. Moreover, the account also details her receipt of the highest royal titles. This is more than enough to establish that she is an important historical figure. Beyond notability, she was given a royal or state funeral, and the royal court (the governing body of the kingdom) was suspended for one day to honor her death. Unlike other princesses of ancient China, her life is recorded in historical chronicles, while even the basic facts about many other princes or princesses remain unknown today. Well, if we forget about her, even her husband—the Imperial Fuma—easily meets WP:NPOL, as he held a court office by virtue of marrying her. That is the ancient Chinese political system, not a Communist system. How much more do you need?. SongRuyi (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sorry, I don't buy it, SongRuyi. I can't see the three independent sources with significant coverage specifically of the subject - not just passing mentions - to meet WP:GNG. The 明代中央司法審判制度 reference seems to be more about her husband's trial and punishment rather than she herself, which makes sense given the book title. I can't fully access 明淸笔記史料 but a "search inside" on Google books for 常德 turns up two hits, which seems thin for SIGCOV, unless page 54 is a very dense page. I'd happily consider other sources if they were to be brought to light. I also wouldn't consider her nephew dubbing her 大长公主 to meet the spirit of ANYBIO#1. Finally, and this is somewhat tangential to this discussion, I'd also consider the content that's been added to Princess Changde § Monogamy scandal to be original research, the first two paragraphs at least (can't comment on the third), and certainly not written from a neutral point of view. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Karasounk

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

Battle of Chera Har

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

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

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

Mason County Historical Society

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

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

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

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

The Jewish Cause: An Introduction to a Different Israeli History

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 07:45, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman capture of Zeila

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Battle of Qarahamid (1510)

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Frost 11:06, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. 2A02:C7C:4D0A:A500:2008:D0F5:6012:D6DB (talk) 11:23, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 2A02:C7C:4D0A:A500:2008:D0F5:6012:D6DB (talk) 11:23, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. 2A02:C7C:4D0A:A500:2008:D0F5:6012:D6DB (talk) 11:23, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. 2A02:C7C:4D0A:A500:2008:D0F5:6012:D6DB (talk) 11:23, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 July 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per concerns raised by the nom. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kajmer05 (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Per nom, many other pages like Battle of Diyarbakır (1511) and Conquest of Diyarbakır (1519) [simple] has the same issues.

AE182 (talk) 09:57, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hunan–Jiangxi Soviet

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and China. Shellwood (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as apparent SYNTH. Mccapra (talk) 05:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is government sourcing that satisfies WP:V: [4]. I saw a bit better sourcing when using searching for "Hunan-Jiangxi revolutionary base area" (in Chinese) so that's a possible path to keeping. Jumpytoo Talk 05:33, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete without any reference 200.46.55.161 (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rao Mitrasen

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:26, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in Columbus, Ohio

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is a stronger case for reworking this into History of African Americans in Columbus, à la your second example, since this article is already halfway there. And there are indeed sources which address that topic as a whole: e.g. [5], [6] Astaire (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thats why it is prudent to create an account. Metallurgist (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not seeing why racism in Columbus would be different than Akron, or Detroit or Chicago or... This doesn't appear to be such a serious case that it requires an article. Could be briefly mentioned in an article about the town, but this reads like SYNTH. Oaktree b (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Columbus, Ohio per nom. मल्ल (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and other users. – Treetoes023 (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Berber raid against Vandals

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

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

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

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

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

List of Khasa dynasty and Kings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

History Proposed deletions

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

History categories

for occasional archiving

Proposals

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

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

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

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

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]