Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/History

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to History. 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|History|~~~~}} 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 History. 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/History/archive

Purge page cache

watch

History

Capture of Sinhagad (1693)

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

None of the three cited sources provide significant coverage to the topic, this was a minor attack that had no lasting impact nor is it given the weight required for a standalone article in the history books, fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:29, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Erzurum (1821)

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

Article subject already discussed in the ottoman Iranian war article. Insanityclown1 (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Could easily blank and redirect this instead of AFD.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Iran, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adhunik Bharat Ke Brahmarshi Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya

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

Orignal creator of this article was blocked for WP:COI and WP:PROMO. This article is also nothing more than a promotion. This book is not significantly covered by secondary sources in depth.Clearly fails WP:NBOOK. TheSlumPanda (talk) 02:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. TheSlumPanda (talk) 02:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and History. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ponnar Shankar

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

Article is poorly written and fails GNG. GoldRomean (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:TNT To explain, Ponnar and Shankar are two twin brothers who are the subject of a Tamil epic poem, and this folk story is actually what the article is attempting to refer to. It should be named something like Ponnar Shankar (poem), or perhaps as the Tamil language article calls it, "Annamar Sami Kathai". The poem is the inspiration for the film Ponnar Shankar (film). It actually seems like the poem might be notable as there is a book by Brenda Beck just about the epic. However, the article as it stands literally links exclusively to sources which discuss the film - the few I looked at do not even include a passing mention the poem which inspired it. Very much open to a keep on WP:HEY grounds, I just unfortunately do not have time to salvage the article. Flip^and Flopped ツ 00:53, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian violence in the Ottoman Empire

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

This is blatant propaganda that utilizes almost exclusively Turkish government or gov-linked or denialist sources in order to "counter" to the Armenian Genocide "claims" as Turkey sees it. --Երևանցի ^talk 16:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Armenia, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT; from the very first sentence written to push a propaganda narrative, as described in our Featured Article Armenian genocide denial. "There was no genocide, and if there was the Armenians were to blame" in Wikipedia article form. The article creator should be up for a CTOPIC TBAN for this intentional disinformation. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Arguments provided by OP and the user above do not meet WP:DEL-REASON. This article is based on a wide array of scholarly, academic sources from English, Turkish and even German. WP:BIASEDSOURCES guideline allows partisan sources as long as they are used properly. Even if we were to assume that an article is biased, this is not a valid reason to delete it. The proper action to take is to determine why it is biased and fix the errors. Furthermore, contrary to what has been suggested by others, this article does not in any way claim that there was no Armenian genocide, just like Palestinian political violence does not negate the existence of Gaza genocide.--Wallis sabiti (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your article was already deleted several times for similar reasons. You engage in POV pushing, which is against wikipedia rules. It is not the first time I see you doing this. Athoremmes (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You support the Treaty of Sevres and revisionist United Armenia project on your user page. You are the real POV pusher. Wallis sabiti (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good for me, how that relates to topic discussed? I published it on my personal page, not on mainspace, you are free to do it as well. Athoremmes (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , it was already discussed in previous AfD, the article is written in vague language, sources are biased, etc Athoremmes (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIASEDSOURCES are allowed. Wallis sabiti (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't just biased sources, they're unreliable. The Turkish article was deleted a few days ago. tr:Ermenilerce_Türklere_yapılan_katliamlar. ----Երևանցի ^talk 18:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That article was deleted because there was already an article for the Armenian rebellions, the log states on Trwiki. If you think sources are unreliable, you should take this to WP:RSN. Wallis sabiti (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And why is that? Because mainstream scholarship does not recognize "Armenian violence in the Ottoman Empire" as a thing. It's nothing but cheap propaganda. ----Երևանցի ^talk 18:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Type "Armenian terrorism" on Google scholar and you will see how scholarship recognizes it. Wallis sabiti (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Armenian terrorism" ≠ "organized massacres of Turks by Armenian revolutionaries", let alone of 518,105. ----Երևանցի ^talk 18:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From 1910 to 1922, Armenian bandits had killed 523,955 Ottoman Muslims.^[1] (p. 92) Wallis sabiti (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, per "International Law Expert" Sadi ÇAYCI in the "Review of Armenian Studies" with a reference to the "State Archives of the Turkish Prime Ministry". sounds as reliable as it can possibly get. ----Երևանցի ^talk 19:14, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Heads up Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zenzyyx. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on WP:TNT grounds. I have no doubt that the article does make reference to some notable atrocities, but the article would require a tremendous amount of reworking and in-depth verification of the sources in order to correct the intense NPOV issues. Flip^and Flopped ツ 01:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Over reliance on Turkish government sources which violates NPOV. --Kansas Bear 01:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feminine Archetypes of Ancient Drama in the Allegories of the Modern World

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

WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Such an analysis belongs on a blog or (if it is better) in a scholarly journal. Fram (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Theatre, History, and Sexuality and gender. Fram (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, the subject is probably notable, but this is a two-day-old article by a new editor, who is probably a subject-expert but with no experience in Wikipedia's policies and styles. It has sources, but they've been incorrectly formatted so it's impossible to tell which statements are backed-up by which sources (and this is one of the major problems in assessing notability; we need to know who's written about the subject, and what they said). It would be sensible to give the editor who created it time to sort out the referencing errors, remove their own personal connection from the article (Wikipedia articles don't have named authors) and get the article into shape. I'd strongly recommend that the original creator put it through the AfC process (articles for creation) as AfC will provide feedback on all the wikipedia-specific intricacies of creating an article, which is non-trivially different to general academic writing. Elemimele (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Many of the references appear to be primary sources, and a lot of what is written appears to be WP:OR based on the editor's reading of the primary sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your explanations, you are absolutely right in what you are telling me. In this context, I recognize my mistakes. I recently registered as a user-editor on Wikipedia—it is a very attractive and culturally emblematic space. Naturally, I am not yet familiar with Wikipedia’s specific editing rules, but I am starting to understand them. As for my article, it is original—I am an essayist, and it is difficult for me to avoid writing in a subjective manner. I will try to "fix it." Sending good thoughts and wishing you all the best! Graziella Popescu (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak draftify Like Elemimele states it's probably a notable topic, and I'm generally very against draftifying notable topics, but in this case it might be prudent as it's really not built like how a Wikipedia article should be. With some help the creator might be able to fix those issues tho.★Trekker (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Sai

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

This entry has no other references, and the person is not an important figure in history, so it may not meet the inclusion criteria. Babaibiaobin (talk) 06:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:POLITICIAN and totally undiscernible to English readers. — Maile (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks sources, fails WP:N and WP:V. RolandSimon (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beacon (signal fire)

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

The article Beacon (signal fire) duplicates information already covered in the Beacon article and exists entirely within its scope. The majority of the page is entirely unsourced, other than two WP:Self-published sources within popular culture. Lea 4545 (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Lea 4545 (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The beacon article is too broad. The early warning system has its own Wikidata object. The idea with it is to port over relevant information from beacon and instead describe it shortly in the main beacon article with a link to the specific subarticle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blockhaj (talk • contribs) 08:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of white settler contact on the Pawnee tribe

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

Appears to be entirely redundant with the history section of Pawnee people, but much less thorough and encyclopedic. Reads suspiciously like a homework assignment too (see the comment by the article's creator at the talk page).

If we want a standalone article on the post-1800 cultural development of the Pawnee Tribe, and it's not clear that we do, we'd be better off just moving the relevant sections of Pawnee people into one. Jbt89 (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - Not a "homework assignment", but similar. See the editor's page User:Aberg555. Part of Category:Wiki Education student editors. We get "This user is a student editor" all the time. I think it's part of university curricula. — Maile (talk) 00:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article could definitely be improved, but not seeing a clear reason to delete. There are plenty of sources available. Per WP:PRESERVE it would be better to tag this article to draw attention rather than deleting.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Nebraska, and Oklahoma. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:04, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
merge: relevant content to the Pawnee article. Frankly, you could replace "Pawnee" with the name of any other tribe and get a similar article. They all engaged in contact with the Europeans that had similar effects on them, this isn't a unique story. Oaktree b (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This was written by a student in 2019. They've likely long since graduated and are no longer active on Wikipedia, I don't see the harm in deleting this now, this isn't a current assignment. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23rd Field Artillery Regiment (United States)

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

Non-notable army regiment with only a single mention in a book from 1953. Fails WP:GNG. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 15:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable unit. I can find it mentioned in several books on the Baatan campaign, [1][2][3][4] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean they are there, but that is really all they are, brief mentions and footnotes. Not really the WP:SIGCOV needed to pass WP:GNG. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 20:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is more than enough to create an an article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman occupation of southern Iranian lands (1821)

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

Another non-WP:NOTABLE article part of this "Slicing history into pieces" trend. In that section, I originally proposed to simply redirect this to its main article Ottoman–Iranian War (1821–1823) and move its sourced content over there (another user suggested a merge, same same I guess). However, now taking another look at this article and the war article, I guess a deletion nomination is for the best, since this event is described in mere 2 lines in the "Ottoman invasion of Qajar lands" section, which lacks context. The "Qajar counterattack" section (not event part of this event) is already somewhat described in the war article. And most importantly of all, there is no special event named "Ottoman occupation of southern Iranian lands" in WP:RS, this is a invented name. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? You are angry with me and want to be hostile to me. Let me create my page. Don't worry about me. I have read more about the Qajar-Ottoman war than you, don't worry. Eminİskandarli (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article on the Ottoman–Iranian War isn't particularly long and doesn't need splitting, the current sourcing situation doesn't justify a standalone article either, and the article is filled with information about the war in general and not the one battle it is (according to the lead paragraph) supposed to be about. Cortador (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Iran, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 12:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I do not know what kind of personal feuding appears to be going on above, but this article after review is lacking in the depth of coverage to have a article unto itself. Merge the content if needed and do not split for the sake of it. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete merge any useful content first. This article and some others were created by way of an offline dispute (so I was told). I'd been waiting for the editors to burn out, then sort it out. Yet, with bad faith disputes, all roads lead to AfD, ANI, blocks. Think about a detailed featured article on the Ottoman–Iranian War (1821–1823) and don't worry about splitting off separate articles. This will require you to work together, and not create safe spaces based on the infobox |result= field, with occasional raids into opposing articles. It's been art imitating real events. -- GreenC 16:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Support per nom. Insanityclown1 (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Support per nom. Kajmer05 (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nauroz Khan

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

Article is barely comprehensible and topic shows little significance/notability, no reliable source coverage GoldRomean (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has NO newspaper or third-party independent reliable sources as references, what I saw was just personal opinions used as references. Very biased and unbalanced article....Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subect is clearly notable in the Wikipedia sense, as shown by a search in Google Books. A search in Google images shows a high level of general interest. Articles on controversial subjects like this attract biased editors using poor sources, or no sources at all. That is a reason to improve and police the article, not to delete it. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on Lankaran (1812)

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

Fail to see how this is WP:NOTABLE. Just another article part of this "Slicing history into pieces" trend. Basically to get an easy win or "point" for the involved faction. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the sources and read a little about the Qajar-Russian war, you will understand that the war was real. But you will not be able to understand this because you plan to destroy the work of others and delete their pages. Eminİskandarli (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Iran, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hmm. I guess Wikipedia doesn't treat everyone the same. Even though I'm telling the truth, a liar is being listened to just because he has rewards. There's nothing to say. This is beyond reason. Eminİskandarli (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Constantly attacking me isn’t going to help unless you’re aiming to get reported by me to WP:ANI. I’ll say it here as well: read WP:NPA and WP:BATTLEGROUND. WP:ASPERSIONS too. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are the last person who will teach me wisdom. You can shut up. Eminİskandarli (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This bickering is unacceptable and if it continues, it could lead to a loss of editing privileges. Please discuss the notability of the article and the reliability and quality of its sources and additional sources you have found and brought to this discussion. Wikipedia is not a forum where editors insult each other. Got it? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, can I tell you about the sources? There is a lot of information about this war, but it has not been added to Wikipedia. Historyofiran is just talking nonsense. Eminİskandarli (talk) 07:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion per nom. Insanityclown1 (talk) 09:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion per nom and failure of article creator (now blocked for incivility) to justify notability apart from battleground ranting and gaslighting throughout the discussion. Borgenland (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of samurai

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't see the purpose of this list. It is too long to assist browsing, but certainly is missing a lot of persons. It lacks citations. Also, there are multiple definitions of samurai. It is commonly used to refer to warriors, but originally meant servant and refers to retainers. Many of the current entries are lords, and therefore depending on the definition should be excluded. This means the list isn't very helpful and could lead to disputes if anyone cared about it. DrGlef (talk) 12:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, Military, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Alphabetical list, with most items in the list having articles, I couldn't ask for a better place to look for info on the topic. Easy !keep Oaktree b (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the articles are stubs that are poorly cited and probably should be deleted. I suggest you randomly click a few names on the list to get and idea. DrGlef (talk) 07:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only if additional information is added, otherwise this is essentially a duplication of Category:Samurai plus redlinks. Also, is Yasumero Kenshin a ninja lurking in the X section? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt any information will be added. The 50 most recent edits go back to 2021. The most recent activity is people added or removing Yasuke, the rest is people adding or removing vandalism or fictional characters, and in one case an Indian actor. What information do you think should be added?

I couldn't get any results for Yasumero with a search engine, I didn't search in Japanese though. DrGlef (talk) 07:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Years, titles, accomplishments, anything that would make it more useful than the category. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTPURP as navigational as most of the articles here is blue linked. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Hoary (talk) 08:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal Michon

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

While accomplished, I can't find any in-depth coverage of him, and while there is another person with this name who is widely referenced, this person is not, and I can't find anything to show that he passes WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, History, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Searching only JSTOR found ten reviews of four books, now added to the article. Probably there are more elsewhere. This is enough for a pass of WP:AUTHOR, and (since they are in-depth publications by others about his work) for WP:GNG as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY after good work by David Eppstein to find and add sources. Bearian (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Kangra

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

Sources fail to provide significant coverage to this topic. This topic is already covered at Kanhaiya Misl, therefore a standalone article is not needed. Koshuri ^(グ) 03:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Koshuri ^(グ) 03:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not need a separate article, also not enough coverage. Agletarang (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Y'all think the closer will follow on this obvious canvassing? No, lol. I have to say, at least this nomination is not calling my creation as "hoax" like some others: [5][6][7][8]. "This topic is already covered at Kanhaiya Misl, therefore a standalone article is not needed.": Hilarious, guess who added that "already" content? [9]. Koshuri, do a better WP:BEFORE. For the coverage it's easily getting enough writings of the crux only pointing how the siege went: [10][11] (4 pages) [12] (3 pages). Heraklios 17:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is not enough to justify a standalone article, if you discount unrelated parts from the pages, the coverage comes down to half of the pages you are claiming. Whether you added the content or not is irrelevant, in fact you should have never created this article for it suffers from copyright and close paraphrasing issues. A TNT is needed.

Analysis
Source22,25-27	Article
when the political power of the Sikhs was established in the plains of the Panjab. Then the Sikhs turned their attention to these hills. Their cupidity was aroused by the prosperous condition of the petty hill rajas who were unable to make any stand against them.	Once they consolidated themselves in the plains, the Sikhs began to turn towards the adjoining hill areas. The relatively prosperous condition of the petty hill rajas attracted Sikh interest, as these rulers lacked the means to mount a significant resistance.
The hill rajas could not resist the rising tide of the invaders, and they found their safety only in submission. Ghamand Chand was the first to yield and several others followed suit. They accepted the overlordship of a powerful neighbouring Sikh chief, promising to pay an annual tribute which did not amount/ to more than five per cent of the revenue.	When the Hill rajas could no longer resist the Sikh onslaught, they sought refuge in surrender. Many more acknowledged the Sikh overlordship after Ghamand Chand, who was among the first to do so. In return for security from future invasions, these monarchs agreed to pay an annual tribute. Unless the hill rajas sought Sikh involvement to settle their internal conflicts, this system usually guaranteed that they would remain undisturbed.
The supremacy of Jassa Singh Ramgarhia did not last very long, as in 1775 he was overthrown by his rival Jai Singh Kanhiya, whose overlordship was now accepted by most of the Kangra states. A year later Sansar Chand succeeded to the sovereignty of the hills. Being very ambitious he wished to take possession of the fort of Kangra, the ancient home of his ancestors.	However, Jassa Singh Ramgarhia's domination was brief. His opponent Jai Singh Kanhaiya defeated him in 1778 and went on to rule over the majority of the Kangra region. Sansar Chand rose to prominence in the area by 1776. Sansar Chand was an ambitious as ruler who aimed to retake Kangra's fort, which was his family's ancestral home and a historic stronghold.
Sansar Chand made several attempts on the fort, but all were frustrated by Saif Ali Khan. The Raja invited assistance from Jai Singh Kanhiya promising to pay the expenses of the troops at the rate of Rs. 2,000 per day Jai Singh readily agreed, and sent his son Gurbakhsh Singh at the head of a strong contingent in the company of Baghel Singh Karorasinghia. The combined forces laid siege to the fort in 1782	On multiple occasions, Sansar Chand tried to take the Kangra fort, but Saif Ali Khan the Mughal faujdar of Kangra at that time frequently repulsed him. Sansar Chand was eager on accomplishing his goal and turned to Jai Singh Kanhaiya for help, promising to pay for the troops at a rate of Rs. 2,000 per day. After accepting the request, Jai Singh sent his son, Gurbakhsh Singh, and a large troop, which included Baghel Singh Karorasinghia. In 1782, the allied armies besieged the fort together.
In spite of all the rigour of the siege Saif Ali Khan remained steadfast But he was a dying man, and passed away in 1783. His dead body had to be conveyed to the burial ground outside the fort.	Saif Ali Khan was determined to defend the fort regardless of how severe the siege got. His health, however, declined, and he died in 1783. Following his death, plans were made to take his remains to be buried at the imambara outside the fort
Jiwan Khan, the son of late Saif Aii Khan, however, was bribed by Jai Singh’s men, and the young faujdar finding his position untenable, decided to hand over his fort to them.	Jiwan Khan, the new faujdar and son of the late Saif Ali Khan to surrender the fort for a bribe. Jiwan Khan made the decision to surrender the fort after seeing how fragile his position was. Jiwan Khan made the decision to surrender the fort after seeing how fragile his position was.}}

Koshuri ^(グ) 08:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is coverage, and no copyright violation can be found here. The above analysis is pretty unconvincing, WP:TNT is used for copyright violations(and also other reasons that cannot be applied here,) however the content in this article does not even appear to be closely paraphrased. AlvaKedak (talk) 10:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the case made by the nominator is unconvincing and the claims of copyvio are unfounded. RachelTensions (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. The coverage is too little to warrant a separate article. Close paraphrased wording is also concerning. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral history of Pat Buchanan

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

Politician who has only competed in one general election. All information can easily be merged to the main article.मल्ल (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Conservatism, and Politics. मल्ल (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, United States of America, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Back in 2009, it looks like this info was pulled out of the main article. Not quite sure why. I agree it's better placed back into the main one. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is Ok. His campaign – and the votes he received in Florida in 2000 - is arguably the butterfly effect of why we are here in this world today. Bearian (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Macedonian anti-corruption protests

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

I had doubts about the notability of the article and I am still not convinced about the notability. This article does not contain anything that is not already covered by the main article Kočani nightclub fire. The Macedonian-language edition does not contain anything unique either. While protests and tributes have occurred, these protests appear to be nowhere near the level of Serbia or Turkey. I was considering nominating this article for deletion before too, but I decided to wait in good faith in case something changes. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although you make a very good discussion, you have to understand that this page was made very recently and is yet to receive any new editions due to lack of media coverage. I had originally planned to make daily updates kind of like how some contributors do in the 2024-present Serbian anti-corruption protests page, however it was my personal issues that led to the page being outdated. However, there is a few things to tell apart

Never once had anybody stated this protest was at all at the tension level of Serbia and Turkey. Although, due to how small Macedonia really is populace and territorial-wise, it is very clear that these protests still hold significance to the pan-Balkan Revolution.
Although this page may cover the same events as the page for the Kočani nightclub fire, it is still important to note that the nightclub fire wiki was made with one direct goal, that being cover the event. There is only slight coverage of aftermath of the event. Using this logic, shouldn't we also delete the page for the Serbian anti-corruption protests because a lot of the things covered there are already covered in the Novi Sad railway station canopy collapse? Obviously not.
Let me make this clear, I am not a Macedonian and I especially have not controlled any of the things written on the Macedonian translation of the page as it is not within my control to do so.

This might seem a bit irksome, but if it takes that much, I will begin to cover more updates as the protests continue to happen.

If you have anything else to ask me, feel free to do so. MrFool Mapping (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We must have been typing at the same time, haha - I hope my response went to the original person who nominated this for deletion and not to you. I just wanted to clarify that I agree that this page should remain alive and active. Apologies if I did hit the incorrect "reply" button!

I think you worded everything perfectly regarding this. Thank you for standing up for the smaller communities that are too engulfed in tragedy right now to even check Wiki, let alone contribute to it. I hope your words are taken into consideration. Wishing you a beautiful day! FoxFables (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have also worked on other articles like 2022 North Macedonia protests, which pretty much had daily mainstream coverage. There was also plenty of analysis about those protests. The coverage of these 2025 protests appears to be rather inconsistent, probably because there is no organized wave. The main article contains plenty of material about the aftermath, from investigation to tributes and etc. North Macedonia also had other mass protest movements like the 2016 Macedonian protests being one example, for which there is plenty of coverage and analysis, including in academic sources. So, even though it is a small country, there have been still mass protests. Even if this article gets deleted, it could be recreated in the future, in case something changes, with more coverage and analysis. I know that you do not have control of the Macedonian-language edition and I was just pointing out the lack of necessity for expansion from that edition. Either way, I appreciate your willingness to contribute to this topic. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please cite your doubts? I read this article directly after the main article on the fire and definitely learned more information. Sources are all properly listed on the page & it does contain additional information.

• I didn't know that the fire sparked interest in uncovering corruption, nor that there had been arrests made from it.

• Merely because the protests are "nowhere near the level of Serbia or Turkey" does not make them undeserving to be reported on.

• If the nominated page contained false information or was an exact replica of the Macedonia Pulse Fire page, I could understand, but comparing and belittling their community's response of mourning and protest due to similar events happening elsewhere is a terrible reason to submit this for deletion. FoxFables (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning is nothing personal and it is not meant to belittle. There is already sufficient coverage in the main article. The article as it stands is a redundant content fork. Here is a cited opinion from 26 March: it is too early to predict whether this national indignation will turn into a more organised wave of protest against corruption and failed democratic institutions that have been scourging the country ever since its establishment as an independent state. Like I have written above, if something changes in the future, this article can be recreated. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the source . 17:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC) StephenMacky1 (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Kočani nightclub fire. If there is a "lack of media coverage", as MrFool Mapping says, it is a clear indicator that the topic is not yet notable. As StephenMacky outlines, as it stands the article is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK, and if media coverage appears in the future, the article can be recreated. However, we cannot predict future events or coverage. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there does seem to be a lack of significant coverage, and there is also the concern of WP:NOTNEWS. Brat Forelli🦊 07:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant fork, nothing there as of right now that isn't in the main article. Grumpylawnchair [ALT] (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pathankot Campaign

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

Article describes a 1775 clash between Sikh Misls but fails to show its a distinct, notable event beyond skirmishes already covered in articles like Kanhaiya Misl, Bhangi Misl, or Sikh Confederacy. "Pathankot Campaign" isn’t a recognized term in historical scholarship, also WP:RS don’t treat it as a standalone event separate from typical inter-Misl strife. It leans on a narrow set of sources, like Gandhi (1999) and Gupta (1939), lack the mainstream weight or specificity to confirm details. NXcrypto Message 10:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, India, Pakistan and Punjab. NXcrypto Message 10:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Sikhism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of meeting WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The so-called "Pathankot Campaign" is itself made up. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Yet another revenge nomination, [13][14][15] lol. Just take all of my articles for deletion. Not to mention the nominator has used AI to write this frivolous rationale. Like they don't even bother to go through Pathankot Campaign#References. Check these sources: (2 pages), (2 pages). Heraklios 16:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, this is kinda funny to me, few days back, some dude was all over me for grammar slip-ups, and now this! Anyway, seems like you’re pretty worked up and running low on solid points. I did my WP:BEFORE check before tossing this article up for deletion. Check it yourself: Google Books (nothing relevant), Google Scholar (nothing), normal search (nothing), News articles(empty too). Looks to me like its got zero notability in mainstream sources. NXcrypto Message 20:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve never even crossed paths with you, so don’t go saying this is some revenge nomination, that's nonsense. NXcrypto Message 20:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re pointing to these Internet Archive links like they’re gold:[16] and [17], but let’s be real, its just Hari Ram Gupta again, and that’s a shaky leg to stand on. Gupta’s stuff, like from 1939/1944 or whenever, isn’t some mainstream heavyweight and doesn’t prove “Pathankot Campaign” is a legit standalone thing. I dug through WP:BEFORE, Google Books, Scholar, news, nothing calls this a distinct event. You wanna keep it? Show me something solid, some mainstream scholar references, not just Gupta’s dusty WP:RAJ work. NXcrypto Message 20:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only the subject fails GNG but the article is seemingly pushing ethnic POV. Raymond3023 (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then shouldn't it just be rewritten if the tone is biased? - OpalYosutebito 『talk』『articles I want to eat』 20:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; there seems to be some significant and reliable coverage from scholars, historians, etc. The article looks a little biased, and there are some strong words like "enraged", but a rewrite can fix that - OpalYosutebito 『talk』『articles I want to eat』 20:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You will have to cite the sources you believe have provided enough coverage. I don't see any scholarly sources that have. NXcrypto Message 07:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahluwalia–Ramgarhia War

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

There is no conflict such as the "Ahluwalia–Ramgarhia War", sources do not support it and provide no significant coverage to a conflict under this name. This article is a part of a series of fringe pseudohistorical articles created for ethno-religious POV pushing. Srijanx22 (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Obvious hoax article, if ends up on a section on Wikipedia's finest list of hoax articles I wouldn't be surprised. An editor from Mars (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Sources are quite clear in establishing the notability of this conflict, the nominator is currently on his spree of nominating my articles for deletion just to take revenge for this SPI:
- [18]: 3 pages of coverage.
- [19]: Another 3 pages of coverage.
- [20]: Same. Heraklios 17:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can read only snippets of one source that I looked for, but at the very least the people purported to be involved in this conflict existed, and skirmishes are referred to. Unlikely to be a complete hoax from what I can see Recon rabbit 19:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage exists and isn't a hoax. The article is fine. This seems to be part some sort of revenge spree. RachelTensions (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete sources exist that proves the content is genuine. But the article title is indeed pseudohistory. The available content could be merged into any of the parent articles. Academic sources lacks covering this as an individual war.Borax || (talk to Borax) 14:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. AlvaKedak (talk) 10:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per An editor from Mars. None of the sources provided by article creator Heraklios establish the authenticity of this conflict, let alone significant coverage. Koshuri ^(グ) 07:33, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject matter is clearly notable when viewed through a neutral point of view. The only issue seems to be the title of the article, which could be changed later. Please refrain from filing articles for deletion simply to escalate disputes between editors or groups of editors, Wikipedia is not a battleground. AlvaKedak (talk) 12:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The coverage in the sources is not enough and none of the sources support this neologism made up by the author "Ahluwalia - Ramgarhia war" , in fact sources do not even support that this was a war, sources at best refer to it as skirmishes and do not provide significant coverage to them. Anyway given the author's history of making copyvio, I doubt this article is free of it. The relevant details (not closely paraphrased) can be covered at the articles of relevant personalities. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Buçe Ambush

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

Looks like a minor event in the grand scheme of a war that doesn't meet WP:EVENT or WP:GNG. The only reference in the article that actually discusses the incident, "prizrenpress.com", is a non-RS web portal that describes the insurgents as "brave", "freedom fighters" and "martyrs". Griboski (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was a significant battle, and even if it weren’t, that wouldn’t be a valid excuse to delete the article. Moreover, there are three sources, not just one. Two are Albanian, and one is Serbian. The Albanian sources describe the battle itself, while the other details the units and commanders involved. The Serbian source simply mentions the fallen commander of the battle.

There are thousands of Wikipedia articles where sources use terms like “brave,” “freedom fighters,” and “martyrs.” If I had written the article that way, it would be a problem, but I have made an effort to keep it neutral. Diti04ZOP (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's more than one source used, but to meet notability, a topic should be given more than trivial coverage by multiple reliable sources. The Serbian military website only lists the name and date of the soldier killed, without even mentioning the battle. --Griboski (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Serb Military Website says „He died in a Military Operation trying to capture a Terrorist Group“ It describes the Battle. Also if there aren’t much sources the Battle happend and the Soldiers died why would you want to delete that if the Battle was real? Diti04ZOP (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insignificant event, lacking notability and poorly sourced, with excessive use of vague language. — Sadko (words are wind) 17:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 156.244.37.144 (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor non-notable incident. No SIGCOV apparent. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insignificant event. sources are poor quality. speedy deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakeyyyyyyy (talk • contribs) 01:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sabaean colonization of Africa

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sabean colonization of Africa

Articles for deletion/Sabaean colonization of Africa (2nd nomination)

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

The Oxford Research Encyclopedia of African History is a high quality tertiary source that summarises the literature, and in Documentary Sources and Methods for Precolonial African History (2018) it says

Thanks to archaeological and linguistic research, scholars now know Aksum was preceded by a state in inland northern Ethiopia and Eritrea that by the first millennium bce appears in epigraphic evidence as D’MT or Daamat. Damaat, centered at Yeha, was long understood in connection with political and economic contacts with ancient Egypt and Saba in South Arabia as well as the expansion of Roman trade into the Indian Ocean in the early first millennium ce. Saba is generally associated with the biblical Sheba, the famous queen said to reign in the early 10th century bce, at the same time as Solomon. Until the 1980s, scholars viewed the emergence of the state as the consequence of the colonization of the Horn of Africa by Sabaeans from South Arabia in the early first millennium bce.

According to this narrative, South Arabians colonized indigenous populations and, after the decline of the kingdom of Saba in Yemen (4th–3rd centuries bce), they created the kingdom of Aksum in Tigray. The assumption derived from the early modern myth that Africans were not capable of producing complex states themselves, and thus state formation must have been the result of external colonization or influence.

In fact, neither archaeological, epigraphic, nor linguistic evidence supports Sabaean influence or the sudden rise of a polity that would suggest colonization. Rather, evidence demonstrates Damaat was preceded by complex societies dating back to the beginning of the third millennium bce. This is significant because it demonstrates that the formation of the states of Damaat (and later Aksum) were the result of local historical developments, likely driven by the integration of the Horn of Africa into the economic networks of the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Mediterranean Sea, a process that began in late prehistoric times, rather than external colonization or influence.

In summary, it's a colonial narrative based on the Hamitic hypothesis. The source Japp et al 2011 used to cite The Sabean colonisation of Africa was a process of colonization by Sabaeans that occurred in the Horn of Africa during the first millennium BC in the lead does not support it, the closest thing it says is

One research opinion, based on archaeological and epigraphic finds, assumes a Sabaean colonization of northern Ethiopia and Eritrea in the first millennium ВС and the South Arabian origin of the political system during that period (Bent 1893: 134-151; Anfray 1967: 49-50; 1968: 353; de Contenson 1981: 354; Fattovich 1997: 341).

, citing old sources. It’s conclusion is frankly a bit unserious and doesn’t mention colonisation. It’s almost pure grandiose speculation based on one assumption that other scholars have dismantled. Kowal2701 (talk) 15:01, 1 April 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 April 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Ethiopia, Somalia, and Yemen. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Browsing Jstor:
Edit: these were from a survey of Jstor searching "Daamat Sabaean"

Fattovich 2010
Until the 1980s, most Ethiopianists assumed that a state emerged on the highlands in Eritrea and Tigray as a consequence of a South Arabian (mainly Sabean) colonization of the northern Horn of Africa in the early 1st millennium BC. According to this reconstruction, the South Arabian colonists dominated the local populations, and after the decline of the Kingdom of Saba in Yemen in the 4th-3rd century BC they gave rise to a local kingdom with the capital at Aksum in Tigray. The Aksumite kingdom progressively incorporated the whole region into its territory and laid the foundation of the Christian kingdom of Ethiopia, which survived until the 1970s. This hypothesis was mainly based on the indisputable evidence of a South Arabian influence in Eritrea and Tigray in the mid-1st millennium BC (Conti Rossini 1928; Ullendorff 1973; Ricci 1984). Beginning in the 1960s, this narrative has been challenged by archaeological research, which suggests that the development of complex societies and states in Tigray and Eritrea was not a linear process of state formation, consolidation and decline, but consisted of at least two distinct trajectories to social complexity, indirectly related to each other, in the Eritrean-Sudanese lowlands and the Eritrean and Tigrean highlands respectively. This process was characterized by a shift in the location of complex societies from the lowlands to the highlands in the early 1st millennium BC (Fattovich 1997b).

Concludes:

At present, the development of early complex societies and states in the northern Horn of Africa can be tentatively outlined as follows: 1. In the 4th millennium BC, an incipient hierarchical society emerged along the middle Atbara valley. 2. In the early 3rd millennium BC these people moved northwards, following the progressive shift of the Gash river to the present delta, and occupied a strategic position as a gateway to the sources of frankincense, gold, and ivory in the lowlands and along the western slopes of the highlands. 3. In mid-3rd to mid-2nd millennia BC a complex society consolidated itself in the Gash Delta, and was part of an exchange circuit with Egypt, Nubia and southern Arabia. 4. Beginning in the mid-2nd millennium BC, the Gash Delta was cut off from the exchange network with Nubia and Egypt, although a hierarchical society survived in the region. At the same time people culturally related to the occupants of the Gash Delta occupied the Barka valley and acted as intermediaries between the Nile Valley and/or the coast and the highlands. 5. In the early 1st millennium BC, the progressive inclusion of the highlands into the South Arabian area of commercial expansion most likely stimulated the rise of hierarchical societies in Eritrea. 6. In the mid-1st millennium BC, an early state arose in northern Tigray and central Eritrea, maybe as a commercial partner of the Yemeni kingdom of Saba. 7. In the late 1st millennium BC, the pre-Aksumite state disappeared in Tigray. A new polity emerged at Aksum and was included into the Roman trade circuit of the Red Sea. 8. In the early to mid-1st millennium AD, the kingdom of Aksum was consolidated as a large territorial state, becoming an important commercial partner of the Roman and Byzantine empires. 9. In the late 1st millennium AD, the kingdom progressively declined, most likely because of environmental crises, migrations from the Eastern Desert, and the Arab commercial and political expansion along the Red Sea.

D'Andrea et al 2008 says
Inscriptions make reference to a kingdom named Daamat, which has been described as an Ethio-Sabaean state, but the nature and extent of this polity remains uncertain (Fattovich 1988, 1990; Fattovich et al. 2000; Munro-Hay 1993). This PreAksumite kingdom had roots in local cultures but also experienced strong South Arabian cultural and economic influences (Anfray 1973; Fattovich 1988,2004; Munro-Hay 1991; D. Phillipson 1998; Curtis 2004). Recent research has proposed that the origins of social complexity in the highlands were the result of multiple factors, including increasing aridity and the elaboration of cultural exchange networks extending across eastern Africa and the Red Sea (Curtis 2007).
Sernicola 2021
The nature and extent of the connections with South Arabia have also seen considerable controversies and revisions over the years. These range from the claim of a Sabaean colonisation of the northern Horn (Bent 1893; Conti Rossini 1928; Robin, de Maigret 1998)
(citing old sources and talks about this no more)
Fattovich 2012
The origin, development, and nature of the "D'MT" polity as well as itsrelation to the later kingdom of Aksum are virtually unknown, as the archaeological record is very scant and textual sources provide only fragmentary and ambiguous information (D. W. Phillipson, 2009, 2012, pp. 22-41)

At the core of the scholarly debate about "D'MT" is the role of South Arabs in the formation of this complex society. The occurrence of nine sites in central Eritrea, eastern and central Tigray with evidence of monumental buildings and artefacts in a South Arabian style, as well as Sabaic inscriptions in South Arabian script (de Contenson, 1981; Anfray1990, pp. 17-63; Fattovich, 1977, 1990a; Bernard, Drewes and Schneider, 1991tpp. 67-83; Finneran, 2007, pp. 117-141; D. W. Phillipson, 2012, pp.24-32), has suggested two different interpretations. Scholars emphasizing the South Arabian elements claim that a South Arabian tribe migrated to the Tigrean highlands and/or Sabeans colonized the region and imposed their dominion on the indigenous people in the early to mid-lst millennium BCE (Bent, 1893, pp. 134-151; Glaser, 1895; Conti Rossini, 1928, pp. 99-101; Sergew Hable Selassie, 1972, pp. 26-34; Ullendorff, 1973, p. 47; Ricci, 1984; Japp, Gerlach, Hitgen and Schnelle, 2011; Gerlach, 2012).

(citing old sources, other than Japp et al 2011 mentioned above, and Gerlach 2012)

Scholars stressing the local component (mainly pottery and lithics) of "D'MT" stress an indigenous origin of this polity, suggesting that local elite used South Arabian elements as symbols of power in the mid- 1st millennium BCE (Anfray, 1969; Schneider, 1976a; Fattovich, 1977 1990a, 2004; J. Phillips, 2004; Curtis, 2008; Manzo, 2009). According to several scholars, a few South Arabs settled in the African highlands and spread elements of their culture among the local population (Anfray, 1994; Scheneider, 2003; Fattovich, 2010).

(citing more recent sources)

Phillipson 2009:
By at least the mid-eighth century bc, monumental stone architecture and inscriptions were being produced in the northern Horn, in both cases in styles very close to those used in southern Arabia, although the language of most- but not all- of the inscriptions showed significant local differences. It is probable that these elements were the prerogative of élite sectors, whose distinctiveness and prestige they served to emphasise. At this time or shortly afterwards (the date cannot be determined precisely), small numbers of immigrants from southern Arabia may have arrived in what is now Tigray. Their separate identity as a distinct population element may have been very short-lived, raising the possibility that individual specialists- e.g., masons- rather than family groups may have been involved. From this time onwards, cultural elements originating in southern Arabia seem to have been adopted by sections of the indigenous population- particularly the élite- to a very varying extent. Indeed, long-distance influences may be detected with other regions also, notably with the Nile valley. At Yeha, a scattered population seems to have been drawn together by the establishment of an élite centre. Local rulers are indicated, owing no demonstrable allegiance to contemporaries in southern Arabia. Elsewhere, as in the Asmara region, there is very little evidence for foreign cultural elements or for the presence of local élites. Stimulating suggestions by Curtis (2008) notwithstanding, the reasons for these developments remain poorly understood.

Kowal2701 (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: This WP:WALLOFTEXT afd nom with literally no arguments at all of a well sourced article that has 24 sources supporting the fact that a colonization had happened where the nominator just quotes random paragraphs from sources (some of which are almost a decade old). They completely ignored the message that I left in the talk page of this article where I brought up the fact that there was a conquest of the region by Karib'il Watar which triggered the colonization process but instead of replying, they nominated this article for deletion, placed a pov tag on the section of the sheba article where the invasion was mentioned (which was cited by new and high quality sources) and canvassed the discussion with User:Havenseye (who they know damn well that they want this article gone and had no reasons for that except that they dont like this article's existence, see Talk:Sheba#removal) and placed the exact same quote from the oxford source which has no mentions of the conquest. I also find it very weird that they had to mention that the sources they are bringing up in this discussion are "not cherrypicked" 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 𐩱𐩨𐩥 𐩺𐩣𐩬 (𓃵) 19:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, per WP:APPNOTE, it is appropriate to notify users involved in previous discussions. I can only assume that if you are not WP:POVPUSHING, then you haven't read the sources on the page. They do not support a "colonisation", and the one that does is from 1895. The other one, Munro-Hay 1991, attributes what he says to Michel 1986, nearly 40 years old. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I actually made a mistake pinging only that user. I'd already notified Abo Yemen and assumed the other person in the discussion was a 3O based off a glance, but the 3O had been declined. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. None of quotations given say that no colonization happened , what they say is its disputable that this caused complexity in the area or created Dmt. The article already mentions this under Cultural features - "Scholarly consensus had previously been that Sabaeans had been the founders of Semitic civilization in Ethiopia, though this has now been contested, and their influence has been reassessed for its impact on architectural, sociopolitical, religious, and cultic spheres." Pogenplain (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They do, the first quote disputes it totally. The others either say Daamat was indigenous in origin and were influenced by Sabaean culture, or that the Sabaean influence came from migrations to the region. None say there was a colonisation. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my reading it disputes that the rise of Dmt indicates a Sabaean colonization. And the absence of the affirmation of "colonization" is undecisive as you have selected the sources. Even if you succeed in challenging the colonization angle, the deletion is rejected as the sources like Nebes 2023 and Schulz 2024 call Dmt an Ethio-Sabaean kingdom and discuss Sabaean migrations into the area and describe a lot of cultural and political and architectural influence. This should be a rename discussion not a deletion discussion. Pogenplain (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have not “selected the sources”, I did survey of Jstor searching “Daamat Sabaean”. Migration is not colonisation, not even close. And regardless, we would need recent sources calling this a colonisation which there aren’t. I’m going to try to stop now as I think I’ve made myself clear. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please open a rename discussion to Sabaean migrations into Africa, we dont need to delete a well sourced page on a notable subject. Pogenplain (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See what others think, but given the above I have little faith in the rest of the sourcing. What’s salvageable could be merged to Dʿmt? Idk Kowal2701 (talk) 04:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the best way for us to cover the origins of Daamat, Dʿmt is very underdeveloped, I plan to add to it from the above sources and cover the two POVs in recent sources, briefly mentioning the colonial narrative and Japp et al. Preemptively addressing a rename and rewrite, I don’t think we need an article on this.

Kowal2701 (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A well-sourced article with 24 sources against a low-quality revisionist history expressing a minority view. The suggestion is ridiculous. Dimadick (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the article discusses Sabaean influence, which no one is disputing. This is about colonisation, only mentioned twice in the article, cited by Japp et al 2011 and two others which don’t support it, and by Munro-Hay 1991 and one from 1894 which are far too old. Calling the output of the ORE revisionist history as a pejorative is frankly laughable. Have you read the quotes or any of the sources? Kowal2701 (talk) 10:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of African history is revisionist, it was first written by colonisers. See African historiography#History Kowal2701 (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What exactly is the deletion rationale here? If x sources say it didn't happen, while y sources said it did then balance the article out for a neutral point of view. You can't just toss out credible sources because you disagree with them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale is that if we’re going to retitle and rewrite an article, we might as well delete it and create a new one. I’m not throwing out any recent sources, as discussed at Talk:Sheba#African conquests I would still include Japp et al, but it is only one source among many and only supports a Sabaean conquest, not colonisation. Kowal2701 (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you are suggesting WP:TNT then? Remember that WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP, if there are problems that can be fixed then this isn't the place to do so. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this is only my 2nd AFD (in my first one I think someone said it was the worst one they’d ever seen). WP:TNT says Similarly, WP:ATD states: "If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of viewpolicies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion." Imo this severely fails NPOV and ought to be deleted. TNT would mean we’d have to also go through an RM, where again I’d have to list quotes that demonstrate its not NPOV, which just uses more community time. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It feel hard to think that it severely fails NPOV when there is a part of the page called "Criticism of the Sabean colonization hypothesis". And it says as well, "Scholarly consensus had previously been that Sabaeans had been the founders of Semitic civilization in Ethiopia, though this has now been contested, and their influence has been reassessed for its impact on architectural, sociopolitical, religious, and cultic spheres." Pogenplain (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how NPOV works. Weight has to be proportional to its a appearance in sources. When there is only one source in the last 25 years tentatively supporting the colonisation POV (Avanzini 2016 which isn’t even cited in the article, and just says Japp et al’s Sabaean conquest seems like colonisation), it is an egregious violation of WP:NPOV. I’ve quoted two sources above which say that this POV fell out of favour by the 1980s, and the ORE (imo the best source on African history out there) completely refutes it. But because people keep assuming bad faith and can’t be bothered to read quotes or do a survey themselves (and my nom didn’t include a deletion rationale), this looks like it’s going to be kept. Kowal2701 (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI @Kowal2701: you've made more than 10 comments on this discussion (WP:BLUDGEONING) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Others have beaten me to the punch and said all that needed to be said on the matter. Sinclairian (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: per many many many many sources FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tsardom of Bulgaria

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

Largely unsourced for seven years. Absolutiva (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Bulgaria. Absolutiva (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: More or less a holding entity for First Bulgarian Empire, Second Bulgarian Empire and the Tsardom of Bulgaria (1908–1946) (Kingdom of Bulgaria redirects there). Maybe a redirect to History of Bulgaria leads the reader to a place where the periods/phases are adequately discussed. Geschichte (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since some sources use the name "Tsardom" for the First and Second Bulgarian Empires, perhaps Tsardom of Bulgaria should become a disambiguation page for the three kingdoms instead. Rocfan275 (talk) Rocfan275 (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would be more useful than a redirect. Peter James (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reduce to dab page. Srnec (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Geschichte (talk) 07:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Geschichte: What do you agree with? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Execution of Sambhaji

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

I'm opting for AfD with the proposal of redirect because it was lately challenged [21], but I can't see grounds on which this article could stand. Possible AI creation as raised by many editors (mainly HerakliosJulianus) also I found that Sambhaji#Capture, torture and execution already contains more contents than Execution of Sambhaji#Execution. So redirecting seems to be the only reasonable option. Mnbnjghiryurr (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Royalty and nobility, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I cannot make sense out of this nomination. There are a vast number of academic sources that have significantly provided enough coverage to this subject. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and obviously WP:TNT. Not to mention Sambhaji has already been better written and more than enough content. AlvaKedak (talk) 09:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep ~~There has been no discussion about AI usage, GPTZero doesn't give any indication this was created by more than 70 editors using LLMs, any such evidence presented, either here or in talk.~~ The nominator only went to AFD after their attempt to improperly blank the entire page was reverted and another of the keeps is an editor who just had their WP:ECP removed after blatantly gaming it. And WP:TNT is erroneously invoked above; that essay is for the situation in which a page is "hopelessly irreparable," and again, not even the bare scaffolding of such an argument has been made. ToffeeThumbs (talk) 11:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And, at first glance, I do not see any edits from HerakliosJulianus raising the issue of AI creation. I only see handful of edits discussing removing a section that was too inflammatory. Perhaps the diffs of that editor saying something can be presented, just in case I missed it. ToffeeThumbs (talk) 11:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found it, it was buried in an old ANI thread. I do maintain, however, that WP:TNT does not even remotely apply, and otherwise, the policy standard for an article being deleted is not met; it can be improved and it has a lot of proper, reputable sourcing. ToffeeThumbs (talk) 11:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then you might be interested in this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vigraharaja IV's first war against the Ghazanvids. AlvaKedak (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't understand S Marshall's comment, which is a great example of why these aren't remotely similar situations, I'm not sure there's anything more to say here.

You have been given an impressive volume of WP:AGF, but it's not a bottomless resource and it's not constructive to find every possible pretense to have material you don't personally like removed. ToffeeThumbs (talk) 00:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - The subject is covered significantly in reliable sources.
Dr. Joshi devotes 7 whole pages to it:
- Joshi, Pandit Shankar (1980). Chhatrapati Sambhaji, 1657-1689 A.D. S. Chand. p. 439-447.
Dr Kulkarni devotes 5 pages to it:
- Kulkarni, G. T. (1983). The Mughal-Maratha Relations: Twenty Five Fateful Years, 1682-1707. Department of History, Deccan College Post-Graduate Research Institute. pp. 73–78.
Citing WP:TNT is utterly ridiculous and non serious, there are zero problems with the article and editors should know WP:TNT places an expectation to recreate the article with its problems resolved (there are none here). The article passes WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV. I see no grounds to delete the article. CharlesWain (talk) 12:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. This is CTOP and we should not be saving this article which is based on mere AI hallucinations. Simply blow it up and start over if it can be more than what we already have on Sambhaji#Capture, torture and execution. AlvaKedak (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are drastically overstating the case. WP:TNT is only for articles that are completely unsalvageable and many people have worked on this article; it's not a solo LLM job by that one editor. You also seem to be oblivious how close you likely got to being sanctioned based on your conduct related to this article at AE. ToffeeThumbs (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You also seem to be oblivious how close you likely got to being sanctioned based on your conduct related to this article at AE.

What do you mean by this? Can we discuss this article, which is currently going through an AfD? AlvaKedak (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by this? Can we discuss this article, which is currently going through an AfD? Pal, isn't this your comment[22]? Hionsa (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suck this link. Didn't you ask id Thumbs interested in an already closed AFD? Thats what I supposed to link mhh. Hionsa (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Are you discarding all those scholarly sources? Your nomination has totally ignored WP:BEFORE. desmay (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a weakly framed nomination. Allot sources discussing this topic, and considerably this became even notable recently.Hionsa (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TNT applies, already covered in the parent article. AI hallucination has no place on Wikipedia. Although redirect is also possible. CelesteQuill (talk) Well, I was in haste and thought it was fully AI-generated, so I voted delete. But after checking its edit history, I found that many editors have contributed, and the article is well-sourced. So, it's better to Speedy Keep this article. CelesteQuill (talk) 02:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is notable and has significant coverage in reliable sources, passing WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. After checking its history I found many editors have contributed thus its unlikely fully AI generated.Mithilanchalputra (Talk) 03:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sambhaji#Capture, torture and execution: I was already concerned about this for having LLM aided contents. It can serve its purpose well as a redirect. It's not about notability or coverage, we often don't save such articles heavily influenced by AI. Heraklios 10:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sambhaji#Capture, torture and execution: Per nom. I don't find the reasoning of contesting editors to "keep" as argumentative. From GPTzero we get ~80% of WP:LLM written probability. The sources above only write two pages for this. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sambhaji#Capture, torture and execution, marginally and naturally better written This is purely a WP:SAMETYPEFORK. Shakakarta (talk) 06:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
— Shakakarta (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Most of the user's edits involve redirecting and deleting articles related the Maratha Confederacy. SKAG123 (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG. The claims of AI generation are unfounded. These GPT detectors are notoriously inaccurate and tend to show anything written in a formal tone as AI generated, the article does not even read like it is generated by AI. There is significant coverage for the topic in reliable sources. Orientls (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I couldn't find e has contributions from various editors. The content is also supported by scholarly sources. SKAG123 (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep seems historically notable.. Ramos1990 (talk)

Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures

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

The International Bureau of Weights and Measures (commonly BIPM, per its name in French) is undoubtedly notable but this article does not show that the foundation of the Bureau was a separately notable event, and notability is not inherited. Merging into International Bureau of Weights and Measures would not be appropriate; much of this content has previouly been removed from that article, and/or Metre and History of the metre, as excessively detailed, failing WP:DUE, off-topic, digressive and florid. NebY (talk) 13:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, and Science. NebY (talk) 13:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this seems to be a POV fork that combines things that could be included in International Bureau of Weights and Measures#History and then History of the metre. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- So you would undo Special:Diff/1282631916 by the nominator and put it back in? We're here because the nominator blanked all of this from the main article's history section saying it was off-topic, it was spun out to a sub-article (presumably to be on-topic in its own article), and then the nominator nominated the sub-article for deletion. Don't be fooled by the passive voice in the nomination. Uncle G (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  This article also includes material deleted from History of the metre by Johnjbarton [23] and from Metre by Fgnievinski [24]. NebY (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The irony is that the centennial history of the BIPM published in 1975 was 220-some pages long, and yet our article had a mere 4 paragraphs of history. The coverage in the 1883-09-13 edition of Nature that was only on the founding of the organization, who agreed to it, who paid for it, where the buildings were built, and what was in the buildings, was longer than our entire main article. Uncle G (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Fist, do NOT have duplicative content that is identical and redundant across pages. I think some of this issue comes from the ongoing edits and reversion between NebY and Charles Inigo across multiple pages so I'm not sure what each intends for them to look like, but Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures#Emerging geodetic standard and History of the metre#Emerging geodetic standard should not be on two pages lke this. The main BIPM article is not long enough to warrant a subarticle and its history should absolutely be longer – A lot of this information is very relevant and should be included there. However, I agree that some of this is about the history of the meter rather than specifcially the BIPM so that would belong on that page rather than this one. I disagree that it's excessively florid or detailed, it could use copyediting or trimming but should be kept somewhere rather than deleted altogether. Reywas92^Talk
Nor Merge nor Delete I tried to insert a lot of informations in History of the metre, but other contributors belived this article sould rather focuse on successive definitions of the metre. In order to avoid deletion of material, I copied part of it in International Association of Geodesy and in Arc measurement of Delambre and Méchain.
Arc measurement of Delambre and Méchain shows that the arc measurement which served to define the length of the metre was preceded by a geodetic survey aiming at joinning Paris and Greenwich observatories and was followed by remeasurment and extension of the arc meridian through Spain and Algeria at the time when Greenwich was adopted as the Prime meridian.
International Association of Geodesy explains the role of geodetic surveys and gravimetry in determining the figure of the Earth which was the aim of the French Acacdemy of Sciences in addition of determining the length of the metre.
When I created Fondation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures the introductory section was larger and I copy-pasted it in the History section of International Bureau of Weights and Measures with links to various articles including Arc measurement of Delambre and Méchain and Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures.
I then copy pasted material from History of the metre where it is considered by other contributors as an excessive amount of intricate details. I copied and pasted rather than cut and paste as I anticipated that Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures could be deleted.
In conclusion, I propose:
- to keep the extended version of the introductory section of Fondation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures as the content of the History section of International Bureau of Weights and Measures,
- to keep the section Emerging geodetic standard in Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures and
- to delete or summarize this section in History of the metre, which should focuse on the successive definitions of the metre accordingly to the wish of other contributors of this article.
Merge The content of the article Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures has been deleted, when I tried to merge it in History of the metre and it will not be accepted in the future. Merging in the article International Bureau of Weights and Measures's section History could eventually be an alternative. Charles Inigo (talk) 04:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the "Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures" notable?
- Our criterion is A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Notice that explicitly excludes sources by the BIPM. Some of the sources in the current article are about the topic but the vast majority are not. Even Quinn's books, since he worked there for 25 years.
- Delete? I wish, but it does not look like we will have consensus to delete and there are reliable sources for the topic.
- Merge? No, the current content is not suitable any where in Wikipedia.
- What to do? I made a proposal Talk:Foundation_of_the_International_Bureau_of_Weights_and_Measures#Proposal. Basically delete any content that does not match (say) Quinn's TOC for his Artifacts book.

Johnjbarton (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the name change for instance: Creation of the International Bureau for Weights and Measures. I propose a short description be added: From geodetic standard to international prototype metre. The scope of the article could be limited to the period from the Exposition Universelle (1855) up to the first General Conference on Weights and Measures (1855-1889). However, many sources date the beginning of the process back to the Great Exhibition in 1851.

Charles Inigo (talk) 06:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has a good chunk of citations and looks notable. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maha Singh's Invasions of Jammu

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

This article fails WP:GNG & there is no WP:SIGCOV in sources for these minor plundering raids/conflicts. This article also treats these two sackings as one conflict which is pseudohistorical and not backed by sources. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, and Jammu and Kashmir. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This battle lacks significant coverage. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Captain AmericanBurger1775. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above votes are either WP:PERNOM or WP:JUSTNOTABLE, not to mention nom has nominated this article for deletion out of his revenge campaign for filing this SPI. Amusing ain't this? I don't care how much of their group member would annoy me by apparently doing such one liner votes and spurious nominations, I just have to make my keep stance clear for our good faith editors. Here are some sources to establish the notability: (p. 309) (p. 335-340). Heraklios 08:03, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination still stands, the sources call it a sacking not an invasion, evidently both are discussed separately and not portrayed as part of the same conflict like you are doing. Even then the coverage is not significant with only a single page worth of mention in the first one and second one provides coverage only to the second sacking and that is already covered at Maha Singh and Haqiqat Singh Kanhaiya's articles, there is no need for this article. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your deducing method is literally taking us to nothing, that's not how it's done. Regardless of article title the article stands out on the base of coverage. (p. 309): "Mahan Singh's first sack of Jammu" and [https://archive.org/details/HistoryOfTheSikhsVol.IvTheSikhCommonwealthOrRiseAndFallOfSikh/page/n349/mode/2up (p. 339): "Second pillage of Jammu by Mahan Singh". When the historian has already affixed the chronology, you are proposing to split the article based on your own spurious assertion. If only a talk page discussion was sufficient for the article title. Heraklios 16:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not misrepresent me, I never proposed splitting this article. These two were minor conflicts that you have combined together in this article, this topic is already covered at the Maha Singh. Absolutely no need for a separate article only for POV pushing. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is significant coverage in Gupta 1999, authored by a well-known historian and published by a well-known publisher: thus it can be considered reliable. Gandhi 1999 and other sources provide further coverage, and link the raids by calling them "first" and "second". Article needs cleanup and probably a rename, but otherwise passes WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - TNT case, all of the content is closely paraphrased and contains copyright issues. The effort to fix it is not worth it. Note that most of these are consecutive sentences in source and article.

Analysis
Source309-313	Article
In the first expedition the people of Jammu alone had been sacked. The Raja’s palaces and treasury had remained untouched, for the simple reason that the loot acquired from them was enormous. Now was the turn of the Kaja to be fleeced.	Only the inhabitants of Jammu had been sacked during the first invasion. Because of the size of the plunder taken from them, the Raja's palaces and treasury had not been damaged
Brij Raj Dev returned with his treasure from Vaishno Devi to Jammu shortly after Mahan Singh’s retirement. The people also settled down in their peaceful avocations in due course of time. Two years had elapsed. Mahan Singh all of a sudden led a second expedition to Jammu at the head of 5,000 men. The government and the people were taken unawares. The remaining riches of the people, the Raja’s entire treasury and armoury were all looted.	Soon after Mahan Singh retired, Brij Raj Dev returned to Jammu with his treasure from Vaishno Devi. In due time, the villagers also made their homes in their quiet activities. It had been two years. Suddenly, Mahan Singh was in charge of 5,000 troops on a second invasion of Jammu. Both the people and the administration were caught off guard. The Raja's entire treasury, armoury, and remaining wealth were all plundered.
Huge quantities of gold, silver, ornaments, diamonds, pearls and jewellery ali worth a crore of rupees fell into Mahan Singh’s hands. Immense arms and ammunition were taken possession of. The neighbouring chiefs were frightened. They paid tribute to Mahan Singh, and saved their territories from his depredations.	Maha Singh came into possession of enormous amounts of gold, silver, jewelry, gems, pearls, and decorations valued at a crore of rupees. Massive quantities of ammo and weapons were seized. The chiefs who lived nearby were terrified. They paid tribute to Mahan Singh and protected their lands from his ravages
Not a single house or place escaped. Women were stripped of all their ornaments and costly clothes. Floors were dug in search of buried wealth. Plunder lasted for three days and nights. Loaded with enormous booty worth more than a crore Mahan Singh returned to Gujranwala.	No house was left intact, for women were stripped of their jewelry and ornaments, floors were dug up in pursuit of hidden riches, and the city's treasures were plundered. The value of the loot amounted to more than one crore rupees
Mahan Singh assured them that he had not come to plunder, but to establish his authority. In the night he surrounded the town and closed all exits	Having promised them that he had come to take over and not to plunder. But at night, he commanded his soldiers to encircle the city and seal all the gates.

Koshuri ^(グ) 04:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Regardless of the name of the article, it has enough coverage.The arguments provided in favour of deletion are poor, the article does not make much use of close paraphrasing, not that it would have been a problem as WP:TNT is used when the article contains significant amounts of copyright violations which according to Earwig is unlikely (see [25] ) AlvaKedak (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A total non-argument this is. The issue is of close paraphrasing, which is something that the earwig cannot catch. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 12:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then you might be interested in WP:CCI, for now the article must to be kept. We are not deleting articles for dubious close paraphrasing issues. You can start a Copyright investigation for that. AlvaKedak (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Regards (CP) 21:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: the two book sources seem ok, not extensive coverage of these events, but I wouldn't expect there to be much. Needs a rewrite and some of the close paraphrasing is worrysome, but that's not a reason to delete this. Oaktree b (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh–Wahhabi War

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

This is a pseudo-historical fringe article, there is no conflict such as the Sikh–Wahhabi War. This article is misrepresenting and confusing the Barelvi movement for Wahhabism and is compiling disparate conflicts between ethnic groups as a singular religious conflict. No scholars support this narrative. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Islam, Sikhism, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Undoubtedly pseudohistorical concept with no significant coverage. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 02:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Totally out of a revenge nomination for filing this SPI, pfft. I'm afraid I can't win against their canvassing but I'd try my best to give a comment which makes good faith editors turn into the side of keep.
- Oh for God's sake there's a whole chapter which is 9 pages dedicated to this conflict:
  - www.DiscoverSikhism.com. History Of The Sikhs Vol. V The Sikh Lion of Lahore (Maharaja Ranjit Singh, 1799-1839). pp. 159–167.
- Not enough? Here's 22 pages of coverage:
  - Khān, Mu'Īn-Ud-Dīn Aḥmad (1968). "Sayyid Aḥmad Shahīd's Campaign Against the Sikhs". Islamic Studies. 7 (4): 317–338. ISSN 0578-8072.
- Darn it, here's a whole book based on it (crux: pp. 58-131):
  - Adeem (2019-12-18). Sayyid Ahmad Barailvi His Movement And Lagacy From The Pukhtun Perspective By Dr. Altaf Qadir.

Please see more sources in Sikh–Wahhabi War#References which have coverage ranging from pp 2-5, I'm sorry if I'm being a bit too informal, but I'm frustrated because I can't bypass the "Delete" votes by the SPI gang and it looks like they will succeed in taking down a massive notable article. Heraklios 16:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you prove how these sources are academic? You are simply falsifying them. Had such a war happened, you could find better sources. Nevertheless, you are falsifying your sources. None of your non academic sources prove how this pseudohistorical concept you came up with is true, including the title itself which is ridiculously incorrect, Wahhabism had no presence in India at the time, Barelvi movement was not Wahhabism. That itself proves that this notion of "Sikh-Wahhabi war" is something you cooked up.

Instead of mentioning a failed SPI, and playing a victim by making personal attacks, you need to focus only on this AfD. Srijanx22 (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trivially: Sage Publishing & JSTOR are reliable publishers. We don't need any introduction for Hari Ram Gupta. "You are simply falsifying them. Had such a war happened, you could find better sources. Nevertheless, you are falsifying your sources. None of your non academic sources": Let me be clear, you're proclaiming that given sources are "non-academic"? at this point please respectfully withdraw your frivolous but more like revenge nomination. We can deal with the article title and content issues on the talk page. Heraklios 16:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JSTOR is not a publisher. That Sage publication you are citing is not about this war. You are still yet to explain how any of those sources give significant coverage to the subject in question. Srijanx22 (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable and not supported by any of the sources mentioned above, regardless of the bad faith assumed by the article creator, and their clubbing of desperate ethnic conflicts under their own neologism. NXcrypto Message 03:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage in the sources but I am not satisfied with the title of the page. The title should be either Sikh Barelvi War or Syed Barelvi holy war against Sikhs. Syed was the only one per source who adopted Wahhabi and it was not a whole community of Wahhabi that was part of holy war. Title change and some improvement needs done. RangersRus (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think there are plenty of reliable sources/info to keep this article up. However as per the statement made by RangersRus, I believe the title for the page should be changed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Twarikh e Khalsa (talk • contribs) 22:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a perfectly fine article with significant coverage available. A discussion could be had to come up with a better title but that doesn't warrant deletion. RachelTensions (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per TNT, I cross checked some of the sentences in the article and it turns out almost all of it is closely paraphrased. These statements follow the same sequence with minor substitution. This is what I found by only checking one source , I wonder how much of it is copyvio if we were to compare all the sources especially given that the author's contribution history is merely closely paraphrasing sources, suffice to say that keeping this article in current form is not a good idea.

Analysis
Source160-63	Article
The Sayyid's forces consisted of Hindustanis, the Kandharis, Yusafzais and Khataks. The Ghazis were led by Allahbakhsh Khan and the assault was delivered in the early hours of the morning of 21 December, 1826, when the Sikhs lay fast asleep in the intense cold	Ahmad Barelvi, at the head of an allied army of Hindustanis, Kandharis, Yusafzais, and Khattaks, planned a surprise attack against the Sikh troops. The attack, led by Allahbakhsh Khan, was launched in the early hours of 21 December 1826, catching the Sikhs off guard as they slept in the cold.
The first onslaught many Sikhs were killed. Budh Singh immediately organised his troops in battle array and fell upon the Ghazis, and repulsed them. They left the field and retired into the hills	The first attack led to considerable losses among the Sikhs. However, Budh Singh quickly rallied his men and launched a counterattack which forced the enemy to retreat. The Ghazis retreated from the field and the hills.
Budh Singh had won his spurs, but did not follow up his victory. About 500 Sikhs were killed in all, while the Sayyid lost 36 Hindustanis and 46 Kandharis, including Maulvi Baqar Ali of Patna and their commander Allahbakhsh Khan.	While the Sikhs held their ground, they had suffered about 500 casualties. The army of the Syed lost 36 Hindustanis and 46 Kandharis, including Maulvi Baqar Ali of Patna, and their commander, Allahbakhsh Khan.
The Sayyid shifted his headquarters to Sitana at the foot of Mahaban mountains on the western side of the Indus in the heart of Yusafzais.	Syed Ahmad Barelvi shifted his base to Sitana, situated at the foot of the Mahaban mountains on the west bank of the Indus River, in the territory of the Yusafzais
Now the Pathans from all around began to flock under the green flag of the Sayyid. In two months their number grew to 50,000. The Barakzai chiefs of Peshawar with an army of 20,000 strong and 8 pieces of cannon joined them.	Pashtun tribes from various areas began to gather under the command of Syed Ahmad Barelvi, and in two months, their number reached 100,000 men. The Barakzai chiefs of Peshawar joined the movement, and their army consisted of 20,000 men and 8 guns
a Sikh force under Sardar Budh Singh Sandhanwalia concentrated at the village of Pirpai, 32 km south of Peshawar and 30 km from Akora. The Sikh army, comprising about 10,000 troops and 12 cannon, was reinforced by Raja Gulab Singh, Raja Suchet Singh, and Atariwala Sardars	A considerable Sikh force under Budh Singh Sandhanwalia was concentrated at the small village of Pirpai near Saidu situated 32 km south of Peshawar and 30 km from Akora. Budh Singh was joined by Raja Gulab Singh, Raja Suchait Singh and Atariwala sardars. The Sikh army numbered about 10,000 with 12 cannon
The Sikhs lay in their trenches under heavy assaults of the Ghazis for a few days. When their supplies were about to be exhausted, Budh Singh led the attack. The Sikh guns created havoc among the enemy. They took to flight. About 6,000 Mujahidin were killed and wounded. Murray says that the Sikh horsemen gave the fleeing Ghazis a hot pursuit "each Sikh killing fifteen to twenty of the runaways". The Sayyid fled into the Swat hills. Ranjit Singh sent dresses of honour to Budh Singh Sandhanwalia and other commanders.	The Sikhs held their ground even though the Ghazis pressed them heavily for a long time. When their supplies began to run low, Budh Singh made a sally. The Sikh artillery inflicted heavy losses on the enemy, forcing them to retreat. It is estimated that nearly 6,000 Mujahideen were killed or wounded in the battle. Historian Murray affirms that the Sikh cavalry followed the fleeing Ghazis, and every horseman is said to have slain fifteen to twenty of the retreating warriors. Syed Ahmad Barelvi himself took shelter in the Swat hills the jihad movement suffered a crushing defeat. In recognition of the Sikh triumph, Maharaja Ranjit Singh sent congratulatory presents to Budh Singh Sandhanwalia and the other leaders
Sayyid Ahmad began to live with Fatah Khan of Panjtar, a fanatic and one of the bitterest enemies of the Sikhs. With his help the Sayyid commenced coercing the neighbouring chiefs to support him fully in the Jihad against the Sikhs. Ahmad Khan of Hoti, for his lukewarm response, was killed in* an action. The Sayyid brought the entire Yusafzai valley under his sway. Mir Babu Khan of Sadhum, a town on the Kalapani river in Peshawar district was subdued. He looked upon Barakzai sardars of Peshawar as his enemies, and incited the Khaibaris to harass them. Syed Ahmad Barelvi took refuge with Fatah Khan of Panjtar, a staunch opponent of Sikh rule. With the support of Fatah Khan	Syed Ahmad began consolidating his power in the area by forcing the neighboring tribal chiefs to unconditionally support his jihad against the Sikhs. This campaign included the coercion or subjugation of leaders like Mir Babu Khan of Sadhum and Ahmad Khan of Hoti, the latter being killed for his insufficient commitment. Syed Ahmad's influence was extended over the Yusafzai Valley and tribes such as the Afridis, Mohmands, and Khalils were won over to his cause against the Sikhs.

Koshuri ^(グ) 14:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Close paraphrasing together with the baseless notion of "Sikh-Wahhabi war" shows that there is no need for this article. It is misleading to have one. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Seriously, are we really doing this? It is not productive to bludgeon in an AfD , especially because concerns about close paraphrasing should be raised at WP:CCI, not here.

The article must be Speedy Kept as per the arguments and sources provided above. We should not allow a good amount of notable articles to be removed through the deletion process for these reasons.

If this is being driven by personal conflicts , then I urge you not to turn this encyclopaedia into a battleground or create unnecessary backlogs for the sake of “revenge”. AlvaKedak (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Manupur

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

Non-notable battle; article is cobbled together from passing mentions in various sources and padded out with the "background" and "aftermath" sections. Sources that do exist do not properly verify the content. For example, the date of 10 March 1748 is cited to a book that only says "In a battle fought near Sirhind early in 1748 Qamruddin received a fatal wound but his son Muin ul-Mulk defeated Ahmad Shah Abdali with the support of Safdar Jang." Indian campaign of Ahmad Shah Durrani is a possible redirect target, but I'm not sure it's a good one, and it may be better just to delete this. If redirected, request that the closing admin delete and redirect, as similar articles have been deleted for copyvio reasons and these are frequent sockfarm targets. asilvering (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. asilvering (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I agree with your other nominations, I disagree with this one and feel Manupur is more relevant. I've seen more significant sources cover it, page could generally be improved though, no doubt. Here's some sources:

[26] [27] [28] Noorullah (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Just fyi, we usually use the bolded word "keep" to oppose AfDs.) -- asilvering (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. Noorullah (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Battle of Lahore (1748): and REVDEL any revision that contains a COPYVIO. Page-protect at the first sign of sockpuppetry. A section at the target already contains all sourced, encyclopedic content. Owen× ☎ 18:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Sourcing is decent and can be improved. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:06, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Cooper (podcaster)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This article was deleted after a discussion in September and there are no new sources. Old version. Previous discussion. New version includes false promotional language like "Cooper is a writer for The American Conservative and has contributed to Tablet Magazine" (1 article at AC, 0 at Tablet), unsourced sections, and no mention of past statements like "FDR chose the wrong side in WW2" and Hitler not being in hell. This is still a WP:BLP1E, the only difference is that the new version pretends otherwise and uses promotional framing for his views. Tagging from previous discussion: Isaidnoway Xegma Wcquidditch Chaimanmeow Liz ArmenianSniper Googleguy007 AusLondonder Gusbenz Cosmokiwi LizardJr8 Lostsandwich The_Four_Deuces Osomite Wyattroberts A._Randomdude0000 FeldBum Seefooddiet John_Z Kriddl Donald_Albury Andol HonestManBad Kimdime Hemiauchenia Sandstein. GordonGlottal (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Politics. GordonGlottal (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Delete I have this article watchlisted because I do generally think it's wise to keep an eye on the pages of holocaust deniers so that we can avoid Wikipedia hosting, you know, holocaust denial, but this guy's definitely a good example of WP:BLP1E. While I do think it's good for Wikipedia to cover notable pseudohistorians, including notable holocaust deniers, I don't think we need to have a page for every holocaust denier with a Podcastle subscription. Should evidence be presented this man is a more significant holocaust denier then I guess I'll go back to keeping him on my watchlist but otherwise I think deletion is the best course of action. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also tagging @Hemiauchenia @Tsarstvovanie @Ekozie @Sweetstache @Kungigult from old page. GordonGlottal (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223 While Cooper gained noterietay from the Carlson interview, the number of sources since the last article was deleted in September have increased. Aside from receiving 10s of millions of views on popular shows & podcats like Carslon and Rogan, Cooper hosts 2 popular podcasts of his own and has a substack with over 160k subscribers. I think that this page is clearly unfinished and some of the sourcing should be fixed. It also entirely focuses on his recent comments with Carlson and Rogan. This is a better argument to expand the page than to delete it. Cooper's popularity is clearly growing, he does now fit the criteria for a notable person. I think it is important for wikipedia to cover this person. Willstrauss99 (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Showing up as a guest in the walled garden of right-wing podcasts isn't an automatic indication of notability nor is having a blog. Simonm223 (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, but his popularity is. Cooper has hundreds of thousands of listeners across various platforms. Many of Cooper's associated personalities are equally as notable and have wiki pages. Comic Dave Smith for example. Willstrauss99 (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your comparison to Dave Smith (comedian) is actually a good one for demonstrating why Cooper is not notable. Smith has many reliable sources talking about a variety of actual event appearances such as festivals and such. His advocacy for Trump made it into Reason for goodness sake. The SPLC has a profile on Smith and has documented his conflict with the holocaust denier Nick Fuentes. Dave Smith is clearly notable by Wikipedia's standards because reliable sources treat him as such. Showing up on Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan while being a far-right podcaster is not intrinsically notable. Having a blog is not intrinsically notable. In fact the contrast between Cooper and Smith reinforces why we should not have a page about Cooper. Simonm223 (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a point of order, the previous version was not deleted – The result was redirect‎ to Tucker Carlson#Darryl Cooper World War II controversy. I'll look at the newly created version and sources a little later and get back. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete/Merge My opinion hasn't really changed here, eventhough the article has grown. Nearly all of the citations fall into two groups: first-party/non-notable, like the subject's substack or podcast homepage, or specifically about a single opinion/appearance--and all from September 2024. There are now two citations about a second podcast appearance, this time on Joe Rogan, but it's still basically the same problem; the subject is only notable when he makes a fuss or controversial statement on someone else's program. Basically, when you get down to it, this is person is known for two slightly viral moments. I know that BLP2E isn't a "real" policy around here, but this feels more like an extension of BLP1E. I'm assuming the subject will continue to make enough noise to eventually meet notabilty guidelines; I just don't think here's there yet based on the current article. --FeldBum (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The old article didn’t mention “that tweet” about 1/6, if I remember correctly. And that tweet was worthy for the Washington Post for an opinion article. The old article was centered around his appearance at Tucker Carlson. Cooper was worthy for Neill Ferguson to write, why he does “anti-history”[[[Neil Ferguson]] more an “anti-historian”[29] and he came back on Rogan. Cooper has two popular podcasts. All in all: he is now much more as “just another holocaust denier and podcaster”.—Kriddl (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The old article didn’t mention “that tweet” about 1/6, if I remember correctly. And that tweet was worthy for the Washington Post for an opinion article. The old article was centered around his appearance at Tucker Carlson. Cooper was worthy for Neil Ferguson to write, why he does “anti-history”[30] and he came back on Rogan. Cooper has two popular podcasts. All in all: he is now much more as “just another holocaust denier and podcaster”.—Kriddl (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Times of Israel is a good source, [31], this is an opinion piece [32], [33], [34]. The person certainly is opinionated, but we shold have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are all about the same one event. Please see WP:BLP1E. Simonm223 (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The current version of the article is much more detailed and has a number of reliable sources. Eric Carpenter (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of which seem to be about his Tucker Carlson interview. Except for one source that mentioned a pro-Hitler tweet of his. Simonm223 (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's just your opinion. There's also a number of other quotes and information now in the article, his Joe Rogan appearance, the many, many articles criticizing his point of view. Eric Carpenter (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
certainly a noteworthy topic..keep 173.91.127.46 (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Radio, Conservatism, Conspiracy theories, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since I was pinged as a "participant" in the last nomination, I wanted to clarify that my only contribution to that was deletion sorting. Other than this comment, that is also the case for this nomination; I had no opinion on the old article and also offer no opinion for this version. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Cooper has hundreds of thousands of listeners across various platforms. The previous article only focused on the Tucker Interview, which is why it was considered WP:BLP1E. Cooper’s work has been widely discussed in major outlets including The Times (UK), Vox, Axios, Yad Vashem, and The Free Press, which reflects the notability standards set by Wikipedia for public figures. Additionally, many of the personalities he associates with such as comic Dave Smith have wikipedia pages despite equal noterietay at best. These factors—his independent contributions to historical analysis, his partnerships with notable figures, and his coverage by reliable secondary sources—clearly demonstrate that Cooper meets the criteria a notable person. Willstrauss99 (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore there are already Darryl Cooper articles in German and French [35] Willstrauss99 (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete here's very little reliable sourcing for Cooper except that he is a podcaster who made several controversial appearances on right-wing talk shows promoting holocaust denial. These controversies are best covered in articles about the hosts.

TFD (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A certain level of prudence is required to productively apply notability guidelines. Cooper is a writer and podcaster with a large audience who has been involved in several controversies. This is enough for him to be notable, and the point of notability guidelines is fundamentally to filter out what's not notable. Not to provide material for (admittedly) politically-motivated quibbling over alleged edge cases as if the norms themselves were the point. Note also the almost inevitable meta-level political bias that sneaks in when editors are free to apply different levels of scrutiny to different topics based on their own biases. A serious effort to remain unbiased would involve opening discussions on politics-related articles with an encouragement for users to check their biases at the door - instead we have editors more or less stating that they are here to enforce their political preferences. Anyway, it's three events now and it was two events last time when WP:BLP1E was applied. HonestManBad (talk) 07:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The three "events" are two podcast appearances and a bad tweet. We do retain articles on notable nazi podcasters like Christopher Cantwell this guy just isn't as significant as him. Simonm223 (talk) 11:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not bad in any way that's relevant to this discussion. It's not a single tweet but a thread of 35 tweets - an article of sorts, you could say - not that it matters. The reactions from significant figures and publications are what makes the events notable. HonestManBad (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that happens on Twitter matters at all no many how many tweets were in a thread. Simonm223 (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on Twitter is not relevant to this discussion. HonestManBad (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that a tweet, even a thread, does not constitute a distinct event for BLP1E purposes. Simonm223 (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. Again, the reactions from significant figures and publications are what makes the events notable. HonestManBad (talk) 06:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: BLP1E doeesn't apply because there are at least 4 events that have received coverage in secondary sources: 1) The 1/6 tweets, 2) the Hitler tweet, 3) The Tucker Carlson appearance, and 4) The Joe Rogan appearance. While it is true that none of these in themselves would make someone notable, the fact that these events have been covered in secondary source does. Additionally, Cooper has tens of thousands of paid subscribers on Substack, making him one of the highest earners on the site.[36] Mr. Squidroot (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a podcaster interacting with other podcasters and making some noise for bigoted tweets is not proof of notoriety. The article also seems like a puff piece. A lot of sources are subpar, unreliable, and some were also pulled from ChatGPT. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the sources from a scan of the internet and available media shows that this should meet GNG. Per Mr. Squiqroot. This article should not be deleted, but more WP:BEFORE should have been done. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In case this page was kept kindly move this page to Darryl Cooper (which is redirect to itself). Current title includes an unnessesary disambiguation. Ping me or the closing admin themself can do it if possible. Thank You and No opinion on the AFD itself. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support this comment. It does not make sense to have a disambiguation unless needed. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Mollusc

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

Non notable salvage vessel. I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (basically all I get is historicalrfa.uk which even if it met all the criteria for SIGCOV, which I am uncertain on, is only one source). I tagged this for notability a week ago, but the author simply reverted the tag without comment and declined to improve the article any further, leaving me with no choice but AfD. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting that an attempt to draftify on March 1 was promptly reverted without comment by the article's author. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I am unable to find any sources myself, but I'm hesitant to support deletion just yet because so many navy vessels do turn out to be notable. If anyone can access The Times archives, which I do not have access to, that might be a good place to check. I thought RFA Belgol wasn't notable, but it turned out to have sufficient coverage in The Times and at the Historical RFA website. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 03:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - article creator is a new editor. As well as the Historical RFA website used as a reference (from which the article can be expanded greatly), there is also Clydesite. The Times draws a blank this time. Mjroots (talk) 12:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does Historical RFA meet our requirements for a reliable source? I've looked it over and can't find any sort of "about us" beyond two people listed as consultants. A trip to rfaa.uk is more promising, but I'm still not getting a clear sense of who their authors are and if the website counts as a reliable source. Forgive me, I am not shipsandotherthings so I'm not as familiar with sourcing in this area.

If this were a warship, I'd probably have left it in the NPP queue, but a salvage vessel doesn't seem to have automatic notability. Perhaps there's a list article it could be merged to somewhere? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Trainsandotherthings: - Given the detail of entries consistently across the site, I'd say yes. However, I'm not a MILHIST expert, it just happens that some ships have MILHIST connections. I'll ask over there, see what the experts say. Mjroots (talk) 06:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Having had a look around the usual sources I agree that it is going to be difficult to prove notability for Mollusc. The Historical RFA page is more a list of seaman deaths plus two lines on the salvaging of some items from Falmouth than in depth coverage. Clydeships prove the ship existed but is not much more than a database entry. I think any evidence of notability will come from her later service as Yantlet, especially with mention of this 1667 Dutch warship and the possibility of work during the Second World War. I'm no expert on civil ship service so with have to leave it to others to prove or disprove. Looking at some definitely not reliable sources, it appears Mollusc may have originally been the name ship of the Trinculo-class mooring vessels. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as no one but the nominator has actually cast a "vote" here yet. I'd also like to get this discussion a bit more time in case an editor knowledgeable about ships and shipping can propose an ATD. Too bad there isn't a deletion sort for "ships".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:09, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As I've shown above, sufficient sources exist to enable an article of at least start level to be written. As we all know, that an article needs improvement is never a reason to delete it. Mjroots (talk) 11:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, I'm attacked for daring to participate in NPP and bringing an article I could not find sufficient sources on to AfD. I'm extremely tired of this consistently poor treatment. I've improved many a poor quality article, and even saved several from deletion; I do not need a lecture on the subject, from you or from anyone else. You've identified exactly 1 additional source, which is simply a database with statistics and almost no prose at all, and then gone on a high horse about how it's so evil that anyone dare nominate an article for deletion. Not everyone is an expert in ships, and not everyone has the exact same interpretation of GNG. I did a standard BEFORE search before creating this nomination, as I always do. I don't understand why you have suddenly decided to implicitly accuse me of misconduct when we were having a perfectly civil discussion regarding the article previously. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I repeated my search for sources and still haven't found significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Even assuming historicalrfa checks all the boxes (and its records are not, as it warns, "extremely sketchy"), a second source has yet to be found. I say that because I do not think that clydeships has significant coverage. I don't know if it's reliable, but it does seem indiscriminate. To quote from the website itself: "This web site aims to present the vital information and the careers of all vessels built by the shipyards of Scotland" (emphasis mine). Not all of those tens of thousands of ships are notable enough for their own article, and in my subjective and non-expert opinion, there isn't enough in the RFA Mollusc's remarks section to prove notability. I would be happy to support an ATD if anyone can find one. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 03:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I feel this may be useful in another page, but not sure where. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gracia Dura Bin

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

Reason Alexthegod5 (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC) Non notable individual who's only source of significance is that her husband named a city after her in Florida, which is already summarized in his article (Andrew Turnbull (colonist)). Alexthegod5 (talk)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Turkey. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida, South Carolina, Greece, and History. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Andrew Turnbull (colonist)#Biography – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 06:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Searching for sources, I find indications that there may be more to her. This source [37] says that she and her husband were two of the earliest members of the South Carolina Medical Society. This source [38] says (in a snippet view) "Maria Gracia Turnbull came over in the Colonial period with her husband ...[she] was a courageous, aristocratic lady, and a true partner of her husband. Not only did she play an important ..." (cut off by the snippet).

I don't know why the misspelled name is used for the article title - 18th and early 19th century sources refer to her as (Mrs) Gracia Turnbull or Maria Gracia Turnbull.

I'll try to work out how to add this to other deletion sorting lists (Greece, Florida, South Carolina) in the hope that editors who work in those areas may have access to more sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen Thank you for your assistance - I tried looking up the South Carolina Medical Society and found the Medical Society of South Carolina, which was founded around the same time (1789), although neither that website nor the organization's history page mention either her nor her husband. Maybe that's a good place to start looking for some other sources that mention her? Alexthegod5 (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen Here's something I just found that might be a good place too, if you or someone else is able to get a copy https://www.amazon.com/MEDICAL-SOCIETY-SOUTH-CAROLINA-Hundred/dp/B000GS75JK Alexthegod5 (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Andrew Turnbull (colonist)#Biography – I don't see much notoriety. 190.219.102.197 (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Geschichte (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any reason to delete. Bearian (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History Proposed deletions

Morgan ap Pasgen (via WP:PROD on 31 March 2025)

History categories

for occasional archiving

Proposals

^ “TERRORISM AND ASYMMETRIC THREAT: ACTIVITIES AGAINST TURKEY, FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE 20th CENTURY TO THE PRESENT (Armenian Terror Activities and PKK Terror Organization Activities since 1915)”. Review of Armenian Studies, no. 18 (May 2008): 89-99.

[1] “TERRORISM AND ASYMMETRIC THREAT: ACTIVITIES AGAINST TURKEY, FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE 20th CENTURY TO THE PRESENT (Armenian Terror Activities and PKK Terror Organization Activities since 1915)”. Review of Armenian Studies, no. 18 (May 2008): 89-99.

[1]