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

War of Independence of Armenia (1918)

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

I can't find any reference anywhere to an Armenian war of independence that took place in 1918. None of the article's sources (many of which are other Wikipedia articles) speak of any such war. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:09, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:09, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Azerbaijan, Georgia (country), Germany, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If that's a hoax, it's a well-written hoax, minus the sourcing. - Ike Lek (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't look deeply, but it seems like the article describes real events but casts them in a fabricated pseudohistorical narrative—like, the Battle of Sardarabad is a real battle, and is described in this article, but it's part of World War I, not some "War of Independence of Armenia". ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:46, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Economic Impact of the Slave Trade on African Nations Today

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

AI-generated content fork ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: AI? Delete. Even if it does have sources listed, they aren't linked and LLM tend to hallucinate. We can't spend time proof-reading every supposed link to verify: A- it exists and B-it actually talks about the subject. I would not accept this if it had gone to the AfC process. There probably is something here, but there's no point in drafting it when it could be complete fabrication. Oaktree b (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are books about this subject [1], but this LLM could be completely off the mark. Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The red-linked user has been blocked for creation of "LLM slop". I'll speedy this nonsense. Oaktree b (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:19, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have no patience for AI-generated articles (due to WP:V) and this one is no exception. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable AI slop that is structured and titled as a (bad) essay rather than an encyclopedia article. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is better to remove AI generated content and articles due to their tendency to hallucinate information and references, rather than waste volunteer time trying to clean them up. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 22:46, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bicoli State

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note: This article is also being nominated for deletion on idwiki: id:Wikipedia:Usulan penghapusan/Kenegerian Bicoli. ▪︎ Fazoffic _{( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ)} 23:53, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreen Avenue station

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

Disputed redirect without improvement. Currently zero in-depth coverage, and Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:01, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Stations, Transportation, and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Myrtle Avenue Elevated#Station listing (or perhaps merge to Central Avenue station (BMT Myrtle Avenue Line)#History). The closed elevated stations are a mixed bag as far as notability goes. Because of its short lifespan and early closure, there doesn't seem to be any significant coverage of this station. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BMT_Myrtle_Avenue_Line#Opening: or the table below where it's mentioned. Insufficient coverage to merit a standalone article. Star Mississippi 00:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If this article gets deleted, then every other closed station article like Park Avenue should get deleted as well, and this sets a bad precedent. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 03:17, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WAX is not a valid argument in a deletion discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:27, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:WAX doesn't actually say that this is never a valid argument; it only says that it may not be a very convincing one. Tduk (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per pending expansion. Cards84664 03:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If deleted, it's entirely possible that, down the road, some overly-eager editor will remove the relevant information from whatever article this is merged into, as it's a minor part of the line's history. Being from so long ago, sources are also going to be hard to find, so I don't want to dismiss there being more good sources out there. Never mind that I'm not sure who following such a pessimistic possibly overly-literal interpretation of the deletion policy helps in this case - though fixing policy is another discussion entirely. Tduk (talk) 03:49, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references already present in the article appear to be adequate. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:43, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, so, just so we're clear, an article with 4 sources, 2 of which do not mention the subject, one which is a map, and the final one which has a brief mention of the subject, are enough to show notability? Interesting.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:21, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Year of three popes

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Year of three popes

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

WP:SYNTH: the only reliable source using the term "Year of the Three Popes" refers to a specific year, 1978, all other years listed in this article are verified by a reference to encyclopedic articles about individual popes. Wikipedia:Notability: no reliable sources are cited to verify that the topic is notable; a book about a specific year cannot verify the existence of an article about multiple years. Borsoka (talk) 04:46, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this does indeed feel like synthesised pope-trivia. I'd guess most people, when thinking about years of three popes, would be more likely to think of the Western Schism and the three simultaneous popes it generated, with all the fall-out sorting it out in Constance. Elemimele (talk) 12:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably say that most people would probably think of 1978. E.g. the existing source and this one (which also mentions 827 as the first year of three popes, but that may have been taken from enwiki, so possibly a circular reference), and Hebblethwaite's 1978 book The Year of Three Popes.

Stubify to state that the Year of three popes principally refers to 1978, using Irish Post, Hebblethwaite and Poulat to establish notability. I have not read the Poulat book, but this review states that the final chapter is called "The Year of Three Popes (1978)". Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In popular literature, it only refers to 1978, so the article is a synthesis. A single "In 1978, three popes stood at the head of the Catholic Church" could hardly be developed into an article. Borsoka (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made the suggestion as an alternative to deletion. Someone managed to write a whole book on the topic, so it seems to me not inconceivable that one might be able to develop an article. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources are available that discuss 1978 in particular, while also referencing prior instances. The Irish Times and similar sources at a minimum establishes the notability of 1978, and the New Liturgical Movement establish the notability of the Year of Four Popes. The rest, while not necessarily individualy notable, are appropriately presented on list form. With these additional sources, there is not clear basis for deletion. The individual instances are sourced sufficiently to establish three pipes in single year. –Zfish118^⋉talk 22:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:39, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is essentially posing as a DAB page, but as noted above, the term is only used (as far as I am aware) to refer to a specific year, 1978. So this is synthesis. In any event, what is the significance of having 3 popes in one year? It is just interesting piece of trivia. What can be said about it other than - yes, there were three popes this year, and also these years. Well meaning but not suitable for an article. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 14:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it should only refer to 1978, I think theres enough notability in that very unusual circumstance. It might be reasonable to mention the other years, but that will skirt WP:OR, unless there is a source on it. Metallurgist (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Christianity. Skynxnex (talk) 00:27, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and no need to stubbify. There is clearly commentary on both 1978 and papal succession in general, and noting the presence of three or four popes in one calendar year is well within the bounds of WP:CALC and hence not actionable OR. Jclemens (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is clearly a thing discussed in reliable sources. If there are problems with synthesis (although I'm not sure there are), they should be fixed by removing the synthesis, not by deleting the article. Jahaza (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's a phenomenon that periodically receives RS coverage in popular media (BBC 2018, Irish Post 2023) and occasionally among more academically minded publications. Anecdotally, I heard this as a casual term among even non-Catholics growing up. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, and is an adequate addition to Wikipedia's papal collection. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ledenice offensive

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

Extremely limited coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Grbavica (1993)

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Sedrenik '94, no indication this merits its own article separate from Siege of Sarajevo. Fails WP:GNG, WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:DEPTH. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indeed, fails WP:GNG. — Sadko (words are wind) 00:16, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mughal conquest of Ladakh and Baltistan

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

Article recreated after it was soft deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Jahangir invasion of Tibet. Lack of notability and WP:OR issues still remain. Wareon (talk) 12:39, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:48, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is not a well-documented historical event. A search of "conquest of Baltistan" on JSTOR gives a positive hit [2], but that journal article describes a Mughal conquest of Baltistan by Shah Jahan, not Jahangir. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 14:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This article was originally titled First Jahangir Invasion of Tibet, which is a more historically accurate and sourced name. The article now reflects this with reliable citations. The current title "Mughal conquest of Ladakh and Baltistan" is misleading because the campaign was unsuccessful and limited to the western Tibetan frontier. I support keeping the article under the more accurate title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowipedia89 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History of online ticket sales of Ukrzaliznytsia

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

WP:NOPAGE. A simply unencyclopedic topic for a standalone page. This is worth maybe two sentences - if that - at Ukrzaliznytsia. Astaire (talk) 03:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Transportation, and Ukraine. Astaire (talk) 03:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

== Keep ==

This article documents a historically significant milestone: the very first online transaction for booking Ukrainian railway tickets, completed on December 26, 2008. This event marked the launch of online payment processing for Ukrzaliznytsia, which later evolved into full e-ticket systems across Ukraine.

I was personally involved as the initiator of this first transaction and can provide primary documents such as contracts between Express-2 and E-Cpayment, certification from Belgian processor Clear2Pay (now FIS), official letters from Ukrzaliznytsia, and bank reports from Rodovid Bank to verify these facts.

I am ready to share these materials confidentially with Wikipedia administrators to confirm the notability and verifiability of this topic.

--Tvladimir2 (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you were involved in the transaction, then this is a conflict of interest (WP:COI) and you should not have created the page yourself. WP:COIEDIT says: you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly. Astaire (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

This article covers a historical first in Ukraine's e-commerce and railway sector: the initial online payment and booking of Ukrzaliznytsia tickets in December 2008. The event is verified by an official letter from JSC Ukrzaliznytsia marking the 15th anniversary, and an independent media publication by Espreso TV. I have already disclosed my COI and welcome further neutral reviews. Thank you. Tvladimir2 (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ukrainian Railways, fails WP:GNG. मल्ल (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete: fails WP:GNG and is literally just a puff piece for the author. Oppose merge on the basis that once you remove all puffery, there is nothing left. ^{themoon@talk:~$} 09:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first source may not be reliable as it is an opinion blog post, and the second source fails WP:PUBLISHED. Since WP:V is failed I don't think a merge is applicable either. Jumpytoo Talk 01:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crosswiki spam. The editor admits he's using a chatbot to overcome minimum requirements on various Wikipedia's and upload that content. Taichi (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evo zore, evo dana

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

This was made in 2008 and nobody contributed a source since then. The existence of this song is definitely verifiable, and has occasional bursts of mentions that may indicate notability, but I tried doing a Google Books search and I only see cursory mentions, nothing substantial from e.g. historians or musicologists. Can someone else find some? If nothing of value can be found, maybe we can merge the gist of this under Ustaše#Symbols, and get rid of the copy&pasted lyrics, the existence of which seems to give undue weight to these fringe ideas? Joy (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, History, Military, and Croatia. Joy (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Easy enough to pull up things in Gscholar [3] and [4] mention it, plus many others. Oaktree b (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b what does the first one say? I don't seem to have the login for that, sorry. The second one says on page 350:
NDH symbols, different publications and songs (e.g. “Evo zore evo dana”, “Hrvatska se vojska diže“, “Pjesma poglavniku”) were increasingly present in everyday life in many parts of Croatia.[45]

That article is pages 337-369. So in a 32-page article, this song gets a single mention that says nothing other than it being a symbol of the NDH (the state of the Ustaše). This is exactly what I am talking about in the nomination. Where is the significant coverage of the song itself? --Joy (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's an article of the same name as the first one in Kolo at [5], and that's another mention.
[...] pjesma »Na Kordunu grob do groba« nema spomena Srba pa je nepotrebno dokazivati da to nije srpska pjesma, tim više što se pjevala na melodiju budnice ustaške crne legije: »Evo zore, evo dana, evo Jure i Bobana«.

[...] sve partizanske pjesme koje sam ranije čuo imaju i svoju ustašku inačicu kao i napomenuta »Evo zore evo dana evo čete partizana«

So we learn that another set of lyrics were used with the same melody during the war, that this song was promoting the Black Legion (Ustaše militia), and that it was common for songs to have both a Partisan and a Ustaše version. This is, again, worth a paragraph in a larger article and a redirect to put things in context, but does not indicate a need for a separate article. --Joy (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could we merge it to that article perhaps? Oaktree b (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I proposed originally :) if no one can find something better --Joy (talk) 11:48, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ustaše#Symbols: The article has no sources, so a delete could work. But others have found sources, so a merge would be better. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caaqil Dheryodhoobe

AfDs for this article:

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

I nominated this a few years ago, and the article still doesn't show sourcing in RS. I can't find any in Gbooks or Scholar about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Shellwood (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: but move the page, the most common name used for him in English seems to be "Siyaad (Qaasim) Dheryo-Dhoobe" while "Caaqil" appears to be a title like chief and Dheryo-Dhoobe might be a nickname or other title. this pdf thats already in the article shows him being referenced in English scholarly sources albeit briefly. One, two, and three web sources in Somali which I read via gtranslate. They aren't the rigour that I would use for a BLP but they show a relatively wide range for such an old figure. A more Reliable Source would be this book where he is mentioned at the bottom of page 57 and page 58 but I can't copy and paste to easily check what it says. Finally we have this Medium article which has interesting information and shows pictures (but not links sadly) of some older sources. In fact, I think the picture is of the book which I linked before. Moritoriko (talk) 04:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History of the metre

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

Redirect to History of the metric system, merging small amounts that aren't essentially duplicated or better covered there.

This article is functionally a fork of History of the metric system, which includes pretty much everything this article might if fully developed. This article's also exceptional; we don't have "History of" articles for other units like the kilogram, second or ampere.

The forking is something of a wiki-historical accident; this article began as "Redefinition of the Metre in 1983", a redefinition in terms of the speed of light which at least one editor thought very foolish. This article may have been created to corral that issue but long arguments about it continued across many articles leading to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light, this article narrowly survived an AfD but its scope was soon expanded to History of the metre, and activity on this article died down. Meanwhile History of the metric system was created, continued to be developed, and was a GA until recently. It already has much well-written well-sourced content about the history of the metre itself and its context, but broadly speaking without the digressions that this article has sometimes included.

As this isn't a new article, it seems (I've not done this before) that WP:ATD-R applies: discuss on talk page first, but if consensus is lacking, go to AfD for discussion with the wider community. Opinion at History of the metre#Redirect to History of the metric system? was divided 2:2 and so though long discussion there just might reach unanimity either way, it seems better to come here as WP:ATD-R's preferred venue. NebY (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Science, Engineering, and Technology. NebY (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This should be merged to Metre#History of definition, not redirected to History of the metric system. I actually don't see much duplication between the two history articles at all, I see two distinct topics with very different content. There is a lot of metre-specific history that isn't tied to the metric system as a whole and this could even be expanded. Much of History of the metre#From standard bars to wavelength of light would be out of place at History of the metric system. But for now at least, metre is relatively short and so its history could be merged there, if not kept separate if expanded. I agree with StarryGrandma on the talk page. Reywas92^Talk 03:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to both history articles mentioned in nom and by reywas. Good arguments made, and Im always happy to see the metric "system" get a thumping. Metallurgist (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article. Regardless of the reason History of the metre was created, historically the meter holds a special place in the metric system. Indeed, the other unit of the historical system, the kilogram was originally defined using the meter. Here is a link to a source p. 14. Metric System does not take that in account and gives explainations which correspond to the International System of Units (SI). The second was only added to the system following a proposal by Gauss in 1832 to base a system of absolute units on the three fundamental units of length, mass and time (see Centimetre–gram–second system of units). Charles Inigo (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rajendra Prasad Das

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

Lacks sources. Fails ANYBIO, BASIC and GNG.The article contains lot of claims but none of them is verifiable. Zuck28 (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Literature, History, Buddhism, and Odisha. Zuck28 (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - created by a WP:SPA, fails WP:GNG - I could find no WP:SIGCOV. GoldRomean (talk)～
Delete. I had conducted a WP:BEFORE and didn't found to meet general notability guidelines and significant coverage. Fade258 (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article Kamboja Rajput clearly satisfies the requirements under WP:CASTE, WP:GNG, and WP:HISTRS. The subject is verifiable and notable through multiple reliable academic sources, including works by B. N. Puri, Romila Thapar, J. N. Singh Yadav, and the Anthropological Survey of India.

This is not original research. The process of Rajputization, by which tribes like Kambojas, Shakas, and Hunas were integrated into Rajput identity, is well-documented by several historians (e.g., Dirks, Burton Stein, Thapar). The article cites reliable secondary sources with correct ISBNs, pages, and academic publishers.

The article:

Does not violate WP:UNDUE – only properly sourced, relevant claims are included.
Is written in neutral encyclopedic tone.
Avoids synthesis and speculative links.

The Kamboja Rajputs are recognized by the Anthropological Survey of India as a distinct group with their own gotras and history. The article has been cleaned and significantly improved, and should be judged based on the current version — not outdated or poor earlier drafts.

Oppose deletion. Support keeping the article.

–– Kambojahistory Kambojahistory (talk) 06:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kamboja Rajput

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

WP:POVFORK of Kambojas/Kamboj (trying to connect the latter to the former). Covered by WP:CASTE sanctions. Stunning WP:HOAXing of sources (that is why no links and URLs are given), here is what you find when you go to verify them: Puri makes no mention of Rajput/Kamboja in his entire book; Stein makes no mention of Kamboja in his book; Dirks again makes no mention of Kambojas; the same is the case with Thapar (have the copy); Yadav again makes no mention of Kambojas (also a non-RS); the Witzel source doesn't exist (no such publication by him); Raychaudhuri makes no connection between Kambojas/Rajputs; cannot verify The People of India but the source itself is non-RS (largely covered by WP:RAJ). Considering the formatting of the references and the content itself would not be surprised if LLM was used or if the content was lifted from dubious caste-based websites. Gotitbro (talk) 12:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, History, Hinduism, Pakistan, India, and Punjab. Gotitbro (talk) 12:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

United States extradition relations with Mexico

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

No sources cited and has less information than List of United States extradition treaties; seems like if the subject were notable, it would fit better in Mexico–United States relations. Believe it fails per WP:NOPAGE. - ChadyWady ( Talk ) 22:47, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Law, Mexico, and United States of America. - ChadyWady ( Talk ) 22:47, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Right now it is a topic of debate by politicians in Mexico. Found a few sources, but not enough to warrant an article. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:29, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Gibson (author)

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

There is almost nothing (in secondary RS) about this author (presumably a historian), with most of the article dedicated to their fringe theory (their so-called "Petra thesis") M.Bitton (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. M.Bitton (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I found one published book review [6] and one published critique of his work [7]. It's not enough for WP:AUTHOR for me but with a few more like those he might be notable as a fringe theorist. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, and Islam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:19, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "The person's work has: (c) won significant critical attention" I think this can be said. The historians David A. King, Michael Lecker, Daniel C. Waugh have all commented on his work, King repeatedly. [8][9][10][11][12] The Computer Scientist Peter Harremoës has referenced him [13] Also there quite a few Islamic websites with comments on this: [14][15][16][17][18]. Azrl26 (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2025 (UTC) — Azrl26 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The first three may suffice. A colleague of his mentioning him is pointless and you should know that, as are the Muslim websites. Doug Weller talk 07:48, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harremoës' paper was only published in Entropy, an MDPI journal, so it shouldn't be counted as a reliable source. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if all other scholars uniformly disagree, then maybe you're wrong. Bearian (talk) 07:33, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian-Epirote War of 1385

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

Single source makes no reference to this as a war, just a failed atack. Molikog (talk) 09:57, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Molikog (talk) 09:57, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albania and Greece. Shellwood (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:44, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A single mention on the main article would be enough. desmay (talk) 23:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khong Lanmi

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

Non-notable infantry, does not need a separate article. Can be best described at Lanmi (Meitei culture). Wareon (talk) 10:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, India, and Manipur. Shellwood (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article already presents a substantial amount of in-depth information that supports its notability. If the nominator believes it does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, I would appreciate more specific reasoning grounded in those policies. Simply suggesting it be merged into a broader topic isn't sufficient if the subject is independently notable and the content supports a stand-alone article. Haoreima (talk) 11:35, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Regardless of the explanation above, notability still cannot be established. Agletarang (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion of sourcing would help focus notability discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge and redirect to Lanmi (Meitei culture). Not sure why this has been nominated for deletion, but not Sagol Lanmi or Hee Lanmi. It's referenced and it seems notable. It makes no sense to delete information, but if this one is merged to the main article then the the other two should be too. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Cycling History Conference

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

No refs on the page which are independent of the subject. Nothing much found which suggests there are sufficient RS to show that the notability criteria for inclusion have been met JMWt (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neshat Quaiser

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

Doesn't pass WP:NACADEMIC, no sigcov in article. Also strongly suspect WP:COI; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThePerfectYellow grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, History, Islam, Medicine, Social science, and India. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citations are nonzero, but look well short of WP:NPROF. No other assertion of notability in the article, no other notability apparent. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doctory: as a WP:ATD. I note that doctory was created by ThePerfectYellow and might also need to be examined. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yea that page is also a little sus. I'm unlikely to nominate myself (working on other things atm) but encourage others to grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there are any objections to Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Willard

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

WP:BLP of a local historian, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for historians. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they have or had jobs, and have to be shown to pass certain defined notability criteria supported by WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about their work in media and/or books -- but this is referenced entirely to primary source content self-published by non-media organizations she was directly affiliated with, and shows absolutely no evidence of GNG-worthy sourcing at all. (For example, people do not become notable enough for Wikipedia articles by having staff profiles on the websites of their own employers, or contributor directories on the websites of publications that they wrote for — media unaffiliated with her work have to write about and analyze the significance of her work as news to make her notable on that basis.)
As her potential claim of notability is primarily local in nature rather than national, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to the necessary resources than I've got can actually find sufficient RS coverage to get her over the bar, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have significantly better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: She did win awards, including a state-wide award for her work. WP:Author doesn't require national accomplishments. One might make the case that winning an award from the state's primary historical society might be "significant critical attention"? --
Jaireeodell (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say people always have to have nationalized accomplishments to be eligible for an article — I said that because her notability claim is local rather than national in nature, I lack access to the kind of resources necessary to determine whether the article is salvageable with better referencing or not on my own, without bringing it to wider attention. People can get into Wikipedia on primarily local significance — but regardless of whether their notability claim is local or national in scope, people aren't exempted from having to have WP:GNG-worthy reliable sourcing.
Also, every award that exists does not constitute an automatic notability freebie — a person is not automatically notable just because the article has the word "award" in it, if the article doesn't have GNG-worthy reliable sourcing in it. "Significant critical attention", for the purposes of GNG, is a question of whether she's had news reportage and/or books written about her and her work, not just the fact of having been singled out for just any old award that exists — an award might help if it could be referenced to a newspaper article treating "Shirley Willard wins award" as news, but it doesn't help if you have to depend on content self-published by the organization that gave her the award to source the statement because media coverage about the award doesn't exist. We're not just looking for "has done stuff", we're looking for "has had media coverage and/or books written and published about the stuff she did". Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ミラP@Miraclepine 21:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wonderful woman, no doubt, but I simply cannot find any of her writings that aren't "self-published" - i.e. by the historical society she was working with in some capacity. She did get two awards from the Indiana Historical Society, but I don't think that is going to confirm notability. She is given credit for unearthing the story of this "Trail of Death" but I only find a very few mentions of it by folks not directly associated with the historical society. Lamona (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just asking for clarification on what you are asking for here- are you asking for the historical veracity of the Potawatomi Trail of Death? If so, there is already a Wikipedia article discussing its history. I am not writing that she was responsible for discovering it, she is just a historian who has taken important steps to preserve its memory in local history. Willard is responsible for the Trail of Courage festival and commemorative caravan, if that's what you meant. Here are some mentions of the Trail of Living Courage Festival and caravan from sources not associated with Willard or the Fulton County Historical Society:

https://www.dar.org/national-society/american-spirit-magazine/beacon-history-shirley-willard (Page dedicated to her on the Daughters of the American Revolution website, already in article)

https://www.southbendtribune.com/story/news/local/2018/09/13/caravan-to-trace-potawatomi-trail-of-death-from-rochester/45724091/ (News article about about Trail of Death commemorative caravan Willard organized)

https://www.in.gov/ibc/legacyprojects/3261.htm (entry on Indiana government website about the festival, already in article)

If these sources are satisfactory, I can start reworking the article around these and replace the Fulton Co. Historical Society ones. DeishaJ (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will look at these sources, but, no, I'm not asking about the trail of death. This article is about HER so we need sources about HER. Lamona (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some additional sources I've found:

https://www.carrollcountycomet.com/articles/historian-recognized-with-statewide-award/ (News article referencing her Lifetime Achievement award. I have contacted the Indiana Historical Society to see if they have any writings or press releases on her that would work as citations).

https://www.rochsent.com/willard-featured-on-publishers-blog/article_1ec925d0-4190-541b-9020-c01655ba74d8.html (Lists her history and achievements with the Fulton Co. Historical Society. Also mentions her Lifetime Achievement award and Golden Hoosier award, mentions her being a torch bearer in the Indiana Bicentennial Torch Relay. I have confirmed her participation, she is listed here under Fulton County. Link to the page of the Indiana government website I found the PDF on.

Additional sources for consideration:

https://www.potawatomi.org/blog/2016/09/28/chairman-barrett-honored-at-2016-trail-of-courage-festival/

https://www.potawatomi.org/blog/2017/06/27/indiana-declares-indian-day/

I will let others decide if these sources are good enough to work in this article, as they are technically blog posts. I will argue, though, that they are from the official Potawatomi tribe website. These sources mention Willard playing a key role in securing proclamations from Mike Pence and Eric Holcomb in recognition of the Trail of Death and establishing remembrance/heritage days. These might be notable additions to her article, but I am unsure if they would meet proper reference criteria. Is there any way to find good sources for these proclamations:

Mike Pence declaring Sept. 20, 2014 Potawatomi Trail of Death Remembrance Day

Eric Holcomb declaring April 22, 2017 Indiana Indian Day

Thanks!
DeishaJ (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, blog posts are not considered reliable because they are informal and lack a true editorial oversight. The DAR one is pretty good but may not be considered independent because she was a member of DAR and this is a "member profile." Press releases are never considered reliable sources because they are by definition promotional, and thus have a non-neutral point of view. I hope that others will weigh in on the awards. (I advise looking at the documents about those awards - unless you are already familiar with them.) Lamona (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, deletion looks likely, but at least a little more participation is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:18, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since I have majorly overhauled the article from when it was originally nominated for deletion, I thought a rundown of my edits would be helpful to the discussion. Notable edits include:

-Major source overhaul: Added several Indiana newspaper articles, two book sources naming her, and replaced all blog sources. All sources that could be considered primary have been replaced except one, the Potawatomi Trail of Death Assn. webpage that states the year of its founding. I am currently looking for alternatives.

-Expansion of her career section: I have both expanded her career section and added a "notable contributions" section. The career section now lists more of her contributions to Indiana history and includes her official appointment as the Fulton County historian by the Indiana Historical Society and Indiana State Historical Bureau. The "notable contributions" section goes into her contributions to specific historical subjects. A major contribution includes establishing 80+ historical markers along the Potawatomi Trail of Death. I hope that these sections better outline her significance in Indiana history.

-Awards: I did end up adding her participation in the Indiana Bicentennial, I thought it was relevant since the torchbearers were selected by a state committee and represented individuals who demonstrated "exceptional public service" as a criteria.

Hopefully these edits do a good job of addressing the original issues with the article. I am still actively editing and will continue doing so unless the article is officially deleted. For more information, please see the article and its improved references section.

Many thanks,
DeishaJ (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Mostly per WP:PROF#C3 on the lifetime achievement award from the Indiana Historical Society, which as a 190+ year-old society passes the "significant society" test to me for possessing judgment about notability of scholars in their field. It is quite rare to have an article on someone whose work is mostly on local history without also having national-etc. level peer-reviewed publications, but she appears to be one of the few who do that. (Note also that the distinction between national and provincial/state level can be tricky with large countries -- Indiana has about the same population as Bulgaria, and we would probably accept a lifetime achievement award from the Bulgarian Historical Society as counting.) -- I came here planning to make the closing easier by casting for delete, but the sources in the article and keep arguments here persuaded me.
Weak keep With significant improvements to the article I'm inclined to !vote weak keep. In addition to NPROF#3 there are sources that support GNG including [19], [20], [21], [22]. Nnev66 (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Baballoq

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

Fails WP:GNG. The results of searches for "Battle of Baballoq" (alb.), "Battle of Bazaljica" (sr.), and various similar permutations including search terms "Kosovo" and "KLA" are negligible. Created by a blocked sockpuppet account. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kosovo and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of relevant results searching for the Albanian name "Beteja e Baballoqit", eg. [23] from Bota Sot or [24] from Klan Kosova. --Cavarrone 15:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I said the coverage was negligible, not non-existent. Contemporary coverage was so muted that even one of virtually the only mentions "Baballoq" receives on Google Books and Google Scholar mentions it "was only reported in a small item on an inside page" in the Albanian Daily News. [25] This clearly doesn't reflect WP:DEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE of coverage. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tend to agree that the topic lacks in-depth coverage and significance for a stand-alone article. --Griboski (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History Proposed deletions

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

History categories

for occasional archiving

Proposals