Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. 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.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Social science|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Social science. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

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

See also: Science-related deletions and Medicine-related deletions.

Social science

[edit]

Genderism

[edit]
Genderism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Follow up to bold WP:BLAR ([1]) - the term has since the 2000s been used exclusively as a pejorative linked to the Anti-gender movement alongside "gender ideology" and is already discussed at target (alongside all other links currently present on this unnecessary DAB page). See sage encyclopedia & paper for context. Since AFD is the preferred venue for a BLAR following reversion, bringing it here with the ask for this to be redirected to Anti-gender movement#Terminology (same target as “gender ideology” for similar pejorative non-neutral term) as I boldly tried but some IP editor reverted without details. Raladic (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting procedural close under Error of "Wrong Venue", since the WP:NACD doesn't say clear enough if I'd be allowed to do it myself (it only explicitly says so for withdrawal), requesting someone else to please do so. Raladic (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Clarification on whether I could close this procedurally under WP:NACD which contradicts WP:SK (while pointing to SK) discussion raised at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#WP:NACD and procedural closure due to Wrong venue?. Raladic (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as disambiguation as the term is used ambiguously. Wikt:genderism (and Wikt:Citations:genderism) reliably attests four separate and somewhat contradictory senses of the term:
  1. the belief gender is rigid, binary, and assigned at birth; gender essentialism
  2. discrimination on the basis of gender; sexism
  3. right-wing catch-all for things to which antigenderism is opposed (like LGBTQ rights and feminism)
  4. a gendered or gender-stereotyped behaviour or activity
I don't think sense #3 is used exclusively. Both sources you linked in your edit summary [2][3] are in fact using sense #1. SAGE specifically notes a need to disambiguate the term's usage within Trans Studies from its use in popular political discourses in Europe; it suggests cisgenderism as a less ambiguous term. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 20:33, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pursuant to this exploration I've Special:Diff/1303048393 cut down the list to make this distinction clearer. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 20:47, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the cleanup.
My primary motivation for this was that I think the modern WP:PRIMARYTOPIC use of the term is almost (I somehow forgot the word almost from the AFD but had it as "pretty exclusively" in the BLAR edit summary) exclusively used for the anti-gender movement and since the other uses are explained there, I figured just straight up redirect without the page is the easiest way to go and there was no need to consider whether we need to resurrect the Genderism (Disambiguation) page or not.
Now following your cleanup, we have a WP:2DAB situation (I followed up and removed sexism as the sexism article there specifically has a hatnote for "distinguish from" Genderism should not be confused with sexism, so the DAB page can't then say the opposite as that would contradict each other.
So with that, I'm going to withdraw the nomination here as an AFD and request a procedural closure (since I am not sure I can execute that myself under WP:NACD and will raise it as a WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY RM move discussion instead (or the closer can do so and I'll add my 2c as needed), to determine whether we'll have a primary redirect with dab page or redirect and adding a hat-note for the other remaining term per WP:2DAB. Raladic (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: WP:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies. Raladic (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Association for Business and Society

[edit]
International Association for Business and Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Is women empowerment still relevant

[edit]
Is women empowerment still relevant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Delete, WP:NOTESSAY SDGB1217 (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To whomever made this: The better question is why would you make this Article?
also, when this article eventually gets deleted, make the “if a page you have created has been deleted and you wish to know why” notification just say “why” 2600:8802:1810:A200:44F9:80B1:E4C4:5CCB (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alok Dixit

[edit]
Alok Dixit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

Creative Cities

[edit]
Creative Cities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:20, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Role of social media in the modern reparations movement

[edit]
Role of social media in the modern reparations movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

- the article was repeating itself over-and-over again
- the article read much more like an essay than a Wikipedia article
- multiple sources were fictitious/non-existent
- it was chock-full of original research and WP:SYNTH
- and it was most likely partially or fully-AI generated.
The topic itself doesn't seem very notable either, since reparations for slavery already has an article. I don't think this is salvageable. ApexParagon (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Just all kinds of wrongs here, the LLM use, the synth, largely repeating other articles... This badly needs reworking, but I don't see anything useful to be saved. Oaktree b (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SYNTH and LLM use, any such content in future would be better suited to a section on an existing page first before being grown to potentially an entirely separate page. lizthegrey (talk) 10:14, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as LLM generated in a long list of LLM generated articles that are being created in ever greater numbers. Especially for material with bad sourcing. The LLM method does not generally find great sources for these random article creations. Iljhgtn (talk) 11:21, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Reduction of working hours in France

[edit]
Reduction of working hours in France (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

@closer: a merge to French labour law is fine by me. JBchrch talk 18:00, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus, we have arguments to Delete, Keep and Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:37, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Laro people

[edit]
Laro people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 10:10, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - addressing the sources offered by @Ike Lek: above:
source [1] above is titled Laru Vowel Harmony and the paragraph on page 22 says The Laru language is spoken in the Nuba Mountains of Southern Kordofan Province in Sudan. Because of insecurity in the home area, there are large displaced communities in Khartoum, Port Sudan, Sennar, and Atbara. According to the Sudan census of 1984, which excludes speakers living outside the home area, the number of the native speakers is 7600. According to a recent estimate (2003), which may include other tribes that are grouped under the Laru by the area administration, the population is 25-50,000.
page 31 is a discussion about the spelling of a word in English
source [3] appears to be talking about Eugenics
In my opinion the strongest source offered here is clearly talking about a language group. As I suggest above, it wouldn't be a surprise to learn that there is an ethnic group that speaks this language, however it isn't the job of Wikipedia to make this assertion. We can't have pages that are only referenced obliquely. I still can't really see how this information wouldn't be better covered in Laro language until such time as better sources are found. JMWt (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These quotes from the first sources are more what I was referring to, especially as they could provide clues as to what to search for to find more information: "The Laru are known by other Sudanese as Liira or Alliira, which are names given to the Laru by outsiders." and "According to a recent estimate (2003), which may include other tribes that are grouped under the Laru by the area administration, the population is 25- 50,000." Page 31 contains translations for terms such as "Laru homeland" and "person of Laru" separate from "language of Laru".
I suggest we take extra care before making a decision on this AfD, as erasing the existence of an ethnic group group from Wikipedia can have major consequences, especially with LLMs feeding off Wikipedia and then being used to make decisions.
I would say the strongest source is probably the second one, so I would be curious to hear to assessment of it. Also, to be explicitly clear, I do not support human eugenics. I don't think anyone was saying that I did, but just in case, I do not want that to be misunderstood. Ike Lek (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I still do not support eugenics, I do question how you came to the conclusion that it is the subject of the third source I gave. Further review seems to suggest that while it does use pseudo-scientific racial categorization at some points in the book, it does give a historically-based ethno-linguistic categorization of Nuba peoples not directly tied to eugenics. Please let me know if I am wrong about this, as I do not have access to the complete book. Ike Lek (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Social science Proposed deletions

[edit]

Language

[edit]

Alphabets of the South Caucasus

[edit]
Alphabets of the South Caucasus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Anuj Tiwari

[edit]
Anuj Tiwari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

Nieuweschans dialect

[edit]
Nieuweschans dialect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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


The so-called sources are useless.
  • Source #1 gives a page in the internet archive that suggests that it has been written (and copyrighted) in 1999 and written in 2008 (Huh?), but in fact it has been uploaded at 19 July of this year. No author of this article is mentioned, only '©2001-2008 Noajwschansk Sproak'.
  • Source #2 is a 'Photo of an Newpaper'... What new(s)paper is it then? And why is it unreadable? I cannot determine at all what the (sort of) text is about. And it has been uploaded one week ago.
  • Source #3 has no relevant information at all. In the Dutch version of this article, it links to a list of words in this dialect, without any author. And it has been uploaded last week, too.
  • Source #4 is identical to source #1.
The article writes that 'The dialect is spoken informally in a small community of around 18 people', quoting source #4. It is not written what that estimation is based on, and who has done research to that.
The dialect is suggested to be 'developed' in 1999. So should it be seen as an artificial dialect? I think it is probably at most a hobby project without any encyclopedic relevance. Erik Wannee (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of misleadingly-named foods

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of misleadingly-named foods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Hungarian toponyms in Slovakia

[edit]
Hungarian toponyms in Slovakia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian toponyms in Zakarpattia Oblast

[edit]
Hungarian toponyms in Zakarpattia Oblast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus. If you are suggsting a merge or reditect, please provide an activr link to the target article so we know it exitsts.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:48, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Greek exonyms

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Greek exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

Names of Belarusian places in other languages

[edit]
Names of Belarusian places in other languages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Belarus. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Are there any good ATDs for this? You are right that it isn't very encyclopedic, but it is a great index that I would love to be kept in some form. Is there another Wikimedia project that it would fit better on? I would like it to continue to exist, even though this isn't the right place for it. – Ike Lek (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you use this table and how know the quality is "great" when there are no sources? Is that because you checked a sample by flipping round language links? Perhaps a Belarussian reading this would like to translate it to Belarussian Wikipedia? However I don’t know their rules. Another alternative if you need it in bulk might be to make a Wikidata query. Or could AI nowadays flip round the language links on your request? Or are you saying it is useful to you because some articles don't exist in other languages? In which case without sources how can you trust the info? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have come to realize that the Yiddish translations are maybe a bit rougher than I thought. I was going to manually update Wikidata items, but I've decided against it due to the lack of citations. Sorry to bother you. Ike Lek (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Italian exonyms in Istria

[edit]
List of Italian exonyms in Istria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Keep. Istria has a sizable Italian population. These names are used in the areas with the Italian minority and are commonly mentioned in their media. The Italian Wikipedia provides several citations for them. --TadejM my talk 18:05, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Italian Wikipedia has more than one citation. I think you may have missed them as they as separate from the "Bibliografia" section. Because of both the history of Italians in Istria, and the current modern significance of the names, Italian exonyms for places in Istria is a notable topic, and a list is not inappropriate. – Ike Lek (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NOTDICT. There are some exonym articles that are encyclopedic, such as Chinese exonyms, but that article contains well-sourced contextual information and mostly restricts the list to exonyms that have received secondary coverage. The Italian version of this article appears to rely mainly on primary sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists states Some other, non-glossary lists of words can also yield an encyclopedic page, such as List of English words containing Q not followed by U, the condition being that reliable secondary sources for the topic can be cited. (emphasis mine) Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:54, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And even with secondary sources, there's still a WP:NOTDICT argument against having exhaustive lists of exonyms. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retracting this; a list of toponyms seems less crazy than I originally thought, assuming that sources exist, even though it would be quite large. It could be eventually merged into one or more general lists such as List of locations in Istria County. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Coming back to this, I find myself reconsidering whether these names are truly exonyms at all, as many have official status and are used locally by ethnic Italians. If the page isn't even about true exonyms, this changes things significantly. – Ike Lek (talk) 05:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are actually endonyms.[10] --TadejM my talk 11:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the same is true for the region of Dalmatia and a similar article (List of Italian exonyms in Dalmatia) was recently deleted by PROD. IF the outcome of this AfD is anything other than delete, then the same should apply to that list. Giuliotf (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pages 74 and 75 of this may be of note here [11]. Ike Lek (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting given concerns raised by Ike Lek
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:33, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Czech exonyms

[edit]
Czech exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:17, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese exonyms

[edit]
Portuguese exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Keep - As a prolific contributor to this article and a specialist in linguistics, as well as a native European Portuguese speaker, I posit that articles of this nature are necessary on account of their educational value, cross-linguistic and cross-cultural navigation, and their potential to facilitate translation and multilingual writing. Moreover, they ensure searchability and disambiguation for those who wish to navigate not only any list of Portuguese exonyms, but also any other language, including even endangered languages. Cantrusthestory (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cantrusthestory Thanks for your expertise. Could you possibly add some citations to this article? Perhaps some of those on the Portuguese article. Nowadays most citations (except pdfs) can be easily added by using the “automatic” option in Visual Editor. If you have any difficulty with adding cites please ask or just add them in the right place in a rudimentary way and some helpful Wikignome will tidy them later. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - obviously WP:DICDEF is not a relevant policy as these are not dictionary definitions. There are plenty of references on pt.wiki, which would appear to be more than enough to satisfy WP:NLIST, happy to have a more forensic discussion of those if that's really necessary. RS on en.wiki do not have to be in English.JMWt (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Serrano dialect

[edit]
Serrano dialect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

 Comment: I'm sorry, but I felt obliged to deprod this. Proposed deletion is only for non-controversial topics, and other than politics and religion, nothing is more controversial that whether a certain dialect exists. I have No opinion on the subject. Bearian (talk) 02:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I didn't claim the dialect doesn't exist. I stated that nothing SPECIFICALLY called "Serrano dialect" exists. Once again: the expression "dialecto serrano" in Spanish is a generic term, that has been used in different countries to refer to different dialects. It is the same as the expression "city slang". "Serrano" does not refer to a specific geographic location and is used to refer to any mountain range. This is equivalent to creating an article titled "city slang" that says that "city slang" is the dialect of the city of Paris. It makes no sense whatsoever. JohnMizuki (talk) 13:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded articles

[edit]


History

[edit]

Anti-Urinal Law

[edit]
Anti-Urinal Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a hoax article. All of the references are spurious. I believe the page creator, User:BillyJoeG, also used two vandalism-only accounts to promote the notion of a ban on urinals in Wheelock, Texas: User:God$end and User:Joshtan. Proposition 411 was speedily deleted in 2011. Cheers, gnu57 14:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Law, and Texas. gnu57 14:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and look at that, a teenage hoax! Of the three sources, one just links to a website (no article in specific), one is a website for games (yes, even back in 2012!), and I can't even find the last one. Searches for the author, the book, the publisher in all combinations yield nothing - is possible I missed something though. WP:BEFORE search again finds nothing. I checked Google scholar, JSTOR, and newspapers.com. I'm fairly certain this is a hoax. jolielover♥talk 14:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A11 agree this is a hoax, did a separate google and attempted to check the not real sources in the article
Czarking0 (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Changde

[edit]
Princess Changde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

Battle of Karasounk

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Battle of Karasounk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Battle of Behgy (1766)

[edit]
Battle of Behgy (1766) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Battle of Chera Har

[edit]
Battle of Chera Har (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Mason County Historical Society

[edit]
Mason County Historical Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

The Jewish Cause: An Introduction to a Different Israeli History

[edit]
The Jewish Cause: An Introduction to a Different Israeli History (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Keep. The book qualifies under Wikipedia:Notability (books) criteria as having at least two real, non-trivial reviews, in respected sources that are independent of the book itself:
  1. Nine page long, wide and deep Dr Levin's review
  2. One page long, substantive and precise Segula Magazine review — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guybas (talk • contribs) 01:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:44, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Phagwara

[edit]
Battle of Phagwara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

Ottoman capture of Zeila

[edit]
Ottoman capture of Zeila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Hello, apologies for the late response, this page includes sufficient sources about said event, what exactly do you see as wrong here? Samyatilius (talk) 08:30, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Zeila was under the Imamate of Awsa according to manuscripts found in Harar by Enrico Cerulli during that period. Garad Muhammed ibn Garad 'Isa was coronated as the Imam of Awsa in Zaila' in 1626 and it was known as a place were usurpers would rebel against the authority of the Imam.[1] Garad Lado', the governor of Zeila for the Adal Sultan Muhammed ibn Nasir, built the walls surrounding the town to prevent raids in 1572-1577.[2]
I support that there isn't enough notability which warrants its own article. As stated before it is a minor incident and the sources briefly mention the event and do not go into detail. Replayerr (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:16, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:22, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Genetics and the Book of Mormon

[edit]
Genetics and the Book of Mormon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Delete - I agree with the points above. The article is primarily general statements about world history. What information there is specifically about this idea could most likely be integrated into another article. Likely doesn't warrant it's own article. A person of sorts (talk) 03:05, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is assembled from a warp of original research and weave of synthesis. 107.119.53.130 (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

White Flight in Gary

[edit]
White Flight in Gary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Oppose deletion - It's extremely challenging to suggest it's got so many unsupported claims, and consequently deleted, when it is subject of many articles - both in news media and academic - and is so worthy of an article in its own right. There are around two dozen or so references, and if something isn't supported by those, flag it - but this is not a reason to remove the entire article. Few, if any, statements are unsupported - and the items flagged as unsupported tend to be referred to in previously marked references and so consequently just need to be marked again. Please be bold and improve rather than deleting Berocca Addict (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, what's being proposed here is that the article be incubated and worked on in draftspace rather than in mainspace—not that the article be evaporated. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:22, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both deletion and moving to draft space. I've seen a number of articles in main space that have fewer and poorer citations than this one. Could it use more detail? Yes, but it's unlikely to receive help from other editors if it's in draft space. The most obvious cleanup issue is to remove most of the section headings; we don't need a section for every one, two, or three-sentence paragraph. Indyguy (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Gary, Indiana. This is an extremely specific thing that isnt particularly notable on its own and could be summed up pretty well in the Gary, Indiana article. Metallurgist (talk) 02:21, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would respectfully challenge the contention that it's not notable. It passes all the relevant notability guidelines, with a series of books, articles, academic papers and documentaries on this distinct topic. I do want to expand on this article as there are a lot of data and information from the sources that I would like to see added to give additional shape, but it needs to survive first. I think merging it to Gary would lead it it dominating that article in a way that would make it less of a typical article on an American City. Berocca Addict (talk) 09:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree with merge as the topic does seem to be notable enough in its own right. ~ lovkal (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per nom. I disagree with Indyguy's argument above that boils down to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: the fact that other articles are of poor quality doesn't make this one more acceptable. I am also suspicious of some wording choices (like a "Legacy" section starting with Gary became emblematic of the intertwined effects of industrial collapse, racial transition, and suburbanization) that, along with the verifiability issues, lead me to believe that the writing might have been at least AI-assisted. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:58, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please clarify the verifiability issues? Berocca Addict (talk) 07:42, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify The general topic is notable and do feel there is adequate referencing to support being specific to Gary. Unfortunately, as pointed out, there are some problems with the article, such as potential LLM usage, wordage and writing style. It feels/sounds too much like an essay. Drafts do not have to be solo projects, eyeballs and help can be gotten from various workgroups.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:24, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify I'm sure that one can take care of some of the problematic wording and improve the article as a whole through active Draft improvement. ~ lovkal (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:12, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't see why Gary is much different than any other city; replace Gary with Detroit, or XYZville and you'd basically have the same article. I'm not seeing notability, there is much synth going on. Oaktree b (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is indeed a lot of synth; lots of the information (as of my last check) comes from sources which don't mention or contextualize the information white flight. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:40, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too much synth. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Qarahamid (1510)

[edit]
Battle of Qarahamid (1510) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

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

Hunan–Jiangxi Soviet

[edit]
Hunan–Jiangxi Soviet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Comment After reviewing Autumn Harvest Uprising, it seems like Hunan is heavily covered there. If it is decided to merge and any new information can be properly sourced, it feels like this would be the better of the two articles you mentioned.
Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:22, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rao Mitrasen

[edit]
Rao Mitrasen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

Racism in Columbus, Ohio

[edit]
Racism in Columbus, Ohio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and Ohio. Astaire (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and seems a bit coatracky. Metallurgist (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge first 4 paragraphs of History section to Columbus, Ohio#History, delete the rest. Much of this article (sadly) applies to just about every major city in the US, making this a bit of a WP:COATRACK for a generic topic. Other parts of the article might be merge-able to Racism in the United States, as a city-specific example. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG, as there are plenty of great sources here which are specifically about this large American city. It is fine to have local history in Wikipedia naming particular people, places, and events, even if other cities have comparable circumstances. And other places in Amercica do have similar circumstances, because in Category:History of racism in the United States by state or territory, we have several hundred other articles about location-specific circumstances. The nominators are correct that Wikipedia does not seem to currently have any other "Racism by American city" articles, but I am entirely sympathetic to the idea of documenting the intersection of cultural heritage and places, especially when we have so many sources. I also recognize WeirdNAnnoyed's complaint that lots of the history is repeated from other places, but in this article, I see either uncited claims which have other Wikipedia backing like links to main articles which do have citations (" safe for African Americans to visit... only four survive: the Macon Hotel, the Hotel St. Clair") or kind of routine, but with a local authority cited like https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2714730 . As a general principle, I would support anyone creating articles for any well documented civil rights movement in any city, regardless of potential repetition, just so long as there were local sources and wiki-notable concepts to report. Bluerasberry (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    passes WP:GNG I actually don't think it does. This source is specifically about racism and public health. This source is specifically about redlining. This source is 80 years old and is mainly about "Negro life" rather than racial discrimination. And the other sources in the article are even less useful. Where are the sources that discuss "racism in Columbus" as a whole, uniting the different topics discussed in the article? If there are none, this runs into WP:BADTHINGS issues, as other users have said.
    Wikipedia does not seem to currently have any other "Racism by American city" articles Not only are there no other "Racism in X U.S. city" articles, there are not even any "Racism in X U.S. state" articles. As far as I can tell, this is the only subnational article about racism in any U.S. location. And there is probably a reason for that: the creator (who is now inactive here) appears to have been very passionate about creating articles on local Ohio topics. Yes, this is a WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument, but the argument grows in strength when there are hundreds of cities and 50 states, all of which you argue could have their own "Racism in X" article, and yet none of them exist. We should ask ourselves why that is. Astaire (talk) 06:16, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Astaire: Wikipedia's bar for passing GNG is very low - just two articles on the topic. I se no ambiguity about this article passing GNG. For a topic, we need articles which address that topic, and there is no identify a broad textbook with a unifying vision. As you say, we have articles covering distinct aspects. These include racism in Columbus Ohio for housing discrimination, police, protest events, tourism, and social justice programs. There is no source which combines all of these into a unifying narrative.
While we do not have other racism by American articles, we do have demographic by city articles including LGBTQ culture in Chicago and History of African Americans in Houston. Intersectional topics in Wikipedia are inconsistent because they are low-readership and because we have few editors. Despite this, building out local culture is common in Wikipedia and we have many such articles, even if we do not have complete national sets.
The creator - whose page I watch, and through whose talk page I found this discussion - has been prominent in Wikipedia for their views of thoroughly documenting culture by cities. I think this is a good thing, and wish local historians and interested community members would build out whatever local perspectives they like. Wikipedia does not have a size limit, and we have no need to prune content which passes fact-checking and topical relevance just because a topic is local to the level of a city. Even after all these years, it is also still okay to do new things in Wikipedia. Interest in city history is quite common in every city in the world, even if our Wikipedia editorial ancestors hardly did this. I am in favor of every city in America building out articles like this if anyone organizes content of this quality. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no source which combines all of these into a unifying narrative. Yes, this is exactly my point: there are sources which cover aspects of the subject, but no source that directly addresses the topic of "racism in Columbus" as a whole. So the case for GNG is dubious.
Compare this with your example of LGBTQ culture in Chicago, where the "Further reading" section gives three whole books that are directly about the general subject.
There is a stronger case for reworking this into History of African Americans in Columbus, à la your second example, since this article is already halfway there. And there are indeed sources which address that topic as a whole: e.g. [14], [15] Astaire (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Wikipedia wants unifying narratives, and this article is deficient for not having one. Despite that, I still feel that GNG is a much lower standard than that.
It could be nice to have an article titled, History of African Americans in Columbus, but if we did, this content would be WP:UNDUE to merge into that for showing a long focused history on only one aspect. We could not just rename this article to be about culture. Also, I do not think we should delete the content of this article just because it is not connected as a subtopic to something higher in the hierarchy. I could establish a brief parent article if that helped the case for this one, but if I did that, the parent article would be a placeholder for a later editor to add more and contain a subsection on racism which pointed to this article. I do not think it is realistic to attract anyone to build a Columbus focused African history article in the next few years though. Bluerasberry (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think these sources give unifying narratives over decades, from probably 1800s to 1940s. From the wiki article -
"Frank Uriah Quillin, who wrote in his 1913 book The Color Line in Ohio: A History of Race Prejudice in a Typical Northern State: 'Columbus, the capital of Ohio, has a feeling toward the negroes all its own. In all my travels in the state, I found nothing just like it. It is not so much a rabid feeling of prejudice against the negroes simply because their skin is black as it is a bitter hatred for them.'"[3][4]

References

  1. ^ Cerulli, Enrico (2013). Islam Yesterday and Today (PDF). Istituto per l'Oriente. pp. 213–220.
  2. ^ Cerulli, Enrico (2013). Islam Yesterday and Today (PDF). Istituto per l'Oriente. pp. 221–224.
  3. ^ Oliphint, Joel. "Cover: The roots of Columbus' ongoing color divide". Columbus Alive.
  4. ^ Himes, J. S. (1942). "Forty Years of Negro Life in Columbus, Ohio". The Journal of Negro History. 27 (2): 133–154. doi:10.2307/2714730. ISSN 0022-2992. JSTOR 2714730. S2CID 149546155.
Bluerasberry (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:GNG, there is no guarantee 2 sources will be considered enough. I guess it could happen, if they are great on-topic sources with extensive coverage etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:16, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing notable about racism in Columbus Ohio. Was racism in Columbus more notable than Birmingham Alabama? Racism occurs everywhere, that doesnt make it particularly notable here. There may be a case for History of African-Americans in Columbus, Ohio, as suggested above, but this aint it. Metallurgist (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. 71.231.11.148 (talk) 05:36, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This IP appears to be blocked for vandalism and the vote ought to be discarded or removed. Metallurgist (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IP addresses can be shared (I wasn't the one who vandalized). 71.231.11.148 (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:01, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bluerasberry above: "As you say, we have articles covering distinct aspects. These include racism in Columbus Ohio for housing discrimination, police, protest events, tourism, and social justice programs. There is no source which combines all of these into a unifying narrative." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Berber raid against Vandals

[edit]
Berber raid against Vandals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Khasa dynasty and Kings

[edit]
List of Khasa dynasty and Kings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

khasa kingdom is different , and the kingdom who ruled by khasa race is different Imperial khasah (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination is clearly in error. It's not a subtopic or fork of Khasa Kingdom. Khasa Kingdom was a specific kingdom in a specific place in a specific time period, which the list article claims would be but one entry in it, the Khasa people having established many kingdoms in various places throughout history. Per WP:AGF, I would suggest seeking a review from an expert (or working with the article creator and/or any experienced editor with access to all the sources) before moving to delete. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT, absolutely terrible article that is an embarassment to Wikipedia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:38, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – does not seem like a fork to me, as 'K Kingdom' is a political entity, while list lists rulers of a particular ethnicity. (List is pretty confusing though, maybe oughtta follow other 'Lists of monarchs' format with dynasties/houses being just a column in a single table/list of rulers?) – Asdfjrjjj (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that WP:TNT is not a policy-supported deletion criterion, but an essay about rewriting an article about a notable topic. Notability is determined by sourcing, not by the quality of the prose here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did do a few spot-checks before I !voted and it checked out. No one has elaborated on their TNT votes and I can not figure out for myself, what it is that would make this one particularly unslavageable of the millions of subpar articles that we have. As I'd hinted above, it's a new editor; we should expect their creations to be subpar. That's part and partial to the model of Wikipedia that to my knowledge is still in effect. Aside from TNT not being policy and there being just as many counter-arguments to it as the page itself makes clear, this is not an article someone else is likely to create better and soon. Someone has searched through the literature to put together a list here that appears to be educational, in a topic area that is otherwise neglected. Are those sources bad? Is the article replete with hoaxes? Have the sources been misused? What? Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bicoli State

[edit]
Bicoli State (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 11:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:52, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History Proposed deletions

[edit]

History categories

[edit]

for occasional archiving

Proposals

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Social_science&oldid=1303027767"