Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science/archive

Purge page cache

watch

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

Social science

Baby Gronk

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

As a biography of a minor-- and especially one who has been involved in social media controversy-- we need to be especially stringent with the sources we use and the information we include. (WP:BLP, WP:BLPPRIVACY, WP:BLPMINOR). The subject's most consistent coverage outside of sports blogs and such (which we don't consider reliable sources) isn't solely focused on him; it mostly concerns his father or his interactions with Livvy Dunne and Rob Gronkowski's interactions with him. This causes the article to fail WP:NOTNEWS; the most coverage the subject has gotten was from a few reliable sources over summer 2023. Since then, it's been mostly local news sources, press releases about apparently joking university commitments, and social media geared sites we don't consider when discussing notability (Bleacher Report, etc.) Maybe this kid will be more notable in the future-- but Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. If/when reliable sources cover the subject in more detail, a better article can be written on him. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Social science, American football, and Internet. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we should not even be under the appearance of encouraging half of what's happening. Red Flag City. Bearian (talk) 03:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Sarirete

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

Created by Ahmed Sine who openly identifies as the article subject, this article's only sources not written by Sarirete are merely citations to prior work that Sarirete is claiming to build upon. I was unable to identify secondary, significant coverage to satisfy any of the WP:NACADEMIC criteria in Google, Google Scholar, and Newspapers.com searches. While I marked this user's other article creation, Geocivilization, as reviewed because it is a term widely used in political science literature, Sarirete's impact on it has not been recognized in secondary sources. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 22:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Algeria. Shellwood (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Social science. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 22:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In 2025, everyone knows that (1)Wikipedia is not Facebook or LinkedIn, and (2) that Wikipedia doesn't publish original content. Bearian (talk) 03:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article suggests many book publications but I was unable to find any reviews of them through my usual sources. No pass of WP:PROF nor WP:AUTHOR, even setting aside the autobiography issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mehzeb Chowdhury

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

Other than the sheer obnoxiousness of this article (which is just one long advert about why the subject is the most awesome and interesting man in the world), I'm not totally convinced it meets the notability criteria. Reasons below:

Many of the sources are just passing mentions, and they aren't always high quality (e.g. a casting website is used to support the claim he is an actor/filmmaker)
A previous editor has marked the article as relying too heavily on sources that may be closely related to the subject. I happen to agree, and the generally sycophantic nature of these articles is off-putting and undermines the case for notability (given his father is a prominent journalist, I wonder if he has some connections with The Daily Star, which is one of the main sources)
The big notability claim is his association with MABMAT, and while that is notable, I'm not sure it justifies Chowdhury having an article to himself. Furthermore, this article seems to credit Chowdhury as the sole inventor, whereas The Times was more balanced, indicating he led a team at Durham University that developed it [1]
As a researcher he has a low h-index [2]
An excessive number of claims rely on primary sources. A few claims aren't even verified (e.g. that he worked for Goal.com as a correspondent) Leonstojka (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Leonstojka (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Journalism, Law, Social science, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (creator) The nomination is strictly reliant on issues regarding the article. Issues regarding an article can be raised in its talk page or Wikiprojects' talk pages (I do agree it needs some touch, and I'm willing to do them once able, but that's irrelevant to an article's notability).
Just because an article is not up to the mark on some aspects, it does not become non-notable. Many of the sources are just passing mentions- not every source of an article need to be of high quality or of depth. An article fo shizz will contain many sources that might just well be passing mentions, supporting the asserted claims.
There exist several sources (in Bengali as well) in and out of the article that definitely speak volume for this person's notability. X (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 'An article fo shizz will contain many sources that might just well be passing mentions, supporting the asserted claims' – Sure, but if we're establishing general notability it is best to have more than passing mentions, because lots of people are sometimes contacted by the media to provide comment for stories. I also have concerns about the promotional nature of some of the Bangladeshi sources (e.g. this one), which read like adulatory press releases. Leonstojka (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has enough RS about the subject (Wired, Digital trends, HuffPost, The Times) to pass WP:NBIO. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 02:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are more features that are not cited in the article as well, such as this from Ice Today. There's coverage in Bengali too, with TV appearances, features in reputed mags such as The Diplomat and Newsweek where he is introduced as an expert. Overall, why'd a non-notable person get recurrent coverage throughout the years from big pubs. X (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Xoak is right. Somajyoti ✉ 20:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is clear by the sources. Mifflefunt 03:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC) Striking !vote of blocked account who was here just to spam porn sites. MarioGom (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Which sources establish notability under WP:GNG? Is it this one from Business Standard? what else? I see many articles written by the subject, but I don't see reliable, independent, secondary sources with significant coverage. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 08:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article has refs from Wired, Digital trends, HuffPost and The Times, which are independent RS. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the articles in The Times and Wired use Chowdhury as a source (as in "Chowdhury says", "he believes", "he told", "according to him"). What he says is not independent of him. Similarly, Digital Trends is an interview with him, so not independent of him. If they consulted any other sources, they don't say so. HuffPost does not contain significant coverage of him. None of these four do anything to help establish notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce, These 4 aren't the only sources. Many sources exist about this individual (see the aforementioned points). A non-notable person does not get recurrent media coverage throughout the years (it may well be interviews, passing mentions, anything; he does have sig in-depth cov as well for the record). X (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt at making a source assessment table. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 08:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:PacificDepths
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Ice Today https://icetoday.net/2024/03/building-blockbusters/	~ Not sure how to rate independence.	~ Not sure on reliability of this.	700 words about subject	~ Partial
Business Standard https://www.tbsnews.net/features/pursuit/he-modernised-crime-scene-investigation-making-movies-and-music-along-way-487946	~ Not sure how to rate independence: asked in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#c-ActivelyDisinterested-20250516114100-PacificDepths-20250516083000	~ Not sure on reliability of this. Promotional?	Entire article is about subject.	~ Partial
Daily Star https://www.thedailystar.net/entertainment/tv-film/news/mehzeb-chowdhury-pioneer-criminology-savant-films-3147896	~ Some interview quotes. Not sure how to rate independence.	~ Not sure on reliability of this. Promotional?	Entire article is about subject.	~ Partial
Prothom Alo https://www.prothomalo.com/lifestyle/5uuxkcz9qu	~ Some interview quotes. Not sure how to rate independence.	~ Not sure on reliability of this. Promotional?	Entire article is about subject.	~ Partial
The Diplomat https://thediplomat.com/2024/08/can-the-bangladesh-police-recover/	Mostly an interview, primary source material	~ unknown	One sentence description of subject	✘ No
Newsweek https://www.newsweek.com/body-farms-decomposing-bodies-forensic-science-murder-1798397	Mostly an interview, primary source material	~ Treat case by case basis per WP:NEWSWEEK	one sentence description and quote	✘ No
Jamuna TV Plus Interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8x8r90VZE4	Interview: Primary source	~		✘ No
Wired https://www.wired.com/story/crime-scene-technology/	Interview		Little information about the subject	✘ No
The Times: "Robots will create virtual crime scenes for juries"	Primary source		One sentence about the subject	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

@PacificDepths Simply discarding sources labeled as "interviews" is flawed. These are features that include quotations and interview segments, as features inherently contain such elements. You cannot broadly dismiss them by merely labeling them as interviews. Claiming they "feel promotional" is your subjective opinion (these features have proper bylines and are not promo pieces, if so, they'd have been designated as such from these reputed pubs). Overall, I strongly disagree with this source analysis table. Additionally, several Bengali news sources, TV appearances, and passing mentions in reputable publications recognize him as a notable person or expert. Collectively, these demonstrate his notability. GNG is fo shizzle met here. X (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, common sense should prevail. The newsweek and diplomat sources were mentioned to demonstrate a point that this person also gets called out for their expert opinion, assessing and labeling these 2 as "One sentence description of subject" is utterly asinine, like of course these are passing mentions. And as I stated earlier, not every source of an article need to be entirely about the subject or of depth. An article will contain many sources that might just well be passing mentions, supporting the asserted claims. X (talk) 10:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-ordered the sources and edited some. I'm not sure how to judge Business Standard, Daily Star, ICE Today. I don't think The Times should demonstrate notability. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 05:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PacificDepths, and those who are unfamiliar, TBS, DS, Prothom Alo, Ice Today, these all are reputed and generally deemed reliable publications. X (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While numerically, there are more editors arguing to Keep this article I don't find their arguments compelling. We need more editors reviewing and commenting on the source analysis which is a strong argument for Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Cultural Interaction in East Asia

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

Non-notable academic society. Lacks RSs and seems unlikely any would exist. Cabrils (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Social science, and Asia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found no indication of notability and can't find a suitable target for a merge/redirect. I considered whether the article could be rescoped to be about the Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia, but that doesn't seem to be notable either. MCE89 (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Social science Proposed deletions

Language

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. JBW (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeringonza

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

I don't feel very strongly about this one, however it was noted in the recent RM discussion (which I closed) that this article lacks sufficient reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Unfortunately a check of the other two wikis this is on demonstrates a lack of overall sourcing for this topic. This could be deleted, or alternatively redirected to a related topic such as Pig Latin, which seems fairly similar. On the off chance the sourcing is improved while this is listed here, we can always have another RM to discuss the spelling, as it will be relevant at that point. ASUKITE 16:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Spain, and South America. ASUKITE 16:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:SIGCOV. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lack of participation as this discussion awaits a starting argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only mentions I could find were blogs and WP mirrors. Spanish Wikipedia isn't much better. No prejudice against re-creation if there are sources found (maybe someone whose Spanish is better than mine could find some). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:19, 21 May 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.

European Esperanto Union

AfDs for this article:

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

No significant coverage independent of the subject. Aŭstriano (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Organizations. Aŭstriano (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'del no see indepth indep covge. --Altenmann >talk 03:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage. JohnMizuki (talk) 07:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of humorous names in mathematics

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Mathematics, and Lists. Fram (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of unusual names in mathematics or Draftify as a new Category:Unusual names in mathematics. Describing the terms as humorous is subjective, but there is agreement among WP:RS that these terms are unusual. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 15:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to do that WikiNukalito (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete pure WP:OR. Azuredivay (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would you also delete this article? Obviously more developed than this one but basically the same idea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_humorous_units_of_measurement WikiNukalito (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chris Lonsdale (entrepreneur)

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

Only 1 article links to this. Seems rather promotional. Marked for COI concerns noting edits from this editor. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, China, Hong Kong, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per NOM. Appears promotional, with little to justify an article. Even with the terribly low bar for WP:GNG, this article appears to fail. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Psychology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we are not LinkedIn. Editors who work for the subject of an article should refrain from editing their bosses' page. Bearian (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of phrases using ethnic or place names as derisive adjectives

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

Only uses a source from one publication, and therefore appears to fail WP:LISTN. The list is naturally leaning towards whatever that single publication and 2 authors believe is derisive and does not encompass a global viewpoint. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - because IDONTLIKEIT and you shouldn’t either. Let’s call this what it is - a list of offensive ethnic slurs. Serves no encyclopedic purpose. This is an attack page that violates our no attack pages policy. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I don't think it's anything close to an "attack page". It lists everything without using POV language, and most of them aren't even "slurs" (like Mexican standoff, a widely-used term). My issue is both a lack of notability as well as a clear disconnect between title and actual content, because "not liking it" is not a reason to delete things and I don't want people to get the idea that is what motivates the AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised you don't find "Mexican standoff" to be a problematic reference to Mexicans. As my good friend Perplexity summarized it:
In its first iteration in the 1840s, the term "Mexican standoff" described "the tendency of Mexican bandits to run away from a fair fight". This original meaning directly associated Mexicans with cowardice, creating a derogatory ethnic stereotype....[3][4]

"There certainly isn't anything 'Mexican' about a Mexican standoff" The arbitrariness of attaching a nationality to this concept is part of what makes it problematic. To illustrate this point, one commenter suggests: "Let's call it a US standoff and give it the same definition to see how people of United States origin feel"
Just because it's common usage (cf. "to gyp someone", "Mexican overdrive", "Dutch courage") doesn't mean it isn't derisive. --Macrakis (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't believe this has lasted so long, clearly not a notable topic with indiscriminate combination of unrelated place and ethnic terms. I've never heard of nearly any of these, only used in the 60s apparently. Reywas92^Talk 04:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that it needs pruning. --Macrakis (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TNT and poor sourcing. It's possible that a good article could be written, or a good list created, of euphemisms or even insults using names of places and nationalities. There are many with solid history and usage, such as Welsh rabbit. But this list is not the good article. To be a good article, we need to summarise multiple sources. The current list-article is merely a regurgitation of what amounts to a single source (albeit published in two episodes). It's of no encyclopedic value to the reader because it's an indiscriminate hodge-podge of things no one has said in a century alongside things that are used every day, without any distinction. To be clear: racist slurs from history are of huge significance and should be recorded, but to be useful to our reader, we need to make clear who used them, when, why, and describe their historical context and development. The article doesn't even define the scope of "derisive" clearly enough to avoid becoming merely a list of things where a nationality or place name is used in a way that isn't descriptive of nationality or place. For example, when people refer to a French kiss, are they really deriding France? Were they ever? This article is a mess, and best deleted. If anyone wishes to revisit the subject, there is nothing here that will help them. Elemimele (talk) 10:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the article desperately needs improvement. Your contributions are welcome! And perhaps it should become more analytical, not just a list: Ethnic or place names as derisive adjectives (not "list of"). --Macrakis (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as above, also has no mainspace links except for a redirect from one item in the list Ivey (talk - contribs) 18:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The terms existing make the terms offensive. However, the fact they exist don't make this an attack page. What it does though is create a list of dictionary terms which we are not.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I created this page 8 years ago. It is absolutely not an "attack page", and studying offensive ethnic slurs certainly does qualify as encyclopedic -- they have been studied by Eric Partridge in A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, A. A. Roback [5] (Roback, who was Jewish, was especially interested in anti-Semitic slurs), and many others [6][7]. I created it because I wanted to give context to the term "Welsh rabbit", along with the discussion at Culinary_name#Humor and ethnic dysphemism, which by the way has 17 sources, both about individual terms and about the topic in general. The page does not promote the use of these slurs. In fact, quite the opposite, it helps people recognize that some familiar phrases are derisive. Some of them don't really seem like slurs at all, like "Detroit iron", and we should remove them. That said, I don't like the current format of the page, which is just a list, and I don't like the fact that it has basically one source. Both of those are fixable and frankly I had hoped that the community would pitch in once I'd seeded the topic. --Macrakis (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a list of adjectives with little to no context and some vague definitions. I am not sure how this could become encyclopedic, even with cleanup. Many more pages about the actual terms would need to be written to make this useful as a navigational list. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Yaqub

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

Subject does not appear to passWP:NPROF. The sources in the Arabic Wikipedia article aren’t any help. Mccapra (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Language, and Lebanon. Mccapra (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NPROF Criterion 6c "Lesser administrative posts (provost, dean, department chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone, although exceptions are possible on a case-by-case basis (e.g., being a provost of a major university may sometimes qualify). Generally, appointment as an acting president/chancellor/vice-chancellor also is not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone." is specific. I see no evidence of any other criteria being passed. Fails NPROF and WP:BIO 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see a pass of Wikipedia:NPROF or of Wikipedia:NAUTHOR at all. Qflib (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete this seems to be hard to evaluate due to lack of sources in English, but it seems that he has entry in this encyclopedia on Arabian linguists which indicates notability. I am not convinced that we can use google scholar to easily assess Arabic linguists as easily as scholars at a Western University. What makes me skeptical is that I could find almost no information about the Suleiman International University where he supposedly works (apparently its an online university). --hroest 16:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The standard for notability is a bit higher than just having been listed in an encyclopedia, unless I'm missing something here, in which case please advise. Qflib (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it depends on the encyclopedia, if its a scholarly work I would argue that this indicates notability per WP:NPROF. --hroest 11:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added Arabic sources to the article. The subject has clear notability in the Arabic academic community and is the author of significant linguistic dictionaries. -- Mohammed Qays (🗣) 18:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are there multiple reviews of at least two of those? If so, subject might be notable under Wikipedia:NAUTHOR, but otherwise, just being an author isn't sufficient to establish notability here. Qflib (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Mohammed Qays for non-arabic speakers, can you please elaborate a bit on the sources you added? Are they WP:RS, how are the dictionaries significant (what is their reception in the field? how is this documented with citations / reviews?). It is just really hard to make a judgement in a field and a language that I am not familiar with. --hroest 11:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Finno-Ugric substrate

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

This is a bit of a difficult one. This page covers perhaps four separate topics - the Paleo-Laplandic Saami substrate (which to a lesser extent also occurs in Finnic), the substrate in the Finno-Permic languages (which here is misleadingly described as the Finno-Volgaic substrate even though it also occurs in Permic), the issue of toponyms in Finland, and the substrate in the Nganasan language. Combining these substrates into a single topic of "Pre-Finno-Ugric substrate" is not notable, but the topics individually may have some notability. The Paleo-Laplandic languages topic already has its own article, and the information about the Finno-Permic substrate should probably go to the article about Finno-Permic languages. Toponyms in Finland could maybe get its own article, and the discussion about the Nganasan language can just go to the language's article. Stockhausenfan (talk) 08:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Finland. Stockhausenfan (talk) 08:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: the term is definitely used at least in Russian-language publications (i.e. Eugene Helimski used it as an umbrella term for 5 separate but related topics) and it's no less legitimate than, say, "Pre-Indo-European languages" or "Pre-Greek substrate". By the way, what I've read on the substrate in Finno-Volgaic languages (Zhivlov & Aikio) make only very few mentions of similar substrate word in Permic. Finstergeist (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this paper Aikio gives several examples that have Permic cognates, see pages 45-46, and he specifically mentions this:

"a surprisingly large part of the vocabulary traditionally reconstructed for

‘Finno-Volgaic’ and ‘Finno-Permic’ (UEW: 605–827) involves irregular sound cor-

respondences and other etymological difficulties."

I.e. Finno-Permic is specifically mentioned (also Finno-Volgaic, but that is a subset of Finno-Permic, and the vocabulary there has the same features such as abundance of š).

Stockhausenfan (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's well-sourced in the literature. Bearian (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of United Kingdom county name etymologies

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

disperse into etymology sections of the corresponding entities and then delete. The page is woefully underrefenced, most probably because it lacks eyeballs: when there is an etymology section in the individual page, it is a way higher chance it will be verified. The very fact that it does not have "refimprove" tag shows that nobody cares/sees it. --Altenmann >talk 04:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disperse per nom. Little added value in bringing these together on one page. Wire723 (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disperse per nom. I disagree with Wire723 in that I think this info could be valuable with a little (sourced to RSes) analysis of common languages and concepts that appear in the etymologies. As is, though, it's not a great list -- but the info is interesting enough to try to preserve. Even better if each item could be sourced in its new location. -- Avocado (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disperse per nom. This is not useful as a stand alone article. It makes more sense to distribute these into the respective articles. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What do you all want to do with the page after the content is dispersed? Deletion would cause attribution problems if the material is being used elsewhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For attribution concerns, redirect to Toponymy in the United Kingdom and Ireland (which, by the way, deserves expansion, e.g., with a phrase or two from the discussed page.) AFAIK page history is sufficient for attribution --Altenmann >talk 06:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I suggested "disperse", I did not pay attention that the article is woefully underreferenced. So now I am beginning to doubt whether "dispersing" the unreferenced information is that brilliant idea. --Altenmann >talk 06:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately this article is a product of its time. The problem is summed up in the list's own introduction: "... it is often difficult to assess the genuine etymology of a placename...". And that makes good sourcing vital. Does anyone have access to the Oxford dictionary of place names or Birlin 2004 for Scotland? These are offered as general references that might cover some of the etymologies. If the etymologies can't be properly referenced, then sadly the article has to go. Dispersing a load of unsourced information into individual county articles isn't great. And sourcing stuff to the Anglo-Saxon chronicle is (in wikipedia terms) original research. I'm sad... Elemimele (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded articles

History

Kumaragupta's invasion of Aparanta

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

The article does not have notability and makes a conjectural interpretation based on insufficient amounts of suspect evidence (coin hoards and vague literary references) without enough importance from primary sources. The event does not have enough detailed coverage from multiple independent reliable sources and would better off being added to the article on Kumaragupta I. BharatGanguly (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh. BharatGanguly (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom also the article has only two sources lacking Nobility and enough coverage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakakarta (talk • contribs) 04:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC) Shakakarta (talk) 04:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of mass escapes from German POW camps

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing different from what we already have. Koshuri ^(グ) 10:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Haj Omran (1966)

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

Battle may or may not exist, none of the three sources are verifiable. One goes to a dead link, another to a newspaper article that does not exist per the newspaper's archive, the third is a print book that is not available online and has no preview on Google Books. There was a battle on a different date during the Iran-Iraq War, but nothing noted by Google or Google books for 1966. I was able to find a CIA document that might be what the dead link was supposed to point to, it mentions Haj Omran but is about a visit in 1974 and only mentions that there was fighting in 1966, it gives no details. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made a quick check to the article and checked one of the links, specified under the name of the "CIA" and it was a dead link. I support the Delete of this article R3YBOl (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All three sources are inaccessible. Skitash (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator i agree it should be deleted or put into a draft DataNomad (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ashitha Revolt 1843

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bro what? The sources are cited, read them, you have no valid reason to issue a speedy deletion. There are multiple sources on this, reported by even contemporary missionaries. Stop excluding the cited sources; which are enough to make the page stay. 2A02:AA1:115D:84B3:ACB2:8E83:1328:5261 (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – how are all the sources fake? DataNomad (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Saint Gervais II wreck

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

This needs more WP:RS sources to support its notability. Czarking0 (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Transportation, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. "Needs more sources" is not a policy-based argument for deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Other people making non policy based arguments is also not a policy based argument for keeping. Let me be more clear about what I meant. This does not meet WP:GNG Czarking0 (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It actually is a reason for speedy keeping when it is the nomination: one of the grounds for WP:SK1 is if the nominator failed to give intelligible grounds for content deletion. With this comment, now you have done so. Curbon7 (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also seems to be referred to as "Saint Gervais B" ([8]). Curbon7 (talk) 06:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Widely referenced and not just any old find but a significant one. Srnec (talk) 02:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Dragonfly

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

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

The first results when looking up "Operation Dragonfly" on Google aren't even about the invasion of Ukraine. In five pages of results in Google, I could only find the following sources about this strike: [9] [10] [11].

I could find more sources without using the "Operation Dragonfly" name. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. The most recent source is the latter, from 23 October, six days after the strike happened. I do not believe the strike has long-lasting coverage in sources. Simply by reading the article, the strike surely was not nothing, but it doesn't seem worth a Wikipedia article. Super Ψ Dro 20:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the invitation. Hard to say:

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

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

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

Battle of Basivka

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

Not notable. Sources do not seem to treat this engagement as a notable event. In fact many news articles don't even bother with mentioning the village's name in the headline [17] [18] [19] [20] [21].

Literally all information is already present in parent article 2025 Sumy Oblast incursion. The exception are the following two senteces: According to Ruslan Mykula the Russian forces tried to advance into Loknia but failed, all eight soldiers involved in the attempt have been killed. (information about a small raid, not even a date is given, the info might not even be worth merging); and On April 9, Ukrainian military observer Kostyantyn Mashovets reported that Russia’s 76th Air Assault Division and 83rd VDV Brigade had successfully seized Basivka. (with the 24 April confirmation, this is superfluous).

Parent article currently has 1,503 words of prose [22], very far from the recommended 6,000-word threshold after which a split is plausible [23]. The village in question had 644 people in 2001. It is a small, probably unstrategic village, sources do not particularly highlight its importance. Many users in this topic area insist on creating articles that are evidently not notable, for random engagements. Super Ψ Dro 19:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Super Ψ Dro 19:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support I don’t even understand why such an article was created in the first place. Basivka as it stands is effectively irrelevant in the larger picture of this war. It serves effectively no strategic value, nor is the settlement notable or relevant in media. This article was created as a spur of the moment when Russia launched its incursion into Sumy Oblast, and is effectively covered in its entirety by its parent article. IiSmxyzXX (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per reason Above Bukansatya (talk) 11:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per notability issue 78.81.123.235 (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC) The current date and time is 23 May 2025 T 06:26 UTC.[reply]

Battle of Khankala (1735)

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Devlet Geray (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's first nomination in fact Devlet Geray (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't think "Poorly sourced" is in the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. More relevant is "articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" and "articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". Has WP:BEFORE been done? I also am dubious that you have to have a degree in history or history books you write will be considered unreliable. It seems that plenty of authors have written histories without a formal degree in that subject (one even got a Nobel prize for theirs). But even in that case, our own article on Dalkhan Khozhaev states "In 1983 he graduated from the faculty of History of the Chechen-Ingush State University" and that he was a researcher at the Chechen-Ingush Republican Regional Museum, the author of works on the history of the national liberation movement of Chechnya in the 19th century and Head of the Archives Department. It seems strange you've copied "Chechen field commander, brigadier general" from the start of our article but chosen to edit that from the full description "Chechen historian, field commander, brigadier general and author with numerous works on the centuries-old confrontation between Chechnya and Russia". Given his publication history, he was an academic and writer before his military service, and continued the former during the latter. The article on the Russian wikipedia has quite a bit more on him and has a number of his books listed. The source used in the article is his 1998 «Чеченцы в Русско-Кавказской войне» (Chechens in the Russo-Caucasian War), published in Grozny by Seda Publishers (isbn and catalogue listing here). That you only suspect he might not be reliable, you assume that the source must be self published, these weren't really strong arguments for deletion without having done a proper WP:BEFORE. And given that these things have been disproven, there's nothing left in the nomination. Spokoyni (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll also further add that Khozhaev's book is not "the only source used", there's another in the article, and a WP:BEFORE would have shown there were originally four sources in the article, two of which the original author later removed on the incorrect rationale that they did not add any additional content to what the other sources stated. Spokoyni (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly wrote that he does not have a degree in history, he is not a specialist in the history of Chechnya (no PhD thesis). How can he be used as a source for a topic like this? Makes absolutely no sence. Moreover, the figures and data presented in the article are initially implausible. In addition, the links are given for show, since it is impossible to verify them. Plus, zero cross-wiki and no information on this "battle" on the Internet, makes the article absoulte original research Devlet Geray (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Stephen D. Martin

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

Doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. Regarding his medical career, scopus shows 9 publications with an H-index of 9, with most of the citations coming from mid-authorship papers. For example, on his most highly-cited paper (Meltzer et al., 2003) he is one of 88 authors, and is listed only in the trialist, not in the main authors (checking the pdf). Visiting professorship at the University of Sunderland in the 90s doesn't meet the 'named chair' criterion. Other outputs seem typical for a typical academic in the humanities. LTLC flute is very impressive, but performance interpretation/outputs are supported only with self-citations. Klbrain (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, History, Medicine, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I am having trouble checking his publications; Scopus is often too low. That said, at least two in the page look like comments or just abstracts, plus the claims in the page do not seem to merit consideration as notable.Ldm1954 (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hafez al-Assad's cult of personality

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

The article is largely copied from elsewhere, with the copyvio tool showing a 74.4% similarity with existing sources. There's also a lot of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH here. Skitash (talk) 11:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The copyvio is only of 2 paragraphs that can be removed. You didn't show anything about WP:OR or WP:SYNTH on the talkpage so I cant really talk about that. But, this topic is really notable and has lots of RSs reporting on it and deserves an article of its own. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that much more of the article is copied from sources that aren't flagged by copyvio tools, such as Google Books. Also, large portions appear to be copied from other Wikipedia articles (such as Presidency of Hafez al-Assad) without attribution.
WP:SYNTH/WP:OR claims include things like:
- "Assad's skill as a cool, proud, tough, and shrewd negotiator in the post war period enabled him to gain the town of Kuneitra and the respect and admiration of many Arabs"
- "Syrian Ba'ath Movement ideologically elevated Hafez al-Assad as its 'Immortal', 'god-like figure'"
- "Arab Socialist Ba'ath party initially manufactured Hafez al-Assad's cult of Arab socialist heroism in consultancy with Soviet state propagandists, mimicking the pervasive personality cults prevalent across Soviet Bloc dictatorships like Romania and North Korea"
- "In schools, children were taught to sing songs of adulation about Hafez al-Assad. Teachers began each lesson with the song 'Our eternal leader, Hafez al-Assad'"
And more. All of these are either unsourced, not directly supported by the sources, or poorly sourced (i.e. lacking page numbers). Skitash (talk) 11:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Syria. Shellwood (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2016 in Indian television

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

PROD denied, converting to AFD. Rationale from PROD: fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. UtherSRG (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given what the other "Year in <nation> televisions" articles look like (using the bottom navigation template), this seems to be appropriate to keep but would just likely need to populated with sourcing from Indian sources. I did a few spot checks and it looks like those entries can be sourced. I see no reason to delete it, since AFD is not cleanup. Masem (t) 17:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I look at this more of being a summary of events, not necessary a list. There are sources that discuss it in groups so expanding and cleanup would not require synth. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see a point in this AfD because this article is long enough to mention a number of notable television related activities that happened in that year. >>> Extorc.talk 19:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Tashkent (1607)

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

I am unable to find any sources in Latin or Cyrillic script about a battle of Tashkent in 1607. Mccapra (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Uzbekistan. Mccapra (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Kazakhstan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment possibly not a complete hoax? See[24] Jahaza (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about the sources that are already present in the article? Do they exist or are they hallucinated references? (Worldcat doesn't recognise the two ISBNs).Nigel Ish (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They may exist but I couldn’t find them. Mccapra (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the first book, Казахское ханство очерки внешнеполитической истории is available here[25] Jahaza (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that source says “In violation of the treaty with the Kazakh khans, they tried to return Tashkent, which had been in the hands of the Kazakhs since the end of the 16th century, under their rule. Already in the fall of 1603, according to the "Bahr al-Asrar" by Mahmud ibn Wali, Baki-Muhammed Khan attempted to capture the city, but was defeated by the troops of the Kazakh ruler of Tashkent Keldi-Mu-hammed Khan.” That’s all it says about the 1603 battle. About the 1607 battle it says “In 1607, a vassal of Vali-Muhammad Khan named Muhammadmed-Baki-biy Kalmak managed to capture Tashkent. However, he was not allowed to rule the city for a long time, he was driven out of the city by the troops of Yesim Khan.” That’s it. So we know there was fighting in Tashkent but there is nothing that indicates this was a notable battle. Mccapra (talk) 08:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't seem like significant coverage.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Tashkent (1603)

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

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

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

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

What did you search? I was able to read it on Google Books[26], it's available from the publisher's web site, and WorldCat lists more than 300 libraries as holding it. Jahaza (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Iranian Turkmen rebellion (1924–1926)

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

The references provided to support this article are pretty scant - little more than passing mentions. There may just not be that much to say about these events as the background section takes up the largest part and the sequence of events is pretty confusing. If no better sources can be found I wouldn’t object to draftifying it if anyone is likely to improve it, otherwise on present showing I don’t think a stand alone article is warranted. Mccapra (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Iran. Mccapra (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and History. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. The claims made here are also beyond exceptional. Orientls (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Support per nom. Kajmer05 (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian–Kurdish conflict

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a massive WP:COATRACK article discussing a bunch of barely related historical incidents and trying to fit it all in a narrative of an ethnic conflict that has supposedly been ongoing since the 19th century. Just some lovely excerpts:
When Kurdish rival tribes fought each other, the bulk of the violence was directed at the Assyrian subjects of the opposing tribe.[6] Assyrian tribes would often fight each other on behalf of their Kurdish protector tribes.[7]
This is fighting between Assyrians

During the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878, the Ottomans armed the Kurds to fight Russia. At the end of the war, the Kurds refused to return the weapons, putting the Assyrians at further risk.[8]
An incident in a war that tangentially relates to Assyrians

On 10 May 1915, the Assyrian tribes met and declared war against the Kurds and the Ottoman Empire.[20]
This one is particularly gratuitous - Kurds were fighting Assyrian rebels in their capacity as Ottoman rank-and-file - this is best understood as an episode of World War I rather than some ethnic conflict that began in the 19th century.
My initial instinct was to bring this to AfD, but I recognise there has been an effort to gather historical facts. We already have many pages describing bilateral relations - in that light I suppose that this article could be salvaged as long as it's not WP:SYNTHed into a "conflict". Thus, I will move this to "Assyrian–Kurdish relations".
— Myself, on Talk:Assyrian–Kurdish conflict. I was reverted and then this AfD happened.

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

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

Modern influence of Ancient Greece

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

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

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

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

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

Henry O'Hagan

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

Being one of the secretaries of Hugh O'Neill, Earl of Tyrone, doesn't confer notability on its own per WP:NOTINHERITED, and his actions listed in his article appear to be fairly minor. He is mentioned just once in O'Neill's Dictionary of National Biography entry. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 10:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree of the Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek kings

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

Opening introduction explicitly admits to "This family tree (and the trees below it) is based on a combination of Tarn's and Narain's genealogies of the Greco-Bactrian kings, which are not necessarily fully correct, as with all ancient family trees." The combination of these two trees is the entire basis of the article, which seems like not good enough for an article. It is highly speculative and not verifiable and the original authors (Tarn and Narain) have been criticised in more recent scholarship for speculative inventions. ForWhomTheSunShines (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ForWhomTheSunShines, I understand the concerns and understand that Tarn and Narain may be inaccurate, but these are the texts that I have. I know that other authors say something different, so when I get those texts, I (or someone else) will revise the trees. Additionally, I give the kings several different fathers (for example, see Apollodotus I in the tree, who has 5 different possible fathers, so I am taking all possible considerations into account here). I also put dotted lines for some kings when the relationship is very unclear, making it being speculation clear. So I am making it clear these Greco-Bactrian trees, just like an Egyptian one (like the 1st Dynasty), will not necessarily be fully accurate. As for the speculation and unverifiable of the tree, well, we do have Greco-Bactrian coinage. The reason I said "This family tree (and the trees below it) is based on a combination of Tarn's and Narain's genealogies of the Greco-Bactrian kings, which are not necessarily fully correct, as with all ancient family trees." is because I want to make it very clear that is a probable layout for how the various kings are related to each other and is not supposed to be taken as dogma, just like many ancient family trees. If you want me to find different authors and replace Tarn and Narain, I will. I just wanted to use two of the most important Greco-Bactrian historians who helped establish the discipline.

OrthodoxByzantineRoman (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, Royalty and nobility, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, India, and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: couldn't this be saved simply by identifying the differences between the two authors' reconstructions, either by presenting different versions of the trees, or by showing the different positions taken by each author using the varying line and border options? If other scholars disagree with their opinions, that can also be noted on or adjacent to the trees. I will suggest that the trees might need to be less horizontal and more vertical. I never stretch my browser window to the whole width of the screen, and without that the trees exceed the width of the page. But this, like noting disagreements between the authors named and other scholarship, can be achieved through ordinary editing; the page does not have to be deleted in order to improve it to Wikipedia standards. P Aculeius (talk) 13:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this comment. I agree that it could be saved this way, and I will add the position of the various authors too. OrthodoxByzantineRoman (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The authors' proposals themselves are questionable and unreliable. The first citation for the first tree is clear that it is “pedigree of the Euthydemids and Eucratides to show the fictitious descent from Alexander." (emphasis added). Tarn, William Woodthorpe (1966). The Greeks in Bactria and India (2 ed.). New York, U.S.: Cambridge University Press. p. 568. ISBN 9781108009416. Retrieved 30 December 2024. The placement of a daughter of Euthydemus I marrying a Chinese emperor and bearing is son is based on speculation from an uncited paragraph. There's mashing together of speculative theory throughout the page.

This seems to be a violation of reason for deleting #6, "[a]rticles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes." The combination of multiple speculative, unreliable articles into one family tree is effectively the construction of an original theory or conclusion. It also violates ForWhomTheSunShines (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but if we ignore the descent from Alexander, doesn't Tarn still state everything else, according to The Greeks in Bactria and India pgs 71ff? And I agree that the connection to Qin Shi Huangdi is spurious, I just added it on the off chance it could be correct. It was taken from Christopoulos, Lucas (September 2022). "SINO-PLATONIC PAPERS: Dionysian Rituals and the Golden Zeus of China" (PDF). Sino-Platonic Papers. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.: University of Pennsylvania. pp. 84–86. Retrieved 4 January 2025. Also, if we clean up and or/delete this article (hopefully not because I did work hard on it), we must clean up the individual articles on the Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek kings too, as sources need to be cited for each king's article and other changes need to be made. However, we don't have to delete this article, as it can be cleaned up to remove it of any "speculative theory." OrthodoxByzantineRoman (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"the off chance" is not a reason to add something to an article. And you are correct, many of the Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek king articles should also be cleaned up. ForWhomTheSunShines (talk) 04:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I mean, it is my first article that I made. I did not know those rules. But tomorrow, I will delete Qin Shi Huangdi, as I see now that the Lucas reference in the Xiutu article was removed. OrthodoxByzantineRoman (talk) 04:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. Not ready for main space. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Umm....other editors allowed my article to be published back in December. Why would we put it back into draft? OrthodoxByzantineRoman (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's "Not ready for main space". If it's not moved, it should be deleted as a badly-formatted and ill-cited mess of original research and speculative fiction. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. See WP:NOPAGE. Koshuri ^(グ) 15:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's a thin line between using a "special interest" to build an encyclopedia – and using us a free web host to your synthesis of original material. This has crossed the line. Bearian (talk) 08:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I give up. Let's just delete my article. OrthodoxByzantineRoman (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The insistence on calling it "my article" by the originating editor tends towards this being a special interest. Parts of the article's tree could be salvageable as part of the related articles, but only parts. ForWhomTheSunShines (talk) 03:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Maqsoud Liberation Forces

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

article rely on speculative and unverifiable claims about the group activities, structure & history, which violates WP:NOR. Chronos.Zx (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Syria, and Turkey. Chronos.Zx (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stay the history of the group must be understood, that is why there are sources and they are not speculative, they are real, Sources are taken from Battle of Aleppo (2024) and Operation Dawn of Freedom Farcazo (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete given the existence of the article's content on Sheikh Maqsoud. Azuredivay (talk) 06:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Opposition is like saying that Manbij Military Council should not exist because of the city of Manbij you have to learn to differentiate between city or locality and armed forces Farcazo (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Saying another editor "has to learn" something is casting aspersions. Don't. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to insult him, he just has to differentiate between a city and an armed group. Farcazo (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I responded to the WP:GOCE copy edit request without realising it was up for deletion; I have assessed it as Stub, added a category and some minor fixes to the prose. I don't see any good reason to delete it, and I would tend to agree with Farcazo's point that the article for the Sheikh Maqsood locality should be separate from one about its armed militia. This is exacerbated by the fact that the locality article is almost entirely about the civil war, and barely mentions anything about its population, geography, amenities, landmarks, etc. that one would expect of a locality article. Perhaps instead of deleting this article, it could absorb more material from the locality article. — Jon (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, he should stay because Sheikh Maqsoud is not the same as the militias that are there (that was what I tried to explain to Azuredivay but The Bushranger accused me of supposedly insulting him) and change the city's page, as you say, it has nothing to do with the city (neither its tourist sites nor its climate) and only with the Syrian civil war, I plan to merge the page with Ashrafieh Liberation Forces. Farcazo (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bruneian–Igan War

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

Contested Prod without improvement. Other than the single reference listed, searches turned up zero in-depth coverage of this event. Searches in A History of Brunei by Graham Saunders did not even see a mention of it. Similarly, nothing was mentioned in Brunei - History, Islam, Society and Contemporary Issues. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Brunei. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, sources about this war in specifically is rare Syazwi Irfan (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vilnius conflict

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

A 20-year "mainly diplomatic" territorial dispute doesn't rate a standalone article. This is covered in other articles, mainly Vilnius Region#Vilnius dispute, as well as 1938 Polish ultimatum to Lithuania. Some details could be merged into the former. The misleading infobox makes it seem like this was a war, which it wasn't. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lithuania, and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 10:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A very cursory search of just the article title showed at least two journal articles about this dispute ([27][28]). Certainly seems like a significant event: a number of sources providing passing coverage credit this conflict with killing any meaningful pan-Baltic alliance ([29][30]). Curbon7 (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A 20-year quarrel isn't an "event". I'm not disputing that there was a meaningful dispute. There was a decades-long struggle for control of Vilnius, but IMO it should be (and is already) covered in the Vilnius Region article. There is no need for two articles covering the same ground. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it’s more commonly called the “Vilnius dispute” and it was a major diplomatic row in the interwar period. Perhaps a move to a new title would be an improvement? Mccapra (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vilnius Region#Vilnius dispute without prejudice against a later split. This topic is notable. It doesn't matter if it was mostly at diplomatic level. We have several articles on diplomatic conflicts, and that has nothing to do with notability. This dispute is well covered in reliable sources. However, Vilnius Region#Vilnius dispute seems to be better written and more complete, so I see no reason to have a standalone article at this moment. MarioGom (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Vilnius Region#Vilnius dispute per above. I agree: this potentially could be split out, but I can't see assessing an unfinished article against what seems to be a fairly complete section in the main article. If the section grows enough in-place, it can be split out. Mangoe (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now. The topic may be notable, but the poor execution (this is very undersourced) is not good enough for an article created recently (2024). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vilnius Region#Vilnius dispute for now without prejudice against a later split. (Wikipedia:Summary style) This topic is notable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Thurii

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fourteen Days' War

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

Note tag. Supposed to be historical fact but can't verify it as no page numbers. No indication of significance. Unable to verify it in gbooks, refseek, internet archive. Fails WP:GNG. scope_creep^Talk 08:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat agree with the deletion. The event however do exist but the source for it is very lacking and the original article mostly just anti communist fantasy. I've edited it to make it more neutral but still, proper academic source such as university research is hard to find. Dauzlee (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dauzlee: That is the core of it. Normally I wouldnt' sent such an article to Afd. In fact I don't think I've done that before and probably wont do it again. I spent close 4 hours back and forward while I was working in the garden on Sunday and couldn't find a thing on it of worth. I must have looked at it about 8 times and couldnt determine if it was valid or not. I don't think it was a war, more like a massacre or an action but either way I could verify it. I searched for an alternate name perhaps from the opposing side and couldn't find anything there either. scope_creep^Talk 04:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that if this is hard to find coverage for, then it may better to find a page to merge or redirect rather than delete. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, no arguments and both a Merge and Redirect were suggested but without target article suggestions. I'd like to ask User:Wcquidditch if they could deletion sort this AFD for Military History, too. One skill I have yet to master here. Thanks in advance.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that there is no deletion sorting page for "military history", just the separate ones for military and history. It was already sorted under "history" (by someone else) relatively quickly, but when I first sorted this I'm not sure how I missed that it hadn't been placed under "military" yet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Reyes Marión

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

Fails WP:BIO. He was an officer in wars involving the Dominican Republic, but hardly a "national hero". I couldn't find anything more than passing mentions. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Dominican Republic. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meets WP:GNG. Pasados (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The whole article depends on a single source. CharlesWain (talk) 05:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If he were a National Hero, it would not be hard for him to meet WP:SIGCOV or to at least get info from more than one source. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the source already in the article, there is a paragraph (9 lines) about him in "Soldados de la Independencia, Generales de la Restauración1." Edición Conmemorativa 150 años del triunfo de la Guerra Restauradora, 1865-2015 84.190 (2015), p 56 [31], and his name appears in many other histories, with publication dates from 1900 to 2004, of which I can only see snippet views in Google Books. The article needs editing (and a Talk page). RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per comments of RebeccaGreen Servite et contribuere (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the two sources identified by RebeccaGreen. There are also 15 hits in Books search, not necessarily WP:SIGCOV but difficult to tell due to language and snippets. ~Kvng (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: given a dedicated entry in at least one Dominican biographical dictionary, the paragraph noted above from an Dominican historian society, and apparent entries in other reference works such as Diccionario biográfico-histórico dominicano, 1821-1930 (I can't verify here the extent of the coverage), I presume the subject is notable. MarioGom (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tercio of Idiáquez

AfDs for this article:

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

Practically everything that has been written to expand the article in order to prevent it from being deleted is false (other than the Thirty Years' War section). The previous user who withdrew their AfD nomination did not fact check any of the sources or information added. The article has been expanded incorrectly and mostly falsified (though it's likely, or at least I'd like to think, that it wasn't done on purpose and the editor who expanded the article just wanted to help improve it). If you wish to help improve the article, please use proper sources which correlate with the information written. Bubba6t3411 (talk) 05:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Military units of battalion size or larger are generally considered to be notable. The answer is editing and improvement, not deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy-based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History Proposed deletions

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

History categories

for occasional archiving

Proposals