Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/History: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:36, 27 June 2024

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/History/archive

Purge page cache

watch

History

Hurt Hardy

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

Does not meet notability standards of WP:CRIME GuyBanks (talk) 01:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, History, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: I can only find pictures of this person and newspapers describing his trial and hanging from the time... I don't see much notability as there has been no discussion about this person since. Lack of sourcing other than news reports of the event don't help. Oaktree b (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Slightly leaning towards Delete. As the person who updated this article (as it was only one sentence before my update), I don't want to take a strong opinion either way; I just want to contribute my two cents and any helpful background I know.

Checking the notability standards, the word "Generally" ("Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role") seems to offer quite a bit of leeway in terms of what can be included. There are quite a few crime articles throughout Wikipedia that I would say cover crimes/criminals that are even less historically significant than Hurt Hardy, yet those articles have not been questioned.

However, the article is an orphan, and I legitimately cannot think of a single article where it would be appropriate to link to Hurt Hardy. (The only one I might consider would be Rainey Bethea, as the ACTUAL final public execution in the U.S., because there could possibly be a mention on his page that Hurt Hardy's execution is sometimes erroneously given that title despite the fact that it isn't true. Even then, I really don't think Hurt Hardy is notable enough to warrant that.)

I did find one modern source discussing Hurt Hardy - https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/readers-opinion/guest-commentary/article248407885.html (published January 11, 2021) – but one article isn't evidence of sustained coverage. Also, the article only briefly mentions him, and his mention is factually incorrect in several ways. Given the contextual text around that brief mention of Hurt Hardy, the article seems to be implying that Hardy was black, and there may have been an extrajudicial aspect to his public execution; however, Hardy was white, and his hanging was legal and carried out in private.

The relevant text is quoted here: "America’s history of public displays of racially-motivated mob violence is foundational going back to slavery, and public executions as a means of punishment happened well into the 1930s. One of the last public executions in the U.S. was on Missouri soil — the hanging of Hurt Hardy Jr. in 1937. Black people’s public hangings did not involve due process and were viewed as celebratory spectacles attended by thousands of white people, including public officials. People would advertise these “events,” sell food, print postcards of mutilated Black lynching victims, and take pieces of the victims’ bodies and clothing as souvenirs. When looking geographically at Missouri’s lynchings, we see that counties with historic racial terror lynchings are more likely to seek death sentences today."

I also found a 1947 magazine article discussing the murder he committed and his execution, but it is very sensationalized and reads like a detective magazine, and those are notorious for embellishing facts. Afddiary (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Sadakiyans

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

I was not able to verify the existence of this dynasty - the four references used in the article are also difficult to verify. Semsûrî (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Semsûrî (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Andrew Hignell

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

Non-notable cricket writer. Article was previously deleted in 2007, but there is still no evidence of the subject's notability. – Pee Jay 11:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Cricket, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment - Previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Ledbetter. Suriname0 (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete - Based on a quick search, doesn't seem to meet WP:NAUTHOR. I found this review of one of his books. Suriname0 (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Radio, History, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment. Suriname0 found a review of A 'Favourit' Game, reviewed by Jack Williams. I'll add to that a review of Rain stops play, reviewed by Robert Thorpe, doi:10.1256/wea.112.02. But I'm doubtful that [1] is sufficiently reliable, so that gives us only two reviews. I'd want more than that for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

German Pennsylvania

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

This article was created by Aearthrise by copy-pasting sections from five already existing articles [2]. As with other articles edited by this user, the sources that are not copied from other articles are outdated and/or have been falsely given a more recent date. In this case two sources were added the publication by Kohl is from 1856 and does not mention the German translation given (which is also grammatically incorrect) and does not describe these two regions with this single term. The second source has a false publication date (it was printed in 1899 not in 1971) and also does not contain the term. Only four articles link to this page, all of them articles from which information was copied to make this one. The are no inter-Wikilinks and a Google search links back to Wikipedia. I propose this article is deleted for these reasons as well as consisting of information already present on Wikipedia. Vlaemink (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, History, Germany, and Pennsylvania. Skynxnex (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete Entirely synthsis, not a cohesive topic. Please do not do this shit of just copying material from other pages and pretending it's its own article. Use appropriate summary style or excerpts if you want to reference other pages, rather than just introducing duplication with no new content. There is simply no such thing as "German Pennsylvania", you're just combining related topics. A more appropriate name might be something like Germans in Pennsylvania but not as an article that just copies content from elsewhere. Reywas92^Talk 18:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep There is a lot of evidence of this region, and it's mentioned in scholarship. German Pennsylvania was a larger historical region where the Palatines and other Germans inhabited (which included Germantown settled by Francis Pastorius, and is where Benjamin Franklin lived), and it's also now used to refer to the parts of the modern Pennsylvania Dutch Country. You say there is no such thing as "German Pennsylvania", and that we should make a post called "Germans in Pennsylvania" (which we already have Pennsylvania Germans) but that's incorrect. There is ample evidence for German Pennsylvania, especially reading older sources (because it describes an older area since colonial times).
- The Centennial History of Kutztown, Pennsylvania, Kutztown Centennial Association (Kutztown, Pa.) Kutztown Publishing Company, 1915 pg. 120:
- The Pennsylvanier was the leading mone-making paper of the county, because the language of the people was Pennsylvania German and all the sales of farm stock, commonly called "vendues," characteristic of German Pennsylvania to this day, were published in the German paper and well paid for.
- German American Annals ...: Devoted to the Comparative Study of the Historical, Literary, Linguistic, Educational and Commercial Relations of Germany and America Volume 2, Macmillan Company, 1899 pg. 43:
- Various strata of sources have been exploited in writing the history of the Germans in Pennsylvania- (1), the surface sources... (2), the German prints (consisting of early German prints issued in America and Germany presenting invaluable matter touching colonial events in German-Pennsylvania)
- The Pennsylvania-German, Volumes 3-4, Rev. P.C. Croll, 1902, pg.180:
- The first place the Germans are a most important numerical factor in our national life. German immigration began when on 6th of October, 1683, Daniel Pastorius and his company landed in Philadelphia and subsequently founded Germantown... Pennsylvania has always been a banner State of German immigration. It has been asserted it has been asserted that three-fifths of Pennsylvania have German blood running in their veins... A German Pennsylvania farmer by the name of Klein has recently held a family reunion. His four sons were present and their names had been changed to Kline, Small, Little and Short. There are today seven hundred thousand people in Pennsylvania speaking that homely and mellow Pennsylvania-German dialect, and as the Philadelphia Ledger said recently, "It were a pity if this dialect would soon die out."
- The Pennsylvania-German Society, Volume 6, Pennsylvania-German Society, 1896, pg.36:
- If these three of our eastern counties can boast of a group of men like these, who have done so much in but a single department of the modern sciences, it certainly furnishes good ground for laudable race-pride, and ought to put to shame that ignorant class of our country-men, who are wont to hold German Pennsylvania in much the same regard as Boeotia was held by the ancient Greeks.
- Pennsylvania-German Dialect Writings and Their Writers, Volume 26, Harry Hess Reichard, Pennsylvania-German Society, 1918, pg.65:
- For a Pennsylvania-German Kalenner which he edited in 1885 he wrote a longer poem in en parts entitled "Vum Flachsbaue." This is a veritable epic on the raising of flax in ten short cantos. This poem ought properly be illustrated with drawings of tools and implements found nowadays only on grandfather's garrett or in the museumns for, with flax-raising entirely out of vogue in German Pennsyvlania, or, whre it is still aised, by means of modern appliances, such terms as Flachs Britsch, Hechle, Brech, etc., are, to Pennsylvania Germans of today, words of a time that is past.
- Pennsylvania Farming: A History in Landscapes Sally McMurry, University of Pittsburgh Press, 2017:
- One Pervasive type, though, seems to have some association with Pennsylvania German culture. It was so common that it has been dubbed the "Pennsylvania farmhouse" and used as a key indicator (along with the Pennsylvania forebay bank barn) for charting what geographers call the "Pennsylvania Culture Region." The "Pennsylvania farmhouse" occurs throughout German Pennsylvania, but many extant examples and good field data come from Adams and York Counties.
- This vernacular form seems to be strongly (though not exclusively) associated with German Pennsylvania, yet its cultural meaning is elusive.
There are many more citations for German Pennsylvania that I can give, but this number should be sufficient to demonstrate that the concept "German Pennsylvania" is established and notable, and isn't just "synthesis" as purported by Reywas92. Aearthrise (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

As an aside to Vlaeminks charges about "outdated information," he doesn't make a case why the information from older books is outdated. He also claims I gave a false date of publication, but this can be disproven with the 1971 source here: [3].= Aearthrise (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

@Aearthrise: You claim you have disproven that the source you added was published in 1899, some 125 years ago. Instead you reassert that your book was instead published in 1971 for which you provided a link. Could you please explain to me how this can possibly be correct, given that the author of this book (Julius F. Sachse) died in 1919 aged 77? Vlaemink (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

You're making and argument that has nothing to do with what I said; I just pointed out that your claim that I added a false date was wrong, and I clearly showed the 1971 publication for the source. Books are republished all the time, and this is just a republication. Aearthrise (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

I don't see that these are referring to a specific place or region, rather conceptually describing the state's Germans and where they live. I see this analogous to saying "Polish Chicago" or "Cuban Miami", referring to a population and culture. In your third quote, "A German Pennsylvania farmer" is combining two adjectives that he is a German farmer and a Pennsylvania farmer. Moreover, copy-pasting sections from other articles doesn't make a new article like this. Maybe start over in draft space so you're not just synthesizing content that was about the specific groups rather than the topic as a whole. Reywas92^Talk 14:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete per nom; the term is both awkward and ambiguous, but there is no topic here. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete. In the quotes furnished above, I don't see a clear indication that "German Pennsylvania" is a well-defined geographical area, as opposed to a generic reference to parts of Pennsylvania where Germans live. Choess (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete which honestly surprised me - given the quote and the academic search I performed, I thought I'd be arguing to !keep this article. However, none of the academic literature particularly contributes to notability, only using the term in passing without defining it, or is part of a single academic's research, including their masters/PhD dissertation. I just don't see enough continued usage of the term in scholarly papers that would allow us to write an entire article on it. SportingFlyer T·C 13:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Capital Radio (pirate)

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

An article from 2006 with only one source - a radio interview from 2003. There are no independent, third-party reliable sources cited. A WP:BEFORE search is complicated because there is a commercial radio outlet with the same name which came later. There is a body of work on the general subject of pirate radio in Europe in the late 1960s and early 1970s, but I could not find reliable sources for this particular station. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG and lacks WP:SIGCOV, Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 23:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: All kinds of hits for pirate radio all over the world, Japan, Australia, the UK, that come up with this search, but nothing about this particular incarnation of pirate radio. Oaktree b (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Hi Oaktree, did you look in Delpher and Google Books? gidonb (talk) 08:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment: Should note that as of the time I am writing this, the article appears to have zero sources. —Mjks28 (talk) 01:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

How would that be relevant to notability? gidonb (talk) 12:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep as meets WP:GNG with sources added to article. Insufficient WP:BEFORE. Yes, Dutch newspaper archives are particularly difficult to access online without going to a physical library (preferably in the Netherlands), but online sources like this and this are accessible via Google (and if you look closely at some of the websites covering the King David, they include photographs of old newspaper clippings as well). Pinging Oaktree b for reconsideration. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Also found a whole section dedicated to Capital Radio on board the King David in this book about pirate radio. There is enough coming up via Internet Archive, such that going through it will take more time than I have right now. This was a happy discovery so in the end, no harm done and the article can keep improving. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 09:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep There are three-and-a-bit pages about this in the 2009 2nd edition of Pop Went The Pirates (the link above is the 1st edition), and as above there are also Dutch sources. Adam Sampson (talk) 09:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep. An abundance of sources on Delpher [4] and Google Books. Easy pass of WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Gigantic failure of WP:BEFORE and defiance of WP:NEXIST. Weird that this would ever be nominated for deletion. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP! gidonb (talk) 09:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Paul K. Davis (historian)

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

Fails WP:GNG, Can't find any other sources in an outside search other than one source in the article. TheNuggeteer (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, United States of America, and Texas. TheNuggeteer (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep. Despite the unscholarly ring of some of his book titles I found thirteen published book reviews of four of the books, enough for WP:AUTHOR for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep This military historian passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC).[]

Keep: Book reviews are fine, seems to pass AUTHOR. Source 5 shows multiple reviews in multiple journals, that's enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete I don't think this person meets either NAUTHOR or NACADEMIC. For the latter, his books, save one, have been cited in the middle to low two figures. The other one was cited ~160 times. I'm also not convinced that the fact of having a book reviewed in what are essentially trade journals suffices for AUTHOR. I am unable to get to the EBSCO journals but the fact that most of the reviews are in Library Journal and School Library Journal do not tell me that this is a major author. Like Publisher's Weekly, these are non-academic publications that generally provide short "advice" type reviews (buy this/don't buy this). Looking up "Encyclopedia of Invasions and Conquests" in WorldCat, it's held in 5 WC libraries. It's hard to know what this means since school libraries are rarely found in WC, but I would not consider this person a notable author by any of the criteria at WP:AUTHOR. Lamona (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]
All the EBSCO reviews should be accessible through The Wikipedia Library. That might be relevant if you completely ignored the two substantial academic reviews of Ends and Means in academic journals, the three of Masters of the Battlefield (counting H-net as equivalent to an academic journal), and the two mainstream-media reviews of Masters of the Battlefield. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Most of these reviews indicates that the books are NOT considered major contributions to the field. For example: "This book is a generally accessible book for a mid-brow audience as opposed to a scholarly work." (That's H-War) The Michigan Review states: "Serious students of military history, however, will find here neither a dependable reference book nor an original contribution to the scholarship of command across the ages." The two for Ends and Means are one page each, and one states "Its principle weakness lies in a failure to draw in literature on the Middle East, and especially the Arabic results in gaps and misconceptions. It is nevertheless a strong study of the modus operandi of the British in the area, and of the muddle and misinformation which lay behind their eventual success". This sounds to me like the reviewers are not seeing these books as being major contributions to the field. Nothing in NACADEMIC nor AUTHOR states that if a book (or a few books) get ANY reviews the author is notable. Both of those policies include much more rigorous criteria, and among those is at least some esteem from fellow academics. This person clearly fails that. Lamona (talk) 05:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Nothing in NAUTHOR says anything about the reviews being positive, nor about the reviewed books being scholarly works. They merely have to provide depth of content about the books they review. Your quote "among those is at least some esteem from fellow academics" is completely false. There is nothing in our criteria that reflects that. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Please look at the 8 criteria in WP:NACADEMIC and indicate which of those this person meets. I don't think he meets any of them. And note that nothing in academic nor author notability mentions book reviews. I don't know why this has become a thing here at AfD, but the mere fact of reviews wouldn't satisfy the policy criteria for either of those categories. If, however, you are looking to see whether a person has (as the policy says) "...made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions" then what their colleagues say about their work is evidence.Lamona (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Have I even tried to argue for a pass of WP:ACADEMIC? Have I tried to argue for a pass of WP:POLITICIAN? Have I tried to argue for a pass of WP:ATHLETE? Do you think that minor politicians who write books cannot be notable because they are not also notable as politicians, or that minor athletes who write books cannot be notable because they are not also notable as athletes? How about you address the criterion I am actually arguing for, WP:AUTHOR, instead of trying to make the ridiculous argument that being notable requires being notable for everything? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

So it sounds like you are going for #3 of AUTHOR. Here's the whole AUTHOR list:

This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals. Such a person is notable if:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or

The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or

The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

I do not see that this person has created a "significant or well-known work" merely because it has been reviewed. I am leaning on the word "significant" and when a book is reviewed as not being dependable (as above) then I don't see it as "significant." As I said, just getting reviewed doesn't make it "significant" and if you're looking at "well-known" then low citations and low library holdings (the only number we have because we don't have access to sales figures) tell me that this greatly stretches the concept of well-known. Also, I'd like to mention WP:CIVIL. Lamona (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep by way of passing the WP:AUTHOR bar. Reviews don't have to be positive; what matters is that attention was paid to the author's work. Nor do we require that the books being reviewed have to be scholarly in a narrow sense. We have articles on authors known for inaccuracy, popularization, and inaccurate popularization. XOR'easter (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep per WP:AUTHOR and probably WP:PROF#C1 as well based on number of reviews and multiple Oxford University Press books. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Yesunte Möngke

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

WP:NOTGENEALOGY; only notable for being a relative of the purported ancestors of Timur. There is no WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS purely on him. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Royalty and nobility, and Mongolia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Francis William Lascelles

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

British official (not that Lascelles). It is not clear how he might meet WP:BIO. His position as Clerk of the House of Lords was an administrative one and does not confer automatic notability. Nothing in his unremarkable biography otherwise suggests notability. The cited sources appear to be mostly primary or unreliable sources, and a Google Books search finds nothing of interest. Sandstein 17:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 17:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep. The man held an exceptionally important post (one of the two chief administrative officers of the British Parliament) and was knighted, for crying out loud. Meets WP:GNG. Meets WP:ANYBIO #1. This deletionism is frankly getting silly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Holding an "important" post (or rather, an administrative role in the politically unimportant house of the legislature) does not, by itself, establish notability. GNG does, which requires substantial coverage in reliable sources, which you do not cite. As to ANYBIO, being knighted is, as I understand it, pretty much automatic at that level of administrative seniority (cf. "Sir Humphrey"); notably, the article does not imply that he obtained the award for any particular achievement. And receiving a title is only an indicator that a person is likely notable, not that they are guaranteed inclusion. If we do not have substantial secondary sources, we have no basis for an article. Sandstein 20:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]
The "achievement" for which he received his knighthood was being appointed to the post. Why do you think people receive high awards? Because they distinguish themselves in their chosen field. Which he clearly did. The House of Lords is not "the politically unimportant house of the legislature"! It is one of the two houses of the legislature and its clerk is no less important than that of the House of Commons. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]
The House of Lords, like the monarch, is now an essentially decorative feature of the British constitution. Political power lies in the House of Commons. In any case, since the post of clerk does not come with automatic notability under our rules, neither does a title awarded merely for becoming clerk. Sandstein 12:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]
You clearly do not understand the concept of being honoured for reaching the top of one's chosen profession. It's no different from any other knight. Sir Ian McKellen, for instance, has also been knighted for reaching the top of his profession. The difference is simply that his profession is high-profile and that of a parliamentary official is not (or, at least, not to the general populace or those who write on the internet - although given he died in 1979 even that wouldn't be relevant). Neither is any more or less notable within their profession. And that's what we should be looking at if we don't want to further degenerate from a genuine encyclopaedia to a catalogue of pop culture, as we sadly appear to rapidly be doing. That's one of the reasons for the existence of WP:ANYBIO #1 - to catch people who are not high-profile but still notable enough to receive high honours. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

List of early-modern British women playwrights

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

This is a duplicate list of Chronology of early-modern British women playwrights, just sorted alphabetically. Either this functionally should be merged into that article, or just use a category like Category:Women writers (early modern), which already sorts alphabetically. Having to maintain two identical lists is pointless. Gonnym (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Lists of people, Theatre, History, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Merge with Chronology of early-modern British women playwrights per above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Merge: Merge article with the aforementioned Chronology of early-modern British women playwrights, per arguments above. —Mjks28 (talk) 03:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Merge the 2022-created Chronology of early-modern British women playwrights into this 2006-created list, but convert to a table sortable on surname and birth and death dates (have to work out what to do with the "fl." people), to provide all the functionaliy of both lists. (Note that the inclusion criterion of "active ... before about 1800" seems rather loosely applied as Elizabeth Barrett Browning (1806-1861) is in both lists, although not in List of early-modern British women poets!) PamD 08:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Merge under the title "List of early-modern British women playwrights", as per the reasons listed in the proposal and responses above, as well as in my previous comments on both talk pages. In fact, putting List of early-modern British women playwrights into a table and removing Chronology of early-modern British women playwrights, which has not been updated, has been on my to-do list for awhile. Since doing so would probably mean making the same changes to the sister lists, List of early-modern British women novelists and List of early-modern British women poets, I have been putting it off. — scribbling woman 07:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

1856 Cumberland (South Riding) colonial by-election

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

This is just a directory to two elections that happened in the same electorate in the same year. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Disambiguations, and Australia. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

As with the other AfD - what's the deletion rationale? The disambiguation seems fine to me? SportingFlyer T·C 11:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep. No reason to delete: two topics; no primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

1856 Cumberland (North Riding) colonial by-election

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

This is just a directory to two elections that happened in the same electorate in the same year. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Disambiguations, and Australia. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

What's the deletion rationale? The disambiguation seems fine to me? SportingFlyer T·C 11:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep. No reason to delete: two topics; no primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

1896 South Bend Commercial-Athletic Club football team

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

After a review of the sources in this article, I'm not convinced this team meets the WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS. In order of appearance in the article, the first source is merely informing readers of a blub meeting, the second is about the athletic club, not the team, the third is all of two short sentences, white the remaining sources are brief and routine game recaps. A check of newspaper archives didn't come up with much better. Let'srun (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, and Indiana. Let'srun (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete per nom. This is a creation of User:Murphanian777. Back in 2000, they created articles on every team that played a game against Notre Dame in its early years. Many of those opponents were local patsies who Notre Dame defeated easily. That also appears to be the case here as ND outscored this club, 46–0. While well intentioned, I have serious doubts about the notability of stand-alone articles on ND's patsies. Similar articles on ND patsies have been deleted as well. The rationales in the prior AfDs apply here as well. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1900 South Bend Howard Park Club football team, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1905 Bennett Medical football team, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1904 Toledo Athletic Association football team. Cbl62 (talk) 03:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and History. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 04:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete - not every team is notable enough for an article, and the sources are rather sparse. Whizkin (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete per Cbl62's reasoning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

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.

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Battle of Karamaryan

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Article previously soft-deleted, however no evidence of improvement. I share the concerns of the previous AfD as well, which stated "Article fails both WP:RELIABILITY and WP:VERIFY."Mdann52 (talk) 07:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mdann52 (talk) 07:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment: Someone with good Russian might want to have a look into this document (I am assuming the language is Russian). Just to make sure we are not deleting an article about a battle that already happened just because the page creator did not bother to include references. Also have a look to the references at Military History Fandom. Bizarrely the page indicate that the "articles incorporating text from Wikipedia"! anyway the licence is good for Wikipedia but attribution is missing. FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]

@FuzzyMagma: Fandom copied the article from us prior to deletion, and it was copied back across from there when the article was recreated. Took me a while to work that one out! Mdann52 (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]

FuzzyMagma That is a 476 page book in Azerbaijani, not Russian. It mentions this battle in passing on page 105, and the glowing phrasing combined with the provenance (published by an Azerbaijani publishing house, by a professor at an Azerbaijani state university) makes me doubtful of its reliability (here is a paper by Ceylan Tokluoğlu explaining the significant unreliability of Azerbaijani academia on these topics, a subject also touched on by Svante Cornell in his various writings on the NK conflict). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Really great research. I think this seals it. FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete and speedy close I've checked the logs of the article and I have found it was initially created by a blocked account who is also a sockpuppet [5]. I have opened a SPI case [6]. Regardless of all of this, the article should be deleted because it was recreated by a non-WP:XC account so it does not comply with the restriction for this topic, WP:GS/AA. Vanezi (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Azerbaijan, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Vanezi Astghik, Mdann52, maybe that's how Draft:Alp Arslan's invasion of Georgia showed up as well. Rosguill, are you interested? You blocked the Movaigonel account. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete and SALT: as per Rosguill and Vanezi Astghik comments FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

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.

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

List of Canadian military victories

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

WP:OR ("battle victories by Canadians" could mean anything, before "Canada" even existed as an independent country);
mostly WP:UNSOURCED (1 source);
WP:NPOV (only listing "victories" gives a very one-sided, cherry-picked view of history);
strong WP:OVERLAP with / WP:REDUNDANTFORK (WP:POVFORK, given that only "victories" are listed) of better-sourced and more complete and balanced articles/lists:
- Military history of Canada
- List of wars involving Canada: 1003 – present
- List of Canadian battles during the First World War (Canadian Expeditionary Force): 10 March 1915 – 5–7 November 1918
- List of Canadian military operations: 1947 – present
- Canadian peacekeeping#List of UN missions: 1948–present.

Follow-up to the recent deletion of List of conflicts in Canada, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of conflicts in Canada. NLeeuw (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, and Canada. NLeeuw (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]
@Conyo14 and NavjotSR: Courtesy ping to participants in previous discussion for follow-up. Good day. NLeeuw (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment Is there a defeats list? Conyo14 (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]
LOL not really. There is a List of military disasters, which has been nominated for deletion 4 times, but I think it will not survive the next round.
Aside from the also very subjectively-looking Military victories against the odds, there are only articles on lists of aerial military victories:
Ok not really, I made that last one up. Seriously though, I don't know why WW1 German pilots who managed to shoot down other planes merit a Guinness Book of Record-ish article praising how "cool" they were. Are there any articles about how many front soldiers a French nurse saved from death after treating their wounds? Arguably she deserves more praise from humanity.

Besides, aerial combat is notorious for overclaiming how many enemy aircraft one has been able to destroy or damage. (E.g. the Russian Ministry of Defence claims to have destroyed the entire Ukrainian Air Force several times over since 24 February 2022. Similarly, the Ghost of Kyiv was probably an exaggerated rumour on the other side). That's because it's very hard to verify, especially through visual confirmation, whether the enemy aircraft has actually been destroyed, as planes move so fast and quickly run out of sight. You might think you hit it, but did you bring it down? Your side usually does not control the alleged crash site, so you can't go there to take some pictures as evidence that you really shot someone down. So most of these lists of "aerial victories" might be full of unverifiable and unfalsifiable claims made only by one side of the conflict. Even if you could verify them, it does give you a very warped perspective of how combat-effective this person or this country was in war X or throughout history, and that is a bit of an WP:NPOV problem. NLeeuw (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]
What.... Category:Lists of World War I aerial victories...

Ok never mind, I need to go to sleep before I go mental hahaha. NLeeuw (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]
All that for a simple "no" haha. Victory is very subjective. So, there is more ability to have subjective viewpoints on battles. As a grouping I'm not sure if this would pass WP:LISTN. I'll lean delete. Conyo14 (talk) 02:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]
I guess I got carried away by answering your question. NLeeuw (talk) 07:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete Victories or defeats don't require a separate page. Dympies (talk) 03:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete - List of wars involving Canada is a better home for this kind of material. Victories and defeats are not always absolute and well defined categories. Whizkin (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]

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.

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

List of battles fought in South Dakota

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

WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN WP:UNSOURCED. Follow-up to

List of battles in Albania Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Albania
List of battles in Algeria Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Algeria
List of battles in Belgium Draftified
List of battles in Croatia Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Croatia
List of battles in Afghanistan Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Afghanistan
List of battles in medieval India Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in medieval India
List of conflicts in Egypt Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of conflicts in Egypt.
Prehistoric Irish battles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prehistoric Irish battles.
List of battles in England Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in England
List of conflicts in Canada Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of conflicts in Canada. NLeeuw (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, and South Dakota. NLeeuw (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Leaning delete. South Dakota didn't become a state until November 2, 1889. According to this list, since statehood, there were two armed conflicts ("battles"): the Wounded Knee Massacre and the Drexel Mission Fight. Topic is also well covered in History of South Dakota. Not seeing a need for a standalone list and not seeing any reliable sources that group these five battles in this particular way. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Just read WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN which says it all. Just delete. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete per nom. Not a notable subject. Azuredivay (talk) 09:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]

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.

Mewar–Delhi Sultanate Wars

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

The article is nothing but a complete product of original research. There is not a single WP:RS that treats the conflicts between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate as involving all the Sultanates (Mamluk dynasty, Khalji dynasty, Tughlaq dynasty, and the Lodi dynasty) allied together against Mewar. Ironically, the timeline of the war/conflicts presented in the article is completely fabricated, and no sources support this notion. There was no single war between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate, as these were not unified entities. Mewar was ruled by the Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty, while the Delhi Sultanate was ruled by the aforementioned dynasties. The author synthesized multiple conflicts and combined them into a single article, even claiming a "Mewar victory" without any evidence. The article is completely a product of WP:SYNTH and OR. Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Pakistan, and India. Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[]

comment:Note for the closer: Please analyze the background and contributions of the voters, as meatpuppetry is common among Indian military-history articles. Do not consider the votes of newly created users or common PoV pushers as valid, whether for Delete or Keep. Ironically, I noticed that the author of this article supported the deletion of a similar article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maratha–Nizam wars, yet surprisingly promotes this article by linking to other articles. --Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Keep I have named the article "List of Battles between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate" but a user named Flemmish changed it to the current name. I suggest the name of the article to be changed to the previous one, "List of Battles between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate", and this is a list where as your article Maratha-Nizam was a conflict which is entirely different from this one. Both articles can't be compared, use common sense at least Imperial. Also, I did not remove the dynasties (Guhila, Sisodiya, Khalji, etc.) another user named Padfoot2008 removed it so you better have this discussion with him. Also when did I add Mewar victory in the article, if some editor adds it (which nobody did you could see page history), you could simply undo that edit, nominating the article for deletion isn't appropriate. And there are several similar articles in Wikipedia like List of wars involving the Delhi Sultanate so why can't this be? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[]
I changed the title to Mewar–Delhi Sultanate Wars because all parts of the actual text were portraying it as a series of conflicts and a set topic rather than just a list of conflicts between the states — changing the title back wouldn't fix anything, the problems are, as was said, about the text and treating it as a single conflict rather than whether it is called a "list" or not. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Which line of the article portrays this as a single conflict? It seems you have a problem in understanding English. Better work on it. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]
I'm not the one with an English problem here — I did say portraying it as a series of conflicts and a set topic — obviously this was not one 300 year war and by the latter saying of "treating it as a single conflict" I mean, as I and Imperial said, that you are treating these wars between non-unified entities as a series of conflicts, and thus one topic rather than just different conflicts between polities which happened to be located in the same region. You can't take multiple wars between any two states and treat it as one topic if sources do not treat it as one. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]
It seems to me that you simply don't want to understand what is meant by a list. I m saying that this is a list of wars between Mewar and Delhi Sultanate. When am I saying (when is the article saying) this is a single conflict? And what do you mean by non-unified entities? Clearly you are the one who is having difficulty in understanding English or even your own comments. See what you wrote, the problems are, as was said, about the text and treating it as a single conflict Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 07:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Did you even read Imperial's initial reasoning? Non-unified means, in addition to a lack of centralization, that the "Delhi Sultanate" was not one single country and was ruled by four different dynasties. Quoting Imperial's reasoning, which it seems you can't comprehend, Mewar was ruled by the Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty, while the Delhi Sultanate was ruled by the aforementioned dynasties. The author synthesized multiple conflicts and combined them into a single article, even claiming a "Mewar victory" without any evidence. As I said, you're taking the fact that there were multiple wars between the "Delhi Sultanate" and the "Kingdom of Mewar", both ruled by different dynasties throughout their history, and, as a quote from your writing on the article, claiming that the "Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Wars" were a series of conflicts that happened from the mid 13th to early 16th century with a set victor. I changed the title from a list because by your writing, it wasn't a list; you claimed in the lead, before the page was moved, that there is something called the "Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Wars" which is clearly just a made up name of conflicts between different entities; I was simply adjusting the title to more accurately reflect the outlandish claim your POVish article is trying to make. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]
So, You want me to change just first line of the article that is "The Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Wars were a series of conflicts that happened from the mid 13th to early 16th century"? And even if multiple dynasties are involved that does not support the deletion as it is a list. And what is my POV push in the article, all wars are supported by multiple reliable sources (WP:RS). Also, list of wars articles are perfectly suitable for inclusion in Wikipidea. And different dynasties ruling Mewar and Delhi doesn't make any sense for deletion of the article, for example you could see Afghan-Sikh War. If you changed the title for first line of the article you should have consulted me first as I was the author of this article rather than having this discussion now. Besides where did I mention a set victor in the article since the day it was accepted?Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 08:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep: These battles did happen between Mewar and Delhi Sultanate over a long period of time as both vied for control in northern India. What did u mean by this:

There was no single war between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate, as these were not unified entities. Mewar was ruled by the Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty, while the Delhi Sultanate was ruled by the aforementioned dynasties.

How Mewar wasn't a unified entity? Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty are not distinct, Sisodia are a sub-clan of Guhila. Krayon95 (talk) 04:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[]

There is not a single WP:RS that treated the conflicts between Sisodia+Guhila vs Mamluk+Khalji+Tughlaq+Lodi as a single war. So, a clear synthesis is presented here. And your user talk page history is full of clearing warnings and AFD notices on caste-related issues? Imperial ^[AFCND] 05:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[]

@ImperialAficionado Well, indeed, battles took place between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate as they were both powerful entities, particularly Mewar as it was going towards its peak, but as explained by you, there is no source mentioning the war overwall, or, in a better way, an organised millitary standoff. Hence, I would request to rename the article to its older name, which is "List of battles between the Kingdom of Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate," or another name, which is Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Conflicts. Let's have a consensus.

Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete

Majority of the users pushing for “keep” seem to be POV pushers from newly created accounts. They didn’t even give any good reasons for its inclusion. As imperial mentioned, the Delhi sultanate was not a single entity. There’s no proof that all the dynasties(khalji, tughlaq, Mamluk, ETC) participated. Nor is there evidence of a supposed “Mewar victory”. Someguywhosbored (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Even read the previous discussion? And for your information I am active on Wikipedia for over 6 months which falsify your claim that Keeps are from newly created users. This is list of wars between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate. I don't understand why are you even mentioning the dynasties. Kingdom of Mewar existed from 6th century till 1947 (now are titular monarchs under Constitution of India) and Delhi Sultanate from 1206-1526. This article deals with the List of wars (is not a single 300 year war) between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate. And please point out where the article shows Mewar victory? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment for the Closer : I have addressed all concerns which users Flemmish and Imperial had regarding page name, some sentences of the intro para and the dynasties of the involved belligerents in my recent edits of this page. Please see these links [7], [8], [9], [10]. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]

* Keep It's a perfect page that passes ~~WP:GNG. These battles did happen and I don't think this page should be deleted. User:Hashid Khan~~ Blocked user

Delete: Yes, some of my concerns were addressed by MuA, but if this article is really just going to be a list of conflicts between the two states (who again were ruled by many different dynasties throughout these "conflicts"), there doesn't need to be an infobox, this much prose, (see list of wars between Russia and Sweden for an example) or any aftermath section, in which again it is treated as one conflict "The conflict ultimately ended after the defeat and death...". As it is this article is still too POV-pushy, and even if all of this is addressed, a good reason was never given why this article should actually exist instead of why it should not be deleted — we obviously don't have a list of conflicts between every two states that have fought more than one war between each other, so why do we need this article just for it to say "Mewar victory" 12 times in bold text? Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Well, If there is a series of battles between two states for over Two centuries then a article can be made for that. Both Mewar and Delhi Sultanate were dominat states of medival era and these battles were one of many reasons of the decline of Delhi Sultanate and rise of Mewar as the most powerful state in the Northern India, for result section you can see List of battles between Mughals and Sikhs. Aside of that the "Khalji Victory" is also written in bold texts. It's just a style of writing because beneath the bold text, there is is a description of event as a whole. Hope your all points are addressed.

Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 06:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep or Merge. Seems definitely somewhat biased and all, should be reworded to fit WP:MOS... In general, does this information exist elsewhere on Wikipedia? If not, we shouldn't delete. If it does, we could maybe condense and merge. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful.

Please do not move articles while an AfD is open.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Village communities

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

This article was created [11] as a copy of a 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article and the Who Wrote That? tool shows that 89.1% of the current text is the same as 1911. What initially struck me as odd was the article's complete and total focus on Europe. The 1911 encyclopedia's explanation for why it was "sufficient to confine the present inquiry ... to nations of Aryan race" was "principally because the Aryan race in its history has gone through all sorts of experiences" (it also said that it "might also be reasonably urged" that the Aryan race was most important, yikes). The section explaining the Aryan focus was removed from the article in 2008, [12] and since then the total focus on Europe has been unexplained. So there are the content issues, and now here is why I think the best path forward is deletion. I thought about merging Village communities into Village but I do not consider any of the info in Village communities to be worthy of inclusion. I'm disconcerted by phrases like "we hear that" and "a good clue to the subject is provided by a Serb proverb" that suggest a tenuous relationship to verifiable fact. The 1911 Britannica might be a reliable source in articles like University court or Castle-guard, which deal with old European history, but I don't think it's a reliable source here. Plus even if I were to improve it, the content would overlap with the village article. Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Draft: ? I guess... This exists [13], [14] or [15]. Simply copying the text from an 100 yr old encyclopedia is a no-no. Two of these sources are older than the Britannica, one more recent. Oaktree b (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment It looks like the Theory of Village Communities was part of the study of the history of economics in the second half of the nineteenth century - this article by Denman Waldo Ross is an 1880 review describing various sources (not all in English, and many looking at non-European cultures, albeit from a colonial perspective). Maybe we should have an article about the theory, but it'd need to be more critical and better-sourced than the current article. Adam Sampson (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, Social science, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete While an article on the study of village communities may be suitable, this article on the study of village communities is not. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep. WP:DEL-CONTENT importantly notes that when editing can address the reasons for deletion, we should edit the article to make it better instead of deleting it. This discussion has turned up adequate sourcing to write some article about village communities (or the economic theory thereof), and the article should of course be improved. But deletion here seems unwise. So too does draftification, as the article was uploaded here in 2006, and sending this to the draft heap as a backdoor to deletion seems ill-advised in light of relevant policies and guidelines. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B E C K Y S A Y L E S 07:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete I'm not sure how this is a different topic than village (or, the history of villages). And none of the EB1911 content should be retained. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete The prose is not encyclopedic and should be entirely rewritten if not outright scrapped. I also share the same concerns as the individual who nominated the article for deletion and agree that little if any information included here is worth retaining. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

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.

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. The rough consensus turns into a clear consensus once the blocked socks and the non-P&G-based (canvassed?) !votes are discarded. Owen× ☎ 18:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Crien Bolhuis-Schilstra

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

I can't find evidence of notability, the only indepth source is this, published by Scouting.nl, i.e. the organisation she worked for (not an independent source). The other sources are primary sources or passing mentions. Fram (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Merge into section of Vereeniging Nederlandsch Indische Padvinders, removing biographical info, keeping the scouting CV, POW information. The content is notable, even if the author is not notable enough. -Bogger (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, Military, Scouting, Indonesia, and Netherlands. Fram (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep There are sufficient details here to merit keeping the article. --evrik ^(talk) 13:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[]

That's not a policy based reason to keep or delete articles. Which sources are independent and indepth? Fram (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep: Well referenced figure, historically notable. –DMartin 02:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep: Subject is notable and reliably sourced. WC gudang inspirasi (Read! Talk!) 14:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep: My vote is obviously to keep it; I wrote the article as I deemed it historically significant and notable. Cflam01 (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]

It would be nice if anyone would actually address the nomination, and indicate which sources are (as required) independent of the subject and giving indepth coverage. The only indepth coverage I see is from a Dutch scouting site, so not independent (an organisation writing about aspects of its own history). Fram (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete as a clear WP:GNG failure. Without any sources that support notability, it is unclear if and how much content should be moved to Vereeniging Nederlandsch Indische Padvinders (correctly identified as a potential target by Bogger). So a BIG NO to merge. Redirect isn't right either, as Bolhuis-Schilstra was not organically included in the body of the target (only as possible other reading). Hence this should default to delete. Thanks to Fram for nominating. By no means the first time we see excessive Dutch scouting biographies. gidonb (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[]

BTW, this article is the best I could find, and isn't good enough: "'Mijn leven in Indië', door een oudleerlinge van de Koloniale school." Haagsche Courant. 's-Gravenhage, 11-03-1937. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 16-06-2024, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=MMKB04:000149139:mpeg21:p018 gidonb (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: the keep !votes above are extremely weak and should obviously be dismissed by the closer, while a quick look at the "well referenced" article shows a distinct lack of WP:SIGCOV at all. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete As per AirshipJungleman29's comments directly above.

Axad12 (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]

I thank you all for your efforts to maintain and improve Wikipedia. While I understand that concerns regarding WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV are certainly valid in this case, I'd like to make a proposition here that Bolhuis-Schilstra's story may be an important piece of historical information that sheds light on some of the humanitarian efforts during WWII. Her work as a scout leader in helping the sick is a testament to the resilience and compassion of humanity during a time of great turmoil, which I believe should be preserved and made known regardless of current notability and coverage. As for the "excessive Dutch scouting biographies", each of these articles provides unique insights into their contributions and experiences, showcasing the diverse stories and achievements within the scouting movement from WWII which again should be preserved in my opinion. Furthermore, WP:IAR exists to guide us towards maintaining and improving our content on Wikipedia, so in this case, ignoring concerns about notability and coverage would help us preserve and further document this piece of history that provides valuable insights into such an important historical period. While I can't stop you from voting for deletion, I kindly urge the closer to consider these points. Cflam01 (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]

While I am not voting on this nomination, I would like to point out that notability is a policy and we generally do not give IAR exemptions to articles when it comes to the notability guidelines. If there is a desire to share her story if Wikipedia is not suitable, alternative outlets exist. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Thanks for the clarification. It's just that Java camp experiences are extremely uncovered and that articles like this on Wikipedia help bring such stories to the light. I just think this kind of information should be known and not gatekept. I'll go seek alternative outlets if this AfD is a delete, I get it. Cflam01 (talk) 08:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

@Cflam01: I may offer to rescue this for my own Miraheze site, thanks to your testimonial. Send me a line if further discussion ensues. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete. Searched Google books and found nothing. Sources presented in the article doesn't pass WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep. This is important story and I think it should be kept. The Scouting movement is very large so many scouting references are independent of the author or the topic. It does need more sources however, Bduke (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]

WP:ITSIMPORTANT. gidonb (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment. I suspect that there has been canvassing to this page. gidonb (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete. Nothing supporting GNG in the newspaper archives I've looked through. JoelleJay (talk) 02:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete. Per nom, and the fact that this is the primary source for this subject demonstrates that the subject lacks notability. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

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.

Capture of Peshawar (1758)

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

Does this pass GNG?

Its not a battle (even a minor one) and seems to have only the briefest of mentions in sources (one line, at most). Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 13:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had previously closed this as a soft delete, but only just realized that this article was formerly considered at AFD in 2022 under the title "Battle of Peshawar (1758)", see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Peshawar (1758). Thus, it was ineligible for soft deletion. Relisting for further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment pinging User:Mohammad Umar Ali who made the following case that the article does pass the general notability guidelines on my talkpage here. I assume this user wants to add these comments below. Malinaccier (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep The editor who nominated it for deletion argued that it did not pass WP:GNG [16] but it actually does pass it. WP:GNG deals with following points mentioned below I have explained how this article passes every point.

1.) "Presumed" It's not an assumption but a fact as per the sources cited in the article (I have mentioned the sources in 4th point). Moreover it does require its own article as it helps to demonstrate the territorial peak of Maratha Confederacy which was in 1758 just after the capture of Peshawar Fort. Also it helps to understand the regional history of Peshawar which you could see as it has been included in History of Peshawar Wiki article.

2.) "Significant coverage" It does have significant coverage not just in one or two WP:RS but almost every WP:RS which deals with Maratha history or Afghan-Maratha wars, etc. Even various news articles including The Times of India have covered this event see this link; [17]

3.) "Reliable" As told before it's supported by multiple WP:RS sources. And as per the the wiki guidelines availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

4.) "Sources" All the below sources are considered reliable WP:RS.

i.) Advanced Study in the History of Modern India 1707-1813 - Jaswant Lal Mehta - Google Books link [18] pg 237 quoting; Thus nature did provide a golden opportunity to the Marathas to establish their sway over whole of Punjab and northwest India, upto Attock and Khyber pass, although the spell of their rule proved very shortlived.

ii.) Pletcher, Kenneth (2010). The History of India link [19] pg 198 quoting; Thus in 1757 Ahmad Shah's son Timur, appointed governor of Punjab, was forced to retreat from Lahore to Peshawar under the force of attacks from Sikhs and Marathas.

iii.) Pradeep Barua,The state at war in South Asia link [20]page 55; quoting: The Marathas attacked soon after and, with some help from the Sikhs, managed to capture Attock, Peshawar, and Multan between April and May 1758.

iv.) The Marathas - Cambridge History of India (Vol. 2, Part 4) : New Cambridge History of India link [21] pg 132 quoting: First, we shall look at the expanding areas controlled by the Marathas, and there were many. Maratha leaders pushed into Rajasthan, the area around Delhi, and on into the Punjab. They attacked Bundelkund and the borders of Uttar Pradesh. Further east, the Marathas attacked Orissa and the borders of Bengal and Bihar.

v.) Moreover, Govind Sardesai, New History of Marathas Vol 2, It has a whole chapter based on this article and conquest of Punjab by Marathas (See the below links)
Above book Pg 400 link [22] quoting; At Lahore, therefore, Raghunath rao and his advisors found the situation easy and favourable. Abdussamad Khan who was a prisoner in Maratha hands, with characteristic double dealing offered to undertake the defence of frontier agasinst Abdali on behalf of the Marathas. From Poona the Peshwa dispatched Abdur Rahman with all haste to Lahore with instructions to Raghunath to make the best use of him in the scheme he was now executing- Raghunathrao, therefore, consigned the trans-Indus regions of Peshawar to these two Muslim agents, Abdur Rahman and Abdussamad Khan, posting them at Peshawar, with a considerable body of troops.

5.) "Independent of the subject" All the sources stated above are independent as it includes both Indian as well as foreign authors. All these sources are considered reliable (WP:RS). Advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not included in the sources (4th point).

So, it clearly does pass WP:GNG for which it was nominated for deletion.
Also, I am not so active on Wikipedia nowadays due to certain reasons so I might not frequently reply to any replies (if any) to my comment here, don't take it as my unwillingness to participate in the discussion, kindly wait for my reply. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Some of those do not even seem to discuss its capture (or even it). Please read wp:v and wp:synthesis Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[]

*Suggestion I recommend changing this article's name to "Maratha Conquest of Punjab" and in territorial changes it could be mentioned that Attock, Multan, Lahore, Peshawar, etc. ceded to the Maratha Empire/Confederacy. Sources which I mentioned in my 1st comment support it. Then we can expand the article include background, have sub headings like Battle of Sirhind and Battle of Attock, Aftermath (the territories which were gained by Marathas, etc.) That will be more presentable and also address your concerns! Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Also I see you already had a detailed discussion with other editors when you nominated this article for deletion for the 1st time. So why nominating the same article for deletion again, you should have resolved your doubts when you first nominated it for deletion. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[]

I did I accepted it was at least a battle, it is not even that now. Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Strong delete Mohammad Umar Ali completely fails to understand what significant coverage means, a sentence or two in several books is not significant coverage. I can find no significant coverage of this, presumably for the rather obvious reason that (assuming the article is correct) the Maratha forces simply took control over a city bereft of Afghan forces. So as absolutely nothing happened during the capture, there's nothing for us to write about. I would object in the strongest possible terms to a move to Maratha Conquest of Punjab or anything similar, that would be a clear WP:POVFORK of Afghan–Maratha War where this capture can easily be covered in context. So I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect to that article either. FDW777 (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete Does not fulfil the WP:NOTABILITY in the slightest. The event is not a significant at all and has no significant coverage in WP:RS. PadFoot2008 18:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Murree rebellion of 1857

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

Well it has needed more sourcing since 2014, much of the content seems to be about other events, and there is no real; evidence of notable coverage.

As well as some of the sources being a bit iffy. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Pakistan, India, and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[]
I agree with you that more sources should be added, maybe also an infobox to sum everything up since it's a pretty long article. However I could find multiple reputable sources with a quick google search such as articles by the University of the Punjab, the Pakistan Perspective, the United Service Institution of India, and a book titled Murree Rebellion of 1857 by Barnabas Crist Bal. I think it's important that we expand on this article instead of deleting a piece of history. Thomas Preuss Harrison (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Yes the article needs improvement but the event recorded was not an insignificant one in the context of the chaotic developments of 1857. Saul David's 2002 history The Indian Mutiny records the concern expressed by Sir John Lawrence as "disaffection and mutiny spread" during August of that year and that this included the Muslim tribal unrest in the Murree Hills. Buistr (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete. Poor, unreliable sources and many fails verification. Some of these unreliable sources are WP:RAJ era and primary sources. The event was not significant and if reliable sources with coverage is to be found, it can very well be merged to Indian Rebellion of 1857. RangersRus (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Redirect to Murree#History. As noted by source #3 in the current article, ...Murree had played a small and insignificant role [in the Indian rebellion of 1857, and goes on to detail minor disorganized skirmishes. This seems appropriate to mention in the location's history as its local, minor participation in a major historical event (and it already is mentioned there), but it doesn't seem to be DUE for more than a sentence at Indian rebellion of 1857 and currently isn't mentioned there at all. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Redirect to Indian Rebellion of 1857 as that is the event it is directly related to. There doesn’t seem to be significant coverage of the subject to warrant a standalone article. Prof.PMarini (talk) 03:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]
There's essentially no information about events in Murree at that page, whereas there is coverage of the 1857 rebellion at Murree#History. What's your reasoning for preferring the 1857 rebellion page as a target? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Redirect to Murree#History: Searched for sources but could not find any that can make this event as notable and keep the article. Hence, there are two options for redirecting: the first is Indian Rebellion of 1857, as this event was part of the Indian Rebellion of 1857, but that article does not mention anything about the ‘Murree rebellion,’ nor does it mention Murree even once. Therefore, I support the second option, Murree#History, proposed by Rosguill, which mentions the event. GrabUp - Talk 14:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Sack of Wiślica

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

As

a follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135) (nominated by User:TimothyBlue; closed as no consensus on 6 April 2024); and
a formalised continuation of the informal discussion at Talk:Sack of Wiślica#Historiography (2–5 June 2024, with an extensive examination of the sources used, and its complete absence in Kievan Rus' / Ruthenian chronicles where one would expect the 1135 raid and the alleged 1136 counter-raid to be mentioned); and
a parallel to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish raid on Kievan Rus' (1136) (currently has little participation, but seems to be heading for a weak delete),

I hereby formally propose to either draftify Sack of Wiślica (if any editor is willing to adopt it), or to redirect it to Wiślica#History. (Note: Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135) was renamed to Sack of Wiślica on 3 June 2024‎ by agreement between NLeeuw and Piotrus on the talk page, so this could be regarded as a 2nd nomination of Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135)).

Rationale: WP:NOPAGE; fails WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG for a stand-alone page, and the sources used so far create WP:POV issues as well. It is one of several dubious articles written by now-blocked User:SebbeKg (previously we agreed to delete SebbeKg's article Bolesław II the Bold's expedition to Kiev (1076–1077) on 27 May). Editors seem to agree that the event took place, but nothing for certain can be said about in detail, as all the sources cited are either WP:PRIMARY (Kadłubek, and in the case of Długosz someone who wrote centuries later and added details that are not historically credible), or WP:USERGENERATED & WP:POV (in the case of KWORUM), or WP:SELFPUB (in the case of Dawne Kieleckie). Everyone agrees that the only substantial WP:RS is Benyskiewicz (2020), and that this source alone is not enough.

The disagreement is that User:Piotrus would like to keep a stand-alone page based on RS that are yet to be found, and that someone else should find and add these yet-to-be-found RS (citing WP:BEFORE), whereas User:Marcelus and I think that this event could easily be summarised in 1 to 3 sentences in Wiślica#History by reference to Benyskiewicz (2020), at least for now. Alternately, Marcelus and I think the current article could be draftified for now, but Piotrus has declined my offer to adopt it as a draft, citing having too little time to do it himself, and proposing to add Template:Sources exist to motivate other users to do it instead. However, the template does not allow such usage (see also Wikipedia:But there must be sources!). I have argued that the present situation of keeping the article in the mainspace as is, is not acceptable either, because it evidently is not ready for the mainspace (if it ever merits a stand-alone article at all).

So, if nobody is willing to adopt the draft, Marcelus and I are proposing to redirect Sack of Wiślica to Wiślica#History until an editor (Piotrus or someone else) finds enough material, based on WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS, written with an WP:NPOV, for a stand-alone page, and has written that page. I already created such a redirect WP:BOLDly, which was BOLDly reverted by Piotrus, and that is fine per WP:BRD. But if there is consensus in this AfD to create a redirect, this may not be reverted BOLDly again until the conditions above for a stand-alone page are met.

Other than that I would like to say that I have generally enjoyed cooperating with Piotrus on this topic amicably. But a formal decision seems to be necessary to break the deadlock on the future of this article, and Piotrus has suggested that taking it to AfD a second time might settle the matter, so here I am. Good day to everyone. :) NLeeuw (talk) 06:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Poland, and Ukraine. NLeeuw (talk) 06:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Poland. Owen× ☎ 12:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep. As I said on article's talk page, we have one in-depth academic source already, and indications that more sources exist (but are hard to access due to being Polish and not digitized well): "BEFORE search in GBooks in Polish strongly suggests other sources exist. Ex. this book by Gerard Labuda mentions keywords "Wiślicy" "1135" (together) on five distinct pages (but sadly I can only get snippet view for two or three). That book is a bit old (1962), but here for example is a more modern one, from 2006, that mentions those keywords together on 15 (!) pages (seems reliable, published by an academic organization, and the writer is a historian associated with Jan Kochanowski University, no pl wiki article yet). I could look for more sources, but I don't have time & will and I think this shows that we can reasonably assume sources on the sack of Wiślica in 1135 exist and the topic is notable." The article needs to be expanded from those academic seconday sources (it is trye much of what we have is PRIMARY), but WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. The topic seems notable.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete per nom and good summary of my position by the nominator Marcelus (talk) 09:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete and/or userfy - we cannot keep indefinitely an article without reliable modern coverage. - Altenmann >talk 23:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Indeed you are right the article should be written in a few sentences I would propose this :

In 1182, Casimir was involved in disputes over power in Halicko-Wlodzimierska Rus'. In that year, Casimir's army attacked Brest, with the intention of installing Svyatoslav Mstislavovich, son of Agnes, daughter of Boleslav the Wry-mouthed and Salomea of Berg, on the throne there.

Svyatoslav's candidacy was opposed by Agnes's younger sons, with whom Prince Vsevolod of Bełsk set out for Brest, along with reinforcements from the principalities of Vladimir and Halych, and the Yotvingians and Polovtsians. Casimir eventually won a victory over the reinforcements coming to Brest's rescue, and also captured the city itself. He achieved his political goal, and installed his chosen prince Sviatoslav on the throne. The 1182 expedition to Brest was thus his complete success. This state of affairs did not last long - after a short time the established prince was poisoned. The exact date of this event is not clear; it probably happened as early as 1183. Casimir did not fail to act, and installed his other nephew, Prince Roman Mstislavovich of Vladimir, on the throne

Source

Józef Dobosz: Kazimierz II Sprawiedliwy. Poznań: 2014, p. 153-155.

Mistrz Wincenty (tzw. Kadłubek): Kronika polska. tłum. i oprac. Brygida Kürbis, Wrocław: 1992 s. ks. IV, chapter 14, p. 217. Birczenin (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

History Proposed deletions

History categories

for occasional archiving

Proposals

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 ==History==
 <!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hurt_Hardy}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sadakiyans}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andrew_Hignell}}