Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/History

Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/History/archive

Purge page cache

watch

History[edit]

St. Silas Abba[edit]

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

There are only two sources backing this article: the first one is not to be found, while the second one refers to St. Silas instead. I suspect this person to be fictitious, and the article possibly a prank. Lone-078 (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lone-078 (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Christianity, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Kariokskoe of battle[edit]

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

A minor skirmish at best. Existing citations are all non-independent, 19th-century primary sources, and I can't find any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Russia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Venality of offices[edit]

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

The article defines a concept that does not seem to consistently go by this name, the sale of offices is a concept, but this article does little to characterize it (and what it did do is the work of an LLM of dubious accuracy). Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and France. Curbon7 (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Redirect. Not a rationale for deletion but I don’t think “venality of offices” is actually an English term, and seems to be a direct translation from French. “Sale of offices” would be fine as a title but as it happens we’ve had the article Venal office since 2006 so I suggest we just redirect to that. Mccapra (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]

(edit conflict)Redirect to Venal office. I mean, ~~it's not the most plausible redirect but~~It's mentioned at the target so it's more plausible than I thought it should prevent future WP:CFORKS. Also oppose merging due to the WP:LLM concerns, not that there's anything to merge other than the claim that the practice occurred in Early Modern Europe as opposed to just Ancien Régime France. Nickps (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC) edited:23:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Redirect per Nickps. hinnk (talk) 05:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Merge with venal office. The term "venality of offices" is perfectly fine. The problem with the proposed target is that it is not global, hence merge. Srnec (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Executions and assassinations in the West Bank and Jerusalem[edit]

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

the whole article is OR and synth. it starts with Jesus, who is reffered here as "King of Martyrs", then goes to Eichmann, then to Jewish and Palestinian terrorr attacks. The whole article is cherry-picking, and the implied comparison of Jesus, Eichmann, and "The Martyr Abu Ali Mustafa" (sic!) is OR. There are enough articles on the subject (List of Israeli assassinations, List of Palestinian suicide attacks, etc) and there is no need for another synth one.

and it completely fails NPOV : "An eye for an eye", "King of Martyrs", "he refused to commit sin unto the point of shedding blood", "The Martyr Abu Ali Mustafa", "prominent militant", etc Artem.G (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Israel, and Palestine. Artem.G (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete One-sided (fails WP:NPOV) and WP:RECENTISM The Banner talk 14:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete Full of synth, already covered in the many other articles on this topic. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete This article is quite unnecessary and the title errs geographically in addition to the other problems. Selfstudier (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete per nom, and possibly refer MWQs to WP:AE for disruptive editing in the Israel-Palestine topic area. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete as unnecessary, every section has a "Main article" or "See also". I don't see that NPOV or OR problems are clear. I do see NPOV problems but I don't see them as deliberately pushing a position. The editor is interesting but I'm commenting on what's here. Sammy D III (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete per all above. gidonb (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: This article seems repetitive and leans heavily towards one perspective. The information it covers is already well-established in other articles. Waqar💬 16:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment. This is not a content fork of List of Israeli assassinations because it covers different events. But it is arguably a WP:COATRACK if one considers it as a regular page. Even the title ("Executions and assassinations") indicates this is a WP:COATRACK. This could be a list page, but the criteria for inclusion are not clear. At the very least, the criteria should be defined and the page fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]

History of Caraquet[edit]

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

Historical nonsense ~~moved disruptively to mainspace~~created by a paid contributor first, and then moved to mainspace a second time by an editor who should know better, who was informed about the scientific nonsense, and moved it into the mainspace without even tagging it. Highly irresponsible. Should be moved back to draftspace and completely checked and rewritten to be based on actual science. Fram (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Canada. Fram (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]

It was first moved to mainspace by AfC reviewer Garsh2, who as far as I can tell is not a paid editor. And to be clear, the content you object to is the "claims of 13th c. Bretons in Canada" (from your edit summary)? – Joe (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Thanks, I meant "proposed for the mainspace", I have struck and corrected. And I object to that, to the prehistory section which is very lengthy to end with, paraphrased, "but for none of this is there any evidence from Caraquet", and to the whole of the article, which seems to need thorough, thorough checking. For example, there are two sections with "1711" in the header. There is no mention of 1711 anywhere else... Source 2 is used 8 times to verify claims. Source 2 is this, and the description of the source in the article doesn't help. So this is an unusable source. The article is also extremely outdated and seems to be written in 2008(!), with a 2007 source for "There are still rumors of a complete reopening" of the hospital, or "By the end of the year, they plan to build a $15 million, 9,000 m2 appliance recycling plant. " (about 2008). Other "current" parts are also a decade out of date apparently, e.g. "The current city council was elected in the May 14, 2012, quadrennial election." The section header there, "21st century: between disappointment and hope" is a NPOV failure. Spot checking other sources, I get "Mentioned in the Vinland article on Wikipedia. This information seems to come from the book The Norse Atlantic Sagas, by Gwyn Jones (To be verified)." and many no longer available sources (due to the age of the original article)[1] or unidentifiable sources ("Coup d'œil 2001-05-31 (in French)."), which seems to indicate that the paid translator has not checked any information or sources but blindly copied what was there. When spot checking reveals so many issues, the whole article needs thorough checking before being acceptable for the mainspace. Whether until then it is draftified, stubbified, deleted, ... can be decided here. Fram (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]

I will interject that I am indeed not a paid editor. I did not quite realize the nature of this article at the time and apologize for the mistake. I now understand to look out for this in future reviews. Garsh (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]
- Yes, that characterization was my mistake, sorry. Fram (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]
  If some parts of the article are poorly sourced or contested, why not just delete these rather than the whole article? 7804j (talk) 06:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: Article is just directly translated from the French article. I’m certain that it can be re-created manually so that information is properly sourced, cited, and verified. B3251_(talk) 23:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete, if not draftified. It should probably have been left in draft, but since it is in the mainspace, keeping it seems dubious. "A giant's skeleton was discovered near the lighthouse on Caraquet Island in 1893 by the keeper's son" is not mainspace material, and does not give me confidence in the rest of the text. Lots looks like it might be plausible, but it definitely needs checking and many sources are not immediately accessible. CMD (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]
Who is going to do this "checking"? How are they supposed to do it if it's deleted? – Joe (talk) 09:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]
A Wikipedia editor? Same as any other process. Even if it is deleted and not draftified, any editor can see the sources at fr:Histoire de Caraquet. CMD (talk) 10:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]
...in French. So what you're basically saying is that editors aren't allowed to translate articles from other Wikipedias unless they also fix all outstanding problems with that article? I don't think there's any policy support for that. – Joe (talk) 12:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]
There is! It's WP:V, specifically WP:PROVEIT. The editor adding the information to en.wiki is responsible for it. WP:REDFLAG also applies here specifically, concerningly. CMD (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]
What about the parts of the article that are verifiable (i.e. most of it)? They'll be deleted too. – Joe (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]
I don't know which parts are verifiable, I have not checked the sources. If you have, please note the verified parts so the rest can be cleaned up. CMD (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep. The topic is clearly notable. All the problems brought up so far can be addressed through regular editing and last I checked WP:PRESERVE is still a policy. Most of the article is fine and certainly a lot better that what we had on this topic on enwiki before (Caraquet#History – much less and detailed almost completely unreferenced). Draftspace is optional and I don't see how moving it there is going to make it any more likely that these problems are fixed. Deleting it obviously won't. – Joe (talk) 09:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Historical sizes of railroads[edit]

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

This is a strange remnant of an older Wikipedia that has somehow escaped notice since 2005. It's a list of those railroad companies in North America which in 1948 had 1000 or more steam locomotives. It might be sourced. It's definitely not encyclopedic, and I don't see how it could be. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steam locomotive production, a similar article of the same vintage from the same author. Mackensen (talk) 00:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete per nom. A strange remnant indeed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: The title is misleading. This is essentially a list of North American railroads by number of steam locomotives in 1948, an impossibly niche criterion for a list. I would not oppose an article resembling Timeline of largest passenger ships, except of course it would be something like Timeline of largest North American railroads by mileage or something like that. But the title is vague and the article seems all but abandoned, since there were no edits at all between 2012 and 2020 (and no non-minor edits between 2007 and 2020). This vestige of early Wikipedia is pointless. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete Whatever the original intent, this seems a very short and incomplete list. There are numerous railroads/rail lines in the United States. Looks like the editor just went by info in the two books listed, but there are no details of which pages, etc. — Maile (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: This list of steam locomotives seems like a niche curiosity, and it's not really the kind of in-depth information most readers would expect from an encyclopedia. Waqar💬 17:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Battle of Yang Dang Khum[edit]

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

Unlike WP:Articles for deletion/Thai bombing of Phnom Penh, this one doesn't appear to be a hoax, but the creator's editing pattern suggests that the text is AI-generated, with fake citations (which I have removed) that do not support any of the facts. This will need to be blown up and entirely rewritten to comply with verifiability requirements. Paul_012 (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Cambodia, Thailand, and France. Paul_012 (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Thai bombing of Phnom Penh[edit]

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

The historicity of this claimed topic is completely unverifiable. None of the claimed book references mention anything remotely close to a bombing of Phnom Penh on 13 January 1941, and a Google Books search reveals no mention anywhere else. This looks very much like a hoax, but it's probably not blatant enough for G3. Paul_012 (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Cambodia, Thailand, and France. Paul_012 (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete as made up. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete Reference 2 exists, but never mentions Phnom Penh at all: [2]. Seems to be a hoax. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: Doubts exist around the bombing's occurrence. The provided sources don't mention it, and wider searches haven't yielded any results. Deleting this article for potential factuality issues might be best. Waqar💬 16:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]

1884 DePauw football team[edit]

(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, despite having the claim of playing in the first football game in Indiana. The only source is from the team website, which is primary. A check of newspaper archives didn't come up with much better, with only a single sentence of coverage found at [[3]]. Let'srun (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Indiana. Let'srun (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

I've added a bit. The Encyclopedia of Indianapolis is borderline SIGCOV with a full paragraph on the topic. Cbl62 (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Merge to DePauw football, 1884–1889. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

A closer can't redirect to a non-existent target. Cbl62 (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

DePauw football, 1884–1889 has been created. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]

I'm not convinced that the target meets GNG or NSEASONS, but if others find the sourcing to be acceptable I suppose a redirect would suffice. Let'srun (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]

If need be, the scope could be expanded to cover the 1890s as well. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Merge per above. There's not a lot of information here, it may have been reported on at the time, and it's in our interest to maintain a complete set of the information somewhere. SportingFlyer T·C 17:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]
What information here isn't already included in that article? If anything, this should be either redirected or deleted, but I don't see any basis for a merge now. Let'srun (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]
Merges don't often occur before the AfD is closed. Still the correct result, and this can be redirected there by the closer. SportingFlyer T·C 20:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]
But the info included in this article has already been merged in the article Jweiss11 made, so that doesn't apply in this case. Let'srun (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]
I'm still viewing my vote as "the information should be retained via a merge" even though it has been already than a "it's been merged so we can redirect there," merge usually implies redirect with some or all information brought over to the new page. SportingFlyer T·C 17:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment the newly-created DePauw football, 1884–1889 may still not be significant enough to warrant its own article and may need to expand its scope, but I guess for now redirecting this article to that one is the best outcome for this AfD. A discussion about the new article may result in further expanding that range of years. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Merge to DePauw football, 1884–1889. Jweiss11's creation is a good first step, though I also agree with User:Eagles247 and suggest extending to 1899 which would covers the 19th century, bring it up to about 60 games, and provide greater certainey that there is enough SIGCOV to satisfy GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 17:32, 3 July 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 merge‎ to Wabash football, 1884–1889. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[]

1884 Wabash football team[edit]

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

No indication this team, which only played a single game, meets the WP:NSEASONS or WP:GNG. The only source in the article gives this team merely a brief mention, and a cursory search didn't come up with anything better. Let'srun (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Indiana. Let'srun (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete per nom. The article was created as a sub-stub almost 10 years ago with a single sentence -- "The 1884 Wabash Little Giants football team represented Wabash College during the 1884 college football season." The only addition since then has been a notation that the "Little Giants" nickname wasn't adopted until 20 years ago. Nothing of encyclopedic value is lost by deleting this. ~~Cbl62 (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)~~[]

Delete: Per the article having been a WP:STUB for 9 years, and only having one citation. Mjks28 (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment. These are not reasons for deletion. For that reason, the person closing the discussion will unfortunately not take your stated opinion into regard, so please feel free to revise - and please read WP:DISCUSSAFD first. Geschichte (talk) 07:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]
I think only having one citation qualifies as a reason, no? Let'srun (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

If the single citation had sufficient depth, it might be OK, but the source presented here lacks the needed depth. Cbl62 (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment - All material is included in the Wabash College article. Leaving a redirect would be a painless courtesy. Carrite (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's true that being a Stub article is not a reason to delete an article. We have thousands and thousands of stub articles. Relisting to see if there is support for Rediretion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

The actual and valid reasons for deletion here are set forth in the nom: The article lacks anything remotely resembling WP:SIGCOV and thus plainly fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. As for redirecting, that would undermine the utility of red link in our comprehensive system of team templates. E.g., Template:Wabash Little Giants football navbox. A redlink tells us that a season article does not exist. We could theoretically fill in all of those redlinks with redirects, but then the utility of the templates is massively undercut and we end up with team templates that are a useless loop redirecting to the main team article. (A minor program like Wabash (Division III!) has very few notable seasons, and the blue links in the template allow the viewer to zero in on those seasons.) Please do not redirect. Cbl62 (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Merge to Wabash football, 1884–1889. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]
A merge can't be closed to a target which doesn't currently exist. Also, would that target meet the notability guidelines (GNG and NSEASONS)? Let'srun (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Let'srun, my assumption is that yes, that target would meet notability guidelines. It would be more productive for you to examine such possibilities before creating an AfD like this. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

my assumption is that yes, that target would meet notability guidelines We would need more than an assumption. Can you provide a couple sources? Cbl62 (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Cbl62, you how to answer this question for yourself. See: 1889 Indiana Hoosiers football team. There's lots of other stuff on Newspapers.com. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Unless someone wants to take the time to create a well-sourced redirect target, redirect is not an available or permissible option here. For that reason, I remain in the "delete" camp. Cbl62 (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

We need an existing target article, not a hypothetical one that could be created in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Wabash football, 1884–1889 has been created. More coverage can be found, but search at Newspapers.com via Wikipedia Library is currently down. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Merge to the proposed decade target on the assumption Wabash is a football team we care about the seasons for. There's not enough available for this season to have a stand-alone article, there's not even that much to merge, but it's better to maintain a complete set of the information somewhere using the guidance at WP:NSEASONS which allows multiple seasons to be smushed into one. SportingFlyer T·C 17:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]
What info still needs to be merged? I think if anything a redirect would suffice. Let'srun (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]
The single game result can be included somewhere. SportingFlyer T·C 20:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]
It already is under 1884, no? Let'srun (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]
As with the other AfD, I didn't notice the merge had already happened. SportingFlyer T·C 21:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Redirect to Wabash football, 1884–1889 (there's nothing to merge, it's already there). Thanks to User:Jweiss11 for creating a suitable target article. Cbl62 (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Redirect to Wabash football, 1884–1889 since the season article does not appear to be notable enough for standalone inclusion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:28, 3 July 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.

1895 Pacific Tigers football team[edit]

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

After reviewing this article, I am not convinced that it meets the WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS. The only source is a database, and I'm not finding the sources needed to meet the notability guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and California. Let'srun (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Given that every other season on Pacific's football history has an article, I think some kind of merger would probably be best so that the information on this one is not lost. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Do you actually have a suggestion for a merge, perhaps to a combined season article? I'm all ears, but looking at 1898 and 1899, I'm not seeing much for those seasons either...Let'srun (talk) Let'srun (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Not to mention, there isn't much info here to save, considering the only source. Let'srun (talk) 02:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Pacific Tigers football, 1895–99, perhaps? Or maybe extend it to include a few of their next seasons? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]
I don't see coverage to meet NSEASONS even for that range, at least from a first glance at the sources in those articles and elsewhere. 1898 has only the database and a very short recap, while the 1899 one has only the database and a long section devoted to the rules of the game in the era with no references to the actual team. Reasonable minds may differ. Let'srun (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep, this is the first game and the first season of the team's history. The year is a matter of record and the season covered to some extent in the sourcing. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

covered to some extent in the sourcing Where? All I'm seeing is one line in a database entry here. Cbl62 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete (without prejudice). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS due to the lack of WP:SIGCOV. Pacific was a major program in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s but not so in the 1890s. Indeed, the program was practically non-existent prior to 1919 -- a grand total of five games played between 1895 and 1918 (zero wins, one tie, four losses, 11 total points scored). If someone some day wants to create an article on the early history of the Pacific football program, it might possibly be viable, but I certainly don't have the time or inclination to work on that when there are so many more worthwhile topics to pursue. Cbl62 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Merge to Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899. Jweiss11 (talk)

@Jweiss11: Two issues with your suggestion: 1) a closer cannot redirect to a redlink so that's not viable unless someone creates it; and (2) is there SIGCOV to support the proposed article? Cbl62 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

It's probably worth the editing time to create the proposed article, though, and merging the very small amount of information. The 1898 and 1899 articles aren't in great shape either, and it's possible the game(s) which were played were indeed covered in local papers of the time. SportingFlyer T·C 17:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is also not a directory. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Invasion of the United States[edit]

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

Article has substantial issues including general copy-editing, severe lack of sources for much of what is stated, and is a general mishmash of actual "invasions", speculative ideas about potential invasions, and (until recent edits) covering completely non-related topics such as nuclear and cyberattacks.

Believe article should be moved to draft given the significant levels of issues. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and United States of America. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Draftify Even with the nom's rightful removal of sci-fi cryptofacist fanfiction that took the article completely off the rails, this article is in need of serious help and sourcing, maybe even an entirely new title. As is, 'invasion' is doing very heavy lifting here, as only Pearl Harbor and Imperial Army attempts to get to the mainland during WWII could really be considered as such. Nate • (chatter) 00:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete. A reasonable person could absolutely make the case that putting all these disparate events into one article isn't WP:OR, but it feels like OR to me. The burning of DC during the War of 1812 and Pearl Harbor and the start of the Mexican-American War are all important events that should (and do) have their own coverage, but putting them all together without directly addressing that they are in most respects very different events seems like the passive suggestion of a connection that may not be merited in fact or sourcing. I think it's possible to write an article that is not subject to this problem, but it would look very different from this one. Off the top of my head, it's that "invasion" suggests that one party was the aggressor, and the relationships between American-Britain, America-Mexico, America-Japan right before the invasion events were all very different. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete I can see no purpose in draftifying; this article is a mess of pure WP:SYNTH. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

As currently written, this is probably a WP:COATRACK. Nevertheless, I would be inclined to keep, but make it as a List page. As of note, we have a disambig. page Invasion USA. My very best wishes (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

List of battles in Kinmen[edit]

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

Similarly to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Penghu, I don't see the reason why this would be its own article, as opposed to the conflicts being covered in the Kinmen article (where they are already covered). toweli (talk) 07:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, China, and Taiwan. toweli (talk) 07:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: Agree with nom. WP:SALAT and WP:NOTDIRECTORY per previous discussion. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 10:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: Agree with nom. Unneeded content fork, and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Kierzek (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep: as a sort of set index page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete No need of this index. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 11:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete unneeded WP:CFORK. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: This feels more like an index than a full article. The Kinmen article already covers the conflicts, so why have a separate page? Waqar💬 17:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Hurt Hardy[edit]

(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[edit]

(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)[]

The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 4, p. 227: "In other towns, too, Arab chieftains came to build their castles and dominated the inhabitants ... in Urmiya Sadaqa b. 'Ali, a client of Azd". See also https://iranicaonline.org/articles/rawwadids. I cannot verify the article as a whole or confirm if this is a notable dynasty, but it does not appear to be a fabrication. Srnec (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete sourcing is weak, and does not sufficiently convey the idea of a "dynasty"; if the individuals involved are notable, they should have their own article, but their three-generation "dynasty" is almost certainly not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]
The reason that there is so little knowledge about them is that they lived over 1,000 years ago and only ruled for around 50 years in a region wich was made up of villages, lots of mountains and a few small cities. Besides that, they seem to be the first Kurdish dynasty in History, so little information is to be expected. Karkafs Desiderium (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:49, 3 July 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Andrew Hignell[edit]

(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 [4] 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)[]

Keep. His books are reviewed in serious publications and he is generally considered the pre-eminent historian of Welsh cricket. Sammyrice (talk) 04:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep. Surprised to see this nom. Hignell is one of the best known and pre-eminent living cricket historians. Meets WP:GNG. AA (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]
Hi User:AssociateAffiliate, it would be very helpful for me and for other voters if you could clarify which 2-3 sources best demonstrate that Hignell meets WP:GNG. I couldn't find any when I looked, and the current article doesn't cite any that contain SIGCOV in my opinion! Thanks! Suriname0 (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep. Now up to six reliably published book reviews (of six different books, not counting reviews in specialist cricket web sites), enough for WP:AUTHOR for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 2 July 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.

Francis William Lascelles[edit]

(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)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]

1856 Cumberland (South Riding) colonial by-election[edit]

(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)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]

1856 Cumberland (North Riding) colonial by-election[edit]

(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)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Mewar–Delhi Sultanate Wars[edit]

(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 [5], [6], [7], [8]. 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)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 00:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: Imperial's and Flemmish's arguments seem very convincing. The wars between these two kingdoms were not a series of related conflicts but involving different entities (the various dynasties of Mewar and Delhi) ruling the same kingdoms and thus are completely unrelated. PadFoot (talk)

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 redirect‎ to Murree#History. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Murree rebellion of 1857[edit]

(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)[]

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.

History Proposed deletions[edit]

History categories[edit]

for occasional archiving

Proposals[edit]