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

Northwest India (pre-1947)

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

Article about a non topic, consisting of snippets of information we already cover properly and in depth in other articles. Mccapra (talk) 08:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan and India. Mccapra (talk) 08:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Draftify or delete if not improved: The article is extremely sparse at present and everything there is already covered in other articles. But the historical-cultural idea of "northwest India" (as opposed to specifically the Indus Valley, Punjab, etc.) does seem to have some scholarly attention, at least from outsiders: [1], [2]. If the article weren't fairly new, I would be a firm delete, but I'm willing to give the author the benefit of the doubt for now. But the article as it is isn't ready for mainspace. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[]

As the author of the article, I don't have much to add to it or to voice on its fate.

Some options might be to merge the contents into Northwestern South Asia, or if seen as necessary, to create a new article called 'Northwestern Indian subcontinent' and then include the post-1947 history of the region as well into that article. GreekApple123 (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Geography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Battle of Sebiba

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

Fails WP:GNG. M.Bitton (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep (with improvements) - appears potentially notable based on scale of the battle. Second source seems to be The Complete History which is a significant work. Probably needs some "according to" etc. given that we are inevitably dealing with historical accounts. Per WP:NONENG if any of the statements are controversial, some translated quotation of the original source(s) might be helpful. YFB ¿ 17:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Tunisia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete. Per nom. Can't find any mention of this in reliable (English) secondary sources, so it's certainly not a major or noteworthy engagement. Ibn al-Athir (The Complete History) and al-Idrisi (quoted in text) are primary sources, so even if there's no WP:OR involved here (which I'm not confident about), its mere mention in primary sources, in the absence of any mentions in secondary sources, means it doesn't meet WP:GNG. Overall, it just looks like another pseudo-puffery piece squeezed out of an obscure historical military engagement. R Prazeres (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[]

It's not easy to research this topic as most of the Arabic-language texts I can access e.g. via Google Books don't seem to support text selection (to check translation). However I found the following paper in the Algerian Historical Journal (for example) via a quick search for معركة سبيبة (Battle of Sebiba) https://www.asjp.cerist.dz/en/article/224926

I'm not sure how Ibn al-Athir can be considered a primary source in this context? He wasn't born until 95 years after this battle took place and he doesn't appear to have been directly connected to either of the combatant tribes. But IANA historian so perhaps I'm misunderstanding how this works. YFB ¿ 20:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[]

I found a French translation of Ibn al-Athir which is a bit more accessible to me at least. There is a whole section devoted to this battle, the context and its aftermath so it does seem fairly significant. Quick Google translation below of an extract:

"Then the Riyâh' and the Zenâta all set out together, and on his side En-Naçir having advanced at the head of the Çanhȧdja, the Zenâta and the Benoû Hilal, the two armies met [ P. 31 ] near the town of Sebiba ( 1 ) . Following the charge which the Riyâh' and El-Moʻizz made respectively against the Benoû Hilal and the Zenâta, these last two groups fled, and the troops of En-Naçir imitated their example. The fugitives were pursued with swords at their backs, and twenty-four thousand Çanhâdja and Zenâta were massacred. El-K'ȧsim ben 'Alennâs (2) , brother of En-Nåçir, was also killed, but the latter himself was able to flee with a small number of his men. The Arabs thus became masters of a rich booty consisting of everything that belonged to the vanquished, money, weapons, horses, etc., the sharing of which was carried out as agreed. This affair completed the Arabs' complete mastery of the country; having arrived without resources, poor and having very few horses, they then found themselves rich, abundantly provided with weapons and mounts, in the presence of a country almost without defenders. They sent the standards, the drums, the tents of En-Nâçir and the horses they contained, to Temim, who sent them back to them, saying that it would be shameful for him to seize the spoils of his cousin. The Arabs greatly appreciated this act of generosity."

I also found the following in https://www.persee.fr/doc/ccmed_0007-9731_1968_num_11_43_1452

"La défaite de Sabîba (1065), qui fait au Magrib Central pendant à celle de Haydarân, constraint bientôt al-Nâsir d'abandonner la Qal'a pour Bougie, qu'il vient de fonder (1068-9). Vannée suivante, il conclut avec Tamïm une paix que lui et ses successeurs respecteront jusqu'à la mort de Tamïm (1108)."

This is another secondary source that ascribes significance to the event. Definitely enough for GNG in my view. The article needs a lot of work, I will see what I can do to bring it up to scratch if retained or moved to Draft space.

YFB ¿ 00:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Another source, in English, which devotes more than two whole pages to this specific battle: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BvTjCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA43 (pages 43-45) YFB ¿ 01:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Thanks for looking. That last source (Baadj 2015) is the only one that gives me pause about notability, but it's still just one book, which doesn't fully solve the WP:GNG problem because you'd have to write most of the article from this single detailed source. (As for Ibn al-Athir and Idrisi, as asilvering notes below they are primary sources in the sense that they are medieval accounts from the same era, so they should be mediated by professional historians.) A quick reading of Baadj's account also makes it clear that this article, as is, would need to be completely re-written to even be understandable. I'd support draftifying at best, if there's a chance a competent editor would rewrite it, but WP:TNT otherwise. R Prazeres (talk) 05:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[]

@Yummifruitbat well, he's a secondary source in the sense that he wasn't at the battle, but from the perspective of writing history, we don't want to be basing articles on what someone said several hundred years ago, with no interpretation by modern historians. -- asilvering (talk) 03:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Ajja Jhala

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

Yet another installment of a WP:WALLEDGARDEN on the Jhala family created by a now-blocked sockmaster. The core sources for these articles are books of purported genealogy published by Jhala family descendants. This article takes a legendary genealogy and launders the sources to present it as history:

Genealogy, Archive, Image: Interpreting Dynastic History in Western India is edited by two Jhala family members, including one who presents himself as the current head of the Jhala dynasty and heir of its legendary founder. It presents a fantastic story of Ajja Jhala leading an army into battle headless.
Ulian's Rajput is a self-published book that repeats and embellishes the same rather fantastic legends.
This book is self-published through vanity press Notion Press.
The article also cites two explicitly fictional works to support factual claims: The Flute and the Sword and The Hero of the Aravalis.

Meanwhile, the independent/reliable sources do not present any of this legendary material as fact or otherwise.

Bhardwaj's Hemu gives a brief mention to Ajja Jhala (p. 49 and the same anecdote repeated on p. 87).
Hooja's A History of Rajasthan gives a single mention to Ajja Jhala.

In short, what WP:SIGCOV we have on the Ajja Jhala includes legend repeated by WP:SPS and WP:COI sources, making it a failure on WP:V. The independent coverage, such as it is, does not establish facts about this figure as presented in the article and is not sufficient SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 06:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and India. Dclemens1971 (talk) 06:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete per nom's thorough reasoning. APK hi :-) (talk) 06:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Mostly poor to unreliable sources and the somewhat reliable sources have entry to passing mention with no WP:SIGCOV. RangersRus (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete. The authors are of course interested in propping up their fanaticized family history. WP is not the place for this kind of promo. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Jhala dynasty

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

This article is another installment of a WP:WALLEDGARDEN on the Jhala family created by a now-blocked sockmaster. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harpal Dev Makwana for an example of a deleted article in this set and Jhala (clan) for an appropriately sourced version not created by a sockmaster. The core sources for these articles are books of purported genealogy published by Jhala family descendants. This article takes a legendary genealogy and launders the sources to present it as history:

The first set of sources are the unreliable ones:

Genealogy, Archive, Image: Interpreting Dynastic History in Western India is edited by two Jhala family members, including one who presents himself as heir and descendent of Harpal Dev and the current head of the so-called "dynasty." It includes fantastic stories from the vahi (legendary geneaologies of high-caste Indian families), for example one figure defeating a ghost in battle and marrying a goddess who supernaturally rescues their children from an elephant.
Ulian's Rajput is a self-published book that repeats and embellishes the same rather fantastic legends.
Kumarapala-prabandha appears to be mostly a repetition of legends
This book is self-published through vanity press Notion Press.

Meanwhile, the independent sources do not present any of this legendary genealogy.

Ramusack's The Indian Princes and Their States has a single WP:TRIVIALMENTION of the Jhalas (page 73)
Naravane's The Rajputs of Rajputana has a single paragraph describing the Jhalas as a "minor clan."
Singhji's The Rajputs of Saurashtra discusses the Jhala Rajputs but says of the earlier stories, "Bardic tales about their migrations from the Himalayan region to Sindh seem to contain little truth."

Additional sources include WP:RAJ-era surveys of questionable reliability and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in a gazetteer.

In short, what WP:SIGCOV we have on the Jhala dynasty includes legend repeated by WP:SPS and WP:COI sources. The independent coverage, such as it is, does not establish facts about this dynasty as presented in the article. With an adequately sourced article on the Jhala (clan) I think the best approach to this compromised article is WP:TNT. Bottom line: Fails WP:V and WP:GNG for lack of SIGCOV in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep. Looking at the article page, it does not seem to contain any far-fetched claims except the Origin section which should be renamed to 'Origin legend' or clarified that it is a traditional legend.

Also, the argument for unreliabity of the source Genealogy, Archive, Image: Interpreting Dynastic History in Western India being that the co-author is a Jhala doesn't seem valid considering that there are probably a million of Jhala people and shouldn't make them ineligible to write on the subject. Both the authors are also scholars in anthropolgy with Jhala having served as the Professor of Anthropology at Temple University as per the linked press release.

I do believe more context can be added regarding the tradtional sources the authors have used. But deleting the article would be an extreme step. The subject is very much notable. Many later kingdoms, states and principalities claimed descent from the members of this dynasty. Thank you. Krayon95 (talk) 09:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[]

The problem with Genealogy, Archive, Image isn’t only that it’s written by Jhalas. It’s that one of the authors claims to be the head of the dynasty (see link above) and the book is an effort to launder legends into a historical account. The other reliable sources to discuss the Jhalas do not do this, as I noted above. The appropriately sourced Jhala (clan) article covers this ground without retailing legends as facts. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Mostly poor to unreliable sources to WP:RAJ and does not meet WP:HISTRS and the somewhat reliable sources have entry to passing mention with no WP:SIGCOV. RangersRus (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[]

1970 Bhojpur uprising

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

Much of the content has nothing to do with the actual incident which is itself non-notable. The subject as a whole fails WP:GNG. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Bihar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Strong keep the nominator should have researched about the subject before nominating this. There are several high quality journals that are strictly written on this topic. Atleast they should have gone through reference section where they could've found following:

Sinha, Arun (1978). "Class War in Bhojpur: I". Economic and Political Weekly. 13 (1): 10–11. JSTOR 4366262.
Mukherjee, Kalyan (1979). "Peasant Revolt in Bhojpur". Economic and Political Weekly. 14 (36): 1536–38. JSTOR 4367921.
Rajendra Singh Yadav, Kalyan Mukherjee (1982). "For reasons of state: Oppression and resistance a study of Bhojpur peasantry, The Journal of Peasant Studies, 9:3". : Agrarian Movements in India: Studies on 20th Century Bihar: 119–147. doi:10.1080/03066158208438175. S2CID 154841960.
Sinha, Arun (1978). "Class War in Bhojpur: II". Economic and Political Weekly. 13 (3): 90–92. JSTOR 4366310..Admantine123 (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Explain how any of these sources establish WP:GNG. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete Passing mentions don't count when it comes to establish notability. Dympies (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep: Clearly passes WP:GNG, many reputed media articles, journals available on internet! Youknow? (talk) 10:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[]

National liberation struggle of the Ingush people

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

This article is a POVFORK and we already have a decent article at Ingush people. There may be some elements of this article that can be merged there, but I don’t think this article as a whole should be retained. Mccapra (talk) 06:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Russia. Mccapra (talk) 06:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and History. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Northern Campaign of Raghunath Rao

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

The article is a clear case of WP:SYNTH. Google Books provide no results at all for "Northern Campaign of Raghunath Rao" or the original title "Northern Conquest of Raghunath Rao". The editor has arbitrarily linked various battles of his own choice into a single conflict, not supported by any RS. Also, note that the orginal creator has been banned for sockpuppetry, and multiple sockpuppets have often tried to restore the article after other editors redirected the page. PadFoot (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Afghanistan, Delhi, and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete; clearly lacks notability as a singular subject. Much of the content fails verification and tries to blow out of proportion the historical significance of the events involving the winning states, as is typical with these socks. Noting to @Crashed greek that PadFoot was merely restoring the "backdoor deletion" rightly done by Sitush in October 2023 but repeatedly undone without just reason by socks. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[]

User Sitush mentioned by you is not an administrator with speedy deletion privilege. Crashed greek (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[]

He does not have to be. "Backdoor deletion" (less pejoratively referred to as WP:BLARing) can be done by any user. The only reason to revert such "deletion" would be if you have an actual objection to the reasons for the article's blanking and redirecting. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[]

LGBT history in Georgia

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

Redirect per wp:2DABS, unless there are more. --MikutoH ^talk! 00:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Sexuality and gender, Disambiguations, Georgia (country), and Georgia (U.S. state). --MikutoH ^talk! 00:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Another option is merge with LGBT history in Georgia and move that to LGBT in Georgia. --MikutoH ^talk! 00:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep There is no primary topic, so the base name needs to host a disambiguation page per WP:NOPRIMARY. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep Per WP:NOPRIMARY Demt1298 (talk) 01:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep: No primary topic. PamD 07:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Merge both LGBT history in Georgia and LGBT rights in Georgia into LGBT in Georgia, making the latter the host DAB instead of a redirect to just one of them. I agree with other !votes that each should be kept as a form of disambiguation as there is no a clear primary topic between the two, however I don't see why we can't redirect this to a more general article title which broadly covers the history and rights articles together. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep Per WP:NOPRIMARYas above. The merge between two pages not under discussion in this AfD may well be a good idea, but (a) I don't see why they should then assume the status of primary topic over an eponymous country, so the merged title should remain LGBT history in Georgia (U.S. state), (b) neither of the pages for merge are the subject of this AfD so it should be done as a merge discussion, (c) that merge would, in any case need to precede a following RM discussion, and page moves are not AfD outcomes. So all of that can be pursued separately. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]
I'm fairly sure a merge suggestion can form part of a discussion in an AfD, especially as renaming of pages is not actually a necessity to achieve that proposal. I also have no clue what you mean by point "a", perhaps there is a weak explanation on my part. Either way, I was clear that I agreed with the "keep" !votes in keeping the page as a means of disambiguating between two articles without a primary, but as the nom specifically mentioned the LGBT in Georgia (rights) article, I figured i'd offer a view on that too.

Besides, do we really need to have two DABs for the "history" and "rights" when we can just change LGBT in Georgia into a DAB article linking to all four? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep per above, a merge would be a nice idea to address separately. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep per WP:NOPRIMARY, I'm sure this happens to other articles for Georgia and Georgia. Dr vulpes (Talk) 13:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep: Good way to disambiguate per WP:NOPRIMARY. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 15:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Preference is keep the status quo of two dabs per WP:NOPRIMARY. Merging the two into a single DAB would be acceptable as the line between the two is a bit fuzzy although I think in general we maintain both articles for many localities so having to is fine. Strongly oppose any sort of removing the dabs and replacing with a redirect to one with just a hatnote. That's been discussed many, many as a general concept between the two Georgias and the current consensus is clearly no primary so TWODABS suggests having a disambiguation page (see all the RMs in Talk:Georgia (country) for example). Skynxnex (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Battle of Ajmer

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has gotten a lot of attention from a series of Indian milhist sockpuppets that are particularly interested in embellishing histories of non-notable "battles" that are lost by Muslim forces. I find only two hits on google scholar at this title, and zero for its original title, "Battle of Anasagara". asilvering (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. asilvering (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Speedy delete according to [3], entirely written by a WP:LLM. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]
gptzero's false positive rate isn't great - but I agree, I believe this is an LLM creation. -- asilvering (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Kutch Gurjar Kshatriyas contributions to the Indian railways

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

POVCRUFT dedicated to the glorification of a particular caste largely based on WP:SYNTH and relies on unreliable WP:RAJ sources. There is no academic source that has given significant coverage to this subject. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete this appears to be mainly OR, stitched together from snippets of material that are not about the topic in hand. Also from the language used it’s pretty clear that the creator had copied some material verbatim and not used their own words. Mccapra (talk) 04:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Transportation, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete Too much WP:OR to deal with. Dympies (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete This is more of a personal essay than an article, and very much full of OR. No evidence that secondary sources have covered this as a specific topic. Even if they had, this would still merit WP:TNT. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Steven Ujifusa

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

Tried draftfying this, and it was more or less immediately put back in mainspace. Tried find independent, and I couldn't find any. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete. The article is not written in correct format, and the author is clearly the subject (check username).

TheMotto (talk) 19:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Slightly off topic but can I request some eyes on this article [4] which the same author created 18 minutes before creating his own article. Google suggests some connection between author and subject. Axad12 (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete as per nom. Axad12 (talk) 02:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep. I added 17 reviews of his three books to the article, many of them reliably published in a mix of major newspapers and academic journals. There's easily enough for WP:AUTHOR here, even if we don't count the more-routine Publishers Weekly and Kirkus reviews. I don't know what the nominator tried but finding several of these took only plugging his name into Google News. As for formatting, see WP:DINC, but User:XOR'easter seems to have already done much of the necessary cleanup soon after the deletion nomination was made. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep per above. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep per found sources. Geschichte (talk) 08:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

I refuse to !vote to avoid encouraging anybody from using this platform as a free web host to draft an autobiography. He might be notable, but this creates a terrible precedent. Bearian (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[]
Just as we should not allow indiscriminate creation of autobiographies, we should not distort our content by letting the bad creation of an article on a notable subject prevent us from having an article on that subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Queen consort of Awadh

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

Couldn't find any sources with Googling (it returns information about the British royalty when you exclude Wikipedia). I tried draftification, and it was immediately recreated. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and India. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Mary Short comes up on Wikipedia, so maybe it could be more of a list-class article. I'd say redirect to Nawabs of Awadh, but I'm not sure what to retitle that to include queens consort. Maybe "Royalty of Awadh", and have Nawabs of Awadh redirect to that? Mrfoogles (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]

I didn't really know what to put, but feel free to change it all to something more appropriate. They were unofficially known as the queen consorts, though. Noodles09 (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Redirect to Nawabs of Awadh per Mrfoogles, considering the stub has no sources. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Redirect to Nawabs of Awadh for now and perhaps list notable Queen consorts there. If that list grows large enough, we can restart Queen consort of Awadh. Pichpich (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]
Yea, a more notable example would be Hazrat Mahal Noodles09 (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Maratha campaigns in Gujarat

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

The article attempts to present very different and completely unrelated conflicts as a single conflict. The article is a clear case of WP:SYNTH. The sack of Surat in 1664 which the article presents as the beginning of the conflict was carried out by Shivaji prior to his coronation. This conflict is then connected by the article to the raids by the Dhabade Maratha clan which has no connection to Shivaji's raid. This is then listed with the Peshwa-Gaekwad conquest of the region which again has nothing to do with the beforementioned conflicts. No WP:RS has been provided that treats these separate conflicts as a singular one. PadFoot (talk) 11:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete per nom. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete reminds me of a similar case on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mewar–Delhi Sultanate Wars. Basically the two articles presented the same issue where users compiled a bunch of unrelated conflicts into one single war. Article should be deleted per WP:SYNTH. Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Speedy delete: Only substantial edits are by two socks of the same sockmaster. Agree with nominator's original reasoning as well. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Frontiers of France: minor modifications since 1815

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

This is a very strangely titled article that discusses several minor territorial adjustments to France's borders with three different countries. The only sources in the article were published by the French government, meaning that there is no indication that these minor border changes have received any significant coverage outside of the relevant documents themselves. Aside from that, the vast majority of the article is completely unreferenced. The topic is also far too broad, as it would include every single "minor" French border adjustment since the end of the Napoleonic Wars. That type of article would be an indiscriminate collection of information. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 04:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Andorra, France, and Switzerland. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 04:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Merge to Territorial evolution of France (of which this article claims to be an "appendix", a rather odd concept on enwiki). I don't see any original research issues here: in addition to the references given, there are also references in the corresponding section of the frwiki article and the detailed articles linked from it. Notability of the subject as a whole isn't in doubt either, though perhaps the information could be summarised as part of the merge. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Merge to Territorial evolution of France seems like the best option here. Dr vulpes (Talk) 08:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Merge as above. Mccapra (talk) 11:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Katharina Valenta

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

Article does not meet notability per WP:GNG and my search produce no significant coverage per WP:SIGCOV. Demt1298 (talk) 02:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, History, Sexuality and gender, and Italy. Demt1298 (talk) 02:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Currently the sources in the page do not allow us to verify that she ever really existed. Even after looking through the results of a Google book search, I see an only few brief mentions in German texts from the 19th century. Bearian (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Ibrahim Agha (Algeria)

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

Article sounds more like a book than a Wikipedia article. Henry (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Royalty and nobility, and Algeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep the subject is plainly notable. Some of the article needs to be rewritten and looks to me like a cooyvio anyway, though I can’t get the source to load. Mccapra (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]
The "Hussein's reaction" section was translated directly from this page: https://web.archive.org/web/20130612123908/https://www.algerie-ancienne.com/Salon/Galib/8France/01expedit/17staoueli.htm I also checked the "Early life" section but did not find copying there. Other sections may also have copyright violations or close paraphrasing, but it's unlikely the entire article has been copied or translated directly here, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Maratha Resurrection

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

The article lacks WP:NOTABILITY, with only a single source provided which only briefly mentions the term. There seems to be no significant usage of this term in the scholarly community at all, with close to no scholars using this term. PadFoot (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh. Skynxnex (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment It appears there is are scholar and book resources that mentions this event, so it may be supported by WP:RS. (click Scholar/Book link at the top of this AfD). Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[]
There are only two citations in scholar that mention such a term, one deals with paintings of early modern era India, and other deals with Vidarbha cotton, none of them are specialised histories regarding the subject. PadFoot (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Unsure. The first citation is cited incorrectly, never a good sign in an article. It doesn’t link to the first paragraph at all. Google Scholar throws up three publications using the phrase, and they’re all 2023 and 2024… so maybe it’s becoming more popular recently, but it doesn’t seem to be there yet. I’d love to know if there are Indian language sources using the equivalent phrase, which is translated here into English? But I don’t have the language skills to find out. So, on the one hand, the article as written doesn’t establish notability, but there seems to be sources out there which might… means I can’t decide between weak keep and weak delete, but tend towards weak delete unless someone steps in and finds some sources so we can be sure it’s not something the creator came up with himself through synth. Absurdum4242 (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete Britannica is okay but per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, secondary sources are preferable. If there’s only one secondary source shown, then for now I am okay with deleting the article, until notability is established. I can be persuaded from my vote if someone provides more sources using this term. Someguywhosbored (talk) 04:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep (or maybe merge) Notability for the term "Maratha Resurrection" is not an issue, as multiple articles discuss it in the context of Peshwa Madhav Rao, such as this [5]. If the historical facts are accurate, the term does not need specialized historical articles to validate its significance. A phenomenon's name can stand on its own merit, regardless of extensive historical analysis. Therefore, if the information presented is correct, I oppose deleting the article. Notability is notability; it is not solely defined by "specialized scholars." Scholars provide historical analysis, while any historical event can be labeled differently over time without distorting history, as long as the facts remain intact. If the historical facts here are wrong, then delete it. Otherwise-keep. Thanks.

DangalOh (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]

@DangalOh, I think get what you mean to say here. The various battles mentioned in the article are notable, but the "Maratha resurrection" as a single event enveloping all these conflicts into a single one is not supported by many reliable sources. Such a term lacks notability and widespread usage in the scholarly community (see WP:HISTRS). A merger into another suitable article would be alright though. PadFoot (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

I understand it. If the series of events are absolutely unrelated and are being portrayed more like a synthesis, then it's a no. But if those events are related or depict a phenomenon that might not have been specifically termed as something like 'Maratha resurrection' by most of the WP:HISTRS, it might still merit inclusion. As logic suggests, WP:HISTRS is meant to establish or verify history. A term for a series of events (unless the events are entirely unrelated and someone is trying to make them seem connected) can be developed at any point in time. And yes, I do believe a standalone article is a bit too much. But I trust you—you will find a way to not completely remove this and find a good article (maybe the main one) to merge it into without compromising its integrity. The term might gain more traction in the future; maybe then people can discuss a standalone article. Thanks. DangalOh (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete Per nom, I don't think there's enough scholarly sources that properly refer to a "Maratha resurrection". The scholar search up bit wasn't really much per Padfoot's explanation. Noorullah (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Appears to have been canvassed here. Noorullah21 Notice. Lightburst (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep I have added some sources. It is a significant evening. Other Indian kingdoms had thought Maratha empire was weakened a lot after the loss of Battle of Panipat on 1761, but Marathas regained territory up to Delhi in 1771 and Najibababad 1772 battle. That is very much notable. And also the exact term Maratha Resurrection was used in multiple sources. Though Marathas could not occupy up to Peshawar like before the Panipat battle, this was a significant territory away from their capital Poona. Crashed greek (talk) 08:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]
The added source (snippet) only includes a brief mention of the term, without providing any explanations of the term. I'm not sure whether you understand WP:NOTABILITY. A simple scholar search will show that there are close to zero sources that use term "Maratha resurrection", clearly depicting that the term lacks notability in the scholarly community. PadFoot (talk) 13:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Merge There doesn't seem to be enough context or content for a standalone article, but it seems this could easily be merged into Maratha Empire as a sub-heading in the History section. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment: Unless I am missing something these individual talk page notices from the nominator (@PadFoot2008:) look like WP:CANVASSING. Both AirshipJungleman29 and Flemmish_Nietzsche previously !voted delete on one of the nominator's other AfD nominations and Noorullah just looks like someone the nominator knows.

Lightburst (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

@Lightburst, sorry, I am new to AfDs, (this one is my first one). I wouldn't notify anyone else. So I can't notify people who often contribute to this field? PadFoot (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[]

@PadFoot2008: Always best to allow editors to find these through the projects- this AfD was posted in several. If you reach out to individuals it always has the appearance of bringing a like-minded editor to change consensus. I am sure others can explain better than I can. Also read the link WP:CANVASSING as it is nuanced. Lightburst (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[]

@Lightburst, Alright, thank you. PadFoot (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete Per DangalOh's admission, But if those events are related or depict a phenomenon that might not have been specifically termed as something like 'Maratha resurrection' by most of the WP:HISTRS, it might still merit inclusion... The term might gain more traction in the future; maybe then people can discuss a standalone article. As and when scholars will start using this term, we will swiftly create this article. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Flagon and Trencher

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, only mentions and brief descriptions (for example, on ProQuest). toweli (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, History, Organizations, and United States of America. toweli (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep. Found some pieces that document the activity of the organization. Take a look [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. Piscili (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[]
Those don't provide significant coverage and/or aren't reliable sources. toweli (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]

1979 Bangladesh-Indian skirmishes

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

No significant casualties, no WP:LASTING coverage. Wikipedia discourages articles based on WP:NOTNEWS and this is nothing more than that. Nxcrypto Message 14:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Bangladesh, and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep - article seems well sourced, and several sources are in the late 2010s, some 40 years after the conflict itself, making a nonsense of the “no lasting coverage” claim… it’s… difficult not to see this as politically based spamming since the last couple of nominations on Indian-Bangladeshi border skirmishes from this same editor are just cut and paste, and they have nominated other similar articles last week too… I’ll assume good faith though, and just say that I disagree that the article meets the criteria for deletion based on the merits. Absurdum4242 (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep It is a notable incident, Lasting effect? It did have some. Nxcrypto, I noticed that you are copying the same message in similar AfD Discussions, Without even checking the page and It's content and aftermath a lot. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (Message)
True The 1979 clash is very notable and it does not violate Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Nxcrypto for some reason is copying and pasting the same message in multiple AfD Discussions, And some people will not check the page and just want to delete it, So they will say "It does not establish WP:GNG and WP:Lasting", Even when, It is clearly notable event with coverage many years later. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (Message)
Citations - The page has several citations including from books and newspapers, some require subscription or have limited information but I think the page meets with General Notability Guidelines. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (Talk with BangladeshiEditorInSylhet)
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Creating an article by collecting outdated archives instead of modern sources ensures that the subject failed to attract lasting coverage. --Dympies (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete The incident was itself so insignificant that it makes sense why it fails WP:GNG. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

I remain confused at how the three last-minute delete votes on the day this was set to close can claim a lack of “modern sources” when the Indian Foreign Policy book, for example, was first written in 2007, with the 7th edition being linked to being published in 2018. Add in the cut and paste nature of the original nomination and… as much as I hate to suggest everyone isn’t arguing in good faith, this feels like brigading?

Also…. I don’t think that’s how WP:NOTNEWS works? Given that this happened almost 50 years ago? Absurdum4242 (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[]

@Absurdum4242: Notwithstanding how other participants have phrased it, WP:LASTING refers to lasting effects, not lasting coverage. The single 75-word paragraph in the book is lasting coverage, and distinguishes this event from some discussed at AfD recently which have none, but that paragraph's conclusion is telling: "forces of the two countries clashed but the tension soon cooled down." Nothing significant happened. No one was killed, injured, or taken prisoner; no territory, booty, or reparations changed hands; no new method of determining the border was adopted; no treaty was signed. The event was not a precedent or catalyst for anything. There were no lasting effects. The paragraph in the book suggests that the event may be worth a paragraph in an article more broadly focused on Bangladesh-India border relations. It is not suitable for a stand alone article. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Ah, so the correct WP would be WP:Continuedcoverge instead, where “ The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance.”? Absurdum4242 (talk) 04:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep Passes WP:GNG, enough coverage in WP:RS including editorials. Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[]

No. Not at all. Nxcrypto Message 08:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Draft if Needed - I suggest draft if this does get deleted. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet

Şarkı

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

Hard to search for sources as I am not a native speaker and the word means “song”. Seems unlikely to be notable but instead of deleting could perhaps be merged? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[]

If sources are located discussing the specific song form, then a merge could be sensible. As is, however, I think either a redirect to fasıl or the definition on Wiktionary (via {{wiktred}}) would make the most sense. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep: Although it is a stub, the article is about a specific musical form, which is notable on its own. [14] A potential merge would be an editorial dicussion, not an AfD discussion.

TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment - The current article is little more than a dictionary definition and it is not very encyclopedic. As a type of song, this article could be expanded into something similar to ballad or aria, but knowledgeable editors will have to do a lot of work. "Unencyclopedic" and "needs expansion" are not good criteria for a vote so I am merely commenting here, but I recommend that someone gather the forces at Project Cleanup, Article Rescue Squadron, and/or Project Turkey. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Redirect to fasıl. As I wrote above, this is not keepable as is. I do not think the subject is inherently notable as Joyful seemingly suggested, and without anyone championing its expansion, why should we just let it sit? I agree with Doomsdayer that reaching out to those projects would probably help, but until such time where there is a response and work begins, I don't think it's right to leave this alone. And the article can always be restored and expanded. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Verkine Karakashian

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Theatre, Armenia, Greece, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete. No refs. If any coverage of this person ever surfaces, it would take exactly 10 minutes to write a better article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep: There is a book reference in the article. I would suggest to keep the article, unless someone actually provided an assessment of its coverage. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[]

@TheJoyfulTentmaker That is not a valid policy based keep vote. WP:SIGCOV requires multiple sources with independent significant coverage, which we generally interpret at AFD is a minimum of three sources. One book source, no matter how in-depth does not meet our notability guidelines.4meter4 (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[]

I kindly disagree, a single book may indicate existence of more sources. Even without references, deletion nominators are expected to do a good faith WP:BEFORE: to check Google, Google Books, Google Scholar, and Wikipedia Library if possible. AfD is not a place to urge people to fix unreferenced articles. Nomination must come only after there are good indicators that the subject is not notable, regardless of the state of the article; as stated in WP:NEXIST. Sorry for repeating these in multiple nominations of yours, but there are not enough people watching these nominations about niche topics like this one, and I honestly believe it will be a loss for the encyclopedia if these are prematurely deleted. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[]

@CeeGee I think you created the article, pinging just in case you were not notified. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[]

We need other sources, suggesting that they exist isn't helpful Oaktree b (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[]

@TheJoyfulTentmaker You seem to be misinterpreting policy language. WP:SIGCOV requires multiple sources as a non-negotiable criteria for all wikipedia articles. It's a must and its policy. Period. WP:NEXIST requires people voting to keep articles to produce multiple sources at the time of making a keep argument at an AFD. Asserting there are sources through guesswork is not following NEXIST; nor is arguing for keep based on a book you personally have not seen. Providing sources with url links or the names, publication dates, and pages of specific sources that you personally have looked at is following NEXIST. As for me, I looked at several standard opera reference works, including a Russian language music encyclopedia and found nothing on this person. My attempt at BEFORE may not be perfect but please WP:AGF. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[]

I suggest you re-read WP:SIGCOV because it doesn't say what you think it does. The immediate subsection doesn't mention the number of sources but a bit further it says "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Multiple sources are not a "must" and the requirement is not "policy" (our notability documents relate to guidance rather than policy). Thincat (talk) 10:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: Well, this source mentions this person [15], but that's all I can find. I don't think we have enough sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[]
@Oaktree b Just a note: during the period she was active, The Ottoman Empire used the Arabic writing system. So search is not trivial. Even modern sources include various different spellings of her name. Trying the modern Turkish spelling Verkine Karakaşyan, I can easily find at least one journal paper. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Also, I can only see a short segment from the Google Books preview, but the book you linked might have a significant coverage (there are three search hits in separate places of the book). Here is the the second one, page 67: "... Verkine Karakashian read his poem “Freedom” and moved the audience so deeply that the ceremony was repeated for several nights in a row. After this incident, gradually more young girls showed the courage to go onstage and break the ...". Seems there is more before and after this passage, and this itself probably has a citation in the book; so if anyone has access to this book it would be really helpful if you could check. Separately, I added two more sources to the article and found the ISBN number of the book, referenced by CeeGee, who created the article. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment: The Armenian wiki has some links, but I'm not in a position to say if they're RS or not. Oaktree b (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete Clearly not notable Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 17:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment: The sourcing is improved, now we have 6 references (one thanks to @Oaktree b's Armenian Wikipedia pointer), and hopefully notability concerns are now reduced. Also, I'm curious about the opinions @Basak and @Buidhe, who are experienced editors with contributions related to Ottoman Armenians on the English or the Turkish Wikipedia. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep: Covered by several additional Turkish sources [16][17] Additional Armenian sources [18][19] The main ref in the Armenian article is the Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia. Whether there were citations at the time of the nomination is irrelevant to AfD. Aintabli (talk) 03:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep I see that new relevant sources were added since the beginning of this discussion, therefore to me it is clear that the article should be kept. Of course, it’s possible to add more sources and improve the article. For example here, it’is possible to learn what were the important roles she played in her years at Güllü Agop Company and in Benliyan Operet Company: Women in Ottoman theater life — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basak (talk • contribs) 06:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC) --Basak (talk) 06:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Battle of Jammu (1808)

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

KM Panikkar is the only reliable source presented here. Autar Singh Sandhu is not a reliable source as there is only one book that can be traced to him which was written in 1935; there are zero mentions of his educational credentials, bibliography, or reviews of scholarly work available, and he was deprecated by an admin in the RSN-[20]. The link to GULAB SINGH (1792-1857) is broken. Panikkar does make some mention of this battle (in page 15 and 16), but the information is not sufficient enough to warrant an article.

Note: AFDs pertaining to conflicts involving Sikhs have been targeted in the past by socks. I will focus only on content/sourcing issues in the AFD, but will seek outside resolution if there are indicators of sockpuppetry/block evasion. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, and Jammu and Kashmir. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please keep comments reserved to discussing the article, its sources and notablity and not about other editors who may or may not be socks. Not every editor who disagrees with you is a sock or is trying to sabotage a discussion. Please refocus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[]

I substantially trimmed the addendum, and will only focus on content/sourcing issues in the discussion. Thanks. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Lakana

AfDs for this article:

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

Lakana presents this term as representing a specific type of watercraft (an outrigger canoe) with a specific type of rig (the "downwind" mastless rig that is supported between two sprits). This specific type of craft does exist – it is shown in the photo illustrating the article. However, in Malagasy, as far as I can determine, the word "Lakana" is any type of canoe, with or without outriggers, with or without a sailing rig, and certainly not confined to just one type of sailing rig. This is clear from the reference in the article
Hornell, James (1920). "67. The Common Origin of the Outrigger Canoes of Madagascar and East Africa". Man. 20: 134–139. doi:10.2307/2839454. Retrieved 5 September 2024.
which has a translation provided by a colonial administrator confirming that "lakana" is not a specific type of canoe, but a canoe (or boat) in general. Hornell is still seen as a useful authority on the ethnography of sailing craft in the areas in which he worked. If the word applied to a particular hull and rig combination, he would have picked up on this.

I have asked for help on the Wikiproject Madagascar[21] with no result. Therefore, I think we have to conclude that these concerns about the article are correct. If "lakana" is a much broader term than the article suggests, if we do not the name of the type of craft that the article describes (I can find no source that makes this clear), then the only option is to delete the article as unsupported by sources.

In passing, it is worth saying that I have come to the conclusion that though the subject of traditional sailing craft in Madagascar would make a very interesting (to me) article on Wikipedia, there simply are not sufficient sources to do the subject justice. This is after some considerable searching. (It would be great to be proved wrong in this.) ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 13:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment this is the second AfD nomination for Lakana, but the first related to a company not a type of boat. TSventon (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, History, Transportation, and Africa. Skynxnex (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment. In terms of:

Scope. To my read, the article doesn't state (at least not directly as interpreted by the nominator) that the article "presents this term as representing a specific type of watercraft (an outrigger canoe [of Madagascar]) with a specific type of rig". Rather it states (as would appear to be supported by Hornell (1920; p.138) and Richardson (1887; p.345)) that the Lakana is (yes) a specific type of watercraft. Being an outrigger canoe. That is "dug out". Rather than "built". IE: A "specific type of watercraft (a dugout outrigger canoe [of Madagascar])". Which is supported by Richardson in particular. Yes, the article mentions different types of rigging. But I don't read it as stating that the rigging type is part of the definition/classification. If that is unclear, I would suggest that we clarify or change the text. Rather than delete the article.
Sources. To my mind, there are sufficient sources (including the two above) to support some text about the subject. Being a type of dugout outrigger traditionally used in Madagascar. Even if just as a sub-set / sub-section of the Pirogue article. Which appears to cover the "generic" class of small dugout canoe. Globally. With a redirect left behind. To a subsection on the Madagascan type.
Suggested action. If the issues with the title are scope (including clarity of the text) or sources (reflecting them), I'm not sure that outright deletion is the right way to go. Deletion isn't cleanup. At the very least, a merge/redirect seems like the way to go. To Pirogue. Leaving out any "questionable" or potentially confusing text.

My 2x cents at any rate. Guliolopez (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment.

Translation: The key issue is whether Lakana is a term for "outrigger canoes which are based on a dugout hull" or if it applies to "any dugout canoe". The two sources discussed above seem to give the definition of an unqualified "dugout canoe". At present the article is solely about the outrigger version. To assist in decision-making on the meaning, see this video [22] with the caption "Miandry ny lakana miampita" which google translates as "The boat is waiting to cross". We can see there is no outrigger. (Whilst OR is not allowed for article content, there is no prohibition on using it to help understand a subject.) The boat in the video is very different from the seagoing outrigger canoes.
What makes this more difficult is the knowledge that the Vezo make use of outrigger canoes with a distinctive common spritsail rig (as defined by Edwin Doran [23], pg 40, fig 21, drawing B) that is not described, in Madagascar, by Hornell or anyone else. (Hornell describes this rig in the neighbouring Comoro Islands [24]) A Vezo boat is the one illustrating the Pirogue article – but there is no RS that identifies the rig type. And, of course, Commons has no obligation for its descriptions of pictures to be supported by an RS. This might contribute to the impetus for deletion in this editor's mind (as proposer), as there is a very common class of Madagascan dugout outrigger canoe that is totally undescribed in RSs, so making the subject incomplete. (See youtube[25] for these Vezo craft under sail, which is something that most believe Hornell never saw). All I have to back this thought up is some private correspondence with a researcher on Austronesian rigs – so essentially WP:OR.
If I understand User:Guliolopez correctly, their suggestion would mean a complete rewrite of the article to fit the sources and then merge it into Pirogue. That would fit with the intent behind the proposal: that we do not really have enough sourced material for an article on the Lakana on its own. Have I got this correct? ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Reply. Hi ThoughtIdRetired. RE: "suggestion would mean a complete rewrite of the article to fit the sources and then merge it into Pirogue". Effectively, yes, I think that's probably the most appropriate outcome. Retain the title. As a redirect. And summarise and merge the content/text (about the Lakana being a form of Pirogue/dugout traditionally associated with Madagascar) into the Pirogue article. Guliolopez (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete. (Note: prior to the AfD nomination, I had suggested to the nominator that they put this up for deletion.) My take on the current sources etc. is that none of them indicate that the lakana is anything other than the Malagasy for a canoe. My interpretation of each source etc. below:
- "The lateen rig allows a lakana to sail closer to the wind, so giving some windward performance.[1]”
  - My interpretation: Doesn't indicate that the lakana is something different.
- "The boat is often referred to by the general French term "pirogue", which can include boats with no outriggers.[2]"
  - My interpretation: “general French term” suggests there's nothing special about the lakana.
- “The technology was adapted in neighboring East Africa, like the Tanzanian ngalawa and the Fulani laana.[3][4]”
  - My interpretation: Can't access these sources, but the Wikipedia wording suggests that there are similar craft elsewhere - i.e. there's nothing peculiar to Madagascar about these.
- “some locals prefer the Hazomalany wood (Hazomalania voyronii of the family of Hernandiaceae).[5]”
  - My interpretation: Doesn't indicate that the lakana is something different.
- Hornell, James (September 1920). “The Common Origin of the Outrigger Canoes of Madagascar and East Africa”
  - My interpretation: Only indicates that “lakana” is simply the Malagasy for “canoe”.
- Richardson, J (December 1887). “The Affinities Of Malagasy With The Melanesian Languages”
  - My interpretation: Only indicates that “lakana” is simply the Malagasy for “canoe”.
- “An Austronesian square-sail is more common (e.g. in Ambaro Bay).[a]”
  - My interpretation: Doesn't indicate that the lakana is something different.

--A bit iffy (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does not qualify for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[]

~~Delete~~, as there is very little material in this article that can be merged into Pirogue. On going through this in detail, there are perhaps three sentences to add to Pirogue from this article. (The tree species used for the sailing versions, the "lakana" is the Malagasy for pirogue, and that this word applies to dug out canoes, with or without outriggers and with various rigs. We cannot say more as the sailing rigs are incompletely described by sources.) Lakana would just remain as a redirect. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[]

I'm stiking your duplicate vote. Your nomination statement is your Delete vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Okjeo language

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

Okjeo (Okchŏ) was a polity described in the Dongyi section of the Chinese Records of the Three Kingdoms. They surely spoke some language, but not one word of it is recorded. The only information about the language is the statement in the above chapter that "the language is much the same as Goguryeo but with small differences here and there". That is not enough for an article, and is already included in the Puyŏ languages article, which is about four languages mentioned in that Chinese source.

All the references in the article are either paraphrases of that statement or are actually about the Goguryeo language, for which some (controversial) evidence does exist. Kanguole 22:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Hello. Although I cannot say if the article should be removed or kept due to my biases with my edits on the article, I just want to say that I don't believe deletion should be an option and at most, make it a redirect to the Puyŏ languages as you say the information is included in the article itself. Spino-Soar-Us (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Redirect to Puyŏ languages. seefooddiet (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, History, and Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep: I am satisfied with the sources and structure of the page and think it could be retained as a detailed article. Opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep I think the amount of references is acceptable for the scope of this topic. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[]

British army in the Eureka Rebellion

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

Unnecessary content fork. Content could easily be merged into Eureka Rebellion and List of Eureka Stockade defenders. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[]

keep not at all a WP:CFORK. I see almost no overlaps. And we don't merge large articles into huger ones. --Altenmann >talk 17:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[]
- Just wanted to note that 860 words of readable prose is hardly a large article. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete unnecessary WP:CFORK and one of many excessive bloated pages about this minor event. Mztourist (talk) 04:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete clearly a CFORK, I don't even see any content that would be worth keeping in a merge. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is pretty extensive so I'd prefer a bit more confirmation that deletion is the right call here over any possible WP:ATD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete per other contributors, there's nothing here that's unique to this article and therefore nothing to merge. Archimedes157 (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[]

History Proposed deletions

edit]

History categories

for occasional archiving

Proposals