Points of interest related to Social science on Wikipedia:
Category – Deletions – Stubs

Points of interest related to Sociology on Wikipedia:
Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do

Deletion SortingProject (talk)Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts .mw-parser-output .navbar{display:inline;font-size:88%;font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .navbar-collapse{float:left;text-align:left}.mw-parser-output .navbar-boxtext{word-spacing:0}.mw-parser-output .navbar ul{display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap;line-height:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::before{margin-right:-0.125em;content:"[ "}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::after{margin-left:-0.125em;content:" ]"}.mw-parser-output .navbar li{word-spacing:-0.125em}.mw-parser-output .navbar a>span,.mw-parser-output .navbar a>abbr{text-decoration:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-mini abbr{font-variant:small-caps;border-bottom:none;text-decoration:none;cursor:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-full{font-size:114%;margin:0 7em}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-mini{font-size:114%;margin:0 4em}v t e

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Social science.

Further information

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

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science/archive

Purge page cache

watch

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

Social science[edit]

Moisés Espírito Santo Bagagem

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

Previously deleted and salted as Moisés Espírito Santo. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Religion, Social science, and Portugal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - normally I'm a quick "delete it again!" for recreation of salted material, but in this case the author has waited 16 years since the last delete and 18 since the original AfD, which is more than enough time for a subject's actual notability and our community consensus to change (and though I cannot access the deleted version, the writer seems to have taken to heart the comments from the 2006 AfD). So I'll urge !voters to give this a fresh look, ignoring the previous salt. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody other than me waited 16 years - this was created in 2010 and flew under the radar for those years. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails the WP:GNG criteria and is not saved by WP:NACADEMIC. And the fact that this brochure has been created by one kamikaze account and curated by a couple of "others", does not help. Ignore the advice of cardiologists and salt generously. -The Gnome (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going Ape

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

This article was previously deleted after an expired PROD. I could not find significant coverage of this documentary in reliable sources. I could not find any critical reviews. The New York Times source states, in full: "This three-part series looks at the way humans mimic chimpanzee behavior, starting with the power walk and dominance posture of the alpha male." The Futon Critic is a press release. A redirect to National Geographic Channel might be appropriate. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Animal, Science, Behavioural science, Psychology, and Social science. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article should probably be marked as a stub in need for more references. As a National Geographic TV show featuring renowned primatologist and presenter Charlotte Uhlenbroek, it must have had coverage and reviews in media. The New York Times link is an example. JohnMizuki (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @JohnMizuki, I conducted a search and the only coverage of the show are brief announcements like the one in the NYT. A one sentence description is not significant coverage. The source's that you've added do not contribute to notability. The National Geographic sources are not independent and TV Guide is a one sentence description with links to find where to watch the show online.
One way to establish notability would be to provide the three best sources that you can find. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding new sources that have been added: Broadway World is a NatGeo press release; OC Register has only three sentences about Going Ape: "This three-part series examines how similar human behavior is to that of our primate cousins. The show uses hidden cameras, social experiments and footage of apes and monkeys in the wild to show how human social behavior mirrors that of other species."; and Gizmodo is one sentence followed by a couple paragraphs quoting from a NatGeo press release description of the show.
I will also add that I conducted my WP:BEFORE search on Google, Google News, and Newspapers.com, and the only sources I could find were one or two sentence TV Guide-type listings in newspapers, similar to the NYT. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even with the newly added citations, it seems to fail GNG. Nearly all of the sources (other than PRs) make brief mentions of the show. It lacks in-depth independent analysis/coverage from a reliable major pub. X (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of National Geographic original programming. Fails WP:GNG as a standalone article. Available independent sources are only short descriptions from TV listings, not significant coverage. Jfire (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xuanchuan

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

I don't see the need for this article to stand alone, the current article could well be merged back into propaganda in China in several parts, some of which could be split out and put into Wiktionary. So I think it would be better to merge into Propaganda in China#Terminology. ときさきくるみ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 01:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Social science and China. ときさきくるみ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 01:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Especially if you are the one to do the merger - you are a good and careful editor. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose owing to unnecessary wordiness. Merging Propaganda in China (7726 words) and Xuanchuan (1560 words) would result in 9286 words, which exceeds the Article size guidelines. Keahapana (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Keahapana: This is not a major problem, and given that a lot of the content is in fact duplicated and a significant portion of the xuanchuan content is unsourced, it is entirely possible to trim it down to meet the standard. ときさきくるみ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 05:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social science Proposed deletions[edit]

Language[edit]

Bosnian names of primate families

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

Violates WP:DICDEF. Occidental𓍝Phantasmagoria [T/C] 17:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Animal, Lists, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. LizardJr8 (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way out of scope. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and violation of WP:DICDEF. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with most of the exonym lists! —Tamfang (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of translations of The Lord of the Rings

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

Not every bit of LOTR minutiae needs to be recorded here, fails WP:LISTN as a subject that hasn't received significant attention as a group, No idea why "Elrond's library", a French shop, is in the lead singled out as a source for this either. Fram (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Language, Literature, and Lists. Fram (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is certainly not "minutiae", but a remarkable indication of the novel's importance. The source you mention is really just a footnote or aside, it has no special importance. If editors really don't want a stand-alone list, then of course we can merge it back to Translating The Lord of the Rings, but that seems quite extreme to me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure a list is more of an indication of importance than a summary thereof would be (e.g. "It has been translated into X languages as of year Y"). TompaDompa (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly a far better substantiated indication; and of course it allows readers to check for themselves in whichever language they may happen to be interested. I may note that this list has existed in some form since 2008: it has been edited by many hands. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But the fact that the article The Lord of the Rings lists links to 113 translations. The figure of 113 is already a "remarkable indication of the novel's importance". Anyone interested in these translations can find all that they want to know by following the appropriate links. So my recommendation would be delete. Athel cb (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is one of those articles that has no better home. Wikipedia provides for list articles, and this one satisfies the conditions. Indeed, this provision seems to explicitly rationalize lists like this one: The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion. I read Wikipedia’s acceptance of lists to be quite broad, since the guidelines discuss such acceptable topics as lists of plants in some obscure taxa, lists of words, and so forth, and explicitly states that the individual list elements need not be notable. The reason Wikipedia is the best home for this material is that a scholarly source would not be up-to-date, while copying from them could be copyright violation, since it would be significant content copied in its entirety. Meanwhile, fan sites regularly go belly-up, leaving a gap in cataloging important literature. The list notability guidelines provide for this kind of list: The remarkable diversity of translations has been noted in scholarly circles many times (these references are needed in the article, such as from List_of_translations_of_The_Lord_of_the_Rings). Given the precedence and guidelines on Wikipedia, I do not see this article as being a candidate for deletion — certainly not until lists of less general interest get cleaned out and the guidelines get tightened to exclude, rather than include, this kind of list. Strebe (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The fact that a novel was translated to over 57 languages should automatically make a list like this notable- that is amazing in itself. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 19:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NLIST. While being translated into 57 different languages is certainly impressive, how impressive something is isn't a valid inclusion criteria for lists. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Italian language in Romania

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

Not really about the Italian language in Romania. It’s mostly a coatrack about Italians in Romania and about the similarities between Romanian and Italian. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, History, Italy, and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Italians in Romania per WP:ATD. Most of the article seems to be about Italians in Romania, with only a fraction about what the article should be about. Thus merge it and move the content actually about the the Romanian and Italian languages to a section of Italians in Romania or a section under Romanian or Italian. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom and per Flemmish Nietzsche. Article is not mainly of its topic and has a lot of unsourced information. I don't think the topic is notable to justify its split from Italians in Romania, it's not like the language is very present in the country. Super Ψ Dro 22:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doonga

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

PRODed in 2019, removed without explanation. 100% unnotable surname failing WP:NNAME and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Of the sources in the article, one does not seem to mention the name at all, and one is an unreliable user-generated website/database that means nothing in terms of notability. No other sources were found in my search that would help its case. Also appears to have been created by someone who has the surname. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information about the history of the page, if it's of any importance: it was draftified not long after creation for sourcing issues and lack of notability and seems to have been moved directly back into mainspace by the creator without addressing the issues. Also in at least one instance, maintenance tags (notability, source reliability) were removed without attempt to address the issues. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Hinduism, and India. Skynxnex (talk) 06:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't see an article in the Hindu Wikipedia for डूँगा. It would be at hi:डूँगा if it existed. Forebears.com https://forebears.io/surnames/doonga has a user-suggested (and therefore non-reliable) explanation of the origins of the name which links it to Dunga Gali in present-day Pakistan, and the Imperial Gazetteer reference is a paragraph about Dunga Gali. The Hindu newspaper has several instances of the word, but not as a surname. https://www.thehindu.com/search/#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=Doonga&gsc.sort= The article is a stub. https://www.thehindu.com/search/#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=Doonga&gsc.sort= Oxford English Dictionary has a listing behind a paywall: https://www.oed.com/dictionary/doonga_n?tl=true And apparently doonga is also the name of a type of boat. It would be really nice if someone who reads Hindi could locate a directory of Hindu surnames that could be used as a reference here. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per nom. Article with zero references. Svartner (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if we kept this one, then still don't have any articles on any notable person with this surname which could be cited as examples on this article. Azuredivay (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spanish words of Nahuatl origin

AfDs for this article:

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

Ehrmagerd, werds! Wikipedia is not a dictionary. PepperBeast (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Lists, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I think this one could be merged into Nahuatlismo. At least some list would be OK to have there. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 18:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep intro is not a dictionary and lists is probably fine? User:Sawerchessread (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I’m not comfortable with so much material with no inline citations but I’m assuming most or all of the article content is potentially sourceable and the topic could be expanded. Doesn’t feel like TNT territory to me. Mccapra (talk) 09:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia has many lists like these and I don't see an issue with them, sure maybe it would be preferable that they be transformed into regular articles with more prose, but I don't think deletion is the solution here. The only real issue here is, as Mccapra pointed out, the lack of citations.★Trekker (talk) 02:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

French exonyms

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

PepperBeast (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, and Europe. PepperBeast (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT, not to mention being entirely unsourced. ---- D'n'B-t -- 14:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep this was just closed as no consensus a couple weeks ago, and has been re-nominated by the same nominator. Definitely a WP:TROUT or possibly even sanctions may be in order. SportingFlyer T·C 18:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> just closed as no consensus a couple weeks ago

That's... that's the point of re-nominating. To... create consensus where it wasn't possible to do so before. BrigadierG (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, the mass deletion of all exonym listicles failed to reach consensus, so they are now listed separately. —Tamfang (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Well, that's still ridiculous then. The UN has a working group specifically on French exonyms, as does the French government, showing this is a valid encyclopedic topic. I don't know how any of you are getting to WP:NOTDICTIONARY here - these are not definitions or dictionary entries but rather valid lists - and WP:LISTCRUFT is simply an "i don't like it" argument. SportingFlyer T·C 19:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, an article on the working group might be interesting. But how is an endless list of French words for places more worthy than a list of French words for spices or engine parts? —Tamfang (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that link, the author refers to the project as an attempt to create a database. Sure would be a shame if there was a policy called WP:NOTDATABASE. BrigadierG (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a database, though, it's a valid WP:LIST. SportingFlyer T·C 22:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In most of our lists, most of the entries have their own articles. Is there any prospect of an article about the French word for Bangkok? —Tamfang (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NLIST specifically says the entries in the list do not need to be notable enough for their own article, just that the group or set is notable. A simple Google scholar search lends more credibility to the fact this set is notable, such as [1] [2] [3], including (but not linking here) two articles on French exonyms for Polish place names. SportingFlyer T·C 23:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

… I meant to add: no consensus because not all such listicles are equally trivial, i.e., some do more than belabor the obvious fact that each language adapts foreign words (including placenames) to its own phonology and orthography. —Tamfang (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true. There was no consensus because there was simply too much in the nom for one discussion. My bad. So, I'm going back through the area in a more rational way. Re-listing when no consensus emerges is what's supposed to happen. PepperBeast (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with nominator, this is a case of WP:NOTDICTIONARY BrigadierG (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus. Please include a link to any previous AFDs concerning these articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish exonyms

AfDs for this article:

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

I've been everywhere, man. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I'm also nominating this, for the same reason. Note, there was a previous discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkish names for cities, towns, villages and geographical locations in Bulgaria in 2008.

PepperBeast (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, and Lists. PepperBeast (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bulgaria and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk)
Comment I’m not sure if this should be kept or not, but if kept it should be drastically culled. It is arguably useful for an English speaker to learn that Arnavutluk means Albania, but most of the items in this gigantic and largely pointless list are not exonyms at all, they’re just Turkish spellings or minor pronunciation changes from the local name. Mccapra (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there were anything to say about the exonyms, it might be worth having. —Tamfang (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was going to urge the nominator to additionally nominate all or most of the exonym lists they could find (such as German exonyms and plenty others), but apparently such a discussion already took place here a few weeks ago and resulted in no consensus. I don't see a specific argument made for the Turkish exonyms here. Therefore, I don't also find it logical to single out one of the lists. It would be much better if the List of Turkish exonmys in Bulgaria is discussed as part of another AfD. That discussion would not likely justify the deletion of a much more general page as Turkish exonyms. The Turkish exonmys in Bulgaria could be more easily deleted based on WP:TNT as it is poorly sourced or a sound rationale. (Just referencing a 15-year-old discussion is not enough.) Aintabli (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not singling out. I'm just doing this at a slower pace. The original AFD got no consensus a least in part because there was too much there for one discussion. Sheesh, I'm beginning to feel like I can do no right, here. PepperBeast (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The mass deletion proposal failed because not all of the exonym lists are equally trivial. French has already been renominated, and I expect others to follow. —Tamfang (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to see some examples of the non-trivial exonym lists for contrast. Aintabli (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there was any such sortening, though you can certainly read through the previous discussion. I'm going to be doing some more re-nominating, but I'm conscious of both the possibility of overwhelming the AFD-sphere with too many requests and restraints on my own time, so I'm absolutely not going to be trying to blast them all out at once. PepperBeast (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I can't say I have a strong feeling about the removal of the lists of exonyms, which was covered by the discussion in March. But seeing that this nomination currently singles out one of the lists for no reason and makes no strong points, I am against deletion. As I have pointed out, it should be discussed as part of a bundled nomination with all the other exonym lists. After a few weeks or months, the AfD from March may be followed up with an identical bundled nomination to form a solid consensus. Aintabli (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "strong point" is that Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Additional points are that this is poorly ref'd and that much of the content isn't even exonyms; it's just Turkish spellings of place names. PepperBeast (talk) 12:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Current state of the article and its content are irrelevant when it comes to AfDs unless it’s WP:TNT. NOTDICTIONARY was also brought up in the previous discussion, which lacked consensus. The lack of a strong point is mainly rooted in how there is no demonstration of the list’s triviality. Examples of lists to keep could be helpful for example. Aintabli (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: delete both as just what you would find in a dictionary Chidgk1 (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Mccapra, Tamfang, Aintabli, and Chidgk1: I added List of Turkish exonyms in Greece to this discussion. PepperBeast (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just needs editing clean-up but there are a multitude of sources on this including books and from the UN, and it doesn't really fall into dictionary land. [4] [5], and there are probably additional sources in the Turkish. This needs cleanup, but not deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 17:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the articles don’t exist on Turkish Wikipedia as far as I can tell Chidgk1 (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Turkish Wikipedia is in a horrible state even when it comes to Turkish-related topics. Regardless, it's not relevant. Aintabli (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see @Ushuaia1: has put a lot of effort in but as the Greece one has been unsourced for so many years I think that should also be deleted. I suggest Ushuaia1 publish the ex-Ottoman names such as Greece and Bulgaria outside Wikipedia as original research so they could explain their methods - for example if they talked to local people they could detail their recordings or correspondance or whatever as annexes to their paper. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is clearly a personal work, in the form of an unwelcome scientific paper, which, though, lacks the necessary attributes for Wikipedia inclusion; mainly, independent notability. The term itself is not encountered in most of the sources cited. A clear case of WP:SYNTHESIS full of slippery verbiage, of which the project is more than tired. -The Gnome (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As indicated in the project's title, this text had been taken down after a brief discussion in 2009. Why it has been allowed to re-surface without anything of substance added to it will remain a mystery, which is probably best preserved. -The Gnome (talk) 11:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a useful article. Lionel Cristiano^? 22:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you use it? —Tamfang (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this article provides information to the reader. Lionel Cristiano^? 09:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ILIKEIT isn't a reason to keep. PepperBeast (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every junk article "provides information to the reader," at least in the eyes of its creator. How do you use the information? —Tamfang (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or we can combine it with the Turkish language article. Lionel Cristiano^? 16:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's clearly sources we can use that can be used to source the list, it's been discussed as a set, as I've shown. So in that sense, yes, it is "useful." SportingFlyer T·C 21:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:TNT, this is an unsourced WP:OR dictionary, most of the items do not have articles, but when they do the wl'd article rarely provides referenced support for the entry. TNT will provide an editor the opportunity to build a sourced article without this baggage. // Timothy :: talk 00:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dutch loanwords in Indonesian

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

Ehrmagerd, werds! As interesting as I find this, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. PepperBeast (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. PepperBeast (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Indonesia and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki Poorly sourced too. It is a better idea to move this to Wiktionary. The Banner talk 15:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more opinions and to see if anyone knows how to "transwiki".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this list is not a dictionary entry or anything like it. The question of Dutch influence on Indonesian is plainly encyclopedic, and the list supports that by demonstrating its extent. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of French words of English origin

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

PepperBeast (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and France. PepperBeast (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it would be a good idea to move it to Wiktionary instead? Obviously these articles have value, so I think we should retain them, but in the other wiki. איתן קרסנטי (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar enough with Wiktionary policies to have an opinion. PepperBeast (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mae yr erthygl hon yn cynnwys llawer o eiriau sydd yn debyg iawn i eiriau Cymraeg (sydd hefyd yn iaith Geltaidd) sydd ddim yn dod o eiriau Lladin na Saesneg. Felly rydw i yn sicr ei fod yn adnodd pwysig iawn i'w chadw fel cofnod o eiriau Ffrangeg sydd yn dod o hen iaith Gaul, felly dylai gael ei chadw er mwyn ei phwysicrwydd. Nid yn unig oherwydd diwylliant Ffrangeg, ond y ddiwylliant Geltaidd sydd yn gorchuddio llawer o Orllewin Ewrop, yn cynnwys Sbaen, Y Wlad Belg, Y Swisdir, Gogledd Yr Eidal, a Gorllewin a De'r Almaen. Wrth ddileu'r dudalen hon, rydym yn dileu darn pwysig o'n hanes a'n diwylliant.

This article contains many words that are very similar to Welsh words (which is also a Celtic language) which do not come from Latin or English. Therefore I am certain it is a very important resource to be kept as a record of French and Celtic words that come from the old language of Gaul, so should be kept because of its importance. Not only for its importance in French heritage, but also for Celtic heritage which spans most of Western Europe, including Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, the North of Italy, and the West and South of Germany. Gareth ap Emyr (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, it's Euro-centric. The Academie Francaise isn't representative of French in Quebec, the Office de la Langue Francaise sets suggestions for Quebec French, which is mostly what we use here in Canada. This would need a rewrite for a more global view and most of this is unsourced. There's something here, but I'm not sure even a draft would fix this. Oaktree b (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A selfie is égoportrait [6], literally an ego-portrait. I suppose we could draft it, but this would be a project. Oaktree b (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to delete this one, we'd also have to delete all similar articles, and there's a lot (five just for the lists of English of French origin). I've never encountered such lists on the Wiktionary, but it would indeed maybe make more sense to have these there. But in the end it wouldn't make any major difference. Ulysse Verjus-Tonnelé (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind they do exist on Wiktionary actually! https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:English_terms_derived_from_French Ulysse Verjus-Tonnelé (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same for French words https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:French_terms_derived_from_English Ulysse Verjus-Tonnelé (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the opening context and various ancillary information are not adequately covered by the relevant Wiktionary categories. It is desirable to expand these articles into something like Influence of French on English which is an encyclopedic discussion of the topic and not just a list, but these lists are better than nothing and better than a link to a Wiktionary category. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet to take any particular action with this bundled nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To be honest I'd just delete the lot of them, these seem too niche to be of interest here, without some further scholarly discussion around these words, which seem to be missing from the article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per @Eluchil404:'s recommendation of expanding the article to be similar to Influence of French on English. It has problems with the way it's currently written, but it isn't unrecoverable. Ships & Space_(Edits) 01:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. No consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adrabaecampi

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

No refs on the page. Seems like a WP:DICDEF. The only refs I see using the word are direct quotations from Ptolemy. JMWt (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Ethnic groups. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See the German article for what it should look like. Srnec (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is so vague as to be useless as it stands, and if nothing happens in 3 relists at AfD nothing ever will. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is supposed to happen? The article should have been kept instead of being relisted until somebody shows up to !vote delete. The article should be referenced and expanded per normal editing procedures. Srnec (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, currently completely useless, this policy probably applies Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the article currently tells you (1) the primary source, Ptolemy; (2) the Greek transliteration; and (3) where the tribe lived. All information that can be used to track down sources for expanding. Srnec (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This just doesn't seem notable, and again has no references, and never really will since there is no mention of it except for book's passing reference to Ptolemy. Also, the article was relisted since there only 1 vote. @Srnec Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Current state of the article is irrelevant. TNT is not a policy. The entry is merely a single sentence long, which makes TNT meaningless. This is not a hoax in any form, so a deletion should not be the case. After a very superficial search, I can see that there are some sources available: [7][8] There are some more on the German Wikipedia, according to which this was a subdivision of a more major tribe (Campi/Kampoi/...), which may merit a move. Overall, I have no prejudice to changing my vote to merge but don't think this should be deleted. Aintabli (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search shows that there is no information about that tribe ([9]) other than Wikipedia and people copying from it. Does seem like there is some passing reference to it in books, but frankly also seem not to meet notability guidelines, and is 100% a WP:DICDEF. Also, this article is currently useless. TNT may not be a policy, but in this case isn't not a terrible idea.@Aintabli Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded articles

History[edit]

Western Caribbean zone

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

This reads somewhat similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Caribbean in that it fails to identify a specific, notable topic. Searching for "Western Caribbean zone" yields no useful results at all, and while the sources here are citations for specific facts, I can't find anything that discusses this as a region as a whole. Describing these historical eras seems like original research when combining what happened in some places over a long time without being able to describe their relationships to a specific region, rather than just about Central America or History of Central America with a bit of adjacent Mexico and Colombia tossed in. Reywas92^Talk 20:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Geography, and Caribbean. Reywas92^Talk 20:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Indeed it is very similar to the other 3 Caribbean subregion articles I nominated for deletion earlier today. It has sources, but those usually only deal with specific countries and not the purported wider region as a whole. NLeeuw (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bradfield Abbey

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

Fails notability, the one reliable source Is the one referenced on the page which makes it clear the charter refering to the abbey having been built is probably fraudulent. I can find no other historical source that references any abbey existing in Bradfield. Tim Landy (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Christianity, and England. Tim Landy (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with Bradfield, Berkshire. I can't find anything on Heritage Gateway on this. There is a mention here but otherwise I can't fine anything significant. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian Kingdoms overthrown due to Muslim conquests

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

Fancruft-esque POV article backed by author's original research and synthesis of different sources. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 10:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent. Can't agree that this is made up by the synthesis of sources, as most of the list-type article exists similar way. As the author, I do agree that it appears in an abnormal way, and that can be overcome by copyediting. The idea of the article indeed notable.--Imperial ^[AFCND] 10:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete page looks logicless 2409:4052:91F:698F:5590:CBF8:CC1B:D8BB (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maratha-Rajput conflict (1800-1820)

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

POV fork of [10] backed entirely by self published obsolete sources. Creator was recently blocked for socking. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, India, and Rajasthan. Skynxnex (talk) 03:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article doesn't pass WP:GNG. I nowhere read about a topic called Maratha-Rajput conflict (1800-1820). Nothing of significance happened in 1800 or 1820 which can start or end any such conflicts. There were many conflicts in present day Rajasthan around that time like kingdoms of Marwar, Mewar, Jaipur, Scindhia, Holkar, Pindari etc all fighting with one another, Marwar-Jaipur conflicts, Holkar-Scindhia conflicts, pindari helping one kingdom abandoning them and helping other, all of these happened simultaneously, so it can not be said that Rajputs like Mewar, Marwar, Jaipur etc were fighting unitedly against United Maratha forces of Holkar, Scindhia and pindaris. I seriously think the article is more like generalization of almost a century long warfare in this period of anarchy which also had other players like Mughals and many more new entrants like Sikhs, British, and many soldiers of fortunes working under some powers and later switching sides. In my opinion this article doesn't pass notability issue. Just show some references or citations where this particular topic is mentioned separately, or even just mentioned. This article is nothing but a rubbish page made by a abusive account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4052:91F:698F:5590:CBF8:CC1B:D8BB (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Italian language in Romania

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, History, Italy, and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of rugby union matches between Leicester and Leinster

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

There is no real rivalry between these two sides, with no WP:GNG coverage of the rivalry, just a collection of stats with violates WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NLIST. Similar discussions such as this and this have shown a clear consensus on these sorts of articles. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Rugby union, Ireland, and England. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries and dependencies by area in 1989

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

Non- notable article with no independent notability on it's own from the main countries and dependences by area list article. A very arbitrary article that just picks a certain moment in history. The year before the fall of communism and as it states in the first sentence "This is a list of countries by area in 1989, providing an overview of the world population before the fall of the Iron Curtain."

There could be plenty of articles about some period in time when borders and land area of nations changed. Such as the end of European colonization in Africa, Asia, or even earlier when Spain lost it's former territories in Latin America.

Also there is no source for what makes this notable on it's own and we have something based on original research. All the notes and references listed are the same or if not the same can be or are used in the original article.

I think this also falls under No stats as this is some random information at a random point in time. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. This seems to be just an idea somebody had, which is explicitly not what Wikipedia is for. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is something to look up in the 1989 edition of the World Book, not for a current-day online encyclopedia. Nate • (chatter) 20:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Weird that population is mentioned only in that lead sentence! —Tamfang (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Falls within the existing List of sovereign states in the 1980s, and I don't think we want to expand that article series to individual years and intersect that with area. CMD (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is also the population equivalent List of countries by population in 1989. TompaDompa (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this could be encyclopaedic, we just need some evidence that it's not WP:OR. The year isn't arbitrary. SportingFlyer T·C 02:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. There really is not much of a point in including lists of past states and countries by size from arbitrarily-picked years. ArkHyena (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historiography of Indigenous genocide

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

Reviewed during NPP. This is sort of an essay, the contents of which is just describing what approximately 10 different sources said about Genocide of Indigenous peoples, there is no real distinct topic here. IMO a merge into that article should be done although the material to merge would be commentary by ~10 sources on Genocide of Indigenous peoples and the sources themselves. North8000 (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and North America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is specifically about historians writing about the genocide as opposed to the genocide itself. Instead of deleting this or merging this into the 300K byte main article Genocide of Indigenous peoples, the historiography material there could be merged into this article. Yuchitown (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Keep I'd like to withdraw this nomination. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three Phase Operation

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

This article is based on multiple copies of the same news story that claims to be based on anonymous sources. Rumors, in other words. I can't find anything at all at the third reference as it just points to some index page. The other three are just the same text in different places. "Three Phase Operation" is a name unknown to history. More importantly, the organization "Supreme Command of the Arab Allied Forces (SCAAF)" is also unknown to history. The piecemeal Arab irregular forces at that time did not have a central command and it certainly was not directed from Cairo. What actually happened in Katamon the day before this news story is that Jewish forces blew up the Semiramis Hotel killing at least 24 civilians. But that's not even mentioned in the news story. There is a vast literature by historians on this period of history and there are already multiple properly sourced Wikipedia articles that cover it, such as Battle for Jerusalem. We don't need articles on single obscure newspaper stories. Zero^talk 04:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Israel, and Palestine. Zero^talk 04:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For being almost wholly based on a random piece from Oregon local news - the sourcing would struggle to be less appropriate, and if this is the best quality available, it doesn't really attest the term or standalone notability. Not much to say here: definitely nothing approaching an encyclopedically valid topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article that doesn't have enough sources or content and doubtful more could be found MarkiPoli (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Insufficient evidence exists to suggest that "Three Phase Operation" is a notable topic, at least not under its current name. Marokwitz (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Current sourcing is just one newspaper article reprinted in multiple publications. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a POVFORK. When justified, such a topic should grow organically, before being eligible to a SPINOFF. gidonb (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muscovite–Ukrainian War (1658–1659)

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

No such war in literature, it was part of the Russo-Polish War (1654–1667). This article is OR Marcelus (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Poland, Russia, and Ukraine. Marcelus (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Seems to be mentioned here but the odds are this is not reliable and copied from Wikipedia. Possibly mentioned under other names in English, Polish, Ukrainian, Russian. Polish name is not mentioned, can anyone report on the queries in Russian and Ukrainian and analyze sources used in the respective articles on ru and uk wikis, if any (sources; articles exist)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears notable. Sources exist e.g. this and this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly re-title. We have an article on The Ruin (Ukrainian history). This would be a sub-article. I do personally find the use of "Muscovy" and "Ukraine" in this context a tad jarring. We seem to be very inconsistent in our terminology for early modern East Slavic states. There is an open access anthology on the battle of Konotop (1659) wherein Serhii Plokhy uses "Muscovite-Cossack war". Srnec (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arab-Chalukya conflict

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

Synthesis of two deleted articles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Navsari and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Thane with a new name called "Arab-Chalukya conflict". Article is built on WP:OR, no sources either calls this by the name as seen in the title. Imperial ^[AFCND] 10:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Imperial ^[AFCND] 10:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article with sources supporting these major events, namely the Siege of Thana and Battle of Navsari, the depiction of these major militiary conflicts can be included in Wikipedia and has no wiki violation in it Sathyashraya (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Gujarat. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: The creator is now blocked for sockpuppetry. The two earlier articles were created by the sockmaster. So it is an attempt of the sockmaster to revive the two of his deleted articles with a new name.--Imperial ^[AFCND] 06:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Created by a blocked sock, combining other deleted articles. I have also nominated it for wp:speedy deletion. So this AfD might be moot. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women's roles during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre

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

Although the title of the article is "Women's roles during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre", it actually only lists the deeds of four women during the Tiananmen Incident, without summarizing the role of women as a whole in the Tiananmen Incident, this article is more like talking about the experiences of these four women during the Tiananmen Incident. 日期20220626 (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, Politics, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is on a viable-looking topic and is well referenced, and can be improved. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre. There are a couple of articles that talk about gender in the Tiananmen Square protests and massacre, the Feigon article cited in the artile and there is an article from Radio Free Asia on the forgotten legacy of women and the protests. I agree with the nominator about how the text does not match the title of the page, and I do not think there is sufficient information for a stand-alone page, especially as the women mentioned in the article all have a stand-alone page, so no information will be lost. --Enos733 (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Lushchai

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

This person seems like a wonderful Wikipedian, but I do not see a claim to notability here or case for one as an author. He is unfortunately but one of many war casualties. Projectify as an obit might be an option? Star Mississippi 00:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Ukraine. Star Mississippi 00:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Should this end up deleted, here's hoping someone adds this Wikipedian's death to Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/2024. He was one of us, and he should be remembered. — Maile (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, History, and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I remember him as a good Wikipedian, but his notability is indeed very questionable (news reports about his death fall under WP:NOTNEWS). Finstergeist (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Finstergeist, that shortcut tends to be an ambiguous WP:UPPERCASE problem. Are you thinking of the "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" and does not engage in original reporting part, or the "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" part? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the latter (+ WP:BLP1E). Finstergeist (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if final vote is delete, someone should merge this article, or post an archive link to his user webpage. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://web.archive.org/web/20240413164446/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Lushchai

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A3%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA:%D0%AE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%92%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87_%D0%9B.

Delete. Sad situation, but unless coverage can be found other than in death notices, passing mentions, and Wikipedia itself, this belongs elsewhere rather than as a Wikipedia article. Persingo (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is there a potential WP:NAUTHOR pass here? Curbon7 (talk) 03:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pala invasion of Kannauj

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

An event that does not meet the threshold for notability of WP:NEVENT as it is not covered significant or extensively in the sources. Doesn't even have a true name, this is clearly WP:OR as it was previously at the title of Dharmapala's invasion of Kannauj. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 13:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles created by the same author for the same reasons as above:

Thank you — microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 13:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: User Talk:Qcne. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 13:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think there are WP:CIR issues at play. I had a very frustrating conversation on on the Editor's Talk Page when they kept moving completely inappropriate Drafts to Mainspace. Qcne (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Bangladesh, India, and West Bengal. Skynxnex (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails WP:N, not much covered by many sources and could be merged into Chola Expedition of the Ganges instead of its own page.

Sudsahab (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Kafur (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I have just run around the presentation and the sources match, so, keep. Will come will see (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG, barely mentioned in broken lines in the sources.Imperial ^[AFCND] 17:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that at least the "background" section of Pala invasion of Kannauj has been copied from Tripartite Struggle, with no attribution that I can find. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Smoluća

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

Fails WP:GNG. Disputed draftification moved back to mainspace. I cannot find anything in reliable sources to support notability. CNMall41 (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Croatia. Curbon7 (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable topic. [11][12][13] [14] Dege31 (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“I cannot find anything in reliable sources to support notability!” Well, look at the sources i put on the article. There is one that literally has people involved of the siege being interviewed. Orhov (talk) 01:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Orhov:, I reliable it can be frustrating having a page you created sent to AfD. However, it is best to remain calm and WP:CIVIL during the discussion. You added a website which contained two sentences and some pictures. The other reference is a YouTube video. I will look through the references supplied by experienced users above but a Google search for "siege of Smoluca" did not show anything in a WP:BEFORE that would be useful here. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I will look at the sources Dege31 listed and will change the references. Orhov (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. As you see, the references don't actually support what was written. Please stick with WP:INCITE and use the sources provided by Dege31 and it should be fine. Good luck and ping me when you are done and I will take a look. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 I have added the sources Dege31 listed for the top section of the article. As for the rest I, i reused the Order of battle reference, because it contains a lot of Reliable quotes and information. Orhov (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Dege31. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The book reference pointed out by Dege31 is more convincing than the others. However, still not sure it would meet guidelines. But, if someone is will to update per WP:HEY I am more than willing to withdraw the nomination. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request to withdraw - At this point I do not have an opinion on notability but can say that the references do verify the content. Would ask to withdraw the nomination without prejudice. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holderness museums

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

Unclear what this article is even about. Mentions one small archive, without a claim to notability, shared across the 3 museums that aren't otherwise tied together. -- D'n'B-t -- 06:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, History, and United Kingdom. -- D'n'B-t -- 06:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This BBC reference explains the oral history project. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting coincidence that the project officer's name in that link is so similar the article creator. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Its a project or scheme to record oral histories. Its not encyclopaedic. I searched and looked for sources but there's nothing I can find. Desertarun (talk) 09:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hierombalus

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

This article was draftified and declined at AfC, but the draftification was then reverted, per WP:DRAFTIFY 2d, so this is a procedural AfD.

References appear to be glancing mentions, but perhaps this should be merged to Yahwism? asilvering (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Religion. asilvering (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not a brilliant article and it would have been better for it to spend more time in development, but I don't see any grounds for deletion. AfC is an optional process. Furius (talk) 09:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no valid reason to draft as the previously lacking references have been expanded upon. Additionally, the subject is notable enough to be credited by ancient sources as the teacher of Sanchuniation.el.ziade (talkallam) 10:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nom comment: I think my nomination statement has been misunderstood? I brought this to AfD because a new page patroller draftified it instead of AfDing it by mistake. AfC is indeed an optional process, but this article should not have been at AfC in the first place; it should have been AfD'd. That is why it is here. The grounds for deletion is the standard one: there is not significant coverage of this topic in multiple reliable sources. -- asilvering (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering The premise for this nomination appears to be based on a misunderstanding regarding the availability of sources. The article initially had some bare references that were expanded. There are numerous reliable sources that address the topic, suggesting that the criteria for deletion based on the lack of sources is misleading. el.ziade (talkallam) 13:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elias Ziade Can you share which sources you believe contain significant coverage? I'm only seeing brief mentions. For example, Lokkegard says The theophoric name of Hierombalos, priest of Ίευώ, cannot be held divine. It is probably the same name as the biblical Hīrām, from which the odious name of Baal has been left out. That's all. -- asilvering (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering check the article el.ziade (talkallam) 16:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elias Ziade I have read the article. Which sources do you believe contain significant coverage? -- asilvering (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering Your concern about the expectation for "significant coverage" of a historical figure like Hierombalus is understandable, especially given the context of the Late Bronze Age./Early Iron Age It's true that for individuals from such a distant past, documented information is often limited. The survival of any records or mentions from that era is remarkable, and even minimal details can be highly valuable for historical scholarship. Considering the challenges associated with the preservation of ancient texts and the rarity of extensive records from that period, it's indeed significant that Hierombalus is known to us at all. This alone underscores his importance in historical context. Expecting extensive coverage akin to more recent historical figures may not be reasonable and could indeed lead to an underrepresentation of ancient individuals on Wikipedia. If the standard of "significant coverage" were strictly applied as suggested, many articles about ancient figures might be shelved, diminishing our understanding and representation of the past. It might be useful to revisit what qualifies as "significant coverage" in the context of ancient history and consider the value of preserving mentions of such figures, even when details are sparse. This could help ensure a more comprehensive historical record. el.ziade (talkallam) 20:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if we can get another review of added sources. I agree that we can't have the same expectations of SIGCOV in figures of ancient history vs. contemporary figures who have news coverage and biographies written about them. I'm not sure where this discussion should happen.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Well-discussed in sources easily available via GScholar. Central and Adams (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buffer theory

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

The article does not really focus on "Buffer theory" and only mentions it once. It would probably be best if this were merged or redirected to another article. Shadow311 (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shadow311 (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Current state of the article and its content are irrelevant. I could find plenty of sources discussing the buffer theory here and here. It is important to note that since there is another buffer theory in the fields of biology and chemistry, I had to include the keyword "migration" which weeds out most of the irrelevant sources. More could be found with different search terms. I can't also think of an article for this to redirect/merge into. The most relevant option would be a topic such as human migration or international migration, which are very general, so a main article on this topic is warranted in my current opinion. Aintabli (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First Battle of Lahore (1759)

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

An editor has performed a search and found that sufficient sources exist to establish the subject's notability. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.Find sources: "Social science" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

The sources provided on the page show no mention for a battle in "August 1759", the sources only show that Ahmad Shah even began his campaign in September 1759, reaching Lahore and then taking it in November. [15] Noorullah (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 12:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless proper sourcing is found. The sourcing on Urdu wiki isn’t any help. Mccapra (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sigh, not another one of these. We might have to look into the others at Battle of Lahore (disambiguation), too. -- asilvering (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY.

"Sabaji maintained his position with great valour and strength, inflicted a crushing defeat upon Jahan Khan, who was severely wounded and lost his son in the action. Jahan Khan’s return to Peshawar in discomfiture so roused the fury of the Shah." Excerpts from New history of the Marathas vol 1. p-408
"Dattaji Sindhia progressed slowly through Malwa. He appointed Sabaji Sindhia to occupy Lahore ( March, 1759 ). The Sikhs did not check the Marathas, but co-operated with them in driving away the Afghans under Jahan Khan across the Indus. Sabaji’s forces penetrated as far as Peshawar." Excerpts from A Study Of Eighteenth Century India Vol. 1. p-342

Additional comments- Renaming the article to the Capture of Lahore or even the Maratha occupation of Lahore (per sources) would be better. Though these sources are enough for keeping this article still additional sources would be appreciated.

Sudsahab (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't even seem to be a battle at all.

Per Sarkar, it states that the Afghans had evacuated Lahore, meaning that there was no "battle" for the city in April 1758. [16] Also corroborated by Hari Ram Gupta: [17]

The Afghans returned in October 1759 and re-occupied Lahore. [18]

There's no mention of a battle in August 1759 whatsoever.

Jahan Khan's battle per this source: [19] Doesn't seem to be mentioned at Lahore at all, nor do the sources you've shown imply this, but rather is "Thereafter the invaders overran Attock, then crossed the Indus, and threatened the historic fort of Rohtas on the left bank of the Jhelum. By that time, Sabaji Patel (Schinde) reached the place with fresh troops and a large number of Sikh fighters, who had made common cause with him against the Afghan infiltrators. The Afghans were defeated by the combined forces of the Marathas and the Sikhs in a pitched battle, in which Jahan Khan lost his son and was himself also wounded."

So again, this shows this was not a battle at Lahore. Noorullah (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[20] Does not show a battle at Lahore, but mentions Jahan Khan's defeat at an undisclosed location, and only later talks about how Ahmad Shah re-occupied Lahore (presumably in his 1759 October campaign). Noorullah (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I proposed renaming this article, either it should be Jahan Khan invasion of Rohtas or Battle of Rohtas. Coming to Sarkar's reliability which is questionable. Also see WP:RAJ, we can't rely on him as long as we have better sources for the notability of the Battle of Lahore (Battle of Rohtas?).

You do realise [this|https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.98175/page/n361/mode/2up] work of Hari Ram Gupta (published in 1944) is relatively older than his cited work in the article Marathas and Panipat. (published in 1961)? It would be obvious that older sources might not contain more information around this certain event, this is WP:AGE MATTERS.

In Marathas and Panipat. p-101 tells us: Jahan Khan rushed to Peshawar, captured Attock, and then advanced towards Rohtas. Sabaji sought help from the Sikhs. The united forces marched against Jahan Khan, whom they encountered on the other side of the Jehlam. In a fierce engagement the Afghan general suffered heavily. He lost his son and a large number of troops, himself receiving several wounds
[21] p-260, It also propounds: Thereafter, the invaders overran Attock, then crossed the Indus and threatened the historic fort of Rohtas on the left bank of the Jhelum. By that time, Sabaji Patel reached the place with fresh troops and a large number of the Sikh fighters, who had made a common cause with him against the Afghan infiltrators. The Afghans were defeated by the combined forces of the Marathas and the Sikhs in a pitched battle, in which Jahan Khan lost his son and was himself also wounded. Note Rohtas,Pitched battle and fierce engagement in both of the quotations.

Sudsahab (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But why have a separate article for this at all? It doesn't seem that the sources are discussing it in that way. They're describing it as part of an overall campaign. That tells me the best place for this information is somewhere like Northern Campaign of Raghunath Rao, or whichever other article might fit better. -- asilvering (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already quoted the sources which discussed it thoroughly. And no it's not part of Northern Campaign of Raghunath Rao, not to be confused with Capture of Lahore which occurred in 1758 by Raghunath Rao. If merging is an option then I'd suggest merging it to Afghan-Maratha War. But my vote is still keep until someone gives more inputs. Sudsahab (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sudsahab, if it isn't part of Northern Campaign of Raghunath Rao, you should fix the infobox, since that's what it says. -- asilvering (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright Sudsahab (talk) 08:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:HEY and to allow further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bandanwara

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

None of the reliable sources WP:RS refer to the military conflict as the "Battle of Bandanwara," nor do any historians recognize it by that name. The title is a fabricated one, which contradicts the criteria for creating an article about a military conflict. The article does not meet the notability WP:GNG, as the sources merely mention it as a military conflict, without dedicating even a single page completely to it. Moreover, there is no record of a battle called the "Battle of Bandanwara" in the specified year mentioned in the article. Imperial ^[AFCND] 08:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, and suggest withdrawal. The nomination seems flawed, and fails perhaps both WP:SK #1 and #3. The OP's issue seems mainly with the name, which can be addressed elsewwhere From the History of Mewar, p.324:

On receiving intelligence of his march, the Maharana decided to intercept him on the border of Mewar. For this purpose he despatched a large army headed by the Chiefs, Chauhan Devabhan (Kothariya), Rathor Suratsingh, Sanga (Devagarh), Dodiya Hathisingh, Gangadas (Bansi), Jhala Sajja (Delawara), Rathor Jaisingh (Badnor), Samantsingh (Bambhora) etc, In an engagement held at Bandhanwara Ranabaz Khan together with his chiefs were slain and the Maharana succeeded to retain the paraganas in his possession

. These events are dated to February/March I711. So at least one historian mentions it by this name (give or take an 'h'!) and considers the date correct. Suggesting a military engagement isn't a battle of some kind seems a bit of a stretch. And frankly, suggesting that this is fabricated could be interpreted as an aspersion, as it suggests a deliberate hoax. Which is clearly not the case.

Other sources also discuss the battle in the context of military and political history (e.g. The Grenadiers, a Tradition of Valour, Mewar and the Maratha Relations, 1735-1818 A.D., Pratap, the Patriot: With a Concise History of Mewar), and even culturally (e.g. Paintings from Rajasthan in the National Gallery of Victoria etc). I'm afraid this nomination makes some curious claims, claims which are directly contradicted by reliable sources. ——Serial Number 54129 14:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Serial Number 54129. Could you please provide the source that explicitly mentions the name "Battle of Bandanwara"? It's important to note that these are only Google snippet notes, which are often available even for minor skirmishes. The battle must be thoroughly described in reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG. If the event meets the GNG as mentioned above, we could consider renaming the article or merging it with one of the parent articles. If you could develop the article so that we can submit it for review through WP:HEY, and if it meets the GNG, we can move it to the appropriate title. The current status of the article does not meet the standard requirements. Imperial ^[AFCND] 16:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ImperialAficionado, thank you; I have been here a while now, so I flatter myself. I have some small understanding of the deletion process. Firstly, the name. If you have an issue with the article title, that does not mean it is a hoax or that it must be deleted. Spellings and linguistic cultures and traditions change over time, and the only difference I can see is that occasionally, sources insert an 'h' or possibly an 'n'. Neither of those is egregious enough to claim that, therefore, it does not exist. If you think the title needs adjusting, start a talk page discussion, go to Requested Moves or even be bold and move it yourself; redirects are cheap, especially redirects from misspellings. Again, if you wish to dispute that a battle was really a skirmish, fine: but again, that is merely a content dispute and can be resolved through our usual consensus-building processes. As for Google snippets, that depends on where you are in the world and what Google will let you see. It varies with jurisdiction, so what you might see, I might not, and vice versa. Apart from demanding other work to improve it per HEY, etc., perhaps address the actual purpose of AfD, which is to demonstrate a lack of notability; your nomination fails to do so convincingly. Indeed, it is procedurally flawed: titles and minor errors are not grounds for deletion. A thorough reading of WP:BEFORE explains what is expected of a nominator. Fundamentally: WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. ——Serial Number 54129 14:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would expect a "speedy keep and suggest withdrawal" response to have extremely good sourcing, but I'm not seeing that here. Is that quote supposed to be significant coverage? It's two sentences! So, that doesn't help us show notability. What about the others? I don't see any sigcov in that snippet from The Grenadiers, and what I do see suggests that all we'll get from that is the place name and a year. I could go pull it from the library and check it, but it's only the one hit, so that doesn't seem promising. Likewise, I could go order up Mewar and the Maratha Relations, but the snippet I can see on google books doesn't fill me with optimism; I tried searching from another angle and it appears to be about a sentence there also. What I can see of Pratap, the Patriot suggests the result is a false positive, since it's talking about Bhim Singh of Mewar. I get nothing from a journal search of my library, effectively nothing from google scholar, and this sole result from JSTOR (someone less blind than I am will have to find the references to "Battle of Bandanwara" on pp 4 and 5). -- asilvering (talk) 03:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From the sources cited here, Pratap, the Patriot is not a false positive. It is not referring to Bhim Singh of Mewar, but referring to Bhim Singh (Bhimsi) Kothari of Begun, who took part in this battle. Har Bilas Sarda had written about the same Bhim Singh Kothari [here] who took part in this battle. I can add these sources as well on the page. History quester (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, thanks for the clarification. I'll go check on Pratap, the Patriot at the library, then, to see if there's significant coverage there. Regarding the source you found, the closest it comes to naming a battle is The next morning, when the two armies met on the banks of the Khari river. It doesn't even seem to give a date, beyond the regnal years of Maharana Sangram Singh II. It looks like this is indeed the same battle, going by the details in the wikipedia article, so I think we have one good source now, which isn't enough for a WP:GNG pass yet, and additionally raises concerns about the title of the article. I'm not seeing "Bandanwara" anywhere anywhere in this source you've found. Did I just miss it? -- asilvering (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not the case as initially raised that there is no record of this battle, or it is not referred by this name. This request doesn't qualify for WP:AFD. There are more than one source which have mentioned this battle or have references to it. There are sources already added on the main page, listing down other sources here, which I am adding to the main page.
RV Somani’s book History of Mewar.
From the sources provided by Serial Number 54129,this battle is mentioned in the below sources.
Pratap, the patriot

Har Bilas Sarda mentioned the same events of Pratap, the patriot in his book Speeches And Writings Har Bilas Sarda , giving details about Kothari Bhim Singh, who was killed in this battle.

The Grenadiers , a Tradition of Valour mentions the battle of Bandanwara (1711) on the state colours of Mewar Bhupal Infantry, which was later merged into Indian Army.

K.S. Gupta, Mewar and the Maratha Relations

Paintings from Rajasthan in the National Gallery of Victoria
History quester (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adrabaecampi

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

No refs on the page. Seems like a WP:DICDEF. The only refs I see using the word are direct quotations from Ptolemy. JMWt (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Ethnic groups. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See the German article for what it should look like. Srnec (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is so vague as to be useless as it stands, and if nothing happens in 3 relists at AfD nothing ever will. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, currently completely useless, this policy probably applies Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Current state of the article is irrelevant. TNT is not a policy. The entry is merely a single sentence long, which makes TNT meaningless. This is not a hoax in any form, so a deletion should not be the case. After a very superficial search, I can see that there are some sources available: [22][23] There are some more on the German Wikipedia, according to which this was a subdivision of a more major tribe (Campi/Kampoi/...), which may merit a move. Overall, I have no prejudice to changing my vote to merge but don't think this should be deleted. Aintabli (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search shows that there is no information about that tribe ([24]) other than Wikipedia and people copying from it. Does seem like there is some passing reference to it in books, but frankly also seem not to meet notability guidelines, and is 100% a WP:DICDEF. Also, this article is currently useless. TNT may not be a policy, but in this case isn't not a terrible idea.@Aintabli Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History Proposed deletions[edit]

History categories[edit]

for occasional archiving

Social science[edit]

Social science Proposed deletions[edit]

Language[edit]

Prodded articles

History[edit]

History Proposed deletions[edit]

History categories[edit]

Proposals[edit]