Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science/archive

Purge page cache

watch

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

Social science

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 22:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serfdom in Tibet controversy

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a fairly unusual XfD but I submit that this article is based in large part on original research, despite citing a decent number of sources. The entire article plays out as a tit-for-tat "China says this" vs "Tibet exile/apologist says that" and there isn't really an attempt to actually frame anything within the context of "what actually happened".

It's understandable to say "the issue is contentious" but when the entire article becomes a matter of paraphrasing different POVs, there's very little that a reader can actually take out of the article. The only "real" encyclopedic piece of work I can see is "Tibetan welfare after the Chinese takeover", which itself does not seem particularly germane to the question of whether serfdom existed in Tibet prior to 1951, other than, perhaps, insinuating that the Chinese government does not care about Tibet or rather that the Tibetan social structure is so rigid that reforms have only been partially successful. Regardless, it does not feel as if this segment is appropriate for inclusion as a matter of historicity.

The same topic is covered to some length in the article Social class in Tibet, which approaches a similar topic from a perspective much more aligned with the standards on Wikipedia. I understand that approaching an article entitled "Controversy" is understandably difficult, but articles like Investiture Controversy and Controversy in Russia regarding the legitimacy of eastward NATO expansion handle their respective topics with substantially more grace and include the proper historical context instead of devolving eventually to namedropping entities and/or historians and assigning respective quotations without any contextualization as to what they mean. Augend (drop a line) 22:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Philosophy, History, Buddhism, Geography, Social science, Asia, and Central Asia. Augend (drop a line) 22:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep & rewrite. Regardless of whether serfdom has or has not existed in Tibet, the topic has gained enough traction and is notable. A quick search of "serfdom in Tibet" on Google Scholar brings up loads of articles: [1]. Social class in Tibet is a suitable article, but I think this topic deserves its own page.

That being said, if this article survives AfD, it will need to be significantly rewritten. Definitely don't make WP:POV forks out of it, but then I agree that there must be significant effort to compare POVs into a coherent article. We can also jettison the "Human rights in Tibet" section. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & rewrite. I'd mostly agree with The Lonely Panther's position here, that the debate itself deserves its own article, mostly even just to keep track of all the perspectives on the issues. The 'serfdom controversy' is significant enough on its own, as seen by the size of the literature, to deserve a separate article from Chinese administration in Tibet and the controversy over that.

Potential rewrite could for sure use a lot more definitions and information on the structure, prevalence, and development of class structures throughout Tibetan history. Additionally more detail on exactly which historical events contain 'competing versions of Tibetan History', such as the disagreements over the nature of the 1959 Tibetan Uprising, is vital. Literal sun (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 12:53, 9 February 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) 04:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Consensus lean towards keep. SIGCOV is met. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Blake-Beard

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

Successful but I wasn't sure it was enough to meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Business, and Social science. Bridget (talk) 10:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In this case we have both well-cited publications (WP:PROF#C1) and in-depth coverage specifically about her in multiple newspaper stories (WP:GNG). The fact that someone tag-bombed this article 14 years ago is not an actual deletion rationale. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm not seeing a C1 pass; her Scopus citations look to be right around the average among her coauthors. However, if she's received enough newspaper coverage for her work that C7 or GNG is met then that's sufficient. JoelleJay (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I'll also note PROD is not for cleanup, so not sure the case Charles Matthews is making here with respect to process Star Mississippi 03:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accident of birth

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

Little more than a dictionary definition Chidgk1 (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Herbert Spiegelberg found something to say about J. S. Mill's use of the concept, in discussing egalitarianism.[2] The English term seems to have been introduced by Mill and Herbert Spencer.[3] John D. Caputo found something to say when discussing Heidegger.[4] Ágnes Heller took it as a starting point. [5] Suggests to me that the concept is probably notable. Cf. WP:BEFORE. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the references above and now in the article are being taken in the sense of WP:GNG as trivial mentions in the sense of WP:SIGCOV, then I have to say I disagree. Charles Matthews (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to suggest userfy the article. It is not in good shape now, clearly, but also I think deletion would be harsh. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I commend on your enthusiasm, but you just was well can restart it in your user space. There is nothing to salvage from article history.- Altenmann >talk 04:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments below do not add up to a reason to delete under policy. The article can be fixed up by normal editing; the nomination for deletion here of such articles is problematic. AfD is not a cleanup mechanism, and should not be used as such: try PROD. I'd like to have the article userfied so that I can do a proper job of researching it, rather than trying to get it over some nominal bar in a sprint over a few days. The OED reference to Algernon Sidney's Discourses is to a work that gets 40 page references in the index to Blair Worden's Roundhead Reputations; so is worth amplification. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is OR about a concept which does not have significant coverage in secondary sources. Llajwa (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice for recreation. The definition is dubious OR. But the phrase does have reasonable refs. - Altenmann >talk 04:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Social science Proposed deletions

Language

Audiofy bookchip

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

One news article does not justify an article. Possibly merge to Pimsleur Language Programs - there may be other mentions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Technology. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources found that actually mention the bookchip other than mirrors and the already-cited NYT article. As for merging, I can't say if that would be the best thing to do or not because I don't have a NYT subscription and can't see how much coverage is given to Pimsleur and the bookchip. @PARAKANYAA: do you have access to that NYT article? ‍Relativity ⚡️ 01:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Relativity You can cheat your way out of the NYT barrier for most articles. In any case it's about three paragraphs on audiofy. Reading it again though I don't think the company behind audiofy has anything to do with Pimsleur and they just happened to serve their product. So maybe just delete. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese–Hungarian linguistic connection

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

The entire text has major WP:SYNTH and WP:FRINGE issues, and the topic doesn't seem to be notable on its own. There are (outdated, afaik) hypotheses such as Ural-Altaic in which Japanese and Hungarian would share a common ancestor along with Finnish and Turkish and lots of other languages, but the current text fails to establish notability for a Japanese-Hungarian connection in particular and I would be surprised if such an idea were notable even as a fringe theory. Botterweg14 (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Japan, and Hungary. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Comparing Japonic with Uralic, or Proto-Japonic with Proto-Uralic, would be a legitimate subject. In fact, this subject is already covered in Classification of the Japonic languages § Uralic hypothesis. But comparing Modern Japanese and Modern Hungarian directly, based only on superficial resemblances, as this article does, is not just fringe science (like any hypothesis that claims a relationship between Uralic and Japonic, including macrofamily hypotheses such as Nostratic – these are not demonstrably wrong, principally methodically nonsensical or not even wrong, but poorly evidenced, generally not accepted and even widely rejected) but flat-out pseudoscience, see Pseudoscientific language comparison (and indeed not even wrong, methodically ignorant and unacceptable). Anyone can do this with random dictionaries, and it proves nothing. As an illustration, you might as well compare Modern French with Modern Moroccan Arabic and come to the conclusion that they are related because of superficial typological similarities and shared words, but this would be obviously absurd because we know about the history of these languages and their ancient ancestors, which are attested meaning that we can compare them directly, were nothing alike. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:SIGCOV of the topic in reliable sources. The article has been marred from the start and still is with OR/SYNTH and misused sources that don't support the statements that they are attached to and that don't cover the topic of the article. There are certainly notable macro-family proposals (mostly of a fringe nature) that include Japanese and Hungarian, but for singling out specifically these two languages in a separate article there simply is no SIGCOV. –Austronesier (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Razakar

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

Seems more like a dictionary definition than a notable article. LR.127 (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. LR.127 (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to disambiguation page. There are three other articles about terms with this word as their title (or at least whose title could generally be shortened to this word informally) and one more specific use that can point to an article, so I think it's a useful navigation tool. But I agree that there does not appear to be enough to say about this term itself to merit an article. DMacks (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting for the record and anyone else who is just joining the discussion, User:Buidhe converted it to a DAB while this discussion was pending. I have invited them to comment here. DMacks (talk) 02:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clue (information)

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

As an article for concept of a clue, I don't really like. For a simple concept, it is as dull as an article for the concept of quality, say for, which there is not because that page is just a disambiguation page. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary may provide explanations on how to improve this article, but I'm focused on deleting it. So, what do you think? QuantumFoam66 (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Social science. C F A 💬 04:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This type of article is known as a broad-concept article and they can often be hard to write without looking like dictionary definitions. Theoretically there probably should be another broad-concept article at Quality, but there isn't. Since this is such a common term, I don't see how this wouldn't meet GNG. C F A 💬 04:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article defines or gives examples of 1) the concept (information), 2) its different values (share/give/pay), 3) how it is relayed (discovered/shared), 4) its mechanic (ludeme/cheat), 5) its format (straight/cryptic/riddles/contradictions) 6) its etymology. All of this can eventually be expanded and more concrete exemples can be added. "clue" may seem to be a simple concept, but the article shows there are many aspects to it that may not seem obvious at first glance. Writing something that is obvious (or "dull") is because what is obvious to one reader may be a valuable insight to another. As stated in Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Major_differences, Wiktionary entries are about words themselves, while Wikipedia entries are articles about what words denote. This article falls into the latter category. --Bensin (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious failure of WP:NOTDICTIONARY. The article fails to demonstrate it can stand on its own as a broad concept article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary, the following are dictionary entries:

1) Definitions ("contain nothing more than a definition") – No. The article also contains use, value, form, and examples. It also has a well sourced section on context clues.

2) Dictionary entries – No. "Encyclopedia articles are about [...] a concept", which is the case here.

3) Usage, slang, or idiom guides – No. "Clue" is not a slang term.

Please explain in what way you think the article fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY. --Bensin (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It fails (1) since it's nothing more than a couple of definitions, with the rest being WP:OR. Where are the sources on clues as a concept? If there were even a single one there, I might think differently. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is more than definitions, as I listed in my previous response. Yes, I have had difficulties finding sources for clues in games, possibly because most of it is common knowledge. I'll try and find some. Is there a particular statement that you believe to be untrue? However, the section about context clues is well sourced. --Bensin (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added three book sources for the section about clues in games. --Bensin (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of the sources being other dictionary entries tells you what you need to know.

The article also contains use, value, form, and examples those things are very typical of what you'd find in a dictionary, the corresponding wikitionary entry has all of those things. in fact usage guides are specifcally mentioned in point #3 that Bensin quoted above as being characteristic of a dictionary entry.

It also has a well sourced section on context clues that is just another dictionary definition of a related term - having two dictionary definitions doesn't mean the article fails NOTDICTIONARY any less. -- D'n'B-t -- 10:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources for context clues are dictionary entries. Those sources are articles that support the facts in the article.

Can you quote the part of the wikitionary entry that contains how clues (not the word clue) are used, their value, or their form? The wikipedia article is about what the word denotes, not about the word itself. --Bensin (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is also not in this article, save for few lines of OR. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is not in the article? What is unsourced original research? --Bensin (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This doesn't seem to be a broad-concept article, so much as a WP:CHIMERA article instead. I'm looking at the examples given at WP:BCA, and I just don't see this coming even close to any of them. Take the example of "particle" there (in physics). There's a core concept that all particles share that can be written about encyclopedically, as a broad topic. But the only thing that's common here is "a clue is something which hints at further knowledge". That's it, and that's merely a DICDEF, which isn't suitable for an entry here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For WP:BCA there is a section "Common aspects of sports and games" which lists the article Dead ball. Would you call that article a chimera too? --Bensin (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a point to make, I fail to see it. You're pushing well into WP:BLUDGEONing territory here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an answer to the question in my post. --Bensin (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiBhasha

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Ampercent.com doesn't seem like a reliable source to me. Maybe this Wikipedia-related article should be moved to Wikipedia namespace instead of deleted? Mika1h (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Software. Mika1h (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest keep: I found a full article from the Independent. However, that's just one. The article cites a reviewed paper by the authors of the program; I don't think that (or Wikimedia Diff) counts. There are quite a bit of trivial mentions in other papers. Meanwhile, The Hindu and Time of India each devote a paragraph. I feel like there's marginal notability here. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:39, 31 July 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) 20:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I couldn't find more sources than the Independent above published in 2010. Searching for its former name "wikiBabel" brings mostly pages linked to Microsoft that are currently deleted. Its web doesn't really function, etc. ---Tumbuka Arch (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded articles

History

List of windmills in Friesland (T–V)

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

Unclear why we would need such a detailed list of a type of building, most of which are not individually notable and no longer existing. Replicating other, highly specialised databases here is not really the purpose of Wikipedia. There are or were more than 20,000 windmills in the Netherlands, and many more in other countries. Fram (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, Lists, and Netherlands. Fram (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All - per WP:NLIST - the individual windmills do not need to be notable. As the editor doing the majority of work on the various lists of windmills, I've been using my discretion to include all windmills which can be verified to have existed. That the Friesland list has had to be split into several sub-lists is determined by the amount of templates that can be included before the limit size is exceeded. There are over 100 lists of windmills, many of which include all mills. Are we to delete those too? Mjroots (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The individual entries don't need to be notable if the group is notable, and even then "editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." A list which needs to be split in 9 separate pages is a large list, and a discussion whether this isn't overkill (assuming the group is notable) is perfectly acceptable, independent of whether we have other lists of windmills or not (I note that many of these other lists seem to be limited to still existing windmills, not including the often shortlived ones from the past). Fram (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of the UK windmills lists cover all known windmills. Mjroots (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And articles like List of windmills in North Brabant cover only the existing ones, no idea what your point is or how this is relevant for this AfD discussion. Fram (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The intention is for all Netherlands windmills lists to cover all mills. Also Belgium as their mills are also well documented. It is easier to verify mills standing than those not standing, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to cover those lost. We've both said our piece, now let's let other editors have their say. Mjroots (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Condense down to a single list of the entries that have their own articles, as a reasonable navigation aid (as much as I think that gets overused, it's actually pretty appropriate here). Otherwise, this is just a massive database dump. It may or may not even be reasonable to combine all the separate province lists into a single list for the whole country, but I'll remain ambivalent on that one. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bank of Carmel

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

extra hyper-local run of the mill buildings that does not fall under WP:GEOFEAT because it's not protected under national status. Trivial coverage in an Oakland newspaper and SF Chronicle, lots of snippet coverages based on ultra hyper-local Carmel-Pinecone weekly tabloid. This appears to be part of the ongoing construction of Carmel-by-the-Sea related walled garden by one creator. Graywalls (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, Business, Companies, and California. Graywalls (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Bank of Carmel is connected with artist Paul Whitman who constructed two bas reliefs for the front of the Bank of Carmel building. The bank article links to Thomas Albert Work, Charles O. Goold, and Barnet J. Segal , who were important directors for the building. The Art Deco style of the building is a significant historical aspect. The city of Carmel has recognized the building as an important historical site in there Downtown Conservation District Historic Property Survey. Secondary sources by Kent Seavey and Sharron Lee Hale (see edit request) show WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBUILDING. The building is notable as a result of its historic, social, and architectural importance. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Seavey, how significant is the coverage? The citation in the article is to a single page, and the link provided shows that this page is just a photo & caption in a book of photos. Axad12 (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not about size of coverage but about what is significant. The Kent Seavey book gives a good overview of Bank of Carmel, how it looked before it has been turned into a retail store, its relationship to Barnet J. Segal and artist Paul Whitman. It is an important source to show the historical important of the building. I've added a second source in an edit request on the talk page. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, just to be clear, when you say "good overview" you mean a single photo and caption?

Do we assume therefore that, in your opinion, every property with a photograph in that book satisfies WP:NBUILDING? Or, indeed, every property that has ever appeared in a captioned photograph in any book? Axad12 (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is more than a photo and a caption. Under the photo is a full, multi-sentence description with names, dates, and info on the bank. WP:GNG's "significant coverage" does not require a volume of words. It can also mean the quality of the words. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a captioned photo in a local picture book. However, I do agree with you when you say that to you that qualifies as WP:SIGCOV. Axad12 (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you changed your comment - you deleted the bit that said "To me that is WP:SIGCOV". Why did you delete that bit? Axad12 (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, please, multiple editors have explained to you multiple times that a photograph or a photo caption does not count as SIGCOV nor contributes to notability criteria. It might be ok to use to back up a fact, but that's it. Do you not remember reading or hearing this advice in the past? Netherzone (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are allowed to make changes. The topic of WP:GNG is important in relation to WP:SIGCOV. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, you still say Seavey counts as SIGCOV? Axad12 (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The correct way (meaning best practices) to make changes at AfDs is to strike out the text that is no longer applicable or changed, then add the new text. That is so other editors can have a comprehensive understanding of the points being made. Netherzone (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Greghenderson2006:, all of those names are biography articles in your walled garden in Carmel/Pebble Beach/Monterey/California topic area. Graywalls (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had the exact same thought earlier this morning - yet another walled garden. Probably many of these articles can be merged or redirected, but this is yet another big clean up project. It may be best waiting a week or two, and tackling it in an organized way, identifying key articles are indisputably notable that might be appropriate merge/redirect targets. Thoughts? Netherzone (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To above comments: Please read the follwoing two articles:
Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia

Criticism of Wikipedia
I think they are key here as it covers the topic of deleting articles in Wikipedia, excessive rule-making, edit warring, and uneven policy application. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if only there wasn't so much excessive rule-making, e.g. UPE, COI, GNG, SIGCOV, etc., etc. Axad12 (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I haven't yet looked into all of the sources, but at least half of the current ones are press releases, they are not even "trivial coverage", they are press-release based PR announcements placed in newspapers, not SIGCOV. See Wikipedia:Independent_sources#Press_releases for more information. Netherzone (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you call press releases are actually important pieces of primary source information that tells a story and is part of the history! For example, "Carmel Notes". Oakland Tribune. Oakland, California. 14 Oct 1923. p. 25. Retrieved 2022-05-24, says "Carmel's new bank was the first and only one the city has had." This indicates it was the first bank in Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, which is significant. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are press releases. Netherzone (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't tell if the article is supposed to be about the short-lived bank or the building. If it's about the bank, it fails the WP:NCORP test of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS, and if it's about the building, which is not on any historic registers that carry presumed notability, it fails WP:NBUILD, which calls for "significant in-depth coverage." What's offered here is a series of primary sources, trivial local newspaper mentions, and unreliable sources like Arcadia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nom that this is part of the Carmel WP:Walled garden, yet another run of the mill local building that is not on the NRHP, thus failing WP:BUILD. I am also in agreement with Dclemens1971 that as a bank it does not meet WP:NCORP criteria for SIRS & SIGCOV. The creator still does not seem to understand that notability is not inherited from allegedly "notable" people associated with the structure. What we have in terms of sourcing is: 1) a nomination form by the Parks & Recreation (primary source); 2) a press-release printed in a newspaper (primary source); 3) another press release (primary source), 4) another press release (primary source); 5) a photo and photo caption in a tourist-trade book published by a marginal publisher (Arcadia) whose reliability is questionable (not SIGCOV and low-quality source); 6) a short piece without a by-line in the hyper-local weekly tabloid, The Pine Cone; 7) a meeting agenda (primary source, really wondering why this is even included?); 8) a 404 dead link in The Pine Cone (hyper local weekly tabloid); 9) an advertisement in The Pine Cone (WTF?); 10) a photo and caption in a report by the City of Carmel (primary source). None of this contributes to the notability of the bank as a business nor the building, therefore also fails WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Looks like Netherzone and Graywalls always come to the plate to delete good articles that have plenty of sources, including primary and secondary ones. This Deletionists mentality is a reason why many have criticism of Wikipedia. An enclypodia should free to write on many topics both of local and national interest. Based on WP:GNG, the article has significant coverage in reliable sources. More sources have been included in the edit request. Instead of trying to delte articles we should be encouraging fellow Wikipedians to add additional sources if needed. I feel that some people are to quick to judge and just delete articles they don't like. That shouldn't be how an enclypodia works to educate them on topics like the first bank in Carmel! Greg Henderson (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Part of a campaign to get every last ditch of Carmel-by-the-Sea related stuff into Wikipedia, even if they are not notable and there is little to no reliable sourcing, which includes this article. Most of the article's sources are not independent of the subject or are press releases. Haruka Amaranth 01:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please also see edit request sources. BTW, the Carmel Bank was a pretty notable bank in its day. It was the first bank in that city. Greg Henderson (talk) 01:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The various superlatives of first, biggest, richest, largest, oldest in a local villages and townships are not a cause for creating an encyclopedia article. Graywalls (talk) 03:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the reasons outlined by Dclemens1971 and Netherzone Axad12 (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Netherzone's thorough source-by-source analysis is spot-on as usual, and Dclemens1971 also provides an accurate summary of the available coverage and how it squares up to notability guidelines. Left guide (talk) 11:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a platform for local tourism projects, we have guidelines for establishing notability which requires a certain standard from sources, none of which are met here. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest of Sindan

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

Examining the sources The article appears to push a caste-POV rather than provide clear information about the military conflict. From John F. Richards' source, there is only a single line about the conflict, which is part of a larger table listing numerous minor conflicts. This brief mention does not reference Arabs, Abbasids, or Sindh; it simply notes that a commander named Bhoja expelled a Muslim garrison from a place called Sindan in 839. There is no mention of caste, Abbasids, or Arabs in this reference. The article's author cites Richards inaccurately (Richards didn't cover the area which the author cited).

The sources by H.C. Ray and Al-Baladhuri fall under WP:RAJ and WP:AGEMATTERS, and K.M. Munshi's "Glory That Was Gurjara Desa" praises the Gurjar caste without describing the conflict in depth or mentioning the Abbasids or Sindh province (not even the year). Likewise, R.C. Majumdar, Praful Kartha, and Hem Chandra Ray do not mention a conflict in Sindhan between the Abbasids and the Rajput confederacy. The assumption that the Muslims defeated by Bhoja in 839 were Abbasids and that Sindh was a Caliphal province is clearly original research and synthesis of sources.

None of the sections accurately describe the "conquest"; they discuss unrelated events, and the lack of in-depth coverage makes it clear that the article fails WP:GNG. Only about 5% of the article covers the respective event, and that is based on a single line by J.F. Richards. The author has created similar articles that contain original research and caste POV pushing. The context can be found in the article List of early Hindu–Muslim military conflicts in the Indian subcontinent, and none of the listed conflicts in that article have enough notability to warrant a separate article. Fails WP:GNG, and the article is a product of WP:SYNTH and OR. Imperial ^[AFCND] 07:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Saudi Arabia, and India. Imperial ^[AFCND] 07:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the closer:

Please review the background and edit history of the voters (whether they are for "keep" or "delete"). Articles related to Indian history, especially those concerning wars, battles, and sieges, are often sensitive and have been subject to active meatpuppetry for a long time. Kindly disregard comments from active POV pushers, as I discovered this article through the contributions of one.--Imperial ^[AFCND] 07:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bhutala

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

No reliable sources (WP:RS) mention a "Battle of Bhutala," nor do any of the references cited in the article. The article lacks notability, as even the authors Srivastav Ashoka and Somani Ram Vallabh are unsure about the year the battle occurred, and they cannot confirm if the leader was Iltutmish of the Delhi Sultanate. Neither the background nor the battle sections provide details about the events related to this alleged battle.

The battle section is a direct copy of a primary Indian inscription from Hamir Mada Mardan, dated to the 13th century and written by one of the participants, making it unreliable. The aftermath section is disorganized, failing to specify details about the war, belligerents, or aftermath. The article consists of WP:SYNTH and original research, with no reliable sources confirming the battle or its details. As such, the article fails the notability criteria. Imperial ^[AFCND] 06:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and India. Imperial ^[AFCND] 06:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the closer:

Please review the background and edit history of the voters (whether they are for "keep" or "delete"). Articles related to Indian history, especially those concerning wars, battles, and sieges, are often sensitive and have been subject to active meatpuppetry for a long time. Kindly disregard comments from active POV pushers, as I discovered this article through the contributions of one.--Imperial ^[AFCND] 06:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While I think this is not a hoax (or at least not a recent one), as it is mentioned in a few unreliable sources, but just a bunch of OR, there clearly isn't a single mention of even the existence of this battle in reliable sources, meaning it fails WP:GNG (and WP:NEVENT as no lasting consequences or large scope). — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 10:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It contains reliable sources and I can't find any reason for not passing WP:GNG it clearly passes WP:GNG. Raged Pratihar (talk) 08:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Raged Pratihar: Most of the references ([6] [7] [8] [9]), do not even mention the word "Bhutala".

The two that do ([10] [11]), both deduce of a historical drama I can't find a trance of ("Hammirmadmardanam" or "Hamir Mada Mardam") that there was a battle at that place, but are not sure when or between whom. Also these sources look reliable and independent, WP:GNG also requires WP:SIGCOV, and merely stating existence is not significant. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 13:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jhala Man Singh

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

While there are several passing WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of this figure in Indian history, I can find no WP:SIGCOV of Jhala Man Singh/Bida Jhala/Jhala Manna. (The sources provided also include only trivial mentions or are unreliable per WP:NEWSORGINDIA.) Disputed PROD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jhala Man singh was a rajput general of Maharana Pratap who had a great contribution in Battle of Haldighati

See sources Mewar & the Mughal Emperors (1526-1707 A.D.) - Page 94 Man Singh Jhala was in the command of left wing...and was assisted by Jhala Bida of Badi - Sadri

Akbar the Great: Political history, 1542-1605 A.D clearly mentions Jhala Bida of Badi Sadri Raged Pratihar (talk) 05:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC). Suspected sock of R2dra [12].[reply]

Delete This is part of the ongoing caste-based bias in Indian history. The practice of caste pushing has migrated to Wikipedia, often through coordinated efforts (meatpuppetry indeed). Creating articles for self-gratification and caste pride is becoming increasingly common on Wikipedia. Fails enough notability and not enough significance to have a seperate article, and the article body itself is biased and OR.--Imperial ^[AFCND] 07:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ImperialAficionado do you think Govt of India is fool to publish stamp dedicated to Jhala Manna??

Stop pushing muslim pov Raged Pratihar (talk) 05:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect In light of offering of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS above, I went further through the sources. This article is a duplicate/WP:CONTENTFORK of Man Singh I, who led troops at the Battle of Haldighati. Consider Raged Pratihar's sources:

Sharma, Mewar and the Mughal Emperors: "Most of die gallant warriors like Jhala Man Singh, Kathor Shankar Das, Rawat Netsi and others made a stand against the Mughals for some dmc; but a band of body-guard of Man Singh fought bravely against them which made them retreat. The retreating forces were hotly pursued and many a Raj¬ put met his death. Thus on the very day at noon the regular battle terminated in the Mughal victory. Then the victorious army of Man Singh returned to its camp, though the Bhils did not spare them and conducted black-mail till night and deprived the enemy of their provisions which they had stored."
Srivastava, Akbar the Great discusses this battle but an excerpt is not available. However, in :*Srivastava, The Mughal Empire, he records the following details: "In April 1576, [Akbar] sent a powerful army under Man Singh of Amber to invade the remnant of Mewar. From Mandal Garh (in eastern Mewar) Man Singh proceeded by way of Mohi (south of Raj Samudra Lake) towards Gogunda and encamped on the plain at the northern end of Haldi Ghati, a spur of the Aravalli chain, between that town and the village of Khamnaur on the, southern bank of the river Banas. Here the imperial army was attacked, by Pratap, who marched from Gogunda to check the advance of the invader on June 18, 1576. Tradition has magnified the Rana’s army to twenty thousand horse and that of Man Singh to eighty thousand. The fact, however, is that the Mewar force did not exceed three thousand horse and a few hundred Bhil infantry, Man Singh commanded ten thousand picked cavahy of whom nearly four thousand were Kachhwaha Rajputs, one thousand other Hindus and^the remaining were. mostly central Asian Turks, Uzbegs, Kazzaqs with a thousand Sayyids of Barha and Shaikhzadas of Fatehpur Sikri. ... [T]he. centre was under the command of Man Singh himself. Issuing from behind the Haldi Ghati the Rana made a frontal attack on the Mughul army which lay on the plain to the north-west of the foot-ti.irk al ilic northci II entrance of llic ghali. So desperate \vas the cliaige that the A'lnglml vanguard and left wing were scattered and its rigl-.t wing and centre were hard pressed. But the Rana’s army was very small in number and he had no reserve or rear guard to bark up his initial sueress. In his attempt, therefore, to break the enemy centre and right wing he hurled his war-elephants against tliem. But the arrows and bullets form tlie other side proved too much even for the death-defying Sisodia heroes. In the personal combat between the Kachhwaha and Sisodia heroes many of the latter fell \’ictims to the Muslim bullets and arrows shot indiscriminately at the Rajputs by fanatics like Badayuni. Raja Ram Shah Tan^^•ar. who figured in front of the Rana in the thick of fighting in order to ‘shield him from attack was slain by Jagannath Kachhwaha. The imperial reserve now came to join the battle and a rumour spread that Akbar had arrived in person to assist Man Singh. The Rana was now surrounded by the enemy and was about to be cut off. But Bida Jhala snatched the crown from Pratap’s head, rushed to the front and cried out that he was the Rana. The enemy crowded round him and the pressure on Pratap was released. At this critical time some faithful soldiers seized the reins of the Rana’s horse and took him safely to the rear of the line. Bida fell fighting loyally to save his master. At this the Rana’s men lost heart and turned away from the field, leaving a large number of their dead behind. The battle of Haldi Ghati was over. The loss on both the sides was very heavy, the Rana losing nearly half ol the entire force. The imperial troops were so much exhausted that they could not think of pursuing the Rana and passed the dreadful night in apprehension of a surprise attack In fact, they could not gauge the magnitude of their success until next morning. The Rana evacuated Gogunda, and Man Singh then made arrangements for its occupation. Notwithstanding his best efforts, Man Singh did not succeed in reducing that fraction of Mewar (north-western region including Kumbhalgarh and Deosuri) which still remained in the hands of the Rana. He could not hold Gogunda for long owing to want of provisions and the hostility of the people. Neither his threats nor persuasion would bring Pratap round. The indomitable Sisodia king, though reduced to starvation on more than one occasion, did not condescend to lower his pride and acknowledge Akbar’s suzerainty, much less to agree to a matrimonial alliance with him. Man Singh fell in disfavour with Akbar for his failure and was recalled to court."

Other sources indicate that Jhala Man Singh and Man Singh I are the same person.

Singh, Thirty Decisive Battles of Jaipur. "The Maharana at that moment was so closely surrounded by the foes that the Rajputs of both the sides felt extreme anxiety for the safety of his-life. Even Sakat Singh, the brother of the Maharana, who due to fraternal dissension had left Mewar and was fighting on the imperial side, began to feel great concern for the life of his brother. Seeing no way out of the impasse, Jhala Man Singh at once snatched away the head-jewel, the regal umbrella and other insignia of the crown of Mewar from the Maharana and put them on his own person, although the Maharana was most reluctant to leave the field of battle at the risk of the life of his trusted kinsman and warrior. Just as his grand-father Jhala Ajja had assumed the leadership of the Rajputs at Bayana and died on the field of battle fighting against Babar’s army, when Rana Sanga was compelled to leave the battle-field due to wounds, in almost similar circumstances Jhala Man led the remnant of the Mewar army against the Mughals and thus saved the precious life of the Maharana."
Hyland, The Warhorse, similar discussion on page 172.
Sarkar, A History of Jaipur, similar coverage of the Battle of Haldighati on pages 51ff.

Given the lack of evidence that these are different people and that the sourcing in the article and offered by the one "Keep" !voter show they are the same, I am now recommending a redirect. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971 no Jhala Man Singh was the general of Maharan Pratap while Man Singh was a Mughal General of akbar Raged Pratihar (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971 even govt of india has published stamps on Jhala Manna

He is an important figure in indian history. Raged Pratihar (talk) 05:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Raged Pratihar Please stop posting images into the AfD discussion, it messes up the formatting. You have not addressed what the sources I quoted say, you have simply made an assertion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971 dont get confused btw Man Singh and Jhala Manna

Read this article Battle of Haldighati Jhala Man Singh is referred as Jhala Bida here. Raged Pratihar (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are not clear about this distinction, see above. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, topic clearly has no coverage in depth, based on WP:GNGSOURCECRIT, fail in Notability and page was created by master (R2dra)[13] and now mostly edited by sock (Raged Pratihar)[14].2402:AD80:134:D2C9:1:0:A2C0:1FAB (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samsun clashes (1920)

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

Article doesn't seem notable, sources are not reliable or verifiable. Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Turkey, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment tr:Samsun is featured but as far as I can tell does not mention this - I have linked this discussion on that article talk page in the hope someone knows better than me. Also if the clashes with British were significant I guess one of you military experts can find an English language source Chidgk1 (talk) 06:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've searched and have not found anything. Insanityclown1 (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tal Afar uprising

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

This doesn't seem like a notable event. There are no records cited of casualty figures or combatant numbers. The British commander isn't even noted. Not to mention, this article is written pretty poorly and with a clear nationalist slant. Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Iraq, Turkey, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Did the nominator conduct a WP:BEFORE search? The nominator would benefit from reading WP:NEXIST and WP:DINC. Curbon7 (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaji Bhangare

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

WP:CASTE cruft bio created by IP socks of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala. First tried to hijack Gamaliel when that failed started this page through another IP hop. Gotitbro (talk) 10:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, History, Military, India, and Maharashtra. Gotitbro (talk) 10:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. I can not verify any sources except for one but that is not on the subject of this page. RangersRus (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jurij Viditsch

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

A 17th century Slovenian mayor is hardly notable enough to keep a page here. Although he was mayor of Ljubljana, the capital city of Slovenia, which could be grounds for some notability, no sources exist which make significant mention of his life or do anything more substantial than say his name.

Here are all existing sources I could find about him:

[15] (which apparently consists of articles from Wikipedia according to this site here)
[16] (only mentions him once)

The only page on Wikipedia that even makes mention of him is List of mayors of Ljubljana. If it weren't for similarly useless pages about mayors from Ljubljana's history whose pages should be deleted alongside this one, this page would be an Orphan. Fringe, Suspect The (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Slovenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Slovenia was not an independent country at the time and Ljubljana not a capital. This weakens the case for NPOL. The first source mentioned above is very obviously a Wikipedia collection. Several other mayor articles are in the same dire state, including Horacij Carminelli and other successors. Many of these only duplicate List of mayors of Ljubljana and can be redirected there. In that list, a few other details such as birth and death year can also be added whereever known. Geschichte (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agreed. Fringe, Suspect The (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This was all I could find [17]; just not enough sourcing for our needs here. Sourcing now in the article is a list of mayors from the city, not helping notability (and a primary source). Oaktree b (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Royalty and nobility. Curbon7 (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The cited source [2] names A) his reelection B) German name: Under "Georg Viditsch" you will find him several listings in google books plus a secondary literature that states that he was judge at Laibach afterwards. Axisstroke (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No more information here than is already given at List of mayors of Ljubljana, which is true of a number of other mayors in that list with similar stub articles that should also go. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we should avoid having contemporary notability standards for historical figures for earlier epochs. Just because a person isn't highlighted by contemporary historians doesn't mean he wasn't notable during his time period. The name has different variations, Georg or Jurij, Vidic or Viditsch, probably some other variants in Latin. A mayor of a mayor city in this period wasn't a 'local politician' as we understand it today, that person would have been a person of significant notability. He also served as 'Stadtrichter' of the city. Here we see his heraldic shield. He is mentioned here across story of several pages, but I can't make sense of the Fraktur script, not sure if journalistic account or prose. ([18] mentions a Georg Vidic born around 1540 in Blečji Vrh, as the first known in a genealogical line of Vidic... but DOB doesn't really match our Georg Vidic) --Soman (talk) 12:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolaus von Braun

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

This is a weird one. This guy was quartermaster of the garrison regiment of Malmo, Sweden in the early 1700s. Which seems to have been the town guard. Obviously in modern terms being a department chief in a city's police department wouldn't warrant a Wikipedia article by itself, but does it historically? I don't honestly know. The impetus for the Wikipedia article is a 30-page article in a local history yearbook, the citation for which I've cleaned up with a URL which I invite commenters to look at, especially if you speak Swedish. I doubt there are any other internet-accessible sources.

The source material is written in an academic style with citations, but many seem to be general ones for historical context, rather than ones that actually mention von Braun. He seems to only be documented in primary sources found by the chapter's writers, which in theory is fine. Their book chapter is a secondary source which Wikipedia can cite. It is likely to be the only valid source for Wikipedia on von Braun, though. Is that enough? Again, I don't honestly know. This is an AFD where I'm asking what you all think, rather than saying we definitely need to delete the article.

Reading the source through auto-translation it seems to be much more speculative than the Wikipedia article implies, with much of the information about von Braun being guesses and suppositions. It does seem like a bit of hyper-local history. In Wikipedia terms, it will probably be difficult to create meaningful inbound links (I found this article trying to create links to old orphan articles). And it's hard to imagine who's going to be getting useful information from a vague article about a city guard quartermaster from 300 years ago. I know you could make the "it's not useful..." argument for lots of Wikipedia articles, and Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia so it's fine to have articles on very obscure things, but in this case, I mean... who actually is needing this vague information about a city guard quartermaster who didn't do anything notable?

The article was created by a user who was long ago banned, with the central issue seeming to be stretching sources way too far to write content on hyper-local topics... which sounds exactly like what might be going on here right? Here2rewrite (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I ran the name through Project Runeberg [19] and nothing pops up. If there's no biography there, I'm going to say this person isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Military, and Sweden. C F A 💬 04:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is not importance so the significance of his office or whether he "did anything notable" is not relevant. All that matters if whether there are enough reliable sources to write a basic biography. Between the thirty pages written about him in the academic edited volume already cited and the literature list therein (most of which are not primary, and several appear to contain significant coverage based on how Norström & Bjernehed cite them, e.g. Den Aran Pommern harstammande svenska atten von Braun and Den med skoldebref forldnade men ej riddarhuset Introducerade svenska adelns attar-tailor). This is a local historical subject but that doesn't exclude it from Wikipedia – Malmö is a city of 350,000 people with an 800 year history, lots of people will be interested in it, even if the nominator isn't. What it does mean is that we shouldn't expect the sources to be an easy google away; they'll be in local libraries, in Swedish, and likely not digitised. – Joe (talk) 07:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But we don't have these sources, likely existing isn't good enough. All we have is one biography. Oaktree b (talk) 04:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I listed three specific sources. There's Nörstrom & Bjernehed, "Nicolaus von Braun - the major city of Malmö 1705–1710", available online; Schlegel, Den med sköldebref förlänade men ej å Riddarhuset introducerade svenska adelns ättar-taflor, available online; and Sundberg, Den Frȧn pommern Härstammande svenska ätten von braun, available in several libraries. And that's just from a five minute search by somebody who doesn't understand Swedish very well. Sources don't have to be easy to find to be useable. – Joe (talk) 08:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTGENEALOGY and the latter two are certainly genealogical reference books. Geschichte (talk) 10:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTGENEALOGY says family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic. What part of that excludes considering independent, secondary, reliable sources on genealogy when assessing notability? – Joe (talk) 10:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do those sources contain WP:Significant coverage, i.e. non-genealogical coverage, of the subject? TompaDompa (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not agree that the sources mentioned above are significant coverage. Geschichte (talk) 13:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This Day in North American Indian History

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

Utterly non-notable, 12-year-old calendar. Per WP:Notability (books), it has not won major aways; made a significant contribution to any of the sciences, humanities or arts; been used as a textbook; author is not exceptionally significant. Yuchitown (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You ignored the first and most important criterion in NBOOK: "The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself". "Significance" measures are precluded by available sourcing and there are at least four reviews of this found on EBSCO search, from Booklist, Library Journal, Multicultural Review, and Wild West. Passes GNG and NBOOK. It's also not a "calendar". PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Half of these sources are already in the article - it passes NBOOK already. Nomination is flawed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, satisfies WP:NBOOK as User:PARAKANYAA explains. For the context of how this article came into being see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Konstantin (2nd nomination). Haukur (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable book. The article needs work though Microplastic Consumer (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I count at least five reviews already in the article, that's more than what's needed for notability for books. This is an easy !keep vote Oaktree b (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and consider SNOW. Booklist, Publisher's Weekly, Library Journal=GNG pass, without even looking at the other two review/references in any detail. Jclemens (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly passes NBOOK. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and North America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Čarapić

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

6 out of the 7 citations are for Google Books, and I see no inherent notability. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 04:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Serbia. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 04:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Courtesy ping to AfC accepter SafariScribe. Curbon7 (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Additionally, can the nominator please clarify their rationale. I do not see how having coverage in books is an indicator of non-notability, and is actually quite the contrary from reality as we want coverage from (among other places) books. Inherent notability is also not a thing. Curbon7 (talk) 03:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Curbon7, I still don't understand the nominator's rationale. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I had it in my watchlist but never saw a mention of me. "Inherent notability" is just notability but I put an "inherent" in front of it, probably a bad choice of words on my part. I just see no notability besides a few books, and that's why I AfD'd it. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 14:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator should be willing to reply in this discussion, but on the other hand the article doesn't make me grasp what Marko Čarapić did. WP:NOTINHERITED is possibly being failed here. Geschichte (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katoch–Sikh war

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

A few unreliable sources- Ref 1) by Khazan Singh was published in 1914, and the author is not a historian. Ref 8) by Mark Brentnall is a self published source with no information available about the author. Ref 7) by Amarinder Singh, the author is a politician not a historian. In addition, refs 2) and 3) are improperly cited, do not have a page number or a proper url to a page discussing the subject at hand and thus fail WP:V. The remaining sources make only passing mention of this battle/conflicts between Sansar Chand Katoch and Ranjit Singh, and subsequently focus far more on Chand and Ranjit Singh's alliance against the Nepalis; the actual "war" content between the 2 in these books fails WP:SIGCOV by a long shot. The article's information is best suited as a prelude/context in the page Nepal-Sikh war due to the aforementioned proportionality of coverage surrounding the two's alliance. In addition, the creator of the article created numerous low quality pages to inundate Wikipedia with articles aggrandizing his religion's military history.Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Sikhism, and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom Raged Pratihar (talk) 08:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete low quality article that’s badly sourced as per nom. Someguywhosbored (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear opinions from editors with more experience at AFD and, ideally, with this subject area.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

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

Similar to other articles in the Career achievements of basketball players category, this is a collection of indiscriminate trivia with trivial statistical cross sections, which is a violation of WP:NOTSTATS and does not meet the notability criteria under WP:NLIST. The most pertinent info is already included in the main article. Let'srun (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but with severe pruning. Ditch the NBA statistics and Career high sections and trim the NBA records, but that still leaves a notable boatload of the last, e.g. most points scored, most blocks (both now second), etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Too many for one regular bio page. KatoKungLee (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless there's a solid reason to delete it beyond being statistics-heavy. Kareem is one of the sport's greatest players, something which has drawn extremely extensive commentary, so I don't think this is really indiscriminate.

jp×g 🗯️ 21:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unneeded WP:CONTENTFORK packed with WP:UNDUE, indiscriminate, trivial stats minutiae. Major, defining achievements should be captured in the main bio. The basic achievements are already at Kareem Abdul-Jabbar § NBA career statistics, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar § Athletic honors and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar § Legacy. Also fails WP:NOTSTATS: Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing As most of this page is unsourced (tagged since April), there's no opportunity to merge either. Consistent with consensus against standalone odes to other Basketball Hall of Fame players and "top 10" of all-time like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Hakeem Olajuwon and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Larry Bird.—Bagumba (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, there is no consensus. Let's see if a relisting helps.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. ~~The sole delete vote recommends merging the material into the main article.~~ However, that article is very long (8098 words), and WP:SIZESPLIT applies. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not recommend a merge at all: As most of this page is unsourced (tagged since April), there's no opportunity to merge either. As also mentioned, WP:NOTSTATS applies for the trivial numbers as well.—Bagumba (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First all-time (second now) scoring, rebounding and blocked shots are "trivial numbers"? Also, why are you typing "*:"? ":*" actually does something with the asterisk. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned previously, major stats such as those are presented in prose at Kareem Abdul-Jabbar § Legacy. It doesn't need a standalone list conflated with unsourced trivial stats. As for the indenting question, I was using the reply tool, and its formatting seems consistent with Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks § Best practices—Bagumba (talk) 07:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Colons_and_asterisks#Best_practices says to use things like ":::" or "***", not a mixture. If the reply tool is doing something else, then it's faulty in a minor way. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC) [reply]

There's a mixed example there showing *****: sixth reply.—Bagumba (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History Proposed deletions

History categories

for occasional archiving

Proposals