Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/History

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Based Kashmiri (talk | contribs) at 09:33, 3 June 2024 (→‎History: Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conquest of Mandaran). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. 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.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|History|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to History. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


History

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest of Mandaran

Conquest of Mandaran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly fails WP:GNG as there are no reliable sources which provide significant coverage of this event or mentions the event as Conquest of Mandaran. it relies heavily on Non-WP:RS sources. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 09:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:41, 10 June 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretenders to the throne of Mexico

Pretenders to the throne of Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Follow-up to c. 60 "Line of succession to the former X throne" precedents, almost all of which resulted in Delete. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretenders to the throne of Parma. NLeeuw (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should I ping some participants from previous discussions on the same type of topic? NLeeuw (talk) 18:17, 9 June 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

A discussion about some new policy regarding these types of articles is welcome to take place outside this AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 01:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretenders to the throne of Parma

Pretenders to the throne of Parma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Follow-up to c. 60 "Line of succession to the former X throne" precedents, almost all of which resulted in Delete. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretenders to the throne of Mexico. NLeeuw (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should I ping some participants from previous discussions on the same type of topic? NLeeuw (talk) 18:17, 9 June 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. Owen× ☎ 14:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kleftopolemos

Kleftopolemos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly written and translated article that contains nothing but a version of guerilla warfare, written from a Greek nationalist POV. There is nothing in here that is specific to the Greek War of Independence and cannot be applied to guerrilla movements more broadly (ambushes, raids, small group tactics, field fortifications), as the article itself sort of admits. Delete and redirect to guerrilla warfare. Constantine ✍ 12:51, 2 June 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. Owen× ☎ 14:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American involvement in the 2013–2014 Ukrainian Revolution

American involvement in the 2013–2014 Ukrainian Revolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research and WP:POVFORK, including fringe content. Any notable content can be merged into existing articles. NoonIcarus (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original version of the article had 114 citations and 5 works cited. Are you really claiming that all most every single one of those citations are meaningless in establishing notability? --David Tornheim (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Taking reliable sources and cherry-picking facts out of them to create a picture opposite to their conclusions will get us an article worth deleting. I tried to assess the article and this is the impression I got: Talk:American involvement in the 2013–2014 Ukrainian Revolution#c-Manyareasexpert-20240602172700-Rsk6400-20240602093400 and Talk:American involvement in the 2013–2014 Ukrainian Revolution#Neutrality, quality, sources . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to add to my original comment before you came in, that I do agree that there is WP:SYN in at least some of the article. I just made an offer to remove some of it Talk:American_involvement_in_the_2013–2014_Ukrainian_Revolution#Original_research_WP:OR_/_WP:SYN here. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did find this article by Michael McFaul that directly challenges Mearsheimer's take. But even his critic identifies him as "one of the most consistent and persuasive theorists in the realist school of international relations."
Although I do suspect Mearsheimer's view is a minority opinion--especially among Western commentators--his explanation is well argued and convincing. He speaks with authority. That said, I am not as familiar as with the other sources, other than mainstream news sources like CNN, New York Times, and MSNBC, and other similar sources that come up in Google searches, many of which unfortunately resurrect and repeat the Cold War tropes advanced by the Democrats about the "evil" Russians that I had to endure when I was a kid--until suddenly they became human when the Berlin Wall came down.
I am not suggesting the Wikipedia articles use the word coup, because I have no doubt there are plenty of Western sources that don't call it that. Even Al Jazeera put the term in quotes here.
Because it bothers you, I'll try to avoid using the term on talk pages too--unless attributed to Mearsheimer or someone of similar academic standing. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mearsheimer is widely criticized, you could read that in an article on him if it would not get removed [3] . So yes, his views on this are a minority. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look, Mearsh has very rapidly lost credibility and has been pretty consistently panned in IR an Pol Theory circles because of his views on the war. Sadly, someone being a well respected in a field does not automatically make them immune from being fringe in some cases Nobel disease and arguments from authority are both things we should be weary of---especially in the case of someone as plainly arrogant as Mearsheimer.
It is worth noting that among other problems his writings on Ukraine is at odds with his own celebrated theories in 'Great power politics'. Not to mention that he consistently down plays Ukrainian's agency which is deeply troubling all on it's own.
For what it's worth thank you for understanding why such language is deeply problematic.
([4], [5], and even [6]) —blindlynx 21:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the strong support for delete, could we instead turn the article into a draft in either Алексей Юрчак's userspace, mine, or somewhere else relevant--such as one of the articles you mention? Or make it a merge/redirect? (per your recommendation "Anything useful here can put (back) into the articles Revolution of Dignity, Euromaidan, Ukraine–United States relations etc.")
Even if the consensus is that it is unlikely to ever become an article, I do think there are valuable sources related to Revolution_of_Dignity, Revolution_of_Dignity#United_States_support, etc. and it would be preferable to have a history of the discussion of those sources, quotes of those sources, and concerns raised here and on the talk page about both. I think it would be helpful to keep the history rather than have all that effort thrown into the garbage can--which is what happens when an article is deleted.
I have changed my iVote accordingly. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just merged all that I thought worthy of preservation to the section at Revolution of Dignity. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those edits preserved very little of the many sources and quotes of the original showing the U.S.'s actions and interactions with Ukraine leading up to the protests, during the protests, and immediately after Yanukovych left. This is why I suggest we make sure the original article is either drafitied or the article is changed to a redirect--to preserve the relevant material that has not been included. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fringe (sic) authors and cherry-picked sources are not "showing" anything. Even if you don't want to listen: WP follows mainstream. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What else do you want to keep? The discussions are all about why most of the article doesn't belong in an encyclopedia—blindlynx 15:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a POV-pushing, conspiracy-theory-ridden mess. The article is full of vague claims and suspicions, which start in the lead with the phrase "while some say..." and continue throughout. Toadspike [Talk] 00:27, 9 June 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polish raid on Kievan Rus' (1136)

Polish raid on Kievan Rus' (1136) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:PRIMARY, WP:GNG, WP:NPOV. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bolesław II the Bold's expedition to Kiev (1076–1077). User:SebbeKg created this article on 18 February 2024, 4 days before he was blocked indefinitely for Adding poorly sourced content, false accusations of vandalism. We still need to clean up the rubbish he added, checking whether there is anything left of value, and throwing away the rest. Bolesław II the Bold's expedition to Kiev (1076–1077) was deleted on 27 May. Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135) was AfD'd previously, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135), resulting in no consensus. But Marcelus did the right thing by removing all informations referenced to primary sources, as obvious OR. I decided to WP:BOLDly turn it into a redirect to Wiślica#History, where I added 1 sentence to summarise the incident based on a source which Piotrus and Marcelus agreed was RS.

As for this article itself, it is clearly written completely from a point of view of later Polish chroniclers who invented lots of details out of their own volition, dramatising and exaggerating stories they had heard or read about. This whole text is basking in emotions of "revenge for Wiślica". Evidently, there was a Volhynian raid on Wiślica in 1135, but I have not been able to find any sort of "Polish" retaliation against "Kievan Rus" in the next year. It is striking that not a single toponym is mentioned in this article, except the vague " Entire communities surrounding the Principality of Volhynia". No standard history work on Kievan Rus' I consulted mentions this event. Not even the Kievan Chronicle, that has quite detailed entries for every year, says anything about 1135, let alone 1136. (There was a raging conflict between the Monomakhovichi of Kiev and the Olgovichi of Chernigov in the north and centre, but no hint of a conflict between Poles and Volhynians on the western edges of the realm). If there really was a frenzied massacre, sparing no Ruthenian soul in Volhynia in 1136, the Kievan Chronicle and modern literature would have talked about it. There is no reason for us Wikipedians to take the fanciful claims of later Polish chronicles at face value, especially from the hands of a now-blocked user with a poor record of using sources on this topic. NLeeuw (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Poland, and Ukraine. NLeeuw (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. First, I'll note that I reverted the de-facto blanking of Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135). There was no consensus to delete the article, so I find what happened since (Marcelus removal of 95% of the article, and then your redirecting it) to be against the outcome of the AfD. Feel free to start a new AfD for it if you desire (although note I've also modernized the article by adding the RS we found, which pretty much states the event might be a fabrication by old chroniclers... - but, IMHO, it is a notable topic).
  • Now, regarding the article nominated here. I do agree that the creator of this (these) articles was overly reliant on old primary sources. The article nominated here has only one footnote to a presumed modern source, and poorly formatted at that. I would be fine with this being redirected to the "Ruthenian raid...", if we can find a single non-historical mention of this event in modern RS. Otherwise, well, can't justify keeping this due to problematic sourcing to ~1000 year old chronicles whose authors clearly liked to invent history, not just record it :( I.e. in the current state, afer all I wrote, I guess I am not leaning to weak delete this one. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus Thanks for your input. I responded at length at Talk:Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135)#Historiography for discussion on the 1135 event. It is interesting, but complicated.
    For the 1136 article, did you mean to say "I am *now leaning" instead of I am not leaning? NLeeuw (talk) 08:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nederlandse Leeuw Yes, I am leaning. Sorry, was writing while taking care of a baby :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear from more editors on this one since the consensus is less than clear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article was PROD'd already so Soft Deletion is not an option. Where are all of our military historians when we need them?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could tag a few, but this is Eastern European history, so certain people shouldn't be pinged. Perhaps... @Ermenrich and Altenmann: is this something you can say anything about? I just thought of you two because of our recent discussion at Talk:Kievan Rus', where a newbie insisted on adding a battle flag based on his own original research. Not sure if this is a subject you might also be able to shed a light on? If not, then no worries. NLeeuw (talk) 23:26, 15 June 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 no consensus‎. There seems to be some confusion as to whether this was a single battle or two. Perhaps a split or a move is in order, but those are outside the scope of an AfD. Any editor may boldly proceed with such a move or a split, merging relevant content from this page, if applicable. Owen× ☎ 11:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Doljești and Orbic

Battle of Doljești and Orbic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could not find any sources to prove that these events took place in the dates mentioned, which would fail WP:NEVENT. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dantheanimator: perhaps? I'll leave it up to other to check that . Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can anyone check out these sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but rename as Battle of Orbic. I was able to find sources for Orbic but less so for Doljești. The Romanian page is also only for the Orbic battle whereas the Battle of Doljești redirects to the page for Stefan the Great. Kazamzam (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. These are two different battles, both notable, the tendency in current history being to separate them temporally (about 13 years) and geographically (in different counties). There are well-documented sources on both of them, even if the conditions under which the battle of Doljesti was fought are not very clear.
Clearly the article should be renamed, its real subject being the Battle of Orbic.
In short, the two battles are defining for the beginning of the reign of the most important ruler of the Principality of Moldavia, Stephen the Great.Accipiter Gentilis Q. (talk) 13:53, 22 June 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. There is consensus that the subject is notable and a valid split. Though there are concerns about the style of this article, AfD is not the place to address those. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 23:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Campaigns of Nader Shah

Campaigns of Nader Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article doesn't have any source for its notability. There's no source explicitly mentioning "Naderian Wars" or "Campaigns of Nader Shah" with its fictitious timeline. Clearly it's full of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH mess, It's just impersonating Napoleonic Wars. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 12:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I looked at the equivalent articles on other wikis and most are barely sourced spam but the Italian one is extensively written and has numerous sources. I don’t think the nominator has clearly established that no sources use this term. Mccapra (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is indeed no source defining "Naderian Wars" or "Campaigns of Nader Shah" as a whole. At this rate anyone can create articles on the campaigns of any other personalities, but we have to make sure that sources do cover such campaigns or wars instead of covering some battles. Unlike Napoleonic Wars, it doesn't have any source for defining "Naderian Wars". Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 13:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find it a bit ironic that the nominator themself just recently made an article that is exactly the way they have described this one [7], whose deletion [8] they are opposing. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not ironic when I have myself asked to draftify the article so it can be improved. Could you please go through WP:AADP? Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 13:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Draftify will not fix a WP:OR and WP:SYNTH mess that shouldn't exist in the first place (also, you initially pushed for a keep very hard, so you're not being completely honest here). If anything, you're the one who needs to go through our guidelines. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @HistoryofIran Well, at least the sources I have cited do cover Devapala's conflicts with Tibet but that's not the case here. Can you give us a source where "Naderian Wars" is covered notably. And I still don't get why you are bringing other topics to this discussion. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 13:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A quick search at Scholar finds a multitude of sources. There is no reason whatever to claim that a source is off-topic just because it doesn't have two specific phrases. Just search for "Nader Shah" and lots of sources that describe his campaigns come up. The article is about a historical phenomenon, not about a phrase. The article at present is not well written and needs a lot more inline sourcing, but that is not an AfD issue. Zerotalk 03:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And at the same time, we don't find a source explicitly covering "Naderian Wars". Hope we are not creating "Campaigns of X" and "Campaigns of Y" just because there are lots of sources on X and Y. The article is full OR and SYNTH at best. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 13:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't seem to understand the role of article titles. There are only a few articles where the title is the subject of the article. Usually the title defines the topic and there is no need for the sources to even mention the words that are in the title provided they address the same topic. Also if the article has OR and SYNTH that's reason to clean it up, not reason to delete it. The role of AfD is to decide if the topic is suitable for an article, not to decide if an article is well written. Zerotalk 14:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That said I can work on "Campaigns of Khalid ibn al-Walid" or "Campaigns of Bajirao I" if I want? And also in these cases there are many sources dealing with their military career. Moreover I find in the above HistoryofIran's comment contradicting you; Draftify will not fix a WP:OR and WP:SYNTH mess that shouldn't exist in the first place, I guess we need more participation in this discussion. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 12:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can work on any topic that meets the guidelines for having an article. Also, HistoryofIran is mistaken about the role of OR and SYNTH at AFD, and has also not provided any evidence of those defects being present. The only relevance would if there was something about the topic that prevented a policy-conformant article, which is obviously not the case. Zerotalk 13:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I think there has been a misunderstanding here. I was not referring to this article. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously notable topic and fair split from main biographical and region history articles. Sourcing and citations could be improved and infobox trimmed, but those are editing problems, not deletion criteria. Folly Mox (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just asking. Is it fair to combine all the campaigns and wars of historical figures in one article even if it's not given pass by reliable sources? Doesn't that come under WP:SYNTH? Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 18:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is normal to use multiple sources to create articles. It only becomes SYNTH when we use a combination of sources to draw conclusions that are not drawn by any of the sources. Zerotalk 13:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: plenty of sources exist, and I would echo the comments above that grouping together related topics does not necessarily constitute WP:SYNTH: indeed, editors are encouraged to merge and split articles as a way of controlling article length. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Should be on his main article, just the more important content. FreeZoneF (talk) 00:53, 8 June 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 redirect‎ to Mandour El Mahdi. Liz Read! Talk! 03:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Short History of the Sudan

A Short History of the Sudan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced; I can't find a single source that doesn't refer to the much shorter work by Margaret Shinnie. Rusalkii (talk) 04:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Mandour El Mahdi with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources of the book. I support a redirect to the author's article, where the book is already mentioned.

    A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Here is a passing mention I found about the subject:
    1. Fluehr-Lobban, Carolyn; Lobban Jr., Richard A.; Voll, John Obert (1992). Historical Dictionary of the Sudan (2 ed.). Metuchen, New Jersey: The Scarecrow Press. p. 251. ISBN 0-8108-2547-3. Retrieved 2024-06-05 – via Internet Archive.

      The source provides a passing mention about the subject. The book notes: "General reference works of special value are Richard Hill, A Biographical Dictionary of the Sudan, which covers ancient times to the 20th Century; Mandour el-Mahdi, Short History of the Sudan, presents a summary of Sudanese history from antiquity to present times; and two general, multidisciplinary descriptions are H. D. Nelson, Area Handbook for the Democratic Republic of the Sudan, published by the U. S. Government Printing Office, and Sudan Today, prepared by the Sudanese Ministry of Information and Culture."

    Cunard (talk) 11:11, 5 June 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. ✗plicit 23:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of important publications in computer science

AfDs for this article:
List of important publications in computer science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inherently original research/synthesis. Previously survived AfD in 2006 when those policies weren't enforced I guess. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies, History, Science, Computing, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Without clearly defined criteria for what "important" means, this article is as OR as it gets. The three criteria listed are subjective and (more damningly) unsourced. Only reference 11 approaches a treatment of this subject as a whole, and it's based on an informal survey conducted by somebody at Penn who made the results into a personal webpage. That's pretty weak. Other sources are all primary and don't discuss the topic of the list as a group, so this is a failure of WP:NLIST and grossly OR. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very much a violation of WP:OR to create a topic this way. Even with that aside, you'll often get some listing somewhere (course material, reviews in annals, etc.) describing seminal papers that may be required or important reading for those purusing advanced degrees in a specific field. That generally would not satisfy WP:NLIST and at most would just be a secondary source in the main article (in this case computer science) at best. This isn't a useful redirect either, so this comes across as a pretty unequivocal case for deletion. KoA (talk) 15:02, 6 June 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. Liz Read! Talk! 08:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Early Mughal–Sikh wars

Early Mughal–Sikh wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No particular source is discussing any "Early Mughal-Sikh wars" thus this article is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Some of the sources are outright unreliable while others are discussing particular battles for which we already have separate articles. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:13, 30 May 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. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Lushchai

AfDs for this article:
Yuri Lushchai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While it's not a G4, it does not appear that the issues raised that led to the prior version being deleted have been resolved. Lushchai was a wonderful person and active Wikipedian but does not appear notable as an author. WP:NOTAMEMORIAL unfortunately applies. Star Mississippi 02:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want just to note that I wasn't the one who moved the article to main space. Though I personally think that he is notable, I would be OK with submitting article later with more sources, which are listed on Russian Wikipedia forum and on Wikinews. BilboBeggins (talk) 06:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But there is significant coverage of the person. And lack of English language sources is never an argument for deletion.
I would also like to note thst I am XFD closer on ruwiki, and User:Андрей Романенко who moved the article is long-serving administrator on ruwiki. So we might now something about notability rules, right? BilboBeggins (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Different languages have different rules as far as notability. No one is saying he isn't notable on RU wiki, and non English sources are 100% welcome but may not meet the bar needed for notability as required here. Star Mississippi 13:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is his biography in the source listed.
There are also plenty of Russian language sources in his death, but they are not neutral and I would rather not include them in the article. BilboBeggins (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: NOTMEMORIAL. Simply being a Wikipedian is rarely notable, the rest are stories of his passing. Nothing for notability. His life before death was very much non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    His notability is also due to him being a poet and scientist. BilboBeggins (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To my mind, the key source for this case is the op-ed at Radio Liberty arguing at some length for the special status of Lushchai as a cultural figure. This was not the reason behind keeping the article about this person in ru.wiki, there the closing admin opted for other criteria. Possibly other available sources don't provide so direct and clear reasoning for Lushchai's notability. However, other memorial articles (like this, for instance) also provide significant coverage of his life and are independent of the aforementioned op-ed. All in all I see this person as notable according to WP:BASIC. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is significant coverage in reliable sources. The article has enough prose, there is biography, death and legacy section. It could have been nominated for RD had it been in the same state back then. BilboBeggins (talk) 06:27, 6 June 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 redirect‎ to Giovanni Pellegrino. Owen× ☎ 11:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La guerra civile

La guerra civile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is very odd. It started life as what appears to be a personal essay/content fork about Italian politics (entirely sourced to La guerra civile) under the title Terrorism in Italy since 1945, then at some point someone misinterpreted the content as about the book itself and content about that book introduced and the essay stuff removed, so for the past 13 years it's been about the book, but under the original title. I tried to find sources under that title, failed for 20 minutes, realized what happened, and moved the page.

Anyway, still can't find any reviews/analysis/sources. It's probable they may exist given the language barrier and very generic title, but I couldn't find any. If sufficient sources are presented I can withdraw. As an ATD if there are no sources redirect to the author Giovanni Pellegrino. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:04, 6 June 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States vice presidential firsts

List of United States vice presidential firsts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:LISTN, seems to fall afoul of WP:NOTTRIVIA as well. I'm not seeing any corresponding content at Vice President of the United States that would make retarget or merge appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 18:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

    The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "United States vice presidential firsts" has been treated as "a group or set by independent reliable sources".

    Sources

    1. Kane, Joseph Nathan; Podell, Janet (2009). Facts About the Presidents: A Compilation of Biographical and Historical Information (8 ed.). New York: H. W. Wilson Company. ISBN 978-0-8242-1087-8. Retrieved 2024-06-05 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes on page 789:

      1. "The first Vice President to be appointed rather than elected to office was Gerald Rudolph Ford"
      2. "Alben William Barkley, Vice President to Harry S. Truman, was the first Vice President to marry in office."
      3. Alben William Barkley was the first Vice President to be called (and to call himself) "The Veep.""
      4. "Lyndon Baines Johnson was sworn in as Vice President of the United States on January 20, 1961, at 12:41 P.M., by Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn. This was the first time that a Vice President was sworn in by a Speaker of the House."
      5. "For some 40 minutes on January 10, 2000, Vice President Al Gore presided over a Security Council session on the AIDS epidemic. ... This was the first time that an American Vice President had been invited to chair a meeting of the U.N. Security Council."
      Additional information from the book:
      1. The book notes on page 31: "John Adams, the first Vice President to be elevated to the presidency ..."
      2. The book notes on page 48: "Thomas Jefferson was the first and last Vice President to defeat a President."
      3. The book notes on page 61: "Apr. 20, 1812, death of George Clinton, first Vice President to die in office"
      4. The book notes on page 91: "John Caldwell Calhoun, Vice President under John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson, was the first Vice President not born a British subject."
      5. The book notes on page 103 about Richard Mentor Johnson: "First vice president elected by the senate."
      6. The book notes on page 124: "John Tyler was the first Vice President to succeed to the presidency through the death of a President."
      7. The book notes on page 164 about William Rufus Devane King: "Of all the Presidents and Vice Presidents, King was the first and only one to take the oath in a foreign country."
      8. The book notes on page 220: "Schuyler Colfax was the first officer to preside over both houses of Congress. He was Speaker of the House of Representatives ... As Vice President under President Grant, he presided over the Senate ..."
      9. The book notes on page 439: "The first Speaker of the House of Representatives to administer the oath of office to a Vice President of the United States was Sam Rayburn, who on January 20, 1961, administered the oath of office to Vice President Lyndon Baines Johnson."
      10. The book notes on page 455: Lyndon Baines Johnson "was the first Vice President to witness the assassination of the President whom he succeeded in office."
      11. The book notes on page 487: Gerald Rudolph Ford "was the first Vice President to succeed to the presidency upon the resignation of a President" and "was the first Vice President chosen under the Twenty-fifth Amendment".
      12. The book notes on page 488: "The first President and Vice President to serve together without being elected to their respective offices were President Gerald Rudolph Ford and Vice President Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller. Both reached office under the provisions of the Twenty-fifth Amendment."
      13. The book notes on page 588 of Richard "Dick" Cheney: "As the President’s chief liaison with Congress, the Vice President was the first Vice President to have an office on the House side of Congress as well as the Senate side."
      14. The book notes on page 709: "The first Catholic to be elected Vice President was Joseph Robinette Biden, nominated by the Democratic Pary in 2008."
      15. The book notes on page 780: "Richard Milhous Nixon was the first Vice President to be elected President several years after his vice presidential term."
    2. Romansky, Jerry (2020-08-23). "Ask Jerry: The firsts among U.S. vice presidents". Foster's Daily Democrat. Archived from the original on 2024-06-05. Retrieved 2024-06-05.

      The article notes: "As for firsts among our vice presidents (VPs), here is a partial list that might interest you. These are just the random firsts that float chronologically into my mind. 1. The first VP to become president was John Adams. He served with the first president George Washington. 2. The first VP to serve under two different U.S. presidents was George Clinton. He served with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. 3. The first VP to resign from office was John Calhoun. His resignation was based on political differences with Andrew Jackson."

    3. Bunis, Dena (2004-06-24). "Strategy of VP picks - Vice presidential firsts - Vice presidents who became president". The Orange County Register. Archived from the original on 2024-06-05. Retrieved 2024-06-05.

      The article notes: "Vice presidential firsts. First female VP candidate for a major party -- Geraldine Ferraro (also first Italian-American). First VP appointed under the rules of the 25th amendment -- Gerald Ford. First VP to become president after the death of a sitting president -- John Tyler. First VP to die in office, first to serve under two presidents (Jefferson and Madison) -- George Clinton. First VP to serve as "acting president" (during surgery of sitting president) -- George H.W. Bush."

    4. Tullai, Martin (1997-01-18). "Vice presidency is no party". The Washington Times. Archived from the original on 2024-06-05. Retrieved 2024-06-05.

      The article notes: "The first vice president to become president on the death of a chief executive was John Tyler. ... The first vice president to be nominated specifically for that office was George Clinton, who ran with Thomas Jefferson in 1804. ... Richard Mentor Johnson was the only vice president selected by the Senate. ... [Alben] Barkley was also the first vice president to marry in office. ... Coolidge was the first vice president to sit in regularly on Cabinet meetings. (Nixon was the first in 1953 to preside at a National Security Council meeting. The first vice president to be appointed - not elected - was Gerald R. Ford. George Bush was the first vice president to serve officially as acting president ... The only vice president of American Indian extraction was Charles Curtis ... Henry Wallace was the first veep assigned administrative duties by the president. ... William Rufus King was the only vice president to take the oath while in another country"

    5. Southwick, Albert B. (2008-09-18). "Insignificant vice presidency's pendulum is swinging back". Telegram & Gazette. Archived from the original on 2024-06-05. Retrieved 2024-06-05.

      The article notes: "John Adams, the first vice president, called it “the most insignificant position ever devised by man.” ... Only one other man — John C. Calhoun — has served as vice president under presidents of different political parties. ... Only one other vice president — George Clinton of New York — ever served under two presidents. ... So he continued on as vice president until he died in 1811, the first vice president to die in office. ... The first vice president to inherit the office from a dead president was John Tyler in 1841, when old William Henry Harrison expired after only a few weeks in office. ... Henry Wilson of Massachusetts was the only vice president to die in his office at the Capitol. ... Franklin D. Roosevelt is perhaps the only man in history to make a political comeback after losing a vice presidential race."

    WP:NOTTRIVIA

    WP:NOTTRIVIA says "Wikipedia articles should not be" and lists "Summary-only descriptions of works", "Lyrics databases", "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics", and "Exhaustive logs of software updates". A list of United States vice presidential firsts is none of these.

    Wikipedia:No original research

    The list can be written so that there is no violation of the Wikipedia:No original research policy. Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria notes:

    Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item.

    As long as each entry in the list is cited to one or more reliable sources confirming that the vice presidential first, the list would comply with the Wikipedia:No original research policy.

    Perfection is not required

    The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I appreciate that there are sources for some of the information and some sourcing about the firsts in aggregate, but this page still fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTTRIVIA. Any information in this list could be added to the pages of the vice presidents if it is not already there. --Enos733 (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the list is too arbitrary. Some of the information is in other articles (home state, religion). Other parts are useless trivia. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: some sourcing about the firsts in aggregate, but this page still fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTTRIVIA – the existence of "sourcing about the firsts in aggregate" means the topic meets WP:NLIST. WP:NOTTRIVIA is not violated because a list of United States vice presidential firsts is not "Summary-only descriptions of works", "Lyrics databases", "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics", and "Exhaustive logs of software updates".

    the list is too arbitrary – the list is not arbitrary because it "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" (WP:NLIST).

    Some of the information is in other articles (home state, religion). – this list is complementary to the other lists but not duplicative. That some of the information is covered in other lists is not a policy-based reason to delete this list. Cunard (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    NOTTRIVIA very much does apply here, which you're taking a too-narrow view of. This is a list of random little factoids, i.e., statistics without context. None of these firsts have any context about why such a first was in any way meaningful. In other words, it's just a list of trivia, of little to no encyclopedic value. In your disruptively formatted, disruptively verbose !vote above, you stated "The book notes on page 164 about William Rufus Devane King: 'Of all the Presidents and Vice Presidents, King was the first and only one to take the oath in a foreign country.'" So what? Why does this matter? WP:TRIVIA advises against sections of trivia in articles because they become cruft magnets, among other reasons. But that's all this list is. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTTRIVIA says "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics". The statistics article says "any quantity computed from values in a sample which is considered for a statistical purpose". None of the information in the article is "computed from values in a sample". None of the information in the article is being "considered for a statistical purpose". This article does not violate that section of the policy. Cunard (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're Wikilawyering, arguing the semantics of "statistics"; I could counter that "firsts" are inherently numerical and so qualify. But that's really all beside the point. This is contextless trivia, which Wikipedia is WP:NOT for. If everyone is appealing to the spirit of NOTTRIVIA, then that's good enough. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 06:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTTRIVIA is a shortcut that in 2021 was retargeted from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections to WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. No community consensus was established for the shortcut. "Firsts" are not "computed from values in a sample". There is nothing in the text or spirit of the policy to support deleting an article that meets Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists. No one has refuted the reliable sources showing that the topic "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". To expand the policy to include articles like this one would require an RfC to change the policy. Cunard (talk) 08:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my response immediately above. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LC items 2, 5, 7, and 10. Stifle (talk) 08:03, 6 June 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles in medieval India

List of battles in medieval India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of conflicts in Egypt

List of conflicts in Egypt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN WP:UNSOURCED (the few entries that are sourced are highly speculative as to what happened, where, involving whom, and why; the modern Arab Republic of Egypt has very little to do with it). Follow-up to

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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles in England

List of battles in England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

@Nederlandse Leeuw, I see no issues with the article, but it should have been merged not deleted. Am i getting this right. I split them because the parent article was very large, yet that lists don't have to be sourced. I would like to merge the content to List of battles by geographic location. I have no idea why my creations are getting reduced; I am current not happy with it. ToadetteEdit! 23:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, why don't you also nominate List of battles by geographic location too? ToadetteEdit! 23:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that you're not happy about the fact that I am successively nominating articles for deletion that you just so happen to have created. I rarely look at who created it, only at what the contents are, and how valuable they might be. I've got nothing against you or your work in particular. That said, these split-offs are a cut & paste job that takes less than 5 minutes of effort each. Recycling existing content is a lot easier than writing brand new articles with proper sourcing.
The reason why I am nominating the lists is in this manner is that I am following a step-by-step approach, building broad consensus based on easy precedents before going on to complex cases. Since actively participating in CfD and AfD from 2023, I learnt that that is the most realistic strategy to solving issues, and avoid WP:TRAINWRECKs. The second reason is that List of battles by geographic location had already been AfD'd in 2022, closing as Keep but Split: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles by geographic location. If I still want to get it deleted anyway, then overturning that consensus is going to be difficult. The split-offs provide a good opportunity to show in smaller cases why creating lists of battles by modern countries' geographical borders is not very useful, and difficult to justify when done almost completely WP:UNSOURCED. It seems to be working, as 4 split-off lists have already been deleted, and a consensus has been building that they should be deleted, especially most recently in the Croatia case.
The new round I am going for now is Afghanistan, England, Egypt, and medieval India. You didn't create the latter two articles, so this is nothing personal. If all 4 are deleted as proposed, then perhaps I may nominate List of battles by geographic location next. But we'll see what fellow editors have to say first. Good day. NLeeuw (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have two suggestions for Merging but with two different target articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:25, 11 June 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles in Afghanistan

List of battles in Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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. Star Mississippi 01:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bronwyn Labrum

Bronwyn Labrum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:AUTHOR. No inherent notability in the roles she held. LibStar (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:31, 4 June 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 redirect‎ to Inca Civil War. There is clear consensus against a standalone article, and clear preference for a redirect. Consensus as to the target is less clear, but Inca Civil War has more support than the alternative, and if anyone is not content with this outcome I suggest a talk page discussion followed by an RfD if absolutely necessary. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mullihambato

Battle of Mullihambato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources found on the "Battle of Mullihambato" as described here in the vaguest of terms (with plenty of WP:WEASEL words raising red flags here – even the most basic facts are "possibly", "probably", "inconclusive" (in terms of the victor), and "unknown") – and they are totally unverifiable. Spanish version of article also doesn't inspire confidence, as it suggests that this battle is also called the "Battle of Ambato", the "Battle of Chimborazo", or the "Battle of Nagsichi" – and it's doubtful that any source actually links all 4 of them as one and the same. (Newson (1995), Life and Death in Early Colonial Ecuador, mentions a major battle in Ambato, but that doesn't exactly match the description here, either.) Perhaps a new article could be created in the future called "Battle of Ambato" or equivalent, but if so, it would need to be backed by reliable sources. (N.B., a separate article on Battle of Chimborazo already exists in English Wikipedia.) Article as it has stood for 16 years is essentially original research (WP:OR) and should be deleted on those grounds. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Ecuador. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Battle of Chillopampa per Maria Rostworowski de Diez Canseco, History of the Inca Realm, 1999, p. 116:

    "The two armies had their first encounter on the plain of Chillopampa, with Huascar's troops defeating those of Atahualpa. Nevertheless, Atahualpa's generals, reacting quickly, regrouped their scattered troops and, with fresh reinforcements from Quito, were able to recover. According to Cabello de Valboa, this first encounter took place in Mullihambato, near the river, and in a second battle, luck favored Atahualpa's captains. Cieza maintains that only one battle took place. In this fighting...Atoc was taken prisoner and fell victim to the cruelty of Challcochima, who, according to some versions, had a gold-incrusted chica cup made of his skull."

    There is no clear source that says that this battle occurred independently of either Chillopampa or Chimborazo, and through Rostworowski the suggestion is made that Mullihambato is Chillopampa, with the second battle, if it occurred, being Chimborazo. A redirect to the Chillopampa page would allow mention of the possibility of this name to be made there. I do not recommend a merge because the article is uncited and would require a complete rewrite to be useful in any article. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. @Pickersgill-Cunliffe Interesting find...but then why not simply redirect to Inca Civil War and have some corresponding text there explaining the historians' disagreement? In general I'm wary of the entire set of individual battle pages – it's almost like the Wikipedia "wars/battles" structure is driving a certain type of framing of the Inca Civil War that may not be warranted, given that there is disagreement among historians about which battles even took place to start with, and the depth of information available about a few of the battles is quite thin for many. (Even the broader Inca Civil War article itself tells a different story from what the individual battle pages and template seem to suggest.) As an example, there is yet another framing in Enduring controversies in military history: critical analyses and context (ABC-CLIO, 2017) which explores "Did the Inca Civil War play an important role in the Spanish conquest of the Inca Empire?" which suggests that the main battles occurred in Tumebamba, Ambato, and Quipaipan.
    On Wikipedia now we have the following pages, some of which only cite one source, and present information as though it's uncontested:
If you go through the sequence of individual battle pages, it feels like a rather breezy creation of a bunch of articles for the sake of building a narrative that fits the template. (Not suggesting we need solve the whole problem here, just pointing out the context.) Cielquiparle (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle: Agree there seems to be some confusion about the civil war, but as you say we'll stick to this article. I think that redirecting to Chillopampa is most appropriate because it appears that we do have historians mostly agreeing that this battle occurred, and that if Mullihambato existed (as the same battle or a different one) it was directly connected to it. People searching for these events are more likely to go to Chillopampa, which isn't actually mentioned in the main article! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:53, 31 May 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. Liz Read! Talk! 20:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Maiden's lyrical themes and inspirations

Iron Maiden's lyrical themes and inspirations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is 95% original research (borderline WP:FANCRUFT) that has a handful of "sources" that themselves are largely poorly-cited pop website listicles, which only support a small portion of the claims here. The Iron Maiden#Musical style and influences section itself is much-better sourced and comprehensive, and sufficient without this page. ZimZalaBim talk 19:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of the article Please read WP:OWN as you cannot assume ownership of an article whether you created the article or not. HorrorLover555 (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it's about semantical context. I called myself an "author" regarding the fact I have started publishing the content, nothing less and more. Ownership is no reason, I'm just a member of the community and trying to develop some articles on Wiki. Referring to the subject of Iron Maiden lyrics I try to improve the article. Regards RALFFPL (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary and clearly not sufficiently useful or encyclopedic information to justify preserving the page history by redirecting. Psychastes (talk) 18:36, 28 May 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. Please discuss renaming of this article on the talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 01:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Barwara (1757)

Siege of Barwara (1757) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The whole article relies on WP:RAJ and out dated sources (WP:AGE MATTERS) and there is no mention of “Siege of Barwara (1757)” in the sources. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 09:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RAJ is not a policy or guideline. It is an essay on the quality of sources on the Indian caste system and those written by Britons or Briton diplomats and administrators or under the guidance and review of Briton administrators like Lepel Griffin, Michael MacAuliffe, Sir John Withers McQueen. Indian historians like Sarkar's sources are used because historians today depend on their secondary work. Sarkar is an eminent historian and is perfectly reliable. Source still needs to be reviewed and verified. RangersRus (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if WP:RAJ doesn't applies here it is still not a reliable source as per WP:AGE MATTERS and this is the only source used in the article thus it fails WP:GNG too. Mnbnjghiryurr (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock. RangersRus (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If old sources have become obsolete due to coverage in new sources then AGE matters and it does not apply here. Multiple sources are expected but there is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage. RangersRus (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just found it at RSN. Hope this helps to evaluate the reliability of Jadunath Sarkar. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 16:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, it clearly fails WP:GNG & there is only one sourced used in this article (Fall of the Mughal Empire by Jadunath Sarkar) which is not a reliable source as per WP:AGE MATTERS. Mnbnjghiryurr (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock. RangersRus (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There was indeed a siege of Barwara in 1757, and there are multiple good sources. I see no reason to delete an article about a verified historical event. My impression is that we don't have enough coverage of the global south, not an overabundance that requires aggressive pruning. With that said, the article should probably be renamed, per @RangersRus, unless there are other sources that say "Barwara". Pecopteris (talk) 05:21, 11 June 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elmslie typology

Elmslie typology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the typology in reliable sources. I found several mentions, but they were brief. toweli (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The typology is potentially important and is often referred to but full publication and critical discussion are hard to find. In fact, this article is one of the fullest detailed explanations easily available, yet is lacking in citations back to RS original publication or critical coverage. Would suggest we need an article on this typology but serious revision is in order to tackle the source issues. Monstrelet (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A necessary counterpart to the Oakshott system for double-edged blades. I agree that better sourcing is necessary, but I see no need to trim back to only the sourced parts. Most low-rated articles lack full sourcing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I've done some digging and it seems the entire system can be traced to this website and its owner, James G. Elmslie [14]. The site is no longer live but has been thoroughly archived at IA. One would expect this system to be listed under "Research" [15], but it isn't. As far as I can tell, it was made popular by this YouTube video, whose creator also uploaded diagrams to DeviantArt [16]. The YouTube video makes claims of increasing acceptance by the academic/museum community, so I searched Google Scholar and found several results [17]. Examples include [18][19][20][21] (note that the links 6 and 7 are parts 2 and 3 of one work). These cite the typology itself to two different versions of a book titled "The Sword: Form and thought", one from 2015 with first editor Grotkamp-Schepers and one from 2019 with first editor Deutscher. Links: [22][23]. I am working on verifying this book citation, but based on what I've found so far, this typology is indeed published in academic literature and is notable. Toadspike [Talk] 10:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now checked the 2019 version of the book "The Sword: Form and Thought". Elmslie's work is indeed referenced on pages 169, 173, and 175, cited to "pers. comm.", which a quick search tells me means "Personal Communications" (with the author of the papers in question). I would argue that this shows Elmslie is a subject-matter expert as well, and sources he publishes himself (SPS) can be considered scholarly and reliable. Toadspike [Talk] 11:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, there's no significant coverage, just mentions, and yet you're advocating for a keep? The responses so far have been strange, if it were really that significant there wouldn't be any issues finding a lot of discussion of the typology. toweli (talk) 11:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 08:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning brief Merge to Classification of swords#Modern systems (section currently non-existent, presumably more than just Elmslie and Oakeshott should be listed): I have added the MA project in as a delsort since there's likely to be an relevant overlap of interest/expertise with HEMA practitioners. It exists, and it's useful to have it bluelinked from articles where it's mentioned (currently Falchion and Messer (sword), if it should so remain). It also has no significant independent coverage, and extremely limited uptake. In cases like this, the details available externally (archived) are there for those who want to dig into them. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 08:36, 16 June 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. ✗plicit 14:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mughal–Kashmir Wars

Mughal–Kashmir Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article literally has no sources or content in it. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 05:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than deleting the page, editors should work on it and improve it. It's an actual war provided with sufficient sources. Lightningblade23 (talk) 10:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The war is historically accurate. Citations and content can be added and the article can be improved but its deletion wouldn't be in good faith.EditorOnJob (talk) 12:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Draftify. Poor, unreliable and unverifiable sources excluding two by Mohibbul Hasan and Majumdar. The complete page is from source by Mohibbul Hasan from page 183 to 186 that has a mention of two wars fought in 1527 won by Kashmir Sultanates and the other in 1528 won by Mughals. Majumdar source is used for mention of Khanua battle that has nothing to do with Mughal-Kashmir wars. None of the other sources have any ascription. The page numbers on source templates for Hasan are wrong. The creator of the page should hold back from primary sources like Chādūrah, Ḥaydar Malik who was an administrator and soldier under Mughal emperor in 17th century, Baharistan-i-shahi, a Persian manuscript written by an anonymous author, presumably in early 17th century, Tarikh-i Firishta written by Muhammad Qasim Ferishta presumably between 16th and 17th century and also Babur-nama. Page is also WP:SYNTH when you read a content written "The Mughals faced the Chaks at Naushahra and, despite early success, were defeated and forced to retreat back to India." No phases of wars are supported by reliable sources. Draftify vote is if the creator can bring on reliable sources to support many phases of wars to consider the page an actual full fledged Mughal-Kashmir Sultanate wars. RangersRus (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yet another WP:SYNTH like few other recently deleted pages revolving around the same subjects. Azuredivay (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess recent contributions to the article since the deletion nomination says it has no sources and that is no longer true.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 2 June 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. Given the author's apparent ambivalence to the article being kept or deleted, I am closing this as "delete" despite a relatively light discussion as I think this is non-controversial. Malinaccier (talk) 02:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bombing of Toncontín International Airport

Bombing of Toncontín International Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unneccessary WP:FORK of Football War, already covered there in a few sentences. Page unlikely to be expanded nor new RS published Mztourist (talk) 05:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

u can delete if u want Wikidude2243 (talk) 06:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
or i i can change text Wikidude2243 (talk) 06:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i can change the text Wikidude2243 (talk) 06:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge. I agree on having the article deleted, besides the fact that I'm also having it's information merged on the Football War article. (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't both delete and merge an article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:48, 11 June 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. Owen× ☎ 22:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hellenized Middle East

Hellenized Middle East (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Hellenized Middle East" is a made-up term which is not used in scholarship on the Hellenistic Period (a search of google books shows a few uses referring to Greek presence in the Near East, but without any consistency [24]: one book on Gandharan Buddhism, a couple on the Middle Ages, one on Cavafy in the 19th century. This is not a term used with any consistency in scholarship). The article consists of a WP:OR map, which collapses Ashokan India into the Hellenistic world and a bunch of material largely mirrored from Hellenistic Period. Furius (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Egypt, Pakistan, Middle East, India, and Greece. Skynxnex (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:SYNTH. Mccapra (talk) 04:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You made this comment when the only section was the list of Hellenistic regions. Your claim that the Hellenistic Middle East as a concept is false, is incorrect, and not classified under WP:SYNTH. Aearthrise (talk) 12:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the main issue here is not the title, but the duplication of material that is already covered elsewhere. The topic itself appears to be legitimate, whatever title it's given, and unless there's a specific title that is generally applied to the topic, any reasonably descriptive title would do. There may well be better titles, but that would not be a justification for deletion: it would justify moving the article to another title. Replacing a map with a more accurate one would not be an argument for deletion. So the only remaining issue seems to be duplication of existing material in other articles.
It sounds as though most of this is covered under "Hellenistic Period", in which case a "technical merge" might be in order. By that I mean a basic review to make sure that any useful and verifiable material from here is included there or at other appropriate articles. If so, then simply indicate that the article was merged there, and then change this title into a redirect, as a plausible search formulation. There may also be some details here that ought to be mentioned in other articles, and aren't yet, in which case a full merge may be done. But even if everything is already fully covered, it would technically be a merge as long as one makes sure of that before changing this into a redirect. P Aculeius (talk) 09:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:CFORK. Poor page with poor and unverifiable sources that do not help identify implications that is explicitly stated by the source. The creator of the page inserted opinion by using content from other pages and used it in a circular bit of logic. Page is WP:SYNTH. RangersRus (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You made this comment when the only section was the list of Hellenistic regions. Your claim that the Hellenistic Middle East as a concept is false, is incorrect, and not classified under WP:SYNTH.
    As for the fork, I am working add more content into the Hellenistic regions section; the list came from Partition of Babylon, because it gave all of the regions that persisted throughout the cultural area's lifetime. Aearthrise (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed the "Fork" information borrowed from the Partition of Babylon page, which pertained to the first rulers of the regions, and now the Hellenistic regions list section only includes the region names and important cultural tidbits from those regions. Aearthrise (talk) 09:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Strange title, bizarre geographic scope, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH content, WP:CFORK.
    • Scholarship on ancient history uses "Near East" rather than "Middle East"; both terms are of course eurocentric, with "Middle East" reflecting Western European strategic concerns during the last years of the Ottoman Empire. Describing much of the area under Seleucid control in the hellenistic period as "hellenised" begs the question of whether that impact was more than superficial and brief.
    • The inclusion of all South Asia is bizarre; the Maurya empire is not usually described as hellenised (and the map shows it extending strangely east and south). Mapping Greece as hellenised is silly.
    • The text largely consists of an editor opining, without benefit of sources, on who became the ruler of which area after the death of Alexander, largely with no more substance than that. Any reader wanting to know about the area during the hellenistic period will be disappointed and frustrated; they will already be better served by Diadochi for successors and by Hellenistic period, including Hellenistic period#Hellenistic Near East, for the regions. NebY (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You made this comment when the only section was the list of Hellenistic regions. Your claim that the Hellenistic Middle East as a concept is false, is incorrect, and not classified under WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.
      Further, you make an argument about "eurocentricity", but you forget that this is English wikipedia and Middle East is the English term for these areas. Aversion to the word "Middle East" is simply your opinion, and not a serious point.
      You also say that the map is bizarre because it includes South Asia and Greece; I argue the map is a good illustration of the area that generated cultural syncretism, especially for the allied and interinfluential nature of the region.
      For the last point, I circle you back to the first sentence of this response. Aearthrise (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: someone seems to be working hard to improve the article currently, and the title has been changed, perhaps in response to what has been said so far here. Perhaps these edits will make a difference to whether this article should be kept or merged (I still don't think deletion is the correct means of dealing with a content fork, if it still is one after the current revision process is done). It may be a good idea to get Aearthrise's take on the content fork issue, and whether he or she has a plan to resolve that, or any of the other remaining issues mentioned in this discussion. P Aculeius (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Said editor has been adding material about citizenship in the Roman Empire and the Umayyad Caliphate. It's bizarre synth. Furius (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aearthrise was notified about this discussion; I'm not sure why they've not engaged directly... Furius (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You only notified me 7 days after you created this thread. Aearthrise (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this once to get editors' assessment of article changes. But if there are editors who are opposed to Deletion, please suggest a simple alternative outcome that a closer can carry out. AFD discussions are not resolved by complicated rewriting scenarios. The options are limited with AFD closures and they are decided by consensus so if you are arguing for something complicated, you need to win over your fellow editors to your point-of-view which usually requires simplification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The topic is not entirely off (the argument that the Hellenistic period extends to the Arab conquests for the Roman East is certainly not new), but currently it reads like a hodgepodge of factoids without a clear plan in evidence, and there are a lot of red flags of bizarre factual inaccuracies (the map, Alexander's conquests 'in the 2nd century BC', the 'state of Judaea', to name a few glaring ones) that lead me to question whether the authors have the expertise required to do this correctly. I am thus also for delete; this should first be properly developed in someone's sandbox, beginning with gathering the relevant literature, before a move to mainspace.Constantine ✍ 12:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your gripe here is that you believe that this article doesn't have a plan, and claim three "red flags" one being the map showing the region of cultural syncretism. Why is the map a red flag? It easily shows the area of the original regions in the Hellenistic Middle East, and the two cultural influences that made the most impact in the early days of the area, this is the area described by Ashoka of culturally allied lands.
    • For your other two "flags", it's a simple typo of 2nd century with "3rd" century BC, and writing the word "state of Judea" instead of "province of Judea". I implore you to give a real example of "factual inaccuracies" instead of claiming them from superficial semantics.
    • You also say that this article is a hodgepodge of factoids, but the evidence follows the theme of the Hellenistic cultural area and its unique cultural aspects; the section with the partition of Partition of Babylon region list can be refined, as right now it deals with the people who began ruling these regions and has some added information on the kingdoms, and Greco Buddhism. Aearthrise (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The problem with the map is that it comes from a source for territories mentioned by Asoka as having been conquered by the dharma, but is being used to illustrate "the Hellenistic Middle East, Greece, and Ashoka's Empire in cultural syncretism, 260 BC". These are two very different things and there are no sources to support using the image for the latter. The idea that Ashokan India was part of the Hellenistic world (or the Middle East for that matter) is not mainstream. Furius (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You're making two different points in this paragraph about the map:
      • One that Ashoka's declaration of whom he considers allies and peers in dharma, naming rulers of the Hellenistic Kingdoms, is not the same as a declaration of "cultural syncretism". I argue Ashoka's declaration is exactly evidence of the intercultural relation of Greeks and Indians of the time:
      Indian Cultural Heritage Perspective For Tourism (2008), L. K. Singh, page 34:
      The Edicts of Ashoka, which talk of friendly relations, give names of both Antiochus of the Seleucid Empire and Ptolemy III of Egypt. But the fame of the Mauryan Empire was widespread from the time that Ashoka's grandfather Chandragupta Maurya met Seleucus Nicator, the founder of the Seleucid Dynasty, and engineered their celebrated peace.
      Hinduism: Challenges | Interaction with Buddhism, Jainism and The Greeks (2024), Ashok Mishra, page 221:
      A mission was sent to the Hellenistic Kingdoms in the West, including Syria, Egypt, Greece. According to ancient sources, Ashoka sent a delegation of Buddhist monks to these regions, where they engaged in dialogues with the local people and established Buddhist communities.
      And Man Created God: A History of the World at the Time of Jesus (2013), Selina O'Grady, page 416:
      According to many scholars, it was the coming together of Indian and Greek culture that created the very conditions that would give birth to Mahayana Buddhism. It was here that Indian abstraction met Greek individualism to create a more personal, emotional religion that in its turn would profoundly influence the mergence of Christianity. This Indo-Greek syncretism was reflected in the great statues of Guatama Buddha that the Kushan rulers erected throughout their growing Empire.
      • Your second point, "The idea that Ashokan India was part of the Hellenistic world (or the Middle East for that matter) is not mainstream", is not claimed by the map at all; the map simply describes the area of cultural syncretism. There clearly had been a long intercultural influence of the Mauryans with Hellenistic States since Chandragupta married Princess Helena of the Seleucid dynasty.
      Indian History NCERT Notes Class 6-12 (Old+New) For Civil Services Examination (2023), Rajendra Prasad, page 46:
      Seleucus married his daughter Helena to Chandragupta Maurya. After Chandragupta, his son Bindusura became the ruler of the Mauryan Empire. During the reign of Bindusura, Antiochus, the ruler of Syria, sent dry figs, wine to Bindusura. Deimachus, an ambassador of Antiochus I was at the court of Bindusara. Ptolemy II Philadelphus sent an ambassador named Dynosis to he court of Bindusara.
      Indian Cultural Heritage Perspective For Tourism (2008), L. K. Singh, page 36:
      A "marital alliance" had been concluded between Seleucus Nicator and Ashoka's grandfather Chandragupta Maurya in 303 BC... This was a common practice for formalizing alliances in the Hellenistic world. There is thus a possibility that Ashoka was partly of Hellenic descent, if Chandragupta's son, Bindusura, was the object of the marriage. This remains a hypothesis as there are no known more detailed descriptions of the exact nature of the marital alliance, although this is quite symptomatic of the generally good relationship between the Hellenistic world and Ashoka.
    Aearthrise (talk) 10:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The leap you make from "allies and peers in the dharma" to cultural syncretism is WP:SYNTH. None of your cited sources link the two things. O'Grady does talk about Indo-Greek syncretism, but she's talking about the Kushans. The caption does not mention what the map was actually drawn to depict at all. On your second point, depicting all these places in a single colour, together, without any borders presents them as a united region. Furius (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your repeated claim of "synth" is totally unfounded, not only from earlier comments, but this one too. It's obvious from art, architecture, written records, that the Indian and Greek cultures influenced each other. That is the literal definition of "syncretism", and to deny so is to play a game of ignorance. Beyond that, to say O'Grady is referring to the Kushans is a total misreading of the quote; she mentions the Kushans only as an example of the presence of the aforementioned syncretism in the great statues of Gautama Buddha they erected.
    Furthermore, you say the map's caption does not mention what the map was drawn to depict; So what? You act like repurposing content for use in another topic is something wrong. Regardless of its origins, it's a clean map that helps illustrate the idea of the culturally allied region, which is the point of Ashoka's declaration of who he considers Dharmic peers.
    You say "On your second point". No, this was your second point Furius, and I responded to it by showing that your previous claim about the nature of the map was incorrect and your own invention: neither the map nor the caption claimed anything you said.
    Now, because you don't want to admit your error, you're changing the argument to that because the map represents the three named regions as one unit, it makes the map wrong. If I showed a map of World War II depicting the European allies as one unit (being the cleanest map found for use) to illustrate the early British contribution to the war, and wrote "map of Britain, France, and Poland in alliance, 1939" would you also say it is wrong and "Synth" because it includes a single color, borderless map of the allied countries? I wouldn't.
    As a closing comment: just today, I have encountered another map that has colors and borders. I've changed the map; so now, you don't even have this point to dispute. All of your points, the ones that led you to make this article deletion request, have been defeated. Aearthrise (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, good that you've changed the map. You say "It's obvious from art, architecture, written records, that the Indian and Greek cultures influenced each other." That's true.* That is why we have articles on Greco-Buddhism and Indo-Greek art (and Buddhist influences on Christianity on the limits of that syncretism). It remains very unclear what this article claims to cover that isn't already covered by those articles and by Hellenistic period. It remains unclear why there should be an article on cultural syncretism in the Hellenistic period that covers the Middle East (and India) but not Europe or the Mediterranean (as Hellenistic period does). It remains the case that "Hellenistic Middle East" is not a term that exists with a consistent meaning in scholarship (yes, google books shows that it does appear, but those citations are all using it to refer to different things from one another) Furius (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are reaching for straws and now making arguments from ignorance. You repeat the same silly phrasing "it remains" three times:
    "It remains very unclear what this article claims to cover that isn't already covered by those articles and by Hellenistic period."
    You are saying that because the Hellenistic period article exists, we should delete this article. Following your logic, we should also delete "Roman Africans" because the article shares points with Africa (Roman province) and Romanization (cultural). That's stupid.
    "It remains unclear why there should be an article on cultural syncretism in the Hellenistic period that covers the Middle East (and India) but not Europe or the Mediterranean (as Hellenistic period does)."
    You are saying this article should be deleted because it covers the specific Hellenistic Middle East area rather than including Europe or the Mediterranean. That's also stupid.
    "It remains the case that "Hellenistic Middle East" is not a term that exists with a consistent meaning in scholarship (yes, google books shows that it does appear, but those citations are all using it to refer to different things from one another)."
    You have not proven this point at all, and are just claiming it without providing any evidence. Clearly from the work on this article, this region is definable and has certain traits: it's an area of syncretism between Greek and Middle Eastern cultures. The area changed over time, in traits and even religion, and this article reflects that.
    If you want to disprove it, show what citations you're referring to that aren't consistent with the definition. Aearthrise (talk) 09:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    * It's moot, since the map has been changed, but what I've found synthetic is not the claim that these two cultures influenced one another in Central Asia, but that that syncretism between Greeks and India was characteristic of the Middle East as a whole, which is what a map captioned "Map of the Hellenistic Middle East, Greece, and Ashoka's Empire in cultural syncretism, 260 BC" implies; there's very limited evidence for Greco-Indian syncretism in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Anatolia (Ashoka sent some embassies, which none of the recipients considered important enough to record). Furius (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's moot, then why are you arguing? Are you full of hot air and want to let it out?
    "...but what I've found synthetic is not the claim that these two cultures influenced one another in Central Asia, but that that syncretism between Greeks and India was characteristic of the Middle East as a whole,Map of the Hellenistic Middle East, Greece, and Ashoka's Empire in cultural syncretism, 260 BC" implies; there's very limited evidence for Greco-Indian syncretism in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Anatolia (Ashoka sent some embassies, which none of the recipients considered important enough to record)"
    This is another stupid comment, and not based in reality. There is nowhere in the phrasing "Map of the Hellenistic Middle East, Greece, and Ashoka's Empire in cultural syncretism, 260 BC" that says Indo-Greek culture was a characteristic of the Middle East as a whole. All it says, is that these regions are in syncretism, i.e. they influence each other. You're extrapolation that the caption implies everywhere in the Middle East had Indo-Greek culture is incorrect, and just another one of your misreadings. Aearthrise (talk) 09:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a lot of these delete comments come from people *BEFORE* this page received so much content, namely Mccapra, RangersRus, and NebY; I was only notified 7 whole days after the creation of this deletion request. Furius originally claimed that Hellenized Middle East is a "made-up term not used in scholarship", although his search clearly showed more than 15 different citations of the term; nevertheless I changed the title to the more common "Hellenistic Middle East", with a plethora of citations. Furius also claims a lot of the material comes from Hellenistic period article, which is completely false. The majority of the content comes from books; the section with information from another article is the region list from the Partition of Babylon page and includes its citations. The map doesn't collapse the Hellenistic world into Ashoka's India, rather it illustrates the region of allied cultural syncretism that helped generate the Hellenistic Middle East. Aearthrise (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about you read WP:BLUDGEON. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read it, are you claiming that my request for you to give an elaborated reason is "bludgeoning" you? Aearthrise (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have commented on every delete mentioned here. That is WP:BLUDGEON.
Kurt Behrendt; Pia Brancaccio (2011). Gandharan Buddhism Archaeology, Art, and Texts. UBC Press. p. 10. Doesn't mention Mithraism, Greco-Buddhism, etc. WP:OR
Paul Cartledge (2006). Thermopylae The Battle That Changed the World. ABRAMS, Incorporated. p. 5. Doesn't support, "Alexandria in Egypt, Antioch in Syria, Persepolis in Persia, Bactra in Bactria (Afghanistan), and Sirkap in India became important cultural centers of Hellenistic culture". WP:OR
Ethel E. Ewing, William Oscar Emil Oesterley, James Talboys Wheeler are not WP:RS. "Indian History NCERT Notes Class 6-12 (Old+New) For Civil Services Examination" and travel guides are not considered WP:RS. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your claims of "WP:OR" are nothing more than nitpicks on the lede of the article; you are saying that simply mentioning the examples of the Hellenistic religions Greco-Buddhism or Mithraism can't be done because the specific citation is not in the lede (despite the fact that these citations are already present further into the article). Furthermore, in regards to the citations for the cities, all the quotes together at the end sentence of the lede establish the importance of those named Hellenistic cities Alexandria, Antioch, Persepolis, Bactra, Sirkap. The single quote you mentioned only references Persepolis.
You claim Ethel E. Ewing, William Oscar Emil Oesterley, and James Talboys Wheeler are not reliable sources. What makes you say that they're not reliable sources of information? Be specific.
This is the section using the sources you claim are "not reliable": The Hellenistic Middle East was an area that facilitated the exchange of ideas between the cultures of Greece, Persia, Egypt, India, and Africa.[1] Hellenistic culture was defined by its secular aspect, and facility to absorb elements from non-Greek sources such as local ideas and religion. Hellenists formed this diverse world culture.[2][3]
Further you claim that "Indian History NCERT Notes Class 6-12 (Old+New) For Civil Services Examination" and "travel guides" are WP:RS, but don't give a reason why; disqualification of travel guides is not mentioned anywhere in the list of reliable source, so show that too.
It seems like you want to make an opinion, but not willing to provide good evidence to support it. Aearthrise (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep under current name (or possibly another). The conquest of Alexander the Great led to a significant Hellenic influence on the Middle East. This is worthy of an article on the spread of Greek culture in the Middle East. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 4 June 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. Malinaccier (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imperium (film series)

Imperium (film series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is unsourced. I don't see why this topic deserves an article as there are no sources on the Imperium series, only sources on the individual movies. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this sorted in the Romania-related discussions? Some of the production companies involved are Spanish/German/French but I see no participation of Romanian actors or producers. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to the nom's implicit question is that Wikipedia:Notability, right at the top, says that we can merge up articles into a bigger subject. See also Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)#Should NBOOK cover series or just individual books?, which has almost 150 comments on a closely related subject. See statements like "Where a source contains coverage of one of the books in a series of books, this coverage is deemed to be coverage of the series of books, in addition to being coverage of that book" and "Articles on book series may be created in some cases where there are no series-level sources, drawing on the sourcing of the individual books." WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing, what outcome are you arguing for? Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not wrong I'm pretty sure he's saying that keep is the answer, even though what he's talking about is the Notability for books. MK at your service. 03:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing indicates in her preferences that she would like to be referred to as she. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, but if you don't have WP:NAVPOPS installed, it's not usually convenient to look up those settings. Innocent mistakes never bother me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz, I'm not sure whether it should be kept and converted to an article (e.g., adding paragraphs and sources), kept as a WP:SETINDEX, or converted to a WP:DAB page. But I don't think overall that we solve any problems by deleting it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, last hope for some more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:28, 12 June 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. There seems to be a consensus to delete or draftify the article. Given that it is unlikely anybody will come around to improve the article (given the creator's indefinite block), my sense is that draftifying the article will just result in an abandoned draft. If the creator would like a copy of the article, I would be happy to provide it at any time. Malinaccier (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

V. N. Srinivasa Rao

V. N. Srinivasa Rao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not think that this person meets the criteria for notability. I have been unable to find any reference to him other than the The Hindu article (https://web.archive.org/web/20240317044514/https://www.thehindu.com/features/friday-review/history-and-culture/the-lawyer-as-a-writer/article4683660.ece), which just effectively said it was nice to read. And cryptic metadata from library websites who happen to have the book (which seems to just be stanford and nyu https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/in00000071311 ) Mason (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I believe you are confusing notability and verifiability. Just because a source is hard to find doesn't mean it isn't reliable. See WP:PAYWALL. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I used my university's library to see if I could find anything else on the subject. My comment on cryptic meta data was that that was literally the only additional information I could find about him. I am not rejecting the source, for being difficult to get access to. My point was that there was literately nothing else when I searched other than that metadata. Typically for someone to meet notability they have to be covered by multiple sources. And, I can't find any support for independent coverage. The book in question wasn't even something he published. The book was edited by another person long after his death. Mason (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense. Will respond more at bottom. Oblivy (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Page fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage on the subject in the sources which are also poor. Subject does not meet basic criteria to be considered notable due to insignificant coverage in multiple published, secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If this criteria can be met, I would reconsider my vote. RangersRus (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closer. Page was created by sockpuppet and is good for WP:G5 speedy deletion. RangersRus (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RangersRus, this article is not eligible for CSD G5. You've made this kind of comment several times which is a mistaken interpretation of G5. Please review WP:CSD carefully. G5 is for block evasion, not simply for being the work of a sockpuppet. Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. I striked my comment. Is it right though that "when a blocked or banned person uses an alternate account (sockpuppet) to avoid a restriction, any pages created via the sock account after the earliest block or ban of any of that person's accounts qualify for G5"? WP:G5. RangersRus (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see an SPI on 21 March and this article was created 19 March. Blocks were in April. Perhaps I'm misreading or missing something? Oblivy (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G5 does not apply to the initial accounts that are blocked for socking if they are not evading a block at that point. It only applies to the articles created by accounts that come after the initial case/block.
In this case, both the accounts were used simultaneously and neither of them had an active block. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided. Just FYI, a general comment for all AFDs, when an editor says "seems like" or "likely" or "appears to be" it means to me that the editor hasn't read or seen the sources and are basing their opinion on attributes like the title or the publisher. If that's the case, it's good not to have an absolutist opinion on what should happen with an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I am right down the middle on this. This guy seems to have been a prominent barrister, wrote a number of books including a treatise on administrative law. Maybe also wrote about temples (not sure if it's the same author).
But I've tried to find the sources, and don't find anything substantial about him except for the two links on the page, and as @Smasongarrison points out above that's a book by him, or perhaps comprising judgments curated by him. And one The Hindu journalist who liked his book.
Complaints about the origin of the article are, subject to further developments, misplaced. The author seems to have a particular interest[27] in Calamur.
If, on chance, there is someone out there who can improve this article let them do it. It will not be me. There's a conversation over unblocking going on so perhaps @Hölderlin2019 will live to edit another day. Oblivy (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be onboard with draftifying. If he were in my subject area, I'd inter-library loan the book. Maybe someone will be so motivated. Mason (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The Hindu source is fine, but it's one source. I don't find anything in Gscholar or Books, there are some papers he's written on various aspects of the law, but these don't affect notability here. I think there could be more sourcing in the local language, but I can't locate any. Oaktree b (talk) 23:27, 6 June 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 all, without prejudice against recreation as a single, merged article. Normally, when a viable ATD is suggested, we take that route. But here, the Merge supporters were not only in the minority, but couldn't even agree between themselves on a target. Owen× ☎ 18:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W. G. Grace's cricket career (1864 to 1870)

W. G. Grace's cricket career (1864 to 1870) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Too much cruft, must be deleted as per convention to remove the australian fanfict articles Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:
W. G. Grace in the 1871 English cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1872 to 1873) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace with the English cricket team in Australia in 1873–74 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1874 to 1875) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1876 to 1877) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace in the 1878 English cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1879 to 1882) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1883 to 1886) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1887 to 1891) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace with the English cricket team in Australia in 1891–92 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1892 to 1894) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace in the 1895 English cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1896 to 1899) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1900 to 1908) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pharaoh496 (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging @JoelleJay @Trainsandotherthings @Serial Number 51429 as I have seen them in support for such article removals Pharaoh496 (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:APPNOTE says "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it." James500 (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Naughty, WP:CANVASSing shouldn't be carried out! AA (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is clear WP:CANVASSing of people they expect to vote with them. This canvassing should be considered by the closer of this AFD. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AA @James500 like I replied to Joseph2302 on my talk - I have pinged those who also voiced against such votes. The sole purpose of me pinging them was to invite more people into the discussion. I dont cherry pick people of one stance and bring them here. Afaik; thats allowed by the first para in WP:CANVASS. Pharaoh496 (talk) 06:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ill take that my wording says otherwise - my intentions dont Pharaoh496 (talk) 06:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone is lurking around this now, Id suggest also checking out this. Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What are you referring to by "australian fanfict articles"? -1ctinus📝🗨 01:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pharaoh496 (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the two pages was merged they should not have been deleted. Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. If you copy some text from another Wikipedia page it should be clear in the edit summary and/or the talk page where the text came from. Wikipedia is not public domain. Christian75 (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. I havent done that mate, just nominated these pages Pharaoh496 (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting that I was pinged to this discussion, and that I'm not a fan of these articles, I believe we should delete all as fundamental violations of WP:NOT as cricket statistics turned into articles due to one person's consumption by what I like to call the cricket insanity. They are also clearly non-notable as the sources cover Grace's entire career, not simply his performance in any given event. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably merge the shorter articles, with less referencing, to larger articles covering longer periods of time. These articles do not consist entirely of statistics, though it may be appropriate to cut some material from them. A chronological split of our W G Grace article will satisfy GNG. See, for example, the coverage of the 1880s in Bax's chapter "The Glorious Eighties"  [28]; the chapter on Grace in Portraits of the Eighties: [29]; Midwinter's chapters 7 and 8 on 1879 to 1891: [30]; and Darwin's chapter 6 on 1880 to 1891: [31]. So you could certainly write an article on W. G. Grace in the 1880s or the period 1879 to 1891. The question is not whether the main biography article should be split, but how. W G Grace is the subject of a large number of entire books, since he is probably considered the greatest cricketer of all time, so his biography is not realistically going to fit in a single article. James500 (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well other cricketers with longer careers do also have same articles. One new thing that has been inspired from football articles is a seperate career page - Career of Lionel Messi. Since Virat Kohli's page was long, I made this article Career of Virat Kohli. Maybe something similar? Pharaoh496 (talk) 04:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge all Is this a mockery of some sort? Sure you can split some details from the main article, but why the hell would you make more than a dozen subarticles, each with just a few paragraphs? WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:NOTSTATS come to mind here, we don't need prose sections for every season with the stats. Reywas92Talk 20:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Reywas92, I don't think there's much content at all that could be merged. Having checked a few of the pages, much of the text is already repeated verbatim in the main bio. JoelleJay (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have never looked at these articles before, but would assume they would all be mostly more than a few sentences! The W. G. Grace in the 1878 English cricket season article can be selectively merged. AA (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – The player is very notable in Cricket, but it is possible to summarize the information in the main article, or recreate it in a less number of forks. Svartner (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Svartner, most of the info is already repeated verbatim in the main article. Would you support deletion? JoelleJay (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't object. Svartner (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just a reminder, you can't argue for a Merge or a Redirect without providing a specific list of what the target article is for each article being discussed. The discussion closer carries out the consensus, they can't make these decisions up on their own. It's the discussants' role to provide a full resolution to an AFD nomination, not just an outcome. Otherwise, the closer might have to dismiss these kinds of opinions. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean merging these various articles into something more direct, like "W. G. Grace's cricket career". I understand that it is possible to summarize the main content to avoid this number of forks. Svartner (talk) 08:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz, I am not aware of any policy, guideline or consensus that says that. I do not think that is how we normally deal with mass proposals. The number of articles nominated, and the number of book chapters that would have to be examined, would make it difficult to compile a complete list of merger targets in the 7 days of an AfD. I think it is perfectly acceptable to say that articles should be merged in accordance with the scope of the chronological chapters in those books, and then leave the final determination to the WP:PROPMERGE process, which does not have a 7 day deadline. For the avoidance of doubt, I have proposed an intial merge of the relevant three articles to W. G. Grace's life from 1879 to 1891 based on the scope of the book chapters I mentioned. To insist that I provide, within 7 days, a list of each and every other target based on the other chronological chapters in those books (and their chapters are chronological) is certainly obstructive, and might confront me with a WP:FAITACCOMPLIS. I see no reason why a closing admin cannot look at the chronological scope of the chapters of those books. James500 (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are books even in question? Material / content from books do not have to be entirely pasted on here - WikiPedia isnt an alternative for any book. It should contain all relevant information - there is no point making a page of any period of life for any person. Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    James500, I'm just talking about the practical aspects of closing an AFD discussion. We use XFDCloser and if a closer closes a discussion as Merge, there must be an exiting target article included. It's part of the closure. And a closer is not supposed to be coming up with original solutions like deciding how articles should be divided up, they are supposed to determine consensus, that's all. If a closer did as you advise, they would be accused of making a "supervote" and probably brought to WP:AN or Deletion review where they would experience a deserved condemnation and mocking. I know because I was accused of making a supervote when I first started closing AFD discussions. No fun at all. So, I'll pass on following your advice. At this point, I've closed thousands of AFD discussions and I'm not going to invent some new solution for this one. But I feel involved now so I'll refrain from closing this discussion. I have a feeling that this discussion will close as "No consensus" unless there is agreement on a resolution that can be easily implemented. Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I mentioned - a seperate article called Career of W.G. Grace, which is like a few prexisting articles. That covers all Pharaoh496 (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Noting that I was pinged here after having participated in several other cricket career salami-slice article discussions (many non-AfDs). FWIW, I definitely would have !voted in this even without being pinged since I watch the sportspeople delsort. Anyway, I agree with TaOT and AA (!!!) that these articles are not salvageable and should be deleted (with maybe some content from the 1878 one merged?). They are largely prosifications of routine, primary stats reports from CricketArchive with a handful of trivial anecdotes and quotes sprinkled in. If there was anything from these time periods worth including in the main article it would not be from these articles and therefore merging is not appropriate.
    As an example, of the 1871 sources: 34/58 sources are stats, corresponding to 1480/2348 words. Of the remainder, 777 are to presumably secondary independent sources, with 640 words outside the lead. Out of those 640, 411 are repeated verbatim (or nearly) in the main page. That leaves the total amount of content that could be merged at 229 words:

    Grace turned 23 in July 1871

    Grace in 1871 was principally involved with four teams: the Gentlemen, Gloucestershire County Cricket Club, Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) and the United South of England Eleven (USEE).

    1871 was a wet summer and, even when the rain relented, there was a persistent chilly wind.[8] Grace, however, had the skill and resilience to cope with adverse conditions and some of his best batting performances were achieved on wet wickets.

    This innings was played on a "sticky wicket" after rain and many people considered it the finest of Grace's career, though Grace himself disagreed.
    Grace began the innings cautiously and took fifteen minutes to score his first run but then, records Rae, he "scored at a cracking pace".[9] MCC Secretary Harry Perkins had no doubts and insisted that it was Grace's greatest-ever performance with rain frequently stopping play and making the wicket at times "unplayable".

    Grace's presence ensured a bumper crowd with over £400 being taken at the gate. This money went a long way towards the £1500 that Nottinghamshire needed to erect the Trent Bridge Pavilion.

    Simon Rae remarked that cricket enthusiasts still argue about Grace's "greatest season" and that 1871 features in any such discussion.

    He took 79 wickets at 17.02 with a best analysis of 7–67. He claimed five wickets in an innings 5 times and twice had 10 in a match.

    The bolded "finest" innings being referred to is from a "Married v. Single" first-class match, which I've gone ahead and merged into the main article (with author attribution). The rest of the material is trivial or would be redundant. Considering the 1871 page is one of the few containing any unique non-trivial, non-primary content, I think it is reasonable to consider the rest of the articles unsalvageable forks that should be deleted rather than merged. JoelleJay (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh btw, I also finnaly nominated that dusty bunch of the 1948 ashes articles. Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cruft-based forks of the main biography. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since there's a valid ATD on the table, per Liz's comment, it would be helpful to know what information should be merged and to where.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The previous relister's concerns remain unanswered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these pages go into unnecessary excruciating detail over his career. I oppose a merge/redirect because (1) the relevant information needed the main W.G. Grace article, and (2) these titles are highly unlikely search terms. For example, someone looking for information about W. G. Grace's cricket career between 1879 and 1882 is far more likely to search for Grace himself and find the appropriate content on his article, rather than searching for the oddly specific "W. G. Grace's cricket career (1879 to 1882)." Frank Anchor 18:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Too much detail/too much cruft is an editing matter, not a notability matter, and this is not the article improvement workshop. At issue is whether this should be a Keep as a subsidiary page from the extremely long W. G. Grace or whether this should be chopped back and Merged to that piece. Delete is not a valid outcome — nor is Merge unless somebody is ready to spend a day on the project. I believe this serves its purpose of keeping the main biography of readable length while preserving the information for sports historians and fans who care. Carrite (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia isnt a place for "sports historians or fans". Its not an encyclopedia. No other cricketer has this many pages. This is a transclusion of his books. For cricketers, wikipedia only needs to have the main page - unless if its a little bit long one solitary career page. So there goes your "delete is not valid" out the window.
    • No merge because no one will spend a day - @Carrite, Wikipedia will grind to a halt if people start having this mentaility :)
    Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not how WP:GNG works. If, for example, the period of Grace's life from 1879 to 1891 is the subject of large chapters in four books, it has certainly received significant coverage in independent reliable sources within the meaning of WP:GNG. That creates a presumption that the period of Grace's life from 1879 to 1891 should have an article. To prevent that period of Grace's life having a standalone article, you need to rebut that presumption with another policy or guideline. And there is no policy or guideline that rebuts that presumption. The only policy you have offered are various parts of WP:NOT that clearly do not apply. In turn: these articles are not cruft (and we don't even have a policy or guideline against cruft); they include a summary of accepted knowledge regarding Grace, and a summary of accepted knowledge regarding Grace would not fit in the main article; they do not consist entirely of an excessive listings of unexplained statistics, and the coverage in the said books that is not excessive listings of unexplained statistics would not fit in the main article; they are not a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files; indeed they could not possibly be a "mirror" of the copyrighted books on Grace such as Midwinter (1981) and Rae (1998), because we cannot copy the entire verbatim text of a copyrighted source. The policy that actually is applicable is WP:ATD. The articles contain salvagable content, therefore that content should be merged if the articles are not notable. And the period of Grace's life from 1879 to 1891 is demonstably notable. We know that it is notable, because I have just demonstrated that it is notable. James500 (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ideally have one article - Career of W.G. Grace - which will become the new convention for all athletes' pages if wikipedia wants to widen its scope by that much.
    • It will be a cricket centric article in such a case, with no duplicate infoboxes.
    • Non-cricket aspects of that period go into the main article.
    Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:49, 8 June 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 no consensus‎. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput Mughal marriage alliances

AfDs for this article:
Rajput Mughal marriage alliances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:OR written to promote a POV. The topic itself is not notable that it would need a separate article.Ratnahastin (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting here for the record that I am in agreement with the proposed draftification. The article may not require deletion anymore. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are comparing a GA article with a poorly written article that mainly relies on outdated unreliable sources and fails to establish notability. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Poorly written" is totally irrelevant at AFD. Also only a fraction of the sources are primary and more than half do not date from the RAJ. The fact that you link "unreliable" to PRIMARY suggests that you don't understand either. This article needs a good clean-up, that's all, as the topic is obviously significant. Zerotalk 12:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Page seems to be illogical and a mixture of Tales. There isn't any particular record of such marriages Rudra Simha (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable topic mainly in western india (as the most classical example of Mariam uz Zamani and Akbar marriage belong to Rajasthan), cleanup of this article is required for better overview and number of reliable sources is also enough. TheSlumPanda (talk) 07:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject is as trivial as it gets and Wikipedia appears to be the only source right now that happened to make a topic out of it. There are no WP:HISTRS sources that have provided coverage to this topic. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I don't see any validity of the topic or existence of an actual "marriage alliance". Article just lists some marriages that are speculated to have been between a Rajput and a Mughal. That is rather trivial. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, strongly. Am I seeing double? There is a preponderance of reliable sources on that article, some even discuss the dynamics of these marriages overall. Few of them are old primary sources, most of the sources that establish notability are from the 90s and later. I have not gone source-by-source (will do in a while) but is difficult to believe that the multiple Rajput marriages of Akbar and Jahangir alone would not generate sufficient scholarship for notability, let alone all the marriages of Shah Jahan, Aurangzeb, minor princes and nobles. Those bringing up OR, SYNTH, and RAJ don't mention a single specific example where the article fails these policies when it has inline citations for almost every sentence as well as overarching citations that unify them into a si gle topic. @Ratnahastin: what is the POV supposedly being pushed here? What am I missing? Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 12:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said the article has been created for pushing a POV because it relies on primary sources like Akbarnama, Jahangirnama for info and none of the references are exactly showing how this is a notable topic. Then there are some examples who have been hijacked by caste Rajput writers despite there is no evidence if they were Rajput. These things are better for discussing on the articles of the particular individuals instead of creating a list to impose a contradictory point of view.Ratnahastin (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting seems unlikely to achieve consensus, but with this much discussion, let's give it a try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - not my favourite kind of page, but I think it is undeniable that the phenomena is covered in scholarly literature, so the only WP:SYNTH argument is that the facts of individual relationships have been marshalled into a list. If that's SYNTH then all lists on en.wiki are at risk. JMWt (talk) 06:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The topic does not require a page of its own. WP:NOT specifically WP:DIRECTORY disagree with the page. (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (already voted keep above). I strongly object to the claim that this topic is not notable. Back when kings and princes ruled the world, arranged marriages were one of the most important ways that alliances were cemented and empires waxed and waned. This was true in Europe also. The political map of the world would be different today otherwise. So in fact this phenomenon is a key part of history. Zerotalk 03:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you mention which sources convinced you that the topic is notable?Ratnahastin (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seek and ye shall find. The Politics of Marriage in Medieval India is a book about it published by Oxford University Press, but surprisingly not cited. Zerotalk 15:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me where this book is focusing on this subject? The summary of this book that I have found tells it is rather talking about Rajput#Culture and ethos.Ratnahastin (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is scattered throughout the book. Note the emphasis on political marriage and marriage alliance — this was not just a matter of some people marrying each other. For example, on p80-81 we have "Political marriages soon came to play a significant role in the establishment of the Mughal rule. Akbar wanted to use political marriage alliances as an important means for building and consolidating local support. In fact, Akbar’s conception of the Rajput role in his expanding empire was responsible for a number of matrimonial alliances with the Rajputs, and he made at least 40 political marriages for himself, his three sons, and his eldest grandson. Ultimately the emperor made marriage alliances for himself and sons with almost all major Rajput chiefs." And on page 80, "the first Rajputs to make marriage alliances with the Mughal dynasty were seeking support for their efforts to gain or retain land. Raja Bharmal Kachwaha, involved in a long and bitter contest with a brother for the control of Amber and Mertiya Rathore, Jagmal Viramdevot, was similarly struggling with his brother Jagmal for Merta, both married their daughters to the young emperor in 1562–3 respectively." And the drama surrounding marriage alliances is exemplified by a quotation on page 79: "The Mugals demanded the hand of princess of Roopnagar, a junior branch of the Marwar house. But she rejected the proposal offering herself to Rana Raj Singh in return for her protection. The priest deemed it as an honour at being the messenger of her wishes. The Rana then appeared before Roopnager and took her away to his capital. This led to a war between Mewar and the Mughals." On page 84, "Marriage alliances were also entered into as a face saving device in order to bring an end to prolonged hostilities over land." On page 141, "When the Rathores of Marwar rose to prominence in the mid-fifteenth century, marriage alliances with them were keenly sought after." That's all taken from random pages and is more than enough to demonstrate not only the relevance of this book but also the notability of the topic. Zerotalk 14:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be discussing a broader topic, which is not just "Rajput Mughal" marriage alliance but more than that. Will you support moving the title to something like Political marriages in India? That would certainly clear up things and allow meaningful expansion and removal of WP:SYNTH from the present version.Ratnahastin (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have preferences as to how the topic is divided into articles. It can be discussed on the relevant article talk pages. Meanwhile it would be counterproductive to delete the part of the story that this article tells. Zerotalk 01:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This book also appears citable and contains a fair amount of relevant information. In particular it could help to move the article away from being a boring list. Zerotalk 06:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NXcrypto, if you have evidence, please file a case at WP:SPI. But AFDs are not an appropriate place to cast aspersions and make undocumented accusations against another editor. Liz Read! Talk! 02:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That editor must be talking about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HinduKshatrana. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The above proposal to draftify as laid out by ArvindPalaskar seems good. I am not opposed to it. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 07:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Simply searching "Rajput" and "marriage" in the sources cited, like so [32] [33] [34] (page 19), produces strong evidence that this subject is covered in reliable, scholarly sources, was very significant to world history, and is not some made-up POV-pushing SYNTH. In addition, the delete !votes have been particularly weak, consisting of inaccurate vague waves at policy, very poorly-reasoned arguments that do not take into account any of the evidence provided, and several accusations of policy violations which have not yet been substantiated. Toadspike [Talk] 09:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I almost closed this discussion, but decided to weigh in with a comment instead. My reading is that the topic is covered pretty substantially in reliable sources and it seems like an appropriate topic for inclusion in Wikipedia. I am not seeing this as pushing a POV (being unfamiliar with the politics, so I may be naive), nor do I see this as being original research. In any case, the POV issues if there are any could be addressed via editing. I don't see much need to draftify the article; if there is interest in improving the article's tone or POV, I think that can be done without moving to the draft space. Malinaccier (talk) 14:57, 7 June 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 no consensus‎. Opinions are all over the map here. Editors interested in a Merge can pursue that option outside of this AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 06:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 1980s

NASCAR on television in the 1980s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages, TV schedules, those centrally about the season with the broadcasting being merely mentions and most of those being YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep, merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The only difference between this discussion and the discussions for the other decades prior to May 29 (when the others were closed and this was relisted) was the extra delete !vote by Ajf773. Was there a particular reason for only !voting here? I do agree with others above that it would be odd for this decade to be the only one not be allowed to stand alone. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  00:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GhostOfDanGurney: While I do, obviously, have issue (as I mentioned above) with the idea that one decade's article gets deleted while the rest did not, it doesn't matters why they voted on one and not the rest, that's entirely acceptable to do. We have no reason to question them on it. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hey man im josh: My aim with the comment was to try to determine if it was worth seeing if just renominating the whole bundle of decades as a batch (without the other articles that were included the first time) was a good option. I should have been more clear with that and I apologize for coming across as trying to call them out here. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with NASCAR on television and radio: per the nom. I'm just not finding the sources covering the broadcasts from this decade as a group, and as such, this fails to meet the WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. Merge as a WP:ATD, along with the rest of the articles from this 'series'. Let'srun (talk) 01:29, 13 June 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. There's no support here for draftification. But if you make a request at WP:REFUND they might be willing to restore this article to Draft space. Know that it would need to meet approval by an AFC reviewer, if put directly in main space, it would be subject to CSD G4 speedy deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet

Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poor attempt of the author to keep Pala Tibetan War from AFD. Same content with different title. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala Tibetan War.Imperial[AFCND] 14:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Devapāla came into conflict with Tibet, there is nothing impossible in this because Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-srong-lda-btsan and his son Mu-teg-btsan-po subdued India and forced Raja Dharma- pala to submit. Devapāla also may have come to clash with them and defeated them.[4]
  • Devapāla might have come into conflict with Tibet; there is nothing impossible in this because Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-Srong-Ida-Btsan and his son Mu-teg-Btsan-po subdued India and forced Dharma- pāla to submit. Devapāla also may have clashed with them and defeated them[5]
Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop listing down this big {{tq}} here. It was already a mess at the earlier discussion. Comment down if you've any possible arguments that could potentially save the article. I am pretty sure you haven't read what WP: NOTABILITY, and this reflects everywhere in the AFD. Long paragraphs are not the factor that determines whether it passes GNG or not. And I can see you've duplicated the text twice here. Imperial[AFCND] 19:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This event is notable and has received significant coverage in Reliable Sources (WP:RS) and it passes WP:GNG & WP:SIGCOV and this isn't WP:OR since reliable sources mention the event as Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet.
Also what do you mean by "And I can see you've duplicated the text twice here."?? I gave you two reliable sources which mentions the event in a similar way. Based Kashmiri (talk) 04:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Based Kashmiri, what you've done is exposed plagiarism. They mention the event in a similar way because one source plagiarized the other, not because this is a conventional way to write about this. -- asilvering (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per the WP:DEL-REASON guideline, there is no reason to delete this article and I have provided multiple reliable sources about this event here in the replies below. Based Kashmiri (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have evidence that one of these sources plagiarised the other? Cortador (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Ethel E. Ewing (1961). Our Widening World: A History of the World's Peoples. Rand McNally. p. 59.
  2. ^ William Oscar Emil Oesterley (1914). The Books of the Apocrypha: Their Origin, Teaching and Contents. Revell. p. 12.
  3. ^ James Talboys Wheeler (1853). An Analysis and Summary of New Testament History: Including the Four Gospels Harmonized ... the Acts ... an Analysis of the Epistles and Book of Revelation ... the Critical History, Geography, Etc., with Copious Notes, Historical, Geographical and Antiquarian. Arthur Hall, Virtue, and Company. p. 28.
  4. ^ Sinha, Bindeshwari Prasad (1974). Comprehensive History Of Bihar Vol.1; Pt.2.
  5. ^ Diwakar, R. R. (1958). Bihar through the ages.
  • Delete. This is obviously a recreation of the previously deleted article. It does have a better title, in that it is no longer claiming there was a "Pala Tibetan War", but this is the same issue. We can write about this hypothetical conflict (one of the sources you list above even says "might have"!) on Devapala (Pala dynasty). If eventually we find sources to justify a separate article, we can spin out out from Devapala (Pala dynasty). But we did not find those sources in the last AfD, so I doubt we will find them here either. While I'm looking at that article, I note that we also have the sentences There is nothing impossible as the Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-srong-lda-btsan and his son Mu-teg-btsan-po subdued India and forced Dharmapāla to submit. Therefore, Devapāla must have also clashed with and defeated the Tibetan kings. Not only does this not follow the sources (our article says "must have", while neither source says so), it is obviously plagiarism. -- asilvering (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a recreation of the previously deleted article, also this article doesn't have any issues like that article, if you think there is any issue in this article then list them down.
    The previous article had issues with the "Dharmapāla's Conflict with Tibetans" section and the "Conflict with Nepal" section, which is excluded from this article. This article focuses on the conflict between Devapala and Tibet, with reliable sources mentioning the event as "Devapala's Conflict with Tibet." The main problem with the previous article was the uncited title, but this article provides reliable sources to support its claim.Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean "it literally contains the exact same words as the previous article". If that were the case, it could just be nominated for speedy deletion. I mean "it is in effect the same article with the same problems", which is true. At least one of the two reliable sources you brought up above appears to be plagiarized, so not only is this not two separate sources with in-depth coverage, it's only one source with very brief coverage. This can easily be written about on Devapala (Pala dynasty) if necessary. (But I'd advise against plagiarising a plagiarised source to do so.) -- asilvering (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This article cannot be deleted for the reasons you've provided, as per the Wikipedia deletion policy WP:DEL-REASON.
    Additionally, here are some additional reliable sources about this event:
    Based Kashmiri (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These sources do not support your case. -- asilvering (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then explain how? Also you still haven't given any reasons to delete this article from as per the Wikipedia's deletion policy WP:DEL-REASON. Based Kashmiri (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason for deletion is simple, and it is the most common deletion reason that exists: this does not pass WP:GNG. We need multiple reliable, secondary sources that discuss the topic in depth. -- asilvering (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:Delete per asilvering and Imperial Okmrman (talk) 04:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock. Owen× ☎ 05:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They do not have any valid reason to delete the article, Please provide a valid reason from WP:DEL-REASON.Based Kashmiri (talk) 08:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Okmrman And I just checked your User contributions and noticed you have voted for deletion for every single AFD you had discovered EVERY MINUTE, without even reading anything.Based Kashmiri (talk) 08:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both @Asilvering and @ImperialAficionado haven't provided any valid reason to delete this article from WP:DEL-REASON, how can you agree with them? Based Kashmiri (talk) 08:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:14, 14 May 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, Owen× ☎ 05:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , this is simply not notable and has wrongly been re-created as an article with a different name. If this goes on a topic ban would be in order for the editor. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note to closer: I think I can improve this article based on the concern raised in this discussion, let me work on this article further. I'd request the closer to please draftify it so I can improve this article. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 04:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't see enough evidence that this needs a standalone article. Even if it does when all history is put together, it's clear the author does not yet have the requisite experience to write that article. It would have to be started from scratch and by a more experienced editor, which can be them in the future, but I think deleting is best for now to put an end to the disruption. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's so much WP:Synthesis present in these creations. IMHO the new creation seems to dovetail somewhat with the old page's sources, events, and personalities. But so far, there's a general consensus among other content-area editors this material has no place in pagespace (yet, if at all). The page creator's "gaming" behavior in recreating the same basic pagespace without violating specific prohibitions, seems by itself a behavioral issue, and several times repeated. BusterD (talk) 16:50, 4 June 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.

History Proposed deletions

History categories

for occasional archiving

Proposals

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/History&oldid=1227042006"