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 Doug Weller (talk | contribs) at 18:30, 17 April 2024 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Split rock of Horeb.). 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.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to History.
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! 23:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split rock of Horeb

Split rock of Horeb (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've struggled to find sources since this was created. There are a lot of sources, but they are either fringe or seem to be about something else. I've left one source in the article as an example - the Fox News article is really a publicity piece about a travel tour run by someone who claims to have found the real location of Mt. Sinai. His book cites people like Ron Wyatt [1] Doug Weller talk 18:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Archaeology. Doug Weller talk 18:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Religion, Geography, and Saudi Arabia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Split rock of Horeb is just one of many natural split rocks that can be found in many arid environments. Lacks reliable sources, as noted above, that demonstrate that this specific split rock has either any cultural, historical, archaeological, geological, or geomorphic significance. Paul H. (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is unlikely to be the real Split Rock of Horeb, but it has been the topic of some coverage, and may well pass GNG as an interesting-looking rock that is the topic of a local legend. If this claimant to the title of Split Rock of Horeb has a different official name, move the article to that title. There is no corresponding article in Arabic for the title انشقاق صخرة حوريب

I see several Google hits for انشقاق صخرة حوريب , but I cannot evaluate them. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL I added an infobox to the article to show where the rock is located. LeapTorchGear (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I dream of a day when Wikipedia can have an article on every big funny-looking rock, but until then... – Joe (talk) 10:09, 18 April 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.

Holderness museums

Holderness museums (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)

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. ✗plicit 14:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hierombalus

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

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

Keep It's not a brilliant article and it would have been better for it to spend more time in development, but I don't see any grounds for deletion. AfC is an optional process. Furius (talk) 09:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no valid reason to draft as the previously lacking references have been expanded upon. Additionally, the subject is notable enough to be credited by ancient sources as the teacher of Sanchuniation.el.ziade (talkallam) 10:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom comment: I think my nomination statement has been misunderstood? I brought this to AfD because a new page patroller draftified it instead of AfDing it by mistake. AfC is indeed an optional process, but this article should not have been at AfC in the first place; it should have been AfD'd. That is why it is here. The grounds for deletion is the standard one: there is not significant coverage of this topic in multiple reliable sources. -- asilvering (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering The premise for this nomination appears to be based on a misunderstanding regarding the availability of sources. The article initially had some bare references that were expanded. There are numerous reliable sources that address the topic, suggesting that the criteria for deletion based on the lack of sources is misleading. el.ziade (talkallam) 13:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elias Ziade Can you share which sources you believe contain significant coverage? I'm only seeing brief mentions. For example, Lokkegard says The theophoric name of Hierombalos, priest of Ίευώ, cannot be held divine. It is probably the same name as the biblical Hīrām, from which the odious name of Baal has been left out. That's all. -- asilvering (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering check the article el.ziade (talkallam) 16:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elias Ziade I have read the article. Which sources do you believe contain significant coverage? -- asilvering (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering Your concern about the expectation for "significant coverage" of a historical figure like Hierombalus is understandable, especially given the context of the Late Bronze Age./Early Iron Age It's true that for individuals from such a distant past, documented information is often limited. The survival of any records or mentions from that era is remarkable, and even minimal details can be highly valuable for historical scholarship. Considering the challenges associated with the preservation of ancient texts and the rarity of extensive records from that period, it's indeed significant that Hierombalus is known to us at all. This alone underscores his importance in historical context. Expecting extensive coverage akin to more recent historical figures may not be reasonable and could indeed lead to an underrepresentation of ancient individuals on Wikipedia. If the standard of "significant coverage" were strictly applied as suggested, many articles about ancient figures might be shelved, diminishing our understanding and representation of the past. It might be useful to revisit what qualifies as "significant coverage" in the context of ancient history and consider the value of preserving mentions of such figures, even when details are sparse. This could help ensure a more comprehensive historical record. el.ziade (talkallam) 20:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Keep -- Well-discussed in sources easily available via GScholar. Central and Adams (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are some more sources discussing him here. I agree with the above points. Aintabli (talk) 05:27, 26 April 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.

Buffer theory

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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! 23:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput resistance to Muslim conquests

Rajput resistance to Muslim conquests (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:CFORK of Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent, I'm unable to find any RS that describe "Rajput resistance to Muslim conquests" as a historical period in itself. Cited sources in the page do not appear to use this framing. Searching on Google Scholar for the page title, and also "Rajput resistance" "Muslim conquests" did not turn up anything useful. Searching Google Books turned up only a handful of results that weren't false positives, and none of them bode well for this topic: Serving Empire, Serving nation pg 185-190 discuss revisionist nationalist histories that attempt to construct a narrative of resistance to Muslim conquests through reinterpretation of folklore and historical events, but does not adopt or endorse this historiographic framing. Royal Umbrellas of Stone talks about Rajput resistance, but predominantly uses the term to discuss social movements and rebellions against established Mughal rule, not against the initial conquests. The only source that I can find that uncritically adopts the framing of "Rajput resistance to Muslim conquests" is...The Abortion Explosion: Woman Weapon of Mass Destruction #1, which appears to be a polemic against abortion and not a reliable source of any kind, let alone Indian history in particular. This could potentially be a redirect to Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent, but given that Rajput kingdoms also sometimes formed alliances with Muslim polities (see Rajput Mughal marriage alliances; n.b. this aspect is totally absent from the Rajput resistance article), deletion may also be appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 19:58, 15 April 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First Battle of Lahore (1759)

First Battle of Lahore (1759) (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 sources provided on the page show no mention for a battle in "August 1759", the sources only show that Ahmad Shah even began his campaign in September 1759, reaching Lahore and then taking it in November. [2] Noorullah (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. "Sabaji maintained his position with great valour and strength, inflicted a crushing defeat upon Jahan Khan, who was severely wounded and lost his son in the action. Jahan Khan’s return to Peshawar in discomfiture so roused the fury of the Shah." Excerpts from New history of the Marathas vol 1. p-408
  2. "Dattaji Sindhia progressed slowly through Malwa. He appointed Sabaji Sindhia to occupy Lahore ( March, 1759 ). The Sikhs did not check the Marathas, but co-operated with them in driving away the Afghans under Jahan Khan across the Indus. Sabaji’s forces penetrated as far as Peshawar." Excerpts from A Study Of Eighteenth Century India Vol. 1. p-342
  • Additional comments- Renaming the article to the Capture of Lahore or even the Maratha occupation of Lahore (per sources) would be better. Though these sources are enough for keeping this article still additional sources would be appreciated.
Sudsahab (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't even seem to be a battle at all.
Per Sarkar, it states that the Afghans had evacuated Lahore, meaning that there was no "battle" for the city in April 1758. [3] Also corroborated by Hari Ram Gupta: [4]
The Afghans returned in October 1759 and re-occupied Lahore. [5]
There's no mention of a battle in August 1759 whatsoever.
Jahan Khan's battle per this source: [6] Doesn't seem to be mentioned at Lahore at all, nor do the sources you've shown imply this, but rather is "Thereafter the invaders overran Attock, then crossed the Indus, and threatened the historic fort of Rohtas on the left bank of the Jhelum. By that time, Sabaji Patel (Schinde) reached the place with fresh troops and a large number of Sikh fighters, who had made common cause with him against the Afghan infiltrators. The Afghans were defeated by the combined forces of the Marathas and the Sikhs in a pitched battle, in which Jahan Khan lost his son and was himself also wounded."
So again, this shows this was not a battle at Lahore. Noorullah (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[7] Does not show a battle at Lahore, but mentions Jahan Khan's defeat at an undisclosed location, and only later talks about how Ahmad Shah re-occupied Lahore (presumably in his 1759 October campaign). Noorullah (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I proposed renaming this article, either it should be Jahan Khan invasion of Rohtas or Battle of Rohtas. Coming to Sarkar's reliability which is questionable. Also see WP:RAJ, we can't rely on him as long as we have better sources for the notability of the Battle of Lahore (Battle of Rohtas?).
You do realise [this|https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.98175/page/n361/mode/2up] work of Hari Ram Gupta (published in 1944) is relatively older than his cited work in the article Marathas and Panipat. (published in 1961)? It would be obvious that older sources might not contain more information around this certain event, this is WP:AGE MATTERS.
  • In Marathas and Panipat. p-101 tells us: Jahan Khan rushed to Peshawar, captured Attock, and then advanced towards Rohtas. Sabaji sought help from the Sikhs. The united forces marched against Jahan Khan, whom they encountered on the other side of the Jehlam. In a fierce engagement the Afghan general suffered heavily. He lost his son and a large number of troops, himself receiving several wounds
  • [8] p-260, It also propounds: Thereafter, the invaders overran Attock, then crossed the Indus and threatened the historic fort of Rohtas on the left bank of the Jhelum. By that time, Sabaji Patel reached the place with fresh troops and a large number of the Sikh fighters, who had made a common cause with him against the Afghan infiltrators. The Afghans were defeated by the combined forces of the Marathas and the Sikhs in a pitched battle, in which Jahan Khan lost his son and was himself also wounded. Note Rohtas,Pitched battle and fierce engagement in both of the quotations.
Sudsahab (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But why have a separate article for this at all? It doesn't seem that the sources are discussing it in that way. They're describing it as part of an overall campaign. That tells me the best place for this information is somewhere like Northern Campaign of Raghunath Rao, or whichever other article might fit better. -- asilvering (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have already quoted the sources which discussed it thoroughly. And no it's not part of Northern Campaign of Raghunath Rao, not to be confused with Capture of Lahore which occurred in 1758 by Raghunath Rao. If merging is an option then I'd suggest merging it to Afghan-Maratha War. But my vote is still keep until someone gives more inputs. Sudsahab (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sudsahab, if it isn't part of Northern Campaign of Raghunath Rao, you should fix the infobox, since that's what it says. -- asilvering (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright Sudsahab (talk) 08:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • I'll just add that the "WP:HEY" was Sudsahab referring to their own edits to the article (seems a bit rich to say this about yourself?), and they have since been blocked as a sockpuppet. So no one is actually arguing this meets the WP:HEY standard. -- asilvering (talk) 03:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    lol. Noorullah (talk) 19:51, 29 April 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! 23:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Intensified submarine warfare

Intensified submarine warfare (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)

Non-notable term used in a few history books. No clear agreed upon meaning (googling finds authors using it in the plain english sense to refer to the 1915 campaign and the proposed 1917 campaign, not the period the article talks about), and not apparently used except by those authors. Also the article is currently factually problematic, as many writers consider prize rules to be essentially in place in this period and certainly do not agree that submarines were "virtually ineffective". Fangz (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact might be only used in a single history book, the second source listed on the page finds no reference to the term in google books. Fangz (talk) 17:56, 12 April 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. ✗plicit 14:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Jacobs

Norman Jacobs (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 GNG. Some hits online due to prolific local history writing, and being involved in various local events and organisations. None of it notable though, and no significant coverage for this individual. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 13:37, 12 April 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! 02:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Roosevelt in Oyster Bay

Theodore Roosevelt in Oyster Bay (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)

an unsourced article about roosevelt's activities in oyster bay created by a user called user:inoysterbay violates at least 4 policies and guidelines (WP:V, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:GNG, WP:COI). ltbdl (talk) 02:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - there definitely is a problem here in the fact that this unsourced list is so huge. As we can see by the navbox at the bottom of the article, as well as Category:Theodore Roosevelt, this particular Roosevelt is one of the most fascinating, popular, and overachieving leaders in American history. That said, this is an un-sourced list. Most likely, everything on here can be found in other articles about TR. I have no problem deleting this, if that's what is decided here. — Maile (talk) 03:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Lists, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Politics. Curbon7 (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick search turns up quite a lot of published material on this topic. A large portion of (1) this book focuses on TR's connections with Oyster Bay. There's also (2) this piece from Newsday focused on TR's conections to the community. See also (3) this and (4) this. (Newspapers.com retrieves over 650,000 articles for the search (roosevelt "oyster bay") -- it would take a lot of time to comb through). Cbl62 (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This isn't an encyclopaedia article, unfortunately, just a collection of trivia, and it's really poorly sourced. The problem here is that the information, if sourced, could be added either to the Roosevelt page, to the Oyster Bay page, or is already in other articles, and isn't really a useful navigation link. SportingFlyer T·C 05:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. George W. Bush was noted for spending time at Kennebunkport, but an article George W. Bush in Kennebunkport is not feasible. That is because it would - and Theodore Roosevelt in Oyster Bay is - be a collection of trivia, where the worthy items should be worked into the article Oyster Bay (hamlet), New York, where they currently are unreferenced. Geschichte (talk) 08:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete besides being a collection of trivia than an actual encyclopedia article, it also violates WP:COI) as the article was created by an actual fan/resident of the place, despite their last edit was in 2010.- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Reads like a student essay, then gives an overly long list of times he's visited the place, then stuff associated with him. OR that doesn't really show why this is needing an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability aside, article reads almost nonsensical. Juxlos (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, others, and WP:NOR. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 02:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. I do think that a President's summer retreat might be notable and worth an article, but that's why we have an article on the actual place: Sagamore Hill. Any salvageable information from this article might be worth merging into the article on the residence. Dan • ✉ 16:31, 17 April 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! 22:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trimukhi Baavdi

Trimukhi Baavdi (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 reliable sources Sohom (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:GNG, WP:MILL, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:RS. It's a hole in the ground. There's no allegation that this well is anything more than one of hundreds of thousands of wells, even if someone famous paid for it to be dug. There are no reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 14:12, 17 April 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. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 17:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bandanwara

Battle of Bandanwara (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)

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

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

. These events are dated to February/March I711. So at least one historian mentions it by this name (give or take an 'h'!) and considers the date correct. Suggesting a military engagement isn't a battle of some kind seems a bit of a stretch. And frankly, suggesting that this is fabricated could be interpreted as an aspersion, as it suggests a deliberate hoax. Which is clearly not the case.
Other sources also discuss the battle in the context of military and political history (e.g. The Grenadiers, a Tradition of Valour, Mewar and the Maratha Relations, 1735-1818 A.D., Pratap, the Patriot: With a Concise History of Mewar), and even culturally (e.g. Paintings from Rajasthan in the National Gallery of Victoria etc). I'm afraid this nomination makes some curious claims, claims which are directly contradicted by reliable sources. ——Serial Number 54129 14:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Serial Number 54129. Could you please provide the source that explicitly mentions the name "Battle of Bandanwara"? It's important to note that these are only Google snippet notes, which are often available even for minor skirmishes. The battle must be thoroughly described in reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG. If the event meets the GNG as mentioned above, we could consider renaming the article or merging it with one of the parent articles. If you could develop the article so that we can submit it for review through WP:HEY, and if it meets the GNG, we can move it to the appropriate title. The current status of the article does not meet the standard requirements. Imperial[AFCND] 16:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ImperialAficionado, thank you; I have been here a while now, so I flatter myself. I have some small understanding of the deletion process. Firstly, the name. If you have an issue with the article title, that does not mean it is a hoax or that it must be deleted. Spellings and linguistic cultures and traditions change over time, and the only difference I can see is that occasionally, sources insert an 'h' or possibly an 'n'. Neither of those is egregious enough to claim that, therefore, it does not exist. If you think the title needs adjusting, start a talk page discussion, go to Requested Moves or even be bold and move it yourself; redirects are cheap, especially redirects from misspellings. Again, if you wish to dispute that a battle was really a skirmish, fine: but again, that is merely a content dispute and can be resolved through our usual consensus-building processes. As for Google snippets, that depends on where you are in the world and what Google will let you see. It varies with jurisdiction, so what you might see, I might not, and vice versa. Apart from demanding other work to improve it per HEY, etc., perhaps address the actual purpose of AfD, which is to demonstrate a lack of notability; your nomination fails to do so convincingly. Indeed, it is procedurally flawed: titles and minor errors are not grounds for deletion. A thorough reading of WP:BEFORE explains what is expected of a nominator. Fundamentally: WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. ——Serial Number 54129 14:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

  • Keep From the sources cited here, Pratap, the Patriot is not a false positive. It is not referring to Bhim Singh of Mewar, but referring to Bhim Singh (Bhimsi) Kothari of Begun, who took part in this battle. Har Bilas Sarda had written about the same Bhim Singh Kothari [here] who took part in this battle. I can add these sources as well on the page. History quester (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Aha, thanks for the clarification. I'll go check on Pratap, the Patriot at the library, then, to see if there's significant coverage there. Regarding the source you found, the closest it comes to naming a battle is The next morning, when the two armies met on the banks of the Khari river. It doesn't even seem to give a date, beyond the regnal years of Maharana Sangram Singh II. It looks like this is indeed the same battle, going by the details in the wikipedia article, so I think we have one good source now, which isn't enough for a WP:GNG pass yet, and additionally raises concerns about the title of the article. I'm not seeing "Bandanwara" anywhere anywhere in this source you've found. Did I just miss it? -- asilvering (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s not the case as initially raised that there is no record of this battle, or it is not referred by this name. This request doesn't qualify for WP:AFD. There are more than one source which have mentioned this battle or have references to it. There are sources already added on the main page, listing down other sources here, which I am adding to the main page.
    From the sources provided by Serial Number 54129,this battle is mentioned in the below sources.
    History quester (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) ToadetteEdit! 12:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adrabaecampi

Adrabaecampi (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 refs on the page. Seems like a WP:DICDEF. The only refs I see using the word are direct quotations from Ptolemy. JMWt (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

  • Delete This is so vague as to be useless as it stands, and if nothing happens in 3 relists at AfD nothing ever will. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell is supposed to happen? The article should have been kept instead of being relisted until somebody shows up to !vote delete. The article should be referenced and expanded per normal editing procedures. Srnec (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, currently completely useless, this policy probably applies Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, the article currently tells you (1) the primary source, Ptolemy; (2) the Greek transliteration; and (3) where the tribe lived. All information that can be used to track down sources for expanding. Srnec (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This just doesn't seem notable, and again has no references, and never really will since there is no mention of it except for book's passing reference to Ptolemy. Also, the article was relisted since there only 1 vote. @Srnec Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Current state of the article is irrelevant. TNT is not a policy. The entry is merely a single sentence long, which makes TNT meaningless. This is not a hoax in any form, so a deletion should not be the case. After a very superficial search, I can see that there are some sources available: [9][10] There are some more on the German Wikipedia, according to which this was a subdivision of a more major tribe (Campi/Kampoi/...), which may merit a move. Overall, I have no prejudice to changing my vote to merge but don't think this should be deleted. Aintabli (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick search shows that there is no information about that tribe ([11]) other than Wikipedia and people copying from it. Does seem like there is some passing reference to it in books, but frankly also seem not to meet notability guidelines, and is 100% a WP:DICDEF. Also, this article is currently useless. TNT may not be a policy, but in this case isn't not a terrible idea.@Aintabli Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that this is simply useless. What I get from TNT is that a clean restart saves a lot of time and is sometimes beneficial when the page has too many major problems. This is obviously not the case here. As I have already pointed out, this tribe is a part of a major tribe (Kampoi), which is the actual focus of the German Wikipedia entry. I believe moving and expanding is also an option as I have found several more sources here. At best, this could be merged into another article. I am pretty much opposed to deletion at this point. Aintabli (talk) 05:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see a sensible place to merge this. A merge would be better, if anyone has an idea of where it should go. And I think this should be renamed to match the name of the German article, which is about the broader group this is a sub-group of. But I do think that broader group is notable. The source linked in the de-wiki article gives us about an entire page of text, with the heading Kampoi, in a specialist encyclopedia. -- asilvering (talk) 05:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added the German Wiki stuff. Unimpressive, but enough to keep. Didn't add the German Wiki source. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:18, 26 April 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 Draftify‎ as there is an active desire to address the WP:V issues. Draftifying as this as there does not appear to be a consensus on the best title. For the move to whichever title it eventually lands at, feel free to ping me if that requires admin action but should be fine editorially. Star Mississippi 02:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian-Hungarian War (1387-1390)

Bosnian-Hungarian War (1387-1390) (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)

Reviewed during NPP. There's nothing in the one on line source given that confirms that this even exists and I could not find anything in a search. I looked several places on the history of Dalmatia and none of the mentions it. Creator appears to not be present in Wikipedia. Either way not much to lose, the contents of this stub pretty much is already at a table at List of wars involving Bosnia and Herzegovina which I put a CN tag on. North8000 (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I remember there's been a few of these kinds of 'war' articles created with very little documentation... I searched online for rat bosna ugarska 1387 -wiki, and found no clear reference to a war, but rather e.g. this 2011 paper which uses the terms sukob (conflict) but not these specific years, and describes the context of Sigismund pretensions to Bosnian crown, with all the various noblemen in a nuanced set of relationships, and different historians characterizing these differently. WP:TNT probably applies here. --Joy (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The lead of the GA Tvrtko I of Bosnia says After bitter fighting, from 1385 to 1390, Tvrtko succeeded in conquering large parts of Slavonia, Dalmatia, and Croatia proper. The article has much more. As of now, the one line stub is inferior to the Trvtko I article, but you cannot generally treat conflicts in an article devoted to one side. So I think the article should probably stay. Srnec (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, now that you mention it, 1385 and 1387 are clearly different, so there's a significant problem here from the get-go; in turn, when looking for mentions of 1385 in that reportedly good article, I found little to corroborate that part of the lead, no mention of a war with Hungary other than a 1363 one, yet also a random WP:EGG link to an unrelated battle that year. --Joy (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Srnec: What do you think about the title? I don't know much about 1300's geography but I do know Hungary existed then. Is "Slavonia, Dalmatia, and Croatia proper" Hungarian? North8000 (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but the problem is that the main opponent related to the Kingdom of Hungary that Tvrtko seems to had encountered were the Dalmatian city-states. These were not terribly well integrated with their hinterland and had habitually shifted allegiances between the Eastern Roman Empire, Hungary, and Venice at the time. So it seems like it's not like there was a coherent army of Hungary and battles between them and the Bosnian army, which is what the average reader will expect from an article about a medieval war. At least we don't have this documented properly, that is. --Joy (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not sure the events have necessarily been so clearly defined elsewhere. The timeline of this source on page xxix lumps these events into a period of military conflicts between 1385-1390 for example. Dubrovnik: A History essentially places the events as occurring during an on-going civil war in Hungary (of which we currently have no article, and that Tvrtko was simply able to use the chaotic events to break away from Hungarian control.) Placed in that light, the events might be better covered on a broader picture of that civil war. This detailed account doesn't use such clearly defined terms, and looks at the events as spanning across a longer time frame (extending back to military conflict in 1384); although I am uncertain about the reliability of the publisher. This source, like many, discuss the events in context to the Battle of Kosovo. This older source refers to the wars of 1385 and 1390; showing a separation [12]. Clearly the events being discussed here should be covered in some fashion. I don't think the article as titled matches the historicity of the published literature on those events across a wider range of sources.4meter4 (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is highly productive, but I don't think I can find consensus here. It seems the (verified) content should be merged, perhaps?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as essentially WP:OR. Calling it a definable and isolated "war" is a stretch. I would consider these events part of a bigger Hungarian Civil War as described in Dubrovnik: A History (see my comment above for ref url) which began after the death of Louis I of Hungary in 1382. Essentially his death created a power vacuum as he had no male heir which led to a great deal of political instability and bloody series of military offenses involving multiple political opponents that included several different factions across the Kingdom of Hungary. Chief among these were Mary, Queen of Hungary, Sigismund of Luxembourg, Charles III of Naples, and Tvrtko I of Bosnia. When these events began Bosnia didn't even exist, and when Tvrtko became King in 1387 it was a result of this wider civil war, and Tvrtko's success of asserting independence during that war. The succeeding military campaigns in Dalmatia were a continuation of the rebellion that created the Kingdom of Bosnia, and, according to Dubrovnik: A History, these military events led by Tvrtko were done so under the support of Charles III of Naples (and after his death Ladislaus of Naples) who benefited from them in his power stuggle against Sigismund of Luxembourg and Mary, Queen of Hungary. In other words, it's all tied up together into a bigger power conflict in a Hungarian Civil War over Hungarian succession due to opposition to a woman sitting on the throne. Some of this is covered in Kingdom of Hungary (1301–1526)#New consolidation (1382–1437). We really could use an article on the broader civil war in Hungary of which the creation of Bosnia and the succeeding military incursions into Dubrovnik are a part. That is where this content belongs.4meter4 (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what are the possible WP:ATD? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is the best option. The title itself is OR and should not remain as even a REDIRECT because there is no such thing as the "Bosnian-Hungarian War (1387-1390)". We could draftify it under a new title about the Hungarian Civil War of that era; although it would be hard to define an exact end to that event. Charles III of Naples became king but was then assassinated by agents of Mary, Queen of Hungary. Ladislaus of Naples then got involved in events. Mary was in a tenuous spot until she married Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor. Probably their marriage would be the definitive end to the conflict because it filled the power vacuum, although one could argue the war ended when Mary was restored to power after Charles III was killed. However, the Court of Naples and Tvrtko continued to test and instigate conflict even after they married... so... The sources would obviously determine the scope. It would require research and time to determine that, hence why starting an article in draft space under a new title would be the only possible ATD.4meter4 (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it makes sense to cover this as a section in a broader article about the crisis in the Kingdom of Hungary at the time. This reminds me a bit of Candian War#War in Dalmatia, where we have a secondary theatre of operations of a large war, which is perfectly notable in its own right, covered by reliable sources and actually had a long-term impact on those regions, but is covered only in the larger context right now. --Joy (talk) 08:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It probably makes sense to collect information for this new article not only from here, but from our other articles, we have a lot of this scattered in the articles about Mary, Charles, Elizabeth, Tvrtko, Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić, Nikola Gorjanski, John of Palisna, etc. --Joy (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joy What do you think we should title this? Dubrovnik: A History refers to these events in a chapter subheading as the "Hungarian Civil War". I think that is a reasonable title but it will need a disambiguation page as there are already two articles that are at the dab page Hungarian Civil War. Perhaps Hungarian Civil War (began 1382)? As I said tacking on an ending date is hard here, because it really depends on the point of view of the historian.4meter4 (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's ask the some of the editors who contributed to Hungarian history articles, like @Borsoka or @Norden1990 --Joy (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose deletion and I strongly oppose a merger. The existing article can be expanded and re-titled if its scope broadens. Calling it a definable and isolated "war" is a stretch. This is reading too much into the title. Wars often contain smaller wars, so the fact that these military actions were not isolated doesn't matter. Just look at the contemporary Hundred Years' War and its sub-wars. an article on the broader civil war in Hungary ... is where this content belongs. So the content belongs at an article that doesn't exist. This is a reason to keep this article and work on it. The title itself is OR. Not necessarily a problem per WP:NDESC, although "war" should not be upper case. Srnec (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec There are no sources (zero, including the ones you are using), that use the title "Bosnian-Hungarian War (1387-1390)". Your article is blatant WP:Original synthesis. If you want to write like that, submit an article to a history journal. Wikipedia doesn't accept original historical analysis.4meter4 (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My article? I've never edited the article in question. Srnec (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This conflict is related to the civil war in Hungary following the death of Louis I (1382). Sigismund fought against the rebellious Horvat family and John of Palisna, former supporters of Charles III of Naples. After Sigismund drove them out from Syrmia, they fled to Bosnia, where their cause was supported by Tvrtko. Their rebellion lasted until 1394. Some sources (in Hungarian): [13], [14], [15], [16], Mályusz Elemér: Zsigmond király uralma Magyarországon 1387–1437, Gondolat, Budapest, 1984. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Norden1990 Is the creation of the Kingdom of Bosnia not considered part of the civil war then? 1384 seems to be a strange cut off point. That's before the ascension of Charles III of Naples in 1385 and the creation of Bosnia in 1387, events which would seem to be critical to the power struggle of that civil war. (wasn't Bosnia's assertion of its own kingdom, and breaking off from the Kingdom of Hungary by definition a secession achieved through civil war?) Dubrovnik: A History seems to claim as much because it lumps the incursions by Tvrtko into Dubrovnik in 1387 under the Hungarian Civil War subsection. This is what I meant by an unclear cut off point in the civil war's timeline. It really depends on the historian. If we are going to write an article on the Hungarian Civil War (1382-1384) that doesn't leave room for the contents of this article unless we place it in some sort of aftermath subsection of that civil war page. All of this to say, what do we call the article(s) and what is(are) their scope? Does this need to be a series of articles? Where do the events described here fall within the article/articles? These questions might be best addressed in draft space rather than at an AFD.4meter4 (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4, I did not mention the date 1384, but 1394. In the latter year, the Horvat rebellion (see John Horvat and Paul Horvat, then partisans of Ladislaus of Naples) was finally crushed. So, this Hungarian civil war lasted from 1382 to 1394, but after 1387 it no longer took place in the territory of the Kingdom of Hungary. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you. My mistake.4meter4 (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft at Draft:Hungarian Civil War (1382–1394) per input from Norden1990. No redirect should remain. I struck my earlier vote above. @ Norden1990 and Joy, do you two mind assisting with writing this draft? Srnec you are of course welcome to aid in writing the draft as well. I'll pitch in if nobody else is willing, but it's not my area of expertise. Many hands make light work. 4meter4 (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or simply Horvat rebellion (Hungarian: Horváti-lázadás), frequent name of the conflict in Hungarian historiography. --Norden1990 (talk) 09:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is not about the civil war, but about a military conflict within the civil war, so there is no reason to delete it. I am not sure that the title is fully in line with WP:NAME, but it is another issue and Hungarian Civil War would not be in line with our policies either. Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason to do somehing here is that it's an incoherent stub that oversimplifies things from the title onwards. If we're claiming that there was something named a "Bosnian-Hungarian war" and it's hard to identify what the Hungarian side here is because they're actually embroiled in a civil war at the same time, this is a disservice to our readers from the get-go. If we actually reference historians saying these events are named that way, that's fine - but as it is now, we're not doing that. --Joy (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the current version is not up to the level of being an article. The single line of the article floats in the ether without any context. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is only a stub that can be expanded. Borsoka (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @ Joy, Norden1990, and North8000 what do you all think about the move to draft proposal? I'm the only one who has put in a formal vote for it, and if this were to close now it probably would close as no consensus or keep because there isn't clear support for any action at the moment, with a slight majority vote in keeping the article. This is largely because people are commenting without endorsing a particular action. Please WP:BEBOLD and come out with a clear opinion for the closing admin.4meter4 (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion; my nomination was just me trying to do my NPP job properly. But my opinion is delete. It looks like the title is defective, and the title defines the subject of the article, so we really don't even have a subject. And the content consists of two sentences. One sentence (which appears to be incorrect) which defines the putative topic and the other sentence is defining where a particular event is in the timeline of the non-exsistent subject. So there's really nothing to save. But I'm just offering a framework that might help sort this out....there are participants here that know this topic a zillion times better than I do and so their input is very important. North8000 (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it does not reach stub level, at least. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:STUB: A stub is an article deemed too short and incomplete to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject. Seems like a stub to me. Srnec (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. The single line mentions only one segment of the war, while there were also military operations in the territory of Bosnia and Slavonia, and all of this, additionally, is actually a secondary theater of a civil war situation in Hungary. It is as if there was no article about a battle, only about one phase of it, which was won by, say, B, while the outcome of the battle ended with A's victory. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. This discussion is going into the weeds with talk of dates of rebellions and national borderlines when AFDs typically focus on issues of notability and sourcing that establishes that notability. Other issues over who did what to whom and why are content decisions that can be worked out if this article is Kept. But we need some definitive verdicts on what should happen. I have a bias towards ATD in discussions like this but if a consensus forms to delete, that's what will happen. I guess I'm just surprised that the nominator doesn't have an opinion on this. Why did it come to AFD if you weren't seeking deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment@Liz I believe you made an error in your relist comment about what the nominator said. The nominator has been consistent in their desire to delete the article. The ambivalence expressed was about my move to draft proposal after I pinged them to comment on it. Additionally, the issue over facts is relevant because at the heart of the issue is WP:No Original Research. There are zero sources that use the term “ Bosnian-Hungarian War (1387-1390)” and doing so here is presenting an original interpretation of historical events. We should cover these events because they are notable but not from a SYNTH framework of questionable historicity. In other words, the conversation hasn’t been derailed, it’s accurate at calling out OR. In case it isn’t clear my preference is to drafty under a new name per ATD. Failing that I say delete as OR. Keeping is not an option under policy because there are no sources discussing these events as titled and constructed here. Not a single source has been produced that uses the term Bosnian-Hungarian War (1387-1390).4meter4 (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We should cover these events because they are notable is the relevant part for AFD. The title of the article can be changed without deletion. Srnec (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec This isn't a simple matter of renaming. These events aren't covered as isolated events in the academic literature'. They are covered as a small part of a larger war. That's why we need to draftify because as a stand alone event isolated in this way it isn't notable. As part of the notable Hungarian Civil War it can be covered.4meter4 (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify so that problems can be worked out before trying to make this an article. Vacosea (talk) 20:30, 20 April 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. AfD is not a place for accusing others of being Sockspuppets. I am closing as no-consensus due to the lack of policy-based discussion about the article. (non-admin closure) Shadow311 (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Haidru (1828)

AfDs for this article:
Battle of Haidru (1828) (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)

Delete or redirect to Military campaigns of Hari Singh Nalwa. Out of the 5 sources on this page, only 2 are reliable; Hari Ram Gupta and Rishi Singh. The two other sources: "Journal of the United Service Institution of India" as well as "Selections from the records of the government of Punjab" are WP:RAJ era sources written in the 1800s, so under no circumstances can we use them. The last source is a Google books snapshot with no preview available either on Google books or anywhere else on the Internet. Such snapshots have been deprecated in the reliable sources noticeboard.

The coverage in both Hari Ram Gupta's and Rishi Singh's work, the extent of which are only small, singular paragraphs does not justify an entire Wikipedia article and fails Wikipedia's standards for notability-[17] Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: if an event has 2 reliable independent sources with significant coverage that is enough to presume notability per GNG. I don't see what the issue is here. I'd also note that WP:RAJ is just an essay and that it refers to the use of certain Raj-era sources to source content on the caste system. It does not mean that all such sources are can never be used for anything.
Jtrrs0 (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Jtrrs0:, I think there's a misunderstanding, the two reliable sources (Hari Rm Gupta and Rishi Singh) do not have significant coverage, hence my nomination for deletion. Both sources only have one small, vague paragraph that provides no in-depth details about the battle.
Here is what Hari Ram Gupta says of the battle: "Having failed at Peshawar, Sayyid Ahmad planned to seize Attock fort from the Sikhs. Its possession by him would automatically clear Hazara and Peshawar from the Sikhs, and it would open the gateway for the invasion of the Panjab. Khadi Khan of Hund secretly alerted the Sikh commander of the fort, and the plan fell through. Sayyid Ahmad, in anger attacked the village Haidru, and put to the sword all the inhabitants, both Hindus and Muslims. On hearing this news Hari Singh Nalwa suddenly appeared on the scene and massacred nearly three-fourths of Khalifa's Ghazis. Sayyid Ahmad managed to escape to the west of the Indus."
Rishi Singh says: "It appears that even when he seemed successful, Syed Ahmad began losing his control over the tribal leadership. Many tribal chiefs began betraying him. For instance, at the time of taking over the fort of Attock, Khadi Khan of Hund alerted the Sikh commander, Hari Singh Nalwa, who with his 20,000 men attacked Syed Ahmad’s forces and killed three-fourths of the Khalifa’s Ghazis".
As you can see the coverage in both sources fall well short of Wikipedia's SIGCOV requirements.
The rest of the sources were published in the 1800s and are simply far too old to use. WP:RAJ is an essay, but it's essentially a de facto policy and widely accepted norm in South Asian topic areas, even outside of caste topics. You can see through the reliable sources noticeboard that WP:RAJ sources are thoroughly deprecated and disallowed on Wikipedia-[18]. @RegentsPark:, an admin involved in SA topics, could also clarify, or you could take it up with him to confirm. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi thanks for the ping and the reply. I see. Re SIGCOV, I would agree. This doesn't necessarily seem like SIGCOV. Re WP:RAJ, I've had a quick glance at the discussion on the Noticeboard. To me it seems overkill to say that 1800s sources can never be used or must be used as primary sources. I accept that that should be the case re anthropological subjects but for everything? Seems excessive to me. Now, if the consensus is that they are never to be used for anything (would be grateful if RegentsPark could confirm) then I'll happily reconsider my position, but to my eyes that's excessive. Jtrrs0 (talk) 08:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jtrrs0: I understand your concerns but sources authored in the 1800s are plain and simple not allowed in this topic area of Wikipedia. Even sources in the early 1900s are granted some leeway if they were authored by very prominent Indian historians, but the sources in this page were written British administrators in the framework of the British polity. RegentsPark has also stated: "In short, I would suggest discounting most Raj era texts regardless of who wrote them and be careful about using obscure or popular texts post-Raj. Sticking to modern academic writers is probably the safest. Context, to quote TB below, matters." and "Thanks Sitush. @Suthasianhistorian8 and Twarikh e Khalsa:, in short, the consensus is that neither McAuliffe nor Gurbilas Patashahi are reliable sources and you should not use them. In general avoid raj era sources entirely and, for historical content, use only recent sources since historiography is not static.". Keep in mind, Max Arthur MacAuliffe was a British administrator and historian who authored his works on Indian religion in 1909, the sources in this article predate that by 20 and 34 years. They're no where near being recent or modern scholarship.
Also can I assume that you have this page on your watchlist so I don't have to ping you everytime? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the in depth reply. Yes. On Watchlist. Will reply more fully tomorrow. I think I’ll be changing my position to delete. Jtrrs0 (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Two reliables sources and others are all unreliable like Journal of the United Service Institution of India from 1890 and other by CAPTAIN P. L. N. CAVAGNARI, a British captain/administrator. The combination of two reliable sources by Gupta and Singh give the why, when, where and outcome of the battle, enough for passing WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: I've previously expressed concerns that RangersRus is a sockpuppet of HaughtonBrit, an incredibly pertinacious sockmaster who created dozens of sock/burner accounts ranging from early 2023 till present day, and someone who has been hounding and trying to sabotage me unceasingly since his sock accounts Javerine and Ralx888 were blocked. I most recently dealt with his sock account Dekhoaayadon who was blocked just a few days ago. His vote here is reminiscent of the frivolous arguments and WP:IDHT which HB frequently employed to frustrate me and many others to retain articles/edit which aggrandized the Sikh religion as much as possible- he is blatantly trying to sabotage me here. He has done this on 3 separate occasions. Once the current HB SPI report (which is closely linked to Dekhoaayadon) is dealt with I will ask admins to take a look at RangersRus' duck edits. Enough is enough. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Closer, this is case of WP:BULLY and revenge threat to stop me from voting. All editors have right to vote here and I have voted on AFDS by Suthasianhistorian8 before in his favor where I found the nomination to be right. When I vote against because I do not see the nomination to be right, he makes this sock threats. Suthasianhistorian8 filed SPI before for same reason that two admins @The Wordsmith: and @Drmies: found no connection [19]. Suthasianhistorian8 also filed incident of Administrator noticeboard against The Wordsmith for misunderstanding his SPI case and the incident was closed with closing statement "No consensus has or will emerge to find fault with TheWordsmith's or Drmies' SPI findings." [20]. Suthasianhistorian8 also did forum shopping and WP:OTHERPARENT to try to block me with revenge SPI case. Suthasianhistorian8 has no problem with my vote when in his favor but has one with not in his favor. RangersRus (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All I can say to everyone involved is to wait for the SPI I will file. This time I will put much more effort into making it concise and thorough as possible; last time I made the mistake of writing things off the top of my head, I won't do that next time. Lastly, a CU check was never ran on RangersRus, only a behavioural analysis was done- HB's sock accounts like Finmas & Dazzem were previously also deemed unrelated, but were later blocked on the grounds of duck edits with HB's IPs, proxies and SPAs. Historian2325, another suspected sock account, was also checked last year and was found to be unrelated, but since then he's made numerous duck edits and will likely also be blocked. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It is not appropriate to accuse an editor of being a sockpuppet in an AFD discussion. If you have concerns, file a case at SPI. If there is no confirmation of sockpuppetry through an SPI, then you are just trying to tarnish the reputation of an editor which is a personal attack. Please conduct a discussion elsewhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, above users are correct. Two reliables sources is enough. Definitely doesn't warrant deleting a article. Deletion nominator has behavior of targeting only Sikh victory battle articles.
UnbiasedSN (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:SIGCOV. The combined coverage in both sources doesn't even exceed 200 words, and they're both virtually identical to one another.Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:48, 12 April 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=1219432252"