Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

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


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

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

See also: Science-related deletions and Medicine-related deletions.

Social science

[edit]

Drag panic

[edit]
Drag panic (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 describes social concerns about the exposure of drag to children as "hysteria," "moral panic," and "extremism." Regardless of whether one might be inclined to agree with such statements, there is not sufficient evidence to call one side of a very polarized political divide "hysterical." This article thus claims a seriously contested assertion to be fact, something which has a strong prohibition on it in WP:VOICE. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 02:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Félix An (talk) 02:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Conspiracy theories, Fashion, Popular culture, Sexuality and gender, and Social science. Skynxnex (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article describes a well-documented phenomenon involving opposition to drag. The nomination disputes the article title and characterization of the phenomenon, which is a valid discussion but not a reason to delete the entire page. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree that the general theme of writing about "opposition to drag" or something along those lines could be done neutrally, though this would take such substantial rewriting that it may be better to start from scratch, or incorporate elements of this page into a "criticism" or similarly titled section on the article about drag. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 03:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not taking a position on whether the characterization should be changed. If it were to be changed, only the first sentence would need substantial rewriting; the rest of the article mostly describes protests and events. The word "panic" only appears 7 times in the article (besides the title) and only once outside the lead. If there is a consensus that the terms are non-neutral (the consensus doesn't exist now), what is wrong with renaming the article to, for example, "Protests against drag" and removing the terms in the first sentence? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the outcome of this AfD is Keep, I strongly agree with the Helpful Racoon's proposal, and I think a move discussion should be started to move the page to a more neutral name. However, I will still maintain my Delete !vote. Félix An (talk) 05:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Off-topic, but after a bit of thought I believe "Anti-drag movement" might be an appropriate title if "Drag panic" is found to be non-neutral. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elbow roomers

[edit]
Elbow roomers (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)

(Note: my PROD was removed.) Not a notable term. According to the source in the article, which only mentions the term once in a quote, the term was made up by John Fraser Hart, and I could not find any record of this term being used by anyone else. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Made-up topic or possible hoax. The single "source" was added 12 years after creation and does not support the term, it merely uses the familiar "elbow room". Could not find any sources that use the term. –dlthewave ☎ 21:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC) Correction - The article does mention "elbow roomers", but this single mention is not sufficient to establish notability. Still a Delete. –dlthewave ☎ 01:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn’t a hoax; the newspaper article (not fully accessible from the link in the Wikipedia article) quotes the professor who states he made up the term “elbow roomers”. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I accessed the article using the Wikipedia Library. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out, I was on mobile and didn't realize I was only seeing the first few paragraphs. –dlthewave ☎ 01:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: ONE source used for an article is a rather thin argument for notability. I also don't find anything else that uses this term, other than this list [1] on a website for architects. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete One fellow's phrase which didn't catch on. GBook hits, save one, are all either a single children's book or are people complaining about tables too close in restaurants; even with that there are less than ten hits. For all I know there may be a widely-used term for these people, but this isn't it. Mangoe (talk) 01:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional note: the dePRODder’s comments can be found on the article talk page. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NEO and WP:GNG. The term appears to be lightly used in WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS across a handful of sources to mean different things: people who look for more space in the suburbs (ArchDaily), components of a masonry structure (A'Design Awards), people who jostle for space (Saltman), and people looking for more space in restaurants (Zagat). None of these amount to WP:SIGCOV and there's no evidence that the term is in circulation to mean what the article says it means. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Village communities

[edit]
Village communities (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 created [2] as a copy of a 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article and the Who Wrote That? tool shows that 89.1% of the current text is the same as 1911. What initially struck me as odd was the article's complete and total focus on Europe. The 1911 encyclopedia's explanation for why it was "sufficient to confine the present inquiry ... to nations of Aryan race" was "principally because the Aryan race in its history has gone through all sorts of experiences" (it also said that it "might also be reasonably urged" that the Aryan race was most important, yikes). The section explaining the Aryan focus was removed from the article in 2008, [3] and since then the total focus on Europe has been unexplained. So there are the content issues, and now here is why I think the best path forward is deletion. I thought about merging Village communities into Village but I do not consider any of the info in Village communities to be worthy of inclusion. I'm disconcerted by phrases like "we hear that" and "a good clue to the subject is provided by a Serb proverb" that suggest a tenuous relationship to verifiable fact. The 1911 Britannica might be a reliable source in articles like University court or Castle-guard, which deal with old European history, but I don't think it's a reliable source here. Plus even if I were to improve it, the content would overlap with the village article. Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draft: ? I guess... This exists [4], [5] or [6]. Simply copying the text from an 100 yr old encyclopedia is a no-no. Two of these sources are older than the Britannica, one more recent. Oaktree b (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It looks like the Theory of Village Communities was part of the study of the history of economics in the second half of the nineteenth century - this article by Denman Waldo Ross is an 1880 review describing various sources (not all in English, and many looking at non-European cultures, albeit from a colonial perspective). Maybe we should have an article about the theory, but it'd need to be more critical and better-sourced than the current article. Adam Sampson (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, Social science, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While an article on the study of village communities may be suitable, this article on the study of village communities is not. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:DEL-CONTENT importantly notes that when editing can address the reasons for deletion, we should edit the article to make it better instead of deleting it. This discussion has turned up adequate sourcing to write some article about village communities (or the economic theory thereof), and the article should of course be improved. But deletion here seems unwise. So too does draftification, as the article was uploaded here in 2006, and sending this to the draft heap as a backdoor to deletion seems ill-advised in light of relevant policies and guidelines. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B E C K Y S A Y L E S 07:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm not sure how this is a different topic than village (or, the history of villages). And none of the EB1911 content should be retained. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The prose is not encyclopedic and should be entirely rewritten if not outright scrapped. I also share the same concerns as the individual who nominated the article for deletion and agree that little if any information included here is worth retaining. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social science Proposed deletions

[edit]

Language

[edit]

List of hispanophones

[edit]
List of hispanophones (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:SALAT, some notable Spanish-speaking people does not seem like a well-defined criterion. Extremely incomplete list. There are ~530 million Spanish speakers in the world, this list could potentially contain millions of entries. Broc (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Language, and Lists. Broc (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obviously far too broad and vague, not a useful page to be told that someone from Spain speaks Spanish. Reywas92Talk 15:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Apart from the objections already raised (with which I agree) the article doesn't define Spanish-speaking people: does it just mean people with Spanish as their mother-tongue? Or people whose home language is Spanish? Something else? I speak Spanish (badly): does that make me a hispanophone? Apart from anything else, it doesn't seem to list notable Spanish-speaking scientists, but there are plenty of those (especially in Spain, Mexico, Argentina, Chile and Uruguay). Athel cb (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of arabophones

[edit]
List of arabophones (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:SALAT. The selection criterion for this list is internationally well-known personalities that speak Arabic which is absolutely arbitrary. Broc (talk) 10:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Language, and Lists. Broc (talk) 10:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks like OR to me.— Iadmc♫talk  11:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is incredibly arbitrary- the list will never be exhaustive, the premise could be expanded to millions of other potential articles- i.e. people that speak Telugu, Tagalog- and is clearly original research.Spiralwidget (talk) 13:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement

[edit]
Disagreement (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 topic Jax 0677 (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

François Thibaut

[edit]
François Thibaut (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)

Article subject does not look notable generally or as an academic or educator. All of the citation links in the article are actually to the same New York Times article, which only briefly mentions the article subject: "In 1994, the school had fewer than 50 students learning Spanish; now, there are 180, said Francois Thibaut, the school's director. A class had to be added this fall to accommodate the increasing demand, he said." [7]. I was not able to locate most of the other links/sources, and what I found did not mention the article subject. – notwally (talk) 22:36, 18 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! 23:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M-T pronouns

[edit]
M-T pronouns (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)

Almost exclusively from a single source, and fails to establish WP:N. Practically zero mention of the concept outside of that single source and veers dangerously into WP:PROFRINGE territory with the WP:OR links to fringe theory language families like Nostratic, which aren't mentioned in the source. Without establishing notability this seems to not really belong here, and I'm unable to verify that this is at all taken seriously in linguistics.

For anyone unfamiliar with this topic:

"The M-T pattern is the most common argument for several proposed long-distance language families, such as the Nostratic hypothesis, that include Indo-European as a subordinate branch. Nostratic has even been called 'Mitian' after these pronouns."

Nostratic is emphatically a fringe theory within linguistics and is not mentioned in any of the sources, and this article seems heavily like WP:ADVOCACY. Any sources linking Nostratic to M-T Pronouns are inherently fringe sources, but even then many of the claims here are entirely un-cited. It doesn't seem this article can be saved. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Feels like Original Research to me. Only two sources though the Google search gives plenty sources. Whether they back up the article and are reliable or not I have no idea. Not my field — Iadmc♫talk  10:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Asia and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not advocating for Nostratic. This is simply a piece of evidence claimed by those who do, and Nostratic has been deemed appropriate for a WP article.
    As noted, the M-T pronominal pattern is well attested in the lit. I relied on a single source to create the article, but others could be added.
    Some conclusions drawn from the pattern, such as Nostratic, are FRINGE. Yet we have articles on them. WALS is most certainly not a fringe source. IMO it's worth discussing one of the principal pieces of evidence given for fringe hypotheses when we have articles on them. A similar pattern in America, N-M, has been used to justify the FRINGE hypothesis of Amerind. Yet it is discussed in non-fringe sources, which conclude that it's only statistically significant for western North America, and disappears as a statistical anomaly if we accept the validity of Penutian and Hokan. That's worth discussing, because it cuts the legs out from under Amerind; without it, people might find the argument for Amerind to be convincing.
    I have yet to find a credible explanation for the M-T pattern. But the lack of an explanation for a phenomenon is not reason to not cover it. There are many things we can't convincingly explain, but that's the nature of science: we don't refuse to cover them. — kwami (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ seems to be motivated to object to this because they think I have a PROFRINGE statement on my user page. What I have is a sarcastic statement, one that other WP linguists have laughed over because it is obviously ridiculous. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ fails to see the sarcasm.
    An equivalent might be to say that our personalities are governed by Arcturus, which is in Gemini; therefore we're all Geminis and have share a single hive mind. That wouldn't be advocacy for astrology. (Though I'm sure people have come up with more imaginative ways of mocking it.) — kwami (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s not exactly obvious sarcasm when you’re making articles that advocate the perspectives of fringe theorists, but sorry if I missed that. It wasn’t my intention to have it sound like an attack. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not advocating the perspectives of fringe theorists, I'm describing a pattern that they have used to justify their theories. I've done the same for Amerind; there the conclusion is that if we accept Penutian and Hokan as valid clades, then the statistical anomaly (and thus the purported evidence for Amerind) disappears. I don't know of any similar conclusion in this case, but the pattern remains and is worth discussing if we're going to have articles on Nostratic and the like (and we have quite a few of those articles!)
    What comes off as advocacy to me is covering FRINGE theories in multiple articles and then refusing to discuss the evidence, when consideration of that evidence would cast doubt on the theories. That would be like refusing to discuss the evidence posited for astrology or UFOs, leaving readers with only the perspective of advocates to go by. — kwami (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is WP:Original research, by your own words, and has no place in the encyclopedia. Use a blog to promote your personal research. Delete — Iadmc♫talk  12:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nostraticists have a long and storied history of claiming basically anything they can as evidence. These claims aren’t taken seriously among linguists for good reason. I’m unaware of a single piece of scholarship that’d pass WP:RS (or even not those that’d pass) claiming this as evidence for Nostratic, and frankly I find your accusations here inappropriate so I’ll bow out of engaging and let the rest of the AfD play out. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note — kwami is the creator and sole contributor to this article— Iadmc♫talk  12:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm speaking as a non-expert, but I would like to get more context on the matter. Do such patterns, outside of advocating for certain theories, have any value? Could, for example, there be a place in the Nostratic article to add a few more of these details to the Proposed features section? I'm not familiar with the sources in the article, what is their reputation generally? AnandaBliss (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as credible sources go, which is just the one page linked as the main source in the article, it's a statistically noted feature but no signifficance has yet been attributed to it. Certainly not to Nostratic. Nostratic is itself a fringe theory and likely doesn't need more on the proposed features as none of the proposed features are real, and nobody is proposing a link to Nostratic because of this as far a sourcing goes except the author of the article and perhaps some blogs. This article has, frankly, some big "teach the controversy" energy.
    @Austronesier is a little less viscerally anti-Nostratic-on-wikipedia and may have a different perspective, however. Also, I think this should probably be my last reply here lest I WP:BLUDGEON.
    Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or probably expand and modify its scope to include the other notable pronoun pattern (N-M) along the lines of the WALS page cited in the article. As is, it is underreferenced, but we can easily get more sources by following the trail of Johanna Nichols's paper on this subject and subsequent papers by other scholars who take a typological look at the matter. Sure, this pronoun pattern is cited as evidence by Nostraticists, but they don't own the topic. Yet, you can hardly leave Lord Voldemort, uhm I mean Nostratic unmentioned in relation to this notable topic, because most mainstream linguist writing about the topic of global pronoun patterns will at least mention the fact that Nostraticists have tried to build a language relationship hypothesis out this real observable. You can't blame observables for the bad and motorious hypotheses that are made to explain them.
Finally, this is not advocacy, and to believe so earns you a megatrout, @Warren. Kwami has built literally hundreds of language family and subgroup articles in WP from a mainstream perspective, generally leaning towards a "splitter" approach (ala Hammarström or Güldemann). Ok, unfamiliarity with kwami's role in this project is one thing, but jeez, labelling an important piece of Nichols's research as fringe just because of an indirect association to the Nostratic hypothesis is a knee jerk that makes the knee jerks in WP:FTN look like an élevé. –Austronesier (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For all the "delete" !votes because of WP:OR issues, there's WP:NOTCLEANUP. Here's more sources covering the topic:
  1. "Selection for m : T pronominals in Eurasia"[8] by Johanna Nichols (co-author of the WALS chapter)
  2. "Personal pronouns in Core Altaic"[9] by Juha Janhunen
Needless to say that these book chapters do not promote or endorse long-range fringe speculations. –Austronesier (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moving this to 'M-T and N-M pronoun patterns' might be worthwhile. The latter is already written and referenced, so we only need to merge it in. Nichols et al. note that these are the only two patterns that jump out in a global perspective. There are others at a local scale, of course, such as the Č-Kw pattern in the western Amazon, but these tend to not be all that contentious as arguments for the classification of poorly attested or reconstructed families. They also don't lend themselves to fringe ideas, because really, who but a historical linguist (or the people themselves) care whether Piaroa and Ticuna are related?
I wonder whether a Pama-Nyungan-like pronoun pattern extends beyond that family, as a pan-Australian feature. If it does, that -- and how people explain it if they don't believe it's genetic -- might be worth discussing as well. — kwami (talk) 06:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I took your suggestion and merged in the N-M stuff and moved the article to M–T and N–M pronoun patterns. I haven't had a chance yet to incorporate your sources, and this week's going to be rather busy, but it's on my to-do list. — kwami (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is definitely original research. The article presents this as related to Nostratic and Etruscan language families, neither of which are mentioned in the source the article is based on. A lot of the article needs to get deleted, probably. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At the very least, this is a non-notable topic propped up by a healthy dose of OR. There's a single source for the main article topic along with who-knows-how-much-personal-observation in the article currently, such as "However, doubling the number of pronouns to be considered in this way increases the possibility of coincidental resemblance, and decreases the likelihood that the resulting pattern is significant." Where does this come from? Where does any of these statistical conclusions come from? It's not in the source. This is a pretty concerning case and may warrant further scrutiny. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that this isn't a fringe theory, but it does seem hard to find secondary sources on. Keep assuming any other secondary sources exist. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, make that Delete unless at least one more secondary source can be identified, after looking at the article again. Almost all of it is not based on the source it actually uses, and it seems difficult to write an article given nobody seems to have any other sources than that one. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would a redirect to Nostratic languages be possible here? This seems to be WP:SYNTH. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not a good idea. The topic is notable outside of the Nostraticist bubble. The author that has most contributed to our understanding of the topic, Johanna Nichols, does not endorse long-range speculations. –Austronesier (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and probably clean up. Gbooks turned up this sound-looking source. Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a brief mention simply referring back to Nichols again; there's not the sort of in-depth analysis that you'd expect for a notable topic...or any analysis for that matter. The OR/SYNTH here is strewn so inextricably throughout the article, and the topic so niche, contributed by a single author, that cleanup seems exceedingly improbable. At the very least, WP:TNT applies here if anyone thinks that they can demonstrate notability. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Inextricable? Don't turn subjective unwillingness to extract the obvious bits of OR/SYNTH into an intrinsic property of the text. WP:TNT is not an excuse for laziness. –Austronesier (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please do not move articles while their AfD is open.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Labingi

[edit]
Labingi (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:GNG seems like an list disambiguation. Both articles link to each other in the lead. Could possible be redirected to Westron language? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Fictional elements, and Science fiction and fantasy. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Appears to be real, but so trivial as to not merit a mention in Bilbo's article as it stands now. Is there more context to these supposed names that would fill out a stub, or another article that explains the context here? Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Disambiguations. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, certainly real and readily sourced, and a reminder that we should certainly make more of Westron names, in fact the whole language, throughout the WikiProject. The prime concern across the project has been notability, given that there was a large legacy of what seemed to be fan-created articles with (at best) primary sourcing. Now that that's been fixed, looking at the development of names and of characters, all the legendarium side of things, is an obvious next step: i.e. we should add the "Labingi" element to many articles. I'd hope it'd go without saying that you can't decide notability by looking at Wikipedia's gaps, but perhaps that's worth repeating here. Tolkien devoted enormous effort to the names in multiple languages, complete with Pseudotranslation from Westron to English; scholars are starting to catch up with these legendarium (Silmarillion without italics) aspects, so there is potentially large scope for article improvement in this direction. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Judging from the description in Template:Surname and many examples I see, it seems that name pages do work differently with regard to notability requirements as compared to "normal" articles. They seem to be more or less a special type of disambiguation page. Is that correct? Daranios (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a name page this does not need to fullfill WP:GNG as discussed above. I think a sentence adding the Westron version of the name to Bilbo Baggins in the way it does appear at Frodo Baggins#Concept and creation is warranted, and can be verfied by both primary and secondary sources. (I only now have seen that the name appears in the very beginning at Bilbo Baggins, so I am not sure if more is necessary for the name as such. Daranios (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)) Partially answering Jclemens' question, I did see small pieces of further context, which are probably best included in other articles: The Hobbit Encyclopedia, p. 201, states how we see that the connection between Baggins and Bag End is deliberate, because it also appears in the Westron names. Probably best suited for the Bag End article. This snippet view from Myth Print magazine has criticism on the introduction of the Westron names, referring to Maura Labingi, as they can detract from appreciating the names commonly appearing in the books, like Frodo Baggins. Probably best suited for the Pseudotranslation in The Lord of the Rings article. This article has a bit of commentary on how the names Baggins and Labingi, which both can be related to (to) bag/(to) pocket, are suitable for the character of Bilbo (and Frodo as his heir), i.e. suited for the Bilbo Baggins article. I don't quite get what kind of publication that is, though. Daranios (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both of the two things disambiguated are not common names for the characters by a longshot. Per WP:NAMELIST, articles on people should be listed at the disambiguation page for their given name or surname only if they are reasonably well known by it. I assume this also applies to fictional characters, making this DAB page blatantly violate policy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I think WP:NAMELIST refers to a very different case than ours here, with their example of Lincoln (disambiguation): If there is a term with a number of different meanings, which includes both persons' names and other things, then one should only include very prominent examples (like Abraham Lincoln) in the main disambiguation page, while other persons' names should be spun out into a page like Lincoln (name). Here, we only have names of (fictional) persons. Secondly, the guideline says why it exists in the first place: To prevent disambiguation pages from getting too long. That is very much not a problem here. Daranios (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article is presented as a name list, and uses the templates that are intended for real life people. So I have no choice but to judge it as one - if I don't, it has even less of a claim for existence due to violating WP:PTM. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see this also as a name list. WP:NAMELIST, despite its title, does not deal with how to construct name lists, but how to deal with regular disambiguation pages which also contain names, and the relationship between regular disambiguation pages and name lists. The part you have quoted therefore does not apply to our name list here, as is directly present in that part: ...should be listed at the disambiguation page.... So no violation of that guideline here. Daranios (talk) 09:57, 20 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! 02:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs in YES order, part 1 of 4

[edit]
Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs in YES order, part 1 of 4 (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 believe this and the other lists below do not meet WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs in YES order, part 2 of 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs in YES order, part 3 of 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs in YES order, part 4 of 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The reasons why the article is put on the wiki main space include:
1. Lists are a kind of wiki articles in Wikipedia;
2. Similar articles such as List of CJK Unified Ideographs, part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4 have been on the main space for ages.
3. Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs in YES order, part 1 of 4 etc. are sorted in YES order for easy lookup and include stroke orders information.
By the way, the article has been reviewed twice since its publication last month and has been rated List-class by the first reviewer. Ctxz2323 (talk) 01:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ther are 4 relevant sources in the brief introduction in front of the list. And more are available in the parent article, as mentioned there. Thanks for your attention.
Welcome to add more sources to make the article more notable. Ctxz2323 (talk) 02:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops
Comment you seem to have bundled different-style articles that go with List of CJK Unified Ideographs, part 1 of 4. The stroke-order one is the only one I would consider deleting. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Walsh90210, Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs (YES order) indicates that they are all related—perhaps they are not, I don't know. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no wait, you're right. This is rather embarassing. EDIT: or maybe not, I'm deeply confused. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article links were wrong. Stroke_orders_of_CJK_Unified_Ideographs_in_YES_order,_part_3_of_4 is part of the set recently created by a single author. You tagged List of CJK Unified Ideographs, part 3 of 4. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhhh. I see. What's best to do now—transfer the AfD tags to the stroke order lists Walsh90210? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully, everything is fixed now Walsh90210? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks correct; you might want to bundle Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs (YES order) as well. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I have no strong opinion on whether this stroke-order information should be on Wiktionary articles like wikt:锗; but it should not be an encyclopedia article. Per nom, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    More information for reference: All the 4 articles have just been reviewed on June 15, 2024, by Vanderwaalforces (talk · contribs). (Thanks, Vanderwaalforces) Ctxz2323 (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The review was to take the article off the NPP queue and not to give it an outright approval. This discussion will determine if they’ll stay or be deleted. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 04:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looks like a great and useful work but in violation of WP:NOTDICT. The Appendix of Wiktionary looks like a potential place for this; I would suggest to transwiki there. (Any Wiktionarians around?) —Kusma (talk) 07:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds like a good suggestion. Thanks!
    I will try it. New to Appendix of Wiktionary, it may take time. Ctxz2323 (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have re-created the lists on Wiktionary, at wikt:Appendix:Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs (YES order). Please help check if it is OK. Ctxz2323 (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: These have been transferred as cut-and-paste moves. Is a historymerge needed from WP to Wikt, or alternatively deletion and formal transwiki-ing, or given that all significant edits were made by Ctxz2323, no action needed? ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 04:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Better to move with history. But there is no such an option on the Move menu of Wikipedia. Ctxz2323 (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a handy way to copy the history to Wiktionary? Ctxz2323 (talk) 06:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sub-list 1 used to be the largest in Wikipedia. Ctxz2323 (talk) 06:47, 22 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! 22:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I just don't see what purpose these four lists of brush strokes serve. There is no context given to differentiate one from another and no other information than a unicode number... This seems too specialized for Wikipedia, this would only be useful to a very small subset of linguists or anthropologists and to be honest, I've read the article and still have no ideal what this is. Oaktree b (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are four sub-lists of Stroke orders for the 20,992 Unicode CJK character set sorted in YES Order.
    It is useful to all Chinese character users.
    Please read the parent and grandparent articles for more information. Ctxz2323 (talk) 04:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    20,000 Unicode characters don't need a Wikipedia article or series of articles; this seems to be an overly long list, that really doesn't serve the community here. Move to Wiktionary I suppose, not sure how interested they would be there (but they can decide for themselves). Oaktree b (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, moving is in progress.
    Can anyone help to move the History and other relevant data?
    More information is available in the previous discussion. Ctxz2323 (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Move to Wiktionary I suppose, ..."
    I would appreciate it if you change the vote from Delete to Move, to better express your more constructive and helpful standing.
    The value of the list is confirmed at "Talk:Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs in YES order, part 1 of 4 - Wikipedia", I suppose. Ctxz2323 (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dalleth

[edit]
Dalleth (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)

Doesn't meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Organizations, and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sources and none when I search. Not notable— Iadmc♫talk  15:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Have added references. Looks notable to me, and I think there will be additional coverage in offline sources and in Cornish-language texts - both whilst it was operating, and in memoirs and historical discussion of this period of the language movement. Tacyarg (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone able to find some sources like those Tacyarg mentioned?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I've added another couple of references, and tagged as citation needed the only sentence which is now not sourced. Probably need a Cornish history or Cornish language expert for more, or at least access to a decent reference library in Cornwall. Tacyarg (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E@I

[edit]
E@I (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)

Notability. I'm just not finding secondary coverage of this. Nor anything primary that's really convincing me of its significance. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:53, 10 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! 21:23, 17 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! 23:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded articles

[edit]


History

[edit]

German Pennsylvania

[edit]
German Pennsylvania (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 created by Aearthrise by copy-pasting sections from five already existing articles [11]. As with other articles edited by this user, the sources that are not copied from other articles are outdated and/or have been falsely given a more recent date. In this case two sources were added the publication by Kohl is from 1856 and does not mention the German translation given (which is also grammatically incorrect) and does not describe these two regions with this single term. The second source has a false publication date (it was printed in 1899 not in 1971) and also does not contain the term. Only four articles link to this page, all of them articles from which information was copied to make this one. The are no inter-Wikilinks and a Google search links back to Wikipedia. I propose this article is deleted for these reasons as well as consisting of information already present on Wikipedia. Vlaemink (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, History, Germany, and Pennsylvania. Skynxnex (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Entirely synthsis, not a cohesive topic. Please do not do this shit of just copying material from other pages and pretending it's its own article. Use appropriate summary style or excerpts if you want to reference other pages, rather than just introducing duplication with no new content. There is simply no such thing as "German Pennsylvania", you're just combining related topics. A more appropriate name might be something like Germans in Pennsylvania but not as an article that just copies content from elsewhere. Reywas92Talk 18:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a lot of evidence of this region, and it's mentioned in scholarship. German Pennsylvania was a larger historical region where the Palatines and other Germans inhabited (which included Germantown settled by Francis Pastorius, and is where Benjamin Franklin lived), and it's also now used to refer to the parts of the modern Pennsylvania Dutch Country. You say there is no such thing as "German Pennsylvania", and that we should make a post called "Germans in Pennsylvania" (which we already have Pennsylvania Germans) but that's incorrect. There is ample evidence for German Pennsylvania, especially reading older sources (because it describes an older area since colonial times).
    • The Centennial History of Kutztown, Pennsylvania, Kutztown Centennial Association (Kutztown, Pa.) Kutztown Publishing Company, 1915 pg. 120:
    • The Pennsylvanier was the leading mone-making paper of the county, because the language of the people was Pennsylvania German and all the sales of farm stock, commonly called "vendues," characteristic of German Pennsylvania to this day, were published in the German paper and well paid for.
    • German American Annals ...: Devoted to the Comparative Study of the Historical, Literary, Linguistic, Educational and Commercial Relations of Germany and America Volume 2, Macmillan Company, 1899 pg. 43:
    • Various strata of sources have been exploited in writing the history of the Germans in Pennsylvania- (1), the surface sources... (2), the German prints (consisting of early German prints issued in America and Germany presenting invaluable matter touching colonial events in German-Pennsylvania)
    • The Pennsylvania-German, Volumes 3-4, Rev. P.C. Croll, 1902, pg.180:
    • The first place the Germans are a most important numerical factor in our national life. German immigration began when on 6th of October, 1683, Daniel Pastorius and his company landed in Philadelphia and subsequently founded Germantown... Pennsylvania has always been a banner State of German immigration. It has been asserted it has been asserted that three-fifths of Pennsylvania have German blood running in their veins... A German Pennsylvania farmer by the name of Klein has recently held a family reunion. His four sons were present and their names had been changed to Kline, Small, Little and Short. There are today seven hundred thousand people in Pennsylvania speaking that homely and mellow Pennsylvania-German dialect, and as the Philadelphia Ledger said recently, "It were a pity if this dialect would soon die out."
    • The Pennsylvania-German Society, Volume 6, Pennsylvania-German Society, 1896, pg.36:
    • If these three of our eastern counties can boast of a group of men like these, who have done so much in but a single department of the modern sciences, it certainly furnishes good ground for laudable race-pride, and ought to put to shame that ignorant class of our country-men, who are wont to hold German Pennsylvania in much the same regard as Boeotia was held by the ancient Greeks.
    • Pennsylvania-German Dialect Writings and Their Writers, Volume 26, Harry Hess Reichard, Pennsylvania-German Society, 1918, pg.65:
    • For a Pennsylvania-German Kalenner which he edited in 1885 he wrote a longer poem in en parts entitled "Vum Flachsbaue." This is a veritable epic on the raising of flax in ten short cantos. This poem ought properly be illustrated with drawings of tools and implements found nowadays only on grandfather's garrett or in the museumns for, with flax-raising entirely out of vogue in German Pennsyvlania, or, whre it is still aised, by means of modern appliances, such terms as Flachs Britsch, Hechle, Brech, etc., are, to Pennsylvania Germans of today, words of a time that is past.
    • Pennsylvania Farming: A History in Landscapes Sally McMurry, University of Pittsburgh Press, 2017:
    • One Pervasive type, though, seems to have some association with Pennsylvania German culture. It was so common that it has been dubbed the "Pennsylvania farmhouse" and used as a key indicator (along with the Pennsylvania forebay bank barn) for charting what geographers call the "Pennsylvania Culture Region." The "Pennsylvania farmhouse" occurs throughout German Pennsylvania, but many extant examples and good field data come from Adams and York Counties.
    • This vernacular form seems to be strongly (though not exclusively) associated with German Pennsylvania, yet its cultural meaning is elusive.
    There are many more citations for German Pennsylvania that I can give, but this number should be sufficient to demonstrate that the concept "German Pennsylvania" is established and notable, and isn't just "synthesis" as purported by Reywas92. Aearthrise (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As an aside to Vlaeminks charges about "outdated information," he doesn't make a case why the information from older books is outdated. He also claims I gave a false date of publication, but this can be disproven with the 1971 source here: [12].= Aearthrise (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aearthrise: You claim you have disproven that the source you added was published in 1899, some 125 years ago. Instead you reassert that your book was instead published in 1971 for which you provided a link. Could you please explain to me how this can possibly be correct, given that the author of this book (Julius F. Sachse) died in 1919 aged 77? Vlaemink (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're making and argument that has nothing to do with what I said; I just pointed out that your claim that I added a false date was wrong, and I clearly showed the 1971 publication for the source. Books are republished all the time, and this is just a republication. Aearthrise (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; the term is both awkward and ambiguous, but there is no topic here. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Radio (pirate)

[edit]
Capital Radio (pirate) (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 article from 2006 with only one source - a radio interview from 2003. There are no independent, third-party reliable sources cited. A WP:BEFORE search is complicated because there is a commercial radio outlet with the same name which came later. There is a body of work on the general subject of pirate radio in Europe in the late 1960s and early 1970s, but I could not find reliable sources for this particular station. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG and lacks WP:SIGCOV, Geoff | Who, me? 23:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: All kinds of hits for pirate radio all over the world, Japan, Australia, the UK, that come up with this search, but nothing about this particular incarnation of pirate radio. Oaktree b (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Should note that as of the time I am writing this, the article appears to have zero sources. —Mjks28 (talk) 01:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How would that be relevant to notability? gidonb (talk) 12:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as meets WP:GNG with sources added to article. Insufficient WP:BEFORE. Yes, Dutch newspaper archives are particularly difficult to access online without going to a physical library (preferably in the Netherlands), but online sources like this and this are accessible via Google (and if you look closely at some of the websites covering the King David, they include photographs of old newspaper clippings as well). Pinging Oaktree b for reconsideration. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also found a whole section dedicated to Capital Radio on board the King David in this book about pirate radio. There is enough coming up via Internet Archive, such that going through it will take more time than I have right now. This was a happy discovery so in the end, no harm done and the article can keep improving. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul K. Davis (historian)

[edit]
Paul K. Davis (historian) (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:GNG, Can't find any other sources in an outside search other than one source in the article. TheNuggeteer (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yesunte Möngke

[edit]
Yesunte Möngke (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:NOTGENEALOGY; only notable for being a relative of the purported ancestors of Timur. There is no WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS purely on him. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1794 in Ukraine

[edit]
1794 in Ukraine (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)

GNG Martintalk 21:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francis William Lascelles

[edit]
Francis William Lascelles (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)

British official (not that Lascelles). It is not clear how he might meet WP:BIO. His position as Clerk of the House of Lords was an administrative one and does not confer automatic notability. Nothing in his unremarkable biography otherwise suggests notability. The cited sources appear to be mostly primary or unreliable sources, and a Google Books search finds nothing of interest. Sandstein 17:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 17:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The man held an exceptionally important post (one of the two chief administrative officers of the British Parliament) and was knighted, for crying out loud. Meets WP:GNG. Meets WP:ANYBIO #1. This deletionism is frankly getting silly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Holding an "important" post (or rather, an administrative role in the politically unimportant house of the legislature) does not, by itself, establish notability. GNG does, which requires substantial coverage in reliable sources, which you do not cite. As to ANYBIO, being knighted is, as I understand it, pretty much automatic at that level of administrative seniority (cf. "Sir Humphrey"); notably, the article does not imply that he obtained the award for any particular achievement. And receiving a title is only an indicator that a person is likely notable, not that they are guaranteed inclusion. If we do not have substantial secondary sources, we have no basis for an article. Sandstein 20:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The "achievement" for which he received his knighthood was being appointed to the post. Why do you think people receive high awards? Because they distinguish themselves in their chosen field. Which he clearly did. The House of Lords is not "the politically unimportant house of the legislature"! It is one of the two houses of the legislature and its clerk is no less important than that of the House of Commons. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The House of Lords, like the monarch, is now an essentially decorative feature of the British constitution. Political power lies in the House of Commons. In any case, since the post of clerk does not come with automatic notability under our rules, neither does a title awarded merely for becoming clerk. Sandstein 12:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of early-modern British women playwrights

[edit]
List of early-modern British women playwrights (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 a duplicate list of Chronology of early-modern British women playwrights, just sorted alphabetically. Either this functionally should be merged into that article, or just use a category like Category:Women writers (early modern), which already sorts alphabetically. Having to maintain two identical lists is pointless. Gonnym (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1856 Cumberland (South Riding) colonial by-election

[edit]
1856 Cumberland (South Riding) colonial by-election (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 just a directory to two elections that happened in the same electorate in the same year. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1856 Cumberland (North Riding) colonial by-election

[edit]
1856 Cumberland (North Riding) colonial by-election (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 just a directory to two elections that happened in the same electorate in the same year. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1896 South Bend Commercial-Athletic Club football team

[edit]
1896 South Bend Commercial-Athletic Club football team (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)

After a review of the sources in this article, I'm not convinced this team meets the WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS. In order of appearance in the article, the first source is merely informing readers of a blub meeting, the second is about the athletic club, not the team, the third is all of two short sentences, white the remaining sources are brief and routine game recaps. A check of newspaper archives didn't come up with much better. Let'srun (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Karamaryan

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Battle of Karamaryan (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)

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Article previously soft-deleted, however no evidence of improvement. I share the concerns of the previous AfD as well, which stated "Article fails both WP:RELIABILITY and WP:VERIFY."Mdann52 (talk) 07:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mdann52 (talk) 07:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Someone with good Russian might want to have a look into this document (I am assuming the language is Russian). Just to make sure we are not deleting an article about a battle that already happened just because the page creator did not bother to include references. Also have a look to the references at Military History Fandom. Bizarrely the page indicate that the "articles incorporating text from Wikipedia"! anyway the licence is good for Wikipedia but attribution is missing. FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FuzzyMagma: Fandom copied the article from us prior to deletion, and it was copied back across from there when the article was recreated. Took me a while to work that one out! Mdann52 (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FuzzyMagma That is a 476 page book in Azerbaijani, not Russian. It mentions this battle in passing on page 105, and the glowing phrasing combined with the provenance (published by an Azerbaijani publishing house, by a professor at an Azerbaijani state university) makes me doubtful of its reliability (here is a paper by Ceylan Tokluoğlu explaining the significant unreliability of Azerbaijani academia on these topics, a subject also touched on by Svante Cornell in his various writings on the NK conflict). signed, Rosguill talk 17:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really great research. I think this seals it. FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian military victories

[edit]
List of Canadian military victories (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 the recent deletion of List of conflicts in Canada, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of conflicts in Canada. NLeeuw (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles fought in South Dakota

[edit]
List of battles fought in South Dakota (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

Ahwahnee Heritage Days

[edit]
Ahwahnee Heritage Days (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)

Little coverage of event to be found, thereby failing WP:GNG. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 16:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mewar–Delhi Sultanate Wars

[edit]
Mewar–Delhi Sultanate 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)

The article is nothing but a complete product of original research. There is not a single WP:RS that treats the conflicts between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate as involving all the Sultanates (Mamluk dynasty, Khalji dynasty, Tughlaq dynasty, and the Lodi dynasty) allied together against Mewar. Ironically, the timeline of the war/conflicts presented in the article is completely fabricated, and no sources support this notion. There was no single war between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate, as these were not unified entities. Mewar was ruled by the Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty, while the Delhi Sultanate was ruled by the aforementioned dynasties. The author synthesized multiple conflicts and combined them into a single article, even claiming a "Mewar victory" without any evidence. The article is completely a product of WP:SYNTH and OR. Imperial[AFCND] 14:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Pakistan, and India. Imperial[AFCND] 14:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment:Note for the closer: Please analyze the background and contributions of the voters, as meatpuppetry is common among Indian military-history articles. Do not consider the votes of newly created users or common PoV pushers as valid, whether for Delete or Keep. Ironically, I noticed that the author of this article supported the deletion of a similar article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maratha–Nizam wars, yet surprisingly promotes this article by linking to other articles. --Imperial[AFCND] 14:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep I have named the article "List of Battles between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate" but a user named Flemmish changed it to the current name. I suggest the name of the article to be changed to the previous one, "List of Battles between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate", and this is a list where as your article Maratha-Nizam was a conflict which is entirely different from this one. Both articles can't be compared, use common sense at least Imperial. Also, I did not remove the dynasties (Guhila, Sisodiya, Khalji, etc.) another user named Padfoot2008 removed it so you better have this discussion with him. Also when did I add Mewar victory in the article, if some editor adds it (which nobody did you could see page history), you could simply undo that edit, nominating the article for deletion isn't appropriate. And there are several similar articles in Wikipedia like List of wars involving the Delhi Sultanate so why can't this be? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed the title to Mewar–Delhi Sultanate Wars because all parts of the actual text were portraying it as a series of conflicts and a set topic rather than just a list of conflicts between the states — changing the title back wouldn't fix anything, the problems are, as was said, about the text and treating it as a single conflict rather than whether it is called a "list" or not. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which line of the article portrays this as a single conflict? It seems you have a problem in understanding English. Better work on it. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not the one with an English problem here — I did say portraying it as a series of conflicts and a set topic — obviously this was not one 300 year war and by the latter saying of "treating it as a single conflict" I mean, as I and Imperial said, that you are treating these wars between non-unified entities as a series of conflicts, and thus one topic rather than just different conflicts between polities which happened to be located in the same region. You can't take multiple wars between any two states and treat it as one topic if sources do not treat it as one. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me that you simply don't want to understand what is meant by a list. I m saying that this is a list of wars between Mewar and Delhi Sultanate. When am I saying (when is the article saying) this is a single conflict? And what do you mean by non-unified entities? Clearly you are the one who is having difficulty in understanding English or even your own comments. See what you wrote, the problems are, as was said, about the text and treating it as a single conflict Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 07:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you even read Imperial's initial reasoning? Non-unified means, in addition to a lack of centralization, that the "Delhi Sultanate" was not one single country and was ruled by four different dynasties. Quoting Imperial's reasoning, which it seems you can't comprehend, Mewar was ruled by the Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty, while the Delhi Sultanate was ruled by the aforementioned dynasties. The author synthesized multiple conflicts and combined them into a single article, even claiming a "Mewar victory" without any evidence. As I said, you're taking the fact that there were multiple wars between the "Delhi Sultanate" and the "Kingdom of Mewar", both ruled by different dynasties throughout their history, and, as a quote from your writing on the article, claiming that the "Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Wars" were a series of conflicts that happened from the mid 13th to early 16th century with a set victor. I changed the title from a list because by your writing, it wasn't a list; you claimed in the lead, before the page was moved, that there is something called the "Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Wars" which is clearly just a made up name of conflicts between different entities; I was simply adjusting the title to more accurately reflect the outlandish claim your POVish article is trying to make. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, You want me to change just first line of the article that is "The Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Wars were a series of conflicts that happened from the mid 13th to early 16th century"? And even if multiple dynasties are involved that does not support the deletion as it is a list. And what is my POV push in the article, all wars are supported by multiple reliable sources (WP:RS). Also, list of wars articles are perfectly suitable for inclusion in Wikipidea. And different dynasties ruling Mewar and Delhi doesn't make any sense for deletion of the article, for example you could see Afghan-Sikh War. If you changed the title for first line of the article you should have consulted me first as I was the author of this article rather than having this discussion now. Besides where did I mention a set victor in the article since the day it was accepted?Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 08:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: These battles did happen between Mewar and Delhi Sultanate over a long period of time as both vied for control in northern India. What did u mean by this:
There was no single war between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate, as these were not unified entities. Mewar was ruled by the Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty, while the Delhi Sultanate was ruled by the aforementioned dynasties.
How Mewar wasn't a unified entity? Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty are not distinct, Sisodia are a sub-clan of Guhila. Krayon95 (talk) 04:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a single WP:RS that treated the conflicts between Sisodia+Guhila vs Mamluk+Khalji+Tughlaq+Lodi as a single war. So, a clear synthesis is presented here. And your user talk page history is full of clearing warnings and AFD notices on caste-related issues? Imperial[AFCND] 05:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ImperialAficionado Well, indeed, battles took place between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate as they were both powerful entities, particularly Mewar as it was going towards its peak, but as explained by you, there is no source mentioning the war overwall, or, in a better way, an organised millitary standoff. Hence, I would request to rename the article to its older name, which is "List of battles between the Kingdom of Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate," or another name, which is Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Conflicts. Let's have a consensus.
Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete
Majority of the users pushing for “keep” seem to be POV pushers from newly created accounts. They didn’t even give any good reasons for its inclusion. As imperial mentioned, the Delhi sultanate was not a single entity. There’s no proof that all the dynasties(khalji, tughlaq, Mamluk, ETC) participated. Nor is there evidence of a supposed “Mewar victory”. Someguywhosbored (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even read the previous discussion? And for your information I am active on Wikipedia for over 6 months which falsify your claim that Keeps are from newly created users. This is list of wars between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate. I don't understand why are you even mentioning the dynasties. Kingdom of Mewar existed from 6th century till 1947 (now are titular monarchs under Constitution of India) and Delhi Sultanate from 1206-1526. This article deals with the List of wars (is not a single 300 year war) between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate. And please point out where the article shows Mewar victory? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for the Closer : I have addressed all concerns which users Flemmish and Imperial had regarding page name, some sentences of the intro para and the dynasties of the involved belligerents in my recent edits of this page. Please see these links [16], [17], [18], [19]. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a perfect page that passes WP:GNG. These battles did happen and I don't think this page should be deleted. User:Hashid Khan
  • Delete: Yes, some of my concerns were addressed by MuA, but if this article is really just going to be a list of conflicts between the two states (who again were ruled by many different dynasties throughout these "conflicts"), there doesn't need to be an infobox, this much prose, (see list of wars between Russia and Sweden for an example) or any aftermath section, in which again it is treated as one conflict "The conflict ultimately ended after the defeat and death...". As it is this article is still too POV-pushy, and even if all of this is addressed, a good reason was never given why this article should actually exist instead of why it should not be deleted — we obviously don't have a list of conflicts between every two states that have fought more than one war between each other, so why do we need this article just for it to say "Mewar victory" 12 times in bold text? Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, If there is a series of battles between two states for over Two centuries then a article can be made for that. Both Mewar and Delhi Sultanate were dominat states of medival era and these battles were one of many reasons of the decline of Delhi Sultanate and rise of Mewar as the most powerful state in the Northern India, for result section you can see List of battles between Mughals and Sikhs. Aside of that the "Khalji Victory" is also written in bold texts. It's just a style of writing because beneath the bold text, there is is a description of event as a whole. Hope your all points are addressed.
    Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 06:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Seems definitely somewhat biased and all, should be reworded to fit WP:MOS... In general, does this information exist elsewhere on Wikipedia? If not, we shouldn't delete. If it does, we could maybe condense and merge. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful.

Please do not move articles while an AfD is open.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Village communities

[edit]
Village communities (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 created [20] as a copy of a 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article and the Who Wrote That? tool shows that 89.1% of the current text is the same as 1911. What initially struck me as odd was the article's complete and total focus on Europe. The 1911 encyclopedia's explanation for why it was "sufficient to confine the present inquiry ... to nations of Aryan race" was "principally because the Aryan race in its history has gone through all sorts of experiences" (it also said that it "might also be reasonably urged" that the Aryan race was most important, yikes). The section explaining the Aryan focus was removed from the article in 2008, [21] and since then the total focus on Europe has been unexplained. So there are the content issues, and now here is why I think the best path forward is deletion. I thought about merging Village communities into Village but I do not consider any of the info in Village communities to be worthy of inclusion. I'm disconcerted by phrases like "we hear that" and "a good clue to the subject is provided by a Serb proverb" that suggest a tenuous relationship to verifiable fact. The 1911 Britannica might be a reliable source in articles like University court or Castle-guard, which deal with old European history, but I don't think it's a reliable source here. Plus even if I were to improve it, the content would overlap with the village article. Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draft: ? I guess... This exists [22], [23] or [24]. Simply copying the text from an 100 yr old encyclopedia is a no-no. Two of these sources are older than the Britannica, one more recent. Oaktree b (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It looks like the Theory of Village Communities was part of the study of the history of economics in the second half of the nineteenth century - this article by Denman Waldo Ross is an 1880 review describing various sources (not all in English, and many looking at non-European cultures, albeit from a colonial perspective). Maybe we should have an article about the theory, but it'd need to be more critical and better-sourced than the current article. Adam Sampson (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, Social science, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While an article on the study of village communities may be suitable, this article on the study of village communities is not. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:DEL-CONTENT importantly notes that when editing can address the reasons for deletion, we should edit the article to make it better instead of deleting it. This discussion has turned up adequate sourcing to write some article about village communities (or the economic theory thereof), and the article should of course be improved. But deletion here seems unwise. So too does draftification, as the article was uploaded here in 2006, and sending this to the draft heap as a backdoor to deletion seems ill-advised in light of relevant policies and guidelines. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B E C K Y S A Y L E S 07:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm not sure how this is a different topic than village (or, the history of villages). And none of the EB1911 content should be retained. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The prose is not encyclopedic and should be entirely rewritten if not outright scrapped. I also share the same concerns as the individual who nominated the article for deletion and agree that little if any information included here is worth retaining. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crien Bolhuis-Schilstra

[edit]
Crien Bolhuis-Schilstra (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 can't find evidence of notability, the only indepth source is this, published by Scouting.nl, i.e. the organisation she worked for (not an independent source). The other sources are primary sources or passing mentions. Fram (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a policy based reason to keep or delete articles. Which sources are independent and indepth? Fram (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Well referenced figure, historically notable. –DMartin 02:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Subject is notable and reliably sourced. WC gudang inspirasi (Read! Talk!) 14:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: My vote is obviously to keep it; I wrote the article as I deemed it historically significant and notable. Cflam01 (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if anyone would actually address the nomination, and indicate which sources are (as required) independent of the subject and giving indepth coverage. The only indepth coverage I see is from a Dutch scouting site, so not independent (an organisation writing about aspects of its own history). Fram (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a clear WP:GNG failure. Without any sources that support notability, it is unclear if and how much content should be moved to Vereeniging Nederlandsch Indische Padvinders (correctly identified as a potential target by Bogger). So a BIG NO to merge. Redirect isn't right either, as Bolhuis-Schilstra was not organically included in the body of the target (only as possible other reading). Hence this should default to delete. Thanks to Fram for nominating. By no means the first time we see excessive Dutch scouting biographies. gidonb (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, this article is the best I could find, and isn't good enough: "'Mijn leven in Indië', door een oudleerlinge van de Koloniale school." Haagsche Courant. 's-Gravenhage, 11-03-1937. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 16-06-2024, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=MMKB04:000149139:mpeg21:p018 gidonb (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the keep !votes above are extremely weak and should obviously be dismissed by the closer, while a quick look at the "well referenced" article shows a distinct lack of WP:SIGCOV at all. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per AirshipJungleman29's comments directly above.
  • Axad12 (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you all for your efforts to maintain and improve Wikipedia. While I understand that concerns regarding WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV are certainly valid in this case, I'd like to make a proposition here that Bolhuis-Schilstra's story may be an important piece of historical information that sheds light on some of the humanitarian efforts during WWII. Her work as a scout leader in helping the sick is a testament to the resilience and compassion of humanity during a time of great turmoil, which I believe should be preserved and made known regardless of current notability and coverage. As for the "excessive Dutch scouting biographies", each of these articles provides unique insights into their contributions and experiences, showcasing the diverse stories and achievements within the scouting movement from WWII which again should be preserved in my opinion. Furthermore, WP:IAR exists to guide us towards maintaining and improving our content on Wikipedia, so in this case, ignoring concerns about notability and coverage would help us preserve and further document this piece of history that provides valuable insights into such an important historical period. While I can't stop you from voting for deletion, I kindly urge the closer to consider these points. Cflam01 (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I am not voting on this nomination, I would like to point out that notability is a policy and we generally do not give IAR exemptions to articles when it comes to the notability guidelines. If there is a desire to share her story if Wikipedia is not suitable, alternative outlets exist. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. It's just that Java camp experiences are extremely uncovered and that articles like this on Wikipedia help bring such stories to the light. I just think this kind of information should be known and not gatekept. I'll go seek alternative outlets if this AfD is a delete, I get it. Cflam01 (talk) 08:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cflam01: I may offer to rescue this for my own Miraheze site, thanks to your testimonial. Send me a line if further discussion ensues. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Searched Google books and found nothing. Sources presented in the article doesn't pass WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is important story and I think it should be kept. The Scouting movement is very large so many scouting references are independent of the author or the topic. It does need more sources however, Bduke (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSIMPORTANT. gidonb (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I suspect that there has been canvassing to this page. gidonb (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing supporting GNG in the newspaper archives I've looked through. JoelleJay (talk) 02:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom, and the fact that this is the primary source for this subject demonstrates that the subject lacks notability. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Peshawar (1758)

[edit]
Capture of Peshawar (1758) (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 this pass GNG?

Its not a battle (even a minor one) and seems to have only the briefest of mentions in sources (one line, at most). Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had previously closed this as a soft delete, but only just realized that this article was formerly considered at AFD in 2022 under the title "Battle of Peshawar (1758)", see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Peshawar (1758). Thus, it was ineligible for soft deletion. Relisting for further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment pinging User:Mohammad Umar Ali who made the following case that the article does pass the general notability guidelines on my talkpage here. I assume this user wants to add these comments below. Malinaccier (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The editor who nominated it for deletion argued that it did not pass WP:GNG[25] but it actually does pass it. WP:GNG deals with following points mentioned below I have explained how this article passes every point.

1.) "Presumed" It's not an assumption but a fact as per the sources cited in the article (I have mentioned the sources in 4th point). Moreover it does require its own article as it helps to demonstrate the territorial peak of Maratha Confederacy which was in 1758 just after the capture of Peshawar Fort. Also it helps to understand the regional history of Peshawar which you could see as it has been included in History of Peshawar Wiki article.

2.) "Significant coverage" It does have significant coverage not just in one or two WP:RS but almost every WP:RS which deals with Maratha history or Afghan-Maratha wars, etc. Even various news articles including The Times of India have covered this event see this link; [26]

3.) "Reliable" As told before it's supported by multiple WP:RS sources. And as per the the wiki guidelines availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

4.) "Sources" All the below sources are considered reliable WP:RS.

i.) Advanced Study in the History of Modern India 1707-1813 - Jaswant Lal Mehta - Google Books link [27] pg 237 quoting; Thus nature did provide a golden opportunity to the Marathas to establish their sway over whole of Punjab and northwest India, upto Attock and Khyber pass, although the spell of their rule proved very shortlived.

ii.) Pletcher, Kenneth (2010). The History of India link [28] pg 198 quoting; Thus in 1757 Ahmad Shah's son Timur, appointed governor of Punjab, was forced to retreat from Lahore to Peshawar under the force of attacks from Sikhs and Marathas.

iii.) Pradeep Barua,The state at war in South Asia link [29]page 55; quoting: The Marathas attacked soon after and, with some help from the Sikhs, managed to capture Attock, Peshawar, and Multan between April and May 1758.

iv.) The Marathas - Cambridge History of India (Vol. 2, Part 4) : New Cambridge History of India link [30] pg 132 quoting: First, we shall look at the expanding areas controlled by the Marathas, and there were many. Maratha leaders pushed into Rajasthan, the area around Delhi, and on into the Punjab. They attacked Bundelkund and the borders of Uttar Pradesh. Further east, the Marathas attacked Orissa and the borders of Bengal and Bihar.

v.) Moreover, Govind Sardesai, New History of Marathas Vol 2, It has a whole chapter based on this article and conquest of Punjab by Marathas (See the below links)
Above book Pg 400 link [31] quoting; At Lahore, therefore, Raghunath rao and his advisors found the situation easy and favourable. Abdussamad Khan who was a prisoner in Maratha hands, with characteristic double dealing offered to undertake the defence of frontier agasinst Abdali on behalf of the Marathas. From Poona the Peshwa dispatched Abdur Rahman with all haste to Lahore with instructions to Raghunath to make the best use of him in the scheme he was now executing- Raghunathrao, therefore, consigned the trans-Indus regions of Peshawar to these two Muslim agents, Abdur Rahman and Abdussamad Khan, posting them at Peshawar, with a considerable body of troops.

5.) "Independent of the subject" All the sources stated above are independent as it includes both Indian as well as foreign authors. All these sources are considered reliable (WP:RS). Advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not included in the sources (4th point).

So, it clearly does pass WP:GNG for which it was nominated for deletion.
Also, I am not so active on Wikipedia nowadays due to certain reasons so I might not frequently reply to any replies (if any) to my comment here, don't take it as my unwillingness to participate in the discussion, kindly wait for my reply. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those do not even seem to discuss its capture (or even it). Please read wp:v and wp:synthesis Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*Suggestion I recommend changing this article's name to "Maratha Conquest of Punjab" and in territorial changes it could be mentioned that Attock, Multan, Lahore, Peshawar, etc. ceded to the Maratha Empire/Confederacy. Sources which I mentioned in my 1st comment support it. Then we can expand the article include background, have sub headings like Battle of Sirhind and Battle of Attock, Aftermath (the territories which were gained by Marathas, etc.) That will be more presentable and also address your concerns! Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also I see you already had a detailed discussion with other editors when you nominated this article for deletion for the 1st time. So why nominating the same article for deletion again, you should have resolved your doubts when you first nominated it for deletion. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did I accepted it was at least a battle, it is not even that now. Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Mohammad Umar Ali completely fails to understand what significant coverage means, a sentence or two in several books is not significant coverage. I can find no significant coverage of this, presumably for the rather obvious reason that (assuming the article is correct) the Maratha forces simply took control over a city bereft of Afghan forces. So as absolutely nothing happened during the capture, there's nothing for us to write about. I would object in the strongest possible terms to a move to Maratha Conquest of Punjab or anything similar, that would be a clear WP:POVFORK of Afghan–Maratha War where this capture can easily be covered in context. So I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect to that article either. FDW777 (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not fulfil the WP:NOTABILITY in the slightest. The event is not a significant at all and has no significant coverage in WP:RS. PadFoot2008 18:10, 25 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! 23:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murree rebellion of 1857

[edit]
Murree rebellion of 1857 (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)

Well it has needed more sourcing since 2014, much of the content seems to be about other events, and there is no real; evidence of notable coverage.

As well as some of the sources being a bit iffy. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Pakistan, India, and Punjab. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you that more sources should be added, maybe also an infobox to sum everything up since it's a pretty long article. However I could find multiple reputable sources with a quick google search such as articles by the University of the Punjab, the Pakistan Perspective, the United Service Institution of India, and a book titled Murree Rebellion of 1857 by Barnabas Crist Bal. I think it's important that we expand on this article instead of deleting a piece of history. Thomas Preuss Harrison (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes the article needs improvement but the event recorded was not an insignificant one in the context of the chaotic developments of 1857. Saul David's 2002 history The Indian Mutiny records the concern expressed by Sir John Lawrence as "disaffection and mutiny spread" during August of that year and that this included the Muslim tribal unrest in the Murree Hills. Buistr (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Poor, unreliable sources and many fails verification. Some of these unreliable sources are WP:RAJ era and primary sources. The event was not significant and if reliable sources with coverage is to be found, it can very well be merged to Indian Rebellion of 1857. RangersRus (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sack of Wiślica

[edit]
Sack of Wiślica (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)

As

I hereby formally propose to either draftify Sack of Wiślica (if any editor is willing to adopt it), or to redirect it to Wiślica#History. (Note: Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135) was renamed to Sack of Wiślica on 3 June 2024‎ by agreement between NLeeuw and Piotrus on the talk page, so this could be regarded as a 2nd nomination of Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135)).

Rationale: WP:NOPAGE; fails WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG for a stand-alone page, and the sources used so far create WP:POV issues as well. It is one of several dubious articles written by now-blocked User:SebbeKg (previously we agreed to delete SebbeKg's article Bolesław II the Bold's expedition to Kiev (1076–1077) on 27 May). Editors seem to agree that the event took place, but nothing for certain can be said about in detail, as all the sources cited are either WP:PRIMARY (Kadłubek, and in the case of Długosz someone who wrote centuries later and added details that are not historically credible), or WP:USERGENERATED & WP:POV (in the case of KWORUM), or WP:SELFPUB (in the case of Dawne Kieleckie). Everyone agrees that the only substantial WP:RS is Benyskiewicz (2020), and that this source alone is not enough.

The disagreement is that User:Piotrus would like to keep a stand-alone page based on RS that are yet to be found, and that someone else should find and add these yet-to-be-found RS (citing WP:BEFORE), whereas User:Marcelus and I think that this event could easily be summarised in 1 to 3 sentences in Wiślica#History by reference to Benyskiewicz (2020), at least for now. Alternately, Marcelus and I think the current article could be draftified for now, but Piotrus has declined my offer to adopt it as a draft, citing having too little time to do it himself, and proposing to add Template:Sources exist to motivate other users to do it instead. However, the template does not allow such usage (see also Wikipedia:But there must be sources!). I have argued that the present situation of keeping the article in the mainspace as is, is not acceptable either, because it evidently is not ready for the mainspace (if it ever merits a stand-alone article at all).

So, if nobody is willing to adopt the draft, Marcelus and I are proposing to redirect Sack of Wiślica to Wiślica#History until an editor (Piotrus or someone else) finds enough material, based on WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS, written with an WP:NPOV, for a stand-alone page, and has written that page. I already created such a redirect WP:BOLDly, which was BOLDly reverted by Piotrus, and that is fine per WP:BRD. But if there is consensus in this AfD to create a redirect, this may not be reverted BOLDly again until the conditions above for a stand-alone page are met.

Other than that I would like to say that I have generally enjoyed cooperating with Piotrus on this topic amicably. But a formal decision seems to be necessary to break the deadlock on the future of this article, and Piotrus has suggested that taking it to AfD a second time might settle the matter, so here I am. Good day to everyone. :) NLeeuw (talk) 06:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As I said on article's talk page, we have one in-depth academic source already, and indications that more sources exist (but are hard to access due to being Polish and not digitized well): "BEFORE search in GBooks in Polish strongly suggests other sources exist. Ex. this book by Gerard Labuda mentions keywords "Wiślicy" "1135" (together) on five distinct pages (but sadly I can only get snippet view for two or three). That book is a bit old (1962), but here for example is a more modern one, from 2006, that mentions those keywords together on 15 (!) pages (seems reliable, published by an academic organization, and the writer is a historian associated with Jan Kochanowski University, no pl wiki article yet). I could look for more sources, but I don't have time & will and I think this shows that we can reasonably assume sources on the sack of Wiślica in 1135 exist and the topic is notable." The article needs to be expanded from those academic seconday sources (it is trye much of what we have is PRIMARY), but WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. The topic seems notable.
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and good summary of my position by the nominator Marcelus (talk) 09:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or userfy - we cannot keep indefinitely an article without reliable modern coverage. - Altenmann >talk 23:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:36, 16 June 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) 08:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you are right the article should be written in a few sentences I would propose this :
In 1182, Casimir was involved in disputes over power in Halicko-Wlodzimierska Rus'. In that year, Casimir's army attacked Brest, with the intention of installing Svyatoslav Mstislavovich, son of Agnes, daughter of Boleslav the Wry-mouthed and Salomea of Berg, on the throne there.
Svyatoslav's candidacy was opposed by Agnes's younger sons, with whom Prince Vsevolod of Bełsk set out for Brest, along with reinforcements from the principalities of Vladimir and Halych, and the Yotvingians and Polovtsians. Casimir eventually won a victory over the reinforcements coming to Brest's rescue, and also captured the city itself. He achieved his political goal, and installed his chosen prince Sviatoslav on the throne. The 1182 expedition to Brest was thus his complete success. This state of affairs did not last long - after a short time the established prince was poisoned. The exact date of this event is not clear; it probably happened as early as 1183. Casimir did not fail to act, and installed his other nephew, Prince Roman Mstislavovich of Vladimir, on the throne
Source
Józef Dobosz: Kazimierz II Sprawiedliwy. Poznań: 2014, p. 153-155.
Mistrz Wincenty (tzw. Kadłubek): Kronika polska. tłum. i oprac. Brygida Kürbis, Wrocław: 1992 s. ks. IV, chapter 14, p. 217. Birczenin (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History Proposed deletions

[edit]

History categories

[edit]

for occasional archiving

Proposals

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Social_science&oldid=1231038411"