Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Social science.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


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

Marlese Durr[edit]

Marlese Durr (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 and WP:NPROF. Limited coverage in reliable sources, other than the college's own publications. Creator has self-moved from Draft space, so would support draftifying (if that is a word), to allow creator to continue work. Mdann52 (talk) 05:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mdann52 (talk) 05:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Social science, Michigan, New York, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails wP:Prof. Small cites in GS in a high cited field. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Citation counts are low but that may be because of the field, and she still does have two triple-digit counts, making a weak case for WP:PROF#C1. Two edited volumes with three published reviews each make a weak case for WP:AUTHOR (weak because edited rather than authored). President of two bluelinked academic societies could be a double pass of PROF#C6. A bluelinked national-level award (and another major award from another society but not bluelinked) could be a pass of PROF#C2. And if the SWS award is not counted towards notability directly, the SWS web page congratulating her and containing in-depth coverage of her career is therefore secondary (because it is only primary and non-independent if it is about the award) and counts towards GNG, as does the JBHE story, giving her a case for WP:GNG. Each individual claim to notability here is arguable, but there are enough varied ones that I think they add up to a keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per David Eppstein above, plus, this subject passes WP:NPROF#5. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think being awarded the Jessie Bernard Award is enough for this article to stay. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 15:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Heckman[edit]

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

No sources that pass WP:GNG/WP:BASIC/WP:PROF/WP:ARTIST, and I was unable to find any additional sources that meet notability criteria after a search of my own. The majority of sources are not independent of the subject, and some do not contain significant coverage. Several parts of the article read in a promotional tone. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Artists, Businesspeople, and Social science. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I find this nomination for the deletion of the Brad Heckman article to be both perplexing and unsubstantiated. It appears the nominator made their decision after requesting access to the Wall Street Journal article, which was behind a paywall. If this singular paywalled source was the tipping point for an AfD discussion, we need to reassess what constitutes a careless deletion nomination because this one certainly fits the bill. The Wall Street Journal article in question is entirely about the nonprofit organization that Heckman founded and led. It begs the question: What specifically about that article, which thoroughly discusses Heckman's professional work, convinced the nominator that this article deserved deletion? Let's entertain the notion for a moment that the sources might not be independent of the subject, which seems to be suggested by the nomination. This presumably refers to the TEDx talk given by Heckman. Notability guidelines clearly state that the source must be independent of the subject. TEDx talks, much like interviews in Rolling Stone or other reputable publications, should not be considered non-independent simply because they involve the subject speaking about their work. This rule is better suited for sources like blogs and social media posts, not established platforms like TEDx. Additionally, articles published by universities about their alumni typically reflect the institution's pride and are usually well-researched, as evidenced by the in-depth article from Dickinson College on Heckman's life and achievements. Heckman is a published illustrator and painter, recognized by reputable organizations such as the Combat Antisemitism Movement for his artistic contributions. The mention of his nonprofit offering free mediation services is a factual statement about the organization's purpose, not an advertisement. According to WP:PROMO, a promotional tone is characterized by self-promotion and blatant advocacy, neither of which are present in this article. Wikipedia’s own guidelines suggest tagging articles with {{Promotional tone}} if necessary, rather than nominating them for deletion. I urge my fellow editors to consider these points carefully. The Brad Heckman article is well-supported by independent and reliable sources, and the nomination for deletion appears to be based on a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of Wikipedia's notability and promotional content guidelines. Let's keep this informative and well-documented article. Thank you. 9t5 (talk) 10:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: 9t5 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
  • For reference, 9t5 asked me to review this page at User talk:FormalDude § Page review. I checked to see if I had access to all the sources (since I wouldn't want to review it if I didn't) and the only one I couldn't access was the WSJ article. I didn't start reviewing until 9t5 provided me with a link to a free copy of the WSJ source on my talk page (that link now says deleted by the owner, I've reuploaded here). So no, the WSJ wasn't any "tipping point". Nonetheless, it does not contain significant coverage of Heckman, you said it yourself: it's "entirely about the nonprofit organization". It doesn't even mention Heckman's relation to the organization. When you say it "thoroughly discusses Heckman's professional work" I feel like I'm not even reading the same article as you; I can't see how it verifies even a single piece of information about him. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @FormalDude “It doesn't even mention Heckman's relation to the organization”… the funny thing is that even without a Wall Street Journal subscription, you are still capable of reading the first paragraph of the article that states “But when I called the Peace Institute, CEO Brad Heckman confirmed my buddy's account”.. quite the thorough review you did. The pdf was set to auto-delete since I don’t have the right to redistribute what is behind a paywall. You could always drop $0.99 and read it on the Wall Street Journal’s website though. Cheers. 9t5 (talk) 07:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @FormalDude But since you are making absolutely untrue statements like “It doesn't even mention Heckman's relation to the organization”.. THIS is the Wall Street Journal article. I went ahead and re-uploaded it. 9t5 (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see I missed the first two paragraphs which provide us with the one fact that Heckman is the CEO. That's still not significant coverage. Here's my assessment of the article's more promising sources:
Source assessment table: prepared by User:FormalDude
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
WSJ Yes Yes No Entirely about the company, only passing mentions of Heckman. ✘ No
TEDx Talks No This is a speech given by Heckman, clearly not independent. ~ Per RSP, must abide by WP:ABOUTSELF. Yes ✘ No
Dickinson College No Written for and by Heckmen's alma matter, consituting a WP:COISOURCE. ~ May have been provided entirely by Heckmen without any editorial oversight. Yes ✘ No
NYT Yes Yes No Only a passing mention of Heckman. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
––FormalDude (talk) 08:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FormalDude You literally uploaded a copy of the article with that part and most of the article cut out…? I’m more concerned about that than anything else. 9t5 (talk) 09:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Written by alma mater”… what?! It’s published on an official university’s .edu website. You have got to be kidding me. Your speculation about universities publishing lies in order to fake the notability of their alumni is not something you need to bring with you when you sit down to review pages. That is absolutely wild to me. @FormalDude 9t5 (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source being independent of the subject doesn’t mean that their commentary cannot be what the material is. The SOURCE must be independent of the subject.

Wikipedia’s words:
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.

Press releases, advertisements, autobiographies and ones own website are completely within our control. If we want, we don’t need to fact check before we publish those sorts off things.
What makes TEDx and other outlets reliable is the fact that the company is independent of the subject. So they won’t post something that is completely BS — they check to make sure it’s true first.
You aren’t understanding what a reference being “independent of the subject” means. 9t5 (talk) 09:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our standards for assessing sources, especially when it comes to notability, are much stricter than "not posting completely BS" and "not publishing lies". Presenting an argument about notability as an argument about TEDx posting completely BS or a university publishing lies is an extreme exaggeration of the actual debate. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FormalDude: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. - WP:SIGCOV the entire article is the authors experience having met Heckman and learned about his company’s mission. You’re telling me that since the company is the main topic that it doesn’t count? That is an absolutely ridiculous thing to go around doing to editors. You’re causing issues where there doesn’t need to be. Good for you. Enjoy your AfD discussion. 9t5 (talk) 09:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are we going to ignore the sentence right before your quote? "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. tell me you can say with a straight face that WSJ has addressed Brad Heckman as a person directly and in detail. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found this AfD after 9t5 brought it up on Discord. I'm not going to formally say Delete or Keep, but I'd like to clarify some things.
  • First, the WSJ article does not provide significant coverage of Brad Heckman at all. It would be significant coverage of New York Peace Institute, but that does not mean Brad Heckman automatically becomes notable for being the CEO of it.
  • Speeches at TEDx do not confer notability. Based on the TED brand, I'd be more inclined to believe that a TED speaker is notable, but I would not conclude notability just based on giving a speech at TED alone. TEDx is a different story, see this: Every TEDx event is independently curated by volunteers who generously invest their time to spotlight valuable ideas from and for their community. That means each speaker is selected by those volunteers without influence from sponsors, government, or any organizations. I've seen TEDx speakers spread pseudoscience, so TEDx doesn't really help establish notability.
  • There is some level of independence in an article published by the person's alma mater, but even if you argue that it counts towards GNG, it is still very weak and wouldn't satisfy GNG requiring multiple sources. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@0xDeadbeef I’m at least happy other people are participating.
When the discussion is between the articles author and the nominator and nobody else then what is the point? 9t5 (talk) 09:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: After cutting through all the puffery (promotional tones) in the article, I'm not seeing what makes this person notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG from my POV. Also noting that I became aware of this nomination when 9t5 was criticizing the nominator for questioning the notability of the article on the community Discord. Hey man im josh (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hey man im josh Can I ask a question? What is promotional sounding about it? Could you give me a few quotes so I can better understand what is even being referenced? 9t5 (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to step away from this AfD and come back to it next week so that a discussion can be had. I don’t want to disrupt the conversation with my frustrations as the author of the article. I still stand by my point above. Cheers. 9t5 (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with possible alternative of redirect to a stub on the NY Peace Institute. I'm not seeing any serious case for WP:NPROF, and I didn't find reviews of the one book. That leaves GNG. I see a lot of passing mentions along the lines of the "Ask Real Estate" bit in the NYTimes, but nothing more. I think it is well short of WP:SIGCOV. I agree that the article feels a bit promotional, but it is not so bad as for WP:TNT, and this did not factor into my !vote. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Russ Woodroofe's reasoning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blood purity[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Blood purity (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)

"Blood purity" does not occur as a term in any of the linked articles except Fictional universe of Harry Potter (the original intention of the page as first written), and Limpieza de sangre: other entries fail MOS:DABMENTION. If rewritten as an article it would require sources, which it currently doesn't have and so fails WP:V. An alternative to deletion may be to redirect to Fictional universe of Harry Potter with a hatnote to other use(s). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Wow, this is not a topic space I want to be much involved in. As I understand disambiguation policy, there are two burdens that need to be met. Fist, there need to be at least three valid dab topics (WP:TWODABS), and second, those target articles need to make use of the disambiguated term (WP:DABMENTION). That complicates AFD somewhat, because an article that should deal with a disambiguated topic but doesn't is an editorial issue for the target article rather than strictly a deletion issue for the disambiguation page... at least in my mind. Anyway. I don't think there's any real debate that Limpieza de sangre and Fictional universe of Harry Potter are both relevant target articles for this topic. Looking exclusively at peer reviewed journal content here, because hoo boy I do not want to do general searches on this, I think it's overwhelmingly clear that racial hygiene should also be a valid dab target,[1][2][3][4] although the article at current does not make use of this term. There's also quite a bit in the literature about parallel concepts in Japanese and Korean culture, although I don't honestly even know what the applicable extant article would be for that, if any. There is at least some scholarly use of the term in the context of the blood quantum laws[5][6] although I'll admit that's somewhat less common that its use in the German, Japanese, or Korean context. I didn't look into the Australian stuff. I've searched just about enough of this for one day. Lubal (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Bengali sentiment[edit]

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

The whole article is WP:OR and is making connection of any unfavorable event that occurred in or around West Bengal as discrimination against its people. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While this might be a clear Delete, I'm seeing too much opinion and not enough policy-based arguments about this article. Let's lower the temperature and consider how this article does or doesn't abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Just because discrimination happens against other groups isn't a good reason to delete this particular article. I also note that this AFD has been available for closure for other 13 hours and no admin has opted to close it which made me consider whether it needed more substantive discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I did a google scholar search for "anti-bengali discrimination india" and found a decent number of sources that seem to contribute to WP:GNG. I don't see a good reason to delete at this time.CarringtonMist (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although there is an issue with original research, there is also a decent amount of directly-related sources. Definitely needs to be cleaned up though. Perhaps since the page has been renamed, expand its coverage to include anti-Bengali sentiment in Pakistan/Myanmar. 70.176.221.156 (talk) 01:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
70.176.221.156 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete Not denying that there is discrimination. It is just that the topic is not notable enough for a stand-alone article. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not need a standalone article for this WP:SYNTH. Most of the content is only about the language-related issues and religiously motivated discrimination where the victim happened to be Bengali speaker. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have just done a massive (~1hr) edit on the article, stripping it of extensive OR/SYNTH and a lottttt of off-topic/unencyclopedic content. Despite the massive removals, I feel a pretty solid article remains, one that I've hopefully stripped down to the most relevant content (and thoroughly marked remaining statements in need of sources). I'm a bit scared to venture into picking/defining RSes myself, as an overly cautious editor, but given the statements from others above that more sources DO seem to exist, I hope I've paved the way for this to be an easier "keep and improve" Chiselinccc (talk) 08:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see opinions after Chiselinccc's massive clean-up job on this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It is strange because although the title is Anti-Bengali sentiment, its content is mainly about Discrimination against Bengalis in India. I didn’t searches for sources about anti-Bengali sentiment in India. But I found many sources about Discrimination against Bengalis in Pakistan (pre-1971) and we can add Pakistan section that will make the article better. Even some sources say that in present Bengali people living in Karachi, Pakistan are facing discrimination. The title is "Anti-Bengali sentiment" so by adding the Pakistan part we can keep this article. Mehedi Abedin 12:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there is a fair bit of well-sourced information, and Chiselinccc's definitely puts it in keep now. Brat Forelli🦊 00:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social science Proposed deletions[edit]

Language[edit]

Exformation[edit]

Exformation (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)

A gestalt article on three different articles that define this word differently. No substantial independent coverage for any definition. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wellbeing Literacy[edit]

Wellbeing Literacy (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)

Promotional and created by an SPA account.

Insufficient sourcing independent of Lindsay Oades, a few other scholarly articles exist but none appear substantial enough to re-write this article. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanese Aramaic[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lebanese Aramaic (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)

Renominating this page for deletion, as there was no input from any third party last time (closed as "no consensus").

Motivation from last time still holds:

  • Fails WP:GNG
  • See my first entry on the article's talk page here.
  • The article mostly gives examples of Syriac language used in Lebanon. The intended topic of the article is an Aramaic language (probably Western) spoken in Lebanon in earlier times.
  • From my knowledge, this language/dialect is not documented, thus not discussed in Aramaic studies.
  • Few to none WP:RS discusses this "Lebanese Aramaic" or "Lebanese Syriac" or "Surien" language. Content much based on this article, not a WP:RS. Shmayo (talk) 09:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Lebanon, and Syria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As already stated in the previous nomination an article about a language is notable. The article discusses both the vernacular Aramaic and classical Syriac as the two are tightly connected and furthermore the term Syriac was used at time to refer to Aramaic. Wikipedia does not care about what you do or do not believe from your own knowledge (WP:VERIFYOR) but relies on reliable sources which are already provided in the page. Even if Iskander’s source is contestable Bawardi and Wardini both use the term “Lebanese Aramaic” which you have conveniently left out. I already stated in the previous nomination you are free to edit the page, as everyone is, but you seem to have ignored this as you did my counters to your same points in the previous nomination which makes it seem like you are nominating this based on WP:WINNING rather than anything else. Regardless, I have amended the page to help distinct between the colloquial Aramaic and classical Syriac as that seems to be where part of the confusion is coming from. Red Phoenician (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need to accuse me of anything. There was no third-party opinion last time, which is what I am seeking here. To me, there is no "significant coverage" on this topic, thus no need for a separate Lebanese Aramaic article. Western Aramaic was obviously spoken in Lebanon, and Syriac is a part of the Maronite church - but a separate article, heavly based on that Iskander article and some WP:OR (and plenty information solely on Syriac)... I do not see how this is notable with one reference to "Lebanese Aramaic" in Bawardi's book and another one in a project description by Wardini. Let's hope his research will give us some more insight in time. This is not comparable with e.g. CPA, which is actually discussed in Aramaic studies. Shmayo (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was the third-party opinion of user Maclearie so that is false. Again, this is a contradiction of “the topic has no sources except for the sources which explicitly mention it but let us just deem them irrelevant.” Not sure where the accusation of me adding original research comes from as I have cited all of the information I added but I would like to see a supposed example of such. Red Phoenician (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Third-party as in someone not highly active in this topic (i.e. Lebanon). I have not stated anything about you, this is not about you, but the article. Why would "Syriac alphabet" be listed under writing system? For example. Shmayo (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why it is seen as bad if a user is more knowledgeable about said topic but you are right I made an error with the writing system and have corrected it. Red Phoenician (talk) 04:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - please assume I know nothing about this topic. What sources are there that show this is a distinct dialect or language from the topic of Western Aramaic languages please? They don't have to be in English. Thanks. JMWt (talk) 07:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Wuteh Vakunta[edit]

Peter Wuteh Vakunta (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 professor. I can't find a Google Scholar for him; ResearchGate indicates he's only been cited 22 times (which seems too low to meet WP:NPROF). A search for sources only turns up profiles for him and sites hawking his books. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.Although he does not seem to satisfy WP:NPROF, subject may possibly satisfy WP:AUTHOR (C3). I do see a few reviews of published works; not sure if there is enough, though. Qflib (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fáilte[edit]

Fáilte (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)

Not sure if this violates WP:DICT (wikipedia is not a dictionary). While I see why we have Alba and éire, (Scottish Gaelic and Irish for Scotland and Ireland respectively) because it refers to a country, do we really need a dictionary for a specific world in another language? For anyone wondering, fáilte is the Irish word for welcome. JuniperChill (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep; make it more explicitly a disambig page. —Tamfang (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would turn it into a DAB, as Tamfang suggests. I concur with JuniperChill that it is not appropriate to keep as a dictionary-like entry, but since there are three Wikipedia pages containing the word, a DAB may be appropriate. Cnilep (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure how turning it into a disambig would work since the only other pages containing the word are Fáilte Ireland and Fáilte Towers. This may be an example of partial title match, but I am not sure if people simply refer it to 'Fáilte'. JuniperChill (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fair cop. I won't be too sad if the page is deleted. Cnilep (talk) 04:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and do not redirect. The existence of a redirect would inhibit searching, and a DAB is no good since there's nothing but PTMs here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDICT), and this is English Wikipedia, not Irish – this is especially not a translating dictionary, nor a dictionary of all the world's languages. The greeting makes no sense as a redirect, either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded articles[edit]


History[edit]

List of important publications in computer science[edit]

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

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies, History, Science, Computing, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Without clearly defined criteria for what "important" means, this article is as OR as it gets. The three criteria listed are subjective and (more damningly) unsourced. Only reference 11 approaches a treatment of this subject as a whole, and it's based on an informal survey conducted by somebody at Penn who made the results into a personal webpage. That's pretty weak. Other sources are all primary and don't discuss the topic of the list as a group, so this is a failure of WP:NLIST and grossly OR. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Early Mughal–Sikh wars[edit]

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

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

Either Delete or Redirect to List of battles between Mughals and Sikhs. Template containing "Early Mughal-Sikh wars" have entries with articles about them anyway, which are also listed in List of battles between Mughals and Sikhs. The "Late Mughal-Sikh wars" template, which has a lot more entries in it, doesn't have an article, so why should the early one? Also note: article was stubified in January for apparently POV-pushing, which got rid of basically everything in it. Sadustu Tau (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Lushchai[edit]

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

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

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

La guerra civile[edit]

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

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

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

List of United States vice presidential firsts[edit]

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

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

List of battles in medieval India[edit]

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

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

List of conflicts in Egypt[edit]

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

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

List of battles in England[edit]

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

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

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

List of battles in Afghanistan[edit]

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

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

Bronwyn Labrum[edit]

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

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, History, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just barely. The Stuff profile and Wanganui Chronicle article establish some notability. I'm not sure if WP:AUTHOR is the only criteria that applies here, as she has been a curator and researcher at multiple museums and universities, most notably Te Papa which is the New Zealand national museum. To me, this establishes notability as an academic. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 08:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How does she meet WP:NACADEMIC? LibStar (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mullihambato[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Iron Maiden's lyrical themes and inspirations[edit]

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

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Philosophy, Poetry, Film, Music, History, and Mythology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unnecessary and short spin out. This sort of content should be covered at Iron Maiden#Musical style and influences. Very little of it is sourced and not redundant to the main article, so no need for a merge, and I don't feel like it's a particularly likely search term either, so probably doesn't require a redirect either. Sergecross73 msg me 20:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe it should be covered in this section of the main article. As an author, I think someone should try to use the content from may art to create something correct. RALFFPL (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Far too many of the entries in your article are unsourced, and without a source, would violate WP:NOR. Until this is addressed, it can't be placed in the main Iron Maiden article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary and pretty trivial. Shankargb (talk) 02:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but agree with User:Sergecross73 that the literary and historical themes should be covered on the band's main page, I will try and make a start on that today. Orange sticker (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As the author of the article I improved the content, added sources, links, data, and more details. Originally I planned to add to the main article info about the lyrics of Iron Maiden - mainly describing the inspirations and connections between their music and dramaturgy and lyrical content. The problem is with the band's catalog which contains numerous songs based on historical events, films, novels, etc. You may check my article and choose fragments to use them. And referring to the deleting process - if we have a bunch of info about the lyrics on the artists' arts on Wikipedia, so - why can't I write a little about IM ones? Not interesting content (?) for whom and why? I can not understand this kind of limitation and restriction policy. Regards RALFFPL (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the author of the article Please read WP:OWN as you cannot assume ownership of an article whether you created the article or not. HorrorLover555 (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it's about semantical context. I called myself an "author" regarding the fact I have started publishing the content, nothing less and more. Ownership is no reason, I'm just a member of the community and trying to develop some articles on Wiki. Referring to the subject of Iron Maiden lyrics I try to improve the article. Regards RALFFPL (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary and clearly not sufficiently useful or encyclopedic information to justify preserving the page history by redirecting. Psychastes (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definitely WP:FANCRUFT and per Sergecross73's reason. HorrorLover555 (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete A topic like this certainly seems like something that could justify an article depending on how much research academics have poured into the subject (for example I'm sure a dedicated Beatlemaniac could make one for said band), but in this case I don't think the article justifies itself with enough quality sources.★Trekker (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Barwara (1757)[edit]

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

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

WP:RAJ is not a policy or guideline. It is an essay on the quality of sources on the Indian caste system and those written by Britons or Briton diplomats and administrators or under the guidance and review of Briton administrators like Lepel Griffin, Michael MacAuliffe, Sir John Withers McQueen. Indian historians like Sarkar's sources are used because historians today depend on their secondary work. Sarkar is an eminent historian and is perfectly reliable. Source still needs to be reviewed and verified. RangersRus (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if WP:RAJ doesn't applies here it is still not a reliable source as per WP:AGE MATTERS and this is the only source used in the article thus it fails WP:GNG too. Mnbnjghiryurr (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If old sources have become obsolete due to coverage in new sources then AGE matters and it does not apply here. Multiple sources are expected but there is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage. RangersRus (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just found it at RSN. Hope this helps to evaluate the reliability of Jadunath Sarkar. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 16:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it clearly fails WP:GNG & there is only one sourced used in this article (Fall of the Mughal Empire by Jadunath Sarkar) which is not a reliable source as per WP:AGE MATTERS. Mnbnjghiryurr (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I had to wait to be able to find the source on the page for verification. Source by Sarkar has enough coverage from page 191 to 193 on the siege. The name of location is Barwada not Barwara (spelling error?). Page passes general notability guidelines. RangersRus (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Nom & it fails WP:GNG Chauthcollector (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Hänni[edit]

Louis Hänni (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)

Only sources provided are a primary source and obituary in a local news outlet of a minor town. Search does not indicate any further coverage. No indication of meeting WP:GNG. No indication works have achieved level of significance to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, essentially per nom. Appears to have been a local history enthusiast, but a far cry from satisfying WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. Nsk92 (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sack of Bhatner fort (1398)[edit]

Sack of Bhatner fort (1398) (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)

Yet another article with poor sources that fails verification, this article seems to rely heavily on WP:POVFORK & WP:SYNTH. The infobox mentions that Dul Chand fought for Delhi sultanate however the Siege section mentions him as a ruler/king of a different kingdom and it has no mention of Delhi sultanate. Moreover there are no cited sources mentioning the event as Sack of Bhatner fort (1398). Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 07:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elmslie typology[edit]

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

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

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

Battle of Nirmohgarh (1702)[edit]

Battle of Nirmohgarh (1702) (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)

It literally does not has any sources cited in it. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 13:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The Encyclopedia of Sikhism mentions a battle at Nirmohgarh, though apparently in 1700 rather than 1702. We don't appear to have an article on Nirmohgarh at all, though clearly it is a place that existed, of some significance. Also mentioned in this book, and here, apparently again at a somewhat earlier date. BD2412 T 14:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete the place may well have existed, there may have been a battle there, but this article does not seem to be about those, and is thus OR. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Slatersteven--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mughal–Kashmir Wars[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Bombing of Toncontín International Airport[edit]

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

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

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

Hellenized Middle East[edit]

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

"Hellenized Middle East" is a made-up term which is not used in scholarship on the Hellenistic Period (a search of google books shows a few uses referring to Greek presence in the Near East, but without any consistency [8]: one book on Gandharan Buddhism, a couple on the Middle Ages, one on Cavafy in the 19th century. This is not a term used with any consistency in scholarship). The article consists of a WP:OR map, which collapses Ashokan India into the Hellenistic world and a bunch of material largely mirrored from Hellenistic Period. Furius (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Egypt, Pakistan, Middle East, India, and Greece. Skynxnex (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a lot of these delete comments come from people during a time when this page didn't have so much content, and Furius didn't notify me until 7 whole days after the creation of this deletion request; Furius original claim says that Hellenized Middle East isn't a common descriptor of the area, although his search showed more than 15 different citations of the term; nevertheless I changed the title to the more common "Hellenistic Middle East", which a plethora of citations. Furius also claims a lot of the material comes from Hellenistic period, which is completely false. The majority of the content comes from books; the section with information from another article is the region list from the Partition of Babylon page and includes its citations. The map doesn't collapse the Hellenistic world into Ashoka's India, rather it illustrates the region of allied cultural syncretism that helped generate the Hellenistic Middle East. Aearthrise (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:SYNTH. Mccapra (talk) 04:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You made this comment when the only section was the list of Hellenistic regions. Your claim that the Hellenistic Middle East as a concept is false, is incorrect, and not classified under WP:SYNTH. Aearthrise (talk) 12:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the main issue here is not the title, but the duplication of material that is already covered elsewhere. The topic itself appears to be legitimate, whatever title it's given, and unless there's a specific title that is generally applied to the topic, any reasonably descriptive title would do. There may well be better titles, but that would not be a justification for deletion: it would justify moving the article to another title. Replacing a map with a more accurate one would not be an argument for deletion. So the only remaining issue seems to be duplication of existing material in other articles.
It sounds as though most of this is covered under "Hellenistic Period", in which case a "technical merge" might be in order. By that I mean a basic review to make sure that any useful and verifiable material from here is included there or at other appropriate articles. If so, then simply indicate that the article was merged there, and then change this title into a redirect, as a plausible search formulation. There may also be some details here that ought to be mentioned in other articles, and aren't yet, in which case a full merge may be done. But even if everything is already fully covered, it would technically be a merge as long as one makes sure of that before changing this into a redirect. P Aculeius (talk) 09:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:CFORK. Poor page with poor and unverifiable sources that do not help identify implications that is explicitly stated by the source. The creator of the page inserted opinion by using content from other pages and used it in a circular bit of logic. Page is WP:SYNTH. RangersRus (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You made this comment when the only section was the list of Hellenistic regions. Your claim that the Hellenistic Middle East as a concept is false, is incorrect, and not classified under WP:SYNTH.
    As for the fork, I am working add more content into the Hellenistic regions section; the list came from Partition of Babylon, because it gave all of the regions that persisted throughout the cultural area's lifetime. Aearthrise (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Strange title, bizarre geographic scope, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH content, WP:CFORK.
    • Scholarship on ancient history uses "Near East" rather than "Middle East"; both terms are of course eurocentric, with "Middle East" reflecting Western European strategic concerns during the last years of the Ottoman Empire. Describing much of the area under Seleucid control in the hellenistic period as "hellenised" begs the question of whether that impact was more than superficial and brief.
    • The inclusion of all South Asia is bizarre; the Maurya empire is not usually described as hellenised (and the map shows it extending strangely east and south). Mapping Greece as hellenised is silly.
    • The text largely consists of an editor opining, without benefit of sources, on who became the ruler of which area after the death of Alexander, largely with no more substance than that. Any reader wanting to know about the area during the hellenistic period will be disappointed and frustrated; they will already be better served by Diadochi for successors and by Hellenistic period, including Hellenistic period#Hellenistic Near East, for the regions. NebY (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You made this comment when the only section was the list of Hellenistic regions. Your claim that the Hellenistic Middle East as a concept is false, is incorrect, and not classified under WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.
      Further, you make an argument about "eurocentricity", but you forget that this is English wikipedia and Middle East is the English term for these areas. Aversion to the word "Middle East" is simply your opinion, and not a serious point.
      You also say that the map is bizarre because it includes South Asia and Greece; I argue the map is a good illustration of the area that generated cultural syncretism, especially for the allied and interinfluential nature of the region.
      For the last point, I circle you back to the first sentence of this response. Aearthrise (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: someone seems to be working hard to improve the article currently, and the title has been changed, perhaps in response to what has been said so far here. Perhaps these edits will make a difference to whether this article should be kept or merged (I still don't think deletion is the correct means of dealing with a content fork, if it still is one after the current revision process is done). It may be a good idea to get Aearthrise's take on the content fork issue, and whether he or she has a plan to resolve that, or any of the other remaining issues mentioned in this discussion. P Aculeius (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Said editor has been adding material about citizenship in the Roman Empire and the Umayyad Caliphate. It's bizarre synth. Furius (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aearthrise was notified about this discussion; I'm not sure why they've not engaged directly... Furius (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You only notified me 7 days after you created this thread. Aearthrise (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • The topic is not entirely off (the argument that the Hellenistic period extends to the Arab conquests for the Roman East is certainly not new), but currently it reads like a hodgepodge of factoids without a clear plan in evidence, and there are a lot of red flags of bizarre factual inaccuracies (the map, Alexander's conquests 'in the 2nd century BC', the 'state of Judaea', to name a few glaring ones) that lead me to question whether the authors have the expertise required to do this correctly. I am thus also for delete; this should first be properly developed in someone's sandbox, beginning with gathering the relevant literature, before a move to mainspace. Constantine ✍ 12:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your gripe here is that you believe that this article doesn't have a plan, and claim three "red flags" one being the map showing the region of cultural syncretism. Why is the map a red flag? It easily shows the area of the original regions in the Hellenistic Middle East, and the two cultural influences that made the most impact in the early days of the area, this is the area described by Ashoka of culturally allied lands.
    • For your other two "flags", it's a simple typo of 2nd century with "3rd" century BC, and writing the word "state of Judea" instead of "province of Judea". I implore you to give a real example of "factual inaccuracies" instead of claiming them from superficial semantics.
    • You also say that this article is a hodgepodge of factoids, but the evidence follows the theme of the Hellenistic cultural area and its unique cultural aspects; the section with the partition of Partition of Babylon region list can be refined, as right now it deals with the people who began ruling these regions and has some added information on the kingdoms, and Greco Buddhism. Aearthrise (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The problem with the map is that it comes from a source for territories mentioned by Asoka as having been conquered by the dharma, but is being used to illustrate "the Hellenistic Middle East, Greece, and Ashoka's Empire in cultural syncretism, 260 BC". These are two very different things and there are no sources to support using the image for the latter. The idea that Ashokan India was part of the Hellenistic world (or the Middle East for that matter) is not mainstream. Furius (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You're making two different points in this paragraph about the map:
      • One that Ashoka's declaration of whom he considers allies and peers in dharma, naming rulers of the Hellenistic Kingdoms, is not the same as a declaration of "cultural syncretism". I argue Ashoka's declaration is exactly evidence of the intercultural relation of Greeks and Indians of the time:
      Indian Cultural Heritage Perspective For Tourism (2008), L. K. Singh, page 34:
      The Edicts of Ashoka, which talk of friendly relations, give names of both Antiochus of the Seleucid Empire and Ptolemy III of Egypt. But the fame of the Mauryan Empire was widespread from the time that Ashoka's grandfather Chandragupta Maurya met Seleucus Nicator, the founder of the Seleucid Dynasty, and engineered their celebrated peace.
      Hinduism: Challenges | Interaction with Buddhism, Jainism and The Greeks (2024), Ashok Mishra, page 221:
      A mission was sent to the Hellenistic Kingdoms in the West, including Syria, Egypt, Greece. According to ancient sources, Ashoka sent a delegation of Buddhist monks to these regions, where they engaged in dialogues with the local people and established Buddhist communities.
      And Man Created God: A History of the World at the Time of Jesus (2013), Selina O'Grady, page 416:
      According to many scholars, it was the coming together of Indian and Greek culture that created the very conditions that would give birth to Mahayana Buddhism. It was here that Indian abstraction met Greek individualism to create a more personal, emotional religion that in its turn would profoundly influence the mergence of Christianity. This Indo-Greek syncretism was reflected in the great statues of Guatama Buddha that the Kushan rulers erected throughout their growing Empire.
      Chandragupta Maurya with his bride, Seleucid Princess Helena
      • Your second point, "The idea that Ashokan India was part of the Hellenistic world (or the Middle East for that matter) is not mainstream", is not claimed by the map at all; the map simply describes the area of cultural syncretism. There clearly had been a long intercultural influence of the Mauryans with Hellenistic States since Chandragupta married Princess Helena of the Seleucid dynasty.
      Indian History NCERT Notes Class 6-12 (Old+New) For Civil Services Examination (2023), Rajendra Prasad, page 46:
      Seleucus married his daughter Helena to Chandragupta Maurya. After Chandragupta, his son Bindusura became the ruler of the Mauryan Empire. During the reign of Bindusura, Antiochus, the ruler of Syria, sent dry figs, wine to Bindusura. Deimachus, an ambassador of Antiochus I was at the court of Bindusara. Ptolemy II Philadelphus sent an ambassador named Dynosis to he court of Bindusara.
      Indian Cultural Heritage Perspective For Tourism (2008), L. K. Singh, page 36:
      A "marital alliance" had been concluded between Seleucus Nicator and Ashoka's grandfather Chandragupta Maurya in 303 BC... This was a common practice for formalizing alliances in the Hellenistic world. There is thus a possibility that Ashoka was partly of Hellenic descent, if Chandragupta's son, Bindusura, was the object of the marriage. This remains a hypothesis as there are no known more detailed descriptions of the exact nature of the marital alliance, although this is quite symptomatic of the generally good relationship between the Hellenistic world and Ashoka.
    Aearthrise (talk) 10:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and copy to a sandbox, per Constantine. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Give a reason why instead of just saying "per Constantine", as his argument hinges on three "red flags": the map, and then two gripes about a typo and a word choice. Aearthrise (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about you read WP:BLUDGEON. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read it, are you claiming that my request for you to give an elaborated reason is "bludgeoning" you? Aearthrise (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have commented on every delete mentioned here. That is WP:BLUDGEON.
Kurt Behrendt; Pia Brancaccio (2011). Gandharan Buddhism Archaeology, Art, and Texts. UBC Press. p. 10. Doesn't mention Mithraism, Greco-Buddhism, etc. WP:OR
Paul Cartledge (2006). Thermopylae The Battle That Changed the World. ABRAMS, Incorporated. p. 5. Doesn't support, "Alexandria in Egypt, Antioch in Syria, Persepolis in Persia, Bactra in Bactria (Afghanistan), and Sirkap in India became important cultural centers of Hellenistic culture". WP:OR
Ethel E. Ewing, William Oscar Emil Oesterley, James Talboys Wheeler are not WP:RS. "Indian History NCERT Notes Class 6-12 (Old+New) For Civil Services Examination" and travel guides are not considered WP:RS. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your claims of "WP:OR" are nothing more than nitpicks on the lede of the article; you are saying that simply mentioning the examples of the Hellenistic religions Greco-Buddhism or Mithraism can't be done because the specific citation is not in the lede (despite the fact that these citations are already present further into the article). Furthermore, in regards to the citations for the cities, all the quotes together at the end sentence of the lede establish the importance of those named Hellenistic cities Alexandria, Antioch, Persepolis, Bactra, Sirkap. The single quote you mentioned only references Persepolis.
You claim Ethel E. Ewing, William Oscar Emil Oesterley, and James Talboys Wheeler are not reliable sources. What makes you say that they're not reliable sources of information? Be specific.
This is the section using the sources you claim are "not reliable": The Hellenistic Middle East was an area that facilitated the exchange of ideas between the cultures of Greece, Persia, Egypt, India, and Africa.[1] Hellenistic culture was defined by its secular aspect, and facility to absorb elements from non-Greek sources such as local ideas and religion. Hellenists formed this diverse world culture.[2][3]
Further you claim that "Indian History NCERT Notes Class 6-12 (Old+New) For Civil Services Examination" and "travel guides" are WP:RS, but don't give a reason why; disqualification of travel guides is not mentioned anywhere in the list of reliable source, so show that too.
It seems like you want to make an opinion, but not willing to provide good evidence to support it. Aearthrise (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imperium (film series)[edit]

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

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

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

V. N. Srinivasa Rao[edit]

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

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Law, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment he was pretty clearly a Madras barrister[9]. He's cited for appearances a number of times in the Madras Law Journal[10]. I'm not finding a lot more than that.
    Are you questioning whether the Madras chief justices book exists? It is held by 8 WorldCat Participating libraries. The comment about cryptic metadata doesn't make sense. Oblivy (talk) 07:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I believe you are confusing notability and verifiability. Just because a source is hard to find doesn't mean it isn't reliable. See WP:PAYWALL. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I used my university's library to see if I could find anything else on the subject. My comment on cryptic meta data was that that was literally the only additional information I could find about him. I am not rejecting the source, for being difficult to get access to. My point was that there was literately nothing else when I searched other than that metadata. Typically for someone to meet notability they have to be covered by multiple sources. And, I can't find any support for independent coverage. The book in question wasn't even something he published. The book was edited by another person long after his death. Mason (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense. Will respond more at bottom. Oblivy (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Page fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage on the subject in the sources which are also poor. Subject does not meet basic criteria to be considered notable due to insignificant coverage in multiple published, secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If this criteria can be met, I would reconsider my vote. RangersRus (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

RangersRus, this article is not eligible for CSD G5. You've made this kind of comment several times which is a mistaken interpretation of G5. Please review WP:CSD carefully. G5 is for block evasion, not simply for being the work of a sockpuppet. Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. I striked my comment. Is it right though that "when a blocked or banned person uses an alternate account (sockpuppet) to avoid a restriction, any pages created via the sock account after the earliest block or ban of any of that person's accounts qualify for G5"? WP:G5. RangersRus (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see an SPI on 21 March and this article was created 19 March. Blocks were in April. Perhaps I'm misreading or missing something? Oblivy (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Draftify I am right down the middle on this. This guy seems to have been a prominent barrister, wrote a number of books including a treatise on administrative law. Maybe also wrote about temples (not sure if it's the same author).
But I've tried to find the sources, and don't find anything substantial about him except for the two links on the page, and as @Smasongarrison points out above that's a book by him, or perhaps comprising judgments curated by him. And one The Hindu journalist who liked his book.
Complaints about the origin of the article are, subject to further developments, misplaced. The author seems to have a particular interest[11] in Calamur.
If, on chance, there is someone out there who can improve this article let them do it. It will not be me. There's a conversation over unblocking going on so perhaps @Hölderlin2019 will live to edit another day. Oblivy (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be onboard with draftifying. If he were in my subject area, I'd inter-library loan the book. Maybe someone will be so motivated. Mason (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Also pinging @JoelleJay @Trainsandotherthings @Serial Number 51429 as I have seen them in support for such article removals Pharaoh496 (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:APPNOTE says "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it." James500 (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Naughty, WP:CANVASSing shouldn't be carried out! AA (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is clear WP:CANVASSing of people they expect to vote with them. This canvassing should be considered by the closer of this AFD. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AA @James500 like I replied to Joseph2302 on my talk - I have pinged those who also voiced against such votes. The sole purpose of me pinging them was to invite more people into the discussion. I dont cherry pick people of one stance and bring them here. Afaik; thats allowed by the first para in WP:CANVASS. Pharaoh496 (talk) 06:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ill take that my wording says otherwise - my intentions dont Pharaoh496 (talk) 06:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:
W. G. Grace in the 1871 English cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1872 to 1873) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace with the English cricket team in Australia in 1873–74 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1874 to 1875) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1876 to 1877) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace in the 1878 English cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1879 to 1882) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1883 to 1886) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1887 to 1891) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace with the English cricket team in Australia in 1891–92 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1892 to 1894) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace in the 1895 English cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1896 to 1899) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. G. Grace's cricket career (1900 to 1908) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

  • Comment What are you referring to by "australian fanfict articles"? -1ctinus📝🗨 01:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pharaoh496 (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the two pages was merged they should not have been deleted. Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. If you copy some text from another Wikipedia page it should be clear in the edit summary and/or the talk page where the text came from. Wikipedia is not public domain. Christian75 (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. I havent done that mate, just nominated these pages Pharaoh496 (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting that I was pinged to this discussion, and that I'm not a fan of these articles, I believe we should delete all as fundamental violations of WP:NOT as cricket statistics turned into articles due to one person's consumption by what I like to call the cricket insanity. They are also clearly non-notable as the sources cover Grace's entire career, not simply his performance in any given event. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably merge the shorter articles, with less referencing, to larger articles covering longer periods of time. These articles do not consist entirely of statistics, though it may be appropriate to cut some material from them. A chronological split of our W G Grace article will satisfy GNG. See, for example, the coverage of the 1880s in Bax's chapter "The Glorious Eighties"  [12]; the chapter on Grace in Portraits of the Eighties: [13]; Midwinter's chapters 7 and 8 on 1879 to 1891: [14]; and Darwin's chapter 6 on 1880 to 1891: [15]. So you could certainly write an article on W. G. Grace in the 1880s or the period 1879 to 1891. The question is not whether the main biography article should be split, but how. W G Grace is the subject of a large number of entire books, since he is probably considered the greatest cricketer of all time, so his biography is not realistically going to fit in a single article. James500 (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well other cricketers with longer careers do also have same articles. One new thing that has been inspired from football articles is a seperate career page - Career of Lionel Messi. Since Virat Kohli's page was long, I made this article Career of Virat Kohli. Maybe something similar? Pharaoh496 (talk) 04:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge all Is this a mockery of some sort? Sure you can split some details from the main article, but why the hell would you make more than a dozen subarticles, each with just a few paragraphs? WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:NOTSTATS come to mind here, we don't need prose sections for every season with the stats. Reywas92Talk 20:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Reywas92, I don't think there's much content at all that could be merged. Having checked a few of the pages, much of the text is already repeated verbatim in the main bio. JoelleJay (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have never looked at these articles before, but would assume they would all be mostly more than a few sentences! The W. G. Grace in the 1878 English cricket season article can be selectively merged. AA (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – The player is very notable in Cricket, but it is possible to summarize the information in the main article, or recreate it in a less number of forks. Svartner (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just a reminder, you can't argue for a Merge or a Redirect without providing a specific list of what the target article is for each article being discussed. The discussion closer carries out the consensus, they can't make these decisions up on their own. It's the discussants' role to provide a full resolution to an AFD nomination, not just an outcome. Otherwise, the closer might have to dismiss these kinds of opinions. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean merging these various articles into something more direct, like "W. G. Grace's cricket career". I understand that it is possible to summarize the main content to avoid this number of forks. Svartner (talk) 08:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz, I am not aware of any policy, guideline or consensus that says that. I do not think that is how we normally deal with mass proposals. The number of articles nominated, and the number of book chapters that would have to be examined, would make it difficult to compile a complete list of merger targets in the 7 days of an AfD. I think it is perfectly acceptable to say that articles should be merged in accordance with the scope of the chronological chapters in those books, and then leave the final determination to the WP:PROPMERGE process, which does not have a 7 day deadline. For the avoidance of doubt, I have proposed an intial merge of the relevant three articles to W. G. Grace's life from 1879 to 1891 based on the scope of the book chapters I mentioned. To insist that I provide, within 7 days, a list of each and every other target based on the other chronological chapters in those books (and their chapters are chronological) is certainly obstructive, and might confront me with a WP:FAITACCOMPLIS. I see no reason why a closing admin cannot look at the chronological scope of the chapters of those books. James500 (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are books even in question? Material / content from books do not have to be entirely pasted on here - WikiPedia isnt an alternative for any book. It should contain all relevant information - there is no point making a page of any period of life for any person. Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I mentioned - a seperate article called Career of W.G. Grace, which is like a few prexisting articles. That covers all Pharaoh496 (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Noting that I was pinged here after having participated in several other cricket career salami-slice article discussions (many non-AfDs). FWIW, I definitely would have !voted in this even without being pinged since I watch the sportspeople delsort. Anyway, I agree with TaOT and AA (!!!) that these articles are not salvageable and should be deleted (with maybe some content from the 1878 one merged?). They are largely prosifications of routine, primary stats reports from CricketArchive with a handful of trivial anecdotes and quotes sprinkled in. If there was anything from these time periods worth including in the main article it would not be from these articles and therefore merging is not appropriate.
    As an example, of the 1871 sources: 34/58 sources are stats, corresponding to 1480/2348 words. Of the remainder, 777 are to presumably secondary independent sources, with 640 words outside the lead. Out of those 640, 411 are repeated verbatim (or nearly) in the main page. That leaves the total amount of content that could be merged at 229 words:

    Grace turned 23 in July 1871

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wars of the Deccan Sultanates[edit]

Wars of the Deccan Sultanates (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)

Yet another article appears to cover a series of conflicts spanning over a century, which have been amalgamated into many 'wars.' The only source Jaques Tony cited for this title and its prolonged duration does not support the timeline mentioned in the lead and infobox (note that timeline in lead and infobox aren't aligned). This discrepancy creates confusion and suggests a lack of notability. Additionally, the article seems to rely heavily on WP:SYNTH and WP:POVFORK, which is concerning. I hope we don't get to see another non notable 'wars' article spanning centuries or even millennia. Based Kashmiri (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused as to why this article has been nominated for deletion. The article adheres to Wikipedia's standards for reliability and notability. The nominator mentioned WP:SYNTH, so they should identify all the self-published sources and unreliable citations in the article that they believe should be removed.Please all those sources here so that we can talk on that easily.
Additionally, the nominator has raised concerns regarding the accuracy of the names and timelines of the wars mentioned in the article.I have already provided a citation for the nomenclature used in the article's headings.Since the article is heavily reliant on multiple sources, it should include references for the commencement and conclusion of the war, forming the timeline of the conflict.Here I have already cited the sources for the timeline too.I can cite the source with quotation to get easily identify the timeline.
Suggestion:-Nominator as well as the reviewers must thoroughly check all the sources.If there is any problem regarding any reference or source or any paragraph requires more Citation,you may assist by adding tags of [citation needed] for further editing.
Please refer the source "History of the Qutb Shahi Dynasty" authored by H.K. Sherwani.-This source have mentioned the Kemilliogolgi (talk) 07:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC) — Kemilliogolgi (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of AdityaNakul (talk · contribs). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't adhere to Wikipedia policies and no you haven't cited any source for this fictional timeline of nearly 200 years simply because there's no source defining such a prolonged timeline. Jaques Tony's source is not enough. You have clearly mixed up every war and conflict between Vijaynagar empire and Deccan sultanates without providing enough sources for its notability and timeline. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 10:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please specify which Wikipedia policies the article is not adhering to. If there are concerns about the timeline, I can provide specific sources with quotations to demonstrate that the article is accurately written, including the correct timeline for the wars. All sources used in the article are non-fiction.
Here i am giving a few sources :
(A)Article mentioned about a war-Cited by
1)Wars of the Deccan Sultanates:[16]pg.XXXIV
2)The end of the Vijayanagar Empire did not, however, mean an end to the wars, for Bijapur and Golconda now began to dispute the division of the spoils.
(B)Doubts regarding the timeline-
1)Tony Jaques mentioned the last battle as battle of talikota 1565,[17]
2)But the war lasted even after 1565- Untill 1673-final conquest[18]pg.33
  • The final conquest:
In 1672, Abul Hasan Qutb Shah, the last of the Golconda Sultans, ascended the throne. The following year saw the resumption of hostilities between Madurai and Thanjavur. Thanjavur was invaded once again in 1673, and was finally defeated, and the Nayak, Vijayaraghava, was killed[19]pg.33
Note:Vassals are also included in war [20]pg.XV
I hope the nominator will recheck the all sources and will mention all the self published sources cited in the article.As he had referred to WP:SYNTH to give an excuse for the deletion of the article.
If any further doubts-feel free to ask.
Regards!!! Kemilliogolgi (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC) — Kemilliogolgi (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of AdityaNakul (talk · contribs). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think one source would be enough for the title. No other source other than Jaques Tony calls it "Wars of the Deccan sultanates", that too gives only the timeline of 1520-1565. I still don't get how come you create an article of nearly 200 years war article. And then you cited this source which contradicts other sources and nowhere this source supports your preferred timeline of 1495-1673. You're just cherry picking info from different sources which is what we call WP:SYNTH. Moreover you're quoting a different conflict from the same source which is not even related to the Vijaynagar empire. It's just a synth mess. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 10:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article contains many misinformation and not neutral at all. Recently I removed misleading info which is not even in the source.Theophilusbisio (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Theophilusbisio I have reverted your edits to the last version of Kemilliogolgi. Please don't remove any content while the deletion discussion is ongoing. Regards. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 11:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some confusion here about our policies and guidelines.

  • It doesn't matter if the article is inaccurate or not neutral. Or a complete mess. That is because deletion is not cleanup. If an article can be improved through normal editing, simply fix it.
  • The nominator and the reviewers at Articles for deletion do not have to check the sources. If you want that, put the article up for Peer Review.
  • "Cherry picking info from different sources" is not what we call WP:SYNTH. Synth is when you combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source.
  • If an article is WP:POVFORK, then the nominator should specify what article it is forked from.

Given that the deletion criteria are unsupported, the article is going to be kept. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arab conquest of Kaikan[edit]

Arab conquest of Kaikan (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 see no point in keeping this article along with its parent article Umayyad campaigns in India, when there are no sources explicitly covering this event as "Arab conquest of Kaikan", the source cited in the lead for it nowhere mentions this event as the title. Another problem with orginal researched articles is their defined timeline, despite having no source for the hoax timelines the authors of these articles love to furnish their own preferred timeline of one, two or even three centuries. The article topic also seems to lack notability and significant coverage as there are many uncertainty and unknown belligerents. Based Kashmiri (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput Mughal marriage alliances[edit]

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

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

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

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

• Delete. Page seems to be illogical and a mixture of Tales. There isn't any particular record of such marriages Rudra Simha (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable topic mainly in western india (as the most classical example of Mariam uz Zamani and Akbar marriage belong to Rajasthan), cleanup of this article is required for better overview and number of reliable sources is also enough. TheSlumPanda (talk) 07:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject is as trivial as it gets and Wikipedia appears to be the only source right now that happened to make a topic out of it. There are no WP:HISTRS sources that have provided coverage to this topic. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I don't see any validity of the topic or existence of an actual "marriage alliance". Article just lists some marriages that are speculated to have been between a Rajput and a Mughal. That is rather trivial. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, strongly. Am I seeing double? There is a preponderance of reliable sources on that article, some even discuss the dynamics of these marriages overall. Few of them are old primary sources, most of the sources that establish notability are from the 90s and later. I have not gone source-by-source (will do in a while) but is difficult to believe that the multiple Rajput marriages of Akbar and Jahangir alone would not generate sufficient scholarship for notability, let alone all the marriages of Shah Jahan, Aurangzeb, minor princes and nobles. Those bringing up OR, SYNTH, and RAJ don't mention a single specific example where the article fails these policies when it has inline citations for almost every sentence as well as overarching citations that unify them into a si gle topic. @Ratnahastin: what is the POV supposedly being pushed here? What am I missing? Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 12:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said the article has been created for pushing a POV because it relies on primary sources like Akbarnama, Jahangirnama for info and none of the references are exactly showing how this is a notable topic. Then there are some examples who have been hijacked by caste Rajput writers despite there is no evidence if they were Rajput. These things are better for discussing on the articles of the particular individuals instead of creating a list to impose a contradictory point of view.Ratnahastin (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not difficult to find sources even for the very trivial subjects but the major problem here is if WP:GNG was satisfied. I don't see if it has been. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Keep - not my favourite kind of page, but I think it is undeniable that the phenomena is covered in scholarly literature, so the only WP:SYNTH argument is that the facts of individual relationships have been marshalled into a list. If that's SYNTH then all lists on en.wiki are at risk. JMWt (talk) 06:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The topic does not require a page of its own. WP:NOT specifically WP:DIRECTORY disagree with the page. (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (already voted keep above). I strongly object to the claim that this topic is not notable. Back when kings and princes ruled the world, arranged marriages were one of the most important ways that alliances were cemented and empires waxed and waned. This was true in Europe also. The political map of the world would be different today otherwise. So in fact this phenomenon is a key part of history. Zerotalk 03:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you mention which sources convinced you that the topic is notable?Ratnahastin (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seek and ye shall find. The Politics of Marriage in Medieval India is a book about it published by Oxford University Press, but surprisingly not cited. Zerotalk 15:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 1980s[edit]

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

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The events themselves are notable but the topic of whether they appeared or not on television is not. This serves as one massive collection of YouTube links. Ajf773 (talk) 09:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I personally find what networks aired what races interesting, but how it is presented in these decade articles is underwhelming (I understand why these pages will probably be deleted). It's also missing what is highly relevant information (up until the late 80s) regarding what sort of broadcast individual races received: live flag-to-flag coverage, joined in progress, tape delayed, condensed tape delayed, or not broadcast at all. The best place for that would be the individual season articles, though. They already have a section listing the entire schedule of races (not the partial schedules we see in some of these articles). A column for the TV network would be simple enough to add to that table and any out of the ordinary details about the nature of the broadcasts could be added to the sections for the individual races (probably not the broadcasting teams since that would be fairly repetitious). --NHL04 (talk) 05:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a valid split from NASCAR on television and radio, alternatively merge to that target. Splitting individual decades keeps the parent article from becoming too cluttered and unreadable. See WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:NOMERGE. @Ajf773: Deletion is not cleanup. Inappropriate content can be removed without needing to delete everything which would potentially be mergeable. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Remove the YT links then you barely have much left other than unsourced entries. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The events are covered in other articles, for example 1980 NASCAR Winston Cup Series and so forth for every year following that. Those lists are sufficient enough to present what is needed. Ajf773 (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  • Delete I am sure this will close as "no consensus" but I am not seeing a point in keeping this collection on Wikipedia. Srijanx22 (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mangal[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Battle of Mangal (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)

Extreme reliance on WP:RAJ sources, no reliable/good secondary sources. Noorullah (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grigori Chernozubov[edit]

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

Clearly fails notability guidelines, no significant coverage. No reason for this article. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 00:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is still no notability, and one "brief" biography isn't really enough to build an entire article.
Kingsmasher678 (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. He has a plaque dedicated to him, and streets namead after him, should be expanded with transation from Russian version F.Alexsandr (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to speak the language, I will be happy to withdraw the request if you can bring it up to snuff.
Kingsmasher678 (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: On the one hand, there is no support for deletion. On the other hand, the keep argument is not strong. Let's hear some more thoughts on this before passing a verdict.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 00:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I can see multiple Google books refs in Russian. Mccapra (talk) 07:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same as previous relisting comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet[edit]

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

  • Delete I don't see enough evidence that this needs a standalone article. Even if it does when all history is put together, it's clear the author does not yet have the requisite experience to write that article. It would have to be started from scratch and by a more experienced editor, which can be them in the future, but I think deleting is best for now to put an end to the disruption. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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=1226368462"