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]

List of ONS built-up areas in England by population[edit]

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


As has been discussed on the talk page, this list relies on a single WP:PRIMARY source and has multiple WP:SYNTH issues. It is a poor summary of the primary source [UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) release] because it lacks the extensive contextualisation included in that source. In the absence of any secondary sources, it adds nothing to the original source. In terms of encyclopedic value, it is of dubious merit because the nomenclature chosen by the ONS conflicts with common usage and thus requires qualification by a complete list of included and excluded wards/parishes – which it doesn't have as that would require even more SYNTH violations.

The only alternative to outright deletion that I can see is to park it in draft space until the ONS produces its statistics by agglomeration (conurbation). There is a reason why no secondary sources have bothered to respond to this release of statistics: it is not useful. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would like to point out List of urban areas in the United Kingdom,
ESPON metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom and multiple county by population articles should fall in the same category if the decision is to delete the article. If the ONS are releasing agglomerations (which is highly unlikely) these are would go on to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom unless both are (understandably to to me) merged if they do. JMF maybe you should have put the second paragraph in a separate reply with delete in bold as the first one paragraph sets the discussion and the second is your opinion and it would make it easier to skim down the bold to know which action or inaction is taken. Chocolateediter (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is there consensus on which list the the 'definitive' one? Would it be possible to merge all the different place types into one page or even one table? The way population in the UK is broken down seems really inconsistent which know this has been discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography. I added a comment on Talk:Birkenhead built-up area last week when I came across it because I feel the article's very existence does the opposite of adding to the sum of human knowledge. To stay on topic: the reason I ask is I would agree with the deletion of this page (and others) depending on page would remain. Orange sticker (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that is the problem in a nutshell. Political boundaries (civil parishes, UAs etc.) are well defined but subject to sudden changes. Settlement boundaries are not well defined and are subject to 'creep' and merge. Political boundaries don't catch up, so you get nonsense like large parts of Reading that are excluded because they were built across the local authority line. Ditto Cambridge and Luton/Dunstable. Birkenhead (indeed the Wirral in total) is nothing like what it was 100 years ago, yet some people try very hard to insist that places that have merged are still distinct because they can't cope with the concept of a polycentric settlement, or can't accept that their "village" has become a suburb. So without a single undisputed definition of a settlement, we will never have a single undisputed list of settlements and (IMO at least) it is counterproductive and misleading to pretend otherwise. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC) revised 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We often keep lists of populated places as published by reliable government sources. I don't see the SYNTH issue, any contextualisation can be edited into the article, and not useful is an argument to avoid as it's in the eye of the beholder. SportingFlyer T·C 17:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you consider it sensible to have a list that includes no part of Greater London whatever, doesn't recognise Greater Manchester, includes Solihull in "Birmingham", omits Caversham, Reading from "Reading" and Bletchley from "Milton Keynes"? In fact a list that has to qualify many name places to explain what they include and (prospectively) what they don't include. How is that useful? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The London region is a approximately a 5th of the UKs population and rough the same population as all the other nations combined so yes the ONS don’t record the areas BUAs like Scotland and Northern Ireland (it did for Wales).
    Greater Manchester is a combined authority and county not a 2021BUA. Solihull is separate (number 63) to Birmingham. Chocolateediter (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This list is based on ONS data, excluding the Greater London and Manchester. It is not aligned to either geographical or political areas (example:Castle Point is split on this list is split into Canvey, Thundersley and South Benfleet but no mention of Hadleigh). It does even meet postal or phone code areas. So how useful is this to readers? Zero.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is what it is, a reproduction of ONS data, which is what it says it is, it's not our job to second guess or judge whether the ONS have got things right or not, merely to report it, which is what the article does. G-13114 (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of notability. Fails the general notability guideline - not presumed a notable subject by significant coverage in reliable sources, and has a sole significant source, being a primary source only and not independent of the subject - the ONS itself. Not justified under the notability criteria for a stand-alone list, with no indication that the list topic has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Lacks encyclopedic value, being an abstruse segmentation of census data with such startling omissions and variable relationship to settlements as to be misleading. As to our job, it is not Wikipedia's job to reproduce, mirror or regurgitate ONS datasets as standalone lists. NebY (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep while the definition ONS uses is arguably primary its a secondary source for the places themselves and although there are many sources for places in England they will often have different definitions for different places/sources while this one is consistent for England even if the definition recently changed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's one of the few ONS geographic measures that captures unparished areas, which many towns are. Furthermore, the larger urban areas are subdivided into recognised cartographic areas by the UK's national mapping organisation, just because it doesn't match an administrative boundary (which is invisible on the ground anyway) doesn't mean it isn't valid. It's to give a snapshot of areas for very high level purposes, population stats of course don't remain static but it presents a reasonable idea of areas to readers. The Equalizer (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two distinct issues here.
  1. On the one hand, we have the original ONS data release, which is a 100% WP:RS for the purposes you describe. It is not perfect in some details (what is?) but by looking closely at the mapping, the individual data lines and the covering narrative, a sensible list can be drawn up. Which is exactly what a secondary source, CityPopulation.de, has done here. They have managed to produce a sensible, credible list.
  2. On the other hand, we have this article, which amplifies the errors in the ONS report. (It is not for nothing that the ONS have declared that henceforth they will leave physical geography to the experts at the Ordnance Survey).
Your objective is entirely satisfied by the original data source: you haven't explained what value this article has added. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really unsure as to why citypopulation.de would be more reliable than actual census numbers. SportingFlyer T·C 17:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article has all the same problems as the deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of localities in England by population. Its pretty much just a copy of it with updated data given a different name. Eopsid (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The objective of this article is, I assume, to present a meaningful, ordered table of population figures for named towns and cities in England (as in this article's original title) — something not provided by the data source, an ONS Excel spreadsheet; hence, there could be added value. However, the omission of Greater London sorely compromises this, because to the average reader it's likely seen as nonsensical. If there's a possibility we can fathom out a way round this shortcoming, I'd be looking to revise and keep, if we cannot, delete. The article can also serve as a navigational list to settlement articles and readers may want to use population as a means for selection; this does not necessarily require the notability of a standalone list. Rupples (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (2nd attempt at reply after losing last one due to a computer error creating human error grrrr)
    What about using inner and outer London statistics from the "Population and household estimates, England and Wales: Census 2021" dataset[1] as they don’t fit in the district, county or regional list articles and don’t seem to have much municipal function. This could be in a section of its own above major and maybe also the key table with a little explainer. Both inner and outer London have populations above Birmingham so come in nicely above it.
    Could add a second column with citypopulation.de statistics[2] if more than one source/viewpoint (since the site cites the ONS) is what some would like to have. Chocolateediter (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume most of the ONS BUA definitions do conform to what we regard as towns and cities, else there's a problem retaining the population figures in England settlement article infoboxes. Don't see why London Region can't be used [3] and London included — its the combined population of the London boroughs, which I suggest is the definition most people, at least in the UK, would associate as being London. The only other notes within the article where explanation seems to be required are Milton Keynes and Manchester. Are there others? "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" comes to mind. No one seems to be challenging List of built-up areas in Wales by population. Readers will rightly wonder why we don't have an equivalent for England, should this be deleted. Rupples (talk) 04:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we could easily explain why London is excluded from the data set, and include it maybe as a sub-heading, but I can't quickly find why it's excluded in a search, and in any case it's an editing problem, not a notability problem. SportingFlyer T·C 05:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but all those suggestions sound like WP:SYNTH to me. In regards to the List of built-up areas in Wales by population it has a lot of problems it uses two different definitions of built-up area because the ONS confusingly decided to use the same name for a different concept in the 2021 census. Eopsid (talk) 09:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well the Manchester note wasn’t really needed, It was only added it to prove a point with the Milton Keynes one as two users had problems with Bletchley being separate from Milton Keynes which it had also been separate for the 2011 census.
The explanation given by the ONS is:
"For the remainder of our analysis, we have removed London's 33 BUAs. This is because in Greater London, the method to identify BUAs does not recognise individual settlements in the same way. It instead provides data by London borough boundaries."
Which the ONS did pretty much do in 2011 and it went against analysis that the other areas had, they could have done some analysis though and I guess they might at a later date in a separate report. Chocolateediter (talk) 10:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination is not a criticism of the ONS. It is a proposal to delete a list that is a poor summary of the ONS list, reinforcing its errors and failing to reproduce its many caveats. (At least the ONS has some awareness of its weaknesses and inconsistencies.) It adds no value to the ONS list, it subtracts from it. We are not helping readers; if we can't do better than this then we must back away and refer readers to the source.
The best secondary source available is CityPopulation.de but that option has been rejected. They at least treat Luton/Dunstable, Bournemouth/Poole and Brighton/Hove as physically contiguous units: the ONS claims to ignore administrative boundaries but has not consistently done so. CityPopulation also ignores the ONS's sloppy toponymy (carving chunks out of places like Reading and Milton Keynes, then applying to the remainder the name of the whole) to give a sensible population report for the English cities. CityPopulation digests and makes sense of the raw ONS report; this article merely reinforces its confusions.
The only way out of this mess that I can see is to prefer the CityPopulation data. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a perception to state the ONS have made errors, not a fact. Neither the ONS data or CityPopulation figures will likely see agreement between interested editors for every one of their definitions, because neither set is produced to fit Wikipedia articles. The only set of population figures where there's probably no disagreement is for council area's with defined boundaries. Take Milton Keynes, which started the 'dispute' about this article, the 'best fit' figure for the population of Milton Keynes could have been the Milton Keynes BUA or the total of the Milton Keynes and Bletchley BUAs, but the editors of that article saw fit to define Milton Keynes as its larger urban area, so it's valid to include the agglomerated population. Luton has not been defined as 'Luton urban area including Dunstable and Houghton Regis' so it is not appropriate to link an agglomerated population figure to that article. Rupples (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When the ONS uses the name of the whole as the name of a part, as it has done in the case of (at least) Milton Keynes and Reading, then that is an error. But that is why we don't use primary sources as it usually needs a secondary source to take the long view, as CityPopulation has done.
Again, it is not the purpose of this nomination to denounce the ONS. They remain a highly reliable source of primary data and its analysis. The question is only whether it is valid for Wikipedia to copy their spreadsheet, taking it out of its contextual analysis. Why? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We use primary sources for statistics all the time. Otherwise we wouldn't have any population information anywhere on the site. SportingFlyer T·C 19:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:PRIMARY. We cite statistical sources and rightly so. The issue here (and in the other lists that have already been deleted for the same reason) is that it is not legitimate to create an article that is a selective copy of the source. As WP:PRIMARY says 1. Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    • I believe that editors found the 2011 ONS built-up areas were useful, but that their sub-divisions were arbitrary and hard to understand.
    • Many of the 2021 "built-up areas" are similar to the 2011 sub-divisions, and are equally hard to understand.
    • For example, the Dunstable built-up area in this list has a population of 34,500, while the Dunstable article gives the population of the parish as 40,699. Readers might think there are 6,199 people living in the rural hinterland of Dunstable. They would be wrong; almost all the area covered by Dunstable Town Council is built-up. A comparison of the maps [4] and [5] shows that the ONS has allocated a large part of eastern Dunstable to the Luton built-up area.
    • The list article says "built-up area boundaries are defined and named by the ONS". The ONS documentation is hard to follow. However, it seems that the Ordnance Survey are actually responsible, and their site [6] includes a 2022 "Technical specification" (with a methodology that considers land-use and "the Settlement Named Area dataset" to decide which 25-metre cells to merge together) and a "Release Note" (which says "Using customer feedback, improvements have been made in the [April] 2024 release, by refining the definition of a Built Up Area") but no updated "Technical specification".
    • If the list article is retained, it must have a better explanation that mentions ways in which a "built-up area" might differ from what you expect. Ideally this explanation should be based on secondary sources, but I would be content if a mole inside the ONS were to edit the article and explain what is happening.
    • The article should also explain about the "Related places" (are they included within or excluded from the area) and tell readers where they can find a map of each area. Perhaps they can be referred to citypoulation.de. The ONS interactive map does not seem to know about built-up areas. JonH (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The places named in the second column of the table in the article were recently dewikilinked to our articles on the related settlements thus nullifying the argument for the article being a navigational aid to finding those articles. AFAIK most England settlement articles use built up area as best available fit for population, so why dewiklink and place a hidden instruction not to wikilink? Granted, there are a few exceptions where BUA is not the best fit, but those instances can and were being noted. It should not have resulted in a 'carte blanche' dewikilinking. Rupples (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless the ONS BUA is the same as the settlement described in the article (which it often is not), then to wikilink it is a navigational aid over a precipice. We must not deliberately mislead our readers. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is not with this article as such but with the choice of Infobox used in our settlement articles. Liverpool uses Template:Infobox settlement which allows more than one definition of population — two population figures are shown in that article's infobox. Milton Keynes on the other hand uses Template:Infobox UK place which limits population to a single field. Rupples (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The strong consensus at WP:WikiProject UK geography is to prefer and seek to transition to Infobox UK Place when possible. Apart from being more customised to UK political geography, it avoids the clutter and trivia invited by Infobox settlement. If a detail is that significant, it should be in the body. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:59, 10 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! 09:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social science Proposed deletions[edit]

Language[edit]

Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft[edit]

Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft (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 appears to be mentioned in the context of long German words; I can't find a source which gives significant coverage of this "nonexistent sub-organization of the DDSG" beyond its name being long and funny. As Wikipedia is WP:NOTADICTIONARY, this might be best saved for Wikitionary or maybe a brief mention on an article about German compound nouns. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. The page's purpose seems more of a gimmick than anything else. Peculiarities of a given language can simply be mentioned in the language's article itself. ArkHyena (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Poorly written, very little evidence of notability or even really its existence as a word. However, the word at least does appear in the Guinness Book of Records 1996 (which can be borrowed via Internet Archive, see [7]), but with the "ä" given as "ae" instead. But they don't tell us where they got the word from, and in any case per WP:RSPSS the Guinness World Records "should not be used to establish notability".
Some other observations of mine here, maybe not relevant to deleting the article itself but may be helpful anyway:
  1. This article was created in 2005, which from what I can tell had lower standards for sourcing or notability than today, unless I'm mistaken? (If it does, that may explain the poor quality of the article as it is now)
  2. The only inline source in use as of writing is from h2g2, a user generated encyclopedia.
  3. Is there even a source for the suborganisation being nonexistent at all? It feels like a lot of this article is possibly original analysis, which would fail WP:OR.
Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Organizations, Transportation, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sources I find are the Urban Dictionary and various word groups, none of which help notability. Almost survived for 20 yrs in wiki without deletion. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets GNG, though the English language sources only show novelty, and the German sources aren't fantastic - however between the tango, the company, and the fact the word is used in German as an example of German compound word usage. [8] is one example. SportingFlyer T·C 22:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like merging with Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft is a viable option. Nardog (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Merging into Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft is a good idea if there's a couple reliable sources, yeah. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge The German wikipedia has more context and sources. This might not need a stand-alone article but there's enough coverage to avoid deletion. Reywas92Talk 00:55, 13 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]

List of ethnolinguistic regions of South Asia[edit]

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

WP:OR WP:UNSOURCED WP:NPOV. Completely unnecessary generalisations about which regions supposedly "belong" to which "ethnic groups" just because their native languages are widely spoken there. This is ethnic nationalist nonsense without any encyclopedic value. All the relevant information has been gathered much better in articles such as Ethnic groups in South Asia, Languages of South Asia, and so on. NLeeuw (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meff[edit]

Meff (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)

Falls under WP:NOTDICT - already an entry in Wiktionary. Orphaned page. Orange sticker (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and England. Orange sticker (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yep, not a dictionary, and not enough coverage for WP:WORDISSUBJECT. One or two reliable sources (eg. New Statesman) give a definition alongside coverage of the Paul Nuttall thing, but nothing like "the social or historical significance of the term" as per the policy. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Hoberman[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:ACADEMIC. Multiple WP:BLP issues with the page, as well as sourcing issues and WP:NOR. The article was created by a WP:SPA IP address back in 2005. GuardianH (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning delete unless better sources can be found. I couldn't find anything independent of Hoberman himself or University of Texas. Cnilep (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep -- ugh, this article is a mess, a minefield of BLP and SPA and NOR problems (even the photo!). I won't weep for it if it's deleted. But we do have a full professor at a major research university (usually a good sign of a WP:PROF likely pass) with books by U. Chicago Press and Houghton Mifflin, which is probably enough with any of the controversies to pass WP:AUTHOR. But what a mess. There's the old saying "AfD is not cleanup" but a Soft Delete (=expired PROD, no prejudice against creating again) might be a good way to deal with the major BLP issues. And yet, I think the subject is more likely notable than not. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:12, 1 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! 23:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as NACADEMIC. I did some bold editing, removed promotional stuff, but also added in some academic references. His most controversial book gets over ~1100 cites on G-scholar. It is quite possible that many of those are debunking his thesis, but I believe that still counts toward academic qualifications. Lamona (talk) 05:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of translations of The Lord of the Rings[edit]

List of translations of The Lord of the Rings (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 every bit of LOTR minutiae needs to be recorded here, fails WP:LISTN as a subject that hasn't received significant attention as a group, No idea why "Elrond's library", a French shop, is in the lead singled out as a source for this either. Fram (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Language, Literature, and Lists. Fram (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is certainly not "minutiae", but a remarkable indication of the novel's importance. The source you mention is really just a footnote or aside, it has no special importance. If editors really don't want a stand-alone list, then of course we can merge it back to Translating The Lord of the Rings, but that seems quite extreme to me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure a list is more of an indication of importance than a summary thereof would be (e.g. "It has been translated into X languages as of year Y"). TompaDompa (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's certainly a far better substantiated indication; and of course it allows readers to check for themselves in whichever language they may happen to be interested. I may note that this list has existed in some form since 2008: it has been edited by many hands. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. But the fact that the article The Lord of the Rings lists links to 113 translations. The figure of 113 is already a "remarkable indication of the novel's importance". Anyone interested in these translations can find all that they want to know by following the appropriate links. So my recommendation would be delete. Athel cb (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You assume that there is another complete list that readers can refer to. There is not. This is the only complete listing on the internet and it is incomparably useful for collectors. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is one of those articles that has no better home. Wikipedia provides for list articles, and this one satisfies the conditions. Indeed, this provision seems to explicitly rationalize lists like this one: The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion. I read Wikipedia’s acceptance of lists to be quite broad, since the guidelines discuss such acceptable topics as lists of plants in some obscure taxa, lists of words, and so forth, and explicitly states that the individual list elements need not be notable. The reason Wikipedia is the best home for this material is that a scholarly source would not be up-to-date, while copying from them could be copyright violation, since it would be significant content copied in its entirety. Meanwhile, fan sites regularly go belly-up, leaving a gap in cataloging important literature. The list notability guidelines provide for this kind of list: The remarkable diversity of translations has been noted in scholarly circles many times (these references are needed in the article, such as from List_of_translations_of_The_Lord_of_the_Rings). Given the precedence and guidelines on Wikipedia, I do not see this article as being a candidate for deletion — certainly not until lists of less general interest get cleaned out and the guidelines get tightened to exclude, rather than include, this kind of list. Strebe (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The fact that a novel was translated to over 57 languages should automatically make a list like this notable- that is amazing in itself. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 19:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NLIST. While being translated into 57 different languages is certainly impressive, how impressive something is isn't a valid inclusion criteria for lists. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Industrial Insect: That may be so, but WP:NLIST is fulfilled based on other criteria (see above and below). Daranios (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing the arguments raised below, a merge back to Translating The Lord of the Rings based on WP:PAGEDECIDE is also fine with me. Daranios (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fulfills WP:NLIST as noted in other responses. This article is extremely useful for collectors, especially since Elrond's Library is no longer an actively-maintained source. (For example, I learned of the new Belarusian translation here and was able to add it to my collection.) This list has been continuously expanded since that list ceased its run about a decade ago. Items such as the recent additions of the new Slovenian translation, the new Mongolian translation, the new Belarusian translation, the expansion of the Sinhala translation, etc. are examples of recent edits and the usefulness of this list beyond where Elrond's Library left off. This is the only list of its kind on the internet. It is cited in other internet compilations such as here. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITSUSEFUL. The usefulness of an article is not a criteria for inclusion via WP:NLIST. Industrial Insect (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If usefulness isn't a positive criterion for a Wikipedia list, then what is the purpose of Wikipedia in the first place? --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't seem like this passes WP:NLIST. We have only 1 good source for this, and there doesn't seem to be anything special about Lord of the Rings translations specifically. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only complete list that there is and other lists actually refer to this one. If you want collectors' sites with partial lists referenced (to get around your comment about "only 1 good source"), those can be added without any real fanfare. But this is an invaluable list for collectors (and there are many of us), that's why we keep it up to date. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to be rude when I say this, but you clearly didn't read WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:What Wikipedia is not. Additionally, this list should NOT contain information found nowhere else per WP:OR. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that this list didn't contain information found nowhere else, I said that this is the only complete list. Other lists are partial. This is the only list that contains all the information in one place. And I don't really care about what some WP philosopher wrote in "WP:ITSUSEFUL" because I reiterate my question, "If Wikipedia isn't useful, then why does it exist in the first place?" --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Constant wikilawyering over some article or other is one of the biggest criticisms of Wikipedia as a real tool and repository of information. This list is clearly useful to members of the LOTR community, but someone running a bot (who would never have read it in the first place) found it and is now indiscriminately wanting to take a weed whacker to it. It is cases like this where WP:AGF doesn't really apply. If it were a case of "Kiev" versus "Kyiv", that's a useful discussion (I spent a decade involved). But trying to get rid of a useful consolidation of information seems to be a waste of editors' time. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is, obviously, supposed to be useful. However, usefulness is not a reason for inclusion. We are an encyclopedia, not just a collection of things which are useful (besides, what is and isn't useful is an extremely subjective argument). Also, WP:ITSUSEFUL wasn't written by "some WP philosopher", it's one of our most popular essays which is still being modified by editors to this day. And what do you mean AGF doesn't apply here? You don't assume malice behind someone's intentions just because they disagree with you! Industrial Insect (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But discussing about inclusion based on WP:ITSUSEFUL is kind of a theoretical discussion, when the main claim for exclusion, that the topic should fail WP:LISTN, has already been refuted by suggesting appropriate sourcing, isn't it? Daranios (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I've overlooked something. @Industrial Insect: You claim we have only one good for this. But did you consider the sources in Translating The Lord of the Rings#Bibliography, talking about the topic of translations as a group? And then of course there is an enormous number of sources talking about and analyzing specific translations. Daranios (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sources are more about the process of translating LOTR (which is why I believe the article fails NLIST), rather than the actual translations themselves. Then again, I don't have access to the sources since they're offline, so I may be wrong Industrial Insect (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are not just about the process, but also include lists of translations into particular languages and editorial comments about the translations and their place within the history of translation. In other words, they include partial lists. Also, some of the argumentation against the LOTR translation list is that it isn't "notable". How do you measure "notable"? Is it measured in terms of clicks? If so, then 90% of the lists and articles in Wikipedia should be deleted. The true nature of Wikipedia is that virtually unlimited bandwidth means that we can have articles on Waurika, Oklahoma, a speck of a burg in southwestern Oklahoma whose only claim to fame might be that its name means "worm eaters" in Comanche. How many clicks does THAT article generate and how notable on the world stage is it? This list is specialized to people who are interested in one particular book and its notability is that, unlike the vast majority of books ever written, it has been translated into dozens of languages. I daresay that this list generates more clicks than Waurika, Oklahoma in a year. I refer to it regularly and it serves as the source material for abbreviated lists in many LOTR fan sites outside Wikipedia. Notability should never be judged in an absolute sense, but in a relative sense. The question of notability should always be, "Is this list useful or notable to the Wikipedia users who find interest in the topic?" It should never be, "Is this list useful or notable to the average Wikipedia user?" As you can probably see from the discussion, there are more editors who find interest in the topic who want to keep this list than not. That's the true measure of "notability". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your obvious problem with what Wikipedia defines as notable (as found in WP:N) is completely outside of this AfD's scope. Please stop arguing that our encyclopedia's definition of notability is wrong, it was created this way for a reason. Anyways, ignoring the irrelevant arguments after the first two sentences, the history of translation counts as "the process of translation". I'm just not seeing how the sources discuss the translations as a group. Further explanation would be helpful. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Industrial Insect: You mentioned that you see one good source. Aside from the others already mentioned which may not all be accessible online, From Imagination to Faërie, pp. 68-73, gives some points about specific translations but mainly discussed issues of importance to the translations as a group. Daranios (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the source, but I still feel like it's just talking about the process of translation. Not much about the translations themselves are mentioned, and just about most of what I read was already in Translating The Lord of the Rings. Also, it's possible that WP:NOTDATABASE applies as pointed out by Sandstein. Industrial Insect (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Industrial Insect: I don't see this distinction between the process of translation and the translations it leads to. That seems to me like claiming the "Development" section we commonly have for works of fiction should be treated as a separate topic from the work it is about. Rather, I think the process of translation is a discussion of the translations it produces as a group.
@Industrial Insect and Sandstein: I also don't think that it is consensus that WP:NOTDATABASE excludes listings of bibliographical data in general, seeing that we e.g. have a specific guideline for how to create them in WP:MOS-BIBLIO. And if such listings are too large to conveniently fit into a parent topic, they are split out as a separate list. Notability is then no longer beside the point, as it can be used to decide which specific bibliographies to include, thus avoiding indiscriminately collecting data. All that said, I believe an additional commentary column could benefit the list, to provide more context. Analytical and review-like secondary sources exist for many translations and could be used there, beyond the broader concepts conveyed in the prose article. This list then also would become a place for what secondary sources have to say about individual translations, but which is not so much as to warrant a separate article for a specific translation. Daranios (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citations have been added to the various partial lists mentioned above. In addition, the two books on translating Tolkien by Thomas Honegger have been described and cited in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The list was originally a part of the prose article Translating The Lord of the Rings and was separated out only recently. I would agree to merge or keep, but not "delete". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I realize that "delete" was ambiguous in my comment. If this is merged, then I assume that this separate article would cease to exist, but that the content would live on in the original article. My objection to "delete" is deleting the content without a merge. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into main article and Delete this undiscussed split. There is no reason for a separate article.  // Timothy :: talk  07:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I dont see anything wrong with it. It doesn't fail WP:LIST nor WP:SIGCOV. It certainly needs work, but it's not bomb-grade. I'm not opposed to a merge as a second choice, which f soften my first choice for lists/POV forks. FWIW, I've read it in English, but I'm not a fanboy. Bearian (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Translating The Lord of the Rings. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not keep it is not notable, so keep is inappropriate. I am indifferent to deleting vs merging. (t · c) buidhe 01:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean keep, as a "short, complete list[] of every item that is verifiably a member of the group" of translations of The Lord of the Rings, meeting WP:CSC. Additionally, appropriate context and annotations can be added meeting WP:LISTPURP. Finally, while WP:MOS-BIBLIO doesn't outright say that bibliographies are notable, it implies that there is some consensus that bibliography pages are appropriate. I think a merge would just result in a WP:SPLIT discussion and there's no reason to delay the inevitable. Just realized I relisted this. trout Self-trout voorts (talk/contributions) 02:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. ROTFL, but it's ROTLOTRFL. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Italian language in Romania[edit]

Italian language in Romania (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 really about the Italian language in Romania. It’s mostly a coatrack about Italians in Romania and about the similarities between Romanian and Italian. Biruitorul Talk 21:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Italians in Romania per WP:ATD. Most of the article seems to be about Italians in Romania, with only a fraction about what the article should be about. Thus merge it and move the content actually about the the Romanian and Italian languages to a section of Italians in Romania or a section under Romanian or Italian. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and per Flemmish Nietzsche. Article is not mainly of its topic and has a lot of unsourced information. I don't think the topic is notable to justify its split from Italians in Romania, it's not like the language is very present in the country. Super Ψ Dro 22:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep part of it, merge the rest. The sections on the languages should be kept. The various sections about other topics, like Italian Emigration to Romania, belong in the article for Italians in Romania. I can see an argument for merging the language sections with that article but I do think that the language elements are worthy of their own article. Lamona (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why is Italians in Romania a preferable redirect target over Languages of Romania? IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 13:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Italian isn't listed there as a language used in Romania. I don't know why that is, but it seems to be based on something like census data. If Italian doesn't show in official statistics it probably shouldn't be addressed there. Lamona (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the latest census, there are 4105 native speakers of Italian in Romania. Biruitorul Talk 19:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because the use of a language in a country would intuitively be covered in the existing article for the minority speaking that language in the country. Super Ψ Dro 22:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Keep part of it, merge the rest"? I'm sorry but XFDcloser doesn't do this. If you vote "Keep", you can go ahead with a Merge on your own. But I can't close this as Keep and Merge, you have to pick one or the other outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded articles[edit]


History[edit]

Battle of Cape Verde[edit]

Battle of Cape Verde (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 battle. The article is comprised of mostly LLM slop, and extrapolates fake/conflicting info from a real but minor skirmish (mentioned on page 159 of the source listed). – Hilst [talk] 20:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Greek wars[edit]

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

The article is a mess; it consists largely of unattributed copy-pastes from other articles, and purports to present a topic, the 'Indo-Greek wars', that is in reality a sequence of isolated and unrelated conflicts between different polities at different times. Alexander's campaigns take up half the article, but the other conflicts, which took place decades or centuries later, are dealt with far too briefly, and no attempt is made to weave all of this into a coherent narrative (which in itself is evidence this is an artificial topic). THe very name itself is scarcely used anywhere (cf. Gbooks). Constantine ✍ 11:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Problematic editor who created a number of very poorly written articles. Qcne (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On its face, it appears to both duplicate other article content and be an inappropriate synthesis. And, on the offchance it is notable and just not written about in English language sources, WP:TNT GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' - Not in line with Wikipedia's standards and policies.Sameeerrr (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

H. B. Garlock[edit]

H. B. Garlock (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)

Biography of a missionary who does not appear to be notable. Lack of in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 07:51, 11 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]

Battle of Michni[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Battle of Michni (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)

Zero sources/references at all. Noorullah (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brewing alcohol in Colditz[edit]

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

I can't see why this would be forked. The prose is bad, and this could easily be cut down and mentioned in Olflag IV-C, which it is. —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 19:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify about the timeline, I did not notice that the original creator had edited the article one minute before I added the {{Story}} tag as there was an edit conflict I didn't see. I also did not notice that they had edited it after I placed that tag when I nominated it here. —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 19:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fyodor Chernozubov[edit]

Fyodor 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)

No sources and I have been unable to find any. Also does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 02:45, 10 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]

Comment: The page on Russian Wikipedia seems to be more in-depth and has more sources. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 10:13, 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]

Jean Houymet[edit]

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

As near as I can tell, this person has no great significance other than being the "first of his name", i.e. someone who has a lot of descendents. I don't even know for sure if he was a farmer, or just someone who owned land. The provided references seem to indicate that the only research done into this individual was done by his family members; any non-relations giving reference are from primary documents directly connected to the subject. I will admit that I make this AFD after taking a hatchet to the article (see Special:Permalink/1222951438 for the previous version) but there is no usable content in the older version either (most of it is editorialising, OR, or speculation). Primefac (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, France, and Canada. Primefac (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A family biography project is not suitable for wikipedia. Interesting local history, but not meeting inclusion criteria here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1959 Mangal Uprising[edit]

1959 Mangal Uprising (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)

First fails notability. Secondly seems like the user moved the article from Draft to Main space without proper review. Third Not ready for Main space yet. Wikibear47 (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Well, I think it should not be deleted, instead it should be moved into draft space and then more sources should be added. And o think it pases the notability test as it was the first Pakistan backed rebellion in Afghanistan (I know it isn't addressed in the article but several sources state this) Waleed (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it does pass notability than could be moved back to draft space. It does need a lot of work. Wikibear47 (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it needs a lot of work to do, so I think it should first be moved to draft, then I'll sort it out although it isn't my article but I will try to establish notability by citing more sources Waleed (talk) 04:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6th North Carolina Infantry Regiment[edit]

6th North Carolina Infantry Regiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and NORG. No sources found meeting WP:SIRS, nothing addressing the subject directly and indepth. Article does not indicate any engagements in which the unit was notable.

  • Source eval table:
Comments Source
Blog post/timeline, fails WP:RS, does not have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indpeth *https://civilwarintheeast.com/confederate-regiments/north-carolina/6th-north-carolina-infantry-regiment/
Enthusiast website, fails WP:RS *https://www.carolana.com/NC/Civil_War/6th_nc_volunteers_regiment.html
Troop register, fails WP:IS, SIGCOV. Government troop registers do not show notability *https://www.carolana.com/NC/Civil_War/Register_of_North_Carolina_Troops_1861.pdf
Fails WP:IS, WP:RS, Memories written down in 1901 source states, "WRITTEN BY MEMBERS OF THE RESPECTIVE COMMANDS." *https://www.carolana.com/NC/Civil_War/Histories_of_the_Several_Regiments_and_Battalions_from_NC_in_the_Great_War_Volume_I_Walter_Clark_1901.pdf
Troop register, fails WP:IS, SIGCOV. Government troop registers do not show notability Register of North Carolina Troops, 1861, by John Spelman page 13.
Duplicate of above ref Capt. Lawson Harrill on April 9, 1901, page 786-808 in the "History of the Several Regiments and Battalions from North Carolina in the Great War-'65-Volume 1.
Ping me if IS RS with SIGCOV are found.  // Timothy :: talk  17:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You might find more sources if you search the 16th North Carolina, which is apparently what this regiment was reorganized as in June 1861. The 16th doesn't seem to have a Wikipedia article, which is interesting given its combat history (Antietam, Gettysburg, Fredericksburg, and others). It might be worth rewriting the article for the 16th North Carolina, noting its origins as the 6th Volunteers. Intothatdarkness 00:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply:This sounds like a good solution. If @PaulusHectorMair: feels this is a good solution and wants to pursue it, I will support drafting as "16th North Carolina Infantry Regiment" or another appropriate title. The author is new, I'm not sure they know this discussion is taking place, PaulusHectorMair if you could reply here with your thoughts, even if it is just to let us know you are aware of the discussion.  // Timothy :: talk  00:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TimothyBlue, Intothatdarkness, and PaulusHectorMair: - Let's hold up a minute on this. There's a conflation going on here - the "6th North Carolina Volunteers" was the unit that became 16th Regiment per this but there's also a separate 6th North Carolina Infantry Regiment. Per this brief NPS listing it had quite a bit of fighting, and the State of North Carolina published an entire book on this 6th Infantry. Hog Farm Talk 01:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply So if I'm following this right:
    • This article (as currently written) is about the unit that was reorganized into the 16th North Carolina Infantry Regiment. Its currently named "6th North Carolina Infantry Regiment" but it was actually the "6th North Carolina Volunteers"
    • There is another unit "6th North Carolina Infantry Regiment" that is unconnected to the current article or the 16th North Carolina Infantry Regiment.
    Let me know if I've got something wrong.  // Timothy :: talk  01:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hog Farm, I thought about pinging you, but didn't want to run into the whole canvassing thing with AfD. The ACW isn't one of my major fields, especially Confederate units, so I just did a basic search. I wondered about the Volunteer/Infantry thing, but I've seen it used interchangeably with other units. I of course defer to your expertise. Intothatdarkness 12:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello. I am indeed aware of this discussion and have been checking it every few hours or so. I would be open to pursuing an article on the 16th, as this was my original goal. I should have realized sooner that the two regiments were different, and frankly I am questioning my competence for such a silly mistake. PaulusHectorMair (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Making silly mistakes is part of the job... :)  // Timothy :: talk  01:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maratha–Nizam wars[edit]

Maratha–Nizam 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 clearly fails WP:GNG & full of WP:SYNTH mess and WP:OR. Maratha–Nizam wars? More like every war against Marathas (as it is mixed up by Anglo-Maratha wars and French conflicts with Marathas) and there's no source for the timeline of this event (1720-1819), clearly fabricated by the author of the page. Neither I found any source explicitly referring to it as Maratha–Nizam wars nor did I find sources for its fictional timeline of 1720-1819. Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!!
I have noticed that there is a discussion happening about the articles on the Maratha-Nizam wars. I am eager to participate and cast my vote for the article. After thoroughly reviewing the content, I have concluded that it comprehensively covers all the necessary information, supported by reliable sources in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines.I think that all the paragraphs in the article accurately depict the context and are verifiable according to Wikipedia guidelines WP:VERIFY.
Here is one source that mentioned it as maratha nizam wars:
•Britannica:[9]
•Britanicca(for further details):[10]
  • I think britannica is a better and clearly citing source for the article.It's verifiability and reliability can be checked at ->
•[11]

Timeline isn't mentioned in the heading of article but it is mentioned in the infobox.If there are any doubts some some sources are definitely needed for a better understanding about the timeline with the citation.But if article is undergoing deletion because of it's heading than the Britannca is one of the sources that cites it as 'Maratha -Nizam War' not as 'Anglo-Maratha War'.[12]

  • Suggestion:It is recommended that the editors and administrators involved in this matter thoroughly examine all sources and make decisions from a neutral Favourable Renaming the article to 'Maratha-Nizam War' instead of 'Maratha-Nizam Wars' would be appropriate as the Britannica source also refers to it in the singular form, given that the article primarily covers individual battles rather than overarching conflicts.
Thanks!! Kemilliogolgi (talk) 10:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean, but the source you shared doesn't cover the Maratha-Nizam war in its body instead it spun around the Anglo-Maratha wars. If you'll search "Maratha-Nizam war" under Britannica's sort searching then you won't find any article on Maratha Nizam war through filter searching under Britannica again I don't know how you concluded that it covers this topic while we don't find a single article on it. We know that Britannica is WP:RS but as I said it doesn't even cover this topic so kindly provide sources for Maratha-Nizam war 1720-1819.
Timeline isn't mentioned in the heading of article but it is mentioned in the infobox, that's the issue we don't find this particular timeline in any source. The author too is clearly aware of this therefore they didn't cite any source for this timeline. It's clearly a mix of several hostilities between Nizam, Marathas, Anglos and French and represented as "Maratha Nizam war". Based Kashmiri (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The nominator clearly lacks an understanding of what WP:GNG entails, and I strongly suspect that this action is against me as the author because I nominated their articles for AFD. Please specify the section on the talk page where the sources were synthesized. Neither the Anglo-Maratha wars nor the French-Maratha conflicts are included; technically, it's feasible to add them since the article's scope covers conflicts between two parties: the Nizam and the Marathas, regardless of whether they were supported by the British East India Company, the French, or any other entities. I am listing the sources that explicitly state "Maratha-Nizam War(s)".
  1. [13]
  2. [14]
  3. [15]
  4. [16]
  5. [17]
  6. [18]
  7. [19]

822 results in JSTOR [20] almost 3,000 results in ProQuest[21]. and we have several other sources that do not explicitly mention "Maratha-Nizam wars" but provide detailed descriptions of the entire conflicts (a lot in the article itself). I will await the nominator to post the synthesized part on the talk page. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, not a platform for someone to boast their ego.--Imperial[AFCND] 16:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator clearly lacks an understanding of what, then why don't you show us a single source covering this event as Maratha-Nizam war (1720-1819)?
Neither the Anglo-Maratha wars nor the French-Maratha conflicts are included; technically, it's feasible to add them since the article's scope covers conflicts between two parties be sure. Is it conflicts or wars? It's clearly noticeable from the artificial timeline of this event (1720-1819) that it's heavily synthesized.
the Nizam and the Marathas, regardless of whether they were supported by the British East India Company, the French, or any other entities. I am listing the sources that explicitly state "Maratha-Nizam War Now that is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH you're mixing Anglo Maratha wars and French conflicts with Marathas just to get a fictional timeline so it can be "Nizam victory", Now I'd say it's also WP:POVFORK and please WP:DONTHOAX. Now let us look at the sources provided by you. The first two sources are identical.
  • [22] only gives insights of Maratha-Nizam war of 1751-52 but there's no Maratha nizam war 1720-1819 as currently the timeline decided by the author.
  • The third one [23] only talks about Maratha-Nizam hostilities of 1785-1787 again there's no mention of Maratha-Nizam war 1720-1819.
  • Fourth source [24] is not accessible so it'd be helpful if you provide a quotation for the Maratha-Nizam war 1720-1819.
  • Coming to the 5th source [25] again not accessible so provide a quotation for Maratha-Nizam war 1720-1819
  • Next [26] only found a topic of "Maratha-Nizam relations" I wonder if this led you to the conclusion of Martha-Nizam war 1720-1819.
  • At last, [27] this also can't be accessed so provide a quotation for Maratha-Nizam war 1720-1819.
Now coming to filter/sort keyword searching through JSTOR and ProQuest. Anyone can see that, It gives NO result for even the "Maratha-Nizam War" as a whole forget including timeline, all we see is individual results for Maratha and Nizam. So that's how you concluded that it has almost 3800 results (from both JSTOR and ProQuest)?
You have yourself yelled that we have several other sources that do not explicitly mention "Maratha-Nizam wars" but provide detailed descriptions of the entire conflicts hence proved it contains synthesis. And above too the sources provided by you don't give insights of Maratha-Nizam war 1720-1819.Based Kashmiri (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ImperialAficionado Indeed Wikipedia is a collaborative project therefore we have to make sure that an article shouldn't exist in mainspace as long as it doesn't pass general notability, and contains synthesis, original research and POVFORK. And No one is being egoistic here. Why do you think so?Based Kashmiri (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Based Kashmiri, you're just increasing the volume of discussion with no improvement. You still haven't provided the synthesised part in the talk page, failed to prove it's not notable (waiting for others to make thier comments). There is a thing called WP:UCS. The "Maratha–Nizam wars" basically ends with the fall of the Marathas, as their conflicts lasted till then. The article body covers the contributions of the Nizam for the fall of the Marathas. Cheers. Imperial[AFCND] 07:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I literally showed how the sources provided by you (most of them don't even cover "Maratha-Nizam war" but cover some relations and hostilities). We just need a single source for the specific Maratha-Nizam war 1720-1819 and I'll pull off the prod with myself. Maratha–Nizam wars" basically ends with the fall of the Marathas, as their conflicts lasted till then. At least provide a source to back your statements, this is WP:OR and no WP:UCS doesn't give you waivers for extending the timeline on your own. We're still waiting for you to provide sources for your defined Maratha-Nizam war (1720-1819).Based Kashmiri (talk) 10:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominators arguments are nowhere found in the article. I don't understand how this doesn't pass WP:GNG. Suggesting the nominator to keep personal bias away, as it seems to be the problem here.--DeepstoneV (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Nominators arguments are nowhere found in the article. I don't understand how this doesn't pass WP:GNG." You also didn't understand that a screenshot from YouTube video is not a reliable source (at Gupta empire talk page), I already replied how this article is fully based on WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, POVFORK and it doesn't passes general notability. Feel free to reply to my response below. Based Kashmiri (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear, you're taking everything personally. What was the reason to drag another discussion here? Please don't continue this thread, or use other talk pages. Imperial[AFCND] 07:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ImperialAficionado it'd be better if you give this advice to DeepstoneV as at first they accused me of having Personal bias. Based Kashmiri (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article appears to amalgamate various wars without citing any reliable sources that acknowledge such a conflict by this name. The timeline presented (1720-1819) seems implausible, and the outcome is equally questionable. Even if the Nizam’s actions in Anglo-Maratha Wars contributed to the Maratha downfall, that could be the subject of a separate article. It’s not appropriate to include it in a comprehensive conflict spanning over a century. This inclusion could distort the narrative and lead to misinformation. A MUST DELETE ONE! --Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 08:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, we might also have to delete Ahom-Mughal conflicts, Roman–Persian Wars, Roman–Parthian Wars....etc. Imperial[AFCND] 08:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And probably Ghaznavid campaigns too! Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ImperialAficionado kindly refrain from pushing WP:OTHERCONTENT you should go through WP:AADP. I'd not extend it because of WP:OTHERCONTENT but since you already gone off topic so I'd respond to it.
    In Roman–Persian Wars and Roman–Parthian Wars the dates and timeline of the wars are already cited in the lead but that's not the case in Maratha–Nizam wars you have not cited any source in the lead or even in the article body to support your preferred timeline of 1720-1819 neither you're providing sources here for this timeline.
    Similarly we can't do the same with Hundred Years' War and Seven Years' War because its timeline is affixed by scholars. Based Kashmiri (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There was no prolonged war but the wars that happened time to time with each of them taking years of years. The article is misleading also because it was the British Empire who caused elimination of Maratha Empire, not Hyderabad State. Ratnahastin (talk) 11:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't find any source for this war either which is almost a hundred year timeline conflict. WP:LOTSOFGHITS and WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE proves nothing (Considering that no such protracted war ever happened in South-Asia). The above Keeps are more like WP:BUTITEXISTS and WP:EDPN.

Recommended: I'd suggest WP:SPLIT for a particular war/conflict/hostility (of course, only ones which are notable). --Jonharojjashi (talk)

Muhammad Saleh Thattvi[edit]

Muhammad Saleh Thattvi (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)

Lack of notability. Only 1 source of any kind mentions Muhammad Salih Tatahwi (misspelled throughout wikipedia article). That would be Savage-Smith, Emilie; Belloli, Andrea P. A. (1985). "Islamicate Celestial Globes: Their History, Construction, and Use". Smithsonian Studies in History and Technology (46). Washington, D.C., where he gets barely a few sentences. The other sources cited do not mention him at all. Based on searches on google scholar, that one source is the only secondary source to mention him; all sources on google web search are derived from wikipedia. Also, as is, almost everything on the article is wrong, including the spelling of his name, his place of birth, and the time period he lived in, and what kind of globes he made, and it incorrectly places him in mathematician and astronomer categories. All other details are about other people and historical trends already covered elsewhere on wikipedia. Hi! (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Mathematics, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The subject here wrote his name in a different alphabet, for which there are multiple correct transliterations. (So, the correct spelling of his name is something like "محمد صالح التاتفي"; at least, that is what Google Translate gave to me.) If kept, we should use the most common transliteration. No strong opinion on notability; this could use the attention of a Persian, Arabic and/or Urdu speaker, as there may be be sources in those languages. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For a brief article I think there's just enough material in the reference you indicated, to quote the main part of it:
Besides the Lahore family workshop, there was in the seventheenth century another maker in northwestern India who was producing globes that appear to be cast seamless globes. The instrument maker is known by three astrolabes and two globes (Nos. 25 and 29). On the earlier globe, executed in 1070 H/AD 1659-1660 at the request of a certain Shaykh cAbd al-Khaliq, the maker signed himself as Muhammad Salih Tatah-wi, while on the second globe, made in 1074 H/AD 1663-1664 he signs as Muhammad Salih Tatawi. The spelling of Tatah-wi, which uses quite unusual orthography, is probably an attempt on his part to indicate the pronunciation of the name, for with the second spelling one might be inclined to pronounce it Tatwi. It seems unlikely that he was actually from Tatta in the delta of the Indus river as some have suggested, since the name of the town is written with different characters and should more accurately be transliterated Thattha.
Both globes by Tatawi seem to be quite precise with full sets of constellation figures, though the available photographs of his earlier globe show little detail. Of special interest is the fact that the second globe has the names of the constellations and the signature written in both Arabic and in Sanskrit (see Figure 18, which also clearly shows a plug from the casting process). One might speculate that this maker perhaps worked in the Kashmir area, where at the end of the sixteenth century cAli Kashmiri ibn Luqman may have produced his apparently seamless metal globe. Kashmir was a region where Sanskrit was the language until replaced for official purposes by Persian in the late fifteenth century, and consequently might have been an area where a globe in both Arabic and Sanskrit would have been requested.
... The use of the word c_amal is usual with Diya al-Din of the Lahore workshop as well as later makers such as Muhammad Salih Tatawi of the seventeenth century, ...
There are also some details given on two of his globes (one in the Red Fort Archaeological Museum), and references are indicated to be present in Robert T. Gunther The astrolabes of the world and W. H. Morley Description of a Planispheric Astrolabe Constructed for Shah Sultan Husain Safawi, King of Persia, and Now Preserved in the British Museum; Comprising an Account of the Astrolabe Generally, with Notes Illustrative and Explanatory: to Which Are Added, Concise Notices of Twelve Other Astrolabes, Eastern and European, Hitherto Undescribed. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bannu[edit]

Battle of Bannu (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 battle is not historically accurate and the page is littered with various passages which are not correctly cited and the references cited are inaccurate, and the page itself requires deletion.

Battle of Gandgarh[edit]

Battle of Gandgarh (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 battle is not historically accurate and the sources are unreliable and relies heavily on WP:Raj sources. The page requires deletion.

Muscovite–Ukrainian War (1674–1676)[edit]

Muscovite–Ukrainian War (1674–1676) (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)

Case similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muscovite–Ukrainian War (1658–1659). Cossack-Russian fighting was part of the Russo-Turkish War (1676–1681) and partially Polish–Ottoman War (1672–1676). Doroshenko was an Ottoman vassal during that time. Russia was trying to conquer entire Ukraine using the fact that the Ottoman Empire was engaged in the war with Poland. They besieged Doroshenko in Chigirin, but he was saved by a Turkish army in 1675. A year later another Russian campaign caused Doroshenko to switch alliances and join Russians.

Of course the name itself is problematic. Doroshenko was only one of the few Cossack hetmans at that time, and he was ruling only part of the Right-bank Ukraine as an Ottoman vassal. There was also supported by Poland Ostap Hohol, and supported by Russia Ivan Samoylovych. Marcelus (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Marcelus (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nearly all of this is unsourced so it is not possible to merge. As in the aforementioned AfD, there is very little that supports the idea of a separate war between "Ukraine" and "Moscow";[28] this was part of a larger war and pushes a certain narrative. Much of this looks like OR presumably based on two sources not reliable for history. Mellk (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: largely unsourced original research of a topic of dubious provenance. Nothing worth merging. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Hoshiarpur (1711)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Battle of Hoshiarpur (1711) (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 battle is not historically accurate and when and where the battle took place does not appear in any historical work, printed, or in manuscript and thus it is required for the deletion of this page

Battle of Hasan Abdal (1813)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Battle of Hasan Abdal (1813) (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 page is littered with unreliable sources to promote ethnic heroism and its statements are not fully cited and there is no contemporary proof of the occurrence of this battle and the page requires deletion.

Battle of Kashmir (1814)[edit]

Battle of Kashmir (1814) (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 page is littered with unreliable sources and relies heavily on WP:Raj sources to promote ethnic heroism and the events do not indicate a victory for the Afghans. This page requires deletion.

Keep: Three of the sources are WP:RAJ which can be removed as they are only passing by sources attributed by other secondary sources. Not sure what you're referring to as unreliable sources here, would be nice for you to identify, because historians like Hari Ram Gupta are more then WP:RS. Also pages 124-126 clearly show the expedition was a failure and an Afghan victory: [29]. Noorullah (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further adding from the source: "It took Ranjit Singh four years to overcome his defeat and disgrace suffered in the Kashmir expedition of 1814."[30] (page 128) Noorullah (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:
Only the sources from WP:RAJ mention any defeat occurring and are clearly required for the final result of this article but do not pass the standards of Wikipedia. Historians that you noted such as Hari Ram Gupta are specific on page 125 that , “Aghar Khan joined Ruhullah Khan. They spread the rumour that the Sikh army had been defeated.” There was no battle against Wazir Fateh Khan mentioned as noted in this article nor any defeat in battle against Wazir Fateh Khan. The article itself is littered with errors as it mentions this is the third campaign or invasion of Ranjit Singh. This is incorrect as there was no campaign in 1812 as noted by Hari Ram Gupta and in 1813 the campaign was a joint collaboration with Wazir Fateh Khan where the former was to give a tribute.
Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The expedition ended in failure, Hari Ram Gupta made this clear on page 126 [31] when he clearly identifies it as a Sikh defeat. The WP:RAJ sources can be removed as I said because they are only passing references while attributed by other secondary sources (such as Hari Ram Gupta). Also the article is being cleaned up, and thus can stay per WP:HEY. Noorullah (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The initial issue of the outcome of this so called battle is not being referenced correctly is still present & or the outcome is using  WP:RAJ source which doesn’t meet requirements of Wikipedia. Two WP:RAJsources are still there in the article in order to present a victory which are not reliable. Therefore it is factually incorrect to say it is passing by reference. The expedition ended in failure, but Gupta makes it clear that any battle taking place was just a rumor on pg 125 that , “Aghar Khan joined Ruhullah Khan. They spread the rumour that the Sikh army had been defeated”in book History Of The Sikhs Vol. V The Sikh Lion of Lahore and does not mention any battle taking place. The author G.S Chhabra you referenced on pg 115 does not mention any direct defeat or battle by Azim Khan either , neither has it been referenced that the losses were heavy. Any mention of any battle taking place in the article is unreliable , Captain Amrinder is not a historian but a politician is thus not a Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
So to point out that the article has significantly improved is inaccurate as the initial concern is not fixed and no improvements have been done to fix it. Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no WP:RAJ sources on the page as per your most recent comment. Gupta clearly states Ranjit Singh was defeated as mentioned above. Noorullah (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles in Croatia[edit]

List of battles in Croatia (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:UNSOURCED. Follow-up to List of battles in Belgium (deleted recently). NLeeuw (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Croatia. NLeeuw (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly passes WP:NLIST, the lack of sourcing is not an issue considering it's a verifiable list article. SportingFlyer T·C 22:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of battles by geographic location. Unsourced page. ToadetteEdit! 08:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That article is also almost completely WP:UNSOURCED, so that won't solve the issues. I may nominate that list as well, sooner or later, but I decided to begin with the spin-offs first. NLeeuw (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Battles involving Croatia and its five sub-categories cover this. A list article is more useful than categories, since columns can be made, listing the year and additional information to be easier to sort. Dream Focus 08:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's different: battles involving Croatia ≠ battles in Croatia. We do not categorise battles by location per WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN.
    If we want a list of battles involving Croatia, analogous to Category:Battles involving Croatia and analogous to List of wars involving Croatia, we can. But then this whole article needs to be Renamed, Rescoped, rigorously Purged of inapplicable battles, and Re-populated with applicable battles which actually involved the Republic of Croatia (and any commonly recognised historical predecessors), including battles outside of Croatian territory involving the Croatian military.
    That is so much fuss - because it's an entirely different scope - that we better WP:TNT this and start over, based on the actual contents of Category:Battles involving Croatia (and recycling some sources from its articles), and not the WP:UNSOURCED current contents of this article. NLeeuw (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. I struct out my vote. I wasn't aware of the rule against grouping things by location. Dream Focus 13:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also only found it a few days ago, to be honest. I've been working on this category tree for some time, currently proposing to merge, rename or delete a couple of them at WP:CFD, should you be interested (see 4 May 2024). NLeeuw (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This was my accept at AfC. I dismissed the previous challenge of 'unsourced' that led to it being draftified, as that didn't apply to a list, however I was unaware of WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN so in hindsight, I would not have accepted it. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't aware of it either until recently. At Talk:List of battles by geographic location#Splitting Proposal, I've just outlined some CfD and AfD jurisprudence on accepting or deleting categories or lists/articles on battles by location. Long story short: CfD categorically (pun intended) rejects them, AfD often accepts them, but for different reasons and under certain conditions. The two project spaces are thus at odds. NLeeuw (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles in Algeria[edit]

List of battles in Algeria (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:UNSOURCED. Follow-up to List of battles in Belgium (deleted recently). NLeeuw (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles in Albania[edit]

List of battles in Albania (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:UNSOURCED. Follow-up to List of battles in Belgium (deleted recently). NLeeuw (talk) 22:17, 6 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.[1]
  • 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[2]
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]
  • 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]

Devapāla's Campaigns against Pratiharas[edit]

Devapāla's Campaigns against Pratiharas (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 copy of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala invasion of Kannauj. Same content, fails WP:GNG, poorly found in reliable sources. Part of Tripartite struggle, can be added to it. Imperial[AFCND] 14:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No results for "Devapāla's Campaigns against Pratiharas" in Google scholar, JSTOR [32], and literally zero result from Google keyword searching. Hardly found few sources (including what present in the article), that barely mentioned no more than two or three lines about the so called "Campaign". And passes GNG? See WP:SIGCOV. Imperial[AFCND] 15:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is very notable and has been given significant coverage in reliable sources therefore it passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.
  • The Gurjara lords against whom Devapāla fought must have been the Pratīhāra rulers. It is possible that Nagabhața II tried to assert his power after the death of Dharmapāla and if, as some scholars believe, he transferred his capital to Kanauj, he must have achieved some success. But Devapāla soon re-established the Pala supremacy, and it was possibly after his (Devapāla's) successful campaign against the Pratihāras that he advanced to the Hūņa and Kamboja princi- palities. Nāgabhața's son, Ramabhadra, probably also had his kingdom invaded by Devapāla. The next Pratihāra king Bhoja also, in spite of his initial success, suffered reverses at the hands of Devapāla, and could not restore the fortunes of his family so long as the Pala emperor was alive. Thus Devapāla successfully fought with three generations of Pratihāra rulers, and maintained the Pala supremacy in Northern India.[3][4]
Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It is notable because I said so." Industrial Insect (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore WP:RS which has significant coverage about the topic of the article and just say "It is notable because I said so.", wow.
The article is notable for several reasons. First, it has significant coverage from WP:RS. Second, It passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. I hope this helps clarify why the article meets the notability criteria. Based Kashmiri (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article appears to be successfully meet the criteria set forth in Wikipedia's Notability guidelines and the issues raised in the nomination do not appear to be evident within the article itself.
Khotanese26 (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plunder of Murshidabad (1742)[edit]

Plunder of Murshidabad (1742) (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: NOTABILITY. The event is a part of the Maratha invasions of Bengal, and the prelude of First Battle of Katwa. Not much coverage in WP:RS, except some scattered lines. Not enough coverage in reliable sources for an article; and "Plunder of Murshidabad" is WP:OR as such an event is not named by any Historians. Imperial[AFCND] 09:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. The nawabi had since 1740 been ruled by a Turkish adventurer, Alivardi Khan, who had, from the abundant treasury at Murshidabad, sent two crores of rupees to Delhi to secure his nomination as nawab. The British found him ready to sustain the conditions in which business flourished, but he was no match for the Marathas, who swept into Bengal in April 1742 and plundered Murshidabad. Their outfliers caused panic in Calcutta where the Company began to dig the Maratha ditch to keep them out. For the next seven years the golden province of Bengal was afflicted by roving armies, until Alivardi Khan bought off the Marathas by paying chauth of 12 lakhs of rupees a year. The merchants of Calcutta trembled, but one merchant in Bengal saw only advantage in the weakness of formerly powerful Mughal princes in the face of Maratha attack.
3. <ref>{{Cite book |last=Cavaliero |first=Roderick |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BxKJDwAAQBAJ&newbks=0&hl=en |title=Strangers in the Land: The Rise and Decline of the British Indian Empire |date=2002-06-28 |publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing |isbn=978-0-85771-707-8 |language=en}}</ref>
4. There are already articles on Wikipedia which are based on the place name where the event took place and this doesn't violate WP:OR. Akshunwar (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Lahore (1800)[edit]

Siege of Lahore (1800) (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)

Similarly one of these pages again that fail WP:HISTRS, some are also primary sources. Noorullah (talk) 20:44, 4 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! 22:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second Sikh Invasion of Rohilkhand[edit]

Second Sikh Invasion of Rohilkhand (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)

Unreliable sources per WP:HISTRS, many primary sources as well. Noorullah (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are only 2 primary sources mentioned, and the authors I cited are historians who aswell proved the event that happened the deletion is unnessecary. Alvin1783 (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded Keep argument here so Soft Deletion is not appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Goindval[edit]

Battle of Goindval (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)

Another one of these poorly sourced pages that fail WP:HISTRS, many primary sources that could also categorize under WP:RAJ. Noorullah (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Primary sources that were earlier indicated have been removed and the work is not mirroring others, the article looks decent and is sourced well and has been cleaned up nicely and can stay as per WP:HEY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Festivalfalcon873 (talk • contribs) 2024-05-11 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please add your signature to any comments in an AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment by Festivalfalcon873 , thank you , I will do this from now on. Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-- The article is still littered with plenty of old sources that are not WP:RS. There is nothing "cleaned up" besides the removal of one primary source which does not account for all the other sources that mentioned above, are poor in quality. [33] Noorullah (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not use a single WP:RAJ source and contains mostly scholarly sources, now coming to your assessment of reliability. Your nominations are not dependent upon constructive criticism or from a neutral standpoint. You did not identify upon which sources you think are unreliable, the sources that are being used are more then WP:RS such as Hari Ram Gupta, however your criticism or nominations do not come from neutral standpoint.  For ex: if a source fits your narrative it becomes reliable, if a source does not fit your narrative then it’s deemed unreliable. This article should stay as per WP:HEY as the sources currently being used such as Hari Ram Gupta , Ganda Singh are universally approved scholars.
—Festivalfalcon873 Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article was using WP:RAJ sources until you REMOVED them, not sure why you are presenting it as if they weren't here in the first place. [34]
Hari Ram Gupta is a reliable source, but he does not mention it as a "Sikh victory", nor mentions anything about looting, or how many prisoners were relieved as shown here. [35]
Moving on to other sources... You cite Mehta, yet on page 302, there's no mention of such a battle at all? Why are you citing from books that don't mention such a thing? [36]
Gopal Singh is a primary source, and is not scholarly at all. The rest of the sources are unreliable that fail WP:HISTRS, many of the individuals not being historians either. Noorullah (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention, reliable sources don't even call this the "Battle of Goindval" as Southasian showed above, there's no instance of this being a battle. Noorullah (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-- First, the issue of being Wikipedia:RAJbeing present is fixed, as this has been removed. This should not be any issue as pointed out initially.
- Second, Hari Ram Gupta mentions clearly on pg 168, “At the ferry of Goindwal on the Beas the Sikhs are said to have relieved the invader of a number of captives, who were afterwards sent to their homes” citing sources such as Shamshir Khalsa pg105 ,( https://archive.org/details/HistoryOfTheSikhsVol.IiEvolutionOfSikhConfederacies1707-69/page/n184/mode/1up) this source, as you pointed out is a WP:RS. During this battle, the objective (releasing captives) was complete & thus a victory. Similarly in the book Ahmad Shah Durrani (1959) by Singh Ganda ,pg 264, “No sooner did the Shah enter the Panjab than the Sikhs, as usual, began to harry him during his march. Under the command of Sardar Jassa Singh Ahluwalia, they surprised the Afghans at the ferry of Goindwal, on the right bank of the Beas, and succeeded in releasing from their clutches as many as two thousand and two hundred women captives, who were restored by them to their homes.” (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.503016/page/n292/mode/1up) Similarly this source is also citing from same Shamshir Khalsa pg105 , mentioning the numbers and quoting of the Sikhs succeeding (victory) in completing their objective. Both are scholarly sources which are citing factual evidence.
- Third, you made a mistake that Mehta did not cite this occurrence. Mehta both showed this occurrence and spoke of Sikhs making their attack and succeeding in their objective of releasing captives. Now let me show you, from Advanced Study in the History of Modern India 1707-1813 page 302, “They made a surprise attack on the Afghan camp in strength at the ferry of Goindwal on the Beas and secured the liberation of a large number of the Maratha captives, who were being held by the Afghans as enslaved labourers for the carriage of their baggage to Afghanistan; they were subsequently sent to their homes in the south with suitable provisions.” Here is the clear factual description of the battle or occurrence which is being written but you deny for your own personal viewpoints. You pointed out further that it does not talk about looting , now going back to Advanced Study in the History of Modern India 1707-1813 pg302 by Mehta it perfectly describes the looting occurred, “ Nevertheless, they pounced upon the staggerers and carried away their booty and the baggage along with their horses all the same”. (https://books.google.com/books?id=d1wUgKKzawoC&pg=PA302&lpg=PA302&dq=%22Nevertheless,+they+pounced+upon+the+staggerers+and+carried+away+their+booty+and+the+baggage+along+with+their+horses+all+the+same%22&source=bl&ots=HOSZf38kUl&sig=ACfU3U080Q5ItKoniFa0n5ysIrLIUaEKyg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi72fXMwImGAxWJIDQIHb0pDLIQ6AF6BAgUEAI#v=onepage&q&f=false) Therefore your statement on both things your pointed is factually incorrect.
- Fourth, again you made a mistake. Dr. Gopal Singh is a scholarly source and as noted here (https://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Gopal_Singh) whose work has been lauded by other scholars and literary figures including Nobel laureate Pearl Buck , who is onpar in credibility to that of J.S Grewal and Hari Gupta which are more then WP:RS.
-Even prominent historians & scholars such as Ganda Singh agree in the book Jassa Singh Auliwalia on pg 106 that this battle attack which occurred on Goindwal was successful , “Therefore, S. Jassa Singh drew his sword and taking a few selected Singhs with him reiched Goindwal and attacked the Durranis when they were crossing the river ; even before they could imagine what had happened, he freed the bonded women. He gave them pocket expenses and sent them to their respective places. This sympathy and bravery made S. Jassa Singh famous in the length and breadth of the entire country, and his valour and selfless service became a household word, and he became famous as a Liberator of bonded women.” ( https://apnaorg.com/books/english/sardar-jassa-singh-ahluwalia/sardar-jassa-singh-ahluwalia.pdf). Therefore the credibility of this event should be accepted by the reviewer of this discussion.
- If there are further issues or concerns that need to be fixed , such as unreliable sources or issues in the article, then it is the job of the nominator to point them out and identify them and describe them. However, to generalize something because you don’t agree with it based mostly on personal reasons, such as not personally agreeing with an author, then is not suitable for the platform on Wikipedia. Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but please follow WP:KEEPCONCISE. See Wikipedia:Wall of text. I'm not going to read that but here's instead the main point I'm driving. The title of this page is completely WP:OR, no sources mention it as a "battle of Goinvdal".Noorullah (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battles of Inje and Qalaburun[edit]

Battles of Inje and Qalaburun (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)

One of many poorly created articles translated from the Azeri Wikipedia (for more details, see [37]).

Nothing comes up when searching "Battles of Inje and Qalaburun", which makes me fail to see how it meets the notable criteria. And the most cited sources here (5 out of 6 citations) is by a genocide denier [38] Jamil Hasanli, who is also closely connected to the Aliyev-ruled Azerbaijani government, notorious for its historical negationism/revisionism [39] [40] [41] and anti-Iranian sentiments [42], which is not really ideal for an article about the history of Iran. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:20, 3 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! 23:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bajirao's Konkan Campaign[edit]

Bajirao's Konkan Campaign (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 entirely based on original research and the synthesis of multiple events involving various states. It discusses military conflicts labeled as "Bajirao's Konkan Campaign," incorporating entities such as the Siddis, Nizam of Hyderabad, the British East India Company, and the Portuguese Empire. However, no reliable sources consider all these entities as belligerent allies against the Marathas during Bajirao I's campaign. The creator has conflated conflicts involving Bajirao with those of other kingdoms/states/entities and inserted "Maratha victory" in the infobox, despite the differing outcomes recorded in historical records. It's unclear what the author intended, but the content of the article largely duplicates information already present in numerous parent articles. This attempt seems to glorify an entity through the use of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, combining unrelated conflicts. Imperial[AFCND] 16:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment:If articles of this kind fall within the scope, we could also maintain an article titled Alexander the Great's Punjab Campaign, alongside Indian campaign of Alexander the Great and Battle of Hydaspes. Ironically, this would involve including both the Achaemenid Empire and the Pauravas in a single infobox!! That would afford everyone an opportunity to express their creativity, but this isn't the appropriate venue for it.--Imperial[AFCND] 16:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gauda–Gupta War[edit]

Gauda–Gupta War (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)

If the article focuses solely on the conflicts between the Gauda kingdom and the Guptas, it lacks WP:RS and historians do not consider these mutual campaigns as a single state of war, known as the "Gauda—Gupta War(s)". If we include the mutual conflicts between the Guptas and Gaudas in the article's scope, it becomes a result of original research and the synthesis of multiple conflicts. The conflicts involving Ishanavarman, Jivitagupta I, and Gopachandra are mentioned, but figures such as Kumaragupta III, Dharmaditya, and Samacharadeva are not addressed in the War section, but in the infobox. Upon reviewing the sources, authors are uncertain about the statements, with a weak consensus. In essence, the article combines non-notable military conflicts, cited by low-quality sources, involving different kingdoms—the Maukhari dynasty and the Later Gupta dynasty—against the Gauda kingdom, and labels it as the "Gauda—Gupta War". It adds minor conflicts to create the impression of significance, which is not justified. The article fails to meet GNG and contains original research. There are significant issues to address, AFD is limiting the discourse. Imperial[AFCND] 13:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep @ImperialAficionado There's no synthesis and OR, every cited source comes to the conclusion that Maukharis and later Guptas fought against Gaudas on behalf of the Gupta emperor.
  • It's quite likely that the war of Ishanavarman against the Gaudas whom he had forced to take shelter on the sea shore and the victory of Jivitagupta I over the enemies who stood on the sea-shore, refer to the expeditions launched by the Maukharis and the Later Guptas, separately or jointly, against the kings of Bengal discussed above who had declared their independence of the empire and had assumed the imperial title. Probably, the Maukhari and the Later Gupta rulers undertook these campaigns in the name of the Gupta emperor who was their nominal overlord, though their success increased their own power, and not of the emperor. From Goyal (1967).
  • The people of Gauda (W. Bengal) also achieved prominence, and a Maukhari chief claims to have defeated them. The Later Guptas also fought against some enemies who lived on the sea-shore. The reference in both cases may be to the kings of Bengal mentioned above, and the military campaigns of the Maukharis and the Later Guptas might have been undertaken, jointly or severally, on behalf of the Gupta emperor, their nominal overlord. Majumdar (1970).
Quoting these two should be enough. The other sources are right there, you should have thoroughly verified it before proposing AFD for this article. According to nom it's cited with low quality sources seriously? As far as I know the works of S.R. Goyal, R.C. Majumdar, K.K Dasgupta, H.K Barpujari and others are qualitatively reliable. If nom has any doubt for the cited sources then they should verify those at RSN.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonharojjashi (talk • contribs)
@Jonharojjashi, cited with low quality sources is referring my earlier statement in the proposal authors are uncertain about the statements, with a weak consensus, take the time to read the whole proposal reason. The weakness of the statements from the sources are evident from the above quotes, presented by yourself above. It's quite likely that...Probably, the Maukhari and the Later Gupta rulers un... from Goyal and The reference in both cases may be to the kings of Bengal mentioned above...and the Later Guptas might have been undertaken, jointly or from Majumdar. Keeping this weak statements aside, surprisingly I couldn't find any latest records about the event(s).--Imperial[AFCND] 17:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the issue then the article body should reflect the sources whether they have "weak consensus" or not. And that is what I have done in The War section. From what I have seen, many articles are made after being based on even less consensus, like Sasanian–Kushan Wars, you should also see my question regarding this at the help desk [43], and here the sources do say "possibly" so I can do the same in Infobox and article body (basically I'm reflecting what the sources say). Again I don't get what the problem is, just because sources hold weak consensus thus they are of low quality? And you didn't answer where does it contains synthesis and OR. Looks like you didn't even read the article and verify it with the cited sources and stuck to the possilikely words. -- Jonharojjashi (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear. That's why I said AFD is limiting the discourse, I need a bigger space to expose the whole mess within the article. And no need to drag Sasanian–Kushan Wars here. Take that to the respective talk section if you have any problem with it. Imperial[AFCND] 17:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No that should not be a reason, AFD is what exactly for highlighting all the cons of the article, there's no limiting discourse. Just say you can't show where this article contains synthesis, OR and weak sources. You're free to expose any drawbacks of this page. There's no need to be in the grey area. I'd assume that you're either procrastinating or failing to prove your points.
I'm not dragging Sasanian–Kushan Wars here instead, I cleared your doubts regarding "weak consensus" through it. Don't just throw away it by saying no need to drag.
For other voters: Note that there's an AFD discussion going on their own page [44] and also note that the nom hasn't clearly provided anything to show this article holds any OR, synthesis and weak sources. Jonharojjashi (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Hoberman[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:ACADEMIC. Multiple WP:BLP issues with the page, as well as sourcing issues and WP:NOR. The article was created by a WP:SPA IP address back in 2005. GuardianH (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning delete unless better sources can be found. I couldn't find anything independent of Hoberman himself or University of Texas. Cnilep (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep -- ugh, this article is a mess, a minefield of BLP and SPA and NOR problems (even the photo!). I won't weep for it if it's deleted. But we do have a full professor at a major research university (usually a good sign of a WP:PROF likely pass) with books by U. Chicago Press and Houghton Mifflin, which is probably enough with any of the controversies to pass WP:AUTHOR. But what a mess. There's the old saying "AfD is not cleanup" but a Soft Delete (=expired PROD, no prejudice against creating again) might be a good way to deal with the major BLP issues. And yet, I think the subject is more likely notable than not. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:12, 1 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! 23:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as NACADEMIC. I did some bold editing, removed promotional stuff, but also added in some academic references. His most controversial book gets over ~1100 cites on G-scholar. It is quite possible that many of those are debunking his thesis, but I believe that still counts toward academic qualifications. Lamona (talk) 05:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ladysmith – Naval Brigade Dragging 4.7 Guns into Ladysmith[edit]

Ladysmith – Naval Brigade Dragging 4.7 Guns into Ladysmith (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 indication that this is a notable film (well, a 31 second static shot). Apparently not only have we no idea who actually made it (just the producre), but we also don't know what is being shown according to this. Perhaps some list for this and many similar non-notable shorts may be feasible, but at the moment I don't see a good redirect target. Perhaps William Kennedy Dickson filmography, which gives an idea of the number of such ultrashort films that were made (and is clearly incomplete, as e.g. this very one isn't on that list). Fram (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 11:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ajmer[edit]

Battle of Ajmer (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)

There is no such a battle named "Battle of Ajmer" in any of the WP:RS nor any Historians named a battle as "Battle of Ajmer" between Mher tribe and Ghurids. The article body talks about a conflict between Mher tribe and Ghurids, whereas the infobox describes Rajputs as the belligerents. Neither from the source of R. C Majumdar, nor from Romila Thapar, I could even find a scattered line about this event. The actual event per cited is the prelude of Battle of Kasahrada (1197). The current content could be added into this parent article (edit: it is already present the background section). Fails WP:GNG, and not found any RS calling the event by the name of "Battle of Ajmer". Imperial[AFCND] 05:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Geography, and India. Imperial[AFCND] 05:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify or Very Weak Keep. The sources from Majumdar and Thapar, like ImperialAficionado I too could not verify or find on this Battle and would have opted for delete but the source from Dr Ashoka Srivastav from Department of history at University of Gorakhpur had me hanging from where the page got its attribution from. There is need for improvement on this page and some more detail that is missing or wrong about the battle, siege, and the belligerents. From Srivastav Belligerents were Mhers, many Hindu Rajas, Raja of Nagor, Raja of Nahrwala. It does not say Rajputs. More sources will help too. RangersRus (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 10:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is rapidly filling up with made-up Indian battles. Mccapra (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 00:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kalanaur (1748)[edit]

Battle of Kalanaur (1748) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources on this page almost all deal with WP:RAJ, with many of the sources (including Singh), tracing back to the Panth Prakash, which fails WP:RAJ. Some of these sources don't even state that such a thing happened, and nor do any other major sources regarding this campaign such as Hari Ram Gupta. Noorullah (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example, here's Hari Ram Gupta, who is a major historian in this region and has no recollection of such events whatsoever. [45] Singh (who relies on Prakash as stated on page 49) [46] Noorullah (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, India, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Copy and paste of previous AFD vote- Over the past year, these topic areas have been inundated with poorly written and sourced articles that paid no heed to neutrality, proper sourcing, or historical accuracy, but rather on aggrandizing their religion as much as possible. Tactics included an over reliance on primary sources and ref spamming Google books snippets or sources which only made negligible mention of topic at hand. This article is one of the many, many examples. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above, additionally, No historians calls this event by the name "Battle of Kalanaur", which makes the title is made up by WP:OR, and backed by religious texts.--Imperial[AFCND] 06:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Raj era source is if it's 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. Quick overlook, this page has four reliable sources and two of them are on the battle segment that I can see from historians Gandhi and Singh. RangersRus (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Two of the reliable sources are used in the aftermath section, while the other two in the battle rely on said primary source.
    The article in general is poorly written and no historians even call this battle the "Battle of Kalanaur", which as aforementioned by Imperial, would make this entirely WP:OR. Noorullah (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    you will find many pages created by editors where title is given pertaining to the location given in source where fight presumably happened. RangersRus (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @RangersRus, Only the two sources cited in the aftermath section (which has no connection with the article's scope) are reliable. Sikhs In The Eighteenth Century by Gandhi is not WP:HISTRS; both the publisher and the author are involved in religious-related areas. While the reliability of Ganda Singh is acceptable, I wouldn't cite him here due to his political involvement and stances, especially in Operation Blue Star, which are based on religious issues. Considering the article's scope falls within his area of interest, citing from him would not be appropriate imho. However, I would not object if his citation were to be reinstated again. And yeah, just because a military conflict was occurred at a place called "x", we can't call the conflict by the name "Battle of x", that lacks in the sources in this case.-Imperial[AFCND] 07:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not know about any or what political association of historian and maybe is best for discussion with evidence on WP:RSN. Some pages on wikipedia I came across these historians are well accredited. The location, you will find many pages created by editors where title is given pertaining to the location given in source where fight presumably happened and the source does not have to explicitly say the title but any piece of information that indicates location where the fight took place is used to create the title. You should reinstate the sources as the nomination is still in progress and use WP:RSN for discussion. RangersRus (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's best not to conflate RSN with AFD as it complicates the discussion. We can carry RSN later without mixing to this session. I'll reinstate the sources, but I still disagree with using titles like "Battle of X" regardless. The source must explicitly state "Battle of X" for it to be acceptable. If articles are created with such titles, it's preferable to move them to more suitable titles or assess whether they meet GNG. Imperial[AFCND] 17:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "The source must explicitly state "Battle of X" for it to be acceptable. If articles are created with such titles, it's preferable to move them to more suitable titles or assess whether they meet GNG." You are right here. I was giving examples of what I noticed how many page titles were made like the nomination here. But you gave a formidable tip. RangersRus (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Western Caribbean zone[edit]

Western Caribbean zone (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 reads somewhat similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Caribbean in that it fails to identify a specific, notable topic. Searching for "Western Caribbean zone" yields no useful results at all, and while the sources here are citations for specific facts, I can't find anything that discusses this as a region as a whole. Describing these historical eras seems like original research when combining what happened in some places over a long time without being able to describe their relationships to a specific region, rather than just about Central America or History of Central America with a bit of adjacent Mexico and Colombia tossed in. Reywas92Talk 20:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Geography, and Caribbean. Reywas92Talk 20:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Indeed it is very similar to the other 3 Caribbean subregion articles I nominated for deletion earlier today. It has sources, but those usually only deal with specific countries and not the purported wider region as a whole. NLeeuw (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge... In response here, I initiated this article in 2010 as a way to incorporate the Afro-Carribean diaspora into Central American history. Typically as it appears to me, work focused on Central America tends to leave out the important role played, as the original contribution did, that there is a complex set of African components in the region that were always connected to the the Caribbean, hence the Western Caribbean zone.
This includes, initially, the role of African groups like the Miskitos or Miskitos Zambos, with their international connections, to English colonies in particular, and then the use the English made of them to promote their own illegal (in Spanish eyes) trade with the region.
This was followed by the large scale migration from the English speaking Caribbean in conjunction with the building of the Panama Canal, and the actions of the fruit companies in particular. These communities are connected thought their adherence (today) to the English language (though many are bi-lingual), English customs, such as the Anglican church and other lesser religious groups that have home in the English Caribbean, to include customs like playing cricket.
I am perfectly willing to accept a merger with other areas, or a renaming, but I think that deletion of its content at least along the lines established here, is unnecessary and the piece is worthy of retention as a topic in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beepsie (talk • contribs) 21:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think History of Central America would be a good place to include most of this then. I agree with your comments that this is an important part of history, but even if this "zone" term is sometimes used, I don't think it needs to be a separate page like this. Reywas92Talk 00:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are definitely sources to support the term. I don't know why the conclusion is that there are no useful results at all - it seems to have been a British geographic term, and countries self-describe as being inside the zone. [47] SportingFlyer T·C 22:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I DO NOT agree on deleting this article because there is some important components that can help with the article. I'm currently not certain if a merger is possible while there there's a way to improve the nature of this article or we could just keep it as is while improving it. 20chances (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Italian language in Romania[edit]

Italian language in Romania (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 really about the Italian language in Romania. It’s mostly a coatrack about Italians in Romania and about the similarities between Romanian and Italian. Biruitorul Talk 21:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Italians in Romania per WP:ATD. Most of the article seems to be about Italians in Romania, with only a fraction about what the article should be about. Thus merge it and move the content actually about the the Romanian and Italian languages to a section of Italians in Romania or a section under Romanian or Italian. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and per Flemmish Nietzsche. Article is not mainly of its topic and has a lot of unsourced information. I don't think the topic is notable to justify its split from Italians in Romania, it's not like the language is very present in the country. Super Ψ Dro 22:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep part of it, merge the rest. The sections on the languages should be kept. The various sections about other topics, like Italian Emigration to Romania, belong in the article for Italians in Romania. I can see an argument for merging the language sections with that article but I do think that the language elements are worthy of their own article. Lamona (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why is Italians in Romania a preferable redirect target over Languages of Romania? IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 13:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Italian isn't listed there as a language used in Romania. I don't know why that is, but it seems to be based on something like census data. If Italian doesn't show in official statistics it probably shouldn't be addressed there. Lamona (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the latest census, there are 4105 native speakers of Italian in Romania. Biruitorul Talk 19:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because the use of a language in a country would intuitively be covered in the existing article for the minority speaking that language in the country. Super Ψ Dro 22:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Keep part of it, merge the rest"? I'm sorry but XFDcloser doesn't do this. If you vote "Keep", you can go ahead with a Merge on your own. But I can't close this as Keep and Merge, you have to pick one or the other outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holderness museums[edit]

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History Proposed deletions[edit]

History categories[edit]

for occasional archiving

Proposals[edit]

  1. ^ Sinha, Bindeshwari Prasad (1974). Comprehensive History Of Bihar Vol.1; Pt.2.
  2. ^ Diwakar, R. R. (1958). Bihar through the ages.
  3. ^ Majumdar, R. C. (2009). History and Culture of the Indian People, Volume 04, The Age Of Imperial Kanauj. Public Resource. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. pp. 50–51.
  4. ^ Others, Muzaffar H. Syed & (2022-02-20). History of Indian Nation : Ancient India. K.K. Publications. p. 287.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Social_science&oldid=1222352487"