Fort Towson

Add links

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. 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

Going Ape

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

This article was previously deleted after an expired PROD. I could not find significant coverage of this documentary in reliable sources. I could not find any critical reviews. The New York Times source states, in full: "This three-part series looks at the way humans mimic chimpanzee behavior, starting with the power walk and dominance posture of the alpha male." The Futon Critic is a press release. A redirect to National Geographic Channel might be appropriate. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The article should probably be marked as a stub in need for more references. As a National Geographic TV show featuring renowned primatologist and presenter Charlotte Uhlenbroek, it must have had coverage and reviews in media. The New York Times link is an example. JohnMizuki (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @JohnMizuki, I conducted a search and the only coverage of the show are brief announcements like the one in the NYT. A one sentence description is not significant coverage. The source's that you've added do not contribute to notability. The National Geographic sources are not independent and TV Guide is a one sentence description with links to find where to watch the show online.
    One way to establish notability would be to provide the three best sources that you can find. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding new sources that have been added: Broadway World is a NatGeo press release; OC Register has only three sentences about Going Ape: "This three-part series examines how similar human behavior is to that of our primate cousins. The show uses hidden cameras, social experiments and footage of apes and monkeys in the wild to show how human social behavior mirrors that of other species."; and Gizmodo is one sentence followed by a couple paragraphs quoting from a NatGeo press release description of the show.
    I will also add that I conducted my WP:BEFORE search on Google, Google News, and Newspapers.com, and the only sources I could find were one or two sentence TV Guide-type listings in newspapers, similar to the NYT. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even with the newly added citations, it seems to fail GNG. Nearly all of the sources (other than PRs) make brief mentions of the show. It lacks in-depth independent analysis/coverage from a reliable major pub. X (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xuanchuan

Xuanchuan (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 don't see the need for this article to stand alone, the current article could well be merged back into propaganda in China in several parts, some of which could be split out and put into Wiktionary. So I think it would be better to merge into Propaganda in China#Terminology. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 01:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Especially if you are the one to do the merger - you are a good and careful editor. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose owing to unnecessary wordiness. Merging Propaganda in China (7726 words) and Xuanchuan (1560 words) would result in 9286 words, which exceeds the Article size guidelines. Keahapana (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Keahapana: This is not a major problem, and given that a lot of the content is in fact duplicated and a significant portion of the xuanchuan content is unsourced, it is entirely possible to trim it down to meet the standard. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 05:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social science Proposed deletions

Language

Woke Mind Virus

Woke Mind Virus (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)

Feels entirely like WP:NEO. Half the usage section is just dedicated to Elon Musk (at the time of AFD nomination).

Look I understand Go woke, go broke exists, but that feels like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Is every popular iteration of a phrase invoking the ideas of wokeness going to have its own article?

According to the article, "Vanity Fair has titled whole sections of stories under the "Woke Mind Virus" label." This isn't actually a label that is selectable/catagorized/tagged like "politics", but a custom label for one article.

I do not doubt the phrase's usage in popular media and by influential people, but it is essentially the same thing as woke. I could go on, but I think this can be deleted and redirected to woke. Alternatively, this content can be merged into woke as its own section with the criticism. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since WP:NEO is cited, let us see what it says, Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, but in this case this phrase is very widely cited across an enormous variety of reliable sources. The phrase probably should also be mentioned at the woke article and other mentions should be added and included, but a page for Woke Mind Virus itself makes sense given the sources as broad and significant as they are. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Iljhgtn, yes it is popular term, this is already addressed. WP:NEO also says, Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. This is not in question. I do not doubt it will be utilized in large portions of media and scholarly works. Until it is shown to be its own distinct concept, it is essentially a branch term used to criticize wokeness. There is a criticism section in woke that this neologism can direct to in my opinion. Currently, Anti-woke redirects to woke. Anti-woke is an older term than woke mind virus and used it much more media/scholarly works. WMV is just a substitute term for being against wokeness (or anti-woke). Alternatively, I think a separate article that incorporates reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term titled something along the lines of "Criticisms of woke/wokeness" or even "anti-woke" could also be appropriate, where WMV redirects to. I do not see the point of a standalone article about Woke Mind Virus. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge/redirect no evidence that this neologism deserves a stand-alone wikipedia article. (t · c) buidhe 07:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NEO and has coverage by reliable sources. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 16:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selectively merge and redirect to woke. There's no separate subject here -- it's the same "woke" pejorative discussed in that article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Redirect, maybe i'm just biased because this is an inherently silly sounding phrase, but I don't see how it differentiates from the term "Woke" so a redirect there would be optimal. Samoht27 (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Woke, it's just a slight variation of the exact same thing. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A couple people have suggested a merge or redirect, but I would like to point out that this term "woke mind virus" actually has quite substantial coverage of its own differentiating it quite a bit from "woke" and therefore a mere mention of this term on that page seems to be inadequate. This source mentions the term as distinct but was early in coverage so does not yet mention what WMV means. This source mentions the WMV phrase in depth by itself completely independent of "woke". This source mentions the history of the term, especially as used specifically by Elon Musk since around 2021 and in reference to San Francisco and includes some of the defining language that separates and distinguishes this phrase at is popularly understood by sources, Despite his repeated use of the phrase, the precise meaning of “woke mind virus” has been difficult to pin down. Musk told Bill Maher during an interview on HBO: “I think we need to be very cautious about anything that is anti-meritocratic, and anything that … results in the suppression of free speech. Those are two aspects of the woke mind virus that I think are very dangerous.” This source speaks uniquely of the WMV by saying much about Musk's use of it from a critical perspective. This source again uses both "woke" as well as WMV and refers to them as distinct terms with their own meanings. This source predominantly focuses on just the "woke" phrase but has an important passing mention of WMV, though obviously passing mentions in general are not to carry weight towards an AfD consideration. This source covers the phrase and the Netflix mention with some detail. I believe the above, and much more can be found with fairly little work and effort actually to support an independent page for both the WMV phrase as well as woke and other phrases mentioned by other editors.Iljhgtn (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of these sources are not reliable, though. (t · c) buidhe 15:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian names of primate families

Bosnian names of primate families (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)

Violates WP:DICDEF. Occidental𓍝Phantasmagoria [T/C] 17:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of translations of The Lord of the Rings

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]
  • 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]

Italian language in Romania

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]

French exonyms

French exonyms (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)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

List of French exonyms for Dutch toponyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of French exonyms for German toponyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of French exonyms for Italian toponyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

PepperBeast (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, and Europe. PepperBeast (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT, not to mention being entirely unsourced. ---- D'n'B-t -- 14:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep this was just closed as no consensus a couple weeks ago, and has been re-nominated by the same nominator. Definitely a WP:TROUT or possibly even sanctions may be in order. SportingFlyer T·C 18:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    > just closed as no consensus a couple weeks ago
    That's... that's the point of re-nominating. To... create consensus where it wasn't possible to do so before. BrigadierG (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the mass deletion of all exonym listicles failed to reach consensus, so they are now listed separately. —Tamfang (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh. Well, that's still ridiculous then. The UN has a working group specifically on French exonyms, as does the French government, showing this is a valid encyclopedic topic. I don't know how any of you are getting to WP:NOTDICTIONARY here - these are not definitions or dictionary entries but rather valid lists - and WP:LISTCRUFT is simply an "i don't like it" argument. SportingFlyer T·C 19:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, an article on the working group might be interesting. But how is an endless list of French words for places more worthy than a list of French words for spices or engine parts? —Tamfang (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In that link, the author refers to the project as an attempt to create a database. Sure would be a shame if there was a policy called WP:NOTDATABASE. BrigadierG (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a database, though, it's a valid WP:LIST. SportingFlyer T·C 22:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In most of our lists, most of the entries have their own articles. Is there any prospect of an article about the French word for Bangkok? —Tamfang (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NLIST specifically says the entries in the list do not need to be notable enough for their own article, just that the group or set is notable. A simple Google scholar search lends more credibility to the fact this set is notable, such as [1] [2] [3], including (but not linking here) two articles on French exonyms for Polish place names. SportingFlyer T·C 23:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    … I meant to add: no consensus because not all such listicles are equally trivial, i.e., some do more than belabor the obvious fact that each language adapts foreign words (including placenames) to its own phonology and orthography. —Tamfang (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite true. There was no consensus because there was simply too much in the nom for one discussion. My bad. So, I'm going back through the area in a more rational way. Re-listing when no consensus emerges is what's supposed to happen. PepperBeast (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with nominator, this is a case of WP:NOTDICTIONARY BrigadierG (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus. Please include a link to any previous AFDs concerning these articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish exonyms

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

I've been everywhere, man. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I'm also nominating this, for the same reason. Note, there was a previous discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkish names for cities, towns, villages and geographical locations in Bulgaria in 2008.

List of Turkish exonyms in Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish exonyms in Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

PepperBeast (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If there were anything to say about the exonyms, it might be worth having. —Tamfang (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I was going to urge the nominator to additionally nominate all or most of the exonym lists they could find (such as German exonyms and plenty others), but apparently such a discussion already took place here a few weeks ago and resulted in no consensus. I don't see a specific argument made for the Turkish exonyms here. Therefore, I don't also find it logical to single out one of the lists. It would be much better if the List of Turkish exonmys in Bulgaria is discussed as part of another AfD. That discussion would not likely justify the deletion of a much more general page as Turkish exonyms. The Turkish exonmys in Bulgaria could be more easily deleted based on WP:TNT as it is poorly sourced or a sound rationale. (Just referencing a 15-year-old discussion is not enough.) Aintabli (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not singling out. I'm just doing this at a slower pace. The original AFD got no consensus a least in part because there was too much there for one discussion. Sheesh, I'm beginning to feel like I can do no right, here. PepperBeast (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The mass deletion proposal failed because not all of the exonym lists are equally trivial. French has already been renominated, and I expect others to follow. —Tamfang (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be nice to see some examples of the non-trivial exonym lists for contrast. Aintabli (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure there was any such sortening, though you can certainly read through the previous discussion. I'm going to be doing some more re-nominating, but I'm conscious of both the possibility of overwhelming the AFD-sphere with too many requests and restraints on my own time, so I'm absolutely not going to be trying to blast them all out at once. PepperBeast (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I can't say I have a strong feeling about the removal of the lists of exonyms, which was covered by the discussion in March. But seeing that this nomination currently singles out one of the lists for no reason and makes no strong points, I am against deletion. As I have pointed out, it should be discussed as part of a bundled nomination with all the other exonym lists. After a few weeks or months, the AfD from March may be followed up with an identical bundled nomination to form a solid consensus. Aintabli (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The "strong point" is that Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Additional points are that this is poorly ref'd and that much of the content isn't even exonyms; it's just Turkish spellings of place names. PepperBeast (talk) 12:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Current state of the article and its content are irrelevant when it comes to AfDs unless it’s WP:TNT. NOTDICTIONARY was also brought up in the previous discussion, which lacked consensus. The lack of a strong point is mainly rooted in how there is no demonstration of the list’s triviality. Examples of lists to keep could be helpful for example. Aintabli (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: delete both as just what you would find in a dictionary Chidgk1 (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Mccapra, Tamfang, Aintabli, and Chidgk1: I added List of Turkish exonyms in Greece to this discussion. PepperBeast (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just needs editing clean-up but there are a multitude of sources on this including books and from the UN, and it doesn't really fall into dictionary land. [4] [5], and there are probably additional sources in the Turkish. This needs cleanup, but not deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 17:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But the articles don’t exist on Turkish Wikipedia as far as I can tell Chidgk1 (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Turkish Wikipedia is in a horrible state even when it comes to Turkish-related topics. Regardless, it's not relevant. Aintabli (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see @Ushuaia1: has put a lot of effort in but as the Greece one has been unsourced for so many years I think that should also be deleted. I suggest Ushuaia1 publish the ex-Ottoman names such as Greece and Bulgaria outside Wikipedia as original research so they could explain their methods - for example if they talked to local people they could detail their recordings or correspondance or whatever as annexes to their paper. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is clearly a personal work, in the form of an unwelcome scientific paper, which, though, lacks the necessary attributes for Wikipedia inclusion; mainly, independent notability. The term itself is not encountered in most of the sources cited. A clear case of WP:SYNTHESIS full of slippery verbiage, of which the project is more than tired. -The Gnome (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"It's useful to have it here!"; "Of course, it's notable!"; "There are certainly sources out there!": None of these 'arguments' are acceptable in an AfD discussion. -The Gnome (talk) 11:31, 26 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! 22:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per WP:TNT, this is an unsourced WP:OR dictionary, most of the items do not have articles, but when they do the wl'd article rarely provides referenced support for the entry. TNT will provide an editor the opportunity to build a sourced article without this baggage.  // Timothy :: talk  00:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only per WP:TNT. Upon rethought, I can only say that this should best be deleted to avoid wasting time by trying to source the overwhelming majority of the list entries. I am not against its recreation, and my previous points largely stand. Aintabli (talk) 05:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 18:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dutch loanwords in Indonesian

List of Dutch loanwords in Indonesian (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)

Ehrmagerd, werds! As interesting as I find this, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. PepperBeast (talk) 12:34, 6 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! 06:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki Poorly sourced too. It is a better idea to move this to Wiktionary. The Banner talk 15:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more opinions and to see if anyone knows how to "transwiki".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: this list is not a dictionary entry or anything like it. The question of Dutch influence on Indonesian is plainly encyclopedic, and the list supports that by demonstrating its extent. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable topic. Legitimate SPINOFF from Indonesian language#Loan words of Dutch origin. Good that these ists are now submitted piecemeal. gidonb (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

List of French words of English origin

List of French words of English origin (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)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

List of French words of Gaulish origin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of French words of Germanic origin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of French words of Germanic origin (A-B) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of French words of Germanic origin (C-G) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of French words of Germanic origin (H–Z) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

PepperBeast (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it would be a good idea to move it to Wiktionary instead? Obviously these articles have value, so I think we should retain them, but in the other wiki. איתן קרסנטי (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar enough with Wiktionary policies to have an opinion. PepperBeast (talk) 12:24, 6 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! 22:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mae yr erthygl hon yn cynnwys llawer o eiriau sydd yn debyg iawn i eiriau Cymraeg (sydd hefyd yn iaith Geltaidd) sydd ddim yn dod o eiriau Lladin na Saesneg. Felly rydw i yn sicr ei fod yn adnodd pwysig iawn i'w chadw fel cofnod o eiriau Ffrangeg sydd yn dod o hen iaith Gaul, felly dylai gael ei chadw er mwyn ei phwysicrwydd. Nid yn unig oherwydd diwylliant Ffrangeg, ond y ddiwylliant Geltaidd sydd yn gorchuddio llawer o Orllewin Ewrop, yn cynnwys Sbaen, Y Wlad Belg, Y Swisdir, Gogledd Yr Eidal, a Gorllewin a De'r Almaen. Wrth ddileu'r dudalen hon, rydym yn dileu darn pwysig o'n hanes a'n diwylliant.
This article contains many words that are very similar to Welsh words (which is also a Celtic language) which do not come from Latin or English. Therefore I am certain it is a very important resource to be kept as a record of French and Celtic words that come from the old language of Gaul, so should be kept because of its importance. Not only for its importance in French heritage, but also for Celtic heritage which spans most of Western Europe, including Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, the North of Italy, and the West and South of Germany. Gareth ap Emyr (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Well, it's Euro-centric. The Academie Francaise isn't representative of French in Quebec, the Office de la Langue Francaise sets suggestions for Quebec French, which is mostly what we use here in Canada. This would need a rewrite for a more global view and most of this is unsourced. There's something here, but I'm not sure even a draft would fix this. Oaktree b (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A selfie is égoportrait [6], literally an ego-portrait. I suppose we could draft it, but this would be a project. Oaktree b (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to delete this one, we'd also have to delete all similar articles, and there's a lot (five just for the lists of English of French origin). I've never encountered such lists on the Wiktionary, but it would indeed maybe make more sense to have these there. But in the end it wouldn't make any major difference. Ulysse Verjus-Tonnelé (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind they do exist on Wiktionary actually! https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:English_terms_derived_from_French Ulysse Verjus-Tonnelé (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same for French words https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:French_terms_derived_from_English Ulysse Verjus-Tonnelé (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the opening context and various ancillary information are not adequately covered by the relevant Wiktionary categories. It is desirable to expand these articles into something like Influence of French on English which is an encyclopedic discussion of the topic and not just a list, but these lists are better than nothing and better than a link to a Wiktionary category. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet to take any particular action with this bundled nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete To be honest I'd just delete the lot of them, these seem too niche to be of interest here, without some further scholarly discussion around these words, which seem to be missing from the article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per @Eluchil404:'s recommendation of expanding the article to be similar to Influence of French on English. It has problems with the way it's currently written, but it isn't unrecoverable. Ships & Space(Edits) 01:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. No consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded articles


History

David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant)

AfDs for this article:
David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) (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)

Redirect to List of Jeopardy! contestants#David Madden, or Delete. Case of WP:BLP1E that was previously deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) (2nd nomination), but it was recreated. Referencing is very poor (there are no quality RS that cover the subject in any SIGOV outside of being in lists of famous winners). I tagged the article a year ago and suggested it should be redirected as IPs were constantly adding badly referenced WP:PROMO material about his other business interests, but when I WP:BOLDLY redirected it a few days ago, having not had any response to my notices, User:Robert McClenon felt it was better to send to AfD. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only seeing now that it was also at AfD a third time (that AfD wasn't logged on the Talk Page) where it was kept Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) (3rd nomination). Having read the sourcing that was provided for the 3rd AfD, I think it was pretty weak, and a redirect, to his entry on List of Jeopardy! contestants#David Madden would be a better solution. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

X (automobile)

X (automobile) (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 car/brand does not meet WP:N. I am unable to find any other sourcing, and the given source is only a listing that says "X (France) (1908-1909)." The article went unsourced for 18 years and the text has not been expanded upon since its original creation. Even given the age of this, it does not seem to have any claim to importance or historical significance since it existed for a year at most and "little is known about the marque." StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Jews in Mauritania

History of the Jews in Mauritania (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 vast majority of sources about Jews in the context of "Mauritania" are discussing Jews in the Roman provinces of "Mauretania," which encompass the north of present-day Morocco and Algeria, not Mauritania proper. The Jewish people don't appear to have ever had much of a presence in what is now Mauritania. There isn't much material to expand the article with, just minor controversies regarding recent antisemitic statements and sentiments in the country, which I believe shouldn't be what makes up the article. Mooonswimmer 15:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: As per nominator. Strong delete: Fails WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:V. Not just does this page contains antisemetic, proslavery and psyeudohistoric rhetoric that is potentially harmful, it is poorly sourced with one of the sources pointing to Wikipedia as its source (see here). Without the harmful commentary there's just nothing left for a standalone page. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 15:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete poorly sourced, anti-Semetic and pro-slavery rhetoric which shouldn't even be in the article, not to mention pseudohistory. One of the sources points to Wikipedia as its source (scroll down to the bottom). The Arabo-Berbers of present-day Mauritania in West Africa were immigrants to the that country, from what is now Morocco as per the nom's mention above. Mauritania in West Africa (or North West Africa), should not be confused with the historical province of Mauretania (Northern Africa), where the present-day country in West Africa takes its name, following the Arabo-Berber invasion and settlement in that area–several centuries later, and not in 70 CE. Delete the anti-Semetic and slavery commentary and there would be nothing left in this article, because there is nothing else that supports a stand-alone article. Article fails WP:GNG, WP:RS, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.Tamsier (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kharavela's conquests and invasions

Kharavela's conquests and invasions (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)

Copy of Draft:Kharvela's conquests and invasions (created by now-blocked User:Logical pharaoh). The article is heavily promotional, and uncritically follows the only primary source (Hathigumpha inscription) with some added embellishing. I'd recommend WP:TNT if there was a need for a separate article from Kharavela, but there doesn't seem to be, as the topic is already treated in context at Kharavela#Biography. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Article is built on WP:SYNTH, combining up different records of conflicts of Kharvela into a single infobox. Latest sources barely covers the area, fails WP:GNG, and synth is used.--Imperial[AFCND] 15:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Besides problems listed above, the tone of the text is hopelessly bad.It would be better to start from scratch with decent recent sources than merge any of this. Mangoe (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Article is very poorly written and has major WP:NPOV issues, and in addition to the listed issues, at this point should just be blown up. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel París Ricaurte

Manuel París Ricaurte (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)

Guy has a messy and (and coincidentally, also unsourced) wikipedia article on spanish wikipedia, which I cut. Not really enough sources to establish anything beyond the fact that this guy exists, which is, unfortunately, not enough for WP:GNG. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woke Mind Virus

Woke Mind Virus (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)

Feels entirely like WP:NEO. Half the usage section is just dedicated to Elon Musk (at the time of AFD nomination).

Look I understand Go woke, go broke exists, but that feels like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Is every popular iteration of a phrase invoking the ideas of wokeness going to have its own article?

According to the article, "Vanity Fair has titled whole sections of stories under the "Woke Mind Virus" label." This isn't actually a label that is selectable/catagorized/tagged like "politics", but a custom label for one article.

I do not doubt the phrase's usage in popular media and by influential people, but it is essentially the same thing as woke. I could go on, but I think this can be deleted and redirected to woke. Alternatively, this content can be merged into woke as its own section with the criticism. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since WP:NEO is cited, let us see what it says, Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, but in this case this phrase is very widely cited across an enormous variety of reliable sources. The phrase probably should also be mentioned at the woke article and other mentions should be added and included, but a page for Woke Mind Virus itself makes sense given the sources as broad and significant as they are. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Iljhgtn, yes it is popular term, this is already addressed. WP:NEO also says, Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. This is not in question. I do not doubt it will be utilized in large portions of media and scholarly works. Until it is shown to be its own distinct concept, it is essentially a branch term used to criticize wokeness. There is a criticism section in woke that this neologism can direct to in my opinion. Currently, Anti-woke redirects to woke. Anti-woke is an older term than woke mind virus and used it much more media/scholarly works. WMV is just a substitute term for being against wokeness (or anti-woke). Alternatively, I think a separate article that incorporates reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term titled something along the lines of "Criticisms of woke/wokeness" or even "anti-woke" could also be appropriate, where WMV redirects to. I do not see the point of a standalone article about Woke Mind Virus. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge/redirect no evidence that this neologism deserves a stand-alone wikipedia article. (t · c) buidhe 07:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NEO and has coverage by reliable sources. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 16:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selectively merge and redirect to woke. There's no separate subject here -- it's the same "woke" pejorative discussed in that article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Redirect, maybe i'm just biased because this is an inherently silly sounding phrase, but I don't see how it differentiates from the term "Woke" so a redirect there would be optimal. Samoht27 (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Woke, it's just a slight variation of the exact same thing. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A couple people have suggested a merge or redirect, but I would like to point out that this term "woke mind virus" actually has quite substantial coverage of its own differentiating it quite a bit from "woke" and therefore a mere mention of this term on that page seems to be inadequate. This source mentions the term as distinct but was early in coverage so does not yet mention what WMV means. This source mentions the WMV phrase in depth by itself completely independent of "woke". This source mentions the history of the term, especially as used specifically by Elon Musk since around 2021 and in reference to San Francisco and includes some of the defining language that separates and distinguishes this phrase at is popularly understood by sources, Despite his repeated use of the phrase, the precise meaning of “woke mind virus” has been difficult to pin down. Musk told Bill Maher during an interview on HBO: “I think we need to be very cautious about anything that is anti-meritocratic, and anything that … results in the suppression of free speech. Those are two aspects of the woke mind virus that I think are very dangerous.” This source speaks uniquely of the WMV by saying much about Musk's use of it from a critical perspective. This source again uses both "woke" as well as WMV and refers to them as distinct terms with their own meanings. This source predominantly focuses on just the "woke" phrase but has an important passing mention of WMV, though obviously passing mentions in general are not to carry weight towards an AfD consideration. This source covers the phrase and the Netflix mention with some detail. I believe the above, and much more can be found with fairly little work and effort actually to support an independent page for both the WMV phrase as well as woke and other phrases mentioned by other editors.Iljhgtn (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of these sources are not reliable, though. (t · c) buidhe 15:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Western Caribbean zone

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. [7] SportingFlyer T·C 22:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bradfield Abbey

Bradfield Abbey (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 notability, the one reliable source Is the one referenced on the page which makes it clear the charter refering to the abbey having been built is probably fraudulent. I can find no other historical source that references any abbey existing in Bradfield. Tim Landy (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian Kingdoms overthrown due to Muslim conquests

List of Indian Kingdoms overthrown due to Muslim conquests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fancruft-esque POV article backed by author's original research and synthesis of different sources. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maratha-Rajput conflict (1800-1820)

Maratha-Rajput conflict (1800-1820) (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)

POV fork of [8] backed entirely by self published obsolete sources. Creator was recently blocked for socking. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, India, and Rajasthan. Skynxnex (talk) 03:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article doesn't pass WP:GNG. I nowhere read about a topic called Maratha-Rajput conflict (1800-1820). Nothing of significance happened in 1800 or 1820 which can start or end any such conflicts. There were many conflicts in present day Rajasthan around that time like kingdoms of Marwar, Mewar, Jaipur, Scindhia, Holkar, Pindari etc all fighting with one another, Marwar-Jaipur conflicts, Holkar-Scindhia conflicts, pindari helping one kingdom abandoning them and helping other, all of these happened simultaneously, so it can not be said that Rajputs like Mewar, Marwar, Jaipur etc were fighting unitedly against United Maratha forces of Holkar, Scindhia and pindaris. I seriously think the article is more like generalization of almost a century long warfare in this period of anarchy which also had other players like Mughals and many more new entrants like Sikhs, British, and many soldiers of fortunes working under some powers and later switching sides. In my opinion this article doesn't pass notability issue. Just show some references or citations where this particular topic is mentioned separately, or even just mentioned. This article is nothing but a rubbish page made by a abusive account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4052:91F:698F:5590:CBF8:CC1B:D8BB (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Italian language in Romania

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]

History of rugby union matches between Leicester and Leinster

History of rugby union matches between Leicester and Leinster (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 real rivalry between these two sides, with no WP:GNG coverage of the rivalry, just a collection of stats with violates WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NLIST. Similar discussions such as this and this have shown a clear consensus on these sorts of articles. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries and dependencies by area in 1989

List of countries and dependencies by area in 1989 (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 article with no independent notability on it's own from the main countries and dependences by area list article. A very arbitrary article that just picks a certain moment in history. The year before the fall of communism and as it states in the first sentence "This is a list of countries by area in 1989, providing an overview of the world population before the fall of the Iron Curtain."

There could be plenty of articles about some period in time when borders and land area of nations changed. Such as the end of European colonization in Africa, Asia, or even earlier when Spain lost it's former territories in Latin America.

Also there is no source for what makes this notable on it's own and we have something based on original research. All the notes and references listed are the same or if not the same can be or are used in the original article.

I think this also falls under No stats as this is some random information at a random point in time. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Weird that population is mentioned only in that lead sentence! —Tamfang (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three Phase Operation

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

This article is based on multiple copies of the same news story that claims to be based on anonymous sources. Rumors, in other words. I can't find anything at all at the third reference as it just points to some index page. The other three are just the same text in different places. "Three Phase Operation" is a name unknown to history. More importantly, the organization "Supreme Command of the Arab Allied Forces (SCAAF)" is also unknown to history. The piecemeal Arab irregular forces at that time did not have a central command and it certainly was not directed from Cairo. What actually happened in Katamon the day before this news story is that Jewish forces blew up the Semiramis Hotel killing at least 24 civilians. But that's not even mentioned in the news story. There is a vast literature by historians on this period of history and there are already multiple properly sourced Wikipedia articles that cover it, such as Battle for Jerusalem. We don't need articles on single obscure newspaper stories. Zerotalk 04:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For being almost wholly based on a random piece from Oregon local news - the sourcing would struggle to be less appropriate, and if this is the best quality available, it doesn't really attest the term or standalone notability. Not much to say here: definitely nothing approaching an encyclopedically valid topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article that doesn't have enough sources or content and doubtful more could be found MarkiPoli (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insufficient evidence exists to suggest that "Three Phase Operation" is a notable topic, at least not under its current name. Marokwitz (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Current sourcing is just one newspaper article reprinted in multiple publications. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 17:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a POVFORK. When justified, such a topic should grow organically, before being eligible to a SPINOFF. gidonb (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muscovite–Ukrainian War (1658–1659)

Muscovite–Ukrainian War (1658–1659) (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 such war in literature, it was part of the Russo-Polish War (1654–1667). This article is OR Marcelus (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Poland, Russia, and Ukraine. Marcelus (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Seems to be mentioned here but the odds are this is not reliable and copied from Wikipedia. Possibly mentioned under other names in English, Polish, Ukrainian, Russian. Polish name is not mentioned, can anyone report on the queries in Russian and Ukrainian and analyze sources used in the respective articles on ru and uk wikis, if any (sources; articles exist)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears notable. Sources exist e.g. this and this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly re-title. We have an article on The Ruin (Ukrainian history). This would be a sub-article. I do personally find the use of "Muscovy" and "Ukraine" in this context a tad jarring. We seem to be very inconsistent in our terminology for early modern East Slavic states. There is an open access anthology on the battle of Konotop (1659) wherein Serhii Plokhy uses "Muscovite-Cossack war". Srnec (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Google Scholar returns 2 results for "Muscovite-Ukrainian War" and 9 results for "Ukrainian-Muscovite War", of which only 1 refers to 1658. Clearly a new title is needed in this case and this seems to fall under the Ruin and Russo-Polish War articles (which are sorely lacking details for this period). Even the Ukrainian-language sources cited use "Russian-Ukrainian war" and this looks like to have been the original title on the Ukrainian Wikipedia before it was moved. In my opinion this looks like revisionist history referring to an uprising led by Ivan Vyhovsky (a pro-Polish hetman). For example this source says: "Khmel'nitskii died in 1657, and Poland and the new Cossack leader, Vygovskii, now accepted Polish lordship over Ukraine. Vygovskii joined Poland in the resumption of war with Russia in October 1658... But in Ukraine, Cossacks of the Left Bank... rebelled against Vygovskii's pro-Polish alliance... Vygovskii fled to Poland, and Trubetskoi marched to Pereiaslavl', where he persuaded the Left Bank Cossacks to accept him as hetman in October 1659" (p. 214). I do not think it is suited for a spin-off article; I would say merge instead but most the article is unsourced. Mellk (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In a nutshell: in 1658 Vyhovsky again recognized the Cossacks' dependence on Poland; the Union of Hadziach was signed. This resumed Polish-Russian fighting interrupted earlier by a truce; Russia invaded Ukraine seeking to subjugate Vyhovsky, having some Cossacks (including Sich) behind it.
    In May, the PLC again concluded a truce with Russia, but the Sejm approved the Hadziach Union, and Vyhovsky received small reinforcements from the crown army. Thus came the Battle of Konotop, which Vyhovsky won. In August, however, a Cossack uprising broke out against Vyhovsky, who was overthrown and the new Hetman Yurko Khmelnytsky subordinated himself to Moscow, supported by a large part of the Cossacks. The war continued.
    As you can see, there is no war between “Ukraine” and “Moscow”, but there is an internal rivalry between the divided Cossacks, which take place in the context of the Polish-Russian war. Marcelus (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also add that Google Scholar returns almost no results for "Russian-Ukrainian war" or "Russo-Ukrainian war" referring to 1658/1659 (if we limit the years to before the current war then almost all results refer to the Russian Civil War and a hypothetical war excluding post-2014 publications referring to the current war but slipped through). Same goes for "Muscovite-Cossack war" etc. I see a few results for Ukrainian-language sources but there needs to be a deeper look to see which ones are reliable. At the moment I see very little that supports the idea of a separate war. For example there are plenty of Ukrainian-language sources that refer to a Soviet occupation of Ukraine until 1991 but this was determined to be a fringe view. In fact we had an AfD for this (and this was also a translation of an article from the Ukrainian Wikipedia). Mellk (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women's roles during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre

Women's roles during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre (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)

Although the title of the article is "Women's roles during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre", it actually only lists the deeds of four women during the Tiananmen Incident, without summarizing the role of women as a whole in the Tiananmen Incident, this article is more like talking about the experiences of these four women during the Tiananmen Incident. 日期20220626 (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, Politics, and China. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is on a viable-looking topic and is well referenced, and can be improved. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre. There are a couple of articles that talk about gender in the Tiananmen Square protests and massacre, the Feigon article cited in the artile and there is an article from Radio Free Asia on the forgotten legacy of women and the protests. I agree with the nominator about how the text does not match the title of the page, and I do not think there is sufficient information for a stand-alone page, especially as the women mentioned in the article all have a stand-alone page, so no information will be lost. --Enos733 (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As per the nominator, the article is more like a compilation of the acts of some individuals rather than discussing the role of women. The article 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre is already very large hence I would oppose a merge. I think relevant information not appearing in the stand-alone articles should be copied across, for example the section on Wang Chaohua.
Golem08 (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 15:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pala invasion of Kannauj

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

An event that does not meet the threshold for notability of WP:NEVENT as it is not covered significant or extensively in the sources. Doesn't even have a true name, this is clearly WP:OR as it was previously at the title of Dharmapala's invasion of Kannauj. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 13:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles created by the same author for the same reasons as above:

Chola raid on Rarh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pala invasion of Odisha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thank you — microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 13:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sudsahab (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Malik Kafur (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I have just run around the presentation and the sources match, so, keep. Will come will see (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Holderness museums

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

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

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

Hierombalus

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

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

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

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

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

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

Buffer theory

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

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

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

First Battle of Lahore (1759)

First Battle of Lahore (1759) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources provided on the page show no mention for a battle in "August 1759", the sources only show that Ahmad Shah even began his campaign in September 1759, reaching Lahore and then taking it in November. [9] Noorullah (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. "Sabaji maintained his position with great valour and strength, inflicted a crushing defeat upon Jahan Khan, who was severely wounded and lost his son in the action. Jahan Khan’s return to Peshawar in discomfiture so roused the fury of the Shah." Excerpts from New history of the Marathas vol 1. p-408
  2. "Dattaji Sindhia progressed slowly through Malwa. He appointed Sabaji Sindhia to occupy Lahore ( March, 1759 ). The Sikhs did not check the Marathas, but co-operated with them in driving away the Afghans under Jahan Khan across the Indus. Sabaji’s forces penetrated as far as Peshawar." Excerpts from A Study Of Eighteenth Century India Vol. 1. p-342
  • Additional comments- Renaming the article to the Capture of Lahore or even the Maratha occupation of Lahore (per sources) would be better. Though these sources are enough for keeping this article still additional sources would be appreciated.
Sudsahab (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't even seem to be a battle at all.
Per Sarkar, it states that the Afghans had evacuated Lahore, meaning that there was no "battle" for the city in April 1758. [10] Also corroborated by Hari Ram Gupta: [11]
The Afghans returned in October 1759 and re-occupied Lahore. [12]
There's no mention of a battle in August 1759 whatsoever.
Jahan Khan's battle per this source: [13] Doesn't seem to be mentioned at Lahore at all, nor do the sources you've shown imply this, but rather is "Thereafter the invaders overran Attock, then crossed the Indus, and threatened the historic fort of Rohtas on the left bank of the Jhelum. By that time, Sabaji Patel (Schinde) reached the place with fresh troops and a large number of Sikh fighters, who had made common cause with him against the Afghan infiltrators. The Afghans were defeated by the combined forces of the Marathas and the Sikhs in a pitched battle, in which Jahan Khan lost his son and was himself also wounded."
So again, this shows this was not a battle at Lahore. Noorullah (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[14] Does not show a battle at Lahore, but mentions Jahan Khan's defeat at an undisclosed location, and only later talks about how Ahmad Shah re-occupied Lahore (presumably in his 1759 October campaign). Noorullah (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I proposed renaming this article, either it should be Jahan Khan invasion of Rohtas or Battle of Rohtas. Coming to Sarkar's reliability which is questionable. Also see WP:RAJ, we can't rely on him as long as we have better sources for the notability of the Battle of Lahore (Battle of Rohtas?).
You do realise [this|https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.98175/page/n361/mode/2up] work of Hari Ram Gupta (published in 1944) is relatively older than his cited work in the article Marathas and Panipat. (published in 1961)? It would be obvious that older sources might not contain more information around this certain event, this is WP:AGE MATTERS.
  • In Marathas and Panipat. p-101 tells us: Jahan Khan rushed to Peshawar, captured Attock, and then advanced towards Rohtas. Sabaji sought help from the Sikhs. The united forces marched against Jahan Khan, whom they encountered on the other side of the Jehlam. In a fierce engagement the Afghan general suffered heavily. He lost his son and a large number of troops, himself receiving several wounds
  • [15] p-260, It also propounds: Thereafter, the invaders overran Attock, then crossed the Indus and threatened the historic fort of Rohtas on the left bank of the Jhelum. By that time, Sabaji Patel reached the place with fresh troops and a large number of the Sikh fighters, who had made a common cause with him against the Afghan infiltrators. The Afghans were defeated by the combined forces of the Marathas and the Sikhs in a pitched battle, in which Jahan Khan lost his son and was himself also wounded. Note Rohtas,Pitched battle and fierce engagement in both of the quotations.
Sudsahab (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But why have a separate article for this at all? It doesn't seem that the sources are discussing it in that way. They're describing it as part of an overall campaign. That tells me the best place for this information is somewhere like Northern Campaign of Raghunath Rao, or whichever other article might fit better. -- asilvering (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have already quoted the sources which discussed it thoroughly. And no it's not part of Northern Campaign of Raghunath Rao, not to be confused with Capture of Lahore which occurred in 1758 by Raghunath Rao. If merging is an option then I'd suggest merging it to Afghan-Maratha War. But my vote is still keep until someone gives more inputs. Sudsahab (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sudsahab, if it isn't part of Northern Campaign of Raghunath Rao, you should fix the infobox, since that's what it says. -- asilvering (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright Sudsahab (talk) 08:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 17:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bandanwara

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

History Proposed deletions

History categories

for occasional archiving

Proposals

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Social_science