Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/History

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

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


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


History

[edit]

Harry Pitts

[edit]
Harry Pitts (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:VICTIM. (Harry Pitts (footballer) should be moved here.) Maybe he could be merged to History of the London Underground? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest continuously inhabited cities

[edit]
List of oldest continuously inhabited cities (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 list has been a magnet for original research and edit warring for years. The basic problem is that we don't have good sources that treat the subject as a cohesive set, because while the "X is the oldest city in Y" is an attention-grabbing headline, it's not really a topic of serious scholarly interest. Instead, the list has been cobbled together from hundreds of sources that make claims about the age of individual cities. This is problematic because these sources don't have a consistent definition of—and rarely even discuss—what counts as a "city" or what it means to be "continuously inhabited". Non-academic sources also routinely repeat dubious dates without checking where they come from or confuse e.g. a prehistoric camp site being found within or adjacent to a village with that village being "10,000 years old", especially where there's a nationalistic angle (i.e. our oldest city is oldest than our neighbours).

I suggest deletion because I don't think this list is salvageable by changing the scope or sourcing requirements and in general we have moved on from these SYNTHy collections that were common in the early days. – Joe (talk) 10:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I accept the nominator's points about the drawbacks of this list, but I do think a list of oldest cities is a reasonable thing for WP to provide. While people certainly do add OR to this article (constantly), that OR is removed when the additions cannot be sourced. Good academic sources exist on the history of all major settlements in the world today. The fact that bad sources also exist is no grounds for refusing to cover a topic. As for definitions of terms, "city" can't really be a problem, or we wouldn't have any lists of cities, while edge cases for "continuously inhabited" can be dealt with using the "notes" section of the list.
It certainly is a lot of work to maintain this list in the face of frequent additions of inappropriate content, but that isn't a justification for deletion. Furius (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good academic sources exist on the history of all major settlements in the world today – certainly, but these sources are not helpful, because of the consistency problems mentioned above. The definition of a city might not be an issue in lists of modern cities but in the past it is a lot hardy to define and the frequent subject of debate.[1] What we need are reliable sources that list and discuss "oldest cities" specifically per WP:LISTN. – Joe (talk) 14:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP for, oddly enough, the very reason you think it should be deleted. Because you need to cobble together dozens and dozens of sources for any comparison, _any_ comparison has strong encyclopedic value, even if imperfect. Even if _deeply_ imperfect. Tigerhawkvok (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We have five keep !votes but still not a single source that would count towards WP:LISTN. – Joe (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I Love the '90s (American TV series)

[edit]
I Love the '90s (American TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is one of a set of articles on a TV show. Note that all of those have only one single reference--look at I Love the '90s: Part Deux, and you will find a little pop culture article that really only helps I Love.... The articles themselves are nothing but catalog info at best, all OR/trivia. One of the articles was created by a sock, User:Leviathan648, but I haven't checked them all. A redirect would be fine. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Pedersen, Erik (2004-07-12). "'I Love the '90s'". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 384, no. 35. pp. 10, 12. ProQuest 2594762924.

      The review notes: "VH1's chop shop of pop culture is back and fresher than ever—because the decade they're focusing on ended less than half a decade ago. But fresher doesn't mean funnier; in fact, the forced feel of "I Love the '90s" suggests that nostalgia is a dish best served much colder. ... work against this 10-hour flashback series. Maybe it's just too soon for us to think back on the '90s as kitschy. ... While there are some good lines in the two episodes made available for review the years 1990 and '96 - the chuckle-to- groan ratio is simply far less than the '70s and '80s versions. In far too many cases, smartass remarks fall flat as a slap bracelet. There also seems to be an over-reliance on profanity in "I Love the '90s." The unfinished review tapes don't edit out the ample coarse language, but expect some big-time bleeping when this hits the air. It's as if many of the interviewees simply have nothing witty to add, so they say what they know will be edited out and pass it off as "edgy." It's not. The real stars of this show remain its technical staff. The clever music selections, visuals and backgrounds—including flying toasters and other creaky screen—pick up for the often-lackluster talking heads. [more discussion]"

    2. Johnson, Steve (2004-07-13). "VH1 finds no passion with 'I Love the '90s'". Chicago Tribune. ProQuest 420247536. Archived from the original on 2024-10-21. Retrieved 2024-10-21.

      The review notes: "Maybe it's too soon. Maybe the formula is petering out. Either way, VH1 doesn't capture the same pop-culture effervescence in the new "I Love the '90s" that it did in the versions paying raised-eyebrow homage to the previous two decades. It certainly feels too fresh to be mocking our predilections for "Pretty Woman" or MC Hammer. That's not funny. It's kind of painful. And it gets tiresome, at least to me, to hear an endless parade of celebrities you don't quite recognize making fun of or paying tribute to the decade's film/TV/music/trends, etc. It feels as if far more screen time is devoted to their reminiscences, most of them of not quite scripted quality, than to the culture itself."

    3. DiPasquale, Cara; Karnopp, Kris, eds. (2004-04-08). "VH1 loves the '90s". Chicago Tribune. Zap2it. Archived from the original on 2024-10-21. Retrieved 2024-10-21.

      The article notes: "Proving once again that nostalgia needn’t be wasted on old things, VH1 is cranking up the next installment of its “I Love the …” franchise with “I Love the ’90s,” scheduled to debut this summer. “I Love the ’90s” will stick to the established format of offering a barrage of pop-cultural touchstones augmented by comments from comics, actors and celebrities who achieved fame in the decade."

    4. "VH1 Goes All the Way Back to the '90s". Multichannel News. 2004-06-17. Factiva MULTN00020040617e06h0005m.

      The article notes: "VH1’s 10-hour I Love the '90s will debut Monday, July 12 at9 p.m.and run through Friday, July 16. The network will look at the decade’s music, movies, TV shows, products, fashions, fads and major events, much as it did with previous programming events I Love the '70s, I Love the '80s and '80s Strikes Back. Each one-hour episode focuses on a single year. Celebrities who will appear throughout the week include Missy Elliott, John Mayer, Kyan Douglas, Coolio, Jason Mraz, Rachel Bilson, Lacey Chabert, Blair Underwood, Jerry Springer, Usher, Venus Williams, Trey Parker, Kevin Smith, Bob Guiney, Maroon 5, Warren Moon, Dominic Monaghan, Peri Gilpin, Shelley Morrison, Sarah McLachlan, Jordan Knight, Kato Kaelin, Lance Bass, Jaleel White, Ian Ziering, Susan Powter, Sir Mix-a-Lot, Wilson Phillips, Joe E. Tata, Wilson Phillips, Spin Doctors, Gabrielle Carteris, Mo Rocca, Michael Ian Black, Hal Sparks, Rich Eisen, Loni Love, Rachael Harris, Godfrey, Beth Littleford and Luis Guzman. "

    5. Shen, Maxine (2004-07-11). "I Love the '90's - Kurt Cobain, Kato Kaelin, and Kevorkian - Looking back on a Killer Decade". New York Post. Archived from the original on 2024-10-21. Retrieved 2024-10-21.

      According to WP:NYPOST, "A 2024 RfC concluded that the New York Post is marginally reliable for entertainment coverage". The article contains quotes from people affiliated with the show, The article notes: "... the music channel is taking on the decade that spawned the dancing baby and flying toaster screen saver "I Love the 90s." ... A variety of comedians, musicians, actors and blast-from-the-past faces have been tapped to reminisce on topics as diverse as Crystal Pepsi, Ace of Base, the grunge music movement, "Bev-erly Hills 90210" and other distinctly 90s moments. ... The 90s also ushered in the age of information overload. One field in particular - music - saw an alarming crush of performers. ... Each hour-long episode of "I Love the 90s" highlights the most noteworthy and notorious events from a given year. In the 1990 episode, the films "Ghost" and "Dances With Wolves," the TV series "In Living Color," and euthanasia activist Dr. Jack Kevorkian are a few of the topics tackled by commentators such as Sparks, musicians Maroon 5 and J.C. Chasez, actress Rachel Bilson of The O.C." and the decades cheesiest house guest, Kato Kaelin."

    6. Smith, Austin (2004-07-12). "We're Not Worthy of '90s 'Love'". New York Post. Archived from the original on 2024-10-21. Retrieved 2024-10-21.

      According to WP:NYPOST, "A 2024 RfC concluded that the New York Post is marginally reliable for entertainment coverage". The review gives I Love the '90s 2.5 stars. The review notes: "For me, it's that running commentary that makes or breaks these decade specials. And since I have a low tolerance for sarcasm, the reactions of people such as Michael Ian Black (of the cancelled NBC series "Ed") or Kato Kaelin (of the O.J. Simpson murder trial) to the rivalry between MC Hammer and Vanilla Ice (1990) or "Wayne's World" (1992) are of no interest whatsoever. ... It's possible that Rocca (he's the guy from "The Daily Show" with the Peter Brady haircut) recaptures the title in later episodes of "I Love the '90s," but in the episode VH1 provided for preview - Episode 1, "1990" - Sparks is seen and heard about a dozen times too many. His dominance is not easy to understand because it's clear the producers of VH1's "'90s" series taped interviews with dozens of different people - from Missy Elliott and Jaleel White (Urkel from "Family Matters") to Kyan Douglas ("Queer Eye for the Straight Guy") and Hulk Hogan. When "I Love the '90s" takes advantage of the wide variety of viewpoints represented by its many interview subjects, the commentary is much easier to take."

    7. Fonseca, Nicholas (2004-07-09). "VH1 show takes us all the way back to the 90s. VH1 show takes us all the way back to the 90s -- I Love the 90s will bring back all our favorites like Nirvana, Crystal Pepsi, and Doc Martens". Entertainment Weekly. Archived from the original on 2022-08-10. Retrieved 2024-10-21.

      The article notes: "Clinton’s spilling! O.J.’S yapping! And we so have an intense urge to throw on some Doc Martens, guzzle Crystal Pepsi, and crank up the Gin Blossoms! Suddenly a bunch of late-20th-century news makers are back in the spotlight, portending the official arrival of ’90s nostalgia."

    8. Kronke, David (2004-07-11). "The Daily News Watch-O-Rama - The Highlights and Lowlights of the Upcoming Week in tv". Daily News of Los Angeles. Archived from the original on 2024-10-21. Retrieved 2024-10-21.

      The review notes: "Think: The detritus of yet another decade is resurrected then further laid to waste by Hal Sparks, Michael Ian Black and whoever they could lure into the studio with a cheese log. Don't think: This is how they'll teach history to kids in the future: Black in I Love the 1860s: 'Here's why they had to have the Civil War over the Emancipation Proclamation — no one in the South knew what those words meant!' In a nutshell: Like the previous series, a genially amusing time-killer, as sundry follies such as Vanilla Ice, "Ghost," O.J. Simpson, the lambada, Michael Bolton and so on are mildly and occasionally wittily eviscerated."

    9. Morrow, Terry (2004-07-11). "VH1 flips through time again for look at the '90s". Knoxville News Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2024-10-21. Retrieved 2024-10-21 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "In its weeklong special, "I Love the '90s" (airing at 9 p.m. Monday through Friday, July 12-16), the channel looks back at those wild and kooky days when flannel shirts, O.J. Simpson and rollerblades were the hallmarks of pop culture. The 10-part series, which is broken up into two hours each night, will glide through the good, the bad and the phat of the era. Movies ("Titanic"), music (like grunge) and television ("Beverly Hills 90210") will be examined year by year. This was the time when hip-hop and rap became music institutions, the Atkins Diet was the latest weight-loss fad and Kathie Lee Gifford was the brunt of punch lines. And just like the channel's specials on the 1970s and 1980s, comedians will offer their own perspective into the decade. Of the Waco, Texas, disaster, Mo Rocca deadpans, "David Koresh is probably not the Messiah. If he is, the FBI really screwed up." On cloning a sheep, Michael Ian Black offers, "I had trouble telling one sheep apart from another before cloning so, for me, it was not a huge technological leap.""

    10. "VH1 Loves the 90s". Multichannel News. 2004-07-16. Factiva MULTN00020040716e07g000b5.

      The article notes: "The first eight episodes of VH1’s 10-part I Love the 90s series have averaged a 1.1 Nielsen Media Research rating in the 18-49 demo, the network said Friday. VH1 added that an average of 1.6 million viewers have tuned in each night, tripling its 2003 primetime tally. The network is on pace to record its highest-rated week of 2004."

    11. Sparks, Abbie (2004-07-21). "90's Hot for VH1". Broadcasting & Cable. Factiva BDCTCA0020040721e07l000p2.

      The article notes: "Prime-time viewers must have fond memories of the 1990s, or at least some interest in reliving those bygone days. VH1 achieved its highest prime time rating in five years when it aired I Love the 90s, making last week its most watched week ever in prime time and total day. An average of 845,000 viewers tuned in throughout the week, up 156% compared to the same week in 2003. The prime time numbers for the 18-49 group was .8, a up 167% from 2003. An average of 1.2 million viewers watched VH1 during prime time."

    12. "Nielsens Love VH1's '90s'". Multichannel News. Vol. 25, no. 30. 2004-07-26. Factiva MULTN00020040728e07q0000x.

      The article notes: "While criticized in some quarters for not letting enough time elapse on the decade, scored big with viewers with the recent premieres of its I Love the ’90s specials, as the network turned in its highest-rated week among adults 18 to 49 in five years. The 10 specials, which aired for two hours each night from July 12 through July 16 (one hour for each year in the decade) averaged a 1.0 against that demo overall, with five of the shows surpassing that mark. The ’90s specials topped their I Love the ’80s predecessors by 10%, according to network officials. VH1 notched a 0.8 average against its target demo the week of July 12 to July 18, a 167% jump compared to the same week in 2003 and equaling the average the network posted with its “Divas Week” in 1999. An average of 845,000 of those watchers tuned into the network that week, as did 1.2 million viewers 2-plus, 125% more than in the comparable 2003 span."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow I Love the '90s to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of Science in Latin America and the Caribbean

[edit]
History of Science in Latin America and the Caribbean (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 draft that was moved into mainspace by its creator. Seems to be promoting a scholarly database and no independent sources turned up by a before search. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Science, Latin America, and Caribbean. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is part of a class assignment. It is still in progress, so please don't delete. JuliaerodriguezUNH (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First, tell your professor that your grade should not depend upon whether or not you successfully write a Wikipedia article that avoids deletion, because that is out of your control. Second, anything moved out of draft space into the realm of articles is fair game for a deletion debate. Third, if no reliable sources talk about this database, then we can't have an article about it here. Fourth, you've basically copied the original website. For example, it says a virtual archive of over 200 primary sources along with introductions based on the latest scholarly findings, while you wrote a virtual archive containing over 200 primary documents, each accompanied by introductions informed by the latest scholarly research. It says, We hope the database will be useful for teaching, research, or general interest purposes for viewers curious about the history of science. You wrote, This resource is designed to support teaching, research, and general interest, catering to those eager to explore the region's scientific history. It says, For centuries, novelists, politicians, investors, and tourists have looked at Latin America and the Caribbean as an extraordinary place of natural wealth and diverse human populations. You wrote, For centuries, Latin America and the Caribbean have been viewed as regions of natural wealth and diverse populations, attracting explorers and scientists. To be blunt, this is plagiarism by close copying. That's bad. Very bad. XOR'easter (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As you may have guessed, this is my first time doing Wiki anything. My intent was to make the article accessible for my classmates to edit - I did not realize that it went public into a space outside of our class group for the public to view. As such, I have deleted all text..
    Obviously that is on me, chalk this up to a learning experience.
    I requested to move it back to the draft space and I was not allowed to. Is that, is that because it is pending deletion or user error on my part? I just want to know whether to make edits to this draft or begin a new page.
    Thanks for the criticism/help. Traviscnason (talk) 09:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving an article while a deletion discussion is open is generally frowned upon, just because it confuses the situation. If you want to make further edits, you can do those on the article where it is now. I advise two things: start by listing the references that aren't the database itself, and put more work into writing in your own words. The first is necessary because we need references like that to show that the topic merits an article, and the second is necessary to avoid copyright problems. XOR'easter (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify, so that whatever text is needed for the class assignment can be readded without harm. Sgubaldo (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot major

[edit]
Pilot major (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 stub has remained unsourced since 2013 and has remained a WP:DICDEF. A Google Books search finds several works that mention that such and such person was a "pilot-major" of an early modern European trade or exploration fleet, but no work defining or describing this title or occupation, which means that there is no basis for an encyclopedia article. Sandstein 14:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sources and additional info added. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but I still don't see the basis for an article here. The lead sentences, which purport to define the topic, remain unsourced: "A pilot major or pilot-major is a chief navigator of a ship or fleet. This person is usually experienced in naval exploration and has distinguished himself as both a sailor and a voyager." What you did find a source for was the use of the same term in Spain for something different, namely, a government office with responsibility for cartography. What we now have is a list of people with a position we cannot define, and a description of an unrelated government office. That's not an article. Sandstein 13:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Statesmen

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The references used in the article only provide short descriptions. toweli (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Party (Turkey)

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

Yet another Turkish political party article with no cites at all. I have not found enough to show it to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of World War II weapons of Turkey

[edit]
List of World War II weapons of Turkey (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 Turkey hardly participated in WW2 I don’t think this is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that OP has not actually made a policy based argument for deletion, that doesn't however mean that they are wrong. I have not been able to locate any independent significant coverage of the topic and there is none on the page, so unless I'm missing something it doesn't meet the requirements of a stand alone list. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the nom's statement does not contain policy-based rationale for deletion, but nevertheless the article might not maintain WP:GNG. I did find this [3], but I'm not too sure if it's reliable or not. Conyo14 (talk) 19:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uşşaki

[edit]
Uşşaki (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)

Tagged uncited for years but hard to find sources as apparently not the same as https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/U%C5%9F%C5%9Faki_Tarikat%C4%B1 The source on the Turkish article seems like it might be a wiki or somesuch so perhaps not reliable? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of Mozilla Thunderbird

[edit]
History of Mozilla Thunderbird (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)

Significant violations of WP:NOTCHANGELOG, and I have reason to believe it also violates WP:UNDUE due to the article's documenting of all versions of Thunderbird, including every single beta version. Without the table, there is not enough content to justify the article's existence, at least currently. It also has longstanding issues, including a lack of reliable, high-quality, secondary sources as almost every single source is just a link to Mozilla's own release notes, which is in incredibly heavy primary source territory. I feel like so much focus has been put on filling out the table that it has been to the detriment of the article as a whole. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 07:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Alston

[edit]
John Alston (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)

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 9#John Alston. C F A 💬 23:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Turkish films of 1972

[edit]
List of Turkish films of 1972 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost all redlinks and tagged uncited for years. Either I have misunderstood the Wayback Machine or the cite on the Turkish article only goes as far as B Chidgk1 (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iberian race

[edit]
Iberian race (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 fails WP:GNG, all its source are primary sources from about 100 years ago, written by "race theorists" (see Scientific racism). From a short look at the given sources it is not even clear that the term "Iberian race" ever meant something else than just "Iberian people". The article "Continental Nordic race" by the same creator was reduced to a redirect for similar problems, see WP:Articles_for_deletion/Continental_Nordic_race. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is no consensus right now and we have two different suggested Redirect target articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of topics on the Portuguese Empire in Goa-Anjediva, Bombay-Bassein & the East Indies

[edit]
List of topics on the Portuguese Empire in Goa-Anjediva, Bombay-Bassein & the East Indies (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 list of topics related to the Portuguese colonial empire, but only the parts in the East Indies; I see little use for this as a list for navigational purposes when there is already the template {{Portuguese overseas empire}} and other methods of finding pages in this topic area. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mubarak Khwaja

[edit]
Mubarak Khwaja (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)

Tagged a long time a go as uncited. I found a source which describes him as a prince https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315165172-20/jochid-ulus-roman-hautala but I don’t know the subject so not sure if the article is true or whether he is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore (Andrew Jackson captive)

[edit]
Theodore (Andrew Jackson captive) (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 non-notable individual, but may together with the two other such articles perhaps be merged into one? Barely anything can be said about the individual Theodore, the topic of the article, who died aged 1 or thereabouts. What the articles (and the sources) really are about is Jackson's treatment of or position towards Native Americans. Fram (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: President Andrew Jackson was somewhat unique in his adoption of native American children. All of these should be kept: Theodore, Charley and Lyncoya. The issue with merging is that it would be too large for many readers. This is a substantive part of Jackson's life and should be kept. — Maile (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charley (Andrew Jackson captive)

[edit]
Charley (Andrew Jackson captive) (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)

Sad story which may be a paragraph in some other article perhaps (but where?), but not a notable subject on its own. Fram (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: President Andrew Jackson was somewhat unique in his adoption of native American children. All of these should be kept: Theodore, Charley and Lyncoya. The issue with merging is that it would be too large for many readers. This is a substantive part of Jackson's life and should be kept. — Maile (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

120 Bahadur

[edit]
120 Bahadur (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)

Film is scheduled to be released a year from now and just started filming. Majority of sources are announcements or press releases. CNMall41 (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep my vote is for keep, kindly understand that there are many Hollywood and Bollywood movies that are upcoming in 2025 some are more than a year away yet many already have established wiki pages on them such The Accountant 2, F1, Now You See Me 3, Jurassic World Rebirth, Jolly LLB 3, and more the list is endless. The information current available on the film 120 Bahadur is good enough to create a wiki page and as time progress and more info is available the wiki page will definitely grow with time. Moreover it is a film about a historically significant event. So the wiki page deserve a place with other films that are up for release in 2025. Bonadart (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument seems to fall under WP:OSE which is not something that can be used to support notability. Can you point out which references are specifically significant coverage that would count towards notability? The ones I see do not but will look at any you provide in case there is something I missed. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i am in no mood to argue, my contention is if The Accountant 2, Now You See Me 3, Jurassic World Rebirth, Jolly LLB 3 which are pure fiction can have well established wiki page, then 120 Bahadur which is based on real life and a immensely historical and significant event if you may think of, also deserves a place, and if you want to talk of capturing space in that case i think this page doesnt even grab a space more than tip of safety pin out of whole wiki sphere. Bonadart (talk) 04:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I am in no mood to argue" - This is a discussion, not an argument. It does sound like maybe you should back away if you are not in the mindspace to discuss. I will reiterate that everything you stated, including in the reply above, would fall under WP:OSE.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the history it previously was. Creator objected to the draft and moved it back to mainspace. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see from page history that the page was moved to draft but it was moved back to mainspace but I am giving benefit of doubt that Bonadart will accept the consensus by the closer, if it ends with draftify and not move it back to mainspace till the film gets significant coverage likely after post-production. RangersRus (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I think it is futile to Draftify this article if the content creator is going to immediately move it back to main space so I'd like to see some assurances from them about this. A Redirect was also mentioned but it's not clear what the target article would be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for keeping the discussion alive
my 3 points
1. with all due respect ' if the content creator is going to immediately move it back to main space ' is bit harsh, please understand it takes time and effort to create a page, lot more to develop it. i have no issue if a article is deleted or kept in draft but it should always be done after thorough discussion, once consensus is reached why will any one have any problem, certainly not me.
2. regarding this page as I said earlier, agreed that this film is about a year away but so are movies like The Accountant 2, Now You See Me 3, Jurassic World Rebirth, Jolly LLB 3 but all these films have well established pages already, my point is these films are based on fiction where as this film '120 Bahadur' is based on reality and facts, so it deserves a space.
3. as for sources anyone include better sources if anyone can find.
thanks
Bonadart (talk) 08:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Jews in Botswana

[edit]
History of the Jews in Botswana (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)

Extremely small minority with little significance, nearly half the article is about Botswana's relations with Israel because of how little coverage there is of the 21 members of this community. If this qualifies as notable you could make thousands of X ethnicity in Y country articles. Gazingo (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There could be 10 people or 5 people in this community and it wouldn't matter as long as reliable sources existed. The current size of the community is irrelevant. Jewish communities are almost always small in most countries. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only sources in the article are Jewish websites with articles for "Jews in X country" for every country. Are there any sources about Botswana Jews specifically outside of the context of listing facts about the Jewish communities in every country? Gazingo (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Makgala, Christian John (2006). "Bid to Settle Jewish Refugees from Nazi-Germany in Botswana, 1938-1939". Botswana Notes and Records. 38: 20–32. ISSN 0525-5090.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is Andre's source enough to keep this? Are there more?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bohemian Baltimore. Eladkarmel (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Jews in Cambodia

[edit]
History of the Jews in Cambodia (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)

Extremely small minority with little coverage, the article is largely about individual people in Cambodia who are Jewish with little suggestion of an actual community. If this is notable you could make thousands of articles about every ethnic group in every country. Gazingo (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get some more discussion on the proposed merge as an ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for better or worse, this IS the history of the Jews in Cambodia. The article has WP:RS and it is WP:V as well as WP:N. Smallness of size is not a "sin" when it comes to the Jewish People as they are a small sized nationality out of the world's billions of people. IZAK (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have posted the following on the nominator's talk page: Hi, and welcome to WP. I have spent over twenty years gathering material to build up a comprehensive history of the Jews in all of the world's countries, see Category:Jewish history by country. Some countries are large and some are small. Some Jewish communities are likewise small or large or old and new, but still they are part of the Jewish history of those countries and of Jewish history and the Jews in general. See my response to your nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in Cambodia: Your premise about the history of the Jews in any country, i.e. Jewish history, is wrong because Jews are ALWAYS a tiny minority compared to surrounding populations. For example, in the world today there are about seven billion people while there are only about 15 million Jews on planet Earth. Yet Jews are to be found everywhere and they always make WP:N contributions to their host nations regardless if they arrived there fifty years ago or five hundred years ago and regardless if they amount to 500 people or 500,000 people. Please note WP:DONOTDEMOLISH! Therefore, kindly withdraw your nomination because it interferes with the goal of building a comprehensive history of the Jews in all countries and nations on WP, no matter how large or small those Jewish communities are they are all part of the Jewish People who are a tiny, yet very much WP:N nationality and religious group in the world both historically and in the present! Thank you for your understanding! IZAK (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Religion in Cambodia#Judaism is a potential merge target if consensus is against retaining this article as is. Left guide (talk) 08:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The only issues are (1) whether there is significant coverage of the topic, and (2) whether a subject is either too big or too small for its own article. Clearly, there are at least three reliable sources with some essential information about the topic, so that is settled. The periodical articles about the Princess’s Bat Mitzvah, philanthropy, and diplomacy are all good references about the subject. At AfD, regardless of how many (quantitative), we lean on how good (qualitative) the data is. Sometimes we look deeper to see if there is zero connection between the data to see whether there was artificial synthesis. This matter is often subjective, and in my mind there’s not synthetic organization; there is a logical correlation between the individual parts of the article and the whole. That can be a difficult task. Secondly, we have struggled with subjects that are too small or big for our encyclopedia. On one hand, we are not a good place for news and other small incidents. On the other hand, we can’t deal with run of the mill items or lists that might include everything. What I’m saying is this: we have never decided on a defined, objective quantum of the smallest possible number of items or data that are needed for an stub to exist. Jews have been a discrete and insular minority in every country from 70 CE until 1948. What is our quantum or velleity? Do we need a minimum of 137 Irish in Uruguay? If we had an objective number for articles of this sort, History of Jews in X, perhaps a minyan? Bearian (talk)
  • Delete. I would support this article if it had significant content, but it doesn't. Just look at it: a Chabad house (like almost every country), mention of two people not notable enough for their own articles (only one of them Cambodian), export of hair (nothing to do with Jews in Cambodia), and an American charity also not notable enough for their own article. Plus three sentences repeating stuff from Cambodia–Israel relations. There is nothing whatever about a community of Jews in Cambodia and only one(!!) Cambodian Jew is even mentioned. This is nowhere near enough for an article. It's a light-year from meeting GNG. Zerotalk 09:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Zero0000 are you arguing that this is synthesis? Bearian (talk) 11:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Zero0000: @Gazingo: @DesiMoore: I have to strongly disagree with all of you for the following reasons. (a) No one has ever said on WP that there has to be a "community" of Jews in a country for that country to have an article about the "History of the Jews in ____", because just having *Jews*, any number or any kind of Jews in a country qualifies for an article like the History of the Jews in Cambodia. (b) As long as there are reasonable WP:RS and it's WP:V to support an article it is enough to have a short article about a subject such as this. (c) This article is far better than a WP:STUB, and had it been a stub it would be a justified beginning to a good and interesting WP article. (d) This article is certainly WP:N because just as there is a short article about Jews in Cambodia on the Jewish Virtual Library there is no reason for WP now to cut off its nose to spite its face because it may lack a long history or a huge community. And by the way, the Jewish Virtual Library article clearly states that "the small Jewish community there consists of ex-patriots, NGO workers, travelers, hikers, and adventurers." (e) By your dismissive tone and words you are clearly displaying an attitude of WP:IDONTLIKEIT which as you know is NOT a reason to delete longstanding WP articles. (f) Jewish history also contains Modern Jewish historiography --> "which is the development of the Jewish historical narrative into the modern era" including into far-flung countries such as Cambodia that formerly had no known contact with Jews but in modern times has seen a significant influx of all kinds of Jews into it as this article clearly proves. IZAK (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although the sources seem very good, there's little to suggest that this subject is enough for a standalone article. Per Zero, the content borders on incoherence and it's not of much use to potential users. DesiMoore (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DesiMoore: You make no sense! You do agree that this article has WP:RS and is therefore WP:V, and thus also qualifies for WP:N, then you allege that "it's not of much use to potential users" -- how do you know that? Are you privy to the amount of readers all over the world who rely on Wikipedia to learn about Jewish history in all the world's countries? Rather than poo-pooing this article you should be encouraging WP editors to be WP:BEBOLD and add new material even about subjects that may not interest you but are of value to lots of others out there on the world wide web! IZAK (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are credible reliable and verifiable sources already in the article that describe the topic and demonstrates that the notability standard is met. The significance of Jews and Jewish conversion in a country like Cambodia is notable, along with other topics adequately supported in the article. Alansohn (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Are there Jews there? Are there any reliable sources for their history? No reason to delete. Eladkarmel (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1854 in animation

[edit]
1854 in animation (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)

Nothing really happened in 1854 in relation to animation. The two listed events are war photography and early (but not the first) instanteneous photographs, leaving us with two births, of someone who was much later influential on animation through his cartoons, and someone who is known as an actress but was one of many people with a magic lantern show. None of this makes 1854 an in any way notable year for animation. Fram (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so that we might get to a firmer consensus. There is an unbolded Oppose opinion here which translates to a Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mecklenburgian invasion of Sweden

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

Delete as WP:COPYVIO. The article is a direct translation of Sundberg 2010's entry for this war, with some selection of content (some sentences/paragraphs are not included). See the article talk page for side-by-side comparisons. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, as of now. Although it should stay if rewritten. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Already is rewritten. GusGusBrus (talk) 05:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    GusGusBrus, I've started a discussion about WP:close paraphrasing on your talk page (I should have done this earlier, to be honest), but let me also state here why the current changes to the article are insufficient.
    Here's an excerpt from article Copyright: Copyright is intended to protect the original expression of an idea in the form of a creative work, but not the idea itself. In this context, "original expression" refers not only to the sentence-level structure but also to the overall composition of the work, which remains largely unchanged. While ideas themselves cannot be copyrighted, Sundberg's selection and arrangement of ideas constitute a form of creative expression.
    I agree that there should be an article about this topic. However, if the article relies (largely) on a single, concise source, it becomes difficult to stray far from the original composition. The rewritten article should be based on a more diverse set of sources to avoid this. Please notice, that even if the article was rewritten today, the copyright-infringing versions should still be purged from the page history. This is why I believe it would be better to let the AfD process run its course and start a new draft with a clean history. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2004 in Turkish television

[edit]
2004 in Turkish television (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)

tagged uncited for many years and does not seem to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I deproDed the page. I have seen other years taken to AfD. But why? This is a pretty standard way to approach history of television by country. Mexico has them, Korea has them, and so on. Turkey is a major country with a long history of television. What's the issue? Non-notable, how? I would !vote Keep but that would imply restoring all the other years. But I don't understand. It's very easy to source every event with books and/or news. And for general coverage, just open Yanardağoğlu, Eylem,  Television in Turkey: Local Production, Transnational Expansion and Political Aspirations, Springer International Publishing, 2020; "The Transformation of the Media System in Turkey: Citizenship, Communication, and Convergence", Springer International Publishing, 2021; The Regulation of Turkish Network Industries. (2022), Springer International Publishing. A source for each and every programme broadcast is easily found. I am seriously confused.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to keep it vote keep. I don’t think that would implying restoring other years as some years in television are more notable than others. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK: Keep and restore all years. This year in Turkish television is notable and so are apparently all years I checked, given the existence of sources for individual events and about trends/years in the Turkish history of television. Also for navigation reasons.and procedural reasons; targeting one year after another to delete the whole range of articles (that precisely make sense as a whole) brick by brick is not a good idea when the general topic is notable.
    some years in television are more notable than others. Maybe (I don't think so) but then, it seems you want to have ALL years of Turkish television deleted and I am very much against that idea. Is it your idea?
    Another solution would be to change the approach by creating lists by decades and redirecting/merging the individual years (in)to the decades (2000s in Turkish television and so on) but I won't do it myself (as I favour individual years)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No I have not proposed deleting all years and that is not my idea. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well, I had the wrong impression, my apologies. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: there are only 4 years left in the category. The ones that have been deleted lately were, if I am not mistaken, in the 2000s and 2010s The other years haven't been created yet.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is about the 2004 article. To restore articles previously deleted at AfD, please see WP:DRV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, consider my !vote a simple/single Keep then (but restoring other years should also be done); this is part of a set and is justified in terms of navigation, that's what I mean. Notwithstanding the individual notability of this page, deleting random years one by one without considering this type of page in general or the whole is not a good approach. Also may I remind the nominator that WP:NLIST says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.". -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Dewair (1606)

[edit]
Battle of Dewair (1606) (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 a WP: REDUNDANTFORK from Mughal conquest of Mewar. There was no need to create this standalone article as the content is already present in the other article. Hence it should be deleted. Admantine123 (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted. I'd like to see if there is more support for a Merge or if this article should just be deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 00:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Mughal Conquest of Mewar was a series of millitary campaigns whereas Battle of Dewair is a single battle. I don't see any reason to merge it with the latter. WP: REDUNDANTFORK applies for the same topic with different name. However, In this case the battle is a part of strings of event(Mughal Conquest of Mewar) through which Mewar concluded a treaty. Hence neither it should be deleted nor it should be merged. Rawn3012 (talk) 05:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mughal–Rajput wars

[edit]
Mughal–Rajput 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 is a poor WP:CONTENTFORK (WP:REDUNDANTFORK) from several articles like Rajput Rebellion (1708–1710), Rathore rebellion (1679–1707) and List of battles in Rajasthan. The individual topic like Battle of Khanwa has been stitched together to create an article suggesting that something like Mugal Rajput wars were a single homogeneous event spread over the different period of time. The individual topics are isolated events and a duplication from the List of battles in Rajasthan. So it should be deleted and content if anything that is here but not in List of battles in Rajasthan should be merged to latter. Admantine123 (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is about Mughals and Rajputs not Marathas! Dilbaggg (talk) 08:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article has been a sock magnet, so I don't think Soft Deletion is the best option. It either needs the support of editors to keep it sock-free or to be Deleted or Redirected or Merged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - there is no need to keep this sock magnet as the material is already covered. A hard delete is needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Mughals and Marathas have been at war between 1526-1779, this article lists a collection of WP:RS battles and also the cronological events. Every history and major source agress there was a long lasting war between Mughals and Rajputs, there is no denying it. I don't see a reason this WP:Notable historic article has been nominated for deletion! Dilbaggg (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Existence of this article is an improvement and provides for easier viewing for interested people. The article title is phrased plurally; Mughal–Rajput wars. Not being a made up single conflict. Deleting this article is an inappropriate course of action for the problem. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-There were surely wars between Rajputs and Mughals and this article summarizes that but what is wrong in this is its tone and possible same content from other articles. All it needs is an improvement of in depth details about topic and a good tone. Rawn3012 (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 00:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Khatu Shyamji

[edit]
Battle of Khatu Shyamji (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 not fulfilling WP:GNG. It is based on single source and also a very insignificant event with not much content to write has been converted into an article.It should be deleted and content, if any found relevant should be merged into something related to List of battles in Rajasthan.Admantine123 (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flagon and Trencher

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, only mentions and brief descriptions (for example, on ProQuest). toweli (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A clearer source eval on the newly found sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Herald, Where are the newly found sources? Both @Toweli: and I objected to keeping the article based on the coverage provided on 24 September, as it’s nowhere near reliable. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saqib, A clearer and deeper source evaluation is appreciated, along with more inputs for clear consensus. The presence of multiple references with passing mentions could mean there might be some notability, but sans SIGCOV. Hence, relisted for more inputs. If not, it can be deleted soon. Happy editing. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History Proposed deletions

[edit]

History categories

[edit]

for occasional archiving

Proposals

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/History&oldid=1252581902"