Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/History

Add links
Source: 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

Battle of Khasdour

Battle of Khasdour (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 searched Google Scholar but I could not find any reliable sources Chidgk1 (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Algami Canal

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

I can only find unreliable sources for this but as there are so many editors interested in military history I put it for discussion as you may know better Chidgk1 (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Cooper

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

Article was just created on 3 September 2024, and only because of his appearance with Tucker Carlson where he said some controversial stuff. This is a WP:BLP1E - person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. WP:NOTNEWS also applies here, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. And editors trying to REFBOMB the lead with subpar sources to describe him as a Nazi apologist is not encouraging either. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, is it Huffpo, Haaretz, or TNR that you think is a subpar source? Googleguy007 (talk) 05:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Xegma, we are more interested in what the sources say than in your opinion of the subject as a person. Liz Read! Talk! 06:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All three. None of those three sources directly and explicitly state that Cooper is a "Nazi apologist". Please see WP:HEADLINES - News headlines are not a reliable source. So since they fail to verify a contentious claim about a BLP, that makes them subpar. Those eight citations in the lead sentence are a classic example of WP:REFBOMB. For a BLP, Wikipedia prefers high-quality sources that actually verify the content. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haaretz? You're using a clear biased source on the subject. Watch the interview - nothing you have written is even remotely true. It's just more ADL nonsense against someone who is merely questioning the narrative. ArmenianSniper (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's "ADL nonsense"? AusLondonder (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree, but I apologize for the immature and unprofessional way I acted in the above comment, I should have been better than that Googleguy007 (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"And editors trying to REFBOMB the lead with subpar sources to describe him as a Nazi apologist is not encouraging either."
Indeed, sir. ArmenianSniper (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe the views that Cooper has expressed regarding the Holocaust and Hitler are "truths" you shouldn't be editing an encyclopaedia. See WP:NONAZIS. AusLondonder (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What are the "sub-par sources"? See WP:RSPADL. I think most people with tens of thousands of paying Substack subscribers (purple check) and an extremely popular podcast are notable. GordonGlottal (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't referring to the ADL. When I nominated the article there were eight citations in the lead sentence that I considered sub-par, they have since been removed. And people with tens of thousands of paying Substack subscribers (purple check) and an extremely popular podcast are notable, only if they meet the criteria outlined in our policies and guidelines for notability. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Safavid Capture of Mesopotamia (1623-1624)

Safavid Capture of Mesopotamia (1623-1624) (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 has no useful encyclopedic content about its subject, the Safavid capture of Mesopotamia. There is no lede section, and two of the three paragraphs are not about the campaign. The first paragraph is background, and the second paragraph is about the victorious commander. The infobox says nothing, because the strength and the losses are unknown. The third paragraph is partly about a military victory without describing the victory.

The sentence

This text aims to cover key aspects of his reign: his rise to power, consolidation, military successes, and the establishment of Isfahan

is not only not encyclopedic, but reads as if it was copied from a book. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Detentions following the September 11 attacks

Detentions following the September 11 attacks (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)

Could easily be merged into Aftermath of the September 11 attacks if a new section is created. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 22:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Han–Xiongnu War (215 BC–200 BC)

Han–Xiongnu War (215 BC–200 BC) (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)

Fail to see how this is notable, can't find any WP:RS on this "Han–Xiongnu War (215 BC–200 BC)". The creator of this article basically copied the stuff they were reverted (and blocked) for at Battle of Baideng here. They've misused tons of citations here [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10], and recently engaged in copyvio in another article [11], which may also be the case here. Most of the citations left are unverifiable (which is very convenient, I can't look for further violations) and doesn't strike me as WP:RS. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is also likely sock/meat puppetry involved here per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hunnic Enjoyer. Two brand new users have attempted to remove the AFD template so far. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of English immigrants to America

List of English immigrants to America (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 scope of this list is too broad; there are 212 people in just Category:English emigrants to Massachusetts Bay Colony alone. There must be hundreds if not thousands of Wikipedia articles of people who were English emigrants to the North American colonies. toweli (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis Hicks

Ellis Hicks (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 WP:NOTGENEALOGY, and simply being a knight is hardly sufficient for WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I encourage everyone to check this forum post Microplastic Consumer (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 in hip hop music

2025 in hip hop music (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)

Comparing this to the various List of years in hip hop music articles, most recently 2024 in hip hop music, and given the ubiquity of Hip hop culture around the world, this may well merit an article once the year 2025 actually starts. As it stands as of 1 Sep 2024, this would appear to fall under any or all deletion criteria WP:P&G-s, including but not limited to WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. That said, I do not oppose its speedy deletion, given the nature of its 1 Sep 2024 content. As always, happy to be proven wrong about this. Or anything else. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Agreed on a lot of the points above. Absolutely not ready to be published in its current state, but oftentimes it's about that time where enough is known/covered that it could be created if someone actually tried. (2025 in heavy metal music is in a barely passable state and I've been putting material together for the rock music equivalent.) Thus probably needs to be sent to a WP:DRAFT in the meantime though. Sergecross73 msg me 12:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian engineering colleges before Independence

List of Indian engineering colleges before Independence (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 a finite boundary, which is a good thing, but I cannot see that this is a notable intersection. From that perspective I feel it fails WP:NLIST. At the very least it deserves the community's scrutiny. I feel the History section is valid. this, if the outcome is to delete I feel this shoudl be migrated, probably précised, in to a new article 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of virtualization development

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

It is not at all clear what anything in this article has to do with Virtualization or "Virtualization development" which is not defined in the article or even the article it links to (which I have also opened an AFD for). This appears to mostly consist of WP:OR and I don't think there's any way of cleaning it up or establishing notability as it is completely unclear what the article is even supposed to be about. If not deleted, I believe this needs to be moved to "Timeline of computer virtualization" or something similar and will require a complete rewrite. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The intent of the article is clear: a timeline of virtualization technologies, mirroring the history section of Virtualization. However, more could be done to highlight the relevance of each development to virtualization, particularly in the 60s and 70s. I think a name change could be justified ('Timeline of virtualization technology' perhaps? Compare with other related lists), and the article is currently suffering from WP:SYNTH - but there is no lack of sources on exactly this topic. Here are a couple from a preliminary search, and from the other article:
  • "1.1.1. Brief History of Virtualization". Oracle VM - User's Guide for Release 3.0.3. Oracle. June 2012.
  • "What is virtualization?". RedHat. 2 March 2018.
  • Linda Hammer; Ken Donoghue (2019). Virtualization (PDF) (4 ed.). For Dummies. p. 4. ISBN 978-1-119-59586-1.
  • Rodríguez-Haro, Fernando; Freitag, Felix; Navarro, Leandro; Hernánchez-sánchez, Efraín; Farías-Mendoza, Nicandro; Guerrero-Ibáñez, Juan Antonio; González-Potes, Apolinar (2012-01-01). "A summary of virtualization techniques". Procedia Technology. The 2012 Iberoamerican Conference on Electronics Engineering and Computer Science. 3: 267–272. doi:10.1016/j.protcy.2012.03.029. ISSN 2212-0173.
  • An Introduction to Virtualization Archived 2020-10-22 at the Wayback Machine, January 2004, by Amit Singh
  • Allison Randal (6 February 2020). "The Ideal Versus the Real: Revisiting the History of Virtual Machines and Containers". ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR). 53 (1). doi:10.1145/3365199.

Tule-hog (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skanderbeg's Serbian campaign

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

Essentially a recreation of an article that was already deleted, just under a different title. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovo Raid (1448) (2nd nomination).

Needless to say the same issues persist. There is passing mention in sources of Skanderbeg ravaging Serbian towns as punishment for Brankovic's alleged actions, and that is the only thing that is referenced; the rest of the article is unsourced and it's likely WP:OR as well. Nothing in reliable sources about a significant "expedition" or "campaign" beyond the aforementioned incident, let alone the article topic meeting WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG. Griboski (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I performed the equivalent of an AFC acceptance since I removed the AFC artefacts from an article in mainspace. I will the remain neutral as is my policy were I to have performed a true acceptance. I do have a  Question: for the nominator. Is it sufficiently identical to the now deleted article to qualify for CSD, or is it sufficiently different to require a full discussion here? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not completely sure because the creator essentially took that "raid" event and turned into a broader "expedition" but the only thing that's verifiable and sourced is that raid. It seems it was just copied from the listing at List of wars involving Albania. I put it up for speedy deletion a couple of days ago but there was no admin action. So I figured it might be best to list it at AfD. --Griboski (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Anandpur (1703)

Battle of Anandpur (1703) (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 has no references, and it's an incomplete stub, need I say more? Noorullah (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Noorullah (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: ~150 words of coverage here, ~250 words of coverage here, 7 paragraphs of coverage here (p. 112-114), and there is actually a lot more that I can't access on Google Books. C F A 💬 17:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @CFA One of the sources you cited from's author is not a historian, they don't follow WP:RS/WP:HISTRS and aren't scholarship.
    For example: Triloki Nath Dhar -- '...He graduated in science from Punjab in 1948 and received a degree in Indology from Sharda Peeth Research Centre, Srinagar, as approved by Dr Tuci of Rome." ... "...Mr Dhar is an author of short romances, tales, and collections of essays, as well, a theory of Cosmological Physics which he had included in a ‘romantic fiction’ novel which was apparently confirmed fourteen years later by a US space satellite’s discovery of a particularly massive cloud of gas and dust."
    Nath Dhar is not a historian, but an author.
    The other sources seem to check out however. Noorullah (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @CFA, I will comment on the Surjit Singh Gandhi source later after looking into it, but the third source you linked (from the Punjab Digital Library) does not actually make any sort of mention between a 1703 battle in Anandpur beyond "Hostilities again broke out in 1703 as the Guru had greatly increased his military strength and even extended his territory at the expense of the hill chiefs." From then on, the book's content is actually referring to this article [12], in which a joint siege by the Mughals and the hill chiefs compelled Gobind Singh to vacate Anandpur under allegedly false pretenses. It then goes to talk about this article's content-[13] and so and so forth. It's a bit confusing because some sources vary a bit in reporting the dates of battles, but rest assured the book's content (by Bakshish Singh Nijjar, p.112-114) is already covered on Wikipedia. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 05:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And as Noorullah mentioned, Triloki Nath Dhar's book is not a RS; it's a self published trade book by someone who has not authored any serious peer reviewed work-[14]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 05:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sikhism, India, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Macedonia (proposal)

Kingdom of Macedonia (proposal) (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)

Reason is the lack of notability of this article. Also, no reliable, secondary, independent sources can be found on this topic and this idea seems to be only an ephemeral short-lived proposal, if any. The only secondary source used in the article is a publication in Australian local Macedonian diaspora website and some claims there are incorrect from historical perspective as the story about the mass existence of Ethnic Macedonians then. The author of the article does not hold any university degrees and is not a historian. The rest are outdated publications from the beginning of the 20th century which do not confirm the notability of the article in any way. Jingiby (talk) 10:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Removed a PROD you might have placed on the article, or someone else, b/c PROD (proposed deletion) and AFD (this) cannot happen at the same time. Mrfoogles (talk) 10:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sevastopol: On Photographs of War

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

Created in 2004 as an unreferenced article, as was normal in the early days of wikipedia. The one literary journal that was used wasn't actually a review with a by-lined author but was an advertisement with a short quote by Patricia Spears Jones recommending the book with an amazon link pushing sales. I removed it as it looked like an advertisement. I was not able to find any reviews or independent sources, but there may be something in newspaper archives or journals behind pay walls that I don't have access to. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Delete per below. That Jones review doesn't appear to be an advertisement, it's from this book which has its full content, so I view it as legitimate. There's also this review - it was reposted by the author of the book, but does appear to be a legitimate review from the magazine Chelsea. I can't check to see if it's in there because JSTOR is being very weird about it, but I got a hit from it when I searched the words in the review so I believe it's a match to the review republished on his site, which shows sigcov. That's two reviews, passes NBOOK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA I would not consider that book independent significant coverage. The Directory of American Poetry is essentially a purchasing catalogue marketed to librarians. It's not a serious reference work, nor is it impartial. The content here is universally positive on every book through the entire volume series. There are no negative comments or reviews. The quotes in question are most likely grabbed from the book jackets. It's telling that most of the quotes don't say where they were originally published (if they were at all). It's not unusual for author friends of others authors to provide positive quotes to help their friends sell their book, or for publishers to get other authors they work with to help promote their other writers by saying something positive they can put on a book jacket. The fact that there are prices attached makes it clear this is a book intended to help librarians select content for expanding their collections on poetry. There's a financial motive here and a lack of transparency surrounding the content about each book which makes it not independent or reliable in my opinion.4meter4 (talk) 06:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 The fact that there are prices attached means nothing, that's the case for most book reviews in my experience. The other point may be fair. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, but I have never seen a by-lined journal article review not say something critical even if its an overall positive review. Academic journals (and even newspapers) don't generally publish puff pieces. The fact that this publication has no negative or partially negative comments in combination with a pricing guide should tell you it is a catalogue being used for marketing purposes as opposed to a reliable literary reference work.4meter4 (talk) 06:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Irritatingly I can find no images of the actual physical copy of the book to see if that's where it was gotten from. I change my vote to delete since I can't figure out where it's from. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom – not enough coverage available. It's telling that the author William Allen does not have an article – Aza24 (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harpal Dev Makwana

Harpal Dev Makwana (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 part of a WP:WALLEDGARDEN on the Jhala dynasty and Jhala (clan) created by a now-blocked sockmaster. The core sources for these articles are books of purported genealogy published by Jhala family descendants. This article takes someone who is almost certainly a legendary figure and launders the sources to present him as a historical person. He may have been, but the sources do not indicate that:

Bottom line: What WP:SIGCOV we have on Harpal Dev is legend repeated by WP:SPS and WP:COI sources. The independent coverage, such as it is, does not establish him as a historical figure. I know WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP, but with such a compromised article I recommend WP:TNT instead of trying to battle an army of socks claiming legendary stories are real. Fails WP:V and WP:GNG for lack of SIGCOV in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Badami (1786)

Siege of Badami (1786) (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)

Y. N. Deodhar is not WP:RS/WP:HISTRS, nor WP:SCHOLARSHIP, they are not a historian and are thus an unreliable source. Google scholar wields no results; [15]

Sanish Nandakumar is not a historian, and has a B.S in economics, they are in no way scholarship, especially only having made one book. - No results on google scholar: [16]

This page is poorly created with a spam link of sources in each paragraph.

The other sources provide little but a passing mention. [17] Noorullah (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep
Y.N. Deodhar is a M.A. and also a PHD in history which is mentioned in the source used in the article itself. [18] and Another source calls Y. N. Deodhar an “veteran historian” [19]. Also your search results doesn't even mentions the name of "Y. N. Deodhar".
Y. N. Deodhar's book [20] along with these two reliable sources [21] (page no 52-53), [22] (page no 178-179) clearly gives significant coverage to the event. GroovyGrinster Talk With Me 13:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Y.N Deodhar is not cited as having a PHD in history, he's not even on google scholars, which is what you pointed out for me by saying "your search results doesn't mention the name", yes, that's the point, he's not a scholar cited on google scholars.
And I'm sorry but "Venkatesh Rangan" is not a historian, he's an author. [23]
Deodhar, already unreliable as aforementioned, his book provides little insight. The two other sources you cited, are already responded towards, Govind is not a historian. Noorullah (talk) 23:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move on from Google Scholars. I'm not gonna talk about Y. N. Deodhar again because I've already provided an source which literally calls Y. N. Deodhar an “Veteran historian”.

Although Venkatesh Rangan mentions Y. N. Deodhar as a historian, I've no idea that why does it matter that Venkatesh Rangan is a historian or not because Venkatesh Rangan's book isn't even used anywhere in the article that's totally irrelevant in the AfD (WP:AADP).

Even the Uttarakhand Open University here [24] (page no 239) mentions Y. N. Deodhar as a historian.
Govind Sakharam Sardesai is a famous historian,[25] there is literally a Wikipedia article on him (Govind Sakharam Sardesai) which also calls him a historian. GroovyGrinster Talk With Me 10:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The book written by Govind is outdated per WP:RAJ(1946). Couldn’t find much info about Deodhar other than the links you’ve showed. I guess he’s okay based on what I’m reading, but if that’s the only reliable source that mentions this, then I’m not sure it requires its own separate article.
“Consequent upon the capture of Badami, the strong fort of Bhadur Band capitulated to the Marathas and Haripant proceeded to capture copal, another fort about four miles distant.” There’s only one line that mentions this battle in Deodhars book, and there are no other details other than “it was captured”. This tells me that this event lacks Wikipedia:Notability, which means it doesn’t warrant its own article if it’s based on one line from a book. The other sources don’t seem reliable or fall under WP:RAJ. Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:

As per explanation given by @GroovyGrinster the article is notable and sources provided are WP:RS giving significant coverage of this Siege even if we don't consider YN Deodhar the other two i.e Sen, Sailendra Nath [26] (page no 52-53) and Sardesai Govind Sakaram [27] (page no 178-179) clearly gives significant coverage to the event.

Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 07:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Govind is WP:RAJ. His book was written in 1946. Which makes it outdated. Deodhar makes a small mention of Badami being captured but doesn’t mention a siege or any other details beyond that. As I’ve mentioned before, this event lacks notability, and I already pointed out many of the issues within this article. Someguywhosbored (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:
Not convinced that this needs its own article. Only reliable source here is from Deodhar and it’s one line about it being captured, with no other extra details or information(see context above). In fact it doesn’t even mention a siege, only that the town was captured. This article lacks Wikipedia:Notability. Govinds book appears to fall under WP:RAJ which makes it an unsuitable addition for any article. The other sources don’t appear to be reliable either per noorullah. One throwaway line/passing mention of this event doesn’t warrant a separate article.

Edit: I’m beginning to think that WP:SYNTH and WP:OR is at play here. How did the user who wrote this article get all this information from one line in Deodhars book? I don’t see how he got the numbers in the info box, nor how he managed to fill an entire article based on a throwaway line. Non of the information in the body for example seem to directly relate to the capture of Badami. There’s no mention of any of that in regards to Deodhars book. So again, there’s barely any information about the CAPTURE(not siege) of Badami in the sources provided. Most of this article employs original research and synth. Even the title is OR, there was no battle. Majority of the information here is falsified. Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Capture/Siege of Badami is given significant coverage in these two sources [28] (page no- 53-54), [29] (page no- 178-179). This source mentions this conflict as Siege of Badami in the page number 52 [30].

WP:RAJ doesn't apply to Govind Sakharam Sardesai's Book because it only applies to caste related stuff. Hence Govind Sakharam Sardesai's Book is a WP:RS, Also WP:RAJ isn't a policies or guidelines of Wikipedia, it's only an Essay. And All of the sources pass WP:RS, Can you explain that how according to you they aren't reliable? GroovyGrinster Talk With Me 14:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see why you’d assume that it only applies to caste related topics but that’s not the case. This has been discussed many times in the past especially on RSN, but typically, all sources that fall under the raj era are not seen as reliable. While the essay written by sitush focuses on caste, most of the same issues mentioned there apply to all raj era historians.
And btw, Govind was already picked apart in RSN for the same reasons I mentioned(WP:RAJ), it’s an outdated source.
“Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 291#Reliability of Govind Sakharam Sardesai
“The sources I have seen suggest that it was first published in 1928, which makes it a bit dated, I have no opinion on the accuracy of the source though. “
“I see to recall being informed that prior discussions has found any source published under the Raj was automatically not an RS”
Anything that was written during the raj era is outdated and thus not RS. Sitush can clarify this further for you if you’d like to ask him, as he’s already discussed this detail many times in the past.
“Also WP:RAJ isn't a policies or guidelines of Wikipedia, it's only an Essay”
It’s an essay written by one of the most prolific writers of Indian historical topics on Wikipedia. Sitush is a content expert. And this is something that has generally been accepted by the community. Raj era sources are typically almost always viable for removal.
Furthermore, the point of the essay was to let the readers know that RAJ era sources are unreliable and outdated. So even if this isn’t a policy(which is irrelevant, this issue was discussed multiple times), WP:RS still exists. We are looking for high quality sources on wikipedia, not outdated work from the raj era. And as I’ve clarified, Govinds work has already been picked apart by RSN.
“Can you explain that how according to you they aren't reliable”
well I should clarify what I actually meant. look at this source for example https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.69209/page/n56/mode/1up
it actually doesn’t seem unreliable based on what I’ve read, so this source is fine but where is the siege of Badami mentioned? I can’t find the quote in the page numbers cited. It seems that this was likely mistakenly added in. So we can’t use this source for information it doesn’t even have. Now as for the final source
https://archive.org/details/dli.csl.7298/mode/1up
There is no page number cited so I can’t even find where it mentions Badami. Furthermore I can’t find any info about the authors credentials, but even if he was reliable, where has he written about the the siege of Badami?
it seems to me that out of all these sources, only one of them mentions anything about Badami. Not that there was a siege mind you. Deodhar makes a passing mention of the town being captured and that’s it. There is no other details. So again, why is this a separate article? After checking all the sources, I realized this article is far more problematic than initially anticipated. The text doesn’t even correspond with what’s written in the sources cited. Someguywhosbored (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source assessment by one of our more experienced editors would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

177 Franklin Street

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

Appears to be short of WP:GNG and it doesn't qualify for WP:NBUILD, so the previous deletion opposition which was based upon "This is a contributing building to the Tribeca West Historic District and is substantially covered in the LPC report, which by itself is enough for notability. " is not national level recognition to presume notability under WP:NGEO Graywalls (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, and New York. Graywalls (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as per Greywalls. Axad12 (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Tribeca West Historic District should have its own article and if one is created then this can be merged with that. But until such an article exists, deleting information on an historic building which has its own entry in the designation report serves no useful purpose to anyone with any interest in historic architecture. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Necrothesp:, that's a NYC.gov, a local government. What part of this is national designation level as said in WP:NBUILD? Graywalls (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm aware. But that's not what I said. Just because it's not nationally designated doesn't mean it can't be notable. Plenty of New York City Landmarks do have their own articles. I see no value in deleting information on an historic building "just because"! It might certainly be better served in a wider article, but unfortunately there isn't yet one. But in any case, it does appear to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tribeca West Historic District Delete - this is a run-of-the-mill older building in NYC, like thousands of others in the city that have features like: Some surviving historic features include a pressed metal cornice, prominent brick-and-stone lintels, a brick corbel table, wood sash windows, and cast-iron piers, so I'm failing to understand what makes this one notable. The sourcing is quite weak, consisting of blogs like Curbed and trade journal-like websites like Commercial Observer or GlobeSt. Here's what GlobeSt's website says about their mission to publish native advertising: Native Advertising: Connect your content with our website audience in the context of the editorial user experiences; the result is higher visibility and engagement for your thought leadership content.[31]. In other words, "Pay to Play." I understand the building lies within the boundaries of the "Historical District" however, if the building were notably historic we would see coverage in books on architectural history, or critical/analytical analysis in architectural magazines or academic journals. An online BEFORE search finds real estate listings, more blogs but not in-depth coverage outside of the incident where the developer/owner wanted to mount a huge crucifix to the exterior. I agree that an article on the Tribeca Historic District would be the perfect place to redirect this, but one has not been created, yet. Fails GNG and NBUILD. Many houses on the very block I live on fall within our local "historical district", does that mean they are wiki-notable? No, it just means they are old and haven't been gut renovated.Netherzone (talk) 12:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: This building is a contributing property to a city historic district (not even an individual landmark), so it doesn't automatically meet NBUILD, but I'm leaning toward it meeting GNG. The LPC source does have a few details about the building's early history and facade, but since 177 Franklin was only designated along with 1,000 other buildings in Tribeca West, the info in the report is more limited. I did find a handful of sources about the Shinola store, like this New York Times Magazine source and this source from Hodinkee. I also found a source from the Wall Street Journal which describes how the building was supposed to become luxury apartments before becoming a store. This source from the Real Deal describes a few of the previous plans for the building. I haven't looked into pre-2000s sources, but like Netherzone, I was unable to find coverage of the building in architectural magazines.
    As for the other sources currently in the article, Walter Grutchfield is self-published, and Wikimapia isn't reliable. GlobeSt.com and Commercial Observer are both reputable trade journals with editorial oversight, but the sources from these websites don't comprise significant coverage. (As an example, this GlobeSt article about the building's sale, which ostensibly is three paragraphs long, only describes the number of stories and the building's cost—a total of two sentences). Though Curbed is now owned by New York Media, LLC, the two Curbed sources in the article were published when Curbed was still an independent blog, so I hesitate to call this reliable. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am also fine with merging/redirecting this to Tribeca West Historic District. The sources I provided show that the building only barely meets GNG, so the topic could still be mentioned in the Tribeca West article as part of a section about specific buildings in the district. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see how any reader could possibly benefit by having less factual information rather than more about a building that has been noted as contributing to the designation of a historic district. Station1 (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Hi, thanks for sharing your opinion, but it would be useful if you would substantiate policy based argument that supports your position Graywalls (talk) 08:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but I think far more important is the spirit of Wikipedia, "to benefit readers by presenting information on all branches of knowledge." Contrary to your bald assertions, without further explanation, that the article does not meet the guidelines (not policy) at WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD, the topic does have reliable secondary sources that address the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content, primarily and especially the LPC report. Furthermore, WP:NBUILD says buildings "may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." This building has historic and architectural importance documented by the LPC, a reliable third-party source. And no one has yet researched local papers for information about its social importance regarding the church controversy, where freedom of religion and zoning rules clashed, nor about its use as a public avant-garde concert venue in the '80s. And under WP:NGEO "national level recognition" only presumes notability, it does not mean other historic structures cannot be notable; besides which NYC is larger than about half the nations of the world. Granted, this is far from the world's most important building, but we have literally thousands of articles about similarly or less notable buildings on Wikipedia, and consensus is that they stay. Now that I've attempted to answer your question, perhaps you can explain how Wikipedia readers will benefit by depriving them of the facts contained in this article. Station1 (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, @Station1, as mentioned in my comment above I did indeed do a BEFORE search, which I consider to be best practices in AfDs. Newspapers.com had several hits, but these were simple mentions for things like, "so and so lived at 177 Franklin Street, who died on Friday" lot's of these types of mentions. I also found mentions of the address in listings for apartments that were for rent. But found nothing about the building itself or its architectural, historical importance. Additionally I did a Google search and only came up with blogs, real estate listings, primary sources, and a few pieces about the big crucifix event. I also did a search of the LPC report, and found nothing in it about this specific building at 177 Franklin. Do you have a page number in the report that you could direct us to? Netherzone (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's on pages 295-6. Station1 (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I found it with your help. What I found there is a short paragraph mainly describing the physical characteristics, but not any distinguishing characteristics that would indicate how this specific building is exceptional and set apart from the other many thousands of buildings that fall within drawn historical boundaries in NYC. This indicates run of the mill, WP:MILL at least to my way of thought. What would you consider to be the two other best sources? Netherzone (talk) 02:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A topic is either notable or it's not. Barely notable is still notable. A real-world reliable independent source with competence in the subject has taken note of this building and provided facts about it, facts that we can pass on to readers, however few, who might be interested in those facts, and that's enough for me. I still haven't heard any argument explaining why those readers are better off not knowing facts about this building. Station1 (talk) 03:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it isn't. There's a range of notability and if it doesn't meet GNG or the relevant SNG have no place on Wikipedia. A tract home chosen for a home makeover show is more notable than the rest of the homes in the subdivision but it's going to take a very significant, in-depth coverage in multiple sources with significant level of details by independent reliable sources devoted to that house to be considered for an article. Graywalls (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    GNG does not say very, or in-depth, or significant level [of details]. It does say "There is no fixed number of sources required..." and that the topic "does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Your criteria seem to be higher than what GNG suggests. Station1 (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It sort of does in WP:SIGCOV. "multiple sources are generally expected". and it defines what significant coverage means on Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete or draftify. Given the sources presented, the article does not appear to meat the GNG or other notability guidelines. Given that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory of historic buildings, I can't in good faith argue to keep in this case, but Station1 and Necrothesp make a good point that deleting verifiable, factual information is in tension with the overall goal of Wikipedia. Draftification, especially if someone is interested in putting together a brief Tribeca West Historic District article would be a reasonable ATD, but if no one is ready to do the work, deletion may be necessary. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eluchil404, thanks for explaining your reasoning. As a heads-up, someone else has now created the Tribeca West Historic District article. (Also pinging @Necrothesp who mentioned the Tribeca West red link.) Epicgenius (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Could very well be notable, but the sourcing just isn't there. I don't find anything extra we can use either. Plenty of listed buildings in NYC that have articles that aren't in the National Register, but we need sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Süleyman Şefik Pasha

Süleyman Şefik Pasha (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)

Surprisingly the Turkish article also has no sources. As a fair number of Turkish editors are interested in history I thought better to open for discussion rather than “prod”. Is he notable? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Short Life of Anne Frank

The Short Life of Anne Frank (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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 18:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Central Illinois' On-Line Broadcast Museum

Central Illinois' On-Line Broadcast Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG; written like an advertisement. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of original ideas but no consensus. If you are arguing Keep, you should respond to the nominator's statement about the lack of sources about the museum.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Pinterest

Timeline of Pinterest (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)

Basically per WP:WEBHOST. This article has been tagged as possibly having been "created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use" for over seven years with no resolution of that tag. Notable or not, Wikipedia should not maintain content that violates its terms of use for such a length of time. BD2412 T 02:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a well-articulated Keep argument and two valueless Delete comments that provide no explanations for why this article should be deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anabwani I of Bunyoro

Anabwani I of Bunyoro (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 appears to be a hoax, or at the very least non-notable. The article was created by User:Anabwani2007, whose only edits consist of creating and editing this article, as well as adding a mention of Anabwani to Omukama of Bunyoro. None of the links presently given in the article even mention Anabwani. I wasn't able to find even a mention in reliable sources either. A Ugandan newspaper, Daily Monitor, mentions him in an article, but that's it (and their list is sourced to the monarchy's website anyway, where he's similarly merely mentioned once). toweli (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep note that the source used for this was likely oral, and his being mentioned in a literate source should be enough to put it beyond reasonable doubt of him being genuine
Kowal2701 (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only source stems back to an honours mill that just had a half-dozen articles deleted within the last month for self-published promo. How is this any different if it’s all stemming from an interested party? —Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 04:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka Rebellion in popular culture (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)

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone article. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tentative keep? It seems that this article is sourced which suggests it is notable. Is there a problem with the sources here? If not, then it's fine. Parent article is very long so a spin-out on this topic per summary style is fine, as long as the sources discuss the later cultural influence - which it seems that they do. SnowFire (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SnowFire, I just want to note that the parent article Eureka Rebellion was significantly smaller prior to Robbiegibbons first edit. In December 2020, during their first edit, it was 87k bits long. This isn't a case of an article being so long that someone came along and made some splits to make things more readable. With all these articles, plus Battle of the Eureka Stockade, which they created, and all the other associated articles they have created or edited, we are looking at over a million bytes written on this topic by this user. I recommended a higher level article first, such as Legacy of the Eureka Rebellion, which could capture a lot of this information from all these topics. Taken as a whole, I think the purpose I am trying to get at is that this all needs to be better summarized in a succinct manner. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Backing up to first principles here... so there are parts of Wikipedia that are weirdly detailed walled gardens. Some of them are celebrated as a really talented writer collecting every scrap of well-sourceable information on a topic and providing a comprehensive overview, and others are derided as "cruft" and fans run amuck. But... what's the difference? To me the answer is: reliable sources. If there is a topic with extremely deep coverage and good sources on it, mining them out in detail is fine, as long as they're not overstretched to SYNTH degrees. (Think individual Bible episodes, Shakespeare sonnets, etc., which can have entire books on 'em.) If it's just OR and old Geocities pages and primary sources and fan webpages by random independents, then it's a problem. That's why I asked "Is there a problem with the sources here?" above. If these are good sources Robbie is citing, then all of these AFDs should be closed as keep. As he's pointed out himself, we have similarly detailed articles on the Alamo and the like, so I don't find it unreasonable to believe that similarly deep sourcing exists for the Eureka Rebellion as does the Texan Revolution. Now, if it turns out that the sources are, say, print-to-demand Kindle direct books published by a random fan, or the sources are being greatly misrepresented & stretched, I could be convinced to adjust my vote toward the deletion direction. But I'd want to see evidence of that - not merely a general "this seems like too much info" vibe. (See Category:Ned Kelly or the like for an example of an Australian with a bunch of stuff related to him that is presumably valid to have.) SnowFire (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In accord with SnowFire here, per WP:NEXIST, what sources exist? With a preliminary search, I can see Frost's chapter "Refighting the Eureka Stockade: Managing a Dissonant Battlefield" in Battlefield Tourism (Routeledge, 2007), Couzens' article "Cinematic visions of Australian colonial authority in Captain Thunderbolt (1953), Robbery Under Arms (1957) and Eureka Stockade (1949)" in Studies in Australasian Cinema (2016), Skilton's chapter "Mining, Masculinity, and Morality: Understanding the Australian National Imaginary Through Iconic Labor" in Gendering Nationalism (Springer 2018), Vine's chapter "Colonial Larrikins" in Larrikins, Rebels and Journalistic Freedom in Australia (Springer 2021). There's a very large amount of material on this, an event which has resonated through Australian history for more than a century and a half. This is a perfectly reasonable WP:OKFORK. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vexillology of the Eureka Rebellion

Vexillology of the Eureka Rebellion (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)

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone article. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there is a flags of the confederacy article that is along the same lines as the one nominated for deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America Robbiegibbons (talk) 04:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

White nationalism and the Eureka Rebellion

White nationalism and the Eureka Rebellion (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)

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone article. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep on grounds offered. This seems a classic WP:SUMMARYSTYLE spin-out of a subtopic to a separate article. It's possible that it should be merged or reorganized elsewhere but if there isn't an issue with the content, then complying with WP:SIZE sometimes means making such branch articles as these. Nothing new there. It's only a content fork if the exact same matter is discussed in two different places (usually the fork applying its own unique spin on the topic), and that doesn't appear to be the case? SnowFire (talk) 09:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • With some tightening of the text (which reads a bit too much like an essay rather than a statement of facts) this could merge with the main article on the Eureka Rebellion which has a lengthy quote about the Chinese presence but which does not explain the racial issues nearly as well as this article. Lamona (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one of many unnecessary WP:FORKs of the Eureka Rebellion. While it may have been a significant event in Australia we do not need such minutiae. Mztourist (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE : A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. Subject is notable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've not yet had a detailed look at this, but it appears to have significant WP:OR and WP:ESSAY issues. AFAICS none of the sourcing mentions white nationalism (as opposed to racism). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur. Taken together these articles on the rebellion are probably notable, but the style and the titling are not appropriate for Wikipedia. With a lot of editing these could be made into a single or a few good articles, but it will take a LOT of editing. Lamona (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a student of military history, I'm not particularly interested in the politics of the Eureka Rebellion myself. I was only trying to get the ball rolling. Robbiegibbons (talk) 04:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails verification and is WP:OR; the entire lede is pure WP:ESSAY. This is pretty typical of the entire piece: "Numerous authors have mentioned the antipathy of the European miners towards the presence of Asiatics on the goldfields, including Russel Ward, who has noted: "The Chinese ... were conspicuous by their absence at Eureka"" The quote from Ward demonstrates nothing about the "antipathy of European miners". Nor can I verify the source (unlisted in the bibliography); half the references cannot be verified. Per WP:NEXIST, there's no sources that I can find which speak of "white nationalism" in this context. White Nationalism is distinct from racism or, more specifically to Eureka, Sinophobia. There is definitely a stand alone article on racism and Eureka (although I think it would be better located in an article on the historiography of Eureka), but it is not this one. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it might just benefit from some copy editing. I don't see why Wikipedia won't let readers take a deep dive into the subject of the Eureka Rebellion as is the case with the series on the American revolution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:American_Revolution_sidebar. We're talking about the best documented event in 19th century Australian history. Robbiegibbons (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is not WP:OKFORK, the problem is original research. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not seeing the original research. The use of the Eureka flag and mythology by white nationalists is well known and documented. And I am having difficulty with your assertion that white nationalism is distinct from racism ie that it is possible to be a white nationalist without being a racist. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Part of the problem here is that the article is applying a term for a contemporary phenomenon (relatively speaking) to an historical incident. If the article was about how contemporary White Nationalists deploy Eureka mythology, that might be an article (although again I'd see that more for a piece on the historiography of Eureka). However, that's not the content of this article; it is simply a discussion of racism in the context of the Eureka rebellion. I'm happy to change my view if one can show the preponderance of historians discuss the anti-Chinese incidents around the Eureka rebellion as "White Nationalism". Described as racism and xenophobia, yes, sources discuss those terms. However, White Nationalism is a far more recent term (Ngram comparison with racism) more frequently associated with *movements/parties* of the far-right, not *generalised* racism within society. I'm not aware of its general use to describe racism in mid-19th Century Australia. In the Australian context, it is initially associated with the anti-communist far right movements of the 1950s and 1960s and susequentlty applied to neo-Nazi movements (and others) in Australia from the 1970s. It's OR precisely because it's anachronistic. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 Lamona (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Racism and xenophobia are also recent terms. Nor is it clear that the scope of the article is restricted to the 19th century. In the lead it reads: "The Eureka Flag is often featured on bumper stickers with white nationalist political slogans, and the Australia First Party has incorporated it into their official logo. Many, including Peter Fitzsimons, have criticised such use by 'those who ludicrously brandish it as a symbol of white Australia'." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Racism and xenophobia are not absent from historians' discourse about Eureka, "white nationalism" is. Without a prepondrance of reliable sourcing to show otherwise, it's WP:SYNTHESIS to conflate the latter (white nationalism) with the former (racism and xenophobia). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, WP:V is policy - the Fitzsimons quote is among five of the six references in the lede which fail that policy. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it has a valid reference, then it cannot fail WP:V. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge. Body of the article has no content on modern use of the Eureka Rebellion/flag in white nationalist movements in Australia which is the ostensible subject of the article. There may well be other RS on that subject matter but an effort should be made to cover it in that article before forking if it becomes unwieldy. Parts from the intro could be incorporated into political legacy in the main article. Section about colonial attitudes towards the Chinese could be incorporated into Racism in Australia or Asian Australians if not appropriate for the Eureka Rebellion article. Chaste Krassley (talk) 05:23, 30 August 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. The Keep view, and its accompanying per !vote, fail to rebut the deficiency in notability, resulting in a rough consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 14:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian police in the Eureka Rebellion

Victorian police in the Eureka Rebellion (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)

Excessive detail, list of people who for the most part played only a very minor role in the Rebellion and which doesn't add understanding or necessary background. First entry "Atkins was with the foot police at the Eureka Stockade". Second entry "he was a police orderly at the Eureka Stockade." So what? Fram (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would just note that The Eureka Encyclopedia has a stand-alone entry for "Policing in Ballarat" where some of the information comes from. Robbiegibbons (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It gets worse: "Calvin ... May have been at the Eureka Stockade. Athel cb (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless they were listed as officially killed or injured it's hard to be certain of their status. Here's a typical entry from The Eureka Encyclopedia that shows how they deal with it:
"CULPECK, THOMAS A private in the 12th Regiment (no 2797), he was probably present during the storming of the Eureka Stockade on 3 December 1854, being in Ballarat during the third muster. He was probably the Thomas Culpeck who married Mary Putrtill in 1857 in Tasmania." Robbiegibbons (talk) 09:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
actually now that I think of it, what about renaming the article "Victorian police in the Eureka Rebellion" and then I'm willing to truncate it. Robbiegibbons (talk) 05:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename and improve, the topic is notable and needs to be more than a mere list of possible participants. The role of the police on the goldfields as a factor in the Eureka rebellion, their role at the stockade, and as witnesses in the Treason trials are worth documenting. Plenty of sources available beyond Eurekapedia which seems a little weak in this area. --Matilda talk 21:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    we can similarly replace the "List of colonial forces in the Eureka Rebellion" with another article "British army in the Eureka Rebellion" that will cover the topic and contain only a much-reduced list of notable soldiers if at all. We can discuss all the really important ones in the body of the article. Robbiegibbons (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

we need hear from more Australian wikipedians 2001:8003:22BA:7101:BD11:1799:9C87:E8A7 (talk) 05:39, 3 September 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.

Battle of Rumal

Battle of Rumal (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)

Low quality article about a relatively non notable event with limited coverage within sources. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion in hopes of more participation. Please focus on the article, its sources and whether or not notability is established. Stop making accusations about other editors, it doesn't help whatever argument you are making. If you suspect sockpuppetry, head to SPI, don't bring it up here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even ignoring opinions from accounts with few edits, I don't see a consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist in hopes of establishing some sort of consensus, which at present appears lacking. TarnishedPathtalk 12:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TarnishedPathtalk 12:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History Proposed deletions

History categories

for occasional archiving

Proposals

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/History&oldid=1244166645"