Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Social science|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
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 Social science. 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

This list includes sublists of deletion debates on articles related to language and history.

See also: Science-related deletions and Medicine-related deletions.

Social science

Gastrosexuality

Gastrosexuality (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)

Failed attempt at neologism from 2008, apparently part of a commercial promotion. Appears to have originated in the Daily Mail, which is not usable as a source. RS usage that I can find is one Irish Times mention. There's a HuffPost article that turns out to be a reblog of the Daily Mail piece. There's a Times article that admits it's an advertising feature. That's it. This was an article, then it was a redirect, then it was restored as an ill-sourced article. I'm pretty sure a single usage of an advertising promotional term is not sufficient for a Wikipedia article, and it would be a dicdef in any case. David Gerard (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social science Proposed deletions

Language

List of Boomer slang

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

Does not meet WP:SALAT. This list is distinguished from other lists such as List of Generation Z slang by the cultural dominance of the baby boomers. It's impossible to imagine this list ever being complete because its scope is not constrained to a particular decade or subculture. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 16:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - This article is comparable to the Glossary of Texas A&M University terms or the aforementioned List of Generation Z Slang and does have a clear scope (being years Boomers have been alive) and can be attributed to multiple subcultures. I find the argument that "it's impossible to imagine this list ever being complete" weak because if someone takes the time to develop it, they will finish it due to the existence of numerous reliable sources Microplastic Consumer (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Wikipedia is not a dictionary, plain and simple. Not only that, but as already mentioned, inclusion criteria is incredibly vague and subjective. I would recommend nominating other such lists of slang for the same reasons. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Please see Category:Wikipedia glossaries - the Subcategories listed at the top, justify this one. — Maile (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see WP:Other stuff exists, where the existence of other similar articles is not a justification for the existence of this one. Moreover, this is not a glossary. The entry at wikt:glossary defines one as "A list of difficult words or specialized terms used in a particular book or document, or in a particular domain of knowledge, with their definitions; a list of glosses (explanatory annotations)." This is merely a list of slang words claimed to be used by old people. Besides the inclusion criteria issues I alluded to above, that's what a slang dictionary is, with the only exception being restriction to a vague timeframe or something. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sourcing is too bad; BuzzFeed and BusinessInsider listicles (or "descriptions" that say the terms pre-date 1960). If there were better sourcing, I would support a re-factoring to be about "slang from the second half of the 20th century". Walsh90210 (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Walsh90201. These sources are very bad, BusinessInsider and Buzzfeed are just mediocre listicles, not reliable or useful sources. One is titled "20th-century slang terms", not terms used by Boomers specifically. Just because a term was coined or was used in the '60s doesn't make it "Boomer slang". Calling Flip-flops "thongs" is still in use by many. Searching for "submarine races" does give some results that corroborates the definition, but it doesn't appear to have been widely used. A quick search for "slurg" has zero sources that this was a even real term besides some articles about "50s slang", which would mean it's not "Boomer slang". "Skinny" is also still in use; if it was first used in WWII, what exactly makes it "Boomer slang"? Just a vague, awful list here that I don't think can be salvaged. Reywas92Talk 14:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement

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

Non notable topic Jax 0677 (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unclear what the consensus is here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

François Thibaut

François Thibaut (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 subject does not look notable generally or as an academic or educator. All of the citation links in the article are actually to the same New York Times article, which only briefly mentions the article subject: "In 1994, the school had fewer than 50 students learning Spanish; now, there are 180, said Francois Thibaut, the school's director. A class had to be added this fall to accommodate the increasing demand, he said." [2]. I was not able to locate most of the other links/sources, and what I found did not mention the article subject. – notwally (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Appears to be a promotion for his business, with no in-depth coverage that would support GNG, neither in the article nor found elsewhere. It doesn't help that two of the three footnotes have the same url and that the further reading links are all deadlink copies of press coverage selected for display by the same business. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M-T pronouns

M-T pronouns (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 exclusively from a single source, and fails to establish WP:N. Practically zero mention of the concept outside of that single source and veers dangerously into WP:PROFRINGE territory with the WP:OR links to fringe theory language families like Nostratic, which aren't mentioned in the source. Without establishing notability this seems to not really belong here, and I'm unable to verify that this is at all taken seriously in linguistics.

For anyone unfamiliar with this topic:

"The M-T pattern is the most common argument for several proposed long-distance language families, such as the Nostratic hypothesis, that include Indo-European as a subordinate branch. Nostratic has even been called 'Mitian' after these pronouns."

Nostratic is emphatically a fringe theory within linguistics and is not mentioned in any of the sources, and this article seems heavily like WP:ADVOCACY. Any sources linking Nostratic to M-T Pronouns are inherently fringe sources, but even then many of the claims here are entirely un-cited. It doesn't seem this article can be saved. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Feels like Original Research to me. Only two sources though the Google search gives plenty sources. Whether they back up the article and are reliable or not I have no idea. Not my field — Iadmc♫talk  10:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Asia and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not advocating for Nostratic. This is simply a piece of evidence claimed by those who do, and Nostratic has been deemed appropriate for a WP article.
    As noted, the M-T pronominal pattern is well attested in the lit. I relied on a single source to create the article, but others could be added.
    Some conclusions drawn from the pattern, such as Nostratic, are FRINGE. Yet we have articles on them. WALS is most certainly not a fringe source. IMO it's worth discussing one of the principal pieces of evidence given for fringe hypotheses when we have articles on them. A similar pattern in America, N-M, has been used to justify the FRINGE hypothesis of Amerind. Yet it is discussed in non-fringe sources, which conclude that it's only statistically significant for western North America, and disappears as a statistical anomaly if we accept the validity of Penutian and Hokan. That's worth discussing, because it cuts the legs out from under Amerind; without it, people might find the argument for Amerind to be convincing.
    I have yet to find a credible explanation for the M-T pattern. But the lack of an explanation for a phenomenon is not reason to not cover it. There are many things we can't convincingly explain, but that's the nature of science: we don't refuse to cover them. — kwami (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ seems to be motivated to object to this because they think I have a PROFRINGE statement on my user page. What I have is a sarcastic statement, one that other WP linguists have laughed over because it is obviously ridiculous. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ fails to see the sarcasm.
    An equivalent might be to say that our personalities are governed by Arcturus, which is in Gemini; therefore we're all Geminis and have share a single hive mind. That wouldn't be advocacy for astrology. (Though I'm sure people have come up with more imaginative ways of mocking it.) — kwami (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s not exactly obvious sarcasm when you’re making articles that advocate the perspectives of fringe theorists, but sorry if I missed that. It wasn’t my intention to have it sound like an attack. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not advocating the perspectives of fringe theorists, I'm describing a pattern that they have used to justify their theories. I've done the same for Amerind; there the conclusion is that if we accept Penutian and Hokan as valid clades, then the statistical anomaly (and thus the purported evidence for Amerind) disappears. I don't know of any similar conclusion in this case, but the pattern remains and is worth discussing if we're going to have articles on Nostratic and the like (and we have quite a few of those articles!)
    What comes off as advocacy to me is covering FRINGE theories in multiple articles and then refusing to discuss the evidence, when consideration of that evidence would cast doubt on the theories. That would be like refusing to discuss the evidence posited for astrology or UFOs, leaving readers with only the perspective of advocates to go by. — kwami (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is WP:Original research, by your own words, and has no place in the encyclopedia. Use a blog to promote your personal research. Delete — Iadmc♫talk  12:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nostraticists have a long and storied history of claiming basically anything they can as evidence. These claims aren’t taken seriously among linguists for good reason. I’m unaware of a single piece of scholarship that’d pass WP:RS (or even not those that’d pass) claiming this as evidence for Nostratic, and frankly I find your accusations here inappropriate so I’ll bow out of engaging and let the rest of the AfD play out. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note — kwami is the creator and sole contributor to this article— Iadmc♫talk  12:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm speaking as a non-expert, but I would like to get more context on the matter. Do such patterns, outside of advocating for certain theories, have any value? Could, for example, there be a place in the Nostratic article to add a few more of these details to the Proposed features section? I'm not familiar with the sources in the article, what is their reputation generally? AnandaBliss (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as credible sources go, which is just the one page linked as the main source in the article, it's a statistically noted feature but no signifficance has yet been attributed to it. Certainly not to Nostratic. Nostratic is itself a fringe theory and likely doesn't need more on the proposed features as none of the proposed features are real, and nobody is proposing a link to Nostratic because of this as far a sourcing goes except the author of the article and perhaps some blogs. This article has, frankly, some big "teach the controversy" energy.
    @Austronesier is a little less viscerally anti-Nostratic-on-wikipedia and may have a different perspective, however. Also, I think this should probably be my last reply here lest I WP:BLUDGEON.
    Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or probably expand and modify its scope to include the other notable pronoun pattern (N-M) along the lines of the WALS page cited in the article. As is, it is underreferenced, but we can easily get more sources by following the trail of Johanna Nichols's paper on this subject and subsequent papers by other scholars who take a typological look at the matter. Sure, this pronoun pattern is cited as evidence by Nostraticists, but they don't own the topic. Yet, you can hardly leave Lord Voldemort, uhm I mean Nostratic unmentioned in relation to this notable topic, because most mainstream linguist writing about the topic of global pronoun patterns will at least mention the fact that Nostraticists have tried to build a language relationship hypothesis out this real observable. You can't blame observables for the bad and motorious hypotheses that are made to explain them.
Finally, this is not advocacy, and to believe so earns you a megatrout, @Warren. Kwami has built literally hundreds of language family and subgroup articles in WP from a mainstream perspective, generally leaning towards a "splitter" approach (ala Hammarström or Güldemann). Ok, unfamiliarity with kwami's role in this project is one thing, but jeez, labelling an important piece of Nichols's research as fringe just because of an indirect association to the Nostratic hypothesis is a knee jerk that makes the knee jerks in WP:FTN look like an élevé. –Austronesier (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For all the "delete" !votes because of WP:OR issues, there's WP:NOTCLEANUP. Here's more sources covering the topic:
  1. "Selection for m : T pronominals in Eurasia"[3] by Johanna Nichols (co-author of the WALS chapter)
  2. "Personal pronouns in Core Altaic"[4] by Juha Janhunen
Needless to say that these book chapters do not promote or endorse long-range fringe speculations. –Austronesier (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moving this to 'M-T and N-M pronoun patterns' might be worthwhile. The latter is already written and referenced, so we only need to merge it in. Nichols et al. note that these are the only two patterns that jump out in a global perspective. There are others at a local scale, of course, such as the Č-Kw pattern in the western Amazon, but these tend to not be all that contentious as arguments for the classification of poorly attested or reconstructed families. They also don't lend themselves to fringe ideas, because really, who but a historical linguist (or the people themselves) care whether Piaroa and Ticuna are related?
I wonder whether a Pama-Nyungan-like pronoun pattern extends beyond that family, as a pan-Australian feature. If it does, that -- and how people explain it if they don't believe it's genetic -- might be worth discussing as well. — kwami (talk) 06:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I took your suggestion and merged in the N-M stuff and moved the article to M–T and N–M pronoun patterns. I haven't had a chance yet to incorporate your sources, and this week's going to be rather busy, but it's on my to-do list. — kwami (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is definitely original research. The article presents this as related to Nostratic and Etruscan language families, neither of which are mentioned in the source the article is based on. A lot of the article needs to get deleted, probably. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At the very least, this is a non-notable topic propped up by a healthy dose of OR. There's a single source for the main article topic along with who-knows-how-much-personal-observation in the article currently, such as "However, doubling the number of pronouns to be considered in this way increases the possibility of coincidental resemblance, and decreases the likelihood that the resulting pattern is significant." Where does this come from? Where does any of these statistical conclusions come from? It's not in the source. This is a pretty concerning case and may warrant further scrutiny. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that this isn't a fringe theory, but it does seem hard to find secondary sources on. Keep assuming any other secondary sources exist. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, make that Delete unless at least one more secondary source can be identified, after looking at the article again. Almost all of it is not based on the source it actually uses, and it seems difficult to write an article given nobody seems to have any other sources than that one. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would a redirect to Nostratic languages be possible here? This seems to be WP:SYNTH. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not a good idea. The topic is notable outside of the Nostraticist bubble. The author that has most contributed to our understanding of the topic, Johanna Nichols, does not endorse long-range speculations. –Austronesier (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and probably clean up. Gbooks turned up this sound-looking source. Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a brief mention simply referring back to Nichols again; there's not the sort of in-depth analysis that you'd expect for a notable topic...or any analysis for that matter. The OR/SYNTH here is strewn so inextricably throughout the article, and the topic so niche, contributed by a single author, that cleanup seems exceedingly improbable. At the very least, WP:TNT applies here if anyone thinks that they can demonstrate notability. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Inextricable? Don't turn subjective unwillingness to extract the obvious bits of OR/SYNTH into an intrinsic property of the text. WP:TNT is not an excuse for laziness. –Austronesier (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please do not move articles while their AfD is open.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm leaning delete, but I think kwami is right that there can be articles about arguments used for dubious language families, and I think calling the article "original research" is overly critical. However, the WALS map is not clearly about an argument used for certain proposed families, but about the distribution of sounds in certain pronouns - whether or not these have been used as arguments for Nostratic/Altaic/Indo-Uralic or whatever - at least in my reading. I would like to see more sources that are specifically about the pattern, otherwise it seems to get undue weight by having an article. The topic could instead be covered under the name of "(Personal) pronouns in Nostratic/etc", which would make sense under a very different structure (so not sure a move would be useful, or?), and maybe even better to start it as a subsection in the relevant proposed family's article. This would probably better reflect the context that the pattern is discussed in, in the sources. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 18:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Labingi

Labingi (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 seems like an list disambiguation. Both articles link to each other in the lead. Could possible be redirected to Westron language? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I think WP:NAMELIST refers to a very different case than ours here, with their example of Lincoln (disambiguation): If there is a term with a number of different meanings, which includes both persons' names and other things, then one should only include very prominent examples (like Abraham Lincoln) in the main disambiguation page, while other persons' names should be spun out into a page like Lincoln (name). Here, we only have names of (fictional) persons. Secondly, the guideline says why it exists in the first place: To prevent disambiguation pages from getting too long. That is very much not a problem here. Daranios (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article is presented as a name list, and uses the templates that are intended for real life people. So I have no choice but to judge it as one - if I don't, it has even less of a claim for existence due to violating WP:PTM. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see this also as a name list. WP:NAMELIST, despite its title, does not deal with how to construct name lists, but how to deal with regular disambiguation pages which also contain names, and the relationship between regular disambiguation pages and name lists. The part you have quoted therefore does not apply to our name list here, as is directly present in that part: ...should be listed at the disambiguation page.... So no violation of that guideline here. Daranios (talk) 09:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dalleth

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone able to find some sources like those Tacyarg mentioned?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I've added another couple of references, and tagged as citation needed the only sentence which is now not sourced. Probably need a Cornish history or Cornish language expert for more, or at least access to a decent reference library in Cornwall. Tacyarg (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider sources added by Tacyarg.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E@I

E@I (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)

Notability. I'm just not finding secondary coverage of this. Nor anything primary that's really convincing me of its significance. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 24 June 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, Daniel (talk) 05:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded articles


History

Kariokskoe of battle

Kariokskoe of battle (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 minor skirmish at best. Existing citations are all non-independent, 19th-century primary sources, and I can't find any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Venality of offices

Venality of offices (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 defines a concept that does not seem to consistently go by this name, the sale of offices is a concept, but this article does little to characterize it (and what it did do is the work of an LLM of dubious accuracy). Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Executions and assassinations in the West Bank and Jerusalem

Executions and assassinations in the West Bank and Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

the whole article is OR and synth. it starts with Jesus, who is reffered here as "King of Martyrs", then goes to Eichmann, then to Jewish and Palestinian terrorr attacks. The whole article is cherry-picking, and the implied comparison of Jesus, Eichmann, and "The Martyr Abu Ali Mustafa" (sic!) is OR. There are enough articles on the subject (List of Israeli assassinations, List of Palestinian suicide attacks, etc) and there is no need for another synth one.

and it completely fails NPOV : "An eye for an eye", "King of Martyrs", "he refused to commit sin unto the point of shedding blood", "The Martyr Abu Ali Mustafa", "prominent militant", etc Artem.G (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unnecessary, every section has a "Main article" or "See also". I don't see that NPOV or OR problems are clear. I do see NPOV problems but I don't see them as deliberately pushing a position. The editor is interesting but I'm commenting on what's here. Sammy D III (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of Caraquet

History of Caraquet (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)

Historical nonsense moved disruptively to mainspacecreated by a paid contributor first, and then moved to mainspace a second time by an editor who should know better, who was informed about the scientific nonsense, and moved it into the mainspace without even tagging it. Highly irresponsible. Should be moved back to draftspace and completely checked and rewritten to be based on actual science. Fram (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, I meant "proposed for the mainspace", I have struck and corrected. And I object to that, to the prehistory section which is very lengthy to end with, paraphrased, "but for none of this is there any evidence from Caraquet", and to the whole of the article, which seems to need thorough, thorough checking. For example, there are two sections with "1711" in the header. There is no mention of 1711 anywhere else... Source 2 is used 8 times to verify claims. Source 2 is this, and the description of the source in the article doesn't help. So this is an unusable source. The article is also extremely outdated and seems to be written in 2008(!), with a 2007 source for "There are still rumors of a complete reopening" of the hospital, or "By the end of the year, they plan to build a $15 million, 9,000 m2 appliance recycling plant. " (about 2008). Other "current" parts are also a decade out of date apparently, e.g. "The current city council was elected in the May 14, 2012, quadrennial election." The section header there, "21st century: between disappointment and hope" is a NPOV failure. Spot checking other sources, I get "Mentioned in the Vinland article on Wikipedia. This information seems to come from the book The Norse Atlantic Sagas, by Gwyn Jones (To be verified)." and many no longer available sources (due to the age of the original article)[6] or unidentifiable sources ("Coup d'œil 2001-05-31 (in French)."), which seems to indicate that the paid translator has not checked any information or sources but blindly copied what was there. When spot checking reveals so many issues, the whole article needs thorough checking before being acceptable for the mainspace. Whether until then it is draftified, stubbified, deleted, ... can be decided here. Fram (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will interject that I am indeed not a paid editor. I did not quite realize the nature of this article at the time and apologize for the mistake. I now understand to look out for this in future reviews. Garsh (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article is just directly translated from the French article. I’m certain that it can be re-created manually so that information is properly sourced, cited, and verified. B3251(talk) 23:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if not draftified. It should probably have been left in draft, but since it is in the mainspace, keeping it seems dubious. "A giant's skeleton was discovered near the lighthouse on Caraquet Island in 1893 by the keeper's son" is not mainspace material, and does not give me confidence in the rest of the text. Lots looks like it might be plausible, but it definitely needs checking and many sources are not immediately accessible. CMD (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Who is going to do this "checking"? How are they supposed to do it if it's deleted? – Joe (talk) 09:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A Wikipedia editor? Same as any other process. Even if it is deleted and not draftified, any editor can see the sources at fr:Histoire de Caraquet. CMD (talk) 10:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...in French. So what you're basically saying is that editors aren't allowed to translate articles from other Wikipedias unless they also fix all outstanding problems with that article? I don't think there's any policy support for that. – Joe (talk) 12:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is! It's WP:V, specifically WP:PROVEIT. The editor adding the information to en.wiki is responsible for it. WP:REDFLAG also applies here specifically, concerningly. CMD (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What about the parts of the article that are verifiable (i.e. most of it)? They'll be deleted too. – Joe (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know which parts are verifiable, I have not checked the sources. If you have, please note the verified parts so the rest can be cleaned up. CMD (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic is clearly notable. All the problems brought up so far can be addressed through regular editing and last I checked WP:PRESERVE is still a policy. Most of the article is fine and certainly a lot better that what we had on this topic on enwiki before (Caraquet#History – much less and detailed almost completely unreferenced). Draftspace is optional and I don't see how moving it there is going to make it any more likely that these problems are fixed. Deleting it obviously won't. – Joe (talk) 09:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historical sizes of railroads

Historical sizes of railroads (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 a strange remnant of an older Wikipedia that has somehow escaped notice since 2005. It's a list of those railroad companies in North America which in 1948 had 1000 or more steam locomotives. It might be sourced. It's definitely not encyclopedic, and I don't see how it could be. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steam locomotive production, a similar article of the same vintage from the same author. Mackensen (talk) 00:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Whatever the original intent, this seems a very short and incomplete list. There are numerous railroads/rail lines in the United States. Looks like the editor just went by info in the two books listed, but there are no details of which pages, etc. — Maile (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This list of steam locomotives seems like a niche curiosity, and it's not really the kind of in-depth information most readers would expect from an encyclopedia. Waqar💬 17:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Yang Dang Khum

Battle of Yang Dang Khum (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)

Unlike WP:Articles for deletion/Thai bombing of Phnom Penh, this one doesn't appear to be a hoax, but the creator's editing pattern suggests that the text is AI-generated, with fake citations (which I have removed) that do not support any of the facts. This will need to be blown up and entirely rewritten to comply with verifiability requirements. Paul_012 (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thai bombing of Phnom Penh

Thai bombing of Phnom Penh (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 historicity of this claimed topic is completely unverifiable. None of the claimed book references mention anything remotely close to a bombing of Phnom Penh on 13 January 1941, and a Google Books search reveals no mention anywhere else. This looks very much like a hoax, but it's probably not blatant enough for G3. Paul_012 (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1884 DePauw football team

1884 DePauw football team (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)

After a review of the sources in this article, I'm not convinced this team meets the WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS, despite having the claim of playing in the first football game in Indiana. The only source is from the team website, which is primary. A check of newspaper archives didn't come up with much better, with only a single sentence of coverage found at [[8]]. Let'srun (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A closer can't redirect to a non-existent target. Cbl62 (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DePauw football, 1884–1889 has been created. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that the target meets GNG or NSEASONS, but if others find the sourcing to be acceptable I suppose a redirect would suffice. Let'srun (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If need be, the scope could be expanded to cover the 1890s as well. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1884 Wabash football team

1884 Wabash football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication this team, which only played a single game, meets the WP:NSEASONS or WP:GNG. The only source in the article gives this team merely a brief mention, and a cursory search didn't come up with anything better. Let'srun (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the single citation had sufficient depth, it might be OK, but the source presented here lacks the needed depth. Cbl62 (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's true that being a Stub article is not a reason to delete an article. We have thousands and thousands of stub articles. Relisting to see if there is support for Rediretion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let'srun, my assumption is that yes, that target would meet notability guidelines. It would be more productive for you to examine such possibilities before creating an AfD like this. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
my assumption is that yes, that target would meet notability guidelines We would need more than an assumption. Can you provide a couple sources? Cbl62 (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cbl62, you how to answer this question for yourself. See: 1889 Indiana Hoosiers football team. There's lots of other stuff on Newspapers.com. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless someone wants to take the time to create a well-sourced redirect target, redirect is not an available or permissible option here. For that reason, I remain in the "delete" camp. Cbl62 (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need an existing target article, not a hypothetical one that could be created in the future. Liz Read! Talk! 02:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wabash football, 1884–1889 has been created. More coverage can be found, but search at Newspapers.com via Wikipedia Library is currently down. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1895 Pacific Tigers football team

1895 Pacific Tigers football team (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)

After reviewing this article, I am not convinced that it meets the WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS. The only source is a database, and I'm not finding the sources needed to meet the notability guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jweiss11: Two issues with your suggestion: 1) a closer cannot redirect to a redlink so that's not viable unless someone creates it; and (2) is there SIGCOV to support the proposed article? Cbl62 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably worth the editing time to create the proposed article, though, and merging the very small amount of information. The 1898 and 1899 articles aren't in great shape either, and it's possible the game(s) which were played were indeed covered in local papers of the time. SportingFlyer T·C 17:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion of the United States

Invasion of the United States (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 has substantial issues including general copy-editing, severe lack of sources for much of what is stated, and is a general mishmash of actual "invasions", speculative ideas about potential invasions, and (until recent edits) covering completely non-related topics such as nuclear and cyberattacks.

Believe article should be moved to draft given the significant levels of issues. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and United States of America. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Even with the nom's rightful removal of sci-fi cryptofacist fanfiction that took the article completely off the rails, this article is in need of serious help and sourcing, maybe even an entirely new title. As is, 'invasion' is doing very heavy lifting here, as only Pearl Harbor and Imperial Army attempts to get to the mainland during WWII could really be considered as such. Nate • (chatter) 00:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A reasonable person could absolutely make the case that putting all these disparate events into one article isn't WP:OR, but it feels like OR to me. The burning of DC during the War of 1812 and Pearl Harbor and the start of the Mexican-American War are all important events that should (and do) have their own coverage, but putting them all together without directly addressing that they are in most respects very different events seems like the passive suggestion of a connection that may not be merited in fact or sourcing. I think it's possible to write an article that is not subject to this problem, but it would look very different from this one. Off the top of my head, it's that "invasion" suggests that one party was the aggressor, and the relationships between American-Britain, America-Mexico, America-Japan right before the invasion events were all very different. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can see no purpose in draftifying; this article is a mess of pure WP:SYNTH. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles in Kinmen

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

Similarly to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Penghu, I don't see the reason why this would be its own article, as opposed to the conflicts being covered in the Kinmen article (where they are already covered). toweli (talk) 07:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hurt Hardy

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

Does not meet notability standards of WP:CRIME GuyBanks (talk) 01:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly leaning towards Delete. As the person who updated this article (as it was only one sentence before my update), I don't want to take a strong opinion either way; I just want to contribute my two cents and any helpful background I know.
Checking the notability standards, the word "Generally" ("Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role") seems to offer quite a bit of leeway in terms of what can be included. There are quite a few crime articles throughout Wikipedia that I would say cover crimes/criminals that are even less historically significant than Hurt Hardy, yet those articles have not been questioned.
However, the article is an orphan, and I legitimately cannot think of a single article where it would be appropriate to link to Hurt Hardy. (The only one I might consider would be Rainey Bethea, as the ACTUAL final public execution in the U.S., because there could possibly be a mention on his page that Hurt Hardy's execution is sometimes erroneously given that title despite the fact that it isn't true. Even then, I really don't think Hurt Hardy is notable enough to warrant that.)
I did find one modern source discussing Hurt Hardy - https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/readers-opinion/guest-commentary/article248407885.html (published January 11, 2021) – but one article isn't evidence of sustained coverage. Also, the article only briefly mentions him, and his mention is factually incorrect in several ways. Given the contextual text around that brief mention of Hurt Hardy, the article seems to be implying that Hardy was black, and there may have been an extrajudicial aspect to his public execution; however, Hardy was white, and his hanging was legal and carried out in private.
The relevant text is quoted here: "America’s history of public displays of racially-motivated mob violence is foundational going back to slavery, and public executions as a means of punishment happened well into the 1930s. One of the last public executions in the U.S. was on Missouri soil — the hanging of Hurt Hardy Jr. in 1937. Black people’s public hangings did not involve due process and were viewed as celebratory spectacles attended by thousands of white people, including public officials. People would advertise these “events,” sell food, print postcards of mutilated Black lynching victims, and take pieces of the victims’ bodies and clothing as souvenirs. When looking geographically at Missouri’s lynchings, we see that counties with historic racial terror lynchings are more likely to seek death sentences today."
I also found a 1947 magazine article discussing the murder he committed and his execution, but it is very sensationalized and reads like a detective magazine, and those are notorious for embellishing facts. Afddiary (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadakiyans

Sadakiyans (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 was not able to verify the existence of this dynasty - the four references used in the article are also difficult to verify. Semsûrî (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 4, p. 227: "In other towns, too, Arab chieftains came to build their castles and dominated the inhabitants ... in Urmiya Sadaqa b. 'Ali, a client of Azd". See also https://iranicaonline.org/articles/rawwadids. I cannot verify the article as a whole or confirm if this is a notable dynasty, but it does not appear to be a fabrication. Srnec (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sourcing is weak, and does not sufficiently convey the idea of a "dynasty"; if the individuals involved are notable, they should have their own article, but their three-generation "dynasty" is almost certainly not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason that there is so little knowledge about them is that they lived over 1,000 years ago and only ruled for around 50 years in a region wich was made up of villages, lots of mountains and a few small cities. Besides that, they seem to be the first Kurdish dynasty in History, so little information is to be expected. Karkafs Desiderium (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Hignell

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

Non-notable cricket writer. Article was previously deleted in 2007, but there is still no evidence of the subject's notability. – PeeJay 11:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Cricket, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Ledbetter. Suriname0 (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Based on a quick search, doesn't seem to meet WP:NAUTHOR. I found this review of one of his books. Suriname0 (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Radio, History, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Suriname0 found a review of A 'Favourit' Game, reviewed by Jack Williams. I'll add to that a review of Rain stops play, reviewed by Robert Thorpe, doi:10.1256/wea.112.02. But I'm doubtful that [9] is sufficiently reliable, so that gives us only two reviews. I'd want more than that for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. His books are reviewed in serious publications and he is generally considered the pre-eminent historian of Welsh cricket. Sammyrice (talk) 04:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Surprised to see this nom. Hignell is one of the best known and pre-eminent living cricket historians. Meets WP:GNG. AA (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi User:AssociateAffiliate, it would be very helpful for me and for other voters if you could clarify which 2-3 sources best demonstrate that Hignell meets WP:GNG. I couldn't find any when I looked, and the current article doesn't cite any that contain SIGCOV in my opinion! Thanks! Suriname0 (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now up to six reliably published book reviews (of six different books, not counting reviews in specialist cricket web sites), enough for WP:AUTHOR for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francis William Lascelles

Francis William Lascelles (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)

British official (not that Lascelles). It is not clear how he might meet WP:BIO. His position as Clerk of the House of Lords was an administrative one and does not confer automatic notability. Nothing in his unremarkable biography otherwise suggests notability. The cited sources appear to be mostly primary or unreliable sources, and a Google Books search finds nothing of interest. Sandstein 17:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 17:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The man held an exceptionally important post (one of the two chief administrative officers of the British Parliament) and was knighted, for crying out loud. Meets WP:GNG. Meets WP:ANYBIO #1. This deletionism is frankly getting silly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Holding an "important" post (or rather, an administrative role in the politically unimportant house of the legislature) does not, by itself, establish notability. GNG does, which requires substantial coverage in reliable sources, which you do not cite. As to ANYBIO, being knighted is, as I understand it, pretty much automatic at that level of administrative seniority (cf. "Sir Humphrey"); notably, the article does not imply that he obtained the award for any particular achievement. And receiving a title is only an indicator that a person is likely notable, not that they are guaranteed inclusion. If we do not have substantial secondary sources, we have no basis for an article. Sandstein 20:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The "achievement" for which he received his knighthood was being appointed to the post. Why do you think people receive high awards? Because they distinguish themselves in their chosen field. Which he clearly did. The House of Lords is not "the politically unimportant house of the legislature"! It is one of the two houses of the legislature and its clerk is no less important than that of the House of Commons. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The House of Lords, like the monarch, is now an essentially decorative feature of the British constitution. Political power lies in the House of Commons. In any case, since the post of clerk does not come with automatic notability under our rules, neither does a title awarded merely for becoming clerk. Sandstein 12:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You clearly do not understand the concept of being honoured for reaching the top of one's chosen profession. It's no different from any other knight. Sir Ian McKellen, for instance, has also been knighted for reaching the top of his profession. The difference is simply that his profession is high-profile and that of a parliamentary official is not (or, at least, not to the general populace or those who write on the internet - although given he died in 1979 even that wouldn't be relevant). Neither is any more or less notable within their profession. And that's what we should be looking at if we don't want to further degenerate from a genuine encyclopaedia to a catalogue of pop culture, as we sadly appear to rapidly be doing. That's one of the reasons for the existence of WP:ANYBIO #1 - to catch people who are not high-profile but still notable enough to receive high honours. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1856 Cumberland (South Riding) colonial by-election

1856 Cumberland (South Riding) colonial by-election (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 just a directory to two elections that happened in the same electorate in the same year. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1856 Cumberland (North Riding) colonial by-election

1856 Cumberland (North Riding) colonial by-election (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 just a directory to two elections that happened in the same electorate in the same year. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mewar–Delhi Sultanate Wars

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

The article is nothing but a complete product of original research. There is not a single WP:RS that treats the conflicts between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate as involving all the Sultanates (Mamluk dynasty, Khalji dynasty, Tughlaq dynasty, and the Lodi dynasty) allied together against Mewar. Ironically, the timeline of the war/conflicts presented in the article is completely fabricated, and no sources support this notion. There was no single war between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate, as these were not unified entities. Mewar was ruled by the Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty, while the Delhi Sultanate was ruled by the aforementioned dynasties. The author synthesized multiple conflicts and combined them into a single article, even claiming a "Mewar victory" without any evidence. The article is completely a product of WP:SYNTH and OR. Imperial[AFCND] 14:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Pakistan, and India. Imperial[AFCND] 14:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment:Note for the closer: Please analyze the background and contributions of the voters, as meatpuppetry is common among Indian military-history articles. Do not consider the votes of newly created users or common PoV pushers as valid, whether for Delete or Keep. Ironically, I noticed that the author of this article supported the deletion of a similar article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maratha–Nizam wars, yet surprisingly promotes this article by linking to other articles. --Imperial[AFCND] 14:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep I have named the article "List of Battles between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate" but a user named Flemmish changed it to the current name. I suggest the name of the article to be changed to the previous one, "List of Battles between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate", and this is a list where as your article Maratha-Nizam was a conflict which is entirely different from this one. Both articles can't be compared, use common sense at least Imperial. Also, I did not remove the dynasties (Guhila, Sisodiya, Khalji, etc.) another user named Padfoot2008 removed it so you better have this discussion with him. Also when did I add Mewar victory in the article, if some editor adds it (which nobody did you could see page history), you could simply undo that edit, nominating the article for deletion isn't appropriate. And there are several similar articles in Wikipedia like List of wars involving the Delhi Sultanate so why can't this be? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed the title to Mewar–Delhi Sultanate Wars because all parts of the actual text were portraying it as a series of conflicts and a set topic rather than just a list of conflicts between the states — changing the title back wouldn't fix anything, the problems are, as was said, about the text and treating it as a single conflict rather than whether it is called a "list" or not. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which line of the article portrays this as a single conflict? It seems you have a problem in understanding English. Better work on it. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not the one with an English problem here — I did say portraying it as a series of conflicts and a set topic — obviously this was not one 300 year war and by the latter saying of "treating it as a single conflict" I mean, as I and Imperial said, that you are treating these wars between non-unified entities as a series of conflicts, and thus one topic rather than just different conflicts between polities which happened to be located in the same region. You can't take multiple wars between any two states and treat it as one topic if sources do not treat it as one. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me that you simply don't want to understand what is meant by a list. I m saying that this is a list of wars between Mewar and Delhi Sultanate. When am I saying (when is the article saying) this is a single conflict? And what do you mean by non-unified entities? Clearly you are the one who is having difficulty in understanding English or even your own comments. See what you wrote, the problems are, as was said, about the text and treating it as a single conflict Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 07:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you even read Imperial's initial reasoning? Non-unified means, in addition to a lack of centralization, that the "Delhi Sultanate" was not one single country and was ruled by four different dynasties. Quoting Imperial's reasoning, which it seems you can't comprehend, Mewar was ruled by the Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty, while the Delhi Sultanate was ruled by the aforementioned dynasties. The author synthesized multiple conflicts and combined them into a single article, even claiming a "Mewar victory" without any evidence. As I said, you're taking the fact that there were multiple wars between the "Delhi Sultanate" and the "Kingdom of Mewar", both ruled by different dynasties throughout their history, and, as a quote from your writing on the article, claiming that the "Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Wars" were a series of conflicts that happened from the mid 13th to early 16th century with a set victor. I changed the title from a list because by your writing, it wasn't a list; you claimed in the lead, before the page was moved, that there is something called the "Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Wars" which is clearly just a made up name of conflicts between different entities; I was simply adjusting the title to more accurately reflect the outlandish claim your POVish article is trying to make. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, You want me to change just first line of the article that is "The Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Wars were a series of conflicts that happened from the mid 13th to early 16th century"? And even if multiple dynasties are involved that does not support the deletion as it is a list. And what is my POV push in the article, all wars are supported by multiple reliable sources (WP:RS). Also, list of wars articles are perfectly suitable for inclusion in Wikipidea. And different dynasties ruling Mewar and Delhi doesn't make any sense for deletion of the article, for example you could see Afghan-Sikh War. If you changed the title for first line of the article you should have consulted me first as I was the author of this article rather than having this discussion now. Besides where did I mention a set victor in the article since the day it was accepted?Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 08:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: These battles did happen between Mewar and Delhi Sultanate over a long period of time as both vied for control in northern India. What did u mean by this:
There was no single war between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate, as these were not unified entities. Mewar was ruled by the Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty, while the Delhi Sultanate was ruled by the aforementioned dynasties.
How Mewar wasn't a unified entity? Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty are not distinct, Sisodia are a sub-clan of Guhila. Krayon95 (talk) 04:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a single WP:RS that treated the conflicts between Sisodia+Guhila vs Mamluk+Khalji+Tughlaq+Lodi as a single war. So, a clear synthesis is presented here. And your user talk page history is full of clearing warnings and AFD notices on caste-related issues? Imperial[AFCND] 05:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ImperialAficionado Well, indeed, battles took place between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate as they were both powerful entities, particularly Mewar as it was going towards its peak, but as explained by you, there is no source mentioning the war overwall, or, in a better way, an organised millitary standoff. Hence, I would request to rename the article to its older name, which is "List of battles between the Kingdom of Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate," or another name, which is Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Conflicts. Let's have a consensus.
Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete
Majority of the users pushing for “keep” seem to be POV pushers from newly created accounts. They didn’t even give any good reasons for its inclusion. As imperial mentioned, the Delhi sultanate was not a single entity. There’s no proof that all the dynasties(khalji, tughlaq, Mamluk, ETC) participated. Nor is there evidence of a supposed “Mewar victory”. Someguywhosbored (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even read the previous discussion? And for your information I am active on Wikipedia for over 6 months which falsify your claim that Keeps are from newly created users. This is list of wars between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate. I don't understand why are you even mentioning the dynasties. Kingdom of Mewar existed from 6th century till 1947 (now are titular monarchs under Constitution of India) and Delhi Sultanate from 1206-1526. This article deals with the List of wars (is not a single 300 year war) between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate. And please point out where the article shows Mewar victory? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for the Closer : I have addressed all concerns which users Flemmish and Imperial had regarding page name, some sentences of the intro para and the dynasties of the involved belligerents in my recent edits of this page. Please see these links [10], [11], [12], [13]. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep It's a perfect page that passes WP:GNG. These battles did happen and I don't think this page should be deleted. User:Hashid Khan Blocked user

  • Delete: Yes, some of my concerns were addressed by MuA, but if this article is really just going to be a list of conflicts between the two states (who again were ruled by many different dynasties throughout these "conflicts"), there doesn't need to be an infobox, this much prose, (see list of wars between Russia and Sweden for an example) or any aftermath section, in which again it is treated as one conflict "The conflict ultimately ended after the defeat and death...". As it is this article is still too POV-pushy, and even if all of this is addressed, a good reason was never given why this article should actually exist instead of why it should not be deleted — we obviously don't have a list of conflicts between every two states that have fought more than one war between each other, so why do we need this article just for it to say "Mewar victory" 12 times in bold text? Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, If there is a series of battles between two states for over Two centuries then a article can be made for that. Both Mewar and Delhi Sultanate were dominat states of medival era and these battles were one of many reasons of the decline of Delhi Sultanate and rise of Mewar as the most powerful state in the Northern India, for result section you can see List of battles between Mughals and Sikhs. Aside of that the "Khalji Victory" is also written in bold texts. It's just a style of writing because beneath the bold text, there is is a description of event as a whole. Hope your all points are addressed.
    Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 06:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Seems definitely somewhat biased and all, should be reworded to fit WP:MOS... In general, does this information exist elsewhere on Wikipedia? If not, we shouldn't delete. If it does, we could maybe condense and merge. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful.

Please do not move articles while an AfD is open.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 00:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Peshawar (1758)

Capture of Peshawar (1758) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does this pass GNG?

Its not a battle (even a minor one) and seems to have only the briefest of mentions in sources (one line, at most). Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had previously closed this as a soft delete, but only just realized that this article was formerly considered at AFD in 2022 under the title "Battle of Peshawar (1758)", see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Peshawar (1758). Thus, it was ineligible for soft deletion. Relisting for further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment pinging User:Mohammad Umar Ali who made the following case that the article does pass the general notability guidelines on my talkpage here. I assume this user wants to add these comments below. Malinaccier (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The editor who nominated it for deletion argued that it did not pass WP:GNG[14] but it actually does pass it. WP:GNG deals with following points mentioned below I have explained how this article passes every point.

1.) "Presumed" It's not an assumption but a fact as per the sources cited in the article (I have mentioned the sources in 4th point). Moreover it does require its own article as it helps to demonstrate the territorial peak of Maratha Confederacy which was in 1758 just after the capture of Peshawar Fort. Also it helps to understand the regional history of Peshawar which you could see as it has been included in History of Peshawar Wiki article.

2.) "Significant coverage" It does have significant coverage not just in one or two WP:RS but almost every WP:RS which deals with Maratha history or Afghan-Maratha wars, etc. Even various news articles including The Times of India have covered this event see this link; [15]

3.) "Reliable" As told before it's supported by multiple WP:RS sources. And as per the the wiki guidelines availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

4.) "Sources" All the below sources are considered reliable WP:RS.

i.) Advanced Study in the History of Modern India 1707-1813 - Jaswant Lal Mehta - Google Books link [16] pg 237 quoting; Thus nature did provide a golden opportunity to the Marathas to establish their sway over whole of Punjab and northwest India, upto Attock and Khyber pass, although the spell of their rule proved very shortlived.

ii.) Pletcher, Kenneth (2010). The History of India link [17] pg 198 quoting; Thus in 1757 Ahmad Shah's son Timur, appointed governor of Punjab, was forced to retreat from Lahore to Peshawar under the force of attacks from Sikhs and Marathas.

iii.) Pradeep Barua,The state at war in South Asia link [18]page 55; quoting: The Marathas attacked soon after and, with some help from the Sikhs, managed to capture Attock, Peshawar, and Multan between April and May 1758.

iv.) The Marathas - Cambridge History of India (Vol. 2, Part 4) : New Cambridge History of India link [19] pg 132 quoting: First, we shall look at the expanding areas controlled by the Marathas, and there were many. Maratha leaders pushed into Rajasthan, the area around Delhi, and on into the Punjab. They attacked Bundelkund and the borders of Uttar Pradesh. Further east, the Marathas attacked Orissa and the borders of Bengal and Bihar.

v.) Moreover, Govind Sardesai, New History of Marathas Vol 2, It has a whole chapter based on this article and conquest of Punjab by Marathas (See the below links)
Above book Pg 400 link [20] quoting; At Lahore, therefore, Raghunath rao and his advisors found the situation easy and favourable. Abdussamad Khan who was a prisoner in Maratha hands, with characteristic double dealing offered to undertake the defence of frontier agasinst Abdali on behalf of the Marathas. From Poona the Peshwa dispatched Abdur Rahman with all haste to Lahore with instructions to Raghunath to make the best use of him in the scheme he was now executing- Raghunathrao, therefore, consigned the trans-Indus regions of Peshawar to these two Muslim agents, Abdur Rahman and Abdussamad Khan, posting them at Peshawar, with a considerable body of troops.

5.) "Independent of the subject" All the sources stated above are independent as it includes both Indian as well as foreign authors. All these sources are considered reliable (WP:RS). Advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not included in the sources (4th point).

So, it clearly does pass WP:GNG for which it was nominated for deletion.
Also, I am not so active on Wikipedia nowadays due to certain reasons so I might not frequently reply to any replies (if any) to my comment here, don't take it as my unwillingness to participate in the discussion, kindly wait for my reply. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those do not even seem to discuss its capture (or even it). Please read wp:v and wp:synthesis Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*Suggestion I recommend changing this article's name to "Maratha Conquest of Punjab" and in territorial changes it could be mentioned that Attock, Multan, Lahore, Peshawar, etc. ceded to the Maratha Empire/Confederacy. Sources which I mentioned in my 1st comment support it. Then we can expand the article include background, have sub headings like Battle of Sirhind and Battle of Attock, Aftermath (the territories which were gained by Marathas, etc.) That will be more presentable and also address your concerns! Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also I see you already had a detailed discussion with other editors when you nominated this article for deletion for the 1st time. So why nominating the same article for deletion again, you should have resolved your doubts when you first nominated it for deletion. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did I accepted it was at least a battle, it is not even that now. Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Mohammad Umar Ali completely fails to understand what significant coverage means, a sentence or two in several books is not significant coverage. I can find no significant coverage of this, presumably for the rather obvious reason that (assuming the article is correct) the Maratha forces simply took control over a city bereft of Afghan forces. So as absolutely nothing happened during the capture, there's nothing for us to write about. I would object in the strongest possible terms to a move to Maratha Conquest of Punjab or anything similar, that would be a clear WP:POVFORK of Afghan–Maratha War where this capture can easily be covered in context. So I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect to that article either. FDW777 (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not fulfil the WP:NOTABILITY in the slightest. The event is not a significant at all and has no significant coverage in WP:RS. PadFoot2008 18:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murree rebellion of 1857

Murree rebellion of 1857 (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)

Well it has needed more sourcing since 2014, much of the content seems to be about other events, and there is no real; evidence of notable coverage.

As well as some of the sources being a bit iffy. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Murree#History. As noted by source #3 in the current article, ...Murree had played a small and insignificant role [in the Indian rebellion of 1857, and goes on to detail minor disorganized skirmishes. This seems appropriate to mention in the location's history as its local, minor participation in a major historical event (and it already is mentioned there), but it doesn't seem to be DUE for more than a sentence at Indian rebellion of 1857 and currently isn't mentioned there at all. signed, Rosguill talk 14:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Indian Rebellion of 1857 as that is the event it is directly related to. There doesn’t seem to be significant coverage of the subject to warrant a standalone article. Prof.PMarini (talk) 03:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's essentially no information about events in Murree at that page, whereas there is coverage of the 1857 rebellion at Murree#History. What's your reasoning for preferring the 1857 rebellion page as a target? signed, Rosguill talk 13:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Murree#History: Searched for sources but could not find any that can make this event as notable and keep the article. Hence, there are two options for redirecting: the first is Indian Rebellion of 1857, as this event was part of the Indian Rebellion of 1857, but that article does not mention anything about the ‘Murree rebellion,’ nor does it mention Murree even once. Therefore, I support the second option, Murree#History, proposed by Rosguill, which mentions the event. GrabUp - Talk 14:14, 28 June 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/Social_science&oldid=1231572307"