Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/History

Shortcuts

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:

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.
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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/History/archive

Purge page cache

watch

History

Prince Franz Adolph of Anhalt-Bernburg-Schaumburg-Hoym

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't verify subject, may be a hoax or just not notable. Neither of the two alive sources are reliable and I can't comment on the third. All the search results are circular sites or other unreliable sources.

I found some German sources but I can't evaluate them: [1] [2] Traumnovelle (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, and Germany. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4th millennium (Next Millennium)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

4th millennium was previously merged into Timeline of the far future, and the title with this weirdly capitalized disambiguator doesn't appear to be a likely redirect. The article itself is a mix of predicted astronomical events (some of them not even in the 4th millennium) and vague societal speculation and commentary, of which none is specifically relevant to the 4th millennium. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this can probably be deleted in favor of Timeline of the far future, a featured list. If the same article had been created in place of the 4th millennium redirect, it would simply have been reverted. Contrary to that page title, however, noone is going to type "4th millennium (Next Millennium)" into the search bar and expect an article or redirect. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese Newfoundland

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nonsense article building a mountain out of conjecture. There is no evidence f Portuguese Newfoundland actually being a thing, let alone one warranting an entire article. See the similarly WP:PROFRINGE Luso–Danish expedition to North America AFD for similar discussions, but the editor creating these articles needs to stop adding fringe theories to Wikipedia in a way that looks like historical fact. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is based on well-regarded sources, including Bailey Diffie’s Foundations of the Portuguese Empire, 1415–1580 and the Dictionary of Canadian Biography entry on Gaspar Corte-Real. Both sources explicitly discuss Portuguese claims and potential activity in Newfoundland during the early 16th century. These are not fringe sources but are widely recognized by scholars in the field of Portuguese maritime history.

It is stated in the book that Portugal had claims over the region, and brought goods and slaves from it. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're conflating "Portuguese claims" and "potential Portuguese activity" both here and in the article, which is why there's a WP:PROFRINGE issue at play. I don't think anyone is denying Portuguese interest or claims. Just because there are potential actvities doesn't mean we can assume there are for the purposes of an article. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn’t make myself clear, in Bailey Diffie’s book it’s clearly mentioned that King Manuel granted formal licenses to explorers like João Fernandes Lavrador and Gaspar Corte-Real to discover and claim land with the promise of rewards. It’s also well mentioned that Portugal had colonial activity, which I’ve mentioned before. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot extrapolate that into a whole article about Portuguese Newfoundland when the academic consensus isn't there. One source that runs counter to scholarship isn't enough to warrant an entire article about a topic. This is essentially a fork of other articles you've written citing pre-columbian contact fringe sources. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Portugal and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's very little evidence this was ever actually a thing. Fails, WP:GNG Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of reliable sources. A settlement on Cape Breton, yes. Not Newfoundland.Doug Weller talk 14:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For lack of reliable sources and WP:PROFRINGE POV issues. Simonm223 (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at the best, a WP:CFORK of Gaspar Corte-Real. CMD (talk) 08:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thajuddin

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on certain topic "Thauddin" about the conversion of a Hindu king to Islam - Only found in conspiracy theories and low quality news reports by journalists. Usually supported by substandard books and research papers (all them by Muslim authors)

{{Db-hoax}} JamesMdp (talk) 06:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. JamesMdp (talk) 06:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Islam, Hinduism, Oman, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything noteworthy (or indeed much at all) in Google Books. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: At best a hoax. Sources cited are poor in quality, this is itself sourced from Wikipedia. Garuda ^Talk! 13:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mangal

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article lacks reliable sources to verify the information presented. Additionally, the battle appears to have limited historical significance and is not widely covered in notable sources, making the article's notability questionable. Article clearly failing WP:GNG and WP:V . Mr.Hanes Talk 04:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, Pakistan, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note:Sources were removed previously that have been restored. RangersRus (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @RangersRus, but I have removed the Gazetteers Sources as they are considered unreliable as per WP:RAJ. Mr.Hanes Talk 12:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main article Afghan–Sikh Wars or to Hari Singh Nalwa (Battle of Mangal (1821)) as this article lack content to expand. QEnigma talk 11:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Democrates

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I humbly submit that this article may safely be either taken down, merged, or changed to a redirect. Its principal claim to notability, I believe, is the occasional misattribution of Democritus’s sayings or likeness to one Democrates.

With regard to the former, according to our article on Democritus, Diels and Kranz attribute these sayings to Democritus, and this article repeats this attribution. As for the likeness, it can hardly be denied that the bust in the picture is stamped “Democrates,” and, indeed, the Wedgwood Museum’s website seems to list the very piece here under that name; that Museum’s website is hardly informative. Now, the Metropolitan Museum of Art has a similar piece also stamped “Democrates” but clearly catalogued as “Democritus.” Did someone at the Wedgwood company repeatedly make the same mistake? This hardly seems unlikely to me, but what say my fellow editors?

I do confess that the likeness is unlike some of those we have for Democritus, as that in the Villa of the Papyri, but it is hardly unlike his representation in numerous other portraits. Indeed, the painting by Coypel, loath as we may be to accept the authenticity of so modern a vision, seems based on an old tradition; a cursory search will, I believe, at worst, reveal to anyone conflicting traditions of his appearance with, nonetheless, a bias towards that seen in the Wedgwood bust. A worker at the company might have repeatedly made the mistake of labeling the likeness "Democrates", but did Coypel, who predates it, mistake with "Démocrite"? And many other artists in the tradition of the “laughing” or “smiling philosopher”?

That he was the founder of the basic concepts of democracy is obvious nonsense. (Among other consideration, were he a contemporary of Apollonius of Tyana, he would have lived centuries after the heyday of Athenian democracy!)

Mind you, Democrates is not an invalid Greek name. There is Democrates of Aphidna, and it is also attested to in, e.g., this article about Euripides, this work of the theologian Sepulveda, and, as I gather, a genus of beetles. Indeed, Livy apparently states that a Democrates led the Tarentines at the Battle of Sapriportis, but, although the name on that article links to the page about the supposed philosopher, their biographies could hardly agree. Furthermore, the name appears on the list of Druze prophets on this page, but I can find no citations to that effect. (This last, in particular, might make me suspect a hoax, though I make no such formal accusation here!)

Even if the Democrates article gave dates significantly after the laughing philosopher, they would not account for the difference in dates between the Tarentine commander and the Druze prophet, and, even if they did, they would not account for the article’s lack of biographical detail, unless a military command and posthumous religious veneration do not qualify as notable!

But, forgive me: I understand that those links need not really enter into the argument; they were, no doubt, added in good faith, or, at least, the one from the Tarentine commander to the supposed philosopher was.

Also, regarding biographical detail, the noted epistle of Apollonius seems to me suspect as a citation, for, as we have said, Democrates is a genuine Greek name, and the mere existence of an Apollonian contemporary by that name hardly justifies the rest of the article. (Also, in fact, it is epistle 96, not 88, but that may be beside the point!)

What harm would be done by noting more fully the occasional attributions to Democrates on Democritus’s article and changing Democrates’s to a redirect to Democritus? Or perhaps a disambiguation page could disambiguate things: a link to Democrates of Ephidna, a link to Sepulveda, a link to and a note on Democritus, and a note about the military commander. Pleased to take further part in the debate but better able to leave the question to more sage considerations than my own, I am sincerely yours, Twozenhauer (talk) 00:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Philosophy, History, and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about the Golden Sentences/ Golden Maxims of Democrates? This seems to be attributed to him even if nothing else is? I think the disputed historicity is clearly displayed in the article, so as it stands I am happy to keep, maybe with more commentary on historicity?Spiralwidget (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Spiralwidget: Thank you for your consideration of this matter! But even considering the Golden Sentences, I am in favor of one of the options I have mentioned above. Near as I can tell, the article’s best quality is its statement that “many scholars argue that these maxims all originate from an original collection of sayings of Democritus”; granted, as the article goes on to say, “others believe that there was a different little-known Democrates whose name became confused with the much better-known Democritus.”

But with regard to the former statement, I refer my fellow editors also to this article by a scholar named Searby, which I quote here:

“The two most important sources for the ethical fragments of Democritus are Stobaeus' Anthology and the so-called ‘golden maxims of Democrates’ (a much discussed misnomer). Through a careful comparison, [the scholar Gerlach] confirms Lortzing's conclusion that Stobaeus utilized a collection of Democritus' maxims nearly identical with the pseudo-Democrates collection, which, for [Gerlach], has the methodological consequence of making Stobaeus an indirect witness to that tradition, complicated by the thematic rearrangement in the Stobaean anthology.” (emphasis mine)

But, truth be told, I have not found a tremendous amount of discussion per se; scholars seem by-and-large in agreement about “pseudo-Democrates”. Another confident attribution of the sayings to Democritus is this somewhat older piece by M. L. West.

I do not have access to the Democrates article’s cited The Atomists, Leucippus and Democritus (though it is mentioned in the Searby review cited above), but, in the article’s defense, I could advance this notice from 1925, which seems to present the attribution of Democrates to Democritus as somewhat new; but, even if I did so, I would have, at best, to advance merger of the Democrates article with that of Democrates of Aphidna: the noted dissertation by Philippson is a refutation of one Laue’s dissertation from 1921, in which the latter scholar, according to this contemporary report, advanced Democrates of Aphidna as the author of the sayings, which were apparently already widely attributed to Democritus. The report speaks of the same Philippson paper thus:

“Philippson is led to discuss the authenticity, character, and transmission of the ethical precepts of Democritus in reviewing H. Laue's dissertation . . . Laue's main contention is that the collection of precepts bearing the name of Democrates is not to be ascribed to Democritus, but to the Attic orator of that name from Aphidna. On this basis Laue tries to distinguish the style and content of the Democrates maxims from what he considers to be the genuine sayings of Democritus. Philippson points out that thirty-one precepts of the Democrates collection appear also in Stobaeus, and probably more were contained in the lost eclogues. Therefore the testimony of the Stobaeus MSS., which show the frequent occurrence of Democrates for Democritus, although the latter predominates, makes it highly probable that the author of the sayings in the above collection was Democritus. Moreover Lortzing has shown that Stobaeus obtained his Democritus precepts from the same source from which the Democrates collection was derived . . . . “ (emphases mine)

So, I submit that note of the conflicting attributions might be made on the articles for both Democritus and Democrates of Aphidna; Democrates as we have it may, I believe, be deleted or changed to a redirect, but hardly stand as it is: at very least, he is not the only Democrates, and his article’s title should not suggest that he is the standout holder of that name!

This is more by way of a postscript: Is it not also curious that the note at the beginning of the article calls him a first-century philosopher? His supposed correspondence with Apollonius would place him then, but the article goes on to say that his Ionic dialect is evidence of composition at “a very early period”; but then his possible contemporaneity with Julius Caesar seems to bring him closer to the first-century (but B. C.!) date. But this could be fixed even were the article retained. Twozenhauer (talk) 06:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1960s in history

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inherently a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of the bare decade articles like 1960s (which themselves cover history), and the selection of what events to include is inherently WP:OR. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. These articles are absolutely and completely different from decade articles like 1960s, as the simplest inspection makes clear. the decade articles like 1960s cover topics like trends, entertainment, and pop culture for that decade. they do not cover history systematically; they often only mention some disjointed major events.

the history articles like 1960s in history cover history in depth. and furthermore, the more long-standing history decade articles, like 2020s in history, have been edited by lots of experienced editors. they have long-standing stability widely, in the community. Sm8900 (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Sm8900 posted about this discussion on my talk page.https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Smasongarrison&diff=prev&oldid=1266688750, which seems like pretty blatant canvasing imho. ^SMason_Garrison 20:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i posted there mainly because you have edited this topic in the past. Sm8900 (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with this as I made one edit fixing a MOS:CURLY issue with JWB whilst making no substantial contributions to these articles. — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 22:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also concur with this as I was canvassed to this discussion as well. I have made no substantial contributions to these articles, and any edit that I did make, I don't remember, and was very likely a minor edit. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
guys, with respect, it is not canvassing since canvassing is defined as Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior. as per WP:CANVAS. all i did was post a totally neutral notification to you that the discussion was occuring. that's it. that is not canvassing, as per the guidelines on this. Sm8900 (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
trust me, thats the last time i will notify some wikignomes about a deletion discussion!! i had no idea anyone here actually minds being kept in the loop. in all seriousness, yes if you only did one or two minor edits to an article, then its understandable if you don't want to join a discussion. with that said, i was somewhat surprised to get such a strong reaction. however, i accept and acknowledge your concerns on this. i will be more mindful of this in the future. i do appreciate your helpful replies to address this. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was perfectly reasonable of you to believe that anyone who had editing the article may be an interested party in terms of a deletion request. To attempt to decide who may or may not be interested would be counter-productive. They'll cope! Neils51 (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My view on these articles is that they're simply not useful. If they were well-written, well-sourced, logical, relevant, thorough and did cover the topics that Sm8900 mentions above, then we might have something worth keeping. They are none of these things, and so REDUNDANTFORK does apply.

In many cases, they are thrown together from the opening paragraphs of multiple articles, which of course means that multiple sections often don't have any sources at all, because opening sections don't require sources. For example, the 1960s article has the following without any sources at all; Music, Egypt, Vietnam (a huge section), Czechoslovakia, Cuba (which is a copy of Fidel Castro, not Cuba, which is nonsense) and US Government.
Their sequencing often doesn't make sense - for example, the 1980s one opens with an "Economics" section which exclusively talks about the USA and then decides to talk about the rest of the world.
Some of the content is utterly irrelevant to that decade (for example the Castro example above). The Vietnam war section is copied into the 1970s article despite the fact that the Vietnam war was 1955-1975. The "Tanzania" section in the 1970s is Julius Nyerere's article copied verbatim - he lived from 1922 to 1999 - ditto Uganda (copied from Idi Amin).
Much content which should be there isn't. For example in the 1990s article, the section "Major changes in personal computers" is copied from Windows 95 - I mean clearly nothing else important happened to the PC in the 1990s, did it? The Brazil section in the same article is copied from Presidency of Collor de Mello, which lasted from 1990 to ... er ... 1992. Obviously nothing else happened in Brazil that decade.
They simply don't, in many cases, cover topics like trends, entertainment, and pop culture for that decade. - the 1990s one doesn't mention any of them.

I could go on, but these articles are non-useful - they're just random splodges of information copied and pasted from other articles, whether that information is useful, relevant, or indeed sourced. WP:TNT is relevant here. Black Kite (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
those are all valid points. i am totally open to major improvements. i would suggest gently some consideration of WP:BATHWATER. Sm8900 (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Request split for AfD. [2nd main comment by this editor]. the articles 2020s in history and 2010s in history are totally different in construction from the others, so i respectfully suggest there should be a separate discussion for them. Sm8900 (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as redundant forks. 2020s in history and 2010s in history focus a bit more on politics than the others but that merely leads to redundancy with 2020s in politics and 2010s in politics. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
point of information, 2020s in politics is simply a redirect, to 2020s in history, as is the 2010s article also. Sm8900 (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Then moving 2020s in history and 2010s in history to 2020s in politics and 2010s in politics might be an option, with some rewriting. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete and merge with the respective decade articles or TNT per Black Kite. Consistent with Pppery's opinion, these articles seem like forks of each other as of the moment, with both articles inherently covering the same topic (if one covers the 2010s in a general perspective, that is a historical era and we are covering a historical era → history). These articles intrinsically have some sort of value in themselves theoretically (i.e.: 2020s would cover the topic more generally whereas 2020s in history would cover the historical aspects more in detail), but in the way that they are currently structured right now, without a major overhaul to how both articles are covered, the articles in question here should just be merged with their respective decade articles. — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 22:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This history by decades series expands on the others. Worth mentioning that other ways 2020s timeline articles are sorted are by topic; by continent (2020s in European history), or others like Electoral history, Military history, Economic history, Environmental history, Science and technology history and Social history. It appears that 2020s in history may be used to summarise them. This discussion might also be premature as 2025 is only halfway through the decade. I also agree with Sm8900 that 2020s and 2010s are totally different from the others. Moondragon21 (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2020s in European history should be renamed to 2020s in Europe similar to 2022 in Europe. The others are examples of history by topic instead of history by decade, so unrelated to this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
okay, however.... one problem with that is that 2020s in European history arose directly from 2020s in history. so yes, we can keep that european article, but then it should all be branched off by region, and then also the main decade article could/should be renamed to focus on political history as a topic in its own right. Sm8900 (talk) 14:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Rename 2020s in history to 2020s in political history, and also 2010s article. move other articles to draft space. would that be ok?Sm8900 (talk) 14:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notified Wikiproject History. – Joe (talk) 08:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect, the decades are already in history. CMD (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than just transcluding excerpts of selected articles, perhaps consider writing up summaries of the decades based on academic sources, combined with narrowing the scope to something like "... in global affairs" or "global events"? I think a case could be made for such a set of articles. But this is not what we have here, so count this as delete. --Lyndis Parlour (talk) 09:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luso–Danish expedition to North America

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Actual meat of the article is covered in Didrik_Pining#Alleged_trip_to_America. Other than that, this article appears to mostly be presenting a fringe theory as fact at face value. "Ancient explorers" nonsense for the bulk of it. Only not nominating for a speedy delete as I'm worried it may pass some reviewer's very quick smell check. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Denmark, Portugal, and North America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Warren, thank you for taking the time to review the article. I want to clarify that I did not reference myself on the Didrik Pining page during my research. Instead, I gathered information from multiple independent sources, as you can see in my article.

I also based myself on four theories, not to focus exclusively on Sofus Larsen’s claims. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Every single google result for "Luso–Danish expedition to North America" links to your edits here, which coupled with the lack of evidence for the figures involved and the lack of acceptance of the theory probably means an entire article dedicated to it is unwarranted. It's possible some of your research could expand Didrik_Pining#Alleged_trip_to_America to be more comprehensive, though (making sure not to present fringe theories as competing with the mainstream)? I don't know enough about this topic to be certain. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, for starters, I’m basing these theories on books, not websites. Merging the article with the one on Didrik Pining doesn’t seem like the right approach since he wasn’t the only voyager involved. I believe it’s better to maintain a main article focused on the expedition rather than combining it with a biography.

Regarding your statement about "presenting a fringe theory as fact at face value", I have labeled the information as "theories" and marked the date section as "debated." I made it clear that I’m presenting various interpretations, not facts. I also believe that the strongly debated part of the expedition is how far did these voyages reach and the date, not the voyagers involved. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe that the strongly debated part of the expedition is how far did these voyages reach and the date, not the voyagers involved.

Except that the voyage happened in the first place appears pretty widely rejected by contemporary scholarship. WP:PARITY presents a problem here in taking the topic too seriously for its own article. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I would like to clarify that while the details of the expedition are indeed debated, the possibility of the expedition itself is not dismissed by all scholars. To prove this I analyzed the book ("The German Discovery of America": A Review of the Controversy over Pining's 1473 Voyage of Exploration) by Thomas L. Hughes.

As stated in the text, "the arguments have been complicated by controversies surrounding the indispensable participation of Pining's presumed Portuguese colleague, Joao Vaz Corte-Real, as well as the more dispensable supposed navigator, Johannes Scolvus." (p.509) This shows that while there is debate about who was involved, there is still room for the possibility of the expedition occurring.

Moreover, it is noted that “Cumulative circumstantial evidence, bolstered by some circular reasoning, led Larsen to his central proposition" (p.509) which supports the idea that there is some scholarly backing for the expedition.

I believe this should be shown in the article, especially as it presents a historical theory supported by multiple sources, even though some elements remain debated, like the exact route or the date. Other historians are mentioned in the text, for example Kirsten Seaver, who disagrees on João Vaz's participation, but agrees on the possibility of an expedition by Pining and Pothorst. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I would like to clarify that while the details of the expedition are indeed debated, the possibility of the expedition itself is not dismissed by all scholars

With the full context this is textbook WP:FRINGE:

The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents.

…

the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles.

We shouldn’t be presenting an extreme minority position in the scholarship, especially one which exists in an extremely common realm for fringe theories as early contacts with the Americas does, as valid unless there’s either a compelling reason to believe it’s of significant benefit to Wikipedia to cover it (such as a major and popular fringe theory). We definitely shouldn’t be presenting three fringe takes and scholarly consensus with equal weight in an article dedicated to a topic that is almost unheard of and, likely, didn’t actually exist. Without that it reads more than a little like trying to “teach the controversy”. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me address your points.

"The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents."

I’d say that the sources cited are reliable. You can look into the academic backgrounds of Thomas L. Hughes, Kirsten Seaver, and Sofus Larsen, all of whom have credible scholarly reputations. If you believe the sources used in the article are not reliable, it would make more sense to replace them rather than deleting the page entirely or merging with one’s biography.

Additionally, I’ve already clarified that scholars do not widely reject the existence of this expedition. The strongly debated points are about the details. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is still a fringe theory, falling outside the mainstream, using a term you invented for Wikipedia as the article name. There's always going to be WP:PARITY issues in creating an entire article about filling in the gaps of history with what some conjecture may have resulted in happening. You've done this here and with Portuguese Newfoundland, both of which do not represent the scholarly mainstream of history or the history of those regions, and WP:PARITY will always be a problem. I understand you believe these expeditions happened, but seeing as the scholarly mainstream doe not seem to accept that these voyages have any details fillalbe if they happeed at all, they do not warrant an article here, let alone one which presents extreme scholarly minority opinions as co-equal with the actual historical consensus. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve already addressed the concern about the fringe theory. You can verify the reliability of the sources by checking their academic background. As I mentioned in my previous comment, you are welcome to replace any sources you believe are unreliable.

Regarding your claim that I "invented a term for Wikipedia", the title comes from the book Ancient Explorers of America by Aleck Loker, which states, "a record in the Danish archives makes reference to the joint Portuguese-Danish expedition" (p. 160), and The Portuguese Columbus by Barreto, which notes, "it could only have been on the Luso-Danish expedition" (p. 151). Just to make things clear, I also created a redirect for the article titled Pining expedition, which is also explicitly mentioned within the article. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not everything is covered in Didrik_Pining#Alleged_trip_to_America. I also believe the article makes it very clear that it's a theory and not an established fact. Javext (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not make it clear it’s widely rejected and considered a fringe theory, though. We have significant WP:PARITY issues. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even the title is pov, asserting this took place. I note that the creator is very fond of the fringe book "Ancient explorers of America which relates as fact that various groups, eg Chinese {see Fu Sang#The Americas}, Solomon etc. visited America. The book by Barareto is also useless with terrible reviews, et [3] and [4] It might be possible to merge some material with Didrik_Pining#Alleged_trip_to_America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 09:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note we already have Portuguese expeditions to North America created by the same account. I've cleaned it up a bit. Doug Weller talk 11:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All the arguments from here are paralleled at the AFD for Portuguese Newfoundland, which is basically a fringe fork.

Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You completely ignored my comment without providing a proper response. In my opinion, the only drastic change that should be made is perhaps the title of the page to include the word "Theory", I’ve already addressed your claims about it being a "fringe theory".

I still don’t believe merging this page with a biography is a good idea. If you disagree, look at pages such as "Theory of the Portuguese discovery of Australia". While it is not a widely accepted theory, it still has its own page. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete the this flat out fringe, the Davies source used in the article flat out calls it '[a] concocted [...] outrageous thesis' and that there is no evidance to support it something that mindbogglingly isn't in the article—blindlynx 19:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t believe Davies' criticism of Larsen's work as an "outrageous thesis" is sufficient to classify this as a fringe theory. Criticism of a single interpretation does not invalidate the thesis, especially when other reputable scholars (that I've already mentioned in my discussion with Warren), like Thomas L. Hughes in The German Discovery of America, acknowledge that Larsen’s conclusions are based on cumulative circumstantial evidence.

Hughes notes that "The Larsen thesis was further bolstered by the fact that both Pining and Corte-Real, soon after their alleged voyage, became strategically placed governors in mid-Atlantic outposts."

Most of what I’m telling you has already been addressed in my previous discussion with Warren. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is fringe because it over emphasizes the precious little evidence there was for this expedition and flat out ignores that this thin evidence is not taken as definitive by the sources.

A quick summary: The Hughes paper make no definitive claims of the expedition having have happened one way or another; Davies categorically denies it did; Diffie and company point out there is no evidence for it and state that Ernesto do Canto and Henry Harrisse reject it completely; Loker cites Larsen and a later map, which in turn Vigneras calls 'probably the result of later exploration'. Did i miss anything because none of that is good enough to parent anything more than a mention in the Pining article and certainly not enough to warrant it's own article—blindlynx 21:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In Hughes' book, the theory is not considered as fringe. The verdicts are described as "not proven", which some interpret as "not disproven" or "maybe yes, maybe no." While Diffie and the others acknowledge the lack of evidence, Loker clearly explains how Larsen arrived at his conclusions. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 13:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fringe part is that this article in no way reflects the sources—blindlynx 15:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article presents both sides, with scholars who support the theory and those who reject it, that doesn’t make it fringe. I already suggested improvement too. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep pending rewrite. Separate articles on fringe views are generally considered fine given two prerequisites: A) There must be a substantial basis of sources. That seems halfway okay to me here. The multiple book sources show a variety of coverage from the pro-fringe side - what is missing is the general criticism that is presented at Didrik Pining#Alleged trip to America. Taken together, these two appear to show that there is enough coverage here for an article. B) It must be made clear what the mainstream take on the topic is. The article wildly fails in this respect. You have to read halfway down before you might get the notion that this does not represent the accepted historic record; because the critical mainstream sources have been omitted, and because the lede brazenly states it as a an uncontroversial fact. This needs to be fixed. But given that it can be fixed, because the material is there, I don't see why we can't have an article on the topic. Our Category:Pseudohistory is extensive. - The novel coinage in the title seems debatable and should probably be avoided. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the thoughtful response. I agree that deleting the article or merging it with a biography isn’t the right approach. As I’ve previously mentioned, articles like the "Theory of the Portuguese discovery of Australia" exist despite being widely disputed, it shows that speculative theories with sufficient scholarly discussion can warrant their own articles.

I also support improving the article by maybe replacing weaker sources with those that have a more known academic background and by reconsidering the title to clarify the thesis. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may need to read WP:BLUDGEON:

Bludgeoning is when a user dominates the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view. It is typically seen at articles for deletion, request for comment, the administrator incidents noticeboard, an article talk page, or even another user's talk page. A person replies to many "!votes" or comments, arguing against that particular person's point of view. The person attempts to pick apart many comments from others with the goal of getting each person to change their "!vote".
Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m just trying to make my points clear. You might want to take a look at my reply to your statement, which you haven’t responded to yet. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as sources appear to be WP:PROFRINGE and the article is, as a result, an in-universe apologia for a fringe theory. Simonm223 (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article is not pro-fringe. I’ve already addressed these concerns above and made it clear that this is presented as just a theory. I’ve already suggested improvements to the article. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that having an article you worked on taken to AfD can be frustrating but WP:BLUDGEONing the conversation will not actually help you. Simonm223 (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you this isn’t an attempt to dominate the conversation. I’m simply presenting my viewpoint. It seems that most are against the article, and I’m offering my perspective because many may not have read my previous discussion with user Warren. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: More than one third of all posts at this AfD, Jaozinhoanaozinho, are from you. You have posted your opinions multiple times here, those opinions are perfectly clear, and you have been warned about WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion by two different editors. It is now time (past time, actually) for you to stop responding here and to let this AfD run its course. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (maybe Draftify. Maybe). This article will only be suitable for enWP when, and if, the specific topic receives notable and sustained coverage/treatment in additional reliable, independent, secondary sources; i.e., sources that are not credulously pro-fringe. Those sources seem to be absent or non-existent, and so the article fails WP:N. Even then, the article will require substantial editing to remove the pro-fringe content presented in Wiki voice. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of al-Qarn (1160)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. There is hardly any coverage of this battle in English-language sources. The sole English source cited does not reference "al-Qarn" and only briefly discusses hostilities between the Almohads and Arab tribes. The remaining four sources, which are in French, either briefly mention the fighting in passing or don't even mention "al-Qarn" at all. Skitash (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Skitash (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is an important battle in the history of the region at the time, same as the battle of Sebiba (which still dosent have an article, il think of maybe making) or the Battle of Haydaran the Battle is well described using the 1962 Book 'Berberie Orientale sous les Zirides' that describes most of the battles context. And the battle isnt as briefly explained, if its english sources that you need i will add more if you will let me move it back to a draft.

Thank you Algerianeditor17 (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Tunisia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is hardly any coverage of this battle in English-language sources. Not a valid deletion criterion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom; fails WP:GNG, in-passing mentions in the provided sources. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Raghuraj Singh

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Freedom activists are not inherently notable. The subject fails WP:ANYBIO, no indication of WP:SIGCOV or notable contributions to the independence movement. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 10:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:NPOLITICIAN as a member of the United Provinces Legislative Council, a precursor to the modern-day Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council. From this PhD thesis, "Kiriti Vardhan is the scion of Mankapur royal estate, and he is the fifth-generation representative of a powerful family which had direct influence in the district’s politics even before independence. His great-great grandfather Raja Raghuraj Singh and great grandfather Raja Ambikeshwar Pratap Singh won elections for the provincial assembly (of the United Provinces) in 1920s and 1930s." [5] This article from the Pioneer Mail in 1923 seems to confirm that he was a member of the provincial legislature.[6] ⁂CountHacker (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Noronshasht

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hoax. zero sources. I continue processing nonsense that Numulunj pilgae (talk · contribs) pumped into Wikipedia who was (ab)using the sutuayion that nobody cares about Mordvins/Mokha/Erzya in enwiki. --Altenmann >talk 23:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Archaeology, Geography, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Altenmann: Could you do a better job describing why this is a hoax? I'm having difficulty finding most of the sources, but there is at least one article that is web-readable in Russian (Ikonnikov and Baisheva) which might discuss this, there are a few maps, but I don't know Russian and can't figure this out further. SportingFlyer T·C 04:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @SportingFlyer: It is a hoax because it is invented. The article of Ikonnikov and Baisheva is about the Goldeh Horde town of Mokhshi in place of the village of Narovchat (Russian: Наровча́т, Moksha: Норзяд). References are fake.For example it says Noronshasht was the capital of the medieval Moksha kingdom Murunza referring to Карамзин Н. М. История государства Российского: - which says nothing of the kind. In Moksha language the village name is mdf:Норзяд and historical names are Нуриджан (Наручать, Наручадь (Nuridzhan ( Naruchat , Naruchad )). The Greek name νορονςαςτ is a fabrication --Altenmann >talk 04:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you. In that case, I'm leaning delete, but again I can't read the sources, so the closer can feel free to discount my !vote if this is somehow incorrect. SportingFlyer T·C 05:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a made up in one day with a dash of WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mirpur district, India

Mirpur district, India (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)

Muzaffarabad District, India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These articles do not satisfy WP:GNG as there is insufficient independent and in-depth coverage in reliable sources to justify their existence. The claim of the districts being part of India de jure primarily relies on sources mentioning the Indian government’s release of maps in 2019 depicting the districts as part of India. Separate articles are unnecessary for this aspect, as the existing Mirpur District, Muzaffarabad District and Kashmir conflict articles can address India’s inclusion of these districts on its maps as part of the broader Kashmir dispute. These articles were previously CSD’d, but the author has repeatedly restored them. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Pakistan, and India. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Jammu and Kashmir. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreliable sources. Lacks notability. Previously deleted article was restored without any discussion. Wikibear47 (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it is common practice in Wikipedia to list the de-jure administrative divisions of countries, even if these are not de-facto the case. Reliable sources support the existence of this administrative division as a de-jure administrative unit within Indian maps. For similar examples, see Mêdog County, Lhünzê County, Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China, and Committee for the Five Northern Korean Provinces. --Rvd4life (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally agree with Sheriff's nomination and his reasons described above for deletion of this article...Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: duplicate articles for the districts of Azad Kashmir administered by Pakistan. As parts of the larger Kashmir region, Wikipedia do not need separate articles for the areas administered by Pakistan but claimed by India and nor for those administered by India but claimed by Pakistan. Through inclusion to maps, these are similar to older claims by both countries over the regions of Kashmir without any administrative control. The dispute and claims are already mentioned in articles: Mirpur District and Muzaffarabad District per Ind-Pak consensus of 2019, plus thoroughly explained at the main articles regarding the Kashmir region; Kashmir (specifically in section:Current status and political divisions) and Kashmir conflict (for instance the content: map legality starts with, "As with other disputed territories, each government issues maps depicting their claims in Kashmir territory, regardless of actual control.") MSLQr (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Wikipedia maintains a series of articles about claimed territories of a country, though the article needs to be expanded for further relevance.Xoocit (talk) 10:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hill States–Sikh wars

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Full of OR and synth mess, likely a mix of other conflicts, with hardly any mentions of such an event in the sources, couldn't establish notability in my WP:BEFORE for "Hill States–Sikh wars," which allegedly lasted over a century. Garuda ^Talk! 11:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Nepal, India, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, and Uttarakhand. Garuda ^Talk! 11:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Wan (1726)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article lacks reliable sources to verify the information presented. With no citations or references to reputable historical sources, the content cannot be verified for accuracy. Additionally, the battle appears to have limited historical significance and is not widely covered in notable sources, making the article's notability questionable. Article clearly failing WP:GNG and WP:V . Mr.Hanes Talk 18:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Shellwood (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Sikhism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not sure if the battle ever occurred. In a past version of the article, there were six references, the first two seem unreliable (one mentions the battle was 22 Sikh versus 2,200 Mughals, hardly a major battle) and searching within the Google Books of the last four finds zero mentions of "Wan" as a location (only one total mention of "Wan" in a person's name). Searching Google Scholar and Google News for "battle of Wan" "1726" turns up nothing. Google Books produces false positives or offline books. I will note that Wan, Pakistan is similarly unsourced and only claims to be a village. starship.paint (talk / cont) 03:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A poor mess, been five months with no source whatsoever. Earlier cited with poor unreliable sources (more like fan blogs) [7][8][9] that were full of puffery. Garuda ^Talk! 16:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Development Agency (Turkey)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found the source in the Turkish article at https://www.sbb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Kalkinma-Ajanslarinin-Turk-Hukuk-Sistemindeki-Yeri-Ahmet-Tamer.pdf but I think it needs someone more familiar with the subject to figure out whether this is notable. At least one agency still exists https://ankaraka.org.tr/en But are they just window-dressing for development policies which are now top-down? As the Ministry of Development (Turkey) no longer exists how do they work and who controls them? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Istanbul Professional League 1

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged almost a decade ago as unsourced and article does not exist in Turkish so probably not notable Chidgk1 (talk) 07:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Football, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to History of Turkish football as possible search term. Giant Snowman 11:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not sure that a redirect would be appropriate given that the topic is not mentioned in the proposed target page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sharan Kaur Pabla

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Sharan Kaur" was a fictional character created by the author Vir Singh in a fictional novel. There are literally no reliable sources to support that "Sharan Kaur" was an actual historical figure. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 07:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Even disregarding the inaccuracies, this article has only one source supporting it. A Google search found some websites which support his existence, such as this one, but this website is far from noteworthy coverage nor is it a reliable source. Even the most popular result, from SikhiWiki, cites Wikipedia as a reference, making it unusable. [[User:|Jordano]]^5³ 07:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, Sikhism, and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete I agree with nomination, and there is a circular sourcing. I can't be sure if the person actually existed or not. In any case, the person fails WP:GNG as there is not enough significant coverage in reliable sources. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jordano53. Whether a fictional character or real, or some mixture, the subject isn't covered significantly. Bearian (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rizvan Huseynov

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails to meet WP:GNG as it lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources and for a biographical article, it does not adhere to WP:BIO and failing WP:V. The article's tone seems like WP:PROMO. Nxcrypto Message 19:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, History, and Azerbaijan. Nxcrypto Message 19:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article was nominated for an AFD discussion soon after creation and it has been heavily edited in the past week. I think a re-review is called for. I'd also like to hear from the article creator, User:Editing For Better, if possible.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too promotional with too little that can be verified or is of substance about the actions of this particular person. This seems like someone who has been around some notable work but that doesn't cut it for me; we don't have an article for every person working on a movie set. I also find the listing of the translations of the subject's articles to be resume-padding. Delete for being insufficiently notable but it would be helpful to have someone with fluency or familiarity in Azeri, and, as Liz mentioned, hearing from User:Editing For Better as well. Kazamzam (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In my opinion, the person is notable a popular Azerbaijani historian. However, the main issue lies in the structure of the article, which should be aligned with the MOS:PROSE guidelines. I have already addressed this issue in the Azerbaijani version and the same improvements should be applied to this article as well. — Toghrul R (t) 09:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of feudalism

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems to be a WP:CONTENTFORK of feudalism, with seemlingly randomly chosen case studies (WP:INDISCRIMIANTE), haphazardly grouped (particularly considering the weirdly named section "Modern traces" which seems to be "random stuff that did not fit into the two other sections"). There is no need for such an article to exist; at best it can be redirected/merged to the parent article (WP:ATD-R, WP:ATD-M). The main article on feudalism is actually not too long, and is missing a 'by country' overview, which seems to be the way this organized, so merge might be best. If kept as a separate article (but why?), this needs to be renamed, although I am not sure how (Feudalism by country?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was somewhat astonished upon checking the revision history statistics to find myself top editor by character count, despite having edited only one section over the summer (and probably due to the citations I added). This article already seems like it was split off from Feudalism as a daughter article, which I think it sort of might have been?
I think the main problem here (this topic) is that feudalism is a term with a specific technical meaning, but its meaning has been broadened over the years to apply to a number of systems of territorial administration that are not technically feudal, but where the feudalism label can act as a useful heuristic. The main article doesn't do a great job differentiating what feudalism ism and isn'tm, and the article under discussion here serves that purpose, as well as hosting a bunch of hatnotes that would probably otherwise end up in a list article somewhere or in Feudalism#See also.
I'm not 100% on straight merging into Feudalism: I think the examples of legit, consensus feudal societies could be worked into the main article, but without counterexamples of not-quite-feudal societies (which don't really belong in the main article), it will act as a magnet for that stuff. I'm real big on the concept of excellent list articles (like Infrastructure of the Brill Tramway), which I propose at every major notability discussion about our surfeit of microstubs (like WP:LUGSTUBS et seq.), and this article has the potential to become a great list article. It almost is, except for the title and structure. I also recognise I absolutely will not have the time to restructure it into an excellent list article unless this discussion is relisted at least four times. So I could see any of the following actions: retitle, partial merge, complete merge, temporary redirect until it can be sorted out, or keep.
For now, Folly Mox (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is No consensus here at all, just a multitude of suggestions. User:Folly Mox do you have one outcome that seems primary to you?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right I'm supposed to follow up on this! I think the optimal outcome is a good list, maybe titled "Feudal and semifeudal political systems in world history" or something more concise, with or without a leading "List of".

As foretold, I have not had the time to work on this. Maybe in the interim we can draftify the article as written, and temporarily redirect the title to Feudalism till it gets cleaned up?? Or toss a {{listify}} template at the top, move to a new title, and leave in mainspace for improvement?? I'm sorry I'm not more decisive here: as mentioned, I only really edited this article in one period several months ago. I was expecting more participation. Folly Mox (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History Proposed deletions

Hywel ab Owain (via WP:PROD on 2 November 2024)

History categories

for occasional archiving

Proposals