Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/History

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

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

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


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


History

[edit]

Southern Illinois tornado history

[edit]
Southern Illinois tornado history (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)

WP:NOTDATABASE. EF5 16:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Pangal

[edit]
Battle of Pangal (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)

Contested BLAR so bringing it to AfD with a proposal for a consensus redirect to Deccani–Vijayanagar_wars#Qutb_Shahi-Vijayanagara_conflicts. I don't see sufficient WP:SIGCOV of this event in reliable, independent sources for a standalone page per WP:GNG. The sources are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS (paragraph or less in full-length books) of this battle. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boyd's Eurobin Hotel

[edit]
Boyd's Eurobin Hotel (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 and WP:NHIST due to lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Relies on local accounts and primary materials, with no in-depth analysis, making it non-notable per WP:RS. Primarily of regional interest without broader historical significance. Nxcrypto Message 11:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia Editors,
Thank you for reviewing the page for Boyd's Eurobin Hotel. I would like to provide additional context and justification for why this page should remain on Wikipedia. Below are several points addressing the concerns cited in the deletion proposal:
1. Historical Significance to the Region
Boyd's Eurobin Hotel is historically significant as one of the key social and logistical hubs in northeastern Victoria during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It served as:
A halfway stop for travellers between the important regional centres of Myrtleford and Bright, contributing to the region’s transportation and economic development during the coaching era.
A gathering place for political events, community meetings, and significant public addresses, as documented in multiple historical articles from the Ovens and Murray Advertiser.
While the hotel itself no longer exists, its historical role provides insights into the development of regional Victoria during a formative period, which aligns with the purpose of Wikipedia to preserve knowledge, particularly for places that have evolved significantly or no longer exist in their original form.
2. Reliable Sources and References
The article is based entirely on reliable, independent secondary sources, specifically reputable newspapers from the time such as:
The Ovens and Murray Advertiser, a well-regarded regional publication that extensively documented events, businesses, and social life in the area.
The Yackandandah Times and The Age, providing corroborating accounts of the hotel's role in the local economy and its broader community impact.
These are historical records, which, by their nature, provide the most comprehensive and legitimate sources of information about a hotel from the 19th century. Dismissing these sources as merely "local accounts" underestimates their value as the principal historical records of the time.
3. Importance of Preserving Regional History
The page contributes to the documentation of Victoria’s regional history, complementing related pages on Eurobin, St. Clement's Church Eurobin, and the Eurobin Presbyterian Church. Together, these articles create a cohesive narrative about a once-thriving hamlet. Removing this page would leave a significant gap in understanding Eurobin’s history.
Wikipedia is often the first and only resource for regional and niche history. Deleting this page would undermine the platform’s role as a repository for diverse historical content, especially for subjects that are less well-known but still meaningful to specific regions or communities.
4. Meets Wikipedia’s Notability Guidelines for History
The article satisfies WP:NHIST by:
Establishing the hotel’s role in regional historical events, such as being a venue for political campaigns, community gatherings, and a recovery site for injured travellers.
Providing multiple, independent sources that verify the hotel's importance in its historical context.
While the subject might not have broad national or global appeal, Wikipedia policies allow for regional notability. Boyd’s Eurobin Hotel represents a significant chapter in the development of northeastern Victoria, a region rich in history but underrepresented on the platform.
5. Broader Educational Value
The page serves as an example of how small, local institutions contributed to the larger social and economic fabric of Australia during the 19th century. It adds depth to the broader historical understanding of transportation, community hubs, and rural development in Victoria.
Conclusion
I respectfully request that the page be retained, as it:
Is thoroughly referenced with reliable secondary sources.
Provides significant historical value to the Eurobin area and northeastern Victoria.
Contributes to a richer understanding of Australia’s regional history.
I am happy to address any specific points of concern and welcome suggestions for improving the page further to meet Wikipedia’s standards.
Sincerely,
blackcatsx Blackcatsx (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, are any of the sources used available online and if so can you please link them? It's unclear if any of this news coverage is substantial coverage. One of the sources is "Found: A young boar pig" and another is just "Accident", so these seem to be local news briefs, not deeper substance. If the hotel is historically significant to warrant an article, I would expect retrospective histories to provide coverage, not only contemporary news articles. You say this region is "underrepresented on the platform", but it appears that's because it's underrepresented in history books, and WP:PRIMARY sources are insufficient for an article here. To be clear, being "a recovery site for injured travellers" or a venue for "community gatherings" is not a basis for notability, there are a billion such places. You say "venue for political campaigns" with plural, yet only a single event by a non-notable candidate is mentioned – There's a lot of candidates who go a lot of places but that doesn't make them notable! The owner being a secretary for a church either – not necessarily an "integral role" for even the community, much less the "region", as claimed – is irrelevant to the hotel's claim to notability, especially if only being your claim based on his archived letters rather than a historian saying so. "The property is often mentioned in the context of the town's historical significance" really couches the fact that the town generally is what's notable, not a hotel there – Eurobin#History would be a better place for this. "The establishment was a hub of activity, reflecting its importance within the Eurobin community" is not sourced. "A recurring theme in historical records" would be WP:Original research – you reviewed the records, not a historian in a published source. Besides that this section has just one source that doesn't support "recurring" or "articles", why would anyone now care that the hotel had an employee who did her job? "Its role as a community hub, coaching stop, and post office has left an indelible mark on the history of Eurobin." If it's so indelible, why aren't there any more modern sources that say so? "Today, Boyd's Eurobin Hotel exists only in historical records and memories." I think anyone with memories of it is dead now. Reywas92Talk 15:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The equivalent of a telephone book listing [1] is about all I found for sourcing. Based on the long explanation above, this could potentially be notable, but we need sourcing with links to the documents if possible. I just don't see notability at this time. Oaktree b (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your detailed feedback regarding the article on Boyd’s Eurobin Hotel. I have carefully reviewed your comments and have made several updates to the article to address the issues raised. Below are my responses to the specific points mentioned:
    1. Availability and Credibility of Sources
    All references now include direct links to digitised articles from the National Library of Australia’s Trove database. These sources are archived and verifiable primary accounts from reputable publications such as the Ovens and Murray Advertiser and The Age. While they may be contemporary, they offer detailed and factual accounts of the hotel's significance during its operational years. These sources are widely recognised as credible in documenting regional history.
    2. Significance of the Hotel
    The hotel was not simply a "recovery site" or a venue for "community gatherings." Its role as a halfway house on a major coaching route between Myrtleford and Bright made it an integral part of regional transportation and commerce in the late 19th century.
    The site was significant enough to remain a known landmark after its closure, as demonstrated by its use as a turning point in the 1898 Federal Cycling Club road race. This reflects its continued relevance to the community even after ceasing operations.
    3. Historical Context
    It is essential to preserve records of local establishments like Boyd’s Hotel as part of a broader effort to document regional history. Many small towns and hamlets, such as Eurobin, played vital roles in shaping the rural economy and culture of Victoria. Articles like this help ensure that these contributions are not forgotten.
    The lack of retrospective histories on the hotel does not diminish its historical significance. Instead, it highlights the need to preserve primary records to prevent erasure of smaller, regionally significant sites.
    4. Community and Cultural Impact
    John Boyd’s dual role as hotel proprietor and community leader (e.g., secretary of the Presbyterian Church) underscores the interconnected nature of rural establishments and their communities. The hotel was more than a business; it was a hub for social, political, and religious activities. The records of his contributions provide a valuable lens into Eurobin’s societal structure during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
    The hotel’s association with the post office further cements its role as a focal point of regional connectivity and communication.
    5. Claims of Notability
    The article does not rely on claims of "indelible marks" or "recurring themes" without evidence. These phrases have been adjusted or removed to align with Wikipedia's standards.
    While the candidate Richard Warren may not have been notable, the mention of his campaign stop illustrates the hotel's importance as a gathering place during its time.
    The article does not assert that individual roles (e.g., "Maid of the Inn") are historically significant on their own. Instead, these anecdotes enrich the narrative by providing a glimpse into daily life at the hotel, which adds depth and context.
    6. Broader Historical Significance
    The town of Eurobin is underrepresented on Wikipedia, and documenting sites like Boyd’s Hotel contributes to the historical tapestry of the region. While it may not hold national or international significance, its role in regional history makes it a valuable addition to the platform. Wikipedia is not solely a repository for globally significant subjects; it is also a place to preserve local and cultural histories that might otherwise be lost.
    7. Modern Sources
    You raise a valid point regarding the lack of retrospective analysis. However, this is precisely why articles like this are crucial. Without documentation, small yet significant historical sites risk fading into obscurity. Inclusion on Wikipedia can encourage further research and scholarship on such topics.
    Conclusion I believe the article now meets Wikipedia’s guidelines for notability, with all sources properly cited and linked. Boyd’s Eurobin Hotel played an essential role in its community, and preserving its history aligns with Wikipedia's mission to provide a comprehensive and inclusive record of human knowledge. I kindly request that the updated version of the article be considered before a final decision is made.
    Thank you for your time and for the opportunity to improve this entry.
    Sincerely,
    Blackcatsx Blackcatsx (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Spiritism

[edit]
Timeline of Spiritism (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 timeline is not notable, and it is not supported by significant reliable sources Drew Stanley (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arms trade

[edit]
Arms trade (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)

Before people go nuts about this, I am AfDing the disambiguation page at this location and not the concept of "arms trade". It seems like the clear and obvious primary topic for a redirect is arms industry as arms trafficking/weapon smuggling is usually called... well, that. Alternatively, if the page is independently notable, WP:REDLINK applies and it should be opened up to article creation. Either way, a DAB page does not belong here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral history of JD Vance

[edit]
Electoral history of JD Vance (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)

Premature page splitting for a topic that is not mature enough to have long-term notability under WP:LISTN. Generally, a politician should not have a separate electoral history article until they've been through a few cycles with substantial analysis between performances. SounderBruce 04:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A separate page is not needed for someone who has only been in two elections. Reywas92Talk 05:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a stand alone list, so WP:LISTN does not apply. I don't see any harm with having this as a seperate page, but for now it doesn't seem like we need to. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - duplicates information already on his main article. — Maile (talk) 13:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to main article as a plausible search target. S5A-0043Talk 15:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to main page, per nom. and others. WP:TOOSOON for a separate page. Sal2100 (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of World Chess Championships

[edit]
History of World Chess Championships (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)

WP:REDUNDANTFORK of List of World Chess Championships from the version around a year ago, would like to request redirect, as WP:BLAR was unsuccessful DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the keep votes made so far have not satisfactorily engaged with the arguments for deletion already made by Remsense and others, and appear to be limited to the article creator. Stockhausenfan (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest of Ajmer

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

Yet another MILHIST article that spun more around event's background and aftermath rather than describing the event itself. Fails WP:MILNG and WP:SIGCOV as sources measly refer this particular event as a capture of Ajmer alongwith Nagaur, could not find Seige Siege of Ajmer in the sources. Garuda Talk! 16:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I agree with your observations. The article has been in contention for deletion before too. Xoocit (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — (soft) — per nominator and above. That said, there do seem to be a number of sources listed in the “the battle” section… if someone could spin-out more information regarding the actual siege from these (or any other) I might be inclined to re-consider my position or at least rescind my “delete” position. But as-written, it’s a delete, for me. There is enough contention via multiple issues that I am rescinding my “delete” opinion (and altering it to Comment). MWFwiki (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the initial contributor has a history of WP:CITEBOMB and just citing irrelevant and unreliable sources [2][3][4]; From the analysis of the sources, it is evident that they contain barely a few lines of passing mention, often limited to a single line:
    • [5]: This barely has one line of passing mention.
    • [6]: Page needed; however, upon searching through snippets, nothing relevant could be found.
    • [7]: Irrelevant to this conflict; nothing about the event was found. The initial contributor has a history of citing random sources without thoroughly reviewing them.
    • [8]: Same case here, a one liner "Mahmud Khalji of Malwa defeats Gajadhar".
    • [9]: Lastly, here as well, a line of passing mention. Garuda Talk! 16:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, India, and Rajasthan.
  • Delete: Per nomination. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article was moved from Conquest of Ajmer to Seige of Ajmer at Special:Diff/1261104784, which I would have thought the nominator would have been aware of, so the argument that the sources refer to "capture of Ajmer" and not "Seige of Ajmer" and therefore it fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:MILNG on that basis is not a good argument. If anything they make an argument for moving the page back to the old name or similar. Pinging @Xoocit, @MWFwiki and Ratnahastin as you may not have been aware of the page move. TarnishedPathtalk 11:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Titles containing non-neutral terms like "Conquest" should be used with caution, as per MOS:MILNAME. Additionally, this event has only a few passing mentions and lacks sufficient independent, significant coverage to justify a standalone article. Garuda Talk! 16:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This article seems to place more emphasis on the event's context and aftermath with very limited information about the actual 'Conquest of Ajmer', maintaining the title given instead, it describes the aftermath, particularly the construction of a mosque and a shrine, as well as the role of Khwaja Niamatullah and Makhdum Husain. I see only passing reference to the siege, without any citation, it does not provide the level of depth expected for WP:MILNG to pass.--— MimsMENTOR talk 10:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete: I have moved this page from "Conquest of Ajmer" to "Siege of Ajmer" in the past on the basis of its lead title being misleading. A conquest is usually understood as the absorption of a territory into the state for a static amount of time, if not permanently. However, in this case it was recaptured by Kumbha within a few days. Aside from that, this article has multiple issues as noted by editors above, like WP:SIGCOV and WP:MILNG. Some cherry-picking of sources has also been done with the battle section, which was more of a siege, actually lacking a sufficient amount of source. Rawn3012 (talk) 11:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:SIGCOV RangersRus (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blunt instrument

[edit]
Blunt instrument (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:DICDEF, being mostly a definition of what a "blunt instrument" is and some examples. Wikipedia is not a phrasebook and therefore unless something can be found to demonstrate its standalone notability, it probably shouldn't remain as an article. While I have a feeling blunt weapon may be notable, nothing in particular from this article is salvageable so it would have to be created from scratch anyway. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don’t think this is a DICDEF fail - it’s not about the phrase blunt instrument, it’s just about the weapon in the context of criminology. It’s just a stub. And if the title is the issue that can be changed, so I don’t think the reasons above are good for deletion (though I think blunt instrument is actually the better title). This is not at all a TNT case. Will look for sources later - I would guess there is enough in criminology sources to pass GNG and I don’t know where else we’d cover this so it’s not a NOPAGE situation. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so... that just makes it a criminology term. Same difference. Wikipedia is also not a legal handbook either, so WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies. There has to be multiple RS discussing blunt instruments as they relate to law, and right now the only source is not about blunt instruments, but blunt force trauma, which can be caused by things other than blunt instruments such as transportation fatalities. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic everything is a DICDEF violation. Yes, which is why I said I would look for sources later, and why I did not vote yet. WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply: this is not data, a plot summary, lyrics, or lists of software updates (the examples it gives!), or anything analogous to that. Stubs are not a violation of INDISCRIMINATE. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at least not delete. This information should exist somewhere onwiki, though I'm not sure that it is best served as its own page. A merge would be better, but I can't think of a target.
Some sources I found quickly, I can look for more if you want:
Information on the considerations of attacks resulting from this kind of weapon is encyclopedic. No opposition to a merge or appropriate redirect later PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These seem to indicate to me a merge to blunt trauma would be best, maybe creating an "in crime" or "inflicted by weapons" section because it extends to other accidents besides criminal acts. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would be fine by me, though it may fit awkwardly there, unsure. I just feel strongly that information about this concept should go... somewhere. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Campaign Trail (Web Game)

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

Low notability and lack of reliable or real sources per WP:GNG. Tadpole2006 (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only a single RS cited for one sentence, the rest of the article cites the website itself or fan websites, obviously going against notability guidelines and WP:NOR. I'll also note that discussion about this article is taking place on the game's subreddit encouraging fans to edit this article, which has a danger of turning into WP:CANVASS. 148.252.145.173 (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly not notable. λ NegativeMP1 00:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also a fan of the game but clearly fails GNG. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Echo the concerns of the above editors. I'm a big fan of the web game, but a single article is not enough to support the game's notability. ApolloPhoebus (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Majeerteen-Hobyo Wars

[edit]
Majeerteen-Hobyo 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)

I could not find any sources that talk about the war between the Majerteen Sultanate and the Hobyo Sultanate. This article also has not cited any sources. It seems to be a hoax. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This war is real and it isn’t a hoax. In the majeerteen sultanates wiki page it talks about this war in the hobyo section. Jahahaiaia (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ONotAQAAIAAJ&q=hobyo+sultanate&dq=hobyo+sultanate&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjfw9eRnaWKAxUzWkEAHdH0FJwQ6AF6BAgEEAM#hobyo%20sultanate Jahahaiaia (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look at Page 17. Jahahaiaia (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dude i got it wrong by autocorrect and now it’s not letting me delete the comment.. Jahahaiaia (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Devarakonda

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Battle of Devarakonda (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)

Deleted due to lack of sourcing, this article was refunded to draftspace after an editor said sources were available and then moved to mainspace. However, the newly supplied sources still do not support notabilty. Each of the three sources included here ([13], [14], [15] has a single paragraph or less out of a full-length book on this battle. These sources verify that this battle took place, but is not WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG. The only other source I found in my WP:BEFORE is a post on a blog of questionable reliability. (It says it allows "anyone with a reasonable grounding in the Dharmic Indian civilization to air their views.") If there's a valid redirect target I'm open to it but I don't know what it would be. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I can find sufficient significant coverage (SIGCOV) in all three sources. The first source provides more than a page of coverage (pages 33–34), not just a paragraph. The second source also offers nearly a full page of coverage. While the third source is not fully accessible, its preview suggests at least two pages dedicated to this event. These sources should be sufficient to establish notability, and there was no need to consider a non-reliable source like Pragyata in the first place. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The first source contains 336 words on this battle. The second source contains 211 words. These are paragraph-length passages; one of them is a literal paragraph. (The third source, which you said you can't see, has only two references visible in search to the battle, so it's quite a leap to assume from those snippets that it's SIGCOV.) The article itself is 411 words long, which suggests some degree of WP:SYNTH or WP:OR in managing to find more to say than its source material. That indicates this battle is insufficiently notable for a standalone page per WP:NOPAGE. Again, open to a redirect if there's a war or campaign this battle was part of, but I don't know what that would be. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. The article body has 339 words (lead and infobox should not be taken into account). And, as far as I know, that is not what SYNTH and OR state. Even if it exceeds the sources in word count a little bit, I don't see a problem here. It is not necessary that content words in a Wikipedia article should match exactly with its sources. Coming to the third source, from what I can see, there is a certain pattern on pages 53–54 that follows the other two sources in terms of describing this event, so it is safe to assume that it contains at least 2 pages, or roughly 3 pages, of coverage. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 13:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Banj brdo

[edit]
Battle of Banj brdo (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)

While the fighting in this area during 1994 and 1995 was significant, and the two-volume CIA history of the wars in the former Yugoslavia contains significant coverage of those later events, this fighting (if in fact it happened at all) in 1993 is not covered at all in that source. If it happened, then it could be covered by a couple of sentences in the Majevica front (1992-1995) article. As things stand, I can't even find proof in reliable sources that it happened. Thirty years after the fact, if this had significant coverage in reliable sources, is would be apparent. It certainly doesn't appear to. Not notable in and of itself. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roman command structure during First Mithridatic War

[edit]
Roman command structure during First Mithridatic War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not WP:GNG, specifically – contra the First Mithridatic War itself – there not being significant coverage in reliable sources of Roman command structure at this specific period. Heavily reliant on unsourced interpretations of primary sources (WP:PRIMARY; WP:OR). See also previous discussion at WP:CGR. Ifly6 (talk) 05:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both major authors of the page have been notified. Ifly6 (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. The topic is not notable enough, and the writing is very confusing and even off-topic. There is nothing to save. The article has bugged me for several years now; I've tried to reread several times, in order to try to understand what is it about, but left confused every time. T8612 (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. Furius (talk) 10:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is one step above gibberish, and certainly has the stamp of OR about it. Notability of the topic is also questionable (not the war itself, but this odd construct lifted from the war). Intothatdarkness 14:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jajnagar Expedition of Firoz Shah Tughlaq

[edit]
Jajnagar Expedition of Firoz Shah Tughlaq (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)

Full of OR and SYNTH mess, cited with poor sources that were being dealt with. At best a hoax fan PoV that should not have been in the mainspace at the first place. Garudam Talk! 22:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pantodapoi

[edit]
Pantodapoi (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)

Unreferenced stub gives a definition for "Pantodapoi" which appears to be original research as the main sources found online are product pages for "Pantodapoi Phalangite" miniatures made by a maker called "Xyston". Does not meet WP:GNG. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Toys, and Greece. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not expert enough with Greek military units to feel confident in voting, but I did check some typical reference sources, including Harper's Dictionary of Classical Antiquities and Pauly-Wissowa, neither of which has an entry for "pantodapoi". I also checked under "auxiles" or related headwords. A broad search of the classical materials at Perseus turned up the word with reference to a kind of sauce (perhaps I misunderstood) and in a couple of other places, but not with reference to soldiers. A Google search for "pantodapoi soldiers" turned up a set of circular-looking definitions, perhaps based on this article or wherever its definition came from in the first place.
I suspect that what has happened here is that the article's creator confused a description of some auxiliary soldiers with a name for their unit: pantodapoi phalangites means "miscellaneous soldiers (in a phalanx)", not "a particular type of soldiers (natives) making up a phalanx". But it would be nice to see if anyone with more expertise in Greek military history concurs with this. Not certain that the general notability guideline is what's relevant here; if the definition were correct, I think the topic would be notable. But if, as I believe, the article is the result of a misunderstanding, then it can be deleted as though it were a hoax (albeit an accidental one). P Aculeius (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Libyan–Syrian Union

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

This article is at least two-thirds fluff. In its entirety, it is background, direct excerpts from a book, an uninformative scheduling timeline, and the personal puffery and conjecture of the respective heads of state. Given it is about a polity that never existed or even got at all close to existing, coverage of it should likely be limited to a blurb between a sentence and a paragraph in length on a handful of related articles. Remsense ‥ 论 01:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emirate of Banu Talis

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG: no English-language sources seem to mention this tribe or emirate at all, much less any indication of significance. At least some of the cited sources do not appear reliable, such as this webpage with no clear scholarly credentials, or the vague citations to an online transcription of Ibn Khaldun ([17]), a primary source. Much of the article is also poorly cited and may include WP:OR. If there's some alternate spelling of the name that yields accessible and reliable sources, you can mention it here; I've tried to search for a few other alternatives and still found nothing. R Prazeres (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jhala Manna

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

This article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jhala Man Singh and recreated under a different title with sufficient differences that G4 speedy deletion was declined.

However, the recreated version still does not show that the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:NBIO.

No evidence of WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources is found in a WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article previously at AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We're now at a split opinion, so worth relisting in an attempt to garner further clarity on consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 06:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raids inside the Soviet Union during the Soviet–Afghan War

[edit]
Raids inside the Soviet Union during the Soviet–Afghan War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unwarranted WP:SPLIT of the Soviet–Afghan War, clearly a Pov ridden article and glorification of measly notable Pakistani raids in Soviet Afghan. Garudam Talk! 00:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a Split and these raids aren't "measley notable" in that it involved the forces of four different states infiltrating into the territory of a global superpower. Waleed (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving South Korea

[edit]
List of wars involving South Korea (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)

Propose redirecting List of wars involving South Korea to List of wars involving Korea#South Korea, just like List of wars involving Korea#North Korea. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wars involving North Korea (nominated by Cortador), which resulted in the same solution on 3 November 2024. NLeeuw (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This outcome (the merger) was most unfortunate. Although Korea has been a divided country since the 1940s, editors seem adamant to treat it as a single country. We don't we give Sudan and South Sudan the same treatment, for good measure? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF Cortador (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mikrobølgeovn has a point, but I think the comparison of Korea with Sudan and South Sudan does not work well. Below I've presented some thoughts on comparing Yemen and Korea, curious what editors think of that. NLeeuw (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: One of the arguments used by nom of previous AfD was This also has precedent e.g. East and West Germany don't have separate pages for their wars, and neither do North and South Vietnam or North and South Yemen. The first half is true, but not the second: We've got List of wars involving North Yemen, List of wars involving South Yemen, as well as List of wars involving Yemen. However, given the significant amount of WP:OVERLAP between the three, we might consider the North and South lists WP:REDUNDANTFORKs, to be merged into List of wars involving Yemen. (The obvious difference being that North and South Yemen no longer exist, only a united Yemen, at least officially; by contrast, a united Korea no longer exists, but a North and South Korea do, despite claiming the whole peninsula for themselves.) But that would be a good idea for a follow-up if this AfD has been closed as nominated. NLeeuw (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As with the list of wars involving North Korea, declaring historical states on the territory of modern South Korea (like Goryeo) to be predecessors to South Korea specifically is questionable. There's currently no need for a separate article. Cortador (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should have a main one for Korea, with links to separate lists for North Korea and South Korea. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am open to this alternative proposal of three separate lists:
  1. Korea until 1948
  2. North Korea since 1948
  3. South Korea since 1948
@Shazback below seems to be suggesting the same thing.
If we do choose for this alternative, I would recommend including the words until 1948 and since 1948 in the article titles just to make clear to both readers and editors what the scope of each list is, and to prevent creating WP:REDUNDANTFORKs again. Cortador was right that we shouldn't duplicate content, but merging all three lists into one might not be the best solution. Also for readability, navigability, and categorisation purposes, three separate lists would solve several practical problems, including the untenable idea that there is still a unified Korean state as of 2024. NLeeuw (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Very surprised by the outcome of the previous AfD, which I did not see/participate in. I would be surprised to be directed to a page covering wars of multiple states if I was looking for either one.
    My suggestion would for "List of wars involving Korea" to be a disambiguation page with 3 pages listed: "List of wars involving states of the Korean peninsula (pre-1948)"; "List of wars involving North Korea"; "List of wars involving South Korea". Both the latter pages only include post-1948 conflicts, and can have a section at the beginning stating that the state claim succession to pre-1948 states if necessary.
    This follows the most common way people view and analyse the world when considering wars (by state), avoids duplication by clearly separating historical lists where states did not match current territories (e.g., whatever criteria are most relevant for inclusion can be decided, for instance to consider the Ungjin Commandery without needing to worry if either South or North Korea claim it as a predecessor state), while remaining clear link targets that can be found easily. Shazback (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most of these articles list every war that happened at a location, instead of the current nation. List of wars involving the United States doesn't list the wars that happened there between native Americans or others before the nation was officially founded. Dream Focus 18:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps because the United States does not claim succession of those states? Plenty of other articles list them by geography / include predecessor states to the current country (e.g., List of wars involving Poland, List of wars involving Vietnam). Shazback (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a general rule, we do not create lists or categories based on the geographic location where a war or battle took place, as this is usually WP:NONDEFINING. See WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. These lists are about belligerents involved in a conflict, not countries etc. where the conflict took place. Therefore, there are no battles "involving the United States" prior to the American Revolutionary War. NLeeuw (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure I follow / understand fully your comment. Both pages I shared include plenty of elements that occured prior to the current constitution / establishment of the Third Polish Republic or the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Many of these are lineage / predecessor states that had claim over the general area of the current state (not identical borders). Furthermore, a cursory / quick look at both these lists as well as the list of wars involving the United States shows they include cases were the state is not a belligerent per se: Bleeding Kansas in the USA list, the Later Trần rebellion (1407–1414) in the Vietnam list, and the Januszajtis putsch in the Poland list. I'd also note that World War I is listed as a conflict involving Poland, despite Poland not existing at any point during the war as a clear indication geography is considered when compiling these lists. These lists are not pages I like / find very useful exactly because of the points made in the WP: pages you linked. When looking at wars of Country A, my personal expectation is to see only the wars of what is commonly understood to be Country A in current geopolitics (i.e., for North Korea, 1948+, for the USA 1775/6+, for Poland 1918+, for Vietnam 1976+). But that's not how many other people like it, as they expect to see predecessor states' wars included in these lists. Shazback (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment was a reply to both Dream Focus and you. I'm not necessarily disagreeing, just adding some thoughts and pointing to some relevant policies and guidelines. NLeeuw (talk) 11:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As I see it the current list can't stand as it is but not for notability reasons. South Korea did not exist until 1948, so if we are going to have a list with this title, the earliest war should begin in 1948. However, if we are going to include wars extending back in time in that geographic area than that topic is better covered at List of wars involving Korea. So I would support a Keep if the list does not include content before 1948 or a redirect to List of wars involving Korea#South Korea. Best.4meter4 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 10:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the List of wars involving South Korea and Reestablish the List of wars involving North Korea. Those two are the modern countries and disserve their own articles. The List of wars involving Korea article should have the wars that occurred before the 1945 division of Korea. Dash9Z (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 02:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: Several participants of the previous AfD, as well as new participants, have indicated that they are surprised by the previous AfD's outcome, and do not think it serves as a good precedent for this one. That undermines my rationale.
As nom, moreover, I am open to the alternative proposal of three separate lists:
  1. involving Korea until 1948
  2. involving North Korea since 1948
  3. involving South Korea since 1948
This alt proposal appears to enjoy a majority right now. The inclusion of the year 1948 in the title of all three separate lists also appears to enjoy some support, in order to prevent duplication (WP:REDUNDANTFORKs) and WP:OR by implying that North Korea and South Korea have already existed for hundreds of years. Even though the ROK and DPRK do not diplomatically recognise each other, the de facto reality is that Korea ceased to be a unified state in or around 1948, and has split in two, a situation which has been consolidated since the 1953 ceasefire. It is probably best if our lists of wars involving Fooland reflect that, and the year 1948 will serve as the turning point in which the Korea list splits into North Korea and South Korea. NLeeuw (talk) 06:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. This discussion is all over the place. This AFD is considering what, among the limited options, should happen with this article, List of wars involving South Korea. Right now, it seems like arguments are divided between Keep and Redirection. It doesn't help a closer to go off on tangents about what should happen with other articles, please present your argument on whether this specific article should be Kept, Merged, Redirected or Deleted. Larger discussions on this subject could perhaps occur on a related WikiProject talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, Keep this article, as a first step towards the three separate lists proposal. NLeeuw (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History Proposed deletions

[edit]

History categories

[edit]

for occasional archiving

Proposals

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/History&oldid=1263811752"