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]

Khokhar Dynasty

[edit]
Khokhar Dynasty (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)

Recreation of the salted Khokhar Confederacy with fake sourcing ("Management of Liver Abscess"???) or sources that don't even mention Khokhar (e.g. this one. I could find no book sources for Khokhar + 1206 or Khokhar + 1516, the supposed start and end dates of this dynasty. I can find no other sources using the flag either. Fram (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Per WP:G4 as above Mrfoogles (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Daśapura

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

The article lacks sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources that establish the "Kingdom of Daśapura" as a distinct historical entity. While Daśapura (modern Mandsaur) is historically significant, there is no scholarly consensus supporting the existence of an independent polity by this name. The topic appears to be WP:SYNTH, based on scattered references, rather than a well-defined subject in academic literature and the content seems to be a WP:POVFORK of the existing article on the Second Aulikara dynasty & Aulikaras, with overlapping material added without prior discussion or WP:CONSENSUS. NXcrypto Message 06:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I looked it up. Only result was Wikiwand's article for it. I mean, it could've been a tribe or another type of monarchy... A editor from mars (talk) 06:42, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Ben-Ghiat

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

No named chair or anything for WP:NPROF. The current "named" position is a temporary visting role not a faculty role as expected for NPROF. None of the sources here are independent, reliable, and providing significant coverage of her. The RS use her opinion on Trump but that does not make her notable. Czarking0 (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note that the top editor to the page has been blocked for sockpuppeting. User:JmsDoug Czarking0 (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and California. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, Politics, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nomination points out only that she does not meet one very specific WP:PROF criterion, #C5. But notability need not achieved through meeting that criterion when others are available. In this case, she has many published reviews of her books, easily passing both WP:AUTHOR and (because they are in-depth independent reliable sources about her work) WP:GNG. As for "top editor" JmsDoug: that editor's contributions were limited to the infobox and the paragraph about the visiting position at the University of Hawaii. The article creation itself was long ago by someone else. So the suggestion that this is a foundationally tainted article turns out to be, if not disingenous, then at least spectacularly false. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This does not only talk about [[WP:NPROF]. I specifically stated why she does not meet WP:GNG. I just reread WP:AUTHOR and I am not seeing how she passes that either. if not disingenous, then at least spectacularly false Dude seriously? I googled for additional sources about her and I do not see any that are sig cov, independent, reliable. Czarking0 (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    None so blind as will not see.
    But to lead you more directly to what you have not seen: WP:AUTHOR 4(c) "The person's work (or works) has ... won significant critical attention". WP:GNG: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
    The many published reviews constitute both "significant critical attention" and "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". They are indeed about the subject in the sense that they are entirely about the subject's work, the thing she is notable for, just as we would expect significant coverage of an athlete to be about their athletic accomplishments or significant coverage of a musician to be about their musical performances. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are enough reviews about her works that meets NAUTHOR. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 20:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and I'd say a speedy one at that. Several books with multiple reviews in reliable independent sources means that she passes WP:AUTHOR, and her citation record [1] looks strong as well (five papers with over a hundred citations, the top one with over 800 citations and an h-index of 21), almost certainly meeting WP:PROF#1. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok this one probably changes my mind. Czarking0 (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROF, WP:HEY, and WP:BEFORE. I deprodded the proposed nomination, because doing so would have been controversial at a time when we don't need any more, and because of clear notability. She is well-known as The expert on Fascism in the United States today: a simple Google search will reveal that. She earned tenure as a full professor at one of the world's top universities, New York University, where it's very difficult to get tenure. David Eppstein has patiently added evidence of author notability to the article. When nominating a scholar, you need also to look at Google Scholar. Bearian (talk) 09:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject seems to be publicly notable enough, based on a basic Google search and independent news coverage like this. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NAUTHOR. Thanks for adding the references to reviews, David Eppstein. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article only canvasses her early life and education. While her bio doesn't disclose notability, her publications might. Suggest note on talk page and tag(s) to allow the article to be revised with an aim to discussing her career and the impact of her work. ash (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Romantic Revival

[edit]
Romantic Revival (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 page appears to be a mixture of unsourced information, original research, and potentially self-promotion.

  • The primary source for the page, and for the majority of its life the only source, is a Time Magazine article entitled Festivals: Romantic Revival. The article was published in 1969 and is merely a review of a particular event held that year which featured Romantic music (and which was not even called "Romantic Revival"). The Time article contains no claims about broader historical trends of Romantic music experiencing a revival in the cultural consciousness starting in the 1960s, as the Wikipedia page does. In fact, far from suggesting that this 1969 festival is the beginning of a coming cultural shift, the author is openly derisive of the Romantic music played at the festival.
  • The text about Ates Orga's championing of the revival, added to the article several years after its initial creation, is supported only by an accompanying reference to a 1977 article written by Orga, and not by any independent source positing the notability of Orga's activities.
  • The text about the Romantic Revival Orchestra, added to the article quite recently, appears to be entirely self-promotion. No source is provided other than a link to the website of the entity described.

Note that the page has existed on Wikipedia for almost 20 years and as such may have influenced sources written after 2007, if not in any particulars of fact, then at least in the claim of the existence, naming, and notability of a "Romantic Revival" in classical music in the 1960s.

(The above rationale was adapted from an AfD request I filed last year that wasn't taken up.) — flamingspinach | (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and History. — flamingspinach | (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it doesn't look like the sourcing is at all there to support the idea that this was a musical movement. Since the article says Harold C. Schonberg was a champion of it in the New York Times I searched the full archive for that paper and as near as I can tell he never used the phrase, and the paper itself only used the phrase talking about other eras, or just casually saying that there's been a revival in interest in this kind of music lately, without saying anything about it being a specific movement. This article appears to be advancing an original argument the sources don't make. --Here2rewrite (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are academic sources that discuss the existence of a Romantic Revival though this article doesn't include them.[2][3][4] This might be a case of WP:TNT. desmay (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is plenty of information about a "romantic revival" in literature in the 19th century, which is what your source #2 is about, and probably what source #1 is about as well though I don't have access to it. But that doesn't support this article, which is about a revival of romantic music in the mid 20th century.
    The third article you linked is not an academic source - it's an editorial column from a paleoconservative monthly magazine with "close ties to the neo-Confederate movement", according to its Wikipedia article. It was also written a full 10 years after Romantic Revival was first published on Wikipedia, for whatever that's worth. — flamingspinach | (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sources have been provided to warrant an article, even of the current quality of the article is low. Cortador (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you list some of those sources? I've mentioned why I think the ones currently included in the article don't support the statements made in the article or are otherwise unsuitable. If you're referring to the comment above yours, I've addressed those as well in a reply. — flamingspinach | (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: This subject did exist - there was an infamous prototype of an infomercial that sold Romantic music for the masses. My parents were of the Silent generation who listened to folk music and this genre. It's enough of an essay that I can't !vote to approve it. Please ping me when you add the found sources and cut out the OR. Bearian (talk) 11:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Defense of Ahlat 1985

[edit]
Defense of Ahlat 1985 (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)

Draftified for being unsourced before being moved back to namespace by the original creator without any modifications being made. I could find no sources of any kind regarding anything that happened in Ahlat in 1895; the defense of Ahlat by Aghbiur Serob appears not to exist. The text also has some pro-Armenian neutrality issues. Any salvageable content (of which there appears to be none) can easily be covered in the Hamidian massacres article. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 17:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1956 in Belgian television

[edit]
1956 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost no content, not notable, cites no sources. Renerpho (talk) 14:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lenin Dev

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

No reliable coverage exists for the subject that is independent of subject. it fails WP:GNG. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 02:55, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

9361

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
9361 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created by the same user who made 9202 (which I also nominated here at AfD). Seems unhelpful to create articles for far-off future years, and even more so when there's virtually no information on them yet. Clearly violates WP:TOOSOON, and also WP:CRYSTAL since it is based on mere speculation. CycloneYoris talk! 06:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per wp:toosoon. ‹hamster717🐉› (discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠) 02:13, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deccani–Vijayanagar wars

[edit]
Deccani–Vijayanagar 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)

Full of AI-generated content by blocked socks, and previously soft AfD'ed. Since its WP:REFUND, nothing significant has been done to improve this mess so far. – Garuda Talk! 21:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Naval 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)

Prodded with the following rationale: "No indication that this magazine is notable simply for existing. Relic of 2005 Wikipedia when notability was not a significant concern." Deprodded with the rationale "In my opinion, this is a very respected publication in the industry and has been cited by other sources." — Anonymous 19:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Anonymous 19:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well that opinion is not reflected by anyone independently documenting the magazine. The best that I have is ISBN 9780824055387 mentioning it in its entry for the United States Naval Institute, listing it alongside Proceedings in 1 sentence. Mind you, that proposed deletion rationale is wrong, too. Notability was a hot topic in 2005. Uncle G (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clearly I need to brush up on my wikihistory (wikstory?). I thought it was 2007 when notability guidelines started to take their modern shape, to the frustrations of many. — Anonymous 20:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • They started not long after Project:fame and importance failed in 2004. That wasn't the first attempt at a formula, and people were still looking for an idea that worked. I had come up with User:Uncle G/On notability in 2006, but the concept predated that. By about 3 years. It had been put into policy, albeit not with universal application but just to the biographies of persons, in 2003. People just hadn't noticed, or realized the universality. So we took the long way around with a whole discussion of "Jimbo's 'No'". I had been using it before I wrote that page, and it had worked. I ended up explaining the PNC a lot. Uncle G (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        A very interesting piece of Wikipedia history. I definitely learned something today. — Anonymous 02:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If kept, it clearly needs to be renamed back to Naval History (magazine) (where it was before being moved without discussion) and Naval History redirected to Naval history. To suggest this is the primary topic for the term just because it has two capital letters is utterly ludicrous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2025 (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! 22:46, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ea-nāṣir

[edit]
Ea-nāṣir (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)

Ea-nāṣir is only notable as part of the complaint tablet written about him, which already has a fairly more thorough page. Because information regarding Ea-nāṣir is highly fragmentary—and so meaningfully expanding this article is likely impossible—it would make sense for any relevant information in this article to be moved to the article on the complaint tablet, to make everything easier to find, and to redirect searches for Ea-nāṣir to Complaint tablet to Ea-nāṣir. Hugo P. Behrmann (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, same reason as 2600:4040: guy Viceskeeni2 (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could those in favour of keeping the article perhaps outline what information would be appropriate to include here but not at the other article? Right now, the overlap is so substantial that this article seems entirely redundant and having two separate articles seems difficult to justify per WP:PAGEDECIDE. TompaDompa (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The People's Recorder

[edit]
The People's Recorder (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 doubt the notability of the topic. I tried to find some secondary sources but I couldn't. The only thing us that it had been nominated by an award, but I am not sure whether that award is prominent or not. Current sourcing in the article is mainly primary. ToadetteEdit (talk) 08:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Jhain

[edit]
Capture of Jhain (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, None of the sources gives enough significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) of this event/conflict to establish Notability (WP:N). Moreover the article focuses more on the background and the aftermath as the article only mentions 2-3 lines about the actual conflict. Koshuri (グ) 19:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There are plenty of sources that significantly cover it. The article could be expanded though. [6] [7] [8] (pg 209) [9] (Page 221) [10] (pg 136) Noorullah (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mala Kladuša offensive

[edit]
Mala Kladuša offensive (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 essentially a duplicate of the Capture of Vrnograč article which has recently been improved to include all the fighting that led up to the capture of that town, including this town. There is insufficient material in reliable sources to justify two articles in any case. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Patti

[edit]
Battle of Patti (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)

Why is this even a battle? What significance does this battle give? It's just a Mughal victory of 10,000 versus five, Where is the notability or even significance at all of this? Noorullah (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced search for: 
"Qasim Khan's revolt"
In books/documents 
Google Books
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
refseek
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives
Free English newspaper archives
In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal
The Wikipedia Library

Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central
Internet Archive
BASE  · Persée

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
  • Note: Page was vandalized by IPs and I added the best suitable changes back from an old revision. RangersRus (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • That doesn't change a thing. It's not the figures. Its the description of this as a battle of Patti at all, when the sources, including Hari Ram Gupta the first one cited, are talking about Qasim Khan's rebellion. Most sources outright label it that way, in titles or in marginal summaries. (See, for example, the margin of Chhabra, G. S. (1968). Advanced History of the Punjab: Guru and post-Guru period upto Ranjit Singh. Vol. 1. New Academic Publishing. p. 400. LCCN 70913973. OL 5746881M. Qasim Khan's revolt.)

      That version of Gupta's History cited doesn't, choosing a tabloid-esque section title, but begins the account with "Bhikari Khan's rebellion was followed by that of Qasim Khan, a Turk, […]". Gupta's 1944, 1952, and 1978 editions of History of the Sikhs start the very same account with the section title "Qasim Khan's Rebellion, C. March 1754". It'a also how xyr earlier Later Mughal History Of The Panjab at the Internet Archive reads.

      It turns out that the version of Gupta cited here is a posthumous edition from 2007, from "Munshiram Manohai lal Publishers Pvt. Ltd." who appear to have sensationalized Gupta's original text. That is still no excuse for writing this as a "battle of", though, when the prose below the title is largely the same and describes a failed revolt right down to its ignominious end: "The same day they cut off his tent ropes, dragged him to the Begam who confined him within her palace enclosure and kept him under strict guard.".

      Uncle G (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Garuda Talk! 20:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:27, 4 March 2025 (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=1279886932"