Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/History
![]() | Points of interest related to History on Wikipedia: Outline – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment |
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.

watch |
History
[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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. Fram (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: Per WP:G4. – Garuda Talk! 13:26, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: Per WP:G4 as above Mrfoogles (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- Delete - at best there are four fleeting mentions of a family. Bearian (talk) 06:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, India, Jharkhand, and Madhya Pradesh. NXcrypto Message 06:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- Delete: As per nomination AlvaKedak (talk) 07:45, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Keep: There are enough reviews about her works that meets NAUTHOR. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 20:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- Ok this one probably changes my mind. Czarking0 (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Keep per NAUTHOR. Thanks for adding the references to reviews, David Eppstein. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Armenia, and Turkey. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 17:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:GNG, completely unreferenced. Some version of this page already created and deleted 3 times previously! Creator has an 80% deletion rate with 4/5 pages (including the earlier 3 versions) deleted. Mztourist (talk) 06:41, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Renerpho (talk) 14:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- I am also nominationg the following articles for similar reasons (details given below):
- 2016 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2015 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2014 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2013 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2012 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2011 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2010 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2009 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2008 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2007 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2006 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2005 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2004 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2003 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2002 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2001 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2000 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1999 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1998 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1997 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1996 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1995 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1994 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1993 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1992 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1991 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1990 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1989 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1988 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1987 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1986 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1985 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1984 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1983 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1982 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1981 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1980 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1979 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1978 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1977 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1976 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1975 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1973 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1972 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1971 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1970 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1969 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1968 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1967 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1966 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1964 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1963 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1962 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1961 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1960 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1959 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1958 in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of years in Belgian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Beginning with the article for 1976, most have been tagged with the {{notability}} hatnote in 2022, and as {{unreferenced}} since 2015. For the years after 2004, some rely on single sources (rather than no sources at all), and were tagged accordingly. As far as I can tell, those sources, like [5] from the 2004 article, don't establish notability and are only tangentially related to the subject.
- List of years in Belgian television shows that some years don't have articles. Those are 1957, 1965, 1974, everything before 1956, and everything after 2016 (which is when the majority of these articles were created). Apart from figuring out which years have articles, that list is entirely useless. Renerpho (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- I am nominating the articles below for essentially the same reasons (no content, completely unreferenced). Some of these are tagged as such since their creation in 2017:
- 1956 in Estonian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1968 in Estonian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1969 in Estonian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1971 in Estonian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1974 in Estonian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1975 in Estonian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1976 in Estonian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1977 in Estonian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1979 in Estonian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1981 in Estonian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1982 in Estonian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1984 in Estonian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1985 in Estonian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1986 in Estonian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1987 in Estonian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1989 in Estonian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Renerpho (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- I am nominating the following articles for similar reasons:
- 1958 in Swedish television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1959 in Swedish television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1960 in Swedish television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1961 in Swedish television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1962 in Swedish television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1963 in Swedish television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1966 in Swedish television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1967 in Swedish television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1968 in Swedish television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1969 in Swedish television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1974 in Swedish television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1975 in Swedish television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1984 in Swedish television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1985 in Swedish television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1991 in Swedish television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1992 in Swedish television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1993 in Swedish television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1994 in Swedish television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1996 in Swedish television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1999 in Swedish television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2000 in Swedish television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2002 in Swedish television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2003 in Swedish television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2004 in Swedish television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Some, like 1959-1961, 1993, or 1996, are tagged as unreferenced since 2016-2018, shortly after their creation. Some, like 1963, have been tagged recently (November 2024) as relying entirely on single sources. What they all have in common is that they largely consist of empty sections and lack any notable content. Renerpho (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- The same applies to the following:
- 1960 in Norwegian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1961 in Norwegian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1962 in Norwegian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1963 in Norwegian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1964 in Norwegian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1965 in Norwegian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1966 in Norwegian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1967 in Norwegian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1985 in Norwegian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1986 in Norwegian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1987 in Norwegian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1995 in Norwegian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1996 in Norwegian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1997 in Norwegian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1998 in Norwegian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1999 in Norwegian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2001 in Norwegian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2002 in Norwegian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2003 in Norwegian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2004 in Norwegian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2005 in Norwegian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- All are based on the same template as the articles listed before, and all are essentially empty. Starting with 1964, these are already tagged as needing references. The articles for years after 2005 seem to be in slightly better shape and have not been nominated for deletion. Renerpho (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- List of years in Philippine television has an interesting solution: All the "non-notable" years (1953 to 1971) linked from that list are redirected to that list itself (example). Maybe we can/should take the same approach for the countries listed above. Renerpho (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- I am also nominationg the following articles for similar reasons (details given below):
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:03, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: It's an empty list. I can't really find much on .be websites for TV there... I don't see the need. Oaktree b (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- I've only !voted on the 1956 in Belgian TV article, I haven't reviewed the rest. No opinion on the entire list. Oaktree b (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Lists, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:15, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- Merge all I would strongly recommend having separate AFDs for each country. As similar as these are, this is a lot of articles. That said, we should not have empty or nearly-empty articles merely for the sake of having them. It would be better and more useful to readers to have decade-based articles when there is not enough information to justify one for every year simply to list birthdays of people or the Eurovision contestant. Reywas92Talk 21:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- Procedural Keep Too many articles, I suggest renominate them and seperate them by country (or in case of the belgian one, probably by 10 years). I don't want to even close this article as XFDCloser will bugged with this many articles listed. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:14, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Miminity and Reywas92: Alright -- how do I do this? I only find explanations for how to bundle AfD's (and suggestions to do so for similar topics, which is why I did so here), but not how to split them. Renerpho (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Create a new AFD for 1956 in Estonian television, etc., then put an updated tag on each of the articles pointing to that page. Same procedure, it's not actually a split. Reywas92Talk 15:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Renerpho And I am begging you not to nominate various years at the same time, please. I or other users can improve them but only with time. Please rather consider Draftifying them boldly or improving them little by little. They CAN be improved. The only year I checked (for Belgium) WAS (very) notable. And, unless I am mistaken, you cannot possibly have performed a reasonably thorough BEFORE for all those years. -Mushy Yank. 20:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- To the one that will close this, you have my best cheers. XFDCloser will bugged out with this one. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Miminity and Reywas92: Alright -- how do I do this? I only find explanations for how to bundle AfD's (and suggestions to do so for similar topics, which is why I did so here), but not how to split them. Renerpho (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Keep: 1) for navigational reasons; part of a whole; deleting this would be disruptive and confusing (inviting to recreate 1974 for example) 2) this year is, on top of that, particularly notable in Belgian television!!! See page. Has a BEFORE been performed? -Mushy Yank. 20:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- The comment above is about 1982 in Belgian television, which I just finished improving and realised it was an hyper-bundled nom after having !voted via the script.. Doing the same for all these innumerous pages is simply IMPOSSIBLE and not reasonably expectable of willing users. Very STRONG PROCEDURAL KEEP bordering speedy. This is absolutely not manageable. -Mushy Yank. 20:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- There would be nothing disruptive about simply redirecting 1974 in Belgian television and other years to a merged 1970s in Belgian television. It would be more reader-friendly to have related content together rather than spread across multiple pages. Thesse currently have basically no content besides a line about Belgium in the Eurovision Song Contest, and there should not be multiple standalone articles merely for the sake of having articles. I see no basis to keep the 1982 page as a standalone page when the one sentence you added could also be merged to Television in Belgium#History or a new 1980s in Belgian television. Reywas92Talk 22:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Estonia, Norway, and Sweden. -Mushy Yank. 20:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. This AfD flies against the orthodox practice of Wikipedia to list all the years of television of various countries. desmay (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- The navbox for 1966 only has pages for 16 countries, absurd to suggest that these pages are entitled to exist as pointless empty shells just because others do. Reywas92Talk 14:48, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- Keep For the years that only have one item, you can merge them to decade lists instead of year by year list. As for references, you click on the link to the article and can see what year and country its from. If you want to copy over references from there, to a list article, do so on your own, that is no reason to delete a list article. Dream Focus 23:56, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Philosophy, History, Technology, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: I searched Kirkus, Bookmarks, Booklist, NYT, Publishers Weekly, Google, Google Scholar, and ProQuest to no avail. See also Genesis (Dev novel), which I have also nominated for deletion. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 09:46, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. This person just isn't notable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 14:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. The article gives no sign of passing WP:NAUTHOR. Writing non-notable books doesn't make you notable. Astaire (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Subject fails WP:NAUTHOR. lacks significant coverage. Rahmatula786. (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:NAUTHOR. No significant coverage in the sources on the career of the subject and if any of his works were notable or were peer reviewed. RangersRus (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
- Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris talk! 06:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: At least there's a source for the eclipse and transit of Mercury slated to happen that year, which is more that can be said about 9202's minimal content… but as with that one, it is indeed far too soon — by over 7 millenia — for there to be sufficiently anything else to say about this far-off future year to merit an article (and you'd need to peer into the crystal ball — which would be contrary to policy — to suggest otherwise). I'm more surprised that this is somehow the second nomination — and looking back at the logs relating to that first attempt at an article here from 2017 lead me to some dot-connecting that may well make this a G5 candidate before long. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Article creator is likely a sock as well – see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brookerbs. Zeibgeist (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator's concern. 21 Andromedae (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per wp:toosoon. ‹hamster717🐉› (discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠) 02:13, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- Delete WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:TOOSOON. Any predicted events should just be in the article Timeline of the far future. jolielover♥talk 05:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Asia, India, Karnataka, Maharashtra, and Tamil Nadu. – Garuda Talk! 21:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: The article has lots of issues, like lacking reliable citations, peacock terms, and synthesis. If improved with better sources and a neutral tone, it should be kept, but for now, the whole article is a complete mess. NXcrypto Message 02:30, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Anonymous 19:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- A very interesting piece of Wikipedia history. I definitely learned something today. — Anonymous 02:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and Middle East. Hugo P. Behrmann (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- Merge to complaint tablet article. Obvious merge target, notability is not inherited. PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- Merge, there's no real difference between information on him and information on the tablet. Bruhpedia (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- Merge because the only information we can possibly know about him can be inferred from the tablet. JekyllTheFabulous (talk) 07:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- Keep because the one famous tablet is not the only tablet we know of that involves Ea-Nasir. There are several other tablets written to him and by him, as well as more information about his life, such as his other endeavors like land speculation. There’s more than just that tablet, and we should include that. 2600:4040:75DE:9D00:2540:2508:F8E6:ECB4 (talk) 06:08, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
- Ea-Nasir is primarily notable for the tablet and notability is not inherited. PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
- Couldn't the mentions of the other tablets also be merged into the complaint tablet article as they are similar in nature? JekyllTheFabulous (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- Keep, same reason as 2600:4040: guy Viceskeeni2 (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, History, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, India, and Rajasthan. Koshuri (グ) 19:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Koshuri (グ) 19:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
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)
- Delete : Per nomination. The sources provided by Noorullah21 doesn't provides WP:SIGCOV while other ones are unreliable. First two sources doens't have WP:SIGCOV and the authors of the rest of the sources are not historian. CelesteQuill (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- @CelesteQuill Nonsense. Cited on google scholars: [11] [12] Noorullah (talk) 04:36, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- Keep as per Noorullah, there are sufficient sources that covers this event significantly. Article surely needs some copyediting. Mr.Hanes
Talk 06:00, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
- All I see sources spun around the event's vicinity but not giving due coverage to the event itself. – Garuda Talk! 00:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- Keep as per Noorullah and Mr.Hanes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakakarta (talk • contribs) 08:08, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
- Redirect to Gurdan Saini: For what it's worth, it certainly doesn't come up with enough SIGCOV to have its own article. Removed some near-depreciated sources for a clear analysis. – Garuda Talk! 00:39, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- Merge to Capture of Vrnograč, agree with nom that it is insufficient to justify two articles, might as well just combine the two. Sophisticatedevening (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- This seems like a totally daft way of presenting what in the history books (including the ones cited) is called "the rebellion [or revolt] of Qasim Khan", a short-lived rebellion against Mughlani Begum. Uncle G (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Shellwood (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sikhism, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Advanced search for: "Qasim Khan's revolt" | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
- 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)
- 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)
- My note was just awareness about the mess and incorrect details on the page before I reverted to last suitable revision. You made some talking points for discussion. What title or description do you suggest? RangersRus (talk) 10:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- I thought about this as I was checking all of those history books, and if I were writing I wouldn't be writing a standalone article at all, but expanding Mughlani Begum, because her and the development of the Rakhi system are what the historians are talking about. Uncle G (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- I see, so possible Merge instead of outright deletion? Sounds fine by me. Noorullah (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- I thought about this as I was checking all of those history books, and if I were writing I wouldn't be writing a standalone article at all, but expanding Mughlani Begum, because her and the development of the Rakhi system are what the historians are talking about. Uncle G (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- My note was just awareness about the mess and incorrect details on the page before I reverted to last suitable revision. You made some talking points for discussion. What title or description do you suggest? RangersRus (talk) 10:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- 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.
- Delete. Zero mentions of any such "battle" in reliable sources available to me. Possibly merge salvagable content without redirect as per the above discussion. utcursch | talk 22:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- Delete if the sources don’t even support the title then this is unsalvageable. Don’t merge, use actual sources to expand possible targets rather than degrading them with this. Spartaz Humbug! 17:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- Merge to Mughlani_Begum#Qasim_Khan’s_Defeat_and_Imprisonment_(1754). Most of the content can be merged with reliable sources. RangersRus (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- Delete - Per nom. Not enough sources to warrant separate article. Azuredivay (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
History Proposed deletions
[edit]- Hywel ab Owain (via WP:PROD on 2 November 2024)
History categories
[edit]for occasional archiving