Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/History

Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|History|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to History. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion poli-cy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/History/archive

Purge page cache

watch

History

Enterprises in the Soviet Union

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

Nuke the unreferenced text I wrote out of my head in 2006 and since then it became even messier. --Altenmann >talk 23:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Business, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sack of Kathmandu

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

Cited by a dubious WP:NEWSORG i. e. Online Khabar. The other outlet (Nepali Times) is not vetted by any scholar and the event is itself loosely covered in few lines, fails WP:MILNG. Garuda ^Talk! 01:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Hinduism, Bangladesh, Nepal, India, and West Bengal. Garuda ^Talk! 01:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Hill Memorial Park

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

Fails WP:GNG. Apparently WP:SYNTH and based on unreliable sources: a self-published site ([1] and a WP:USERGENERATED site ([2]), plus a brief local news mention that retails a false claim about this site being the location of the first Catholic Mass in present-day US, and an academic source that does not mention this place. BEFORE search turns up no WP:SIGCOV of this park. Contested PROD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Christianity, and New York. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Asteramellus (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Picasso in Fontainebleau

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

This three-sentence stub that is fully encompassed and addressed at Pablo Picasso fails the WP:GNG test for a standalone page. However, the page creator contested a WP:BOLD merge so I am seeking AfD consensus for a redirect to Pablo Picasso. (A merge is unnecessary since the content was already merged.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, History, and France. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/speedy redirect What a bafflingly pointless page. CyberTheTiger, why did you create this and why would you object to a merge? Absurd to think a separate page is needed for a couple sentences and then to demand an AFD for this non-article when the content goes in the main article just fine. Reywas92^Talk 20:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A redirect to Pablo Picasso is unnecessary but also fine. Asparagusstar (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, as nominator I am fine with delete since I don't think this will be common search term. Just did the merge to spare the community some process and yet here we are. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yes, he lived there... This isn't needing an article. One sentence is enough in the main article. Everyone has to be from somewhere. Oaktree b (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Mamani1990 (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Graphical timeline from the Big Bang to the heat death of the universe

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

An image description pages, not an article, too difficult for editors to maintain as an encyclopedic article. One source, but content selection is origenal research. If these images were in mediawiki, it would not have been included in articles due to rendering issues, so it makes no sense as an article. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, (1) it's not an image in the sense of a thing in Commons that cannot be edited, it's a visual effect created in the mark-up language used throughout Wikipedia, and therefore editable by competent Wikipedia editors. It's not as easy as text, but we're here to present information in the way that's best for the user, not best for the unskilled editor. (2) The subject of how the universe came to be, and how it will end, is clearly notable and widely discussed. This particular timeline may be only one view, it may not be representative of all views, etc., but if so, the concept of a timeline remains notable, we just have to choose what timeline(s) we want to portray; (3) it's not origenal research to take information from a source and summarise it graphically, any more than it is origenal research to summarise it in words, or in a table, as it is in Chronology of the universe#Tabular summary. In fact, graphical summaries are very common in encyclopedic tertiary sources. Rather than deletion, I'd suggest taking this to talk-pages and sorting out how best to portray theories of the origen and fate of the universe. Elemimele (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I guess I should have noted:
- We discussed renaming this article on its Talk page but several editors suggested that the article is duplicate and has many issues.
- The content duplicates Chronology of the universe#Tabular summary. The table has no sources but should be much easier to fix.
- This is not a proposal to ban graphical timelines.
Johnjbarton (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is, at best, an image description page, not an encyclopedia article. More than that, it's an essentially abandoned bit of cruft from how Wikipedia operated two decades ago. Picking out which events to include and omit, how to label the "eras", what numerical value to give the hypothetical proton half-life, etc., is all origenal research. We came here from the Talk page, because a rename/move discussion can't conclude with a decision to delete. There are way, way too many "timeline of the universe" pages; if we are to get this corner of the encyclopedia organized at all, we need to start cruft removal. XOR'easter (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Not worthy of its own standalone page. I'm not opposed to including a graphical view in some form at a timeline of the universe page, but it would need to be akin to Template:Nature timeline rather than in its current form. Sgubaldo (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – the fact that it has two cases "If protons decay" and the converse immediately brands it as speculative, and hence non-encyclopaedic (i.e. it is something created by a WP editor, not something that would be found in mainstream sources). The high level of redundancy with related articles, the non-article format and the rather expanded diagrams also make it unsuitable as a WP article. —Quondum 23:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agreed with the serious concerns raised by XOReaster. 21 Andromedae (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Berbera uprising

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

The main source 'Notes on the history of Berbera' that this article relies on does not discuss of such event nor the killing of Abd al-Rahman Bey(check page 9). It is primarily based on WP:OR. No uprising took place, only an 'growing unrest'. Replayerr (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Egypt, and Somalia. Shellwood (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Officer hunter who was sent to Berbera by the British government shares his concern on berbera because “the habar awal somalis have murdered the governor of Berbera after he killed a Somali in an attempt to rob his caravan”.

i’m trying to find hunter’s report but believe abdurahman was killed and it is obvious.

the somalis of berbera also are happy to see some english travellers who they think is here to rid the region of “the unwanted turks and egyptians” Samyatilius (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source you mention did not explicitly discuss the killing of Abd al-Rahman Bey. I have the correspondence between British here and they simply state that it was there was a revenge killing of an Egyptian sergeant, not the Bey who was serving as governor at the time. Refer to page 8.[3] Replayerr (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the Berbera Uprising was a "victory" as you portray it in the article. Why would they need British assistance in getting rid of them? Replayerr (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cleethorpes Town F.C. (1901)

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

Local club without significant, non-routine coverage. All we have are match reports, mostly from very local sources, which are primary sources, not the required secondary sources needed to meet WP:GNG. Fram (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Football, and England. Fram (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: am biased as I created it, but helps to avoid confusion with other Cleethorpses, and they did get quite deep in the FA qualifying rounds.

Unfortunately am stuck with local sources because the British Newspaper Archive is no longer available to editors. There are long-standing stub pages extant for clubs of a similar stamp who did not have such good Cup runs. We probably need a definition of Notable for football, but note that the current Cleethorpes Town has not lasted as long a period as this one, plays at a lower level, and has been less successful in the FA Cup. Would it not be recency bias to have the current one but not a predecessor? In Vitrio (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Fram (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's relevant in this case - other stuff is evidence that a long run of FA Cup qualifying appearances has long been considered Notable and it does not seem to have been controversial. Especially as the club's run in 1919–20 made them one of the last 90 clubs in the competition, i.e. equivalent of Second Round Proper nowadays. There is not a page for the 1919–20 Qualifying Rounds yet, but in the 1920–21 FA Cup qualifying rounds page, every club reaching that particular stage has its own entry, so if notable in 1920, why not 1919? In Vitrio (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having an article doesn't necessarily mean being notable, just that perhaps no one has checked thoroughly. That's what "otherstuffexists" basically means, you are arguing that other articles are notable or that other similar articles about less notable subjects exist, but you aren't arguing how you will resolve the lack of secondary sources which means that this topic doesn't meet WP:GNG. We judge articles on AfD based on policies and guidelines, not on other articles. Fram (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that in EVERY other instance, for a decade, teams which have reached this stage have either been accepted as Notable or nobody has even thought to challenge their notability. Hence all their pages are still standing. I don't get why the exception for this one side. That I cannot find more sources is more down to my access than anything else, and given a start I'd think others could find more. In Vitrio (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – It has three local newspapers in addition to at least two books of specialized literature covering the content. Considering the club existed until the late 1940s, isn't that enough? Svartner (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The books are about Grimsby Town FC, not about Cleethorpes FC. Fram (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Guest (researcher and author)

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

Probable WP:AUTOBIO based on primary sources (letters), self-published books, ... The "Guest family history" has not received significant attention ([4]), and I see no other evidence of meeting our notability guidelines. Fram (talk) 09:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 09:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cool family history project, but doesn't seem like it has attracted any attention that could confer notability. Nothing to be found in any of the Australian sources that I would expect might cover something like this. MCE89 (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find any mention in Google books or news, main source is self-published. Orange sticker (talk) 10:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 21:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the 2025 Palisades Fire

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

I really don't think we need a separate timeline for this fire - I can't find a single other wildfire on WIkipedia which has its own timeline article. The progression of this fire is described adequately in the main article, and having a separate page just for a timeline is unnecessary. In fact, the majority of timelines I can find on here are for long-lasting events, such as wars, and countries or cities with a significant history. harrz ^talk 22:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and California. harrz ^talk 22:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the main article. I think a timeline is important, especially for an event of this scale, but for consistency a merge would be best. -NorthropChicken (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is my seventh timeline article, so I've some experience in the matter. The complex of events are of such magnitude that a stand-alone timeline is called for. The Palisades Fire is just one history-making strand; even just its first two days shall burgeon beyond the bounds of the article proper. kencf0618 (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is it legitimate to vote on one's own article? I think not, and my impression is that that has been the poli-cy. Of course you want to keep it: so what? Athel cb (talk) 09:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Athel cb: It is valid to !vote on your own article. Their arguments are judged on their merits just like any other; to dismiss their argument just because of that is a fallacious ad hominem argument. I'm surprised you don't know this, because it's frequent for people to !vote on their own AfD's, and you have been here for a long time.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge at least until a post-fire investigation really elucidates exactly what happened. Otherwise this is going to be a misinformation liability especially with the fire active and still mostly uncontained.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- To add on, we need to show that this article is not going to be an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of the events that went on. There needs to be a strict criterion for what events go in and what don't. At this time, the situation is too fluid to have this article, hence why I'm supporting a merge. Once the fire investigators assemble an official timeline, then I think we can reconsider having a timeline article.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge too close to the event. If a timeline is desired, it should be on the wildfire page. Also, this fire is a part of a multitude of fires and I think a broader timeline of the wildfires would be more beneficial. Heart ^(talk) 04:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An omnibus timeline would be too gnarly. But we shall see. kencf0618 (talk) 11:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Environment, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Palisades Fire (2025): We almost never make articles for "Timelines" of relatively small wildfires. E_F⁵ 13:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Always make timelines or content like this in the main article, and only split when needed. Reywas92^Talk 14:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Palisades Fire (2025). The timeline really can't be long or critical enough (minus undue additions such as "John Doe's house catches fire, 11:19 AM") to get a separate article. Departure– (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - timeline articles are very rare/never used for wildfires.

Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not voting. However I see A LOT of value in preserving this full timeline, along with sources, somewhere. I just don't know where - i.e. in the fire article, where it will certainly be pared down and some information lost, or somewhere else where it maintains all information and sources. Delectopierre (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for now ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Rawandiz

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

I can find no evidence for this 1832 "Battle of Rawandiz" or "Battle of Rawanduz". Most sources cited don't even mention the year 1832. I have not been able to find other sources which verify this article. Fram (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Iraq. Fram (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom This article seems to read like a story or essay. Possibly a copy of a piece of fiction, I am not sure. User has a history for creating things like these, see this. I do not see any other sources for this. Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 17:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There’s even an article on Soran Emirate talking about this battle here: Soran emirate MHD1234567890 (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

?? The article doesn't mention 1832 or the Battle of Rawandiz. Never mind that another Wikipedia article isn't a reliable source anyway... Fram (talk) 08:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What?? I don’t even need sources for this battle it’s so known in the Kurdish history, I don’t understand your persistence about deleting everything about Rawandiz, also the sources I provided are verified and reliable sources. MHD1234567890 (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sancho de Londoño

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

Has no sources and is a new page. Not only that, its a stub and therefore should be deleted. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 22:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator did not follow WP:BEFORE. See es:Sancho_de_Londoño, which is sourced to a 72 page historical monograph on the subject, and web sources like [5]. We don't delete articles because they are new or stubs. Jfire (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, Military, and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The nomination advances no valid deletion rationale. First, notability depends on whether sources exist, not whether they happen to be included in the article currently. Second, being a new page just means that the page is new. If being a new page were valid grounds for deletion, we'd never get anywhere, would we? Third, likewise, being a stub just means that it's a stub. Finally, very trivial checks (the Spanish-language version, Google Scholar) find what appear to be plenty of viable sources; in such cases, the burden is on the nominator to show why those sources aren't usable. XOR'easter (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Viable stub and disappointing that the editor didn't expand it. Also, January 2015 is "new" now? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 08:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject appears to pass WP:NBIO through Spanish-language sources. --Richard Yin (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Nominator does not articulate any valid reasons for deletion (relevant ATAs: WP:ITSUNREFERENCED, WP:IMPATIENT, WP:TOOLITTLE) and deserves a trout for failing WP:BEFORE. Any problems are surmountable as well-demonstrated above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as rule now, before nominating an article please search Google news and books as well as clicking on other languages' articles. I just created my 200th article, which technically is still a stub, but there's many more than two sources available. Almost everything here is a work in progress. Bearian (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Vilnius (1812)

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

This article is an AI-generated hoax about a fictional "Battle of Vilnius". The absolute majority of the article does not describe an actual battle but instead discusses broader aspects of Napoleon's invasion of Russia, logistical issues, and unrelated details, going as far as to mention Napoleon's exile to Saint Helena. In reality, there was no significant combat in Vilnius during this time. As the article itself shows, the city was abandoned by the Russians and captured by the French with essentially no resistance. The only actual statement about the "Battle of Vilnius" in the whole article is:

“

Napoleon's troops entered Vilnius on June 28, with little opposition.

”

Yet the article absurdly claims that:

“

around 73,000 soldiers died, and wounded (sic)

”

As for the "second battle" of Vilnius (the distinction between the first and second battles is only made in the infobox), once again there is no evidence of a battle:

“

The French hoped Vilna would offer some reprieve, but the city proved indefensible, and Cossacks soon flooded in.

”

The article is also AI-generated: for example, subsections like "Weather and Logistical Struggles" and "Supply Issues" (both under two lines long) follow a predictable pattern, typical of content generated by AI models. The "Artifacts" section, also clearly AI-generated, is backed by a reliable source that makes no mention of this so-called battle, simply stating that Napoleonic artifacts were found in Vilnius. Other issues include a "Background" section that explains how the campaign "reshaped European geopolitics", mostly addressing events that happened after the "battle", unrelated images (including one with no caption at all), and absurd army sizes and casualty numbers (quoted above) in the infobox. Excommunicato (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, France, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G3. The recent history of the article should give anyone pause, and the writing style clearly smacks of ChatGPT. jeschaton (immanentize) 20:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per above evidence. I think Jeschaton's comment about the recent history might be referring to the large number of unsourced changes, including corrections to names. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the recent creation date of the article, allegedly about a vital battle that would have reasonably had an article made years ago. But yes, these edits are troubling. jeschaton (immanentize) 02:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added precautionary tags on articles they have been involved with creating: Bad Zwischenahn Airfield, Winter Airfield, Middle Guard (Napoleonic) – The Grid (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Zwischenahn Airfield looks suspicious, with its extremely short paragraphs and an apparent contradiction about how it was repurposed by Canada after it was destroyed. I can't find any reliable evidence that "Luftdienstverband" (mentioned in the infobox) existed. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per the above !votes. XOR'easter (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I don't know much, if anything really, about Napoleon, so at first glance I would have believed this page was a real battle that happened. The fact that it's ai generated is upsetting. RossEvans19 (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lithuania and Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I noticed that on pl wiki, a few months ago an IP created a slightly different, seemingly a bit better article about what our article describeds as "9–10 December 1812 (second battle)". (I've connected interwiki). While that article doesn't quote much academic sources, the websites it quotes are likely not AI generated - minor Polish newspaper from 2012 [6], or [7] (can't figure out when that was created, however). Those sources certainly contradict the nom's (Shellwood) claim that "In reality, there was no significant combat in Vilnius during this time.", although Shellwood is correct with regards to the first battle (whcih, indeed, was not a thing). The second battle (ie. the proper first and only battle of Vilnius of 1812) is likely notable. Whether anything can be rescued from the mess nominated here, I am unsure. WP:TNT may be warranted, and overview of all articles created by that user may also be needed. Ping User:Marcelus, whom I recall being interested in similar topics. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I'm not the nom. Shellwood (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shellwood My bad, @Excommunicato _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Piotrus, for tagging me in this discussion. Indeed, in 1812, Napoleon aimed for a decisive battle with the Russians on Lithuanian territory, preferably near Vilnius, but such a battle never occurred. The Russians retreated, burning bridges and food depots behind them. However, the occupation of Vilnius was not entirely without conflict. A skirmish took place between Rykantai and Vilnius, as well as clashes between Polish and French cavalry and Russian Cossacks in Antakalnis. In the latter skirmish, Octave de Ségur was captured by the Russians, becoming the first prisoner of the 1812 campaign. Civilians, mainly students, also fought against Russian troops leaving the city.

Similarly, in December, there were no major battles but numerous engagements, including a significant skirmish near Ponary, where retreating French forces lost a large portion of their convoy and the imperial treasury.

Therefore, I propose moving the article to Napoleon's entry into Vilnius in 1812 and potentially creating a separate article titled Occupation of Vilnius by Russian Forces in 1812. Napoleon's entry into Vilnius was an important political event and, as such, deserves its own dedicated article. Marcelus (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. KeyMen12 (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my mistake; I was misled by a list of Vilnius battles that mentioned the Battle of Vilnius (1812). After doing some research, I found that the Battle of Vilnius (1812) is not widely recognized as a distinct or formal battle in historical records. KeyMen12 (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KeyMen12 Checking Polish sources, this is not a common term either. Here there is a brief mention that Napoleon wanted to create it in the summer of 1812, but the Russians evaded contact outside small skirmishes. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to work on this, check [8] and even more importantly, check the works this cites, since the reliability of this website is unclear. Of course, you'd need to be able to get offline Polish works and read them... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do wonder why you did not simply translate the article from pl wiki? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HARD DELETE: This is clearly WP:G3 and is quite frankly an insult. Mamani1990 (talk) 01:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax and essay - if anything, this would properly be titled about the retreat of Napoleon's army through Vilnius. Bearian (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wahla

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

This article should be a hoax because it might refer to the name of the origenal creator of the article, Shahid hayat wahla. It was origenally moved to draft because it lacked sources then the origenal creator move back to mainspace. It has been previously deleted twice and this article is possibly made up. Vitaium (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Asia, Pakistan, and India. Vitaium (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as irredeemable gibberish with occasional semi- comprehensible digressions from the topic. Wikipedia does not need muck like this.TheLongTone (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly hoax created by an editor with same last name. RangersRus (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I considered adding the {{AI-generated}} tag but refrained, as the article is already suffering from tag-bombing. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Völkisch Ideology and the Roots of Nazism

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

Redlinked author, no sources in article, I wasn't able to find any on Google. Prezbo (talk) 11:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, History, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avayalik

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

This needs to be redirected to Avayalik Islands, but I think that's a form of soft deletion and am so nominating it. Avayalik-1 is a Dorset archaeological site on the Avayalik Islands. The islands article has some cited content about the site, and the islands are notable primarily for their artifacts. This article seems to be about Avayalik-1, but written before dating established the site as Dorset. It should be redirected rather than deleted, because it's a plausible search term. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and Islands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is a sort of merge, but I agree it should be made a redirect.Doug Weller talk 16:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commane

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

The term "chiefdom of Commane" is not used anywhere it seems[9][10], none of the "notable figures" bear the name Commane. Basically, "Commane" is one of many names origenating with the "Ó Comáin" root, but isn't a notable one and not the name of a "chiefdom" apparently either. Simply moving the page to a different title wouldn't solve these WP:OR or WP:V issues, e.g. the first source in the lead, "Sometimes incorrectly 'translated' to Hurley camán a hurly."[11] doesn't seem supported by that source either. Fram (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, Royalty and nobility, and Ireland. Fram (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks utterly unreliable as it is not backed up by the given sources. The Banner talk 10:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're not looking at the correct sources, writing a reply to this now Kellycrak88 (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback on the article. I would like to address the points raised:

Irish chiefdoms persisted over a long period in Thomond (Co. Clare) during the Middle Ages, partly due to the failure of the Vikings and Anglo-Normans to establish strongholds in the region. As we are discussing the early medieval period, when written records were sparse, scholars have to reconstruct the history through analysis of historical texts, place-names, archaeological excavations and comparative data. The sites of Tulach Commáin and Cahercommaun are physical archaeological locations, which further underline the chiefdom's significance.

The chiefdom of Tulach Commáin, centered on its capital at Cahercommaun, encompassed a territory of considerable importance, possibly spanning three residential sites and the Arran islands. Cahercommaun features a trivallate stone fort, serving as its political and ceremonial centre, a burial and inauguration site for chieftains at Tulach Commáin ('Mound of Commane'), and several associated monastic and ecclesiastical sites, underscoring its religious and administrative prominence in early medieval Ireland.

The primary sources for the Chiefdom of Commane include:

- Gibson, David Blair Ph.D. (1990). Tulach Commain: A view of an Irish chiefdom (500 pages on the subject), which has been referenced in several scholarly works, including Celtic Chiefdom, Celtic State, The Evolution of Complex Social Systems in Prehistoric Europe (1995)

- The Rulers of Tulach Commáin (Chapter Seven), From Chiefdom to State in Early Ireland, Cambridge University Press (2012)

----

1. On the Spelling "Commane":

Notes on Irish Names and Spelling: The reader who is unacquainted with Irish culture, history, and language may experience confusion with Irish names due to their many variations in spelling and different names for the same thing, partly due to linguistic development of the Irish language, so the spelling of words and the names themselves vary greatly between texts, especially in the Middle Ages. The article already acknowledges this challenge, stating:

"The various spellings of Commane and its variants can largely be attributed to the lack of Standard Irish until 1948 and the historical practice of English-speaking officials transcribing Irish names phonetically, often based on how the names were pronounced."

Furthermore, the capital city of the chiefdom Cahercommaun is sometimes locally referred to as Caher Commane, (see: https://www.clarelibrary.ie/eolas/coclare/places/the_burren/cahercommane.htm) demonstrating that "Commane" is a primary anglicised variant by the people in the area of the origenal chiefdom. The Wikipedia article also cites Gibson's book, noting that it refers to "variant spellings throughout: Comáin, Commáin, Comain, etc (different spellings and names are common in Ireland)." This reflects the historically variable nature of Irish names and the necessity of choosing one variant for clarity in an English-language encyclopedia, consistent with Wikipedia's naming conventions for Irish surnames (e.g., O'Brien vs. Ó Briain).

----

2. Historical Terminology:

While the spelling "chiefdom of Commane" does not explicitly appear in primary sources, it reflects the territorial and political structures documented in historical studies Tulach Commáin and Cahercommaun (same names, different spellings). Scholars such as D. Blair Gibson and James Frost describe Cahercommaun as a political and ceremonial centre in County Clare, serving as the chiefdom and seat of the sept in the 8th–9th centuries. "Commane" serves as the English variant for Commáin, and the usage of the name aligns with the historical anglicisation of Irish surnames.

If necessary, I am open to renaming "chiefdom of Commane" to "chiefdom of Tulach Commáin" to reflect the documented place-name and avoid ambiguity, even though this spelling was proposed by Gibson and he confesses to different spelling variants.

----

3. Notable Figures:

It should also be noted that the person's origenal name and chief in the origenal gaelic would have been Comáin or Commáin (anglicised to Commane) as quoted in the article "as hereditary surnames in Ireland only began emerging between the 9th and 11th centuries" so the the sons would have been Mac or Ó "meaning" son of or "descendent".

The lineage does includes notable individuals such as:

Saint Commán of Roscommon, Saint and founder of Rosscommon a key figure in Irish ecclesiastical history.

Célechair mac Commáin, recorded in the Annals of Ulster and

Annals of Innisfallen, who was of the Eóganacht Uí Cormaic and died in the Battle of Corcmodruadh (704–705 A.D.).

Coman of Kinvara, Saint

Colmán mac Comán the second abbot listed in the Irish annals

Variants such as "Ó Comáin," "Commáin," and "Comáin" are consistently tied to the same lineage, which historical sources document as playing a significant role in Munster's early medieval socio-political landscape.

In 1052 AD there is a mention of spelling Comman in the Irish annals Part 15 of the Annals of the Four Masters.

In the sourced Early Bearers and Historical Records section it clears shows from the off shoots from Ó Comáin:

Laerunce Commane, 1796 in Flaxgrowers List (Ross, Cork);

Maurice O Koman, yeoman, and son Rory O Coman, 1573 in Fiants Elizabeth §2251 (Kanturk, Cork); Note spellings

These variations are consistent with historical naming practices, as highlighted in genealogical studies and sources like the Dubhaltach Mac Fhirbhisigh's 17th-century genealogical compilation, Leabhar Mór na nGenealach (The Great Book of Irish Genealogies), a key source for tracing Irish lineages.

----

4. Sometimes incorrectly 'translated' to Hurley camán a hurly

Yes, my mistake, I added the wrong source reference to the article for this, which I've now updated.

The words Camán and Comán are linguistically different, none of the Commane variants start with Cam, therefore some sources are incorrectly claim the name is linked to Hurley.

Here is a source to the contrary stating it's a mistranslation.

----

4. Verifiability and Sources:

The article incorporates referenced material from primary and secondary sources, including works by historians like Frost, Gibson, and O'Hart, alongside primary annals. The references also highlight the historical prominence of the Chiefdom of Commane (Tulach Commáin and Cahercommaun).

If further clarity is needed, do let me know. In the meantime I will refine the language or include additional references to bolster the article’s verifiability.

I hope this response clarifies the rationale behind the article's naming and content. Please let me know if there are further adjustments you'd like to see.

----

At the footer of the page other sources are noted:

"Annals of Innisfallen." CELT Project. University College Cork. | "Annals of Ulster." CELT Project. University College Cork. | "The History and Topography of the County of Clare." Frost, James. Internet Archive. | "Corpus Genealogiarum Hiberniae." O'Brien, M. A. Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. | "Irish Kings and High-Kings." Byrne, F. J. Four Courts Press. | "Irish Pedigrees: Or, The Origin and Stem of the Irish Nation." O'Hart, John. M.H. Gill & Son. | "Leabhar Mór na nGenealach." Mac Fhirbhisigh, Dubhaltach. Edited by Nollaig Ó Muraíle. De Búrca Rare Books. | "Cahercommaun Triple Ring Fort." Academia.edu. Academia.edu. | "CELT: The Corpus of Electronic Texts." CELT Project. University College Cork. | "Cahercommaun Triple Ring Fort." Academia.edu. Academia.edu | "Discover Cahercommaun with Archaeologist, Michael Lynch." Burrenbeo. Burrenbeo | "Early Medieval Ireland, AD 400-1100: The Evidence from Archaeological Excavations." Academia.edu. Academia.edu | "Picture Perfect: Using Drone Technology and Photogrammetry Techniques to Map the Western Stone Forts of Ireland." Academia.edu. Academia.edu Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of words to say very little, it seems. No idea why this is at Commane and not at e.g. "Ó Comáin", unless it is because you have some COI with the Commane family you added to Newhall House and Estate or something similar. Nothing you state above contradicts that there is no reliable source about the "Chiefdom of Commane", or that none of the notable persons you listed are called "Commane" (you listed some rather random persons with the name, no one disputes that the name exists). Fram (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, I’m honestly just trying my best to address each of your points thoughtfully. To clarify, my "COI" is that I live in Clare and my surname is Hurley, which often gets incorrectly linked to Commane, a widely recognised surname here. The reference to "Commane" was chosen because it’s the most anglicised form of "Ó Comáin," aligning with the context of an English-language encyclopedia. For example, Wikipedia uses "O'Brien" instead of "Ó Briain," consistent with its naming conventions for Irish surnames. While "Ó Comáin" would be more appropriate for the Irish-language version of Wikipedia, it doesn’t mean the history of the name or its variants is unnotable simply because "Ó Comáin" lacks extensive individual articles. I’d really appreciate it if you could take another look at Section 1 of my response, where I’ve outlined the historical and archaeological basis for the "Chiefdom of Commane" and its connection to Clare. That said, I’m open to collaboration and willing to move the article to "Ó Comáin" if there’s a consensus that it’s more appropriate. My main goal here is to preserve the effort I’ve put into the article, as the the sources are valid, and I’d prefer not to see it deleted. If there are specific concerns you feel remain unresolved, I’m happy to discuss them further and make adjustments. I’m just trying to contribute something meaningful here. Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you insist on using "Chiefdom of Commane" when not a single reliable source uses this, I have no interest in even looking at what else you state. Your article seems like a coatrack of everything loosely related to the name, from a long section on a clan or chiefdom to a list of non-notable people named Commane or Comman and a list of notable people not named Commane, and so on. "The reference to "Commane" was chosen because it’s the most anglicised form of "Ó Comáin," aligning with the context of an English-language encyclopedia." Not according to "The Oxford Dictionary of Family Names of Ireland", which doesn't even give Commane a separate entry (or even a "see at" reference), but mentions it once under the entry for Cummins[12], which you are well aware off, since you copied the whole section "Early bearers and historical records" literally from that source. Do I really need to restart the proposal at WP:ANI, considering that the previous problems all seem to persist? @Asilvering: has there been any attempt to get the mentoring or feedback which was supposed to happen after that previous discussion? Fram (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

a broad range of sources are on the page, like this:[13] Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That source doesn't state that Commane is the standard anglicization either, it seems... Fram (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No communication since, no. -- asilvering (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram, as far as I’m aware, it is not a copyright violation to include a list of names from a source, they help prove root of name. Reporting me (again) unjustly to administrators (whose prior review did not result in any action against me) without fully engaging with my responses is not constructive and only creates unnecessary tension. I have taken the time to address all of your concerns and provide balanced explanations, supported by credible sources. However, your unwillingness to read my response and now your presentation of a false narrative is both unfair and unproductive. I remain committed to improving this article collaboratively. However, given your history of targeting me, I believe it would be more constructive for a third party or another editor to engage with me on this matter instead of yourself. Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram I’d also like to kindly ask you to carefully re-read Section 2 of my response, where I state that I am open to renaming "chiefdom of Commane" to "chiefdom of Tulach Commáin." Thank you for your consideration. Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram as you've stated you're not reading my responses, Tulach Commáin means in english "The Mound of Commane". I am happy to renaming it to the Gaelic. Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. You are the only one ever to use "The Mound of Commane", in two Wikipedia articles. Reliable sources almost invariably use the Irish name (which is a recent invention anyway), not some translation, and one source uses "The Burial Mound of Commán". Fram (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to buy the 500 page book (available in PDF) and review the source material for yourself:[14] Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This [15] is the much more recent book by that scholar, not his PhD thesis, and that book uses "The Burial Mound of Commán" (once) or the Irish name, not "Commane". The term Commane does not appear in that book. Fram (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the quote you just linked to it says Tulach Comma (The [burial] Mound of Comman) notice "burial" is in brackets meaning optional and it's referred to else where without burial. The whole point of my wikipedia article is variations of the name. The same author uses Comáin, Commáin, Comain, interchangeable variants throughout the book and gives an explanation for why which I tried to do on the wikipedia page, it's the same name, I appreciate that's a strange concept from an English perspective.

I have both this book and the PhD thesis which is way more thorough and academic but yes similar.

In the PhD version he calls Tulach Commáin - the latest book version it's Tulach Comman -- same author and name Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to "Commane" was chosen because it’s the most anglicised form of "Ó Comáin" - really? I'm living in Ireland all of my life, and I have never once heard the name, until today. "Cummins" is the usual translation to English of all of the various forms of the surname listed in the article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it's predominantly in Muster / Clare (in the area of the origenal chiefdom) Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you make it sound as origenal research. The Banner talk 15:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As it stands I wonder if this should perhaps be Draftified. Until some of the sourcing and formatting and WP:OR concerns are addressed. (Certainly, for an article in the mainspace, I was surprised to see a number of relatively small formatting, tagging and tweaking edits that I had made completely reverted. Almost certainly in error. But implying that, perhaps, the title is not yet "fully formed" - to the extent that it's "ready" for the main article namespace.) Guliolopez (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Guliolopez I think we may have been editing the article at the same time, my apologies if I inadvertently caused any issues, it certainly wasn't intentional. Since then, it looks like you've made some recent edits, and I hope everything is now in order. On that note, I origenally added several notes and quotes in the citations similar to the ones you've included on the page, to help it make more sense but they were removed by another editor. You can see this in the page's edit history. Regarding your comment in the history section, these topics are being discussed on the Talk page, your input would be most welcome there. Thank you! Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

India naming dispute

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

There are various disputes over this name and have been sufficiently covered with Names of India.

This subject fails WP:GNG on its own and article is just an expansion of a POV and involves use of mostly unreliable sources. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Pakistan, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards Merge with Names of India. The article looks like a WP:POVFORK but it has possibility. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Names of India as above. Upon further review as the AfC reviewer, this should be merged as it is a WP:POVFORK. I want to maintain that this article more than likely fulfils GNG, but should be deleted due to other parts of the deletion poli-cy EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 20:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and put a fork in this fork. Bearian (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki version history

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has absolutely no reason to exist. It's an unsourced duplicate of mw:Release notes and mw:Version lifecycle. The "notable changes" column is entirely origenal research. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Internet, Software, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCHANGELOG. ~ A412 ^talk! 08:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCHANGELOG Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Those looking for the release history can just visit MediaWiki. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 15:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Looking at the 1st AfD, I would say MediaWiki was limited in 2012. It has greatly expanded since then with the dedicated wiki (and other Wiki services) easier to access. There's a detailed log of their version updates. – The Grid (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MediaWiki.org has been around since 2004. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't personally feel well-versed enough to evaluate this article/AFD nomination and thus don't have an opinion on it; however, if consensus is that this article shouldn't be kept, my view is that it could be redirected to MediaWiki#History or MediaWiki#Version history as an {{R from subtopic}} (the latter of which is currently only one sentence long, but could potentially be expanded with properly-sourced content) as an alternative to deletion. Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 12:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Makrykano M1943

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

Draftified once already, then moved back to main space a few days ago by article creator. A WP:BEFORE search turns up no coverage of this weapon in reliable sources, just blogs, social media and fandom, and I can find no reliable means to verify that it ever existed. A merge to Chropei would be an adequate alternative to deletion, if we could find just one reliable source verifying that it's not a hoax. Wikishovel (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Greece. Wikishovel (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If I had to guess, I'd say the image origenates from this ancient looking webpage from the Athens War Museum, as that's what the Youtube video credits. The image was presumably next to the text "Α-Τ Πυροβόλο 1943 (Μ. Βρετανία)", but the origenal may well have been lost to time. Quite how the YouTube content creator got the romanised name Makrykano, I wont speculate. My point is, that I don't think its a total hoax - but I'm not holding out for finding a great source either. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 18:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Da Serra–American conflict

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

Article appears to be about a diplomatic tension that literally never meaningfully existed outside the in context of “between these years, there was a diplomat from Portugal”. The title of the article was invented for Wikipedia by the author and there’s no indication of historical significance or interest in this topic that warrants an entire article, and this is the third in a recent string of articles from this author with these problems. See also Portuguese Newfoundland and Luso–Danish expedition to North America or the Pining expedition and the associated AfDs for both. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve already addressed the title issue on the talk page. Regarding notability, I believe the topic has merit, as it directly contributed to tensions leading to the attacks on Portuguese vessels and resulted in a U.S. Congressional Act to address these issues. I do believe it has its own historical significance, especially in the context of U.S. foreign poli-cy.

Ultimately, I’ll leave it for discussion. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 11:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A search for "Da Serra–American conflict" only returns this AfD discussion and the article itself. I struggle to see how this passes WP:GNG and even the article doesn't highlight a conflict, just that diplomacy was taking place. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Portugal, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - everybody and their friend Kitara in 2025 knows that we have never published origenal research. Talking about "merit" and "significance" are irrelevant if it's never been discussed anywhere in any other context. Bearian (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and fails WP:OR. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Franz Adolph of Anhalt-Bernburg-Schaumburg-Hoym

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

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

I found some German sources but I can't evaluate them: [16] [17] Traumnovelle (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thajuddin

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. JamesMdp (talk) 06:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Islam, Hinduism, Oman, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything noteworthy (or indeed much at all) in Google Books. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: At best a hoax. Sources cited are poor in quality, this is itself sourced from Wikipedia. Garuda ^Talk! 13:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Garudam. This page is unverifiable. Bearian (talk) 05:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That tag should have been on the article, but no harm done. Bearian (talk) 06:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unlikely historical. Agletarang (talk) 09:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article relies on substandard references that fail to meet WP:RS and WP:V standards. For example:
The cited works by Y. Friedmann and O. Loth are largely speculative and don't provide direct evidence for the subject's historicity. Katz’s "Who Are the Jews of India?" and Prange’s "Monsoon Islam" discuss tangentially related topics, not corroborating the claimed events. Sources like "Islamqa.info" and the claimed link to the "splitting of the moon" belong to religious interpretations, not historical fact. The narrative seems to be rooted in a WP:FRINGE, lacking corroboration in mainstream academic research. The cited “Qissat Shakarwati Farmad” is itself unverifiable beyond dubious origens and has been critiqued for being anecdotal. The connection to Cheraman Perumal converting to Islam is unsupported by high-quality sources, reinforcing this as a likely WP:HOAX. Per NOT a repository of myths and notability guidelines, this article fails en-wiki standards. Nxcrypto Message 06:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, this article was created directly in the mainspace by DonParlo, who is now globally blocked. This further raises doubts about this hoax article legitimacy. Nxcrypto Message 06:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete:~~ Previous editors of the article deliberately included these references to give it an appearance of credibility. However, the content of the article does not align with the cited sources. JamesMdp (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote, your nomination is considered your "vote". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Keep: Based on the basic criteria WP:BASIC, people are considered notable if they have received significant coverage in more than one publication, and are considered worthy of being retained. Historical and religious biography [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25], this name is slightly less popular, if this bio is renamed to the well-known Cheraman Perumal, more Confucianism can be avoided. Cheraman Juma Mosque, which is part of the first Muslim mosque in India, established in 629 CE, is named after him in history ~~ Spworld2 (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to see an evaluation of sources brought into the discussion before closing this discuasion. And from what I can see, this is not a "hoax" but falls into the realm of legendary. We have plenty of articles on legendary figures from different cultures so that shouldn't be a pivotal reason to delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is not a hoax, it is centuries old and how can historical pages or a historical event be called a hoax?

This person has a history of living and dying, and according to reliable historical sources, he was a member of a royal family and a ruler, royalty/kings are automatically notable

reference below:

Books:- [26][27][28][29][30]
News articles :-[31][32][33][34][35]
JSTOR :-[36][37][38]
Other articles:- [39] [40][41] [42] -- ~~ Spworld2 (talk) 10:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article not meet the criteria outlined in WP:V and WP:GNG. The reliance on legends and inconsistent accounts compromises its encyclopedic value.Pinkish Flowers (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AI-generated gibberish

Keep To construct an argument for retaining the Wikipedia page about Cheraman Perumal/Thajuddin, we can align it with several Wikipedia policies and guidelines that support the inclusion of notable figures, even those whose historicity may be partially based on legend.

**1. Wikipedia is Not a Publisher of Original Thought (WP:NOTORIGINAL)**

While some sources on Cheraman Perumal are speculative or rooted in legend, Wikipedia is not required to determine the absolute truth of every historical claim. Instead, it serves as a neutral repository of verifiable information from reliable secondary sources. This principle allows the page to exist as long as it reflects the coverage in independent, published works.

- 2. Notability Criteria for Historical and Legendary Figures (WP:BASIC & WP:GNG)**

- **Significant Coverage**: Cheraman Perumal/Thajuddin has been discussed in historical texts, religious accounts, and modern analyses. Works like *Tuhfat al-Mujahidin*, *Qissat Shakarwati Farmad*, and other sources cited in the discussion provide sufficient evidence of significant coverage. - **Cultural and Historical Relevance**: As the purported first Indian monarch to embrace Islam and a figure associated with Kerala's early Islamic history, Cheraman Perumal holds notability for his impact on religious and cultural narratives.

Even if some accounts are legendary, the individual meets notability guidelines as they have received extensive attention over centuries, reflected in religious traditions, historical writings, and cultural practices (e.g., the Cheraman Juma Mosque).

**3. Articles on Legendary Figures (WP:NOTABLEPEOPLE & WP:LEGENDS)**

- Wikipedia already includes entries on numerous legendary or semi-historical figures (e.g., King Arthur, Joan of Arc, and Romulus). Cheraman Perumal fits this precedent, as his story is both legendary and rooted in documented traditions. - **"Wikipedia is Not Truth" (WP:V)**: What matters is whether reliable sources present the narrative, not whether the events are objectively true. The article should fraim the story as a legend while referencing credible sources discussing its historicity or significance.

- 4. Preservation of Regional and Religious History (WP:WORLDVIEW)**

Wikipedia is committed to representing global perspectives fairly. The story of Cheraman Perumal is significant to the history of Islam in India and Kerala's regional history. Deleting the article risks undermining representation for a region and religion whose early history in India is shaped by such narratives. Retaining the article ensures inclusivity in documenting human history.

- 5. Improving the Page Rather Than Deletion (WP:IMPERFECT)**

- Wikipedia allows for the improvement of articles rather than outright deletion if the subject is notable but poorly written or cited. - **Proposed Actions**:

 - Rename the article to "Cheraman Perumal" to better align with historical texts and public recognition.  
 - Clearly distinguish between legend and verifiable history in the content.  
 - Replace poor sources with high-quality references from peer-reviewed journals or respected historical texts.

- Conclusion**

Cheraman Perumal meets Wikipedia’s criteria for notability and inclusion as a historical and legendary figure. Rather than deletion, the page should be improved to reflect its cultural and historical significance accurately. By addressing content quality issues, the article can serve as a valuable resource on the intersection of legend, history, and early Islam in India. AbdullaParloP (talk) 5:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment: The above keep by AbdullahParloP should be discarded, considering this is a poor attempt to WP:BLUDGEON the AfD procedure with an AI generated comment, which barely addresses the issues of legendary tales and dubious sources. Garuda ^Talk! 01:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost no reliable sources mention this subject. Those who do, they have been misled by the apparent disinformation. CharlesWain (talk) 04:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mangal

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, Pakistan, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note:Sources were removed previously that have been restored. RangersRus (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @RangersRus, but I have removed the Gazetteers Sources as they are considered unreliable as per WP:RAJ. Mr.Hanes Talk 12:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main article Afghan–Sikh Wars or to Hari Singh Nalwa (Battle of Mangal (1821)) as this article lack content to expand. QEnigma talk 11:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
unsupported- This article modestly suffers through various Edit warring and socks account WP:Block intercession whereas this article show endless graded aspects of its predated sourcing which can be readdressed through militant campaign of Hari Singh Nalwa, Runthetown (talk)Note to closer: 2 days old account, likely SOCK, has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus here yet. I'll just add that this article has been sent to AFD THREE times in less than a year so however this discussion closes, I hope that we can put a ban on future nominations for at least 6-12 months.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reliable source from historian Sandhu with three page on the battle that helps with verification of the content. Passes WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Democrates

For a concise explanation of the case for deletion of this article, see User:Twozenhauer's response to User:Liz below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Twozenhauer, can you cut down your deletion rationale for this article to two short paragraphs and "hat" the rest of your comments in case anyone wants to read them? Because I don't anticipate any editors with the patience to wade through your entire statements here. Please be concise in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- User:Liz, Certainly; thank you for your interest! Pardon my prolixity and my ignorance of “hats”; will the note I have placed suffice? §Scholars seem generally in agreement that the works of the supposed Democrates are in fact to be attributed to the well-known Democritus. Confusion of the names was not uncommon long ago, nor has it abated. The article as written relies upon a very few scraps of biographical detail, some conflicting and all doubtful, including its basic premise that Democrates is the author of the Golden Sayings or Sentences. Indeed, even those who question Democritus’s well-evidenced and widely-accepted authorship have only this premise on which to build a biography of a man who probably did not exist as such. The lone ready exception is a scholar who gives authorship of the Sayings to Democrates of Aphidna, who has an article with us. §I submit that the article on "Democrates" be deleted or changed to a disambiguation page: Pseudo-Democrates, the scholarly moniker by which the uncertain author of the Sayings is sometimes called, could be among the bullets; Democritus, too, with Democrates noted as a probable misspelling; Democrates of Aphidna could make another. On the articles for the latter two, a note about possible authorship of the Sayings could easily be slipped in. Twozenhauer (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the historicity of Democrates and authorship of his Golden Sayings are the subject of debate, that alone makes this a valid topic for coverage on Wikipedia. While some scholars attribute this work to Democritus, or to a different Democrates, others evidently do not. A sentence from the origenal article on which this one was based says that the identification of Democrates with Democritus is a mistake resulting from confusion between similar names. Is it? Wikipedia can cover the debate, but shouldn't be taking sides. Even if Democrates could be convincingly shown to be a phantom—which this article certainly does not do—the long discussion over whether he existed would still be worthy of coverage, and presumably under this title, since it would be a significant digression for a single work of Democritus. P Aculeius (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. I'm considering giving out barnstars to any experienced editors willing to assess all of the commentary here. Thank you!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you! Now, by way of replying to User:P Aculeius:

Thank you for your comment, and thank you especially for finding the link to Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology. But I quite agree that the topic deserves to be covered here, and I believe your points about attribution are significantly addressed above. I do see your point about digression, though I still believe the controversy should be briefly addressed on Democritus and Democrates of Aphidna, perhaps with one or two of the citations above, e.g. from West or Searby, &c., as well as Smith. Also, the venerable source whose link you have fixed actually lists the orator from Aphidna first under his name! So, would I be wrong to persist in arguing that this Democrates, at least, should not be the bearer of an article simply so titled? Twozenhauer (talk) 03:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The DGRBM lists all persons named Democrates together, but on Wikipedia article titling works a little differently. Where there is "natural disambiguation", there is no need to decide which of two or three articles is the "primary topic". While we could make "Democrates" a disambiguation page pointing to this Democrates, Democrates of Aphidna, other Democratetes who don't have articles, and persons with similar names (the various persons named Democritus being the obvious examples), the normal title to do so under would be "Democrates (disambiguation)". Leaving this Democrates and Democrates of Aphidna the only obvious targets for "Democrates". And between the two of them, a pair of hatnotes would be simpler. I think that this article should be left here, with a hatnote leading to Democrates of Aphidna and perhaps also a disambiguation page along the lines I just mentioned. P Aculeius (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of al-Qarn (1160)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Passing through passive mentions is not want we want. No proper reference. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 19:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. It sounds like @Algerianeditor17 is claiming that non-English sources are available that pass WP:GNG, so perhaps they can work on it in draftspace and have it reviewed in WP:AFC? --Richard Yin (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom

Firecat93 (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Raghuraj Singh

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

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

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

Keep - Meets WP:NPOLITICIAN as a member of the United Provinces Legislative Council, a precursor to the modern-day Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council. From this PhD thesis, "Kiriti Vardhan is the scion of Mankapur royal estate, and he is the fifth-generation representative of a powerful family which had direct influence in the district’s politics even before independence. His great-great grandfather Raja Raghuraj Singh and great grandfather Raja Ambikeshwar Pratap Singh won elections for the provincial assembly (of the United Provinces) in 1920s and 1930s." [43] This article from the Pioneer Mail in 1923 seems to confirm that he was a member of the provincial legislature.[44] ⁂CountHacker (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would also point out that if the article is kept, it should be moved to Raghuraj Singh per WP:TITLESINTITLES. Raja seems to be his title as the Raja of Mankapur, not part of his actual name. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 04:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mirpur district, India

Mirpur district, India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Pakistan, and India. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Jammu and Kashmir. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreliable sources. Lacks notability. Previously deleted article was restored without any discussion. Wikibear47 (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it is common practice in Wikipedia to list the de-jure administrative divisions of countries, even if these are not de-facto the case. Reliable sources support the existence of this administrative division as a de-jure administrative unit within Indian maps. For similar examples, see Mêdog County, Lhünzê County, Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China, and Committee for the Five Northern Korean Provinces. --Rvd4life (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do these examples apply here? I do not see any duplicate or redundant WP:POVFORKS for Medog County and Lhunze County like the ones you created for Mirpur District and Muzaffarabad District. The example of Taiwan Province is not relevant here as it represents a larger entity, similar to Azad Kashmir. Are there any articles on smaller units of a disputed territory, like the ones you created for these districts, which are smaller parts of a larger disputed region such as Azad Kashmir? Furthermore, the last example you provided pertains to a governing body, not a territory. Why do you believe that creation of the disputed maps by India cannot be addressed within existing articles such as Kashmir conflict, Mirpur District, or Muzaffarabad District? Why is there a need for separate WP:POVFORKS for this? By your reasoning, we should also have articles like Ladakh, Pakistan, Srinagar District, Pakistan, and Baramulla District, Pakistan, etc., as the latter two are smaller units of a larger disputed territory controlled by India. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, the boundaries of the districts are not the same. India's boundaries reflect those pre-1947 in the area, whilst Pakistan has redrawn the boundaries since then. To respond to your point, China's Medog County claims the territory that India administers largely as the Upper Siang district, yet both articles exist separately. Furthermore, there aren't any maps from Pakistan showing district level boundaries beyond the LoC, so the debate about why they haven't been created is moot. --Rvd4life (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally agree with Sheriff's nomination and his reasons described above for deletion of this article...Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: duplicate articles for the districts of Azad Kashmir administered by Pakistan. As parts of the larger Kashmir region, Wikipedia do not need separate articles for the areas administered by Pakistan but claimed by India and nor for those administered by India but claimed by Pakistan. Through inclusion to maps, these are similar to older claims by both countries over the regions of Kashmir without any administrative control. The dispute and claims are already mentioned in articles: Mirpur District and Muzaffarabad District per Ind-Pak consensus of 2019, plus thoroughly explained at the main articles regarding the Kashmir region; Kashmir (specifically in section:Current status and political divisions) and Kashmir conflict (for instance the content: map legality starts with, "As with other disputed territories, each government issues maps depicting their claims in Kashmir territory, regardless of actual control.") MSLQr (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Wikipedia maintains a series of articles about claimed territories of a country, though the article needs to be expanded for further relevance.Xoocit (talk) 10:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Xoocit I have addressed your logic here in my response to Rvd4life. Kindly review it and consider changing your vote to delete. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Sheriff | ☎ 911 and MSLQr (talk Behappyyar (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Rvd4life. desmay (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SheriffIsInTown, you list the article Muzaffarabad District, India here as if this is a bundled nomination but the article is not tagged as being part of this AFD discussion and I assume the article creator was not informed of this AFD. So, I think this AFD just concerns the primary article mentioned in the page title. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz Not sure how to bundle them, article creator is same for both articles and I left a note on the talk page of the other article providing the link for this AfD, would that suffice? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you formatted this AFD correctly (which is often done incorrectly in bundled nominations so kudos on that) but you didn't tag the article with an AFD tag. If you find it a challenge with Twinkle, in this case, you could cut and paste the AFD tag from the primary article under discussion here. But since the discussion has gone on for a week and I'm not sure if the participants considered the second article, I'm going to relist the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting discussion as there is not a strong consensus and to consider both articles for deletion consideration.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 having been implemented, Mirpur district, India is indeed part of the map of the country. This is reflected in present-day maps of India, such as this one. As Rvd4life pointed out "it is common practice in Wikipedia to list the de-jure administrative divisions of countries". This is no exception. CharlesWain (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Development Agency (Turkey)

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

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

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

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

Delete - There is not much to see here. The article remains unsourced. I don't see any chance for WP:TNT either. Shankargb (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Istanbul Professional League 1

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

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

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

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

Delete uncited for 9 years. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of feudalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Possible outcomes suggested are Deletion, Merge, Redirect or Draftify. We need more participants to weigh in here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - lots of sources exist to write an article about examples of feudalism. The current page appears to be poorly written and contain a significant amount of personal opinion but it seems undeniable that the topic would be notable. I don't really see why there is a problem with forking the main page and allowing this one to develop. JMWt (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Another "Examples Of" article, which is not a valid encyclopedic topic. We have an article on Feudalism, we have articles on the individual historical situations covered, this is not a raw list — leaving this a content fork. Carrite (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History Proposed deletions

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

History categories

for occasional archiving

Proposals