Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/History

Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/History/archive

Purge page cache

watch

History[edit]

AI era[edit]

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

This entire article reads like a WP:CRYSTAL essay and contains nothing that isn't covered better in the many other AI-related articles, most of which are linked. Black Kite (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Remove the speculation and the hyperbole, and there is nothing covered here that isn't already done better elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a platform for crystal-ball gazing essays. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Economics, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nabhan family[edit]

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

No reliable sources to indicate that (1) this family has been covered as a family as opposed to individual members or that (2) the people name-checked in this article are actually part of the same family. Several sources are unreliable; a seemingly user-generated site with no named authors or sourcing information on family names, and the WP:USERGENERATED MyHeritage geneaology site. The remaining sources are primary sources or media profiles of individuals with this surname, but they give no coverage to the family or evidence of how (if at all) the individuals across Syria, Brazil, the United States and the Gaza Strip are related. Fails WP:GNG and, per WP:NOPAGE, there is nothing this page does that Nabhan cannot. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Brazil, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Order of battle for campaign of northern and eastern Honan 1938[edit]

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

Identical subject and content to Order of battle for campaign of northern and eastern Henan 1938, but with the Wade-Giles romanization of Henan ("Honan"). Can be safely turned into a redirect. SilverStar54 (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, China, and Japan. SilverStar54 (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. This is baffling. The same editor, User:Asiaticus, created the "Honan" version on 15 February 2007, and then created the "Henan" version on 2 April 2008? Did they forget they'd made one already and simply create a new version based on the same sources? There are slight discrepancies, but since the Henan version has better sourcing I favor keeping that one. Toadspike [Talk] 23:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect since this seems to be completely identical barring the romanization spelling Claire 26 (talk) 04:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bridges construction[edit]

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

I declined User:Flemmish Nietzsche's speedy ("dup of Bridge") because it's more of a subtopic/content fork. However, as it stands this article does not actually make the case for being a coherent topic. The parent article is not large and this child article appears to have few if any cites that support its topic claims (historical facts, engineering opinions, etc.). The cites are for small specific details. There are too many different types of bridges, each with own construction method, and each already has its own article. And I agree bridges already has both well-cited history and a well-linked summary-style of the types. DMacks (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As the nominator for deletion under A10. Of course not all the content is an exact duplicate, but it appears to be a translation from the Russian article, and "Bridges construction" is essentially the same topic as bridges, so I thought A10 would work here under WP:SNOW of this ever being a keep at AfD. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The same editor as created the enwiki article is the only substantive contributor to that ruwiki article. That's not a license problem. DMacks (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying it is a license issue, rather it's an issue with the ruwiki contributor trying to push their translation of their russian article onto enwiki when we already have an article on bridges, which again is essentially the same thing as "bridges construction". Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Obviously not disputing that aspect. DMacks (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the "Bridge" page there is no information about the methods and stages of constructing bridges. Therefore, the "Bridges construction" page is planned primarily to describe various technologies for creating bridges, and these two pages will not compete with each other. VasilijB (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Engineering, and Transportation. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Having something on this seems a good idea. Not sure what we have is it. But not sure it's unsalvageable either. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (selectively) into bridge. The overlap is too great. gidonb (talk) 01:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or Merge any previously unused reliable sourcing into Bridge). Agree with DMacks view ("many different types of bridges, each with own construction method, and each already has its own article"). Paul W (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sack of Wiślica[edit]

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

As

a follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135) (nominated by User:TimothyBlue; closed as no consensus on 6 April 2024); and
a formalised continuation of the informal discussion at Talk:Sack of Wiślica#Historiography (2–5 June 2024, with an extensive examination of the sources used, and its complete absence in Kievan Rus' / Ruthenian chronicles where one would expect the 1135 raid and the alleged 1136 counter-raid to be mentioned); and
a parallel to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish raid on Kievan Rus' (1136) (currently has little participation, but seems to be heading for a weak delete),

I hereby formally propose to either draftify Sack of Wiślica (if any editor is willing to adopt it), or to redirect it to Wiślica#History. (Note: Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135) was renamed to Sack of Wiślica on 3 June 2024‎ by agreement between NLeeuw and Piotrus on the talk page, so this could be regarded as a 2nd nomination of Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135)).

Rationale: WP:NOPAGE; fails WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG for a stand-alone page, and the sources used so far create WP:POV issues as well. It is one of several dubious articles written by now-blocked User:SebbeKg (previously we agreed to delete SebbeKg's article Bolesław II the Bold's expedition to Kiev (1076–1077) on 27 May). Editors seem to agree that the event took place, but nothing for certain can be said about in detail, as all the sources cited are either WP:PRIMARY (Kadłubek, and in the case of Długosz someone who wrote centuries later and added details that are not historically credible), or WP:USERGENERATED & WP:POV (in the case of KWORUM), or WP:SELFPUB (in the case of Dawne Kieleckie). Everyone agrees that the only substantial WP:RS is Benyskiewicz (2020), and that this source alone is not enough.

The disagreement is that User:Piotrus would like to keep a stand-alone page based on RS that are yet to be found, and that someone else should find and add these yet-to-be-found RS (citing WP:BEFORE), whereas User:Marcelus and I think that this event could easily be summarised in 1 to 3 sentences in Wiślica#History by reference to Benyskiewicz (2020), at least for now. Alternately, Marcelus and I think the current article could be draftified for now, but Piotrus has declined my offer to adopt it as a draft, citing having too little time to do it himself, and proposing to add Template:Sources exist to motivate other users to do it instead. However, the template does not allow such usage (see also Wikipedia:But there must be sources!). I have argued that the present situation of keeping the article in the mainspace as is, is not acceptable either, because it evidently is not ready for the mainspace (if it ever merits a stand-alone article at all).

So, if nobody is willing to adopt the draft, Marcelus and I are proposing to redirect Sack of Wiślica to Wiślica#History until an editor (Piotrus or someone else) finds enough material, based on WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS, written with an WP:NPOV, for a stand-alone page, and has written that page. I already created such a redirect WP:BOLDly, which was BOLDly reverted by Piotrus, and that is fine per WP:BRD. But if there is consensus in this AfD to create a redirect, this may not be reverted BOLDly again until the conditions above for a stand-alone page are met.

Other than that I would like to say that I have generally enjoyed cooperating with Piotrus on this topic amicably. But a formal decision seems to be necessary to break the deadlock on the future of this article, and Piotrus has suggested that taking it to AfD a second time might settle the matter, so here I am. Good day to everyone. :) NLeeuw (talk) 06:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Poland, and Ukraine. NLeeuw (talk) 06:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Poland. Owen× ☎ 12:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I said on article's talk page, we have one in-depth academic source already, and indications that more sources exist (but are hard to access due to being Polish and not digitized well): "BEFORE search in GBooks in Polish strongly suggests other sources exist. Ex. this book by Gerard Labuda mentions keywords "Wiślicy" "1135" (together) on five distinct pages (but sadly I can only get snippet view for two or three). That book is a bit old (1962), but here for example is a more modern one, from 2006, that mentions those keywords together on 15 (!) pages (seems reliable, published by an academic organization, and the writer is a historian associated with Jan Kochanowski University, no pl wiki article yet). I could look for more sources, but I don't have time & will and I think this shows that we can reasonably assume sources on the sack of Wiślica in 1135 exist and the topic is notable." The article needs to be expanded from those academic seconday sources (it is trye much of what we have is PRIMARY), but WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. The topic seems notable.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Indian National Congress leadership election[edit]

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

Stub article with an unopposed election. Not like the 2022 one which was still meaningful. This is why no other cong election pages exist Pharaoh496 (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only source is a slight mention, fails Wikipedia:GNG TheNuggeteer (talk) 07:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:GNG. One source has no indepth coverage. RangersRus (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It was not a notable event as it was mere a selection of the leader, no election took place. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 00:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles in Penghu[edit]

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

Unsourced and very short (4 entries) list without much context. I don't think there's much reason for it to exist as its own article, as opposed to those events being described in the Penghu article. toweli (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, China, and Taiwan. toweli (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Penghu. A brief search did not produce any sources that list these battles in this way, which means the subject is not notable. Toadspike [Talk] 07:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Though the small list can still be summarised on the main Penghu article. Dympies (talk) 05:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I would present something different from the above. I do see why this list existed in the first place. According to the respective article in zhwiki, the list was based on the umbrella term "澎湖四大戰役" (The Four Battles at Penghu), which I found occasional use in multiple academic journals and media articles. (For instance, a press release of Penghu County Government [1], articles from Central News Agency[2], SET News[3], Penghu Times [zh][4], and a Master thesis[5]) So I think this list actually touches on the criteria for WP:NLIST marginally. However, I do not think this term has any historical or academic significance aside from using it as a collective referral when analyzing Penghu's history and military status. These collective terms for a group of similar battles are very common and this particular one does not demonstrate too much value to fulfill WP:SALAT. Besides, three of the four battles already have their own articles, while the fourth one (The Siege of Fort Fongguei in 1624) is also an independent article on zhwiki [zh]. It is unnecessary to include summaries of these battles when there are extensive details in the main articles, and the fact that nothing much can be written in this list would result in failing WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Therefore, I think it is more than sufficient to let the listed battles have their independent articles, and the umbrella term can be mentioned within each of those independent articles, instead of having a stand-alone list that duplicates the content. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 14:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prehistoric Irish battles[edit]

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

WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. Most entries WP:UNSOURCED, or WP:ONESOURCE by Standish Hayes O'Grady from 1892 (WP:AGEMATTERS). Follow-up to

List of battles in Albania
List of battles in Algeria
List of battles in Belgium
List of battles in Croatia
List of battles in Afghanistan
List of battles in medieval India
List of conflicts in Egypt. NLeeuw (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Ireland. NLeeuw (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect. Personally, I'd suggest merging the notable/supported entries (like the Battle of Magh Tuireadh and Battle of Maigh Mucruimhe) to Irish_battles#Prehistoric_era. Using WP:CSC as the selection criteria. And redirecting this title there. As an WP:ATD. Guliolopez (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to only move the problem rather than solve it. I am considering nominating List of conflicts in Ireland next anyway, but decided it was best to look at Prehistoric Irish battles first. As such, I'm not opposed to merging/redirecting as an intermediate step. NLeeuw (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of information, with no context. Not remotely encyclopedic. None of these alleged battles ever happened. They are medieval literary traditions, not prehistoric events, and the dates given to them are completely arbitrary. Worthless. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like others. Orientls (talk) 07:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete: agreed that this is INDISCRIMINATE and just not very useful. i'm surprised it's lasted 19+ years. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 04:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating rubbish for deletion is a dirty job, but someone's got to do it. NLeeuw (talk) 05:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of conflicts in Canada[edit]

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

WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN WP:UNSOURCED. Follow-up to

List of battles in Albania Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Albania
List of battles in Algeria Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Algeria
List of battles in Belgium Draftified
List of battles in Croatia Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Croatia
List of battles in Afghanistan Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Afghanistan
List of battles in medieval India Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in medieval India
List of conflicts in Egypt Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of conflicts in Egypt. NLeeuw (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Canada. NLeeuw (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you mind linking the AfDs? It would be more helpful than the red links above. Conyo14 (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. NLeeuw (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I lean delete for this, if not for the fact that we have Military history of Canada, but also that the grouping of conflicts/battles are better suited as a category. I couldn't find anything off a basic google search for this grouping, but maybe there's a book or something. Conyo14 (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Conyo14 Good point. Alternately, what we could do instead, is integrate this list into List of Canadian military victories, which would then be reworked to a standardised List of wars and battles involving Canada instead, while purging all wars and battles which took place on what is now Canadian soil that did not involve "Canada" as such. The current List of Canadian military victories relies on a single source, and conveniently leaves out all Canadian military defeats, and all conflict results which were a bit "meh" (also known as "inconclusive" or "indecisive"). NLeeuw (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, let's first take stock of which lists we've already got, because there seems to be a lot of WP:OVERLAP.
List of conflicts in Canada: 1003 – 2022 (so far)

List of wars involving Canada: 1003 – present

List of Canadian military victories: 1609 – 2010 (so far)

List of Canadian battles during the First World War (Canadian Expeditionary Force): 10 March 1915 – 5–7 November 1918

List of Canadian military operations: 1947 – present

Canadian peacekeeping#List of UN missions: 1948–present

NLeeuw (talk) 07:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Sauthoff[edit]

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

The article contains no notability claim under WP:NACADEMIC. Fails WP:GNG. Melmann 20:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Negligible impact yet on scholarly community. A misguided creation of this BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. An assistant professor with one book. I did not find any reviews of it. For this sort of field we are going to need multiple reviews of multiple books for WP:AUTHOR notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, Hong Kong, Bihar, Canada, Colorado, and New Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per WP:TOOSOON -- on the right track, but Xxanthippe and David Eppstein assessed the current notability properly. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ditto to comments by Xxanthippe, David Eppstein, and Mscuthbert. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948[edit]

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

Continuing the assault on the Anglo-Australian cricket fanfict. Full of cruft. Duplicated infoboxes. Similar articles have been deleted before, and a large amount are currently almost deleted here. Before voting for merge, remember a lot of these articles is already on the main biography ones. Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

Removed redirects

Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment Maybe should have taken a little more time--many of the above are redirects which should go to WP:RFD instead. --Finngall ^talk 21:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since its a lot of similar articles, I will wait till they are deleted (if consensus is reached) and then list them there Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I'll repeat what I said at the Neil Harvey (in this tour) AfD, that holds true for each article here: "We have an article about every international match played on this tour; we have an article about the series; one about the Australian team playing the series; and one about the player. Any information that doesn't already belong in those three articles is, IMHO, too much detail to be covered in an encyclopedia: it is also essentially prosified statistics that we're not a database [...] While these articles are clearly a labor of love, at some point we need to recognize that not every incident in a month-long cricket tour is worth incorporating into Wikipedia. It may be the most famous example of an Ashes series, but there's been one approximately every two years for over a century, and it's hard to argue that similar articles could not be written about every player in the more recent ones, relying on online news coverage. Not every verifiable detail is encyclopedic. I'm inclined to believe the international matches, and the tour itself, deserve articles, but it's hard to justify coverage beyond that." Aside: I suggest purging the redirects from the list now, as there will most certainly be procedural back-and-forth that will muddy the waters. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will get to it but I feel that if this discussion goes through theres also no need for the redirects. They are dead weight. Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, England, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Australian cricket team in England in 1948 - There is no doubt that the quality of writing in these articles is good and someone (or a few someones) spent a great deal of time. However, the amount of duplicated info across this series of articles is staggering. How everyone in the peer review process failed to come to the obvious conclusion that this is an unnecessary content fork truly boggles my mind. – Pee Jay 10:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the Ricky Ponting and Mitchell Johnson articles should be merged to their respective tour articles (I missed them at the bottom of the list). – Pee Jay 10:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of content is already in the main articles. Pharaoh496 (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt it. My !vote is a call for any relevant content not already in the main articles to be moved there, and then for these articles to be deleted. – Pee Jay 13:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You specified merge all and didnt mention delete. Also for the peer reviews, they were reviewed in the 2000s. Pharaoh496 (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't merge AND delete, see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Christian75 (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment 2 - the Keith Miller 1948 article is a featured article and a merge proposal less than two months ago reached a consensus to merge to the main article which has yet to be actioned. A merge discussion regarding the Ricky Ponting 2008 article was started in March 2024 and remains open. JP (Talk) 17:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all. Well written fancruft. Desertarun (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Sweetser[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and has no particular claim to notability. JFHJr (㊟) 05:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Politics, Education, Europe, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've been able to locate a few sources on Sweetser. Per this book, Sweetser's (1888-1968) was a journalist and League of Nations' staff member whose dense and global relations almost completely escaped historians' attention, so it seems like he was an important figure but just hasn't been written about too much. I was also able to find some biographical coverage in a few different pages of this book. Additionally, this contemporary journal article provides coverage of him and one of his books. If this article is kept, this brief note contains biographical info which can be used to source it. There are around 2,000 mentions of him on newspapers.com for the period between 1915 and 1945; I haven't gone through all of them of course, but [6][7][8] were some big mentions that came up. Additionally, his obituaries ([9][10]) provide further biographical information which can be used to source the article if it is kept. Curbon7 (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This as well, gives a few paragraphs to his career to that point [11] and a book review here [12] Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest of Hadoti[edit]

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

Another "Conquest of X" article with 2-3 lines of passing mention: "In the battle that took place at Maholi many Hadas were killed and their families were brought to Mandu. The fort was handed over to Qadam Khan." Clearly it fails SIGCOV, not enough coverage to warrant a standalone article. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 10:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found this, which has a whole page dedicated to the subject at page 122. Also search on Google Scholar locates "Sharma, R.K., 1985. MILITARY SYSTEM OF THE KOTA STATE (C-1250 to 1947 AD). Скорина и скориниана, 13, p.65." I can't view the second one so I can't get any comment on how much content is devoted to the subject. TarnishedPath^talk 11:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath that is the whole different event around 1436. The whole page except the last para deals with the conquest of Hadoti by Rana Kumbha, It's the only last para of 4 lines which covers relevant content:
The political situation soon changed, when Mahmud Khilji came to throne in Malwa, He had undertaken several expeditions to bring Hadoti under his sphere of influence. Kumbha adopted a successful policy to give sufficient support to the Hadas against the invasions of the Sultan of Malwa. And that too doesn't describe the outcome. As I said it fails SIGCOV and it's just a meagre part of a different event. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 13:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're making an argument for updating the article, not deleting it. TarnishedPath^talk 13:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not. What I meant is that the given source is completely unrelated to this event which happened in 1459 not 1436 per above given source. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 15:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, It is clearly a POV article focusing on establishing the dominance of the Malwa Sultanate over the Kingdom of Mewar. The article does not have proper detail of events, and the WP:RS does not have enough mentioning of events like how the seige went and how the fort was conquered. Rawn3012 (talk) 11:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, concerns that don't raise to the level of HOAX but seriously concerning stuff in regards to notability, NPOV, and wikipuffery that mean this article is not encyclopedic. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 20:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest of Mandaran[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG as there are no reliable sources which provide significant coverage of this event or mentions the event as Conquest of Mandaran. it relies heavily on Non-WP:RS sources. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 09:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military and India.
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reviewed all the sources before they were removed and all are poor and fail WP:HISTRS like a source where N.K. Sahu is an editor of a book that was contributed by William Wilson Hunter, WP:RAJ and sources by Nitish K. Sengupta who was an IAS officer in 1957 and served as the Revenue Secretary of the Government of India. No source has a paragraph enough to give depth on the Conquest of Mandaran Page fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, concerns that don't raise to the level of HOAX but seriously concerning stuff in regards to notability, NPOV, and wikipuffery that mean this article is not encyclopedic. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 20:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment based on the sources (and their very limited descriptions of this battle), I would like to vote to merge this; but where? There is nothing to be said beyond Under Ruknuddin Barbak Shah, Shah Ismail Ghazi sieged and conquered a fort near Gar Mandaran in 1464, everything else seems to be WP:SYNTH. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretenders to the throne of Mexico[edit]

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

Follow-up to c. 60 "Line of succession to the former X throne" precedents, almost all of which resulted in Delete. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretenders to the throne of Parma. NLeeuw (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Royalty and nobility. NLeeuw (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should I ping some participants from previous discussions on the same type of topic? NLeeuw (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as royalist listcruft. Mccapra (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretenders to the throne of Parma[edit]

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

Follow-up to c. 60 "Line of succession to the former X throne" precedents, almost all of which resulted in Delete. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretenders to the throne of Mexico. NLeeuw (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Royalty and nobility. NLeeuw (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given that these lists of post-monarchy-abolition pretenders seem to continue to prop up – either as stand-alone lists or as (redirects to) sections in (otherwise fine) articles – and have so far only been taken down case by case, except through the more coordinated efforts of User:TompaDompa and a few others, perhaps it is time to develop and adopt some guideline about this? Like WP:NCROY, but then specifically for lists of pretenders to royal and noble titles of monarchies that no longer exist, or of clans that no longer make any claims to legitimacy to an extant throne (e.g. Jacobite succession)? This would WP:CENTRALise discussion and make future AfDs and cleanups a lot easier. I would suggest a shortcut like WP:PRETENDER, although I'm not sure which guideline would be the best place for it. NLeeuw (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’d support this. Mccapra (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I'm guessing this is in reference to the 40 "Line of succession to the former throne of X" articles that were deleted back in 2020 (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40). TompaDompa (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @TompaDompa Yes it is. Thank you for establishing those precedents, and listing them clearly! I've added a lot of other article precedents and category precedents that I could find over here: User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Line of succession to the former X throne. NLeeuw (talk) 08:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should I ping some participants from previous discussions on the same type of topic? NLeeuw (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polish raid on Kievan Rus' (1136)[edit]

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

WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:PRIMARY, WP:GNG, WP:NPOV. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bolesław II the Bold's expedition to Kiev (1076–1077). User:SebbeKg created this article on 18 February 2024, 4 days before he was blocked indefinitely for Adding poorly sourced content, false accusations of vandalism. We still need to clean up the rubbish he added, checking whether there is anything left of value, and throwing away the rest. Bolesław II the Bold's expedition to Kiev (1076–1077) was deleted on 27 May. Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135) was AfD'd previously, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135), resulting in no consensus. But Marcelus did the right thing by removing all informations referenced to primary sources, as obvious OR. I decided to WP:BOLDly turn it into a redirect to Wiślica#History, where I added 1 sentence to summarise the incident based on a source which Piotrus and Marcelus agreed was RS.

As for this article itself, it is clearly written completely from a point of view of later Polish chroniclers who invented lots of details out of their own volition, dramatising and exaggerating stories they had heard or read about. This whole text is basking in emotions of "revenge for Wiślica". Evidently, there was a Volhynian raid on Wiślica in 1135, but I have not been able to find any sort of "Polish" retaliation against "Kievan Rus" in the next year. It is striking that not a single toponym is mentioned in this article, except the vague " Entire communities surrounding the Principality of Volhynia". No standard history work on Kievan Rus' I consulted mentions this event. Not even the Kievan Chronicle, that has quite detailed entries for every year, says anything about 1135, let alone 1136. (There was a raging conflict between the Monomakhovichi of Kiev and the Olgovichi of Chernigov in the north and centre, but no hint of a conflict between Poles and Volhynians on the western edges of the realm). If there really was a frenzied massacre, sparing no Ruthenian soul in Volhynia in 1136, the Kievan Chronicle and modern literature would have talked about it. There is no reason for us Wikipedians to take the fanciful claims of later Polish chronicles at face value, especially from the hands of a now-blocked user with a poor record of using sources on this topic. NLeeuw (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Poland, and Ukraine. NLeeuw (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. First, I'll note that I reverted the de-facto blanking of Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135). There was no consensus to delete the article, so I find what happened since (Marcelus removal of 95% of the article, and then your redirecting it) to be against the outcome of the AfD. Feel free to start a new AfD for it if you desire (although note I've also modernized the article by adding the RS we found, which pretty much states the event might be a fabrication by old chroniclers... - but, IMHO, it is a notable topic).
Now, regarding the article nominated here. I do agree that the creator of this (these) articles was overly reliant on old primary sources. The article nominated here has only one footnote to a presumed modern source, and poorly formatted at that. I would be fine with this being redirected to the "Ruthenian raid...", if we can find a single non-historical mention of this event in modern RS. Otherwise, well, can't justify keeping this due to problematic sourcing to ~1000 year old chronicles whose authors clearly liked to invent history, not just record it :( I.e. in the current state, afer all I wrote, I guess I am not leaning to weak delete this one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus Thanks for your input. I responded at length at Talk:Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135)#Historiography for discussion on the 1135 event. It is interesting, but complicated.

For the 1136 article, did you mean to say "I am *now leaning" instead of I am not leaning? NLeeuw (talk) 08:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw Yes, I am leaning. Sorry, was writing while taking care of a baby :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear from more editors on this one since the consensus is less than clear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Doljești and Orbic[edit]

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

I could not find any sources to prove that these events took place in the dates mentioned, which would fail WP:NEVENT. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Moldova, and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cocobb8: the Romanian Wikipedia page for this article has source(s) by the looks of it. Are those sources sufficient for notability? (I don't know Romanian so not too sure myself). Cheers. Dan the Animator 00:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dantheanimator: perhaps? I'll leave it up to other to check that

. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Lushchai[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

While it's not a G4, it does not appear that the issues raised that led to the prior version being deleted have been resolved. Lushchai was a wonderful person and active Wikipedian but does not appear notable as an author. WP:NOTAMEMORIAL unfortunately applies. Star Mississippi 02:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Ukraine. Star Mississippi 02:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, History, Military, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want just to note that I wasn't the one who moved the article to main space. Though I personally think that he is notable, I would be OK with submitting article later with more sources, which are listed on Russian Wikipedia forum and on Wikinews. BilboBeggins (talk) 06:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But there is significant coverage of the person. And lack of English language sources is never an argument for deletion.

I would also like to note thst I am XFD closer on ruwiki, and User:Андрей Романенко who moved the article is long-serving administrator on ruwiki. So we might now something about notability rules, right? BilboBeggins (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Different languages have different rules as far as notability. No one is saying he isn't notable on RU wiki, and non English sources are 100% welcome but may not meet the bar needed for notability as required here. Star Mississippi 13:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is his biography in the source listed.

There are also plenty of Russian language sources in his death, but they are not neutral and I would rather not include them in the article. BilboBeggins (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NOTMEMORIAL. Simply being a Wikipedian is rarely notable, the rest are stories of his passing. Nothing for notability. His life before death was very much non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His notability is also due to him being a poet and scientist. BilboBeggins (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To my mind, the key source for this case is the op-ed at Radio Liberty arguing at some length for the special status of Lushchai as a cultural figure. This was not the reason behind keeping the article about this person in ru.wiki, there the closing admin opted for other criteria. Possibly other available sources don't provide so direct and clear reasoning for Lushchai's notability. However, other memorial articles (like this, for instance) also provide significant coverage of his life and are independent of the aforementioned op-ed. All in all I see this person as notable according to WP:BASIC. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Andrei Romanenko above. — Maile (talk) 03:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is significant coverage in reliable sources. The article has enough prose, there is biography, death and legacy section. It could have been nominated for RD had it been in the same state back then. BilboBeggins (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La guerra civile[edit]

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

This article is very odd. It started life as what appears to be a personal essay/content fork about Italian politics (entirely sourced to La guerra civile) under the title Terrorism in Italy since 1945, then at some point someone misinterpreted the content as about the book itself and content about that book introduced and the essay stuff removed, so for the past 13 years it's been about the book, but under the original title. I tried to find sources under that title, failed for 20 minutes, realized what happened, and moved the page.

Anyway, still can't find any reviews/analysis/sources. It's probable they may exist given the language barrier and very generic title, but I couldn't find any. If sufficient sources are presented I can withdraw. As an ATD if there are no sources redirect to the author Giovanni Pellegrino. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Italy. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and Terrorism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article is currently a redirect. Given the vagueness of the term, and the target page being a WP:BLP, I support deleting this impractical, foreign language redirect.Dan the Animator 00:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was not a redirect when I afd'd it: this was done out of process. I'll revert that.

It was a book he wrote. It is an acceptable redirect on that front, especially if the book is cited. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies! I redirected it, thinking it was a PROD not an Afd (:D) I read your rationale but didn't read the rest of the tag properly, and just BLARed it all. Sorry for that..-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, it's all good. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh got it, thanks! For the restored article, the only citation is to the book itself, which doesn't help establish the notability of the book. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect called "La guerra civile (book)". Given that the phrase "la guerra civile" can mean/refer to almost anything on the page Civil War, I'll leave to other editors to rule on the chance that a reader using this redirect would be thinking of the book and not some other meaning. Cheers, Dan the Animator 15:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Giovanni Pellegrino would be a suitable ATD (but once this discussion is finished indeed).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles in England[edit]

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

WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN WP:UNSOURCED. Follow-up to

List of battles in Albania Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Albania
List of battles in Algeria Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Algeria
List of battles in Belgium Draftified
List of battles in Croatia Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Croatia
List of battles in Afghanistan Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Afghanistan
List of battles in medieval India Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in medieval India
List of conflicts in Egypt Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of conflicts in Egypt. NLeeuw (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and England. NLeeuw (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nederlandse Leeuw, I see no issues with the article, but it should have been merged not deleted. Am i getting this right. I split them because the parent article was very large, yet that lists don't have to be sourced. I would like to merge the content to List of battles by geographic location. I have no idea why my creations are getting reduced; I am current not happy with it. Toadette^Edit! 23:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, why don't you also nominate List of battles by geographic location too? Toadette^Edit! 23:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you're not happy about the fact that I am successively nominating articles for deletion that you just so happen to have created. I rarely look at who created it, only at what the contents are, and how valuable they might be. I've got nothing against you or your work in particular. That said, these split-offs are a cut & paste job that takes less than 5 minutes of effort each. Recycling existing content is a lot easier than writing brand new articles with proper sourcing.

The reason why I am nominating the lists is in this manner is that I am following a step-by-step approach, building broad consensus based on easy precedents before going on to complex cases. Since actively participating in CfD and AfD from 2023, I learnt that that is the most realistic strategy to solving issues, and avoid WP:TRAINWRECKs. The second reason is that List of battles by geographic location had already been AfD'd in 2022, closing as Keep but Split: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles by geographic location. If I still want to get it deleted anyway, then overturning that consensus is going to be difficult. The split-offs provide a good opportunity to show in smaller cases why creating lists of battles by modern countries' geographical borders is not very useful, and difficult to justify when done almost completely WP:UNSOURCED. It seems to be working, as 4 split-off lists have already been deleted, and a consensus has been building that they should be deleted, especially most recently in the Croatia case.

The new round I am going for now is Afghanistan, England, Egypt, and medieval India. You didn't create the latter two articles, so this is nothing personal. If all 4 are deleted as proposed, then perhaps I may nominate List of battles by geographic location next. But we'll see what fellow editors have to say first. Good day. NLeeuw (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -- This is a well-populated list, which provides better detail than is available from a category. It might be useful to purge by moving battles of the Civil War (War of the three kingdoms into a more specific list. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: List of battles in Afghanistan, List of battles in medieval India and List of conflicts in Egypt have just been deleted with a lot of participants and almost unanimous support. I wonder why it's so quiet here. NLeeuw (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Military history of England. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bronwyn Labrum[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. No inherent notability in the roles she held. LibStar (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, History, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just barely. The Stuff profile and Wanganui Chronicle article establish some notability. I'm not sure if WP:AUTHOR is the only criteria that applies here, as she has been a curator and researcher at multiple museums and universities, most notably Te Papa which is the New Zealand national museum. To me, this establishes notability as an academic. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 08:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does she meet WP:NACADEMIC? LibStar (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Likely passes AUTHOR as "Ockham New Zealand Book Awards finalist in 2016" per [13] and some book reviews here [14] and [15]. Appears to be a published academic author as well. Oaktree b (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: She also edited this rather comprehensive volume on clothing in NZ [16] Oaktree b (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Barwara (1757)[edit]

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

The whole article relies on WP:RAJ and out dated sources (WP:AGE MATTERS) and there is no mention of “Siege of Barwara (1757)” in the sources. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 09:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RAJ is not a policy or guideline. It is an essay on the quality of sources on the Indian caste system and those written by Britons or Briton diplomats and administrators or under the guidance and review of Briton administrators like Lepel Griffin, Michael MacAuliffe, Sir John Withers McQueen. Indian historians like Sarkar's sources are used because historians today depend on their secondary work. Sarkar is an eminent historian and is perfectly reliable. Source still needs to be reviewed and verified. RangersRus (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if WP:RAJ doesn't applies here it is still not a reliable source as per WP:AGE MATTERS and this is the only source used in the article thus it fails WP:GNG too. Mnbnjghiryurr (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock. RangersRus (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If old sources have become obsolete due to coverage in new sources then AGE matters and it does not apply here. Multiple sources are expected but there is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage. RangersRus (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just found it at RSN. Hope this helps to evaluate the reliability of Jadunath Sarkar. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 16:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, it clearly fails WP:GNG & there is only one sourced used in this article (Fall of the Mughal Empire by Jadunath Sarkar) which is not a reliable source as per WP:AGE MATTERS. Mnbnjghiryurr (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock. RangersRus (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I had to wait to be able to find the source on the page for verification. Source by Sarkar has enough coverage from page 191 to 193 on the siege. The name of location is Barwada not Barwara (spelling error?). Page passes general notability guidelines. RangersRus (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Nom & it fails WP:GNG Chauthcollector (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elmslie typology[edit]

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the typology in reliable sources. I found several mentions, but they were brief. toweli (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The typology is potentially important and is often referred to but full publication and critical discussion are hard to find. In fact, this article is one of the fullest detailed explanations easily available, yet is lacking in citations back to RS original publication or critical coverage. Would suggest we need an article on this typology but serious revision is in order to tackle the source issues. Monstrelet (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A necessary counterpart to the Oakshott system for double-edged blades. I agree that better sourcing is necessary, but I see no need to trim back to only the sourced parts. Most low-rated articles lack full sourcing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've done some digging and it seems the entire system can be traced to this website and its owner, James G. Elmslie [17]. The site is no longer live but has been thoroughly archived at IA. One would expect this system to be listed under "Research" [18], but it isn't. As far as I can tell, it was made popular by this YouTube video, whose creator also uploaded diagrams to DeviantArt [19]. The YouTube video makes claims of increasing acceptance by the academic/museum community, so I searched Google Scholar and found several results [20]. Examples include [21][22][23][24] (note that the links 6 and 7 are parts 2 and 3 of one work). These cite the typology itself to two different versions of a book titled "The Sword: Form and thought", one from 2015 with first editor Grotkamp-Schepers and one from 2019 with first editor Deutscher. Links: [25][26]. I am working on verifying this book citation, but based on what I've found so far, this typology is indeed published in academic literature and is notable. Toadspike [Talk] 10:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have now checked the 2019 version of the book "The Sword: Form and Thought". Elmslie's work is indeed referenced on pages 169, 173, and 175, cited to "pers. comm.", which a quick search tells me means "Personal Communications" (with the author of the papers in question). I would argue that this shows Elmslie is a subject-matter expert as well, and sources he publishes himself (SPS) can be considered scholarly and reliable. Toadspike [Talk] 11:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, there's no significant coverage, just mentions, and yet you're advocating for a keep? The responses so far have been strange, if it were really that significant there wouldn't be any issues finding a lot of discussion of the typology. toweli (talk) 11:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bombing of Toncontín International Airport[edit]

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

Unneccessary WP:FORK of Football War, already covered there in a few sentences. Page unlikely to be expanded nor new RS published Mztourist (talk) 05:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

u can delete if u want Wikidude2243 (talk) 06:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

or i i can change text Wikidude2243 (talk) 06:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i can change the text Wikidude2243 (talk) 06:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, El Salvador, and Honduras. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge. I agree on having the article deleted, besides the fact that I'm also having it's information merged on the Football War article. (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imperium (film series)[edit]

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

The article is unsourced. I don't see why this topic deserves an article as there are no sources on the Imperium series, only sources on the individual movies. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, History, and Romania. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to the nom's implicit question is that Wikipedia:Notability, right at the top, says that we can merge up articles into a bigger subject. See also Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)#Should NBOOK cover series or just individual books?, which has almost 150 comments on a closely related subject. See statements like "Where a source contains coverage of one of the books in a series of books, this coverage is deemed to be coverage of the series of books, in addition to being coverage of that book" and "Articles on book series may be created in some cases where there are no series-level sources, drawing on the sourcing of the individual books." WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

V. N. Srinivasa Rao[edit]

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

I do not think that this person meets the criteria for notability. I have been unable to find any reference to him other than the The Hindu article (https://web.archive.org/web/20240317044514/https://www.thehindu.com/features/friday-review/history-and-culture/the-lawyer-as-a-writer/article4683660.ece), which just effectively said it was nice to read. And cryptic metadata from library websites who happen to have the book (which seems to just be stanford and nyu https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/in00000071311 ) Mason (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Law, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment he was pretty clearly a Madras barrister[27]. He's cited for appearances a number of times in the Madras Law Journal[28]. I'm not finding a lot more than that.
Are you questioning whether the Madras chief justices book exists? It is held by 8 WorldCat Participating libraries. The comment about cryptic metadata doesn't make sense. Oblivy (talk) 07:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe you are confusing notability and verifiability. Just because a source is hard to find doesn't mean it isn't reliable. See WP:PAYWALL. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I used my university's library to see if I could find anything else on the subject. My comment on cryptic meta data was that that was literally the only additional information I could find about him. I am not rejecting the source, for being difficult to get access to. My point was that there was literately nothing else when I searched other than that metadata. Typically for someone to meet notability they have to be covered by multiple sources. And, I can't find any support for independent coverage. The book in question wasn't even something he published. The book was edited by another person long after his death. Mason (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Will respond more at bottom. Oblivy (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage on the subject in the sources which are also poor. Subject does not meet basic criteria to be considered notable due to insignificant coverage in multiple published, secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If this criteria can be met, I would reconsider my vote. RangersRus (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closer. Page was created by sockpuppet and is good for WP:G5 speedy deletion. RangersRus (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RangersRus, this article is not eligible for CSD G5. You've made this kind of comment several times which is a mistaken interpretation of G5. Please review WP:CSD carefully. G5 is for block evasion, not simply for being the work of a sockpuppet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I striked my comment. Is it right though that "when a blocked or banned person uses an alternate account (sockpuppet) to avoid a restriction, any pages created via the sock account after the earliest block or ban of any of that person's accounts qualify for G5"? WP:G5. RangersRus (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see an SPI on 21 March and this article was created 19 March. Blocks were in April. Perhaps I'm misreading or missing something? Oblivy (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G5 does not apply to the initial accounts that are blocked for socking if they are not evading a block at that point. It only applies to the articles created by accounts that come after the initial case/block.

In this case, both the accounts were used simultaneously and neither of them had an active block. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided. Just FYI, a general comment for all AFDs, when an editor says "seems like" or "likely" or "appears to be" it means to me that the editor hasn't read or seen the sources and are basing their opinion on attributes like the title or the publisher. If that's the case, it's good not to have an absolutist opinion on what should happen with an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I am right down the middle on this. This guy seems to have been a prominent barrister, wrote a number of books including a treatise on administrative law. Maybe also wrote about temples (not sure if it's the same author).

But I've tried to find the sources, and don't find anything substantial about him except for the two links on the page, and as @Smasongarrison points out above that's a book by him, or perhaps comprising judgments curated by him. And one The Hindu journalist who liked his book.

Complaints about the origin of the article are, subject to further developments, misplaced. The author seems to have a particular interest[29] in Calamur.

If, on chance, there is someone out there who can improve this article let them do it. It will not be me. There's a conversation over unblocking going on so perhaps @Hölderlin2019 will live to edit another day. Oblivy (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be onboard with draftifying. If he were in my subject area, I'd inter-library loan the book. Maybe someone will be so motivated. Mason (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Draftify, either one. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Hindu source is fine, but it's one source. I don't find anything in Gscholar or Books, there are some papers he's written on various aspects of the law, but these don't affect notability here. I think there could be more sourcing in the local language, but I can't locate any. Oaktree b (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ all, without prejudice against recreation as a single, merged article. Normally, when a viable ATD is suggested, we take that route. But here, the Merge supporters were not only in the minority, but couldn't even agree between themselves on a target. Owen× ☎ 18:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W. G. Grace's cricket career (1864 to 1870)[edit]

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

Too much cruft, must be deleted as per convention to remove the australian fanfict articles Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, History, Cricket, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

Pharaoh496 (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging @JoelleJay @Trainsandotherthings @Serial Number 51429 as I have seen them in support for such article removals Pharaoh496 (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:APPNOTE says "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it." James500 (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naughty, WP:CANVASSing shouldn't be carried out! AA (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is clear WP:CANVASSing of people they expect to vote with them. This canvassing should be considered by the closer of this AFD. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AA @James500 like I replied to Joseph2302 on my talk - I have pinged those who also voiced against such votes. The sole purpose of me pinging them was to invite more people into the discussion. I dont cherry pick people of one stance and bring them here. Afaik; thats allowed by the first para in WP:CANVASS. Pharaoh496 (talk) 06:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ill take that my wording says otherwise - my intentions dont Pharaoh496 (talk) 06:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is lurking around this now, Id suggest also checking out this. Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What are you referring to by "australian fanfict articles"? -1ctinus📝🗨 01:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948, discussion to merge completed (please see said discussion)
- Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1956 and Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1953 already merged, deleted earlier. However this set of wg grace articles have hardly one ga, so many stubs and other full of stuff not required. They arent notable enough for wikipedia.
Pharaoh496 (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the two pages was merged they should not have been deleted. Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. If you copy some text from another Wikipedia page it should be clear in the edit summary and/or the talk page where the text came from. Wikipedia is not public domain. Christian75 (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I havent done that mate, just nominated these pages Pharaoh496 (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I was pinged to this discussion, and that I'm not a fan of these articles, I believe we should delete all as fundamental violations of WP:NOT as cricket statistics turned into articles due to one person's consumption by what I like to call the cricket insanity. They are also clearly non-notable as the sources cover Grace's entire career, not simply his performance in any given event. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably merge the shorter articles, with less referencing, to larger articles covering longer periods of time. These articles do not consist entirely of statistics, though it may be appropriate to cut some material from them. A chronological split of our W G Grace article will satisfy GNG. See, for example, the coverage of the 1880s in Bax's chapter "The Glorious Eighties" [30]; the chapter on Grace in Portraits of the Eighties: [31]; Midwinter's chapters 7 and 8 on 1879 to 1891: [32]; and Darwin's chapter 6 on 1880 to 1891: [33]. So you could certainly write an article on W. G. Grace in the 1880s or the period 1879 to 1891. The question is not whether the main biography article should be split, but how. W G Grace is the subject of a large number of entire books, since he is probably considered the greatest cricketer of all time, so his biography is not realistically going to fit in a single article. James500 (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well other cricketers with longer careers do also have same articles. One new thing that has been inspired from football articles is a seperate career page - Career of Lionel Messi. Since Virat Kohli's page was long, I made this article Career of Virat Kohli. Maybe something similar? Pharaoh496 (talk) 04:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge all Is this a mockery of some sort? Sure you can split some details from the main article, but why the hell would you make more than a dozen subarticles, each with just a few paragraphs? WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:NOTSTATS come to mind here, we don't need prose sections for every season with the stats. Reywas92^Talk 20:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92, I don't think there's much content at all that could be merged. Having checked a few of the pages, much of the text is already repeated verbatim in the main bio. JoelleJay (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have never looked at these articles before, but would assume they would all be mostly more than a few sentences! The W. G. Grace in the 1878 English cricket season article can be selectively merged. AA (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – The player is very notable in Cricket, but it is possible to summarize the information in the main article, or recreate it in a less number of forks. Svartner (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Svartner, most of the info is already repeated verbatim in the main article. Would you support deletion? JoelleJay (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object. Svartner (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just a reminder, you can't argue for a Merge or a Redirect without providing a specific list of what the target article is for each article being discussed. The discussion closer carries out the consensus, they can't make these decisions up on their own. It's the discussants' role to provide a full resolution to an AFD nomination, not just an outcome. Otherwise, the closer might have to dismiss these kinds of opinions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean merging these various articles into something more direct, like "W. G. Grace's cricket career". I understand that it is possible to summarize the main content to avoid this number of forks. Svartner (talk) 08:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, I am not aware of any policy, guideline or consensus that says that. I do not think that is how we normally deal with mass proposals. The number of articles nominated, and the number of book chapters that would have to be examined, would make it difficult to compile a complete list of merger targets in the 7 days of an AfD. I think it is perfectly acceptable to say that articles should be merged in accordance with the scope of the chronological chapters in those books, and then leave the final determination to the WP:PROPMERGE process, which does not have a 7 day deadline. For the avoidance of doubt, I have proposed an intial merge of the relevant three articles to W. G. Grace's life from 1879 to 1891 based on the scope of the book chapters I mentioned. To insist that I provide, within 7 days, a list of each and every other target based on the other chronological chapters in those books (and their chapters are chronological) is certainly obstructive, and might confront me with a WP:FAITACCOMPLIS. I see no reason why a closing admin cannot look at the chronological scope of the chapters of those books. James500 (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are books even in question? Material / content from books do not have to be entirely pasted on here - WikiPedia isnt an alternative for any book. It should contain all relevant information - there is no point making a page of any period of life for any person. Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
James500, I'm just talking about the practical aspects of closing an AFD discussion. We use XFDCloser and if a closer closes a discussion as Merge, there must be an exiting target article included. It's part of the closure. And a closer is not supposed to be coming up with original solutions like deciding how articles should be divided up, they are supposed to determine consensus, that's all. If a closer did as you advise, they would be accused of making a "supervote" and probably brought to WP:AN or Deletion review where they would experience a deserved condemnation and mocking. I know because I was accused of making a supervote when I first started closing AFD discussions. No fun at all. So, I'll pass on following your advice. At this point, I've closed thousands of AFD discussions and I'm not going to invent some new solution for this one. But I feel involved now so I'll refrain from closing this discussion. I have a feeling that this discussion will close as "No consensus" unless there is agreement on a resolution that can be easily implemented. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like I mentioned - a seperate article called Career of W.G. Grace, which is like a few prexisting articles. That covers all Pharaoh496 (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Noting that I was pinged here after having participated in several other cricket career salami-slice article discussions (many non-AfDs). FWIW, I definitely would have !voted in this even without being pinged since I watch the sportspeople delsort. Anyway, I agree with TaOT and AA (!!!) that these articles are not salvageable and should be deleted (with maybe some content from the 1878 one merged?). They are largely prosifications of routine, primary stats reports from CricketArchive with a handful of trivial anecdotes and quotes sprinkled in. If there was anything from these time periods worth including in the main article it would not be from these articles and therefore merging is not appropriate.
As an example, of the 1871 sources: 34/58 sources are stats, corresponding to 1480/2348 words. Of the remainder, 777 are to presumably secondary independent sources, with 640 words outside the lead. Out of those 640, 411 are repeated verbatim (or nearly) in the main page. That leaves the total amount of content that could be merged at 229 words:
Grace turned 23 in July 1871
Grace in 1871 was principally involved with four teams: the Gentlemen, Gloucestershire County Cricket Club, Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) and the United South of England Eleven (USEE).
1871 was a wet summer and, even when the rain relented, there was a persistent chilly wind.[8] Grace, however, had the skill and resilience to cope with adverse conditions and some of his best batting performances were achieved on wet wickets.
This innings was played on a "sticky wicket" after rain and many people considered it the finest of Grace's career, though Grace himself disagreed.
Grace began the innings cautiously and took fifteen minutes to score his first run but then, records Rae, he "scored at a cracking pace".[9] MCC Secretary Harry Perkins had no doubts and insisted that it was Grace's greatest-ever performance with rain frequently stopping play and making the wicket at times "unplayable".
Grace's presence ensured a bumper crowd with over £400 being taken at the gate. This money went a long way towards the £1500 that Nottinghamshire needed to erect the Trent Bridge Pavilion.
Simon Rae remarked that cricket enthusiasts still argue about Grace's "greatest season" and that 1871 features in any such discussion.
He took 79 wickets at 17.02 with a best analysis of 7–67. He claimed five wickets in an innings 5 times and twice had 10 in a match.
The bolded "finest" innings being referred to is from a "Married v. Single" first-class match, which I've gone ahead and merged into the main article (with author attribution). The rest of the material is trivial or would be redundant. Considering the 1871 page is one of the few containing any unique non-trivial, non-primary content, I think it is reasonable to consider the rest of the articles unsalvageable forks that should be deleted rather than merged. JoelleJay (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh btw, I also finnaly nominated that dusty bunch of the 1948 ashes articles. Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cruft-based forks of the main biography. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since there's a valid ATD on the table, per Liz's comment, it would be helpful to know what information should be merged and to where.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The previous relister's concerns remain unanswered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Doczilla. You know perfectly well that I have already said, in express and unambiguous words, on two separate occasions, with this edit and this edit that the three articles W. G. Grace's cricket career (1879 to 1882), W. G. Grace's cricket career (1883 to 1886) and W. G. Grace's cricket career (1887 to 1891) should be merged together to form a single article at W. G. Grace's life from 1879 to 1891. You have been clearly told what to merge and where to merge it to. Please do not pretend that you cannot read what I have said. James500 (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - because Wikipedia isn't a mirror to hold minute by minute biographical details of a person. WP:NOTMIRROR Also I oppose a merge because that would create a massive wall of words that totally overstate the person's actual importance. We are supposed to be editors which implies distilling subjects down to the important points and not trying to write down every last fact we can find about a subject. JMWt (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge W.G. Grace was the outstanding cricketer of his time, but we only should have one biographical article on his career. The existence of multiple articles looks like an attempt to use WP as if it were a book, not an encyclopaedia. Having a book length biography would of course be wholly legitimate, but not within WP.

Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these pages go into unnecessary excruciating detail over his career. I oppose a merge/redirect because (1) the relevant information needed the main W.G. Grace article, and (2) these titles are highly unlikely search terms. For example, someone looking for information about W. G. Grace's cricket career between 1879 and 1882 is far more likely to search for Grace himself and find the appropriate content on his article, rather than searching for the oddly specific "W. G. Grace's cricket career (1879 to 1882)." Frank Anchor 18:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Too much detail/too much cruft is an editing matter, not a notability matter, and this is not the article improvement workshop. At issue is whether this should be a Keep as a subsidiary page from the extremely long W. G. Grace or whether this should be chopped back and Merged to that piece. Delete is not a valid outcome — nor is Merge unless somebody is ready to spend a day on the project. I believe this serves its purpose of keeping the main biography of readable length while preserving the information for sports historians and fans who care. Carrite (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia isnt a place for "sports historians or fans". Its not an encyclopedia. No other cricketer has this many pages. This is a transclusion of his books. For cricketers, wikipedia only needs to have the main page - unless if its a little bit long one solitary career page. So there goes your "delete is not valid" out the window.
- No merge because no one will spend a day - @Carrite, Wikipedia will grind to a halt if people start having this mentaility :)
Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how WP:GNG works. If, for example, the period of Grace's life from 1879 to 1891 is the subject of large chapters in four books, it has certainly received significant coverage in independent reliable sources within the meaning of WP:GNG. That creates a presumption that the period of Grace's life from 1879 to 1891 should have an article. To prevent that period of Grace's life having a standalone article, you need to rebut that presumption with another policy or guideline. And there is no policy or guideline that rebuts that presumption. The only policy you have offered are various parts of WP:NOT that clearly do not apply. In turn: these articles are not cruft (and we don't even have a policy or guideline against cruft); they include a summary of accepted knowledge regarding Grace, and a summary of accepted knowledge regarding Grace would not fit in the main article; they do not consist entirely of an excessive listings of unexplained statistics, and the coverage in the said books that is not excessive listings of unexplained statistics would not fit in the main article; they are not a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files; indeed they could not possibly be a "mirror" of the copyrighted books on Grace such as Midwinter (1981) and Rae (1998), because we cannot copy the entire verbatim text of a copyrighted source. The policy that actually is applicable is WP:ATD. The articles contain salvagable content, therefore that content should be merged if the articles are not notable. And the period of Grace's life from 1879 to 1891 is demonstably notable. We know that it is notable, because I have just demonstrated that it is notable. James500 (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally have one article - Career of W.G. Grace - which will become the new convention for all athletes' pages if wikipedia wants to widen its scope by that much.

It will be a cricket centric article in such a case, with no duplicate infoboxes.

Non-cricket aspects of that period go into the main article.

Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

NASCAR on television in the 1980s[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages, TV schedules, those centrally about the season with the broadcasting being merely mentions and most of those being YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The events themselves are notable but the topic of whether they appeared or not on television is not. This serves as one massive collection of YouTube links. Ajf773 (talk) 09:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I personally find what networks aired what races interesting, but how it is presented in these decade articles is underwhelming (I understand why these pages will probably be deleted). It's also missing what is highly relevant information (up until the late 80s) regarding what sort of broadcast individual races received: live flag-to-flag coverage, joined in progress, tape delayed, condensed tape delayed, or not broadcast at all. The best place for that would be the individual season articles, though. They already have a section listing the entire schedule of races (not the partial schedules we see in some of these articles). A column for the TV network would be simple enough to add to that table and any out of the ordinary details about the nature of the broadcasts could be added to the sections for the individual races (probably not the broadcasting teams since that would be fairly repetitious). --NHL04 (talk) 05:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split from NASCAR on television and radio, alternatively merge to that target. Splitting individual decades keeps the parent article from becoming too cluttered and unreadable. See WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:NOMERGE. @Ajf773: Deletion is not cleanup. Inappropriate content can be removed without needing to delete everything which would potentially be mergeable. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the YT links then you barely have much left other than unsourced entries. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The events are covered in other articles, for example 1980 NASCAR Winston Cup Series and so forth for every year following that. Those lists are sufficient enough to present what is needed. Ajf773 (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per GhostOfDanGurney. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am sure this will close as "no consensus" but I am not seeing a point in keeping this collection on Wikipedia. Srijanx22 (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Srijanx22: Do you have rationale to provide other than "not seeing a point" in it? You personally not seeing value in it does not mean the subject matter isn't notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this goes as keep or no consensus, this tells you the state of Wikipedia. I do not see how a collection of YouTube links make a list notable. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SpacedFarmer: As has been told to you in the past, it's not about what the current sourcing is, it's about whether the subject as a whole is notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. The article is a coatrack for a list of (presumably bootleg) Youtube videos, most of which have been taken down. NASCAR on television and radio is a suitable redirect target, but the page history should not be kept. An improved "box score" format for races on pages like 1985 NASCAR Winston Cup Series might include this information, but it would need to be re-created. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand why the page history shouldn't be kept.

The problem becomes that the 60s, 70s, 90s, 2000s, and 2010s list nominations all ended in no consensus, while the 2020 nomination ended in keep. This would leave us with a hole between the 70s and 90s that's just not addressed, and any such attempt to fill said gap may end up being G4'd. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note WP:ELNEVER. Also, I see no reason why the 60s/70s articles should not also be deleted (or why the nominations weren't bundled to avoid that possible outcome). Walsh90210 (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They were initially, but the nominator botched the nomination completely by both forgetting a step and including more than just the "NASCAR on television..." articles. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Walsh90210: I fail to understand why you wanted to note WP:ELNEVER to me. Could you explain? Did you perhaps mean to link something else? Hey man im josh (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep as a valid split per GhostofDanGurney, also bearing in mind that every other decade survived AFD, which would mean that we've got articles on every decade from the 1960s to present except this one, which would be disorderly and doesn't make sense. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to NASCAR on television and radio. Not seeing any valid use for this standalone. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Stifle: But then wouldn't the parent article be unbalanced, as it would be the only decade to be extensively individually focused on whereas all the others have their own standalones? BeanieFan11 (talk)
  - They can all be merged. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is notable and splitting from the parent article is a good idea (per GhostofDanGurney). If the article needs to be cleaned up, deletion is not the way to do it. Malinaccier (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notable, at least for NASCAR on television and radio. What kind of message does linkdumping bootleg Youtube links sends? We should allow them to pass as WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep, merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The only difference between this discussion and the discussions for the other decades prior to May 29 (when the others were closed and this was relisted) was the extra delete !vote by Ajf773. Was there a particular reason for only !voting here? I do agree with others above that it would be odd for this decade to be the only one not be allowed to stand alone. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GhostOfDanGurney: While I do, obviously, have issue (as I mentioned above) with the idea that one decade's article gets deleted while the rest did not, it doesn't matters why they voted on one and not the rest, that's entirely acceptable to do. We have no reason to question them on it. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh: My aim with the comment was to try to determine if it was worth seeing if just renominating the whole bundle of decades as a batch (without the other articles that were included the first time) was a good option. I should have been more clear with that and I apologize for coming across as trying to call them out here. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History Proposed deletions[edit]

History categories[edit]

for occasional archiving

Proposals[edit]