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

Shunga–Greek War

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG, Mostly based on Original Research and Non–WP:RS, None of the sources refers the event as Shungha Greek War. Mr.Hanes Talk 16:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep, since the sources cited, although meagre, do appear to indicate that such conflicts and relations are historical events involving the people and places described. There could certainly stand to be more sources to clarify where specific identifications come from, and explain where some of the material comes from. But that should be done through ordinary editing; it is not an argument for deletion. So are arguments that the article contains original research. The subject of the article is clearly not the invention of a Wikipedia editor.

What is left here is an argument that the title of the argument is not found in the sources, and therefore constitutes original research. Having seen this argument several times in other discussions, I now feel confident that it is erroneous. When there is a commonly accepted name for something in scholarship, we can generally use that name. When there is not, any reasonably descriptive name will do. Here, the best arguments would be that we have an indefinite number of conflicts of uncertain intensity, and so perhaps it should be titled "Shunga–Greek Wars", or "Shunga–Greek conflicts", or "Greco–Shunga Wars" or something else along those lines. That is not an argument for deletion. The article should be kept, though perhaps moved to a better title—and that too is part of ordinary editing. P Aculeius (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flag for the Confederation of the Rhine

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

Notability. It is actually stated in the article that this flag does not exist. TheLongTone (talk) 13:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Clearly incomplete, but notability might be established if RSes can be found. CR (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not finished. It’s meant to be about possible historical flags for Rhine confederation, aswell as give context to the white green blue flag and discuss its origins tae prevent misguided edits to confederation page itself ToadGuy101 (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is no evidence that there ever was such a thing, and the file description page on Commons c:File:Alleged flag of the Rhine Confederation 1806-13.svg has all the information needed. —Kusma (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolute lack of notability.
Delete. On second thought and an attempt to find sources, there appears to be no basis for this article to pass GNG. Much as I enjoy the guy's videos, one youtube essay from Noj Rants does not confer notability. CR (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: The article has, during the course of this AfD, been moved to Flags used to represent the Confederation of the Rhine. CR (talk) 11:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kaiser-e-Hind Fortress

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

So far only cited with WP:NEWSORG. The event does not have enough independent significant coverage to warrant a standalone article. – Garuda ^Talk! 13:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Pakistan, India, and Punjab. – Garuda ^Talk! 13:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Limbuwan–Gorkha War

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG, The article only has one source and that too fails verification. Koshuri ^(グ) 15:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Nepal, India, Bihar, and Sikkim. Koshuri ^(グ) 15:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Creator of this article is currently banned for persistent addition of unsourced content TheSlumPanda (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete– There is not enough to justify keeping the article.EmilyR34 (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh-Rohilkhand War

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

Completely AI generated article based on hallucinated information, fails WP:GNG, sources do not treat this minor conflict as a war. - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a very long series of conflicts between the Sikhs and the Rohillas, and I have mentioned multiple references, including page numbers. Please verify them yourself. Jaspreetsingh6 (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's meet GNG Jaspreetsingh6 (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing it's not hallucinated information i took AI help to complete article quickly and i mentioned multiple sources later with proper page number Jaspreetsingh6 (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, Delhi, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Mr.Hanes Talk 19:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe move to Draft (to fix sources - needs some cleanup, and content is not encyclopedic and too verbose etc..) - not quite familiar with this, but others familiar with this can see if a page like this might provide some historical continuity (from my quick read on Kingdom of Rohilkhand) Asteramellus (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this will be a better option. Jaspreetsingh6 (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed this article as much as I could, multiple references have been mentioned in paragraph, I am going on a break now so I will not be able to participate in the discussion, My only suggestion is that you can either move this page to draft until I fix it completely,Jaspreetsingh6 (talk)

West Superior Invitation

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

No indication of notability, sources are not independent, passing mentions or database entries (which don't support much of what they are used for in the article anyway[1]). No indepth independent reliable sources about the tournament found. Fram (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Tennis, United States of America, and Wisconsin. Fram (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep, it says the Tennis Archives have been cited—they can't lie!~~ Delete per nom unless significant coverage turns up, in which case ping me. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - why would we get rid of this sourced tournament just because they didn't write up 1000 sources like they do today? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:29, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Because there are countless non-notable sporting events every day, and long-established consensus is that we only should have articles on the ones where there are indepth secondary sources? If they didn't write up these sources then, and no one has done since then, then it isn't notable. Fram (talk) 09:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving South Yemen

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

Quite the same reason as of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wars involving North Yemen. A WP:REDUNDANTFORK and an unwarranted WP:SPLIT with no consensus at Talk:List of wars involving Yemen. Garuda ^Talk! 19:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Islam, Lists, Egypt, Ethiopia, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Russia, and Cuba. Garuda ^Talk! 19:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and Middle East. Garuda ^Talk! 19:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Garuda ^Talk! 19:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Historical country. Merging with List of wars involving Yemen makes a statement on the ongoing secessionist conflict ("South Yemen = Yemen"). Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to merge there, I didn't even call for that. The only thing I'd suggest is gaining consensus to WP:PROSPLIT the List of wars involving Yemen Garuda ^Talk! 19:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. BilletsMauves^€500 21:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:REDUNDANTFORK and WP:POINT. This page unnecessarily duplicates information already available elsewhere on Wikipedia, which does not serve the user well. gidonb (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Srijanx22 (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First Anglo–Bengal War

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

Another mess of WP:OR & WP:SYNTH, Fails WP:GNG. None of the sources mentions the event as “First Anglo–Bengal War”, The article heavily relies on copied content from Black Hole of Calcutta, Siege of Calcutta and Treaty of Alinagar. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Bangladesh, India, Europe, and United Kingdom. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nom Asteramellus (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Siege of Calcutta looks like the same topic. Za-ari-masen (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Za-ari-masen

The same content already exists there, First Anglo–Bengal War#Capture of Calcutta is the same conflict as Siege of Calcutta, Even the Aftermath (Treaty of Alinagar) is in both of them. Koshuri ^(グ) 17:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Nothing to merge at Siege of Calcutta. – Garuda ^Talk! 14:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pala invasion of Hunas

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

Full of WP:OR & WP:SYNTH. The article fails WP:N and WP:GNG & has poor sources which fails verification. The lead mentions that this invasion was led by Devapala & his son Mahendrapala (the cited source does not mention it) however the rest of the article only mentions Devapala. None of the sources refer this event as “Pala invasion of Hunas”. Conflict with kambojas is synthesized in the conflict section too. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Afghanistan, and India. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Recently an article created by the author was deleted for being an HOAX, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander's invasion of Gangaridai. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yet another pseudohistorical article. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete–Per nomination.EmilyR34 (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sudhanoti (state)

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

Recreation of article redirected (because unverifiable) after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudhanoti. There are no good sources for a state "Sudhanoti" which was formed in 1407[2]. There are no sources about the supposed founder of the state, Jassi Khan Saddozai[3]. There are no sources for Nawab defeating Bhan in 1407[4].

Related articles like Shams-Ud-Din Khan probably also need checking. Fram (talk) 09:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Pakistan. Fram (talk) 09:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not want to decide on voting, then in the light of these arguments, there are answers to the three questions of User:Fram.

please see the answers to your four questions on the Sidhnauti state,

*:Number one: What are the sources of the state "Sidhnauti" established in 1407?

*:Answer number one is in this link of the book, open it👇 ^[1]

Remember, along with these

references, when two editors in this article Decline G5, has made substantive enough edits to make this not qualify. 2A00:5400:F022:4104:181D:E6FB:DDB:47F8 (talk) 12:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Hello Fram Sir, please see the answers to your four questions on the Sidhnauti state,

Number one: What are the sources of the state "Sidhnauti" established in 1407?

Answer number one is in this link of the book, open it👇

https://archive.org/details/register-sudhnoti-english-version_20250110/page/48/mode/1up

Number two: There are no sources about the founder of the state, Jassi Khan Saduzai

The answer to this question is also in this link of the book, open it👇

https://archive.org/details/register-sudhnoti-english-version_20250110/page/35/mode/1up

Number three: Is there no source to defeat Nawab Jas Khan's brother in 1407?

The answer to this question is also in this link of the book, open it👇

https://archive.org/details/register-sudhnoti-english-version_20250110/page/32/mode/1up

I sincerely hope that you will not restrict Wikipedia after conducting a scholarly review. thank you Abdul Wah (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see these references, open the book link, thank you.👇

https://archive.org/details/register-sudhnoti-english-version_20250110/page/33/mode/1up Abdul Wah (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sardar Shams belonged to Sidhanoti. But in this article he is being made the governor of Poonch, which is really worth investigating. Abdul Wah (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else reading this AfD and the edits surrounding it may be interested in the very recently declined drafts Draft:REGISTER SUDHNOTI and Draft:Yusuf Khan Abakhil Saduzai, about the above "book" (which seems to be unpublished) and its author. Fram (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should have a scholarly discussion on the "Siddhnavite" deletion nomination at this time? Instead, link other articles to it. Abdul Wah (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of chaos in the article due to disruptive editing which is also nonsensically copying text from other articles and the source (literally copy pasting, not even summarizing or paraphrasing)

The Register Sudhnoti book says that it is closely based on the original Register Sudhnoti written in the 1960s in the Urdu language, but was not published due to the writers death. It also claims to derive information from two books written in Persian; Maakhaz-e-Sudhnuti and Diropnama. Can someone find any links for these books, or contact the author to upload them to archive.org? Sazzrel (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Sidhanuti Register) is a collection of two books originally written in 1690 and 1855, the source of which is the book Sidhanuti and Dirupnama, the introduction of which can be seen in the link.👇

https://archive.org/details/register-sudhnoti-english-version_20250110/page/18/mode/1up

Now this page should be left to the scholarly review of (Fram) Sir, as we have already provided scholarly references on it. Now it is to be seen the competence and honesty of the reviewer as to what decision he makes on it. Abdul Wah (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Sudhanoti region which was 1420 square kilometers, consisting of the present day whole Sudhanoti District and Poonch District, Pakistan

• (1947-) Sudhanoti District = area is 569 square kilometers

•(1407-1830) Former Sudhanoti (region) = area is 1420 square kilometers

One unique aspect of former Sudhanoti region is that the region until the end of the 18th century, it was never part of any external, Poonchi, Indian, or Kashmiri sultanate, despite being surrounded by large empires. KhanShuja313 (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence, none whatsoever, for a book "Dirop Nama" written in 1690, as claimed by the "Register"[5]. There is no evidence for the writer of that work, Hafiz Waja Khan. There is equally no evidence for a writer called "Sardar Suba Khan" or for their 1855 book. All of this appears for the first and only time in the Register, and no one at all has ever described the Sudhanoti state which existed from 1407 until the 1830s or so. This is extremely unlikely. The link to the sources for the Register then claims that these two books were translated in Urdu in 1969. Again, I can't find any evidence for this. Fram (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just leaving a note that I have removed a significant amount of material from the article for being blatant copyvio of the aforementioned book after some other edits by one of the article's contributors came to my attention through Copypatrol. The copyvio seems to be so extensive in all revisions of the article that if it wasn't already at AfD I might have considered tagging it as WP:G12. Just leaving a note of this to explain why material was removed during an active AfD — no opinion on notability. MCE89 (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is not for Wikipedia to decide on the veracity of the new book, which is privately published. It is WP:PRIMARY source material, which the historians would need to study and write about. Until then, this topic is not ready for an encyclopedia.

By the way Sudhanoti was a subdistrict of Poonch Jagir at the time of the British departure from the Subcontinent, and in course of time, it became a full-fledged district. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both the article creator and the defender above have been separately blocked as sockpuppets (and considering the interplay, I guess there is meatpuppetry between the two sock drawers). The article can be G5 deleted I guess, as created by a sock of a blocked user, and with no remaining editors arguing to keep this article. Fram (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It should not happen that the users involved in the discussion should be decided unilaterally by blogging before the discussion is over. I saw that one user (Abdul Loh) had a great discussion and gave the most accurate and comprehensive answers to the three questions of Mr. (Farm). While Mr. (Farm) blogged him and declared his book of references to be fake, it is surprising that Wikipedia users will now decide whether historians' books are authentic or not. 2A00:5400:F022:9768:2CCE:5C34:6FB5:AD67 (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The new ip address arguing to keep the page is obviously also a sock puppet. Sazzrel (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion and request is that no article on Wikipedia is complete, but it can be made complete and comprehensive by editing over time, so let this article continue to grow and develop Wikipedia. Prove your greatness Farm 2A00:5400:F022:9768:2CCE:5C34:6FB5:AD67 (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a post on Facebook in which a person claimed that this article Sakhi Daler Khan , And Chibhal was written by a person on Wikipedia for money, When I opened the links to these articles, I found that none of these Sakhi Daler Khan articles had any references from the beginning, while this article has been on Wikipedia for a long time, and no one has nominated it for deletion? While the second article Chibhal also contained no reference to Bafi except for one Jat? It is surprising that no one nominated it for deletion either? Similarly, when I opened the link to Sidhanuti's article, surprisingly, there were a large number of strong references in the article, but despite this, Sidhanuti's article has been nominated for deletion twice by an editor named Frame? I do not doubt anyone's good intentions but I must say that Sidhanoti is a historical region, but even in 2025, there is not even a single page of it on the English Wikipedia. It is the worst injustice in history that Sidhanoti, despite having an article on Urdu and Arabic Wikipedia^[2] as a former tribal state, is still not accessible on the English Wikipedia. This is a question mark for all of us. Abu amara (talk) 06:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I request that when Sidhanoti is a historical region whose national language Urdu Wikipedia has a page on the former state, then why is there no page on the English Wikipedia even in 2025? See the link to the former state Sidhanoti on the Urdu Wikipedia.^[3]. And then decide whether it should have a page on the English Wikipedia or not? Hopefully, after seeing all these facts, consideration will be given to giving access to the Sidhanoti page on the English Wikipedia.Abu amara (talk) 07:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC) Abu amara (talk) 07:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: as a creation by a sockpuppet of blocked user Astore Malik. Furthermore, title blacklist Sudhanoti to avoid AfD evasion/recreation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Historians need to look at the Register to verify its claims. If it is later verified as authentic, then other sources will also be written to allow for a proper Wikipedia article. As of right now all of its claims are alleged, and there shouldn’t be an article unless this changes. Sazzrel (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is not for Wikipedia to decide on the veracity of the new book,

2A00:5400:F022:9768:2CCE:5C34:6FB5:AD67 (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not for Wikipedia to decide on the veracity of the new book, which is privately published. It is WP:PRIMARY source material, Everyone should know this? 2A00:5400:F022:9768:2CCE:5C34:6FB5:AD67 (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3can you explain the context in which you used veracity? Your text is being quoted here. Sazzrel (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been validated by established scholars or reputable publishers. So all we can say about the book is that it makes certain claims. We have no idea what to make of them. We have pretty clear guidelines at WP:RS and even more at WP:HISTRS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The same editor of the frame name was also nominated to delete the article Sadhnoti years ago.👉^[4]👈 And now they are nominating it for the second time. Although their response is also given with full references, the rest of the editors should take notice of what they want.46.143.182.2 (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC) 46.143.182.2 (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time that the same editor has nominated the same article twice 46.143.182.2 (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dhaka Viswavidyalay Patrika

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

Subject does not meet criteria for WP:NJOURNALS (journal is included in selective citation indices, indexing services, and bibliographic databases) and lacks independent sources to meet WP:GNG. Recon rabbit 14:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and Academic journals. Recon rabbit 16:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Literature, Philosophy, Music, History, Law, Politics, Business, Religion, Science, Biology, Economics, and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom.CharlesWain (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that WP:NJOURNALS states that "It is possible for a journal not to be notable under this guidance but still meet WP:GNG for other reasons", so failing WP:NJOURNALS is not necessarily a reason to delete. Also, WP:NJOURNALS#C2 says that "The comprehensiveness of the coverage varies by field, geography, language", and it may be the case that Bangla journals are not well covered. I found this article [6] that says that none of the academic journals published by the University of Dhaka are indexed by leading databases. Interestingly, the authors of that article did not have access to data about Dhaka Viswavidyalay Patrika / ঢাকা বিশ্ববিদ্যালয় পত্রিকা during their research. I think that we would need to look at Bangladeshi publications (whether in English or in Bangla) to assess whether this journal might meet WP:GNG. Hopefully someone with such access will participate here. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does not look like this journal published by the University of Dhaka is indexed by any databases, from what MIAR tells me. ~~It may be the case that this is a candidate to redirect to University of Dhaka rather than deletion~~, as was the case for the Azerbaijan Journal of Educational Studies, the only member of Category:Azerbaijani-language journals, which redirects to Ministry of Science and Education (Azerbaijan). Recon rabbit 15:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: RebeccaGreen you are rigth that a journal can be notable even if it misses NJournals. However, in that case it has to be shown to meet WP:GNG and I don't see evidence for that either. --Randykitty (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the University of Dhaka.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my previous recommendation to concur with Vinegarymass911 and recommending a merge to University of Dhaka. Recon rabbit 20:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vigraharaja IV's first war against the Ghazanvids

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

Regardless of the notability of the event (which I cannot check definitively, partly due to my lack of expertise in history in general, and partly due to some of the sources about this being books I do not have access to), it is clear that this article is almost wholly the output of an AI chatbot and therefore in dire need of WP:TNT. I am surprised that an obviously AI-written article has slipped below the radar for so long. Java Hurricane 19:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, India, and Rajasthan. Java Hurricane 19:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is poorly notable, and once I questioned about the existance of the battle by its name (earlier name of the article), the creator changed its name by thier own synthesis. There is no way anyone can create articles as such "X's war aganist Y", in MILHIST topic area, as it opens ways for many such poorly notable military conflicts. Also, the article lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources, and existing sources found to be lack reliability as it is built on many assumptions, like "thr ruler might have fought..." etc. Additionally we can see the creator used much offensive terms in the article itself (obviously targetting a community). --Imperial ^[AFCND] 09:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
note to the closer : Please check the background and edit history of the voters, as meatpuppetry and sock puppetry is common in this TA.--Imperial ^[AFCND] 09:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The above user's request is superfluous and somewhat discourages other good-faith editors from participating in this discussion. They should immediately strike their comment and refrain from doing so again. I don't think any user would want to feel monitored for their !vote. @ImperialAficionado, don't you think that was completely gratuitous? An instance of WP:ABP I'd say. This is not the venue for WP:MEAT presumption/allegation. Please don't bludgeon the process and instead keep it confined to SPI and ArbCom.Mithilanchalputra (Talk) 10:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not bludgeoning here dear. I've pasted this notice in a lot of AFDs, been doing this since a long time, and editors who're experienced in this TA would understand why I am doing this. Several AFDs has been manipulated by several newly created puppets, and we just don't want to continue those actions. Imperial ^[AFCND] 15:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well you're exactly doing this right now by dominating the discussion. Everyone should have a chance to express their views, but after seeing that comment, they might feel reluctant to do so. I've also participated in many AfDs that involved sockpuppets, but I've never seen anyone unnecessarily questioning the background of editors. Instead, they file SPIs for the users they suspect. Honestly, I'd think twice before getting involved here, and that's probably why we haven't seen much participation since the nomination. Several experienced editors might agree with you, but it could also come across as biting newcomers. My humble suggestion would be to use the appropriate platform to report any suspected "meatpuppets," request clerks to review their "edit history," and consider retracting your comment above. Mithilanchalputra (Talk) 04:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Keep: After reviewing the article myself, I would say keep the article, but do not let sources of legends overshadow conclusions of actual historians. Also, change the title of the article to "Battle of Khetri" instead. I wouldn't exactly call it a "war". It was more of a battle.

P.S.: Although the Ghaznis were Muslims, it would be better to refer to them as Ghaznis and not "Muslims" as a whole, for example, saying, "war against the Muslims", seems a bit sentimental. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Life_and_Culture_in_Medieval_India/2wFuAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Vigraharaja+khetri&dq=Vigraharaja+khetri&printsec=frontcover https://www.google.com/books/edition/Ancient_India/XNxiN5tzKOgC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Vigraharaja+ghaznavid&pg=PA337&printsec=frontcover https://www.google.com/books/edition/Indian_History/MazdaWXQFuQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Vigraharaja+ghaznavid&pg=RA1-PA12&printsec=frontcover — Preceding unsigned comment added by SavetheSouthofIndia (talk • contribs) 04:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Instead of deletion, it can be rewritten properly. The topic has SIGCOV in [7] and [8]. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Koshuri Sultan: and if rewrite wholly we must, why not start from scatch again? There's not much of an alternative to a fundamental rewrite in any case, for the article as it stands is, quite clearly, the output of an AI chatbot (WP:LLM) and more or less unsalvageable. Java Hurricane 07:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DINC. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Koshuri Sultan: citing DINC isn't a particularly great idea if the whole article is useless and unsalvageable, as is the case here. That is exactly what the TNT essay covers. Java Hurricane 13:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSlumPanda (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that this is AI-written material that needs WP:TNT. https://wikipedia.gptzero.me/ agrees as well. -- asilvering (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the text is dire and we have no solid indication that the whole thing isn’t just made up. Three sources are cited, of which two are inaccessible and one doesn’t appear to have anything to do with the subject. I’ve looked online for in depth coverage in RIS and not found it. If there is a valid topic here it needs to be started again, with proper referencing and not dubious links to inaccessible google books. Mccapra (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be genuine doubt about whether this "war" ever actually took place, and the text we're provided with is AI-generated slop. TNT.—S Marshall T/C 01:31, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All issues aside, the fact that this was written by AI is enough to warrant its deletion. And this is on top of other issues as outlined by imperial. This article is a product of synth and the event isn't notable per the lack of significant coverage from reliable sources.

Someguywhosbored (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that whether or not it amounted to a "war", there are a number of citations on Wikipedia that suggest that a conflict between the Chauhan dynasty and the Ghaznavids took place. The citations point to this book, which I don't have and can't check, but there's reasonable evidence to suggest that there's a notable topic here. I went with TNT because this text is not a useful starting point for an encyclopaedic article about it.—S Marshall T/C 10:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with S Marshall. @Someguywhosbored don't know what they are talking about: the fact that this was written by AI is enough to warrant its deletion. Yeah where did you get this from? WP:LLM doesn't state so. Ironically their comment is also generated by AI. Koshuri ^(グ) 11:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and work on it from scratch. Having that said, the topic should be warranted a standalone article as there's definitely enough notability and coverage for the event.Mr.Hanes Talk 11:41, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Birbhum (1743)

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

This article relies heavily on works like "Seir Mutaqherin Or View of Modern Times" and "Hooghly: The Global History of a River," which are not widely cited or considered credible in scholarly discussions on the topic, violating WP:V and WP:RS. The article contains original research, especially in its narrative of Alivardi Khan’s strategy, which is not backed by verifiable sources, thus breaching WP:NOR. The battle is portrayed in a simplistic and historically inaccurate manner, failing to provide a balanced and comprehensive view of the Maratha-Bengal conflict, and the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources makes the event non-notable, violating WP:N. CelesteQuill (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A book published by OUP is hardly unreliable. Content disputes should be sorted out on the talkpage, not on AfDs. LucrativeOffer (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination, no significant coverage about this battle. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Minor military engagement, found no in-depth coverage in any reliable sources. Furthermore, Battle of Birbhum by name, doesn't exist as a battle by itself.--Imperial ^[AFCND] 09:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSlumPanda (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete background waffle and no details about the alleged battle indicate that it is not notable. Mccapra (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Mr. Beat

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

I have marked this article for deletion. While I'm a big fan of Mr. Beat's work, and would ideally like this article kept, I don't think that he passes WP:GNG right now. All of the non-social media sources are local sources, or not reliable at all, indicating that he has little to no national significance. Beat is a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL content creator; achieving 1 million subscribers is a much less notable feat than it was even 10 years ago. I completed a WP:BEFORE search but I couldn't find anything meaningful that wasn't already in the article. I don't see a WP:NAUTHOR pass either, since he's released only two books, and each only has one local review. 2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:4D29:6661:1D4E:6058 (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, History, Politics, Economics, Geography, Kansas, and Nebraska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have little to add beyond the nominator's honest and thorough rationale. The article appears to have a lot of sources but most point toward the guy's own posts. He has a little notice from local newspapers but not enough to support an article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG yet, but the BEFORE search is hard since it's all of his videos. SportingFlyer T·C 03:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There have been some keep !votes below, so I just want to make clear that I really only see up to one GNG-qualifying source in the article, which is a local publication's review of his book. My BEFORE search brought up only his own content or promotional sources. He has received some local coverage which is mostly promotional. It's not impossible there's better coverage, but most of the sources in the article are Youtube links or Twitter links. SportingFlyer T·C 19:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify The article's content and history can be kept back in the draftspace until sufficient further coverage is found, if that ever becomes the case in the future. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mr. Beat has coverage in local press, which counts towards Mr. Beat being a notable figure. Additionally, this coverage is more than many YouTubers who have pages on here receive. NesserWiki (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Mr. Beat is one of the more famous/notable YouTube historians on the site. If he was less notable, I may be in favor of deletion but this is not the case. Lertaheiko (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep if someone as irrelevant as Junlper gets a Wikipedia page, than people like Mr. Beat should get one as well. By comparison, he's far more notable. JonathanMRosenberg (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep basically what everyone else above who has said keep said. Daemonspudguy (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree that something that only receives local coverage is automatically not notable. There are thousands of high schools, library systems and people with Wikipedia articles that will probably only ever receive local coverage, but a reliable, independent secondary source with significant coverage counts towards notability whether its a tiny news station or the BBC. Pointing to subscriber count as evidence of non-notability is about as useful as pointing to it as evidence of notability. (I will note that Mr. Beat posted a screenshot of this discussion to Bluesky (which is how I got here) ~~but not in a WP:Canvassing manner~~ probably with good intentions, but it's definitely become a WP:Canvassing issue regardless). Edit: Given that the nominator has clarified their justification for the deletion, I went through the sources again, and I feel like there's one source that definitely counts toward notability, the aforementioned Lawrence Journal article, and one source that might count towards notability, a sorta review of his SCOTUS book which includes some commentary beyond just the interview component with Mr. Beat. If we're following WP:THREE, then I would probably suggest Draftify given that he seems about one source off from notability. Based5290 :3 (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's the very definition of canvassing... SportingFlyer T·C 19:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to or posting a a discussion is not in itself canvassing. Canvassing needs to be done with the intention of influencing the outcome. Given that the text of the post is just self-deprecating humor, I highly doubt that intention exists. Based5290 :3 (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source Lertaheiko (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with what the above editors have said. Local news coverage counts just the same as major outlets in terms of notability. As popular Internet personalities become more prevalent and the mainstream press becomes more separated from Internet culture, we as Wikipedia editors must reckon with the fact that a notable person might not always be covered in the mainstream press. So, if we keep on using big coverage in the press as being "notable", we end up with archaic standards that will most likely miss out on notable people in the future.

All that being said, however, when comparing Mr. Beat to others, he unquestionably surpasses the requirements for being notable enough to have his own Wiki page. LizardDoggos (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am the IP editor who initially nominated this for deletion, and I'm surprised at the sudden burst of canvassing votes here. They should all be discarded for the purposes of determining consensus; consisting of a mixture of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and claiming I'm trying to discredit local sources: my point is that they are all WP:ROUTINE coverage of him. Doing stuff like local talks about his books, where he mostly does the speaking instead of it being about him doesn't amount to notability here. We need sources that discuss him specifically, simple as that. The only good source here is the Lawrence Journal, and a single article doesn't surpass the WP:THREE sources generally needed to clear the bar of notability. 2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:2081:789F:4237:C594 (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Mr. Beat is a relevant topic and a very prominent YouTuber with tons of credible sources about him, and CLEARLY it should be kept. Skcin7 (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTNOTABLE? 2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:D9D2:6AAD:B5E6:512F (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just not enough coverage for notability... I don't find very many RS, [9] is one, but I don't consider it enough. Oaktree b (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Found this from the same source. Probably leaning draftify. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: or draftify, per Oaktree. (yes, I'm here from the tweet.) charlotte ^👸♥ 02:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I decided to look into the local coverage of the subject a bit more closely, since there have been statements that it's been largely promotional. While some of them do seem that way, such as the Lawrence Times article about a book discussion, this is hardly the only source. He has had an extended interview on KQTV^[5], a television station in St. Joseph, Missouri, which is in the Kansas City area. To reference what the nominator was saying about the local sources not being great because they are routine, I would like to add that this interview does not appear directly connected with any planned event, such as a book release or announcement. I do not believe this counts as routine. His interview with KCUR-FM would also fall under this, since it is a reliable, third-party, independent secondary source that is also not simply announcing an event or product, but is an actual interview; while the written portion of the article is more about that, the actual interview delves much deeper. I will acknowledge that this article is a bit short, but I cannot in good faith agree that this article should be deleted. I think he does fulfill the GNG, and my vote is for it to be kept. ~Junedude433 (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are not secondary sources. SportingFlyer T·C 20:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is worth noting that Mr Beat posted this page onto his twitter yesterday with the caption “I am printing this off and putting it on my wall to motivate me for the rest of my life”, likely prompting the influx of people to comment keep. IP should be aware of this and prevent heavy bias in favor of keeping. (Hell, he may be reading this very comment right now, in which case I’m sorry that your wiki page may be deleted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:B14C:3B7F:ECFA:A361:729B:73A2 (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bhutala

AfDs for this article:

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

Literally for all the reasons of the last delete.

Theres so much speculation (from the year it happened, to if there was even a battle...) on this page/little information that brings WP:GNG into account because there's very little coverage/accurate information on it. Noorullah (talk) 07:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The last AfD had limited participation and was based on an underdeveloped, poorly written article. However, that is not the case now. The nominator's rationale is unclear on how it fails SIGCOV and GNG when the sources have dedicated at least two pages to the event [10][11] (excluding background and aftermath). Garuda ^Talk! 12:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Garudam My view is from the significant coverage guideline;

""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." -- While the topic is covered (by the few books cited on the page), the speculation on whether a battle even happened, the years difference is alarming. I think there's just not enough information on the topic. Noorullah (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How are the two pages of coverage considered trivial mentions? Moreover, the speculation is not even about whether the battle occurred or not. All I see are speculations about the dates, which have already been addressed in a separate subsection. This should not be a reason for deletion. Garuda ^Talk! 17:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, I think a withdrawal of nomination is in order then. @Garudam Noorullah (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely a better approach. Garuda ^Talk! 18:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I took a look at the sources for this battle. There are no significant sources for it and it does not seem notable enough to have been covered properly outside of Wikipedia. Of the sources given, only one really covers the "battle", but does not give it a name. The article goes beyond those sources and strays into original or at least uncited research. Given the lack of evidence the battle has received significant attention from independent sources, my view is it is not notable enough for Wikipedia and it should be deleted. FrightenedPenguin (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)— FrightenedPenguin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Take a quick look at this comment. Garuda ^Talk! 13:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naf War

AfDs for this article:

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

This war is at best a clash with RS attesting it as a event that fails WP:MILNG with routine coverage only. I performed a search and went through sources used on the article and found the following:

van Schendel (in English) does not mention this clash. I added this source to the article because:
van Schendel (translated in 2017) mentions this clash in passing as happening in 2001
Ahmed (Jago News) explicitly discusses how the Naf War was exaggerated by Major General Fazlur Rahman on a talk show.
Tehran Times - article I was able to find through a google search, not the most reliable but is mostly routine coverage from 13 Januray 2001
BBC - article I restored from the 1st deletion, which also describes a short clash on 8 January 2001 and was absent from this article was re-created.
Mahbub Miah (alo.com.bd) describes the War as starting in January 1 2000 and has questionable neutrality and is the lone standout
Online Bangla News- source is peacocking and is the only source that uses January 8 2000

At the very least, the last two sources disagree with other sources I could find and with each other. If we discard those two as unreliable sources, there is not enough coverage for a standalone article. This article should be deleted or at least dratified until a narrative can be ascertained from reliable sources.

For context, this article was deleted before for the same reason as a soft delete due to minimal participation. Editor recreated the article from scratch instead of undeleting. Please do note that I attempted to improve the article as I review and found sources, which is the reason for the directly contradictory information currently present. Prior to my edits, the narrative followed the Mahbub Miah source but with the dates from the Online Bangla News source. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 04:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 04:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 04:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The argument for the removal of this article is not valid. Sufficient references have been provided here, which detail the incident comprehensively. Claiming that the sources are unreliable does not seem appropriate, as the diversity of sources still represents a significant event.
Furthermore, various documents have been incorporated into the article, making the content more credible and informative. An article enriched with references and documents should not be deleted solely due to discrepancies among sources. Instead, such articles should be further improved through discussion and coordination to ensure accuracy. Therefore, I oppose the proposal to delete this article and believe it should be retained. Tanvir Rahat (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New sources added:
Eshomoy article has the same issues as the Online Bangla News article- using several peacocking terms like "The infinite heroism of the Border Guard Bangladesh" and contradiction the Mahbub Miah article by saying that "It is worth mentioning here that the Bangladesh Army did not participate in this war."

Justice.gov article does not mention any clash that occured in 2000.

Imran Choudhury article is a blog, and is not a reliable source as it is a WP:USERGENERATED source
Thank you for improving the article with more sources, but we now have three sources supporting that there was anything more than a minor skirmish- two that agree on key details and one that doesn't. These three then contradict three other sources, including reliable sources from 2001.

The question here is in part, WP:SIGCOV for an event that goes beyond routine coverage in reliable sources. However, my nominiaton is mostly about verifiability (deletion reason 7). Attempts to find reliable sources to verify the claims in the Alo and Eshomoy articles have failed. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 13:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked all the sources and citations given in the Bengali Language Wikipedia which still states 600 killed and most of the citations were self-blog pages uploaded back in 2021-2022. For reference heres the bengali wikipedia নাফ যুদ্ধ. And self blog pages like [12], [13] . None of the official Bangladesh media like BBC Bangla or Prothom Alo states 600 Myanmar army were killed, instead it was just a clash. Also, it's not accurate to refer to it as a "war." It should be termed "Clashes in the Naf River". Next adding to that, I haven't been able to find any coverage of this war from Western media either. That said, I believe this article is unnecessary and I strongly request its deletion. Tuwintuwin (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, the commenter’s name and account appear to be new. However, it is a sockpuppet and blocked, so how are they still commenting?Wikipedia: Sockpuppet investigations/Tuwintuwin/Archive

@Yue & @PhilKnight, please check if there is any connection. Tanvir Rahat (talk) 08:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tuwintuwin was unblocked following a successful unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 09:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. The user who asked for its WP:REFUND did nothing significant so far. Cited with blogspots and no sign of authoritative sources are to be found. Garuda ^Talk! 21:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There might be issues with WP:NPOV but I can see a lot of WP:RS discussing this conflict, passes WP:GNG. Za-ari-masen (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which RS discusses the conflict beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage? EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 13:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of classical music composers by era

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

The long list uses no sources thus violating WP:V and has no inclusion criteria, essentially, the composers are chosen arbitrarily, thus going against WP:LISTCRITERIA. On top of it, the list is practically unusable, as the content is not searchable, so it is not possible to locate a composer unless one knows the dates of his life - but with this knowledge there is little use for a timeline. A reader of this AfD might try, for example to locate Cesar Cui as an exercise. The same Cesar Cui was part of The Five, but it is almost impossible to decipher from the chosen way of representation, as the pieces of timeline are split arbitrarily, thus creating false impression of periodic composers' mass extinctions, like the one in 1610 (section "Renaissance era"). As a result, The Five's lives are literally cut into pieces. We already have Lists of composers#Western classical period that are way more readable, so an issue of WP:CFORK also pops up. Викидим (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per WP:WDAFD. Reason: WP:SNOW due to little support. --Викидим (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Music. Shellwood (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Redirects to Lists of composers#Era have been reverted several times. Noting there has been discussion about how the timeline has limited functionality. – The Grid (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even if it had sources, this thing would still be an unencyclopedic mess. That and the impossibility of imposing inclusion criteria make deletion the only possible choice. I suppose such a chart could possibly be used in a much more limited way, say among a group of composers for whom inclusion criteria can be established, like The Five or Les Six. But even so, it wouldn't be encyclopedic. As it stands, on top of the reasons given by nominator, this would still qualify for deletion according to WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and History. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I looked for a list of composers by 'timeline' and this was my first glance. I understand the reasons to delete, but the colors make for ease of use. What do you recommend in stead? Rcpeace (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has been around forever, has had over 2 million views in less than a decade, so some people must find it useful. Unusually for a list, all the entries have linked articles, so references are very easily found. I'm not impressed by the other arguments in the nom, and would like to hear how deletion would actually improve the encyclopedia. Probably its a good thing to recognise Cesar Cui's distinct individuality for a change. Johnbod (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cesar Cui came into discussion in a trivial way: I had earnestly tried to search for him, and found the list unusable. One can try their favorite composer, or a random one. Викидим (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he's not there. He's a very minor figure (all but unknown in the Anglosphere), and probably shouldn't be - the list doesn't claim to be exhaustive. That's no reason to delete the thing. Johnbod (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two funny things here are: (1) Russian The Five (just like French Les Six) is an important part of the Western musical culture, so Cui is never left off the important composer's lists (even though he is likely to be the weakest one of the Five, a long period of rubbing shoulders with Modest Mussorgsky and Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov resulted in some of their gold dust rubbing onto him as well). He is therefore present in these diagrams, naturally. (2) Your (and initially mine) inability to find Cui in this mishmash of colored graphs, with no sorting or search capabilities, highlights my issue with this article: graphics is only useful if it is easier to read than plain text. This one isn't easy to read at all.

I am not denying the usefulness (and potential WP:verifiability) of the list of composers, graphic timelines, horizontal colored bars with composer's name on them. I have very limited, but IMHO grave issues with the particular way of presenting composers chosen in this article: for starters, as we both now know, there is no easy way to establish if a particular composer is in or out. Therefore, even if a WP:RS for this particular list can be found (I very much doubt it), WP:V is practically impossible due to the chosen way of presentation. Викидим (talk) 06:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should be the job of categories. We don't need separate articles for this. Agletarang (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move: We could move this to be a part of the project vital articles for composers, so it wouldn't be WP:CIRC if it's in the same article. Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Johnbod (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's the problem? Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikieditor662: Your initial comment is difficult to interpret. What do you mean by "we could move this to be a part of the project vital articles for composers"? Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at WP:VA, specifically Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Artists, musicians, and composers#Western art music. This VA palcement sort of thing was suggested to me in the past for a different timeline. Does this clarify? Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. Are you suggesting that the article only include composers whose articles have been listed at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Artists, musicians, and composers#Western art music? Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that way it's more objective. Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see a direct relationship between these two lists : the Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Artists, musicians, and composers#Medieval and Renaissance section contains 26 names, while in the article being discussed the "Medieval" section contain 50 names, and "Renaissance" 62. With three overlapping entries, there is an apparent grand total of 109 (note that counting was done manually (there seems to be no easy way to quickly establish the precise count), so I may be of by 1 or 2. Incidentally, if we can agree on much shorter lists, the issue of WP:V becomes much easier to solve, finding multiple lists of about 100 influential composers of all times in the literature is trivial (off-topic: these short lists will not include an entry on Cui - but will mention him). Викидим (talk) 06:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, are you in favor or against this? Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are two votes from me right at the top. By now, I had withdrawn my own nomination. Викидим (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve upon by adding more text. Someone went through a lot of work to create those charts. Would be a damn shame to delete it. Many incoming links would go broken too. I for one happen to find it very entertaining and educational. -- œ^™ 06:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Textbook WP:HARDWORK argument. Come on. The backlinks can be fixed easily too. – The Grid (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah so what. That page lists every argument every heard in a deletion discussion. Doesn't make them all totally invalid. Everything should be taken on a case-by-case basis. -- œ^™ 09:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the topic has been addressed as a set in multiple reliable sources. Added a few very basic ones. Meets WP:NLIST. WP:V is not violated nor is the list indiscriminate. The inclusion criteria is based on sources, not an arbitrary decision. One can make that clearer in the intro or on the TP -Mushy Yank. 14:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Comment~~ I'm struggling to understand why a list of wiki-notable classical composers does not meet NLIST - any bibliographic dictionary of music is treating the set as a set, surely? What's the argument for deletion here? Verifiability is a content policy that is a good reason to remove content, but not to delete an entire article when large parts of it are indeed verifiable. I could see an argument to split this and move the charts into their respective lists, but again that's not a rationale for deletion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with such a list in general, as long as it is usable, has some criteria (which might be "every composer that already has an article" - this is not the case now), and some sources. However, we already have such List of classical composers - which is not this one. So, this is a duplicate that (1) is almost unusable (cannot be searched unlike the other one), (2) has no sources (the other one has hundreds), (3) has no criteria (it does not seem that any criteria was applied to select the entries), (4) missing important information (school, works, etc. are present in the other list). So, we can easily see the violation of not just WP:NLIST, but also MOS:LIST, WP:V, and WP:CFORK. Moving the timelines to other lists as illustrations might be IMHO an acceptable solution, as our readers are used to a lot of pictures that require them to squint in order to see the fine details. While doing the move, maybe we can also remove - unsearchable - hyperlinks that make very hard-to-read color combinations (cf. the Philippe Verdelot entry in List of classical music composers by era#Renaissance era) or simply use contrasting colors for the text on the bars (once the diagrams are split into different articles, a much better supply of pastel backgrounds is available for each one (cf. the perfectly readable List of classical music composers by era#Romantic era). Викидим (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are a rationale for deletion though. MOS compliance is important but never sufficient to remove an otherwise viable article. Non-notable entries are added to lists all the time - that doesn't make the scope suddenly nonviable. Fundamentally, meeting NLIST is not changed by the current state of the article, only by whether the scope as we choose to define it is treated as a topic by RS, and it is, in this case. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don’t see any solid argument in favour of deletion, and pretty much all encyclopedias of classical music have a chart like this, so the ‘unencyclopedic’ point makes no sense. Mccapra (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Comment - This AfD was withdrawn by the nominator three days ago; their withdrawal decision is near the top of the page but was added after the most recent vote by Mccapra near the bottom. I attempted a "Withdrawn" non-admin close but that created an error that I can't figure out, so an Admin may have to handle that. Regardless, the discussion seems to be over. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed logarithmic timeline

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

Besides the unique format in which events are presented, neither this article nor its simple counterpart (which I am also nominating here) appear to offer much else of encyclopedic value that wouldn't be possible to find in any of the pages listed within Timelines of world history. They could arguably be analogous to the graphical timelines for the Big Bang and the heat death.

This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. My goal isn't to get these articles deleted, but to see how they would fare when held up against the scrutiny of an AfD discussion such as this one. If this discussion ends in favor of retention, the Keep arguments should be able to give curious onlookers a better understanding of why either article ought to be kept around. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My vote is to delete. This timeline is a reflection of a combination of historical topics that can be covered by other articles. We already have Human history, History of Earth, and Chronology of the universe, so this article is redundant. Interstellarity (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is my favorite wikipedia article! The logarithmic timescale vs. linear scale(s) provides a focus on things and events, in sequence, rather than time or topics. this amalgamates the different aspects that make up humanity, nature and the universe, regardless of categorization. My vote is keep. 178.197.219.230 (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm torn on this one. I like the combination of information that allows laypeople to make sense, which is a valid reason to keep. On the other hand, every article now needs significant coverage, which might be difficult to find. Ping me. Bearian (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep page logarithmic timeline. Expressing time in the logarithmic scale is a legitimate approach for analyzing many different phenomena - see Google Scholar search [14]. I think the "detailed timeline" is also a legitimate page, but it must be a lot less detailed by focusing only on the most important events. My very best wishes (talk) 04:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I am definitely for keeping another page, Logarithmic timeline also linked to this AfD discussion. As about the "Detailed logarithmic timeline", I am less sure, but it seems to pass the criteria for lists, it is sourced, and is not an outright duplication of any other list pages because it uses a different time scale. My very best wishes (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very unusual article, it should be deleted along all the other graphical and non graphical timelines articles that have been erased recently.--ReyHahn (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not only is this my favorite Wikipedia page as well, it also is easy to understand and goes through just about everything important. It's not too excessive or too short. Yeah there's a few grammatical errors and spelling errors but those can be fixed! Not only that but if you delete this page, it will mean that we would have to go and hunt and search around for a lot of separate pages for a complete and continuous timeline, if you know what I mean. With this page you have it all right here and you don't have to go to multiple pages. CreatureDominic (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: !keep votes, kindly provide proper rationale per P&Gs and sources indicating the relevance of keeping this article as a standalone.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both The detailed time line is an indiscriminate collection of factoids, largely unsourced and completely lacking standards for inclusion. Yes, it has hundreds of little blue clicky linky numbers, but it would need thousands. Why Euclid and Eratosthenes and not Thales, Eupalinos, Hipparchus, Hypatia...? Why Brahe and not Kepler? Why Boyle, Huygens, and Hooke and not Christopher Wren? Why Descartes (twice) and not Isaac Barrow, Nicole Oresme, any of the Bernoullis... Why Mozart and Beethoven and not Tchaikovsky? Why the telegraph and telephone but not television? And the less detailed one is synthesis. The concept of a timeline is encyclopedic, but the idea of making the axis logarithmic is just a convenient display convention, not a separate concept that needs a page unto itself. XOR'easter (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. I tried once to rewrite it, but it should either be started from scratch or be deleted. Even if the format is fine (though I disagree), the content is problematic. The Future starts with the following: Proposed launch of the CNSA's Shensuo. Planned launch of the IMAP. Planned launches of the Solar Cruiser, SWFO-L1, and the Lunar Trailblazer. Planned launch of NASA's SPHEREx probe. Expo 2025 in Osaka, Japan. 2025 Polish presidential election. Planned launch of Luna 27. .... Shensuo seems to be cancelled, Solar Cruiser was just proposed and is not planned, Expo 25 and Polish elections are just local news, not something that should be in the timeline of world history, and Luna 27 is likely to be postponed or rescheduled multiple times. And the whole list is like this, just a collection of future events, with many that will never happen or wouldn't have any lasting impact. Artem.G (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cute gimmick but it definitely makes no sense as a navigational aid, as a timeline, or anything. Logarithmic timelines can be cute illustrations but I doubt a text, encyclopedia-article logarithmic timeline has any definite purpose for an end user, it has no clear inclusion criteria for entries, time intervals are arbitrary, and it seems a nightmare to maintain.--cyclopia ^speak! 16:31, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20th century in Russia

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

Page duplicates Timeline_of_Russian_history#20th_century. DeemDeem52 (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Russia. DeemDeem52 (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't? 20th century in Russia is a collection of links to "[year] in Russia" articles starting with 1991 in Russia and ending with 2000 in Russia (so it's "Russia" in the sense of the Russian Federation, specifically—not the Russian Empire or Russian SFSR). Timeline of Russian history#20th century is entirely different. The article does however duplicate part of List of years in Russia—was that what you meant? I'll note that 21st century in Russia redirects to Timeline of Russian history#21st century. TompaDompa (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you -- List of years in Russia is indeed what I meant. DeemDeem52 (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the benefit of having this article in addition to List of years in Russia (they are both purely navigational collections of links to articles, and this one is a proper subset of the other one), so it would be appropriate for it to redirect there. However, given that 21st century in Russia redirects to Timeline of Russian history#21st century, I suppose this should instead redirect to Timeline of Russian history#20th century for consistency. Either way, redirect. TompaDompa (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hindu empires and dynasties

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

The article contains significant inaccuracies. The term "Hinduism" is not applicable to the time periods of ancient era, as only Brahmanism was present. The article incorrectly categorizes several non-Hindu dynasties as Hindu, spreading misinformation and distorting historical facts. This misrepresentation goes against the core WP:NPOV and WP:V. The article fails to cite WP:RS, and promoting various hoax in terms of factual accuracy in listing. Mr.Hanes Talk 14:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Hinduism, Lists, Asia, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Brunei, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Maldives, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Iran, India, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, low quality is not the same as lack of notability. In this case, there is no doubt that there have been many dynasties in India (however that region is construed). Citations definitely can be found; most of the entries are clearly correct; the rest can certainly be remedied by normal editing, which is not an AfD matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of Indian empires and dynasties as the most states on the list were actually Indian or situated in Indian subcontinent. In this sense renaming would be appropriate. Mehedi Abedin 23:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything in that list is in Indian subcontinent. Some are from southeast asia, such as Majapahit and Srivijaya. They are among the two biggest Hindu empire outside India. The only reason that it looks insignificant because the list is very poorly written, making them easy to miss. - Ivan530 (Talk) 19:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have many other lists, like List of princely states of British India (by region), separately List of princely states of British India (alphabetical), List of Rajput dynasties and states, List of dynasties and rulers of Rajasthan. To avoid even more duplication, I think that continuing the current scope (sticking to the Hindu kingships would be wise). Викидим (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree, the Hinduism is of later origin, whereas in place of modern Hinduism, Brahmanism was present in ancient India. The article inaccurately cites several non-Hindu dynasties as Hindu, which is historically incorrect and misleading. Nxcrypto Message 05:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along the lines of WP:TNT due to WP:OR. I have spent a significant amount of time trying to figure out the origins of dates and locations in this list, and can testify that the format of a list is uniquely unsuitable for looking at really deep layers of Indian history. Essentially (please note that I am not an expert and not even an amateur in this area, so please take this with a grain of salt), there is no written history that pre-dates the 1st millennium AD, and no chronicles for a long time even after that, the first definite royal dates apparently are from the times of Guptas. While this is generally not a problem for a researcher, putting a verifiable date of an early Indian history into a table is usually not possible. Note the cite requests I added to all the dates of the 2nd millennium BC, predictably, no sources were added. As a practical example, let's take the first entry in the list (it actually became the first after I have removed the earlier mythical empires with completely random dates to the bottom of the list), Kuru kingdom. This list states 1900BC (note the exactness), our own article says 1200 BC. The issue in reality is so much harder than our articles portrays, there are tons of texts written trying to date this (non-mythical!) kingdom. Quoting our Kuru kingdom: The main contemporary sources for understanding the Kuru kingdom are the Vedas. But ... practically all historians agree that Vedas were written down in the 1 millennium AD and thus cannot be "contemporary" if 1200 BC date is to be believed, and also contain very little in terms of dates in general, and definitely nothing so precise for the Kuru Kingdom. As an example of a professional's assessment of Kuru, one might want to look at Michael Witzel's work, The Realm of the Kuru: Origins and Development of the First State in India. He plainly states: our approach has primarily to be a textual one; there remains little else that can tell us something about this period ... yet after some 150 years of study, the Vedic period as a whole does not seem to have a history. He continues: the first fixed date in Indian history that is usually mentioned is that of the Buddha around 500 BCE. In an earlier work Early Sanskritization. Origins and development of the Kuru state Witzel states, The evolvement of the small tribal Bharata domination into that of a much larger Kuru realm is not recorded by our texts. The Kurus suddenly appear on the scene in the post-Rigvedic texts. Once again, there is nothing wrong with this material, but it cannot be neatly packed into a table. Therefore, the only way for us to write this list is to find a modern chronological source and base the list on it. Attempts to haphazardly create our own list based on disjoint sources will miserably fail as the purest WP:OR. Until such a source is found and agreed upon, this list will only sow confusion among our readers. Once the source is found, the list will have to be written from scratch anyhow. Personally, I would propose to start with [15] (please read the one-paragraph introduction!). --Викидим (talk) 06:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looking at the article, though not well written, i will go for keeping it. There is always scope for improvement in this area. Rahmatula786 (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this a topic that is covered in this particular way by WP:Reliable sources? We can't really keep this if it isn't. TompaDompa (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, that so-called topic Hindu empires and dynasties in this specific form is not covered by reliable sources. Most scholarly works discuss these kingdoms in terms of regional history, political evolution, or religious influences, but not as a consolidated list with a clear focus on "Hindu" identity. This leads to a reliance on synthesis and original research, violating WP:V and WP:NOR. The article perpetuates inaccuracies by including non-Hindu dynasties and presenting speculative timelines, which distorts history. Mr.Hanes Talk 04:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IN my search for sources, I have discovered few Hindu kingdom lists, but they were much shorter and quite focused on some aspect of the total set. Викидим (talk) 06:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom Koshuri Sultan (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question What's the definition for "Hindu empire / dynasties" here? Because from the list's lead and Kingship (Hinduism) I assume that it's Empire / dynasties that adopt Hinduism as it's religion. But from the way it's mentioned in this discussion multiple times, it might means something else. Am I missing something? - Ivan530 (Talk) 06:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to my modifications of the lead, it read The following list enumerates Hindu empires and dynasties in chronological order. Pinging @Fidolex: who wrote it back in 2018. My interpretation was simple: Hindu indicated adherence to Hinduism, not some particular geography of era, so I have added a link to the (newly created) Kingship (Hinduism) in 2024. Researchers routinely use terms like "Hindu kingdoms/dynasties" to denote the monarchies that were based on Hinduism principles, similar to other state religions, so this interpretation is not my WP:OR. See, for example, [16]. Викидим (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be the best way to decide this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sourced, well-structured and illustrated. A helpful timeline. Might be renamed List of Hindu monarchies (and the LS indicating "including empires/dynasties" etc) (or List of Hindu kingships). Improve and clean up by adding refs to Spellman, W. M. (2004). Monarchies 1000-2000. Reaktion Books., pp. 129-130, Lal, D. (2005). The Hindu Equilibrium: India C.1500 B.C. - 2000 A.D.. Oxford UP, passim and a lot of other references that together prove the topic was evidently addressed as a set in reliable sources, thus meeting WP:NLIST. -Mushy Yank. 18:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1882 in Scandinavian music

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

We have articles for 1882 in Norwegian music (where this article was an unattributed copy from), 1880s in Danish music, 1882 in Finnish music and 1880s in Swedish music. Comparable to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 in Scandinavian music. Fram (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated for the same reasons:

Fram (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This nomination appears to have been made because User:Fram failed to notice previously that the article existed and doesn't believe that Scandinavia is a clearly-defined region. This isn't a copy of 1882 in Norwegian music; in fact, content of that article has been copied from 1882 in Scandinavian music just to try to prove a point. Who is going to maintain all these "Music in" articles for separate countries? Will they even be completed? Deb (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2017 version of 1882 in Norwegian music [17]: in your article 1882 in Scandinavian music you have the same three entries with the exact same reference (even down to the copied access-date). Please tell me how you achieved this without copying the older Norway article? Fram (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They're not copies, they are used in a thoughtful way; the wording is not identical. Not that this has anything to do with the proposed deletion of the article. Deb (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added 1881 in Scandinavian music to this nomination, as the same reasons apply. Fram (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- in a previous version of this article, now at 1880s in Danish music, I had removed an entry where the sources indicate that the year is unknown (early 1880s), not certain to be 1881; another entry where the only link with 1881 is that the much earlier event is described in a letter from that year, hardly something important for 1881; and had corrected the title of a work. The claims of "Who is going to maintain all these "Music in" articles" when they are started as unattributed copies of someone else's work, and then expanded with such entries, ring rather hollow. Fram (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Once again you are being careless with the truth. The only reason these single-country articles exist is that you have just created them in order to make a point. There is simply not enough material to build them. Deb (talk) 08:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  The Norway article existed long before you created the Scandinavia one. As you are well aware of course, since you started your creation by copying entries from that page with minor adjustments. And the suggestion below, which I already did in part, is to change them into decades-articles, because they will otherwise indeed be rather empty. Fram (talk) 09:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  See User talk:Knuand#2016 in Scandinavian music for a full explanation of why these articles exist. Deb (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I just don't see the justification for a page, or any compelling reason to intersect Scandinavia, music and an individual year. Moreover, Finland was a part of the Russian Empire at the time. Geschichte (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, it was the Grand Duchy of Finland - that's why it's not appropriate to create year articles for Finland before this date, as Fram is attempting to do. Deb (talk) 08:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Years of the 19th century in Finland. Fram (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that proves my point. Deb (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge If Scandinavian music is an entity itself, then the national articles should be merged to the regional ones. If the national identity is more important, then the regional article should be deleted. There's not a need for this sort of duplication. Either way, for this kind of narrow topic, I'd rather see them as 1880s in X music instead of individual years; when there's not enough info for standalone articles, presenting them with broader context is better. Reywas92^Talk 23:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
agreed, I started with individual years but have changed some into decade articles, will probably do the same for the other ones. Fram (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So basically, your plan is to remove individual year articles and put the material I've already created into decade articles. And what are you going to do about the years between 1882 and 2009? I'm not going to do the work for you. Deb (talk) 08:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to create the articles in the way consensus seems to be trending (not for Scandinavia as a whole, but by country), then you don't create these articles, simple. No idea why you only want to do this if it can happen as "year in Scandinavia" and not as "decade in Denmark" and so on (which will result in half the number of pages, should make life easier). Fram (talk) 09:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, great, let's just have an article for every ten years and leave out all the detail. But where does that leave your argument about "duplication"? Deb (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Deb. As far as I can tell from what I found in Google Books, "Scandinavian music" is a thing. You'll find books on "Scandinavian music" generally, and comments such as "Scandinavian music as a whole" [18] and "Scandinavian music . . . is distinctive" and is "a school": [19]. You will find, even in English, Billboard spotlight "review of the year" articles on Scandanavian music in 1971, 1972, 1973, 1979, 1981 and probably every other year, though I can't search the entire run. And Scandanavia has had music periodicals since at least the 18th century: [20]. And I think that indicates that most years in Scandanavian music are likely notable. James500 (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2015 in Scandinavian music

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

We have individual pages for 2015 in Danish music and the other 4 Scandinavian countries, there is no reason to have another page grouping these 5 as well, "Scandinavian music" is not some monolithic block or typical genre.

The same applies to these other years as well:

Fram (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. Fram (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree that the concept of "Scandinavian music" is a nonstarter. Though there are only 3 countries in Scandinavia and not 5, there is not that much overlap between the music scenes as to constitute a common sphere. The information about individual concerts and even festivals is not encyclopedically relevant and should be burnt with fire. Relevant albums should be mentioned in country-specific pages where applicable (i.e. 2015 in Swedish music – the albums might already be mentioned there, though). Since there is no one target to redirect to, delete all. Geschichte (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The creation of such articles should be purely country-based. Orientls (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. The suggestion that we have articles on music for these individual countries is erroneous. Where are 2024 in Danish music, 2024 in Norwegian music, 2024 in Finnish music, 2024 in Swedish music? Scandinavia is as clear-cut a region as is Ireland. Why remove useful information with nothing to replace it? I'm baffled as to the reason for this nomination. Deb (talk) 09:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- 2024 in Scandinavian music is not up for deletion. For the nominated years, we do have individual articles for Norway, Denmark, ... Fram (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  So why would you delete a range of articles in the middle of a range of articles that are being kept up to date, in order to replace it with a range of incomplete articles whose creator was blocked years ago and hasn't returned? Deb (talk) 10:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - The other Scandinavia ones should later be deleted after the necessary country articles have been made, and no new Scandinavia ones should be created. Funny, by the way, that the original creator was blocked for copyvio, while you created e.g. the 2015 in Scandinavia page by an unattributed copy of all his work at the 2015 in Norway page. Fram (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Cut it out, right now. You haven't achieved consensus as yet. Deb (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "should later be deleted" =/= now. Fram (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - These are lists that appear to fail the WP:NLIST criteria as a notable grouping discussed by reliable sources. Scandinavian Music is not a defined genre of music. Even the term Scandinavia is ill-defined - it may or may not include various territories depending upon the context. It seems these lists would be better if they followed the individual territories and can align with the current Wikipedia articles separated into territories such as Music of Iceland, Music of Finland, Music of Sweden, etc. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fram, this AFD is not formatted as a bundled nomination and so our closing editing tool, XFDcloser, will not recognize the closure decision as relevant to any articles but the one in the page title. Please look over the instructions at WP:AFD for formatting multiple article nominations so that this process is smooth for the admin who closes this discussion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I hope. Fram (talk) 08:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Deb. As far as I can tell from what I found in Google Books, "Scandinavian music" is a thing. You'll find books on "Scandinavian music" generally, and comments such as "Scandinavian music as a whole" [21] and "Scandinavian music . . . is distinctive" and is "a school": [22]. You will find, even in English, Billboard spotlight "review of the year" articles on Scandanavian music in 1971, 1972, 1973, 1979, 1981 and probably every other year, though I can't search the entire run. And Scandanavia has had music periodicals since at least the 18th century: [23]. And I think that indicates that most years in Scandanavian music are likely notable. James500 (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- But what's the point of just repeating the information on the standard by country pages into a grouped page? We are just increasing the maintenance cost for no good reason, it's not as if the entries in the Scandinavia pages are about some cross-Scandinavian things. The 2015 page Is an 80% copy of the Norway page, with some other stuff copied from the other country pages. It adds no value at all. Fram (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  As you are fully aware from the previous conversation, most of the years don't have articles for individual countries within Scandinavia. The time for this discussion is when you've created the relevant articles. Deb (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @James500:, I appreciate you finding those sources. Unfortunately, reading through them only seems to confirm that "Scandinavian Music" is an ambiguous lumping and the music articles are still written on a national basis instead. For example. the 1924 Herbert Westerby book that you cite has a brief page attempting to describe a few similar elements among Danish, Swedish, Finnish and Norwegian music -- and then spends the next 35 pages describing the pianoforte music broken down by each individual country. (Westerly does the same with his chapters combining Spain & Portugal and Austria & Germany.) I also read the 1973 Billboard Magazine and see it lumps the countries into a general section -- but all the articles and data are written about individual nations with Billboard using individual editors from each country. Unless Scandinavian Music can be defined as a unambiguous genre, it still seems to me that listing by individual country makes more sense. And removes the duplication that occurs in 2015 in European music. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - If sources say in express words that "Scandanavian music" is a thing, we may getting into the realms of original research if we try to dispute that. Our article on Nordic folk music says it is Scandanavian, and a search for "Scandanavian folk music" in GNews indicates that it still exists, see for example, this Scandinavian folk music festival in 2017: [24]. The 1981 Billboard article, for example, does contain comments about Scandanavia as a whole, such as those in the article "Copryrights gain value". That information could not be placed in the national articles. Music does not necessarily confine itself to national boundaries. The present Sovereign states did not always exist, their boundaries have repeatedly changed, and they use each others languages (eg Swedish is an official language of Finland, and is spoken in Denmark, and Finnish is spoken in Sweden). One can find, for example, articles on Swedish music in Finland, and Finnish musicians in Sweden: [25] (and that article says that a purely national perspective of music is not sufficient to address certain topics). I could argue that our national articles are "ambiguous lumpings". If, for the sake of argument, the quantity of cross-Scandanavian material were felt to be too small to support a separate article, then this page could be redirected without prejudice to 2015 in European music#Scandanavia, and the cross-Scandanavian material added there. That would not require either deletion or an AfD. I was not aware that we had articles on European music. Alternatively, one could merge into decades in Scandanavian music. James500 (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with you about music crossing national boundaries. That's my point. Your link to Nordic folk music is a good example because it also includes all the Baltic nations and Russia in a discussion of "Scandinavian folk music." Should Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Russia be included in the 2015 in Scandinavian music list because Finland is? Is Greenland included or excluded because it has a separate music tradition? We agree that music can be a mosh pit across national borders throughout the world. That is exactly what I mean by an "ill-defined lumping." The above lists in this AFD seem to require some WP:OR to determine what is or isn't included. It is better for these music lists -- which are only about dates & events -- to be grouped by well-defined national boundaries as individual nation lists (e.g. 2015 in Norwegian music, 2015 in Swedish music, etc.). That better meets the selection guideline in WP:SELCRIT and the grouping guideline in WP:NLIST. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      - Scandinavian folk music is inherently Scandinavian, and should be included in this article, regardless of where it is produced. If Scandinavian folk music was produced in Adélie Land, it would potentially belong in this article. If some of the music in the Baltic nations and Russia is Scandanavian folk music, that does not imply that the rest of their music is Scandanavian. When ABBA perform in Britain, they are performing Swedish music, and that does not imply that Rod Stewart's music is also Swedish. If a reliable source says in express words that music is Scandanavian, there is no original research involved in its inclusion in the article. The national boundaries are not well defined in relation to music. The national boundaries give no help in classifying something like Finnish-Swedish music. James500 (talk) 06:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        The entries are not about Scandinavian folk music. And that would seem like such a small niche that a "year in x" page is not warranted. Geschichte (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. "Scandinavian music" is not a notable concept. Astaire (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siam-Patani War (1638)

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

(1) The topic is already covered at Patani Kingdom#Blue and Purple Queens. There isn't nearly enough information in scholarly sources to sustain a stand-alone article. (2) Siam's campaign took place in 1634, so the erroneous title wouldn't be useful as a redirect. (3) The little existing content here is wildly inaccurate, so it wouldn't be worth keeping. Yamada died in 1630 and couldn't have had a part in the Siamese invasion. Paul_012 (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Malaysia, and Thailand. Paul_012 (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Draft of this article was declined four times at Draft:Patani-Siam War (1638). See also Draft:Siam-Patani War (1634), Draft:Siamese-Pattani War (1634), and linked SPI. Wikishovel (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Article creator has now been blocked, but not as a confirmed sock of another account, so G5 doesn't apply. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to the concern about Yamada, "1638" does not appear in the accessible book source (and the web source doesn't seem to be anything). There is a 1634 war, as in Patani Kingdom#Blue and Purple Queens, and the final sentence about 1641 does seem to be real, but related to the 1634 war. It is also already covered in Patani Kingdom#BYellow Queen and decline. So I agree with Paul_012 on his point (2) about the misleading title, and (3) in that the content is either inaccurate or already covered, whether or not their point (1) on the overall lack of sources is true. CMD (talk) 09:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since sockpuppetry is involved, let's get a clear consensus before taking action to avoid an easily contestable soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Berbera uprising

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

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

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

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

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

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

The source you mention did not explicitly discuss the killing of Abd al-Rahman Bey. I have the correspondence between British here and they simply state that it was there was a revenge killing of an Egyptian sergeant, not the Bey who was serving as governor at the time. Refer to page 8.[26] Replayerr (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article should be deleted, no secondary source mentions of such event occurring nor does the sources provided either. Replayerr (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cleethorpes Town F.C. (1901)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – It has three local newspapers in addition to at least two books of specialized literature covering the content. Considering the club existed until the late 1940s, isn't that enough? Svartner (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The books are about Grimsby Town FC, not about Cleethorpes FC. Fram (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't really see any problem with the sourcing as a quick search of the British Newspaper Archives brings up more than just local coverage and merging this into one of the other Cleethorpes Town articles doesn't really make sense, but at worst merge to the Cleethorpes Town F.C. (1884) article. SportingFlyer T·C 06:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you add some of the non-local coverage please? Giant Snowman 08:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't have access to the British Newspaper Archive apart from the search. Just trying to confirm it's notable, not improve it. SportingFlyer T·C 23:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of the "vibes of notability" comment in the relist - sources do exist and can be found, I just don't have access. SportingFlyer T·C 18:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep—If additional sources, as described above can be added to the article, I'll support keeping it more wholeheartedly. Anwegmann (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We seem to be operating on the vibes of notability more than the kinds of keep !votes that would establish consensus with this level of participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Fram. Could you describe the content to me in the first two sources: "Sport & play" and "The football field". I'm not expecting much from the first, as this looks like it would be nothing more than an announcement, but otherwise I'd be surprised if the second source, citing the club's change of name, hasn't included some coverage of the past few years of the club's history. You have explicitly stated there is only match reports, so which matches are these first two sources reporting on? Could you also explain to me how these WP:TIER3 sources are primary, rather than secondary sources that lack independence from the subject? If these are indeed secondary sources, what is the involvement with the subject, based on the content, that excludes them from SIGCOV? I'm otherwise torn on this, at present in the article there is almost certainly not enough for GNG (although, unable to verify this), and from searching through some books there was only passing coverage. I'd expect a lot more coverage from a club in involved in the early history of English football, but I also don't have access to BNA either. CNC (talk) 13:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PRIMARY: "For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources." Things like match reports are eyewitness accounts of a very recent event, not what is described in WP:SECONDARY: "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources."- I have no direct access to the sources here, but they look like match reports or recent sporting news overviews, not indepth secondary sources about the club and its history. In Vitrio (article creator) is rather thorough (which is a good thing), if the second source had more indepth info and background about the first few years of the club beyond the namechange, I'm sure it would have been included. Fram (talk) 08:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Have now been able to see the relevant snippet of the source about the name change[27], and it's a small local announcement about the playing field having sustained damage, and the namechange is just a parenthesis: "Cleethorpes Town (late St. Peter's) Football Club", so no, it has no coverage at all of the club's history. Fram (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- One issue is you are not going to get ANY secondary sources for (within a rounding error) ANY football club in the first part of the 20th century. There was no football literature outside of the football annuals, which are not readily available. And any retrospecitves or club profiles are only going to be in newspapers. The British Library's Football Compendium lists only FIFTEEN general works for the first half of the 20th century - and that includes a thesis, two general sport books with chapters on football, and two books on football in PoW camps in World War 1. Even the biggest club of the 1930s (Arsenal) did not have a single book about them in period.
But it goes back again to the point I made about Notability and recency bias. You're not going to get secondary sources about teams that are unambiguously Notable because there's not going to be a market. The wikipedia guidelines on sources simply do not work going this far back because the media environment was very different. And LITERALLY EVERY OTHER CLUB at this stage in the competition in this period has an entry, some up for a decade, and have NEVER been challenged. I question why Fram is only challenging this particular one. Not the first time Fram has challenged one of the articles I've put up - and nobody else ever has. In Vitrio (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"You're not going to get secondary sources about teams that are unambiguously Notable": if you don't have secondary sources, then they are unambiguously not notable, as it states there (bold in original): "Sources" should be secondary sources. Fram (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In which case you're wiping out ALL of football before the Second World War. Unless you count the annuals and I don't have access to them. It took until about 2018 for anyone to provide a decent secondary source for the Clapham Rovers and they were FA Cup winners. There still are none for Scottish Cup finalists like Renton or Clydesdale.

The very fact that football does not have a notability guideline shows that strict policy does not work. Otherwise it would have been a piece of cake to draft one up. One has to take it in context and in this context it is bizarre to single out one club. You haven't explained why you are only nominating this one and not every other, more obscure, club whose article has been around for a decade (I give FC Alemannia 1897 Karlsruhe or Colne Town as examples). Why is THIS ONE not Notable but the others ARE? The point about others being obviously Notable is that it encourages research into those overlooked. You're seeking to stop all that. I don't get it.

And indeed note the paradox. If this one gets deleted, why not nominate every single other club who got to the last 90 of the Cup? Because a fortiori they are not Notable either. But I've got all the drafts, so I could approach a friendly publisher, put out a book, and then there is a secondary source. Bingo. It's not logical to decree that e.g. W.O.A.C. are Notable because someone has put them in a book but Stafford Road are not because nobody has yet. They were both the same stature and notoriety in period. In Vitrio (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's how notability on Wikipedia works. If X gets the secondary sources, but equally important or more so Y doesn't, then X is notable and Y isn't. We aren't here to second-guess the sources and why they choose to include one and exclude the other, and we aren't here to write histories for subjects no reliable source so far has bothered to do this. If this means unequal treatment or your favourite subject not getting a Wikipedia article, then so be it. Fram (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
People HAVE written about Cleethorpes Town in the context of individual players' careers. There may be other sources of which I am unaware and people might use those to add in. It's not a favourite subject, by the way, never even been to Cleethorpes, but it was stumbling across something that made me realize that this was a different club from the other two Cleethorpes Towns, so needed to be split out, and having the page avoids confusion. Especially given the 1901 iteration did get to the equivalent of the FA Cup second round. As I've said, there are many clubs with less good sources and records whose pages have been up for years and nobody has challenged them. Because nobody doubts their Notability. In Vitrio (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This might be an unusual comment but we need a source analysis here if the nominator is seeking deletion (or an ATD?) becauae closers base their outcome on the arguments made and so far there is a consensus to Keep this article. The OP has said that general comments about the unsatisfactory nature of the sources but a detailed list might help justify a deletion if that is your goal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What´s the point of listing all sources individually and repeating "match report", "passing mention" 20 times? Not a single source which is indepth, not primary, and about the subject, has been presented. The closer should check if keep arguments are based on policy, not put an unnecessary extra burden on the nominator for no discernible benefit. Fram (talk) 08:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to buy me a subscription to the British Newspaper Archive? SportingFlyer T·C 20:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give the newspapers, dates and titles of the 2 or 3 articles which seem the most promising? Fram (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that there are over 2,000 hits between 1900 and 1949 alone, some of which are about town planning but most are about the football team. That includes this short list:

- Cleethorpes Town in the Final, Hull Daily Mail, 1911

- 12 January 1911, Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer

- 14 September 1906, Grimsby News

- Lincolnshire Cup, 24 November 1909, Sheffield Independent

- Cleethorpes v Scunthorpe TII, 23 March 1928, Grimsby News

- Horncastle and District Cup, 22 March 1911, Skegness News

- Boston Town Try Again, 9 May 1914, Boston Guardian

- Protest deferred, 30 October 1919, Sheffield Independent

I'm not sure if any of them would fall under our modern definition of WP:GNG, but this club was clearly consistently covered by regional papers at the time they were in existence. SportingFlyer T·C 00:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble with source analysis, as I've said above, is secondary sources in this era just do not exist, and the sources for most of the articles on most of the clubs which did not make it past World War 2 are primary. (Indeed in many cases the secondary sources are inaccurate - just look at the myths surrounding Arbroath 36–0 Bon Accord.) There may be some more recently (e.g. their Amateur Cup results are in a book from 2006), and I've set out a load in relation to the club's players, but I don't have access to everything, perhaps Lincolnshire football historians do. That I cannot find them does not mean the club is not notable. In context a club which makes the equivalent of the 2nd round of the FA Cup today is axiomatically notable.

Frankly, if this one is deleted, then you may as well delete basically every article of every football club that went bust before about 1945. I can't see how this helps wikipedia at all. In Vitrio (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It's hard for me to verify the sources, however based on whats there I feel this is fine and Grimsby Evening Telegraph is not a primary source. Govvy (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I also can't verify sources for SIGCOV, but the onus here for delete here is on the nominator given the article exists and there aren't any delete !votes. Also noting Liz's comment that there is already consensus for keep, and without any further evidence provided for delete, but instead more sources covering the subject included suggesting notability, then it's best to move this along. This is a weak keep as noting that if this was at AFC for example, it wouldn't be accepted until source analysis occurred, but this isn't at AFC. CNC (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commane

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

The term "chiefdom of Commane" is not used anywhere it seems[28][29], none of the "notable figures" bear the name Commane. Basically, "Commane" is one of many names originating with the "Ó Comáin" root, but isn't a notable one and not the name of a "chiefdom" apparently either. Simply moving the page to a different title wouldn't solve these WP:OR or WP:V issues, e.g. the first source in the lead, "Sometimes incorrectly 'translated' to Hurley camán a hurly."[30] doesn't seem supported by that source either. Fram (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Addressing the points raised, at great length

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

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

The primary sources for the Chiefdom of Commane include:

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

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

----

1. On the Spelling "Commane":

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

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

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

----

2. Historical Terminology:

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

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

----

3. Notable Figures:

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

The lineage does includes notable individuals such as:

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

Célechair mac Commáin, recorded in the Annals of Ulster and

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

Coman of Kinvara, Saint

Colmán mac Comán the second abbot listed in the Irish annals

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

----

4. Verifiability and Sources:

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

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

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

----

At the footer of the page other sources are noted:

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

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

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

As long as you insist on using "Chiefdom of Commane" when not a single reliable source uses this, I have no interest in even looking at what else you state. Your article seems like a coatrack of everything loosely related to the name, from a long section on a clan or chiefdom to a list of non-notable people named Commane or Comman and a list of notable people not named Commane, and so on. "The reference to "Commane" was chosen because it’s the most anglicised form of "Ó Comáin," aligning with the context of an English-language encyclopedia." Not according to "The Oxford Dictionary of Family Names of Ireland", which doesn't even give Commane a separate entry (or even a "see at" reference), but mentions it once under the entry for Cummins[31], which you are well aware off, since you copied the whole section "Early bearers and historical records" literally from that source. Do I really need to restart the proposal at WP:ANI, considering that the previous problems all seem to persist? @Asilvering: has there been any attempt to get the mentoring or feedback which was supposed to happen after that previous discussion? Fram (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

a broad range of sources are on the page, like this:[32] Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're welcome to buy the 500 page book (available in PDF) and review the source material for yourself:[33] Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This [34] is the much more recent book by that scholar, not his PhD thesis, and that book uses "The Burial Mound of Commán" (once) or the Irish name, not "Commane". The term Commane does not appear in that book. Fram (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment. As it stands I wonder if this should perhaps be Draftified. Until some of the sourcing and formatting and WP:OR concerns are addressed. (Certainly, for an article in the mainspace, I was surprised to see a number of relatively small formatting, tagging and tweaking edits that I had made completely reverted. Almost certainly in error. But implying that, perhaps, the title is not yet "fully formed" - to the extent that it's "ready" for the main article namespace.) Guliolopez (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Guliolopez I think we may have been editing the article at the same time, my apologies if I inadvertently caused any issues, it certainly wasn't intentional. Since then, it looks like you've made some recent edits, and I hope everything is now in order. On that note, I originally added several notes and quotes in the citations similar to the ones you've included on the page, to help it make more sense but they were removed by another editor. You can see this in the page's edit history. Regarding your comment in the history section, these topics are being discussed on the Talk page, your input would be most welcome there. Thank you! Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly huge amounts of original research, incorrect or poorly-formatted citations, inclusion of barely relevant detail, and much else wrong (if you want examples of all, see the "Variants and distribution" section)—a really very subpar article. Obviously, a hatchet-job is needed even if Kellycrak88 is able to justify notability, but as I cannot see any evidence of significant coverage of the article subject, delete. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with the assertion that the article contains original research or invalid sources.

The content draws from reliable publications, especially the works of Dr Gibson, a professor of anthropology with a PhD in Irish chiefdoms. His 500-page dissertation (Tulach Commáin: A View of an Irish Chiefdom) and later book (From Chiefdom to State in Early Ireland) are well-respected and often cited by other scholars.

Of course, the article could use some improvements, particularly in formatting and trimming less relevant details. I’m more than happy to collaborate further on this, as I’ve already worked with several editors to refine it.

Given the robust scholarly sources and the historical importance of the subject, I believe the article meets notability standards. I’m open to further feedback and willing to keep working to ensure it adheres to Wikipedia’s guidelines.

(Tulach Commáin translates to "The Mound of Commán," anglicised to Commane, with Tulach meaning Hill, Mount or Fort.)

Lastly, I think this is important: the old English spoken and written 500 or 1,000 years ago would be nearly incomprehensible to us today. The same applies to Irish. This chiefdom was in the 8th–9th century, and variations in the spelling of Irish names, later anglicised phonetically by English officials in Ireland, reflect linguistic changes over time. From an English perspective, this might seem like an odd concept, but it’s an integral part of understanding Irish historical and cultural context. Kellycrak88 (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- But the article isn't about the chiefdom or about the fort (which already has an article, Cahercommaun), it's about the surname. Fram (talk) 08:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Cahercommaun also known as Caher Commane (National library of Ireland and Clare Library.) is an archaeological site and according to Gibson it's the capital of the Chiefdom of Tulach Commáin which is a separate site nearby for burial and inauguration.
  
  One of the spellings Gibson used was Commán (anglicised to Commane) referring to the 8th-century locally revered chief that was buried there, descendants were "son of" which in modern day Standard Irish form is: Ó Comáin.
  
  @Fram if your main objection is the anglicised surname Commane, and it's variants (which is obviously connected with the site and in the citations) - what if we change the title to the Irish Gaelic Ó Comáin, at least it can be agreed all the variants share the same root.
  
  Even though the letter Ó no one will type into a keyboard as this is an English and not Gaelic encyclopedia.
  
  There are mamy examples of historical Irish names using the anglicised version on Wikipedia.
  
  Complex example: CLANCY instead of the Iirsh Mac Fhlannchaidh/Mac Fhlannchadha
  
  Simply example: O'BRIEN instead of the Irish Ó Briain Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - The objection is that you are treating different subjects together, and have taken a rarely used name as the main topic and have twisted every remotely related thing to be about Commane. Even your reply here, I was not commenting on Cahercommaun vs. Cahercommane at all, but you somehow need to add that one is also known by the other name as if that has anything to do with my post. And even then you can't correctly represent the source material or the facts; it is not "Caher Commane" but "Cahercommane". So no, while changing the title would be somewhat better, my preference remains to simply delete this POV coatrack article, and to let others create articles about the chiefdom and if needed disambiguation ones for the name or names (separately), just like we have at Coman already. But an article trying to discuss at the same time a chiefdom, a fort, and naming origins (with OR about the Irish vs Scottish and so on) is a bad idea, and to have all of it shoehorned into a "Commane is the main form" sauce on top makes it a lot worse still. Fram (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn’t put a space between Caher Commane and "Cahercommane” to highlight for the benefit of the reader on this thread. Kellycrak88 (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it contains original research Kellycrak88. If you disagree, please provide relevant quotations for the "Variants and distribution" section from the books you currently have cited for that section. If you could also cease from using AI-generation in your responses, that would be useful. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was curious, so I pasted my response into an AI detector, and it said “0% of text is likely AI-generated.”

I could go through the citations, but I’m trying to keep my responses short. So in the spirit of collaboration, we can delete that section if it’s causing anguish. However, deleting the entire article feels like overkill.

Yesterday, I picked up a new book from Clare Library with additional information about the Commane Chiefdom, which could warrant its own article. I’m open to creating a separate page dedicated entirely to the chiefdom. But this article is about on the surname, its variants, and origin, which is the chiefdom and this page only has a small section on the chiefdom, there’s a 500 page dissertation and other sources on the subject. Also there are many other irish name pages that have an origin story or history in this style, I’ll get some links to show if required.

Let me know if you’d like further changes. Kellycrak88 (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this needs input by people who have not commented before. Please avoid WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion to death by replying to everything at length.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment move and trim. Seems to me that the page would be better at Ó Comáin and possibly could be trimmed of the OR. I'm not sure how this could be done, to be clear. JMWt (talk) 11:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JMWt, AFDs can't be closed with a "Move" outcome as that is an editing decision. If you want that result, you need to argue to Keep this article and then a page title change can be discussed on the talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well that seems counter-intuative. I can't !vote for keep as the page currently presents. I could possibly if the name was different. I'll unbold. JMWt (talk) 08:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further thoughts: my reasoning is this: the OR in the body of the page appears to extend to the title. And the title itself is an assertion that doesn't seem to be supported by the sources. There are sources that seem to refer to the alternative title which seems barely mentioned in the text. For me, it's a mess. JMWt (talk) 08:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reminding participants that this debate is about the notability of the subject. Both the content and the title can be changed editorially, if the article is kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @OwenX the article has already been relisted twice, many editors have contributed and on the article Talk page there is consensus for collective edits. One of the editors deleted a whole section commenting "per article author's refusal to provide quotes at AfD" I was not refusing, I was already scolded here for my comprehensive replies, so to keep my response short I agreed to the removing that section for reaching consensus. One of the main sources for variations is in Griffith's not to mention the other citations. If you compare it's certainly not original research. @OwenX I believe we've gone through the motions and it should now be published. Kellycrak88 (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kellycrak88, it is not me you need to convince, but the other participants in this debate. My job here is limited to reading consensus among participants, as viewed through the filter of policy and guidelines. Owen× ☎ 21:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

as mentioned I believe we are at consensus, all participants have extensively edited the article and gone through the sources - article seems to be in limbo at the moment with constant relisting Kellycrak88 (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the other participants here to be particularly shy. If they had changed their mind and now agree with you, I'm sure they would have said so here. This type of misrepresentation will not help your case here. Nothing is "in limbo". The AfD will be closed when consensus is clear or when it had run its course. Your bludgeoning will not expedite the process, and might get you blocked from participating here. This is your second and final warning. Owen× ☎ 21:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of al-Qarn (1160)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Striking this !vote as a compromise no one else seems to be interested in. --Richard Yin (talk) 08:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom

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

Keep Per WP:SIGCOV, "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." The sourcing in this article is not good (3 of the French sources provide information about Muhriz ibn Ziyad (under the spelling Mohriz), but do not mention the name al-Qarn (or not under that spelling)), although La Berbérie orientale sous les Zīrīdes, Xe-XIIe siècles has information about this on 4 pages. However, there do appear to be sources: on a quick Google Books search, I found Cahiers de civilisation médiévale, Volume 11 (1968) and Ibn Khaldun and the Medieval Maghrib Volume 1 (1999), both of which only provide snippet views - but having at least two sources in English suggests that more would be available in French or Arabic. The article needs more sources that actually reference this battle. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both of the sources you cited provide only passing mentions of the topic. They provide little meaningful information and fail to justify the need for a standalone article.

For instance, this source states "La counquête de l'Ifriqiya (1159–1160), précédée d'un soulèvement des villes occupées par les Normands, se termine, elle aussi, par une grande défaite hilalienne au Gabal al-Qarn (1160)." = "The conquest of Ifriqiya (1159–1160), preceded by an uprising of the cities occupied by the Normans, also ended with a great Hilalian defeat at Gabal al-Qarn (1160)."

As for the other source, while I have limited access to it, it appears to echo the same point in passing—that the Hilalians lost to the Almohads in 1160. Skitash (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Non-english sources must be considered fully when discussing notability. The discussion is unclear, so far, about whether the French sources are sufficient to establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Three of the sources provided clearly describe the battle. Two don’t that I can see and an Arabic search didn’t throw up anything else. Possibly redirect to Almohad Caliphate#Caliphate and expansion as ATD if there’s no consensus to keep. Mccapra (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. So far, we have arguments to Delete, Keep, Draftify and even Redirect. If we can't come to a consensus here, this discussion is likely to close as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The reasons brought forward for deletion are insufficient, especially the lack of English-language sources, which is never a requirement for anything. Cortador (talk) 11:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have analysed the chronology and coverage of the Almohad campaigns in English and other-language sources. This article is a heavy corruption of the events detailed in Battle of Sétif, a battle which occurred in 1153. If you compare the two articles, you will see that the events are largely identical, with slightly altered names (Djebbâra ben Kâmil vs Gabbara ibn Kamil, Mas’oûd ben Zemmâm el-Ballât’ vs Ma'sud ibn Zaamam, etc.) I kindly ask Cortador, Mccapra, and RebeccaGreen to review the above argument and their !votes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete changing !vote to delete based on the case set out by AirshipJungleman29. There isn’t enough here to support an article. Mccapra (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AirshipJungleman29, with thanks for the source analysis. --Richard Yin (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History Proposed deletions

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

History categories

for occasional archiving

Proposals

^
- *: https://archive.org/details/register-sudhnoti-english-version_20250110/page/48/mode/1up
  
  *:Number two: There are no sources about the founder of the state, Jassi Khan Saduzai
  
  *:The answer to this question is also in this link of the book, open it👇
  
  *:https://archive.org/details/register-sudhnoti-english-version_20250110/page/35/mode/1up
  
  *: Number three: Is there no source to defeat Nawab Jas Khan's brother in 1407?
  
  *:The answer to this question is also in this link of the book, open it👇
  
  *:https://archive.org/details/register-sudhnoti-english-version_20250110/page/32/mode/1up
  
  And Please also see these references, open the book link, thank you.👇
  
  :https://archive.org/details/register-sudhnoti-english-version_20250110/page/33/mode/1up
^ https://ur.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B3%D8%AF%DA%BE%D9%86%D9%88%D8%AA%DB%8C_%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA
^ https://ur.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B3%D8%AF%DA%BE%D9%86%D9%88%D8%AA%DB%8C_%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA
^
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%D9%85%D8%B4%D8%B1%D8%A7#c-Fram-20240201083500-Nomination_of_Sudhanoti_for_deletion
^ "Mr. Beat talks with KQ2 News about the current political climate & the 2024 Presidential Election". KQTV. July 30, 2024.

[1] 
*: https://archive.org/details/register-sudhnoti-english-version_20250110/page/48/mode/1up

*:Number two: There are no sources about the founder of the state, Jassi Khan Saduzai

*:The answer to this question is also in this link of the book, open it👇

*:https://archive.org/details/register-sudhnoti-english-version_20250110/page/35/mode/1up

*: Number three: Is there no source to defeat Nawab Jas Khan's brother in 1407?

*:The answer to this question is also in this link of the book, open it👇

*:https://archive.org/details/register-sudhnoti-english-version_20250110/page/32/mode/1up

And Please also see these references, open the book link, thank you.👇

:https://archive.org/details/register-sudhnoti-english-version_20250110/page/33/mode/1up

[2] *: https://archive.org/details/register-sudhnoti-english-version_20250110/page/48/mode/1up

*:Number two: There are no sources about the founder of the state, Jassi Khan Saduzai

*:The answer to this question is also in this link of the book, open it👇

*:https://archive.org/details/register-sudhnoti-english-version_20250110/page/35/mode/1up

*: Number three: Is there no source to defeat Nawab Jas Khan's brother in 1407?

*:The answer to this question is also in this link of the book, open it👇

*:https://archive.org/details/register-sudhnoti-english-version_20250110/page/32/mode/1up

And Please also see these references, open the book link, thank you.👇

:https://archive.org/details/register-sudhnoti-english-version_20250110/page/33/mode/1up

[2] ttps://ur.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B3%D8%AF%DA%BE%D9%86%D9%88%D8%AA%DB%8C_%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA

[3] ttps://ur.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B3%D8%AF%DA%BE%D9%86%D9%88%D8%AA%DB%8C_%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA

[4] 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%D9%85%D8%B4%D8%B1%D8%A7#c-Fram-20240201083500-Nomination_of_Sudhanoti_for_deletion

[5] "Mr. Beat talks with KQ2 News about the current political climate & the 2024 Presidential Election". KQTV. July 30, 2024.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]