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

Conquests of Inal the Great

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

This article is an unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK of Inal the Great. There is insufficient sourcing for Inal's conquests to warrant a standalone page. The sources are all passing mentions of Inal himself (here, here, here), don't even mention him or describe him as a legendary figure), with the one exception of a self-published Circassian nationalist blog. The article was created by a sockmaster and a redirect preferred by multiple editors is being repeatedly reverted by a likely WP:LOUTSOCK. I am seeking consensus for restoration of a stable redirect to Inal the Great. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Georgia (country). Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Critical itinerary of Gasparo Cairano

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

This is a very poor translation of it:Itinerario_critico_di_Gasparo_Cairano. It appears to be a historiography of the titular architect, and how his standing has changed over the years. That type of information can be worthy of a standalone article sometimes (see Reception of Johann Sebastian Bach's music), but only if high-quality secondary sources can be found. Unfortunately, this article is in large part original research from primary sources. For example, the only citation for the statement that There is no mention of Gasparo Cairano in Elia Capriolo's chronicle is the centuries old text itself; no indication is given about why this omission matters at all. The only properly used secondary source comes from one "Vito Zani", where multiple should be cited to preserve independence of content. Zani is also covered heavily in the § Studies and debates of the 21st century section, which makes me wonder if a conflict of interest exists. Mach61 19:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, and Italy. Mach61 19:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft: so the translation can be sorted out? It appears that there's a story here to be told, the article is too long to be hokum. Oaktree b (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b Woulda done that, but the article was actually just approved from AfC Mach61 22:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was the AfC reviewer. While reviewing, I didn't fully comprehend the translation errors. That being said, I don't think WP:DRAFTIFY would prevent it from being moved back to draftspace for translation correction, unless there would be any objections.
Interestingly, the AfC review process says nothing about when an article is a poor translation, or the prose quality in general. Signed, Guessitsavis (she/they) ^Talk 02:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on TNT grounds. Functionally incomprehensible confirmed machine-translated version of the Italian Wikipedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 04:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Manoru007 an I can review the translation and improve it. We work at OKA and we use translation softwares. After translating, we review and proofread the article (all according to our community validated guidelines), so the final text meets wikipedia's criteria. Sometimes we let some things pass and some parts don't reach a native level of English, since we are not native speakers. Usually we expect AfC and internal revisions to point out flaws and improvement gaps. If there are specific topics and problems in the translation that we can improve, let us know. Regarding references, we can improve, but we are not able to find references for the whole text, since it's a big article and we are not the original author.

Sintropepe (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Globalgeschichte/Global History

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

Article "PRODded" with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON." Article dePRODded by its creator with reason "Hello, the journal is indeed very new. In my opinion, however, it deserves attention on Wikipedia because of its concept of bilingualism, which sets it apart from its purely German predecessor journal. English-speaking authors who might want to publish their research findings in ‘Globalgeschichte/Global History’ can quickly get an idea of the journal. For example, five out of seven articles in Volume 1 are in English," while adding a reference to an English-language article from the journal as example. None of this answers to the PROD concern, which therefore still stands. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Harrassowitz Verlag, see Jahrbuch für europäische Überseegeschichte IgelRM (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To begin with, this journal has published 3 issues so far, so it is quite premature to state that it is academically significant. All of the sources for the article are from the journal itself or its publisher. I looked up some of the listed editors and they seem to be legit (as opposed to fake ones on some phoney journals). However, an editorial board of four members is pretty thin for an academic journal. I couldn't find a web site that would give submission information. I also note that one of the editors has published in the journal (not fatal but also not a great practice). As Harrassowitz has a good reputation, time will tell, but this is too soon. Lamona (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to point out above that this is the successor to "Jahrbuch für europäische Überseegeschichte", which was published since the 2001. I assumed it had some relevance, hence redirect for both. IgelRM (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As previously said no third party sources in the article and I can't find any on Google, etc., which of course is not surprising with only three issues. This is more of a book series than a magazine and at least WP:TOOSOON. If you argue like the page creator with "it deserves attention on Wikipedia because of its concept of bilingualism", I recommend to carefully read WP:N. This justification is contrary to the objectives of Wikipedia. By the way, the page creator Historian1208 also created the German version of this article but using a different account Historiker1208 and given the username this could be WP:COI. Killarnee (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving Magadha

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

Unnecessary article doesnt needed already mentioned very much on List of wars involving India.Such type of articles should be for present day entities. Edasf (talk) 10:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving Mughal Empire exists

List of wars involving Ottoman Empire exists

List of wars involving the Kingdom of France exists

List of wars involving Holy Roman Empire exists JingJongPascal (talk) 10:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All wars are properly sourced.

The Magadhan Empire and Second Magadhan Empire is seperated by 200 years

This article will help a user to view all of them in one go

While on List of wars involving India

One will have to switch time periods. JingJongPascal (talk) 10:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some exceptions do exist and all above article like for Mughals have issue the Mughal one is functioning even more like a disambiguation page.Another thing The first or second Magadha empires separation canT give a valid reason for a separate article.There arent that much wars for Magadha majority here dont have a separate article and some even looks like created by OR. Edasf (talk) 10:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do Holy Roman Empire & Kingdom of France exist ? JingJongPascal (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptions exist They have several wars Edasf (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

they are already included in List of wars involving Germany, yet they exist. JingJongPascal (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JingJongPascal They have many Magadha doesn't have that big to have a separate list. The list itself looks Original Synthesis. Edasf (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "Unnecessary," "not big enough to have a separate list," or "looks like Original Synthesis"? Under what context are you nominating and proposing a discussion for this article? It seems like the nomination is based on your personal viewpoint rather than Wikipedia's guidelines. You need to provide sufficient evidence to justify taking an article to deletion discussion. Personal opinions should not be the basis for judging an article; any proposal for deletion must be grounded in WP:DEL. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give why should there be separate article there's already wars involving India original synthesis is a part of WP guidelines read guidelines correctly first. Edasf (talk) 10:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In short List of Wars involving India quite enough by going this we need to create a dozen articles like this. Edasf (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe step back a little bit now? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What? Edasf (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a separate list looks unwarranted. Agletarang (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd prefer the title "List of wars of the Magadan Empires" but see no reason why such a list is worth deleting. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's unnecessary and original synthesis. Edasf (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Most of these wars ,a article page exists JingJongPascal (talk) 08:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The references offer substantial and reliable academic coverage of Magadha’s historical conflicts, indicating the wars' historical significance. Passes WP:SAL.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No per WP:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion Edasf (talk) 09:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because List of wars involving India is enough. Orientls (talk) 06:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Shukuup

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

Potential hoax. No web search hits and all sources are translated from ru Wikipedia article. Adabow (talk) 07:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk) 07:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk) 07:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk) 07:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Honduras-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk) 07:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I converted most of the sources to use our {{cite}} templates. I did a search as well, and the only reference I'm able to find is Triplook which Copan is the city of the Maya located in the western part of the country near Guatemala. It is the largest monument of ancient civilizations on the territory of Honduras. Copan was founded in the I century A.D. In the 7th and 8th centuries, it was the center of the ancient Mayan Kingdom Shukuup - I'm not convinced by this source, as Copán is a Good Article and doesn't mention the kingdom at all. Also, none of the English Language links in the footer mention the kingdom. ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 08:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sweet. The #1 search result for "Kingdom of Shukuup" is this AfD. Which I think is sort of 'nuff said, really... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Doesn't seem to be a hoax, but IMO not salvageable either. I think the correct Latin-script title would be "Xukuup". Here is an article that intermittently discusses the "Xukuup dynasty" at Copán, while expressing some uncertainty about whether that is the correct character reading. The use of this as the name of the state of which Copán was the capital seems to be found in some seemingly valid Russian-language scholarly sources but not to be otherwise widespread. I don't think this is especially salvageable in its current state, although in theory it would be optimal to have separate articles about the ancient polity and the modern archeological site, as the RU and UK wikis do. As an alternative to deletion I would suggest possibly a move to Xukuup + redirect to Copán -- but that redirect could also be set up regardless of whether this is deleted. -- Visviva (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Dabil (1517)

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

Same issues as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Kerh (1516) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Qara-Hamid (1510). Doesn't seem notable, poorly formatted and unverifiable citations. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Iran, and Armenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I can’t find any sources at all to support this. In addition Kızıl Ahmet Bey did not die at it as shown in the Infobox, and according to this source neither did Mirza Mehmet. Created by a blocked sockpuppet. Mccapra (talk) 06:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obviously incorrect content. I would actually not be averse to moving this to draft space, just in case research turns up something, but the misinformation already contained makes me leery than anything would turn up. BD2412 T 15:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Qara-Hamid (1510)

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

Fail to see how this is notable. The only two remaining citations are poorly cited (and not verifiable) and seem to be based on translation of a primary source? This was moved to draft twice because of its poor quality [1] [2] but then quickly moved back with no explanation by two brand new users [3] [4], one of them being the creator of this article. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second citation appears to be from this article, so Azerbaijani-speaking editors could be of help. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That isn’t the source referred to. The pdf you linked to doesn’t have pages 500 or 501 as in the reference, and in any case doesn’t mention Qara Hamid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccapra (talk • contribs)

Delete as I can’t find any sources in any language for this alleged battle. Mccapra (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)8[reply]
Delete likely fabricated sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks notability and verification. Someguywhosbored (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any more reliable sources. Nor does it have enough notability to warrant an article. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 15:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plunder of Murshidabad (1742)

AfDs for this article:

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

First of all, the article is written in the form of a fan-made story, attempting to villainize an entity (or perhaps show off? There are numerous instances in articles about Indian military history where users have included shocking or vulgar acts committed by militants).
WP:CITEKILL has made source analysis more complex, but once unreliable sources were cleared, the analysis became much easier. The article clearly fails to meet WP:GNG, as well as old sources falling under WP:RAJ and WP:AGEMATTERS have widely been used (caused the reason for the put down of the last proposal, and i was on a break)

Analysis:

The New Cambridge Modern History Vol. 7 (1713-63)* by Lindsay, J. O., Ed:

The book only mentions "Murshidabad" once, with the context found in the parent article on Maratha invasions of Bengal.

The same applies to *The Marathas - Cambridge History of India (Vol. 2, Part 4)* by Stewart Gordon;

It mentions the event alongside the "Maratha invasions of Bengal," which, indeed, should also be referenced here. A separate article is not warranted for this event, as it is a minor occurrence within a larger conflict—specifically, a plunder. Such events do not meet the minimum notability standards. In fact, an entire page from a reliable source is missing in this case. Additionally, the use of a military conflict infobox is unnecessary here, as it follows the same problematic pattern seen with articles like "Battle of X" or "X-Y Wars" in Indian military history. This approach has caused numerous issues. In conclusion, the article fails to meet notability standards and is poorly written. The content could easily be integrated into the parent article instead. Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Bangladesh, and India. Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

note to the closer: Please review the background of the voters as meatpuppetry is common among these topic areas.-Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The pillaging of an undefended city doesn't warrant an article and cannot be described as a "Maratha victory" (as claimed in the infobox). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to low participation and because of a prior AFD appearance, this discussion can't be closed as a Soft Deletion. So far, I see no meatpuppets participating here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jhala Ajja

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

This article was recreated under a different name shortly after being deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajja Jhala. The creator has used a different set of sources that still do not show evidence of notability. The page creator has wisely foregone the fantastical non-independent sources discussed in the previous AfD, but we still get nowhere close to WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:GNG. A brief analysis:

A series of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS: History of Mewar has a single mention on page 174. Jhala Zalim Singh has a single name check on page 20. Mewar and the Mughal Emperors has a single paragraph mentioning Ajja. Maharana Sanga The Hindupat gives another single mention to Jhala Ajja.
A series of colonial-era British sources (also trivial mentions) of questionable reliability per WP:RAJ: History of the Dhrangadhra State (1921) has two trivial mentions on page 69; Rajputana Gazetteer has single trivial mention on p. 128; The Mewar Residency, volume 2 (1908) offers a single reference.
The WP:SELFPUBLISHED Medieval History of Rajasthan, which, even if reliable, gives a single mention to Ajja.

Bottom line: this appears to be an effort using WP:SYNTH to fabricate notability out of a series of passing mentions, many in sources of questionable reliablity. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, Gujarat, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)impo[reply]
Delete. As I said in the previous discussion, the authors are of course interested in propping up their fanaticized family history. WP is not the place for this kind of promo. Also, this likely runs afoul of G4 at WP:CSD. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Greens vs. Blacks I tried; an admin declined the G4. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Might not pass GNG but passes the subject-specific notability guideline WP:POLITICIAN as a ruler of a state. 70.95.40.63 (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is a hereditary prince of a subnational region a politician under WP:NPOL? Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
King and ruler are automatically notable on Wikipedia per WP:NPOL. 2001:EE0:1B23:B2C5:355B:3504:AFE0:49EB (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note: This article has been tagged for G4 deletion twice, and for both times, 2 different admins (Nyttend and I) have reviewed the content here and the deleted article: they are 100% different. As such, please do not tag CSD G4 again. Thank you. – robertsky (talk) 12:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the IP. We don't delete monarchs on notability grounds, as they're at least as notable as non-monarchial figures at similar levels. Even if he were subject to a higher monarch, he would have been at a level comparable to the chief minister of a small state in the current Republic of India, and the fact that he inherited his role is irrelevant. Also, the cited WP:RAJ discusses caste issues; this is unrelated to caste, and citing a userspace essay is unhelpful. Don't impose a userspace essay's point of view on everyone. Nyttend (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to the policy to your point that "We don't delete monarch on notability grounds..." I haven't read a policy stating that. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely separate from the reliability of the sources, none of them constitutes WP:SIGCOV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jhala Ajja is a notable person. Article shouldn't be deleted. Lordo'Web (talk) 10:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage in sources. The article in question doesn't meet notability in WP:GNG, rendering it eligible for deletion under WP:SYNTH. Additionaly, the article's cursory examination of the subject fails to provide the requisite depth and analysis stipulated by WP:INDEPTH, thus necessitating its removal. MSLQr (talk) 08:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass GNG according to the concept of WP:Junk delete. He is not a notable person references show overview of only one event WP:ONEEVENT so he's a fictionary character in history:: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parul Sindhwan (talk • contribs) 07:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with the nominator's explanations it should be deleted per SYNTH sources of RSSELF & lacking in depth-covrage DEPTH. Interestingly it is related to the series of articles directly related to Jhala dynasty. ®asteem Talk 20:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I don't see a consensus here yet. But would editors arguing for a Keep, please point out which sources establish GNG or provide SIGCOV?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Altani

AfDs for this article:

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

In a previous AfD, a clear consensus emerged that this biography did not meet WP:BIO1E, and it was merged to Tolui.

The author of the recreated article claims that this woman is identical to another woman of a similar name. This is pure original research. They claim that this source "confirms Eltina or Aylt'ana was Altani", when in reality it does no such thing: is a chapter about transliterations of names.

I suggest that the original merge be restored. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, and Mongolia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francise confirmed they were one and same person Ortaq (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ortaq: Could you perhaps quote the relevant part of the source? Or indicate the page number(s)? TompaDompa (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa, Ortaq is free to correct me, but I believe they mean pages 410–411. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I figured, but I don't see how it supports their position. The source states (if you'll excuse my poor attempts at representing the characters used in the text correctly) that Grigor calls the wife of Čormaqan "Ayltʻana Xatʻun," but Kirakos calls her "Eltina Xatʻun" (Tiflis edition, p. 269, 1. 6 from the bottom). and In the Secret History (§ 214) the name of the wife of Boro𝛾ul appears seven times (YCPS 9.13b2 and 4; 14a5; 14b3; 15a2 and 4; 16a1). Each time it is transcribed [...] Al ta ni (= Altani).. It's all a bit technical of course, but this does not look to me like stating that the two are the same person—even if the source may be saying that these are two variations (or just transcriptions?) of the same name? TompaDompa (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, hence their argument is entirely flawed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Well, I don't have any particular opinions on the merits of having a stand-alone article in this specific case beside that, but on the assumption that the last AfD got it right and given that nothing obvious has changed since (unless there's something I'm missing, the only thing that was new was the assertion that these two people were one and the same?), I suppose the "merge" outcome should stand—and since the content was presumably already merged that would amount to a (reinstate) redirect from me. TompaDompa (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants in the previous AfD: @TartarTorte, Oaktree b, TheBritinator, and Cielquiparle: what do you think? TompaDompa (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was over a year ago, I honestly do not remember what this was about. TheBritinator (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I also don't recall the prior AfD that well, I might look over this one again if I have a moment. Oaktree b (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you don't remember, here is a link Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altani. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not even sure what this individual did that makes them notable. A woman mentioned in sources that fought people with a knife... Someone did this now, they wouldn't get an article. Not sure what having done this so long ago has to do with notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree b, the nominator is asking for an original Merge to be restored (although I'm not sure how this is done). What do you think of that outcome? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine I suppose, would at least preserve some of it. Oaktree b (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz the original merged content is still present in the original redirect target, so it would simply be a matter of reinstating the redirect as TompaDompa says above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another original creation weighed down by a camel-load of pretend-sources. I often keep very busy and I do try to exercise my body. But I avoid busy body. This title begs for a heavy dose of salt. -The Gnome (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Smoluća

AfDs for this article:

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

This siege, its relief and the evacuation of the population is covered in a short paragraph in the comprehensive two-volume US history of these wars, Balkan Battlegrounds. It doesn't include much of what is in the current paragraph headed Order of battle, and when summarised would amount to a few sentences at best. A Google Books search adds very little in terms of possible reliable sources, none of which constitute significant coverage. I could trim it down to just what the source does say, but the editor responsible has done this before, and therefore this is a classic WP:TNT candidate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that this was a minor action in the overall fighting for the Posavina region from March 1992 to January 1993, and might be mentioned in a larger article on those operations. But it is definitely not notable on its own. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i can add sources to this article if you let me. It will take a little bit of time because i am finding sources for another article Wynnsanity (talk) 09:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion you are not right. This is a sige and if we have siege of žepa and another smaller cities we should have for this also. Its not the minor action because a lot of civis were saved and both sides took heavy casulties. There are also not so much books about this war in english because nobody cares to be honest about balkans. I agree that is bad if we have only 1 english and 10 serb sources on english wiki but the other articles for other side also have just some tabloid blogs and they are not deleted or even marked as "bad sources", is it a coincidence? I would not say so

All the best Wynnsanity (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All you need is significant coverage in reliable sources. They don't have to be in English. telegraf.rs isn't a reliable source, neither are blogs, fora, local town news portals with no real editorial oversight, or fanboi websites. Most of the articles being created about the Balkan wars of the 90s at the moment are incredibly poorly sourced. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree that telegraph is not good source. Can you give me a day or two to find better? I think that they are very badly sources because people from that area dont write or talk about it much, its "taboo". Thanks Wynnsanity (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peacemaker, i will undo your text edit today if its okay for you because it will be a lot easier for me to work on this article if i have first version not this one, i will also add content and relevant sources to it right after. I hope you understand and dont mind. Best Wynnsanity (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need, I was caught up with other things and neglected this article. As peace maker said, it does not need its own article since this was a part of a wider Bosnian TO campaign in Lukavac. I might also add that when I first made this article, I was very inexperienced and didn’t know anything about copyright. Orhov (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i made changes and fixed the problem that peacemaker suggested, if you are the editor its up to you, best Wynnsanity (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article should be retained if more is added, like a prelude or aftermath, that is if it is backed up by reliable material. If not, then that is fine with me. Orhov (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to include that, thanks Wynnsanity (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The citations that have been added, like "Fooian & Foo 2002, p. XXX" are not verifiable as they don't provide the title of the book, or publisher etc. No-one can look at it and then check if it is reliable and accurately reflects what is is supposed to be supporting. Unless the full citations are added, we cannot be assured that significant coverage exists in reliable sources, and therefore the article should be deleted. Also, the removal of the material about the Serbs evacuating and withdrawing due to ARBiH pressure and the town being occupied by them is directly relevant to the subject, and deletion of it could be considered censorship to only indicate one side's version of the engagement. I strongly suggest you re-instate it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but this is totally absurd. First of all, in Bosnia people are all Bosnians(muslim, orthodox and catholic) and you cant look at them "black and white" like you do and in every article saying "Bosnians never did anything", "Bosnian atrocities i dont think so" etc. When we few people(editors) who are benevolently editing wikipedia will be deprived of your non-existent criteria where you always want more and more and more and then delete our works and add stars to your main page for contributions, cringe. This is not "one side" POV because here in the article they only explain what happend during the siege and shelling wich is fair and totally honest and you cant as wiki admin look to this topic like that one side never did anything bad and want a milion sources to be "assured", thats not serious. And when one neutral editor "Fanboi" as you called him posted yesterday all that you have asked for(siege, civis..) you have ofcourse ignored and continued with your agenda. Article was in bad shape until we make it be a lot better with our good faith edits, i personally have a big collection about this topics and this is not Naoleonic War to have thousand best sources. I will undo my edits because i dont know how to add and you will have another sources from other editors wich are also not your taste but every article with "Sanjak NEWS, BLOGSPOT" is okay and "reliable" to you because one side is always the victim and we are all "Fanboi", says who? Bill Clinton? Pretty sad to be honest. Wynnsanity (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what are you on about exactly? I have never done anything of the sort. I have rarely edited articles about the Yugoslav Wars of the 90s because I was there for some of it, but the sudden flurry of poorly sourced articles about obscure events drew my attention. Have you even read the reliable source policy? The verifiability policy? These are fundamental to what we do, as is WP:NPOV. All en WP expects is for these many newly created articles on the Yugoslav Wars to be notable in their own right and reliably sourced. If that is too much for you, then perhaps en WP is not for you. If you tell me what the titles are of the books you provided short citations (authors and year of publication, but nothing else) for, I can check them for reliability and that they actually support what you say they do. If they are reliable and do what you say, then perhaps the article will meet WP:N. I know it can be frustrating when other editors question your work, but that is what we do here. It isn't a blog or forum. In any case, take a chill pill, good grief... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google search for Borojević and it quickly identified him as a self-published author of aviation books (in the main), and results also indicate he served in the JNA then VRS during the Bosnian War and continued to serve in the VRS afterwards. So, for starters, he's not a historian; secondly, he's self-published; and he's closely affiliated with the VRS given he served in the VRS and the VRS were involved in this engagement. The perception (if not actuality) of a conflict of interest and a likely axe to grind is pretty obvious. I cannot see how his book can be considered reliable, and it certainly can't be used to demonstrate the notability of an article. I will now remove the citations to Borojević from the article. If you believe the book is reliable, feel free to ask for a community opinion at WP:RSN. I have also posted this to Wynnsanity's talk page. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You tell me to take pills to calm down, knowing that I'm right in everything I said, but it doesn't matter, I'm used to it here. This is isnt blogforum but is also not your forum to whatever you want. I apologize because I did not write in English how to get to the book, so it turned out that I was manipulating, which is not the case. I think the editor wrote according to that book, I didn't know it was self-proclaimed because it seemed official to me Wynnsanity (talk) 09:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s be really clear here. Nothing I am saying is MY “policy”. Everything I have observed reflects English Wikipedia policy. Now we have more “references” without a title or publisher. What are the titles of the books please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that is impossible to talk with you. You can sell that story to someone else, not me. I don't want to waste my time on insignificant things when anyone with a wrong woldview of can destroy my hard and good work. I'm done with this so delete and do whatever you want. goodbye 2A00:10:990A:F501:40F6:9E0D:C07D:A148 (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for this kind of contentious and contested topic I’d expect sources of the highest quality. Failing that I don’t think we should take anything on trust. There’s too much POV-driven Balkan rubbish on this site anyway. Mccapra (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article has already been to AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update I have now removed all the material that is not supported by the two main sources (separate chapters in the same book), both of have barely a paragraph or less on this siege, and some concluding material from the CIA history of the Balkan conflicts. I have removed material supposedly supported by the bare citations with no long citation, as I can't conduct verification. I have also cleaned up the infobox to remove material not supported by the sources. The image has been removed, as it is obviously just a screen shot from a video on youtube or whatever, and is therefore a blatant copyright violation. Other than some minor additional detail from the CIA history, this is the sum total of what is in the verified sources. Please do not restore unsupported material, I will just delete it. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uşşaki

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

Tagged uncited for years but hard to find sources as apparently not the same as https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/U%C5%9F%C5%9Faki_Tarikat%C4%B1 The source on the Turkish article seems like it might be a wiki or somesuch so perhaps not reliable? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Islam, Iraq, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see various books in English covering this significantly; also two reliable references on the corresponding article in French. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank What books in English please? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added some to the page.

By the way, you have currently opened 27 Afds regarding Turkey-related articles. It is an extremely (and in my view exceedingly) high number for one nominator, especially concerning one topic, and it happens to be very challenging for interested users to find sources and even !vote. I understand you take to Afds pages that are unsourced but, precisely, it takes a lot of time to find sources. At the very least, I am inviting you to kindly slow down your nominations; personally, I would even suggest that you stop further nominations until the present ones are closed. Thank you very much. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of Turkish sources found but as Mushy Yank says above it’s quite a task to plough through Turkish books online to update the article. Mccapra (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History Proposed deletions

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

History categories

for occasional archiving

Proposals