Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Social science. 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|Social science|~~~~}} 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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Social science.

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/Social science/archive

Purge page cache

watch

This list includes sublists of deletion debates on articles related to language and history.

Social science[edit]

Social science Proposed deletions[edit]

Language[edit]

Tig (Tigrinya language)[edit]

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

No sources establishing notability.
Fully original research.
Created by now blocked account.
Linguistically, tig is not a prefix in Tigrinya. Pathawi (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Africa, and Ethiopia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: I hope a comment from the nominator is not inappropriate. This article was created to address a real source of confusion: The similarity between the names of the Tigre (ትግረ Təgrä) & Tigrinya/Tigrigna (ትግርኛ Təgrəñña) languages, & the Tigray Region (ትግራይ Təgray) of Ethiopia, as well as several other terms derived from these. Tigre & Tigrinya are spoken in adjacent regions of the Horn of Africa, & Tigray is one of the areas where Tigrinya is a majority language. It makes sense that people could find this confusing. I do not object to a Wikipedia page which clarifies the use of these historically related terms. I am solely proposing the deletion of this specific page, as it attempts to distinguish between these terms on the basis of a prefix which has no notable (or other) appearance in reliable sources. Notability is the primary criterion that I identify as reason for deletion. Notability always matters, but it particularly matters here because the content is misleading. Linguistically, Tig- is not a prefix, or any other non-arbitrary element in these terms. The common element between these words is the consonantal series ⎷TGR. The idea of the prefix Tig- is original research—or really original supposition. The meaning & origin of the tri-consonantal root ⎷TGR might have notable coverage in reliable sources, & might be a reasonable topic for a page. I mention in the nomination that the creator of the page is banned: This is not an adequate reason to delete the page, but it is the reason that I have initiated this process rather than started with a conversation with the page's creator. Pathawi (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete and salt per the OP's rationale. There is no source in that article that supports the existence of its topic, and there is no source in the real world out there, either. As a sock concoction without non-cosmetic contributions by other editors, it is actually a clean case of WP:G5 (it's pretty annoying when a PROD for made-up stuff like this is contested, but no further comment on that). –Austronesier (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Al-ʿArabiyya (journal)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be particularly significant (WP:JOURNALCRIT), nor does it have in-depth coverage (mostly just routine listings or mirrors of this arricle). Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Academic journals. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Hard to consider the journal of a redlinked institution should itself be a bluelink, right? But this journal, published by the Georgetown University Press, is now in its 47th Year (from 1967-1974 it was published as Al Nashra) and therefore already passes criterion 3 of WP:JOURNALCRIT, "The journal is historically important in its subject area." Then consider its distribution by Project Muse, "Project MUSE promotes the creation and dissemination of essential humanities and social science resources", and you'll note I bolded 'essential' there. I note that articles by scholars in the journal get pretty widely cited, which deals with Criteria 2. I can't speak for C1 - but do note that a journal should pass any of the three. Also, as an English language journal focused on a discipline that deserves a great deal more focus in the West than it gets, it's a relatively rare beast - and therefore definitely worth a keep from me!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't entirely agree with your assessment that being nearly 50 years old translates to historical importance. Anyone could start a minor village newspaper, then hand down ownership to their child(ren), making it probably over 50 years old (if not more), but that wouldn't make the newspaper notable. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 18:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd be inclined to keep this. See the arguments I made in WP:SJ.—S Marshall T/C 16:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. WP:JOURNALCRIT is an essay that attempts to override GNG with inherent notability criteria that do not predict NPOV SIGCOV. Per WP:N, it does not carry weight at AfD. If we do not have independent sources providing direct discussion of the journal, then all we have is a database entry sourced to what the journal says about itself.

JoelleJay (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak keep. Having existed for 50 years does indeed not mean that something has an "historical purpose", nor are the numbers of citations very impressive, but citation levels are almost always low in the Humanities. However, this is the official journal of a major academic society in this field. Unfortunately, the association has no article, so we cannot merge there. It is abstracted and indexed in several databases, but apart from Scopus, none are highly selective. Scopus indicates 2019-2021 as coverage years, but does not say that coverage is discontinued, I think this is just reflects the fact that the 2022 and 2023 volumes are a double issue that is not published yet (or was published very recently). So while I don't think that JOURNALCRIT #2 or #3 are met, I think this squeezes by on #1. Also: WP:HEY. --Randykitty (talk) 09:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG, and per User:JoelleJay there's no good redirect target here. If the journal is "historically important", I would expect to see that reflected in reliable sources, even as passing mentions. More modern summaries in other (independent) journals like this one that describe the journal and its impact would lead me to vote Keep, although I wasn't able to find anything obvious. (Other sources: not independent but useful context; couldn't access this, but may contain relevant coverage) Suriname0 (talk) 04:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Language tax[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Dict def. I could support a redir to economics of language. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Politics. UtherSRG (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. I don't think this falls under a DICDEF (and I say this as someone who's pretty inclined to label things as DICDEFs when I think they are). There's an underlying concept here, which is being identified, but it's a stub, so it's certainly not going to be a lot more than that. As for if it should be kept, deleted, or merged...I'm less sure about that, but just being "tagged for notability since 2010" isn't really a sufficient argument. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. The article appears to be primarily about Van Parijs' idea for a tax to be paid by countries using widespread languages such as English, to countries using less common languages. The pdf-file by Van Parijs listed in the link is a draft, not a final peer reviewed article. I Googled to see if the article has been referenced, and it seems to have been published in "The challenge of multilingualism in law and politics" in 2005, but I am unsure if that is an obscure journal or a book, and if it is peer-reviewed. In any case, there is no evidence that Van Parijs proposal has gained any traction among policy makers, or been the subject of any substantial analysis by other authors, so lack of notability is a major issue. The second and third references are in the final paragraph that describes the "analogous concept" that non-English speaking countries are at a disadvantage, but connecting this to Van Parijs' idea for a monetary tax is original research by synthesis. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak keep; possibly merge or redirect to Economics of language. Work on the economic and social justice effects of languages certainly exists – in addition to Van Parijs see for example economist Francois Grin and perhaps linguists such as Ingrid Piller or Claire Kramsch. The notion of a "language tax" as such doesn't seem terribly influential, but I think there is room to keep some version of this. Cnilep (talk) 06:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak delete It's a neat concept/word but it doesn't seem to have been widely adopted. If there was an article about it in a RS, it would be clear keep but without it, hard. No results when looking on Google Scholar, Google News, it's not even widely talked about as "language tax" by the person who supposedly coined it. Not much valuable content would be lost.AncientWalrus (talk) 00:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prodded articles[edit]

History[edit]

Skirmish of Chenab (1739)[edit]

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

Fails verification - no mention of "Skirmish of Chenab" in Singh or Gupta, the two main references. Singh does briefly mention an attack, but gives it no name and there is not enough here for WP:N. asilvering (talk) 02:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. asilvering (talk) 02:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - Many incoming links through Battle of Chenab (1739) which may or may not be confusion with Battle of Chenab. ~Kvng (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Twilight Struggle References[edit]

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

There is no indication of list notability for this. I suggested merging to Twilight Struggle, but the editors at the talk page there do not seem to feel there is anything worth salvaging. Courtesy pinging participants CohenTheBohemian, Literally_Satan, and VQuakr. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, History, and Lists. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I find the list mildly interesting, but this is something that should be on Fandom or something of that nature. It's over-detailed for an encyclopedia. VQuakr (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong delete. Trivial WP:FANCRUFT to the nth degree. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as fancruft. Thanks for the ping. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 02:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete No independent sources, doesnt pass WP:GNG, could potentailly be considered promotional Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - The very definition of non-notable trivia. I concur with the editors on the talk page that the material here would not be appropriate for merging. Rorshacma (talk) 05:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Poor quality violation of WP:NOTTVTROPES. Fails WP:NLIST/WP:GNG/etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
obviously delete fancruft. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete WP:LISTN Lightburst (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Armenians of Julfa[edit]

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

We already have Armenians in Azerbaijan, Armenians in Nakhchivan, Armenian cemetery in Julfa, Armenian cultural heritage in Azerbaijan and Julfa, Azerbaijan (city)#History. We don't need this article. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support: per nomination. Nemoralis (talk) 06:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose well sourced, passes WP:GNG. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 08:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We can't have articles for the historical Armenian population of every place once inhabited by them. I am aware of the cultural importance of Julfa for Armenians, but we have a lot of much better articles where this information can be perfectly covered. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge the history section to Julfa, Azerbaijan (city)#History, but the cemetery portion is already covered by the dedicated article, so no need to merge that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per above rationale. Archives908 (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Almohad conquest of Tripoli[edit]

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

The article doesn't meet WP:GNG and is full of WP:OR, fluff and sources misrepresentation. The Almohads didn't "conquer" Tripoli as its citizens rebelled against the Normans when the Almohad reached Ifriqiya (this is what the sources say in passing). M.Bitton (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Libya. M.Bitton (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. It is an unreliable article which, if retained, would need a full rewrite with closer attention paid to actual sources. Personally, I don't think it warrants even that as we have articles on Ifriqiya and the Almohads. I think those should cover events in Tripoli which, as you say, are not significant enough for a standalone article. PearlyGigs (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as redundant to Almohad conquest of Norman Africa. This reduplication of material is getting absurd. Srnec (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cambodia Angkor Revolution Empire[edit]

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

The article as written is an undecipherable mess, but from what I gather from the creator's comments, it's supposed to be about a claimed revolution in the late Angkor period of Cambodian history, albeit one that's only deduced from tangential mentions in historical sources. There are several problems here: (1) The article is very poorly and confusingly written, and doesn't identify the topic it's supposedly covering at all. (2) I can't identify any reliable sources that attest to this claimed "revolution". Those cited in the article seem to only be for specific tangential facts. As far as I can tell, this appears to be WP:original research. The first issue could maybe be fixed (though I think it's bad enough here to fall into WP:TNT territory), but the OR issue is the more serious problem that would call for deletion, unless I'm proven wrong. Paul_012 (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Asia, Cambodia, and Thailand. Paul_012 (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it mentioned clearly about the revolution of the Cambodian people against the rulers in that time. From the reference source of the Chronicle of Ayutthaya and the record of Zhou Daguan is definitely clear on this point and clear evidence to support it. Especially, the Chronicle of Cambodia itself state about this event too. All of the evidence supports the fact that there is the Revolution in Angkor in this period Platinumshadow153 (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you provide WP:secondary sources that attest to this revolution? Primary historical sources from centuries ago are subject to interpretation, so we need to go by what historians have written. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the one you mentioned is Coedès, George (1996). The Indianized states of Southeast Asia on ISBN 978-0-8248-0368-1. Which is interpretation that not even included the Trasak Paem

However, the one I mentioned is the Chronicle of Ayutthaya that is real historic evidence from Siamese side is one of the primary source. Unfortunately, it is written in Thai mostly. Also even the Chronicle of Cambodia mentioned this revolution too. I understand that many historian who read this Cambodian historic book tell that many events in this Chronicle is more like myth and legend that is the reason I didn't put details on Holy spear or White elephant selection, but only put on only the name of Cambodian King which is most relatable to both Siamese and Cambodian side. This is the secondary source.

,but the global accepted source is Zhou, Daguan (2007). A Record of Cambodia there is a version of English Translated by Peter Harris In University of Washington Press. ISBN 978-9749511244 that said about the revolution clearly which is the main primary source here since it is not interpretion, but the record of real event.

How about you any evidence against the event? Platinumshadow153 (talk) 03:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you give specific references, please? Which volume of the Ayutthaya Chronicle? Has it been digitised on vajirayana.org, and if so, can you provide a link? Can you give page numbers for the book sources? --Paul_012 (talk) 04:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You could search in British Museum database for the information for the real document. Unfortunately, the picture could not search by words well. The links of other authors may not be redirect to the real evidence

Digitised Manuscripts (bl.uk) Platinumshadow153 (talk) 04:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many people also read the conclusion from Thai author in this book there are some article on this book related to the topic."ภักดีคำ, ศานติ (2011). "เขมรรบไทย". มติชน. p. 37, 272" Platinumshadow153 (talk) 04:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Santi Pakdekham book might be pointing in the right direction, but I'll have to make note to check it next time I visit the library. Meanwhile, even if the topic is verified the article will still need to be entirely rewritten, so draftifying might be an option to consider. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would support draftifying per the above. Might have encyclopedic value, but cannot be confirmed for the moment and in any case is somewhat unintelligible. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Siege of Alcácer do Sal (1191)[edit]

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

The article doesn't meet WP:GNG. All the sources that are cited mention (in passing) that the Almohads captured Alcácer do Sal and that's it. Everything else in the article is WP:OR and fluff. M.Bitton (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Spain. M.Bitton (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, i.e., turn into a redirect. No basis for a standalone article at present and sources for expansion have not been provided. Srnec (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Siege of Silves (1191)[edit]

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

This article adds nothing that its parent (Almohad campaign against Portugal (1190–1191)) doesn't already have. It is all background, OR or fluff. This is a failed BLAR situation. A redirect to the parent is reasonable. Srnec (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

you should first verify the sources before deleting a page. Seniorjackfr (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Srnec (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Morocco, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Almohads made a Campaign against the kingdom of Portugal and in this campaign there are battles and sieges it's quite normal. I do not see why the page should be deleted knowing that it provides more detail on its sieges and battles. Mrpf plus (talk) 22:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It does not provide more detail. That's why. It's a little puff piece. Maybe an article could be written, but this isn't it. The redirect should be restored until somebody writes an article that contains more detail than in the parent article. Srnec (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So the article only needs more detail? Mrpf plus (talk) 08:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. The article doesn't meet WP:GNG. All the sources that are cited are nothing but mentions in passing of the capture of Silves (that's it). Everything else in the article is WP:OR and fluff. M.Bitton (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Almohad campaign against Portugal (1190–1191). MarioGom (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a bundled nomination and we need to hear opinions about both articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Second Parthian–Kushan War[edit]

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

Yet another battle/war article that looks more like an attempt at glorification than anything else. None of the refs have a page cited. One of the cited refs (by Peter Fibiger Bang, page 339), which I just removed for being misused, literally says the following about this so called "second" "war", which was for some reason ignored: "There is also this exaggerated reference to a bloody but otherwise unsubstantiated campaign against the Parthians".

To add to Bangs statement, it goes without saying that "900,000 killed" is an incredibly absurd (WP:REDFLAG) number for a "ten year war" during the Late antiquity. Iranica: "The largest army the Parthians organized was that brought against Mark Antony (50,000: Justin 41.2)." HistoryofIran (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Central Asia, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. The refs do actually have pages cited (in the URL, just not in the metadata), but they don't fully support the text. I'm not finding anything for "Second Parthian-Kushan War", either. -- asilvering (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Technically in fact the first Parthian-Kushan War took place when Kujula Kadphises conquered some regions from the Parthian Empire Jonharojjashi (talk) 05:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: So Jonharojjashi completely disregarded both my comment here and my edit summary, reverting me and restoring the misused Bang citation, accusing me of removing it to "easily nominate the article for deletion" and referring to me as "an Iranian" twice instead of my username [1] [2]. I think that says it all. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Oxford source says "there is also this exaggerated to a bloody but otherwise unsubstantiated campaign against the Parthians" So why remove the source when the uncertain claim is unsure whether it is exaggerated or unsubtantiated It is needless to say that does not disapprove the Chinese sources which refers to that conflict Jonharojjashi (talk) 13:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...What? "Unsubstantiated" means "not supported or proven by evidence" and "exaggerated" means "excessively or inappropriately heightened, inflated, or overstated". --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also Zurcher a German historian who translated the inscription about Kanishka's conquests mentions the 900,000 casualties on the Parthian's side Jonharojjashi (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I have addressed your both concerns-

1. "None of the refs have a page cited" which asilvering has denied such concern and actually it is cited or redirected to the archive.

2. "900000 killed" yeah I have addressed it too and edited it properly according to your concern. But you should not confuse 900k Parthians with 900k Parthian army, as the sources never stated any 900k Parthian army. That is why I didn't put this number to the strengths of belligerents.

Now consider removing the deletion tag from this article If I had addressed all of your concerns and talk further if it was not. Jonharojjashi (talk) 04:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please read Bangs statement, WP:PST and WP:REDFLAG. You have not addressed anything. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep as notable (but re-title). AFD is not cleanup. Nor is it for dealing with problem users. See, e.g., Ghirshman, Iran, p. 262. Or Thorley, "The Roman Empire and the Kushans" JSTOR 642511. These (and there are a few others) are enough for me. The Buddhist source in question is not terribly late, which is presumably why it is treated seriously. Ghirshman thinks an obscure reference (he does not provide a full citation) in a Syrian (Syriac?) source may be corroborative. Srnec (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your comment, Srnec. Do you have a proposal on what we would rename it to if it ended up getting kept? I looked at the sources you listed, but it seems that this event is incredibly obscure. I agree that AFD is not a place for cleanup nor dealing with problem users, but I made this AFD because I genuinely think (still do) that this event is not notable enough to warrant its own article, let alone under a made up name. It could perhaps be added to Vologases III of Parthia and Kanishka? --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably "Kushan–Parthian war" (alphabetical order, lower-case for a descriptive title) or, if that is judged ambiguous, "Kanishka's war with Parthia" or perhaps even "Parthian invasion of the Kushan Empire". My reason for preferring a standalone article is precisely that it is not obvious why the information should belong exclusively at, say, Kanishka's article. It would then need to be duplicated at Vologases III and perhaps elsewhere in the absence of an article to link to. (This is a general problem with trying not to treat conflicts as standalone topics—they don't "belong" to one side.) Just put up a short, well-sourced article that can deal independently with the question of dating and the reliability of the source material. In this case, I'm happy to help if the article is kept. Srnec (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm renaming the article from Second Parthian-Kushan War to Parthian-Kushan war for better context in order to not confuse readers/viewers, I hope this will fix all of the common concerns, Thanks for your proposal. Also, if you don't mind Please help me improve the article or suggest any new changes, as I'm new here. Jonharojjashi (talk) 06:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jonharojjashi Please don't make any hasty decisions on your own. This also requires your collaboration and you reading our guidelines (you're not helping by reverting Srnec either [3]. If this article is to be WP:NPOV, that number will not be treated seriously). HistoryofIran (talk) 11:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey everyone. If the discussion is not closed yet then I would like to suggest that we should keep the previous Parthian casualties as the sources have mentioned it boldly and I don't think we should shadow or neglect it, as this Chinese source [4] is well translated by a renounced Sinologist and historian Erik Zürcher. Like even if it's exaggerated or wrongly, partially interpreted, still we should add it by just adding further- 900,000 killed (highly exaggerated) or According to some Chinese sources 900,000 killed. So in short I think we all should stick to the sources. I hope y'all will look to this suggestion. And I'm very much interested in Ancient warfare history so I can give my minuscule contribution to this project/article. Msangharak (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet. Please do not move articles that in the middle of an AFD discussion as it complicates the closure procedure. Also, an AFD is not the proper place to debate details about content, this is just a forum to determine whether or not this should be a standalone article and Kept or Merged, Redirected or Deleted. Content changes can be discussed if it is decided to Keep this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep; ambivalent about title (the present title or any of Srnec's options seem fine). Meets WP:N; no suitable merge target. I'm not sure an infobox is appropriate for this article, since the date, venue, and forces involved are all between very approximate and wholly unknown.
Anyone expecting accurate casualty figures from early Chinese sources is not familiar with their universal trope of inflating the enemy's numbers, commonly by an order of magnitude (I OR-suspect this figure is inflated by two orders of magnitude). I'd love to track down the name of the Chinese source this evidently traces back to; it's presented as transliteration only in Zürcher 1960 (which I fixed the citation for) and is apparently some little known Buddhist text from the Southern and Northern dynasties. Brill have yet to publish the ebook of the conference proceedings.
Might it be entirely fictional? Sure: anything tracing to exactly one old enough document could be, but that's not our determination to make. Benjamin 2020 (another incorrectly attributed cite, probably Citoid's fault, referred to above as "Bang" after |editor1-last=) wouldn't be enough to establish notability, but several different authors have touched on this, whether or not they believe it happened as described (although no one believes the casualty figures; why would anyone?). Anyway a massively inflated casualty figure is not a reason in itself to call this a hoax or a legend, and I don't see another reason to delete. Needs cleanup, but most articles do. Folly Mox (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guess who didn't read the relisting instructions! Folly Mox (talk) 06:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's Benjamin again a few years earlier:

Craig Benjamin (2018). Empires of Ancient Eurasia: The First Silk Roads Era, 100 BCE – 250 CE. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316335567. ISBN 9781316335567. pp. 191–192: Despite this account, there is no other evidence of any conflict between the Parthians and Kushans, the two great powers of Central Asia, and two of the major beneficiaries of Silk Roads trade, who seem to have maintained genuinely cordial relations with each other for two centuries. Folly Mox (talk) 05:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To update yall, I've done some edits at the article, clarifying that the entire account relies solely on a single source, which survives only in a translation postdating the event by centuries (typical), and is not known to be the work of historians. I've called out the 900,000 figure as obviously exaggerated, and incorporated the Benjamin 2018 source just above, bundled with his other source.
The sourcing is ok. Mukherjee and Zürcher are probably the most reputable, although Mukherjee in 1988 still subscribed to an earlier Kanishka, and placed this event around 80 CE. Benjamin seems pretty good too. We cite a book published by Pen and Sword (not a peer reviewed source) four times, plus there's the popular general readership book from Simon Schuster, and some kid's Masters thesis. There can't be much more than this given the transmission history of this event, but I don't think Pen and Sword is used for anything specific to this article – more general Kushan history – so it can probably be improved. Pen and Sword and Simon Schuster are digitised at gbooks in the annoying online only pagination which prevents adding a |page= parameter, but the URLs are consequently direct. Also in the Zürcher source, on the page following the one we cite, Kanishka talks to his horse about morality. Glad that conversation got written down. Folly Mox (talk) 06:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. WP:HEY at this point, thanks to multiple editors, especially Folly Mox's excellent work. —siro χ o 07:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Well, I guess that settles it. Great and sensible points (and edits) made by both Srnec and Folly Mox - I'm taking back my support for its deletion. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heydar Latifiyan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There is no evidence that the article meets WP:GNG. The sources are not verifiable. Furthermore, the article is created in several languages over a short period of time possibly using machine translation. Pirehelo (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Iran. BangJan1999 20:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Curbon7 (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. While there may be concerns about the creation of this article, a source being offline is not a reason to reject it: WP:Verifiability § Access to sources. —siro χ o 08:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Battle of Kolhapur[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No sources in article, very very few hits on google scholar. I think this may be WP:citogenesis, so please ensure any sources you find pre-date 2006, the original publication date of this article. The battle itself may have happened (just not as "Battle of Kolhapur"), in which case we could write about it on Battles involving the Maratha Empire, provided, again, that we can find pre-2006 sources. asilvering (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, India, and Maharashtra. asilvering (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also check the sources that the editors will use in future. Because many sources used Wikipedia as a reference such as 'Maratha generals and their personalities'. Ajayraj890 (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's a source (PhD Dissertation) that doesn't seem to mention this, despite covering the period. I may have missed something tho so I'm still not sure. [5]. —siro χ o 03:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was Speedy Keep.

Previous discussions: 2015-04 (closed as ✓ Speedy Keep)

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Sarkar, Jadunath (1920). Shivaji and his times. London ; New York : Longmans, Green. pp. 262–263. mentions fighting between Shivaji and the combined forces of Rustam Zaman and Fazl Khan near Panhala in late 1659 or early 1660, which is consistent with the article, although it does not corroborate the article's details regarding force compositions or tactics.

Sardesai Govind Sakharam (1946). New History Of The Marathas Vol-i 1600-1707 (1946). B. G. Dhawale, Bombay. p. 131. has similar details and gives the date (28 December 1659) that's in the article.

Jfire (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the recently cited source https://archive.org/details/ShivajiSouvenir

Page no 164 does not mention a battle at Kolhapur in 28th December 1629. It is removed now. Ajayraj890 (talk) 05:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jfire, how this sources can be used? These sources doesn't provide enough context as it is shown in the article. The date is missing, the details of infobox is missing and what makes it more questionable is, the infobox had 'strength' parameter with some random numbers recently. From where did those information came? I don't think this article should be in mainspace since the details about this event is very less in reliable sources. Also I remind you that to not cite sources which was published after the creation of the article. Ajayraj890 (talk) 05:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both of these sources are many decades before the creation of the article, but obviously they don't corroborate the details regarding force compositions or tactics. Unless there are reliable sources for those, I believe the best course of action is to merge and redirect to Shivaji#Siege of Panhala as suggested by User:Jeraxmoira. Jfire (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: By looking at Shivaji, I see that the Battle of Kolhapur comes under the Siege of Panhala [6]. This article can be redirected and expanded under Siege of Panhala due to lack of sources/verifiability or it can be renamed and copyedited to match the sources.Jeraxmoira (talk) 09:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This independent blog covers the events happened on 10 November 1659 to 28 December 1659 and others [7]. Source doesn't look like WP:CITOGEN Jeraxmoira (talk) 09:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Killing of Jesse Kirby and John Kirby[edit]

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

Fails WP:SUSTAINED. They liberated themselves, and were apprehended again, as reported at the time in the newspapers. If this hasn't received significant attention afterwards, it shouldn't be treated any differently than how we treat the many crimes or human interest stories which get some attention in the newspapers nowadays, but which we don't consider suitable for an article here. I couldn't find anything in Google Books, and the article offers no other indication that this is a case which has been discussed afterwards and is more than just a short burst of (mostly identical) news reports. Creator indicates that they "can't find this in any quality secondary sources" but preferred an AfD over Prod to get more eyes on it. Fram (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Discrimination, History, and Georgia (U.S. state). Fram (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
KEEP. Seemed notable instance of slave rebellion in the United States, enough to warrant a mention in The Liberator and a reward from the governor. If not substantial enough for a standalone, would it be considered encyclopedic in some other form? List? Subsection of other page? Thoughts invited. jengod (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Two slaves killing their owner and fleeing is hardly a "slave rebellion". Fram (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  They killed two owners, who had recently purchased them and were moving them three states south! I think certainly slave resistance in the United States bc this wasn't just "I don't like you personally and I want your money" -- IMHO the slave trade in the United States part is key here. There were a number of on-ship Slave rebellions including the coastwise Creole case but men in an overland coffle overpowering their enslavers is fundamentally interesting IMHO. jengod (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep/merge I found this 2016 dissertation which discusses it for 2 pages[8]. If discussion agrees on deletion for a stand alone article, then I hope the content will be merged to an appropriate location rather than deleted entirely.--User:Namiba 15:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks so much for surfacing this Namiba. I expanded w material therein. jengod (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep or at least Merge into History of slavery in Georgia, where there is a dearth of information about slave trading and slavery law between statehood and the civil war. Even Slave trade in the United States covers the situation in Georgia better, and is another merger target, too. This article is an example of inter-state slave trading that was going on at the time, despite it being illegal in Georgia. Preserve the statement about the law, as a minimum, because that meets WP:SUSTAINED, even if the rest of the article does not. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 12:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to History of slavery in Georgia. I would like to see more than a single dissertation to convince me that there was sustained coverage of this event. That being said, I think this is a useful example to mention in a larger article as Cameron Dewe notes. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - I just created a section of History of slavery in Georgia#Domestic slave trade with info about the Kirbys, the Hamburg SC slave market, and a case in Savannah in 1843, so if result is merge, that would be a suitable redirect target. :) Cheers jengod (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good to me! Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mac Beathaidh mac Ainmire[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Single EL but no references. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Poetry, History, and Ireland. UtherSRG (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete "Little is known" about the person, means there is no sourcing. I can't find anything in Gscholar, Books or Jstor we could use. Oaktree b (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete or, failing that, redirect to Ollamh Érenn. If all that can be said about a subject is that they lived, held a title/post/role and then died, it would seem that they do not meet any applicable criteria. The short pieces of text that we have in the article (copied/pasted from the Irish annals) could just as easily be covered in the Ollamh Érenn article. Not seeing the need for a standalone article on one such office/title-holder... Guliolopez (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Ollamh Érenn: as an WP:ATD. There is simply no coverage of this person at all, save for extremely passing mentions in the four medieval annals. Curbon7 (talk) 21:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep or merge (to Ollamh Érenn). Note that there are multiple possible spellings of both Beathaidh and Ainmire. Srnec (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete due to lack of online sources contemporary to the subject. Better yet, due to lack of sources altogether. Note: One would advise caution about Merging text unsupported by sources, since it is customary in these parts to defenestrate said texts rather than moving them about. But a Redirect cannot be excluded. -The Gnome (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
lack of online sources contemporary to the subject. The subject died long before the internet. All the contemporary sources cited in the article are available online. Just click through to the articles. Srnec (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge - seems like a worthwhile section on a different page, if one can be agreed. It's not inconceivable that more could be found if one looked in offline archives and libraries. As/when someone does that, maybe there would be enough to satisfy the notability criteria. JMWt (talk) 07:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete One of the lines in the article is "Little is known of his life, other than his obituary" so via WP:NOTMEMORIAL delete.Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Timeline of events in Cyprus, 1974[edit]

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

The article is not only highly unsourced and has been for at least five years from the maintenance template, it is clearly dogged with nationalism and any attempts to change either get reverted or nobody cares enough to make said changes. Additionally, since this is about 1974 in Cyprus, I believe there are a reasonable amount of articles that cover this subject including but not limited to "Turkish Invasion of Cyprus", "Cyprus dispute", "Military operations during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus" all of which are in comparison to this, fairly sourced-neutral. SirBlueWhite (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Cyprus. SirBlueWhite (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: 'Timeline of' articles are actually a special case of 'List of' articles, and they suffer from the same weaknesses in that they are easily filled up with entries that in themself may be relevant for the theme, but taken together create an imbalance that violates WP:NPOV. Even if individual entries are sourced, the relative importance of the different entries is difficult to assess. This is, of course, also a problem in an ordinary article, but much more so in list articles, and it is especially critical in contentious topic areas. Other articles cover this topic far much better. --T*U (talk) 07:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see more opinions on this AFD discussion before taking action.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Battle of Kelmendi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A search on google books bring zero results for a Battle of Kelmendi article is an orphan, none of the sources mention a significant battle but clashes that took place between 1624 and 1638 (already mentioned on the Kelmendi article). Fails WP:N(E) No historical significance & no sufficient sourcing for a standalone article. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC) edited Wafflesvarrg (talk) 11:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Events, Turkey, and Albania. UtherSRG (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. Sources used in the article:

1 1685 treatise WP:OLDSOURCES seemingly unrelated quote N
2 1866 book WP:OLDSOURCES Does not mention a “Battle of Kelmendi” but various clashes taking place between 1624 and 1638. N
3 1722 book, WP:OLDSOURCES + does not mention a specific “Battle of Kelmendi” N
4 website article using the same old sources to illustrate folktale N

Primary sources do mention this event, but I don't think that it ever acquired a distinctive name in historiography: Winnifrith 2021.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Maleschreiber There is no denial that clashes between Ottoman troops and the Kelmendi took place between 1624 and 1638, both Malcolm and Elsie mention them, but neither of them bring up a 1638 battle of Kelmendi. Elsie in the Tribes of Albania writes: "In the following decades, (after 1624) the Turks made numerous efforts to subject the Kelmendi, but with no decisive result"; Winnifrith says: "In 1638 Turkish forces had taken the field against this tribe to punish them for brigandage" while Malcolm 2020 just says: "in 1638 the local inhabitants of Novi Pazar and northern Kosovo sent a petition to the Sultan, pleading for action to be taken to defend them from the raids of the Kelmendi". If a significant battle did take place WP:SIGCOV from contemporary sources would exist which would warrant a standalone article, otherwise Ottoman-Kelmendi clashes can be sufficiently described in the Kelmendi (tribe) article. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC) edited Wafflesvarrg (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC) edited Wafflesvarrg (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There does appear to be at least one contemporary report of the campaign, by Frang Bardhi (1606-1643), reprinted at [9] with some commentary credited to Robert Elsie. It is cited in the Kelmendi (tribe) article, with other sources. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RecycledPixels Yes you are right, I added that content to the Kelmendi article, it also includes Elsie’s commentary/warning that this 1638 document was a “somewhat glorified text” about the Kelmendi tribe under attack, which may explain why he chose to repost it on his personal website and not use it in his reference book The Tribes of Albania (Kelmendi Tribe chapter pp. 15–36). I also added two more sources (Ernest Lavisse and François Lenormant) mentioning that same punitive expedition sent against the tribe (short/trivial mentions) both relate a completely different outcome which also casts doubt on the accuracy of that 1638 document. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 08:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC) edited Wafflesvarrg (talk) 12:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In light of that, I don't understand why you're nominating the topic for deletion with the reason that there are no sources that refer to the campaign as a more than small clashes (a term that I'd define as opportunistic and somewhat unplanned skirmishes between forces, but you may be using with a different meaning), and that there aren't any sources that support a standalone article. You've just identified several, and I pointed at one (that you had provided) that clearly indicated that it was a significant, well-planned campaign with a large buildup. Perhaps the title can be improved. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because I researched the topic first and found no battle of Kelmendi, the closest thing I could find in 1638 involving the Kelmendi was a punitive raid which is not addressed by WP:SIGCOV, directly and in detail. The one source that you mentioned is an WP:OLDSOURCES which does not seem to be WP:RELIABLE (see previous comment), and is not backed up by any contemporary source. Albanologist Robert Elsie’s history of the Kelmendi makes no mention of it (you can actually read the whole chapter here); neither does Malcolm (see first comment). The French sources that I found say that in 1638 the Kelmendi chiefs got their head cut off (!) following a punitive raid. This is hardly enough for a standalone article that's why it was added to the Kelmendi (tribe) article. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Based on the analysis of the sources, this fails WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom.2.48.60.9 (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
do you have a registered username? Wafflesvarrg (talk) 08:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete As per nom. Seems to be an improper WP:SYNTH of various incidents. --Griboski (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I searched for sources and this was in fact a campaign which is described in detail and at length by several primary sources (1638 Frang Bardhi:The Pasha of Bosnia attacks Kelmendi). I have started expansion of the article. The topic is legitimately notable and it can be expanded into a very detailed article. It should be renamed to Kelmendi campaign (1638)--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Maleschreiber Bardhi has been discussed previously, it is a single OLD source posted on Elsie’s personal website with a warning and contradicted somewhere else, it seems to be more documentary-archival material than reliable description of an event; I doubt it is a RS but this can of course be discussed… nevertheless more than one source is needed to show NOT so please share your research and where you have seen a 1638 Kelmendi campaign “described in detail and at length by several primary sources” Thank you. Wafflesvarrg (talk)

Keep I am in agreeance with @Maleschreiber that the article should be renamed as opposed to deleted. There is indeed primary source material and even some secondary source literature describing this specific campaign. Aside from Bardhi's report mentioned above and in the article itself, there is also a report by the Ottoman historian Mustafa Naima who presents the campaign in a very different light and, perhaps, more detailed manner than Bardhi - thus adding nuance to the topic. Naima's report is also discussed by the Albanian historian Selami Pulaha who critiques Naima's clear bias in portraying the campaign as an Ottoman victory. In short, if renamed and expanded appropriately, the article does have potential. :Lezhjani1444 (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lezhjani1444 That sounds interesting, regarding Naima/Ottoman and other sources, can you please also share? as long as they are reliable since WP:AGE MATTERS and address the topic directly and in detail to pass GNG, it would be good to see new material. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 10:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Naima's historical account is published in Selami Pulaha's Qëndresa e popullit shqiptar kundër sundimit osman nga shekulli XVI deri në fillim të shekullit XVIII: dokumente osmane (1978). Pulaha also includes a commentary and critique of Naima's account, describing it as a biased source which was written to portray Vučo Pasha's campaign as a success, when in reality (as Bardhi mentions) the Ottoman army under Vučo Pasha was forced to retreat from Kelmendi due to heavy losses and a lack of supplies. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is also a more recent paper (2017) by Luan Tetaj on this campaign titled: "Kryengritjet e Kelmendaseve në shekullin XVII". Lezhjani1444 (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First of all thank you @Lezhjani1444 for actually doing research this is really helpful to the discussion; from what you sent, the only one accessible one is "Kryengritjet e Kelmendaseve në shekullin XVII" but that looks like a simple mention, (please correct me if wrong): Sultan Murad IV, fearing an unexpected situation, in 1638 ordered Vuço Pasa the Beylerbey of Bosnia to gather an army from Hercegovina, Albania and Serbia to start military expedition as soon as possible in order to press the main center of the movement, namely Malësia e Madhe. However, even this time, as many times before, ottoman attempts failed this is good for the Kelmendi article mentioning the campaign but not enough to warrant a stand alone article. Is there anything else that addresses the topic directly and in detail? Wafflesvarrg (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem, glad to help. Tetaj does write more about the campaign and seems to agree more so with Bardhi's account, although he does include information which from Naima. I have translated it and will include below, although apologies if my translation seems clunky and a little incoherent at times, I'm not accustomed to translating entire paragraphs of Albanian, however, this should give a general idea hopefully:

In February 1638, fearing the unpredictable situation, Sultan Murad IV ordered Vučo Pasha, the beylerbey of Bosnia, to raise a large army from his own pashalik and those of Herzegovina, Albania, and Serbia for a final expedition against the main centre of unrest in Malësia e Madhe; aiming to spare the locals no mercy and put them all to the sword. Being charged with this task, Vučo Pasha gathered over 15,000 soldiers, composed of Dalmatians, Croats, Serbs, Bulgarians, and Bosnians. While chosen for their physical strength, these troops had no experience in battle and war. Vučo Pasha arrived in Albania, setting camp above Lake Shkodra where the Ottoman army rested for 3 days. On the fourth day Vučo Pasha arrived at the city of Shkodra where he called upon the sanjak-beys of the city and Dukagjin, ordering them to raise a force of 1,000 Albanians - either Muslim or Christian - and attach them to his army. It is believed that Vučo Pasha was accompanied and supported by 9 sanjak-beys and 2 pashas with inferior ranks, Halil and Nahun Pasha. However, Vučo Pasha had supreme control over the imperial army. After all the preparations were made, he began his military expedition into Kelmendi. After reaching a mountain peak from which the inhabitants of Kelmendi could be seen, Vučo Pasha ordered his troops to expand into the interior of Kelmendi; keeping a guard of 2,000 soldiers with him on the mountain top. However, as the Ottoman soldiers entered, the local rebels rushed to blockade the roads from which the army had entered; entrapping them with with large stones and trees. As such, the Ottoman army was trapped and resorted to razing and pillaging the villages, gathering sums of loot. Aware of the threats against them, the Malësors had previously taken their women, children, cattle, and valuables up into the mountains to hide, while the men prepared for battle; also leaving the Ottomans empty handed. It is during this confrontation that the popular folk saying "it is not Kelmendi which fights, but the country" was invented. As a result of heavy snow fall in the region, the roads and passes which the Ottoman army had planned to cross in order to engage the rebels had become impassable. Having razed a number of villages and running low on food reserves, Vučo Pasha ordered his troops to retreat two weeks later. Meanwhile, becoming aware of the Ottoman retreat, the Kelmendi - under the leadership of Vuk Doda - attacked the Ottoman army, where it is believed that a thousand soldiers were killed. The Ottoman army suffered heavy losses and were routed, leaving many casualties and spoils of war behind them. When Vučo Pasha was informed of his army's defeat, he attempted to flee but was stopped by the sanjak-bey of Dukagjin, advising him to wait for the remnants of the army. After joining with the rest of the army, Vučo Pasha returned to Shkodra and spent a few days there before returning to Bosnia. Vučo Pasha was unable to subdue the Kelmendi by force and thus attempted to establish agreements with the tribe. For example, news had spread among the Kelmendi that if the locals, both men and women, were to surrender within a week they would be forgiven and compensated for the damages caused by the campaign. Despite this proposition, the Kelmendi refused and Vučo Pasha's attempts were unsuccessful. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you @Lezhjani1444 for the quotation and transcription, we are definitely making progress as this source contains details that corroborate Bardhi. Could you provide the full details please, the full reference with the page..etc if Naima wrote this and when. Since we also have two conflicting accounts, could you tell us more about Pulaha’s commentary and critique of Naima's account? The more details we have the closer we get to SIGCOV. Once established I would suggest a rename and move this conversation to the new TP. You do not need to translate by hand, you can take a screenshot and upload as an image to google translate for instant translation. Thanks again. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Above is my translation of pages 85-7 from Luan Tetaj's paper "Kryengritjet e Kelmendaseve në shekullin XVII" (2017) discussing the campaign of 1638. As for Naima's historical account of the campaign, I am not entirely sure when it was written, though I think it was part of his historical compilation of 1704. Naima's account (including footnotes) spans pages 110-5 of Pulaha's book, I can share the pages if you and others would like, although note that the report has been translated into Albanian. As for Pulaha's commentary (starts with a brief introduction of Naima's account), I can translate since it is shorter:

1638, January-February The Albanians of Kelmendi, Piperi, Palabardhi (i.e., Bjelopavlići) and Rožaje rise up in revolt/uprising and begin launching attacks, extending into Bosnia. An Ottoman army composed of around 15,000 soldiers under the command of Vučo Pasha, the beylerbey of Bosnia, is sent in order to counter the rebels and manages to penetrate into the highlands of Kelmendi. However, the Ottoman army is encircled and attacked by the rebels. During the fighting, the Ottomans suffer heavy losses of both men and resources, forcing them to retreat without confronting/subduing the rebels - whom were revered/noted for their unparalleled heroism and bravery. This is reflected in the works of Ottoman historians from the 17th century themselves, although their works present a distorted and false versions of the historical events. (p. 110)

Naima distorts the the events and defeat(s) of Vučo Pasha's army in Kelmend, portraying the campaign as a victory. [The defeat of the Ottomans] can be convincingly proven when referring to documents/sources of the 17th century. For example, Frang Bardhi, a contemporary source who lived during the events, testifies that while Vučo Pasha's army entered into Kelmendi during the winter of 1638, the army was encircled and that all the paths for escape and resupplying were blocked. The unrelenting attacks from the Kelmendi and the and the lack of food supplies placed the Ottomans in a very dire situation, the army was left with two decisions: either to break the encirclement or succumb to starvation. During their efforts to break the encirclement, the Ottomans suffered heavy losses in both men and resources, with Frang Bardhi stating that the Kelmendi had managed to kill around 1,000 Ottoman soldiers during their first attack. Even in Naima's distorted narration the heroism and bravery of the rebels in their fight for freedom is presented clearly. (p. 115)

Regarding Naima's attestation of an agreement (Ahdname) reached between Vučo Pasha and the rebels of Kelmendi, in which it was stipulated that the latter would: no longer cut off trade routes and roads, pay tribute/tax (haraç) as before, and be resettled from Kelmendi to the nahiyah of Plava, becoming loyal subjects. Pulaha considered this to be evidence of Vučo Pasha's defeat or inability to fully subdue to the Albanian rebels, and Naima's attempts at embellishing the event to deny the Kelmendi of victory:

The arrival to an agreement clearly shows that Naima embellished the events and attempted to deny the Ottoman defeat. Via the agreement, the Ottoman state was forced to recognise the autonomy of these regions, which they had enjoyed in previous years, and this would only have been possible if the rebels had managed to defeat Vučo Pasha. (p. 115) Lezhjani1444 (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per Maleschreiber, plus the discussion I had with Wafflesvarrg when I hijacked Maleschreiber's comment thread above. Satisfies WP:GNG, so keep and rename to a more appropriate title if needed. I don't think a merge/redirect to the tribe article because some of the issues that Wafflesvarrg has raised relate to the accuracy and reliability of the sources. A standalone article is the place to expand upon modern interpretations of the reliability of earlier sources, not hijacking the tribe article where this subject might merit, at most, one paragraph before overwhelming it. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RecycledPixels I’m not sure how you can already vote and say that it satisfies WP:GNG, without “significant coverage addressing the topic directly and in detail”; we only have one source which may not be RS contradicted by two passing mentions that do not address the topic directly and in detail. At the moment it clearly fails to meet the WP:NOTABILITY criteria. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 10:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't already vote before this, I was asking you questions for clarification while I formed an opinion. This was my first and only bolded vote as a result of that discussion. I don't agree with your assessments about the sources. We have a contemporary report by Frang Bardhi that is significant coverage of the facts of the event. We have a modern re-publication of that report with some critique by Robert Elsie on the albanianhistory.com, as well as another source by Elsie, the 2015 Tribes of Albania, page 31, he uses Bardhi's writing again in mentioning the attacks by the Kelmendi on caravans in Albania, Bosnia and Serbia so clearly he felt that Bardhi's writing was factual, albeit possibly embellished. In mentioning Bardhi's work in that book, he cites "Injac Zamputi (ed.), Relacione mbi gjendjen e Shqipërisë veriore e të mesme në shekullin XVII. Teksti origjinal dhe përkthimi nga Injac Zamputi. Burime dhe materiale për historinë e Shqipërisë, 3. Vëllimi I (1610 – 1634), Vëllimi II (1634 – 1650) [Reports on Conditions in Northern and Central Albania in the Seventeenth Century. Original Texts and Translations by Injac Zamputi. Sources and Material on the History of Albania, 3. Vol. I (1610 – 1634), Vol. II (1634 – 1650)]. Tirana: Universiteti shtetëror i Tiranës, 1963, vol 1, pp 276-278" (citation 35). The webpage reprint of Bardhi's writing also cites "Peter Bartl (ed.), Albania Sacra, 3 (Wiesbaden 2014), p. 137-140" and "Injac Zamputti (ed.), Dokumente për historinë e Shqipërisë (1623-1653) (Sankt Gallen & Prishtina 2015), p. 193-198." so there's clearly more written about this event and/or Bardhi's writing on the event (that I haven't attempted to access since those were clearly written in a language I don't understand and don't have the time or interest to translate). Those by themselves establish WP:GNG, without even considering the other sources brought up here, such as Lavisse, Lenormant, and others. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elsie is using the part of the document that is backed up by other sources (Kelmendi attacking merchants, mentioned by everyone) Elsie is skipping the part we are talking about which is also how we should proceed here per wiki standards. A mere mention of an unnamed event doesn’t help with GNG, neither does a single possibly unreliable source from 1638 not corroborated by other independent sources or by recent research by modern historians. “To be suitable for a stand-alone article a topic needs to show significant coverage in reliable sources” none of the sources you mentioned satisfy that. Bartl and Zamputti only present archived documents related to Albanian history. If you look it up and translate all that it is easy to check. Lavisse is also just a mention, Lenormant contradicts Bardhi and is not enough for an article (full quote is on the Kelmendi article). You need to look at the type of content to see if they provide SIGVOV not just at their existence. At the moment we do not have anything significant or reliable to warrant this article. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Per Maleschreiber, sources clearly indicate that it wasn't just some clashes but an full Ottoman campaign against the Kelmendi tribe. I think its also important to note that it is very strange, that the User who joined Wikipedia a few days ago directly starts to nominate 2 articles of another user for deletion. Based.shqiptar.frompirok (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please read the prior comments so you can familiarise yourself with the discussion. Maleschreiber has not brought source(s) (yet) but the same source (Bardhi) that I was already discussing with RecycledPixels, an OLD source that might be unreliable since it comes with a warning and is also contradicted by other mentions. At the moment we only have passing mentions which do not address that event in details and are not enough to demonstrate GNG and SIGCOV. Not sure I understand your last comment but you're welcome to comment on my tp. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: To be clear with all the participants (and with the administrator closing this AfD), since I don't think I can keep answering such a large number of editors for long. Frang Bardhi's report from June 1638, has value as a historical source, but its reliability may be subject to scrutiny. Robert Elsie has characterised Bardhi's account as "somewhat glorified" which suggest that the report contains elements of exaggeration, myth-making, or bias that may have distorted the true nature of the event (looking now at new source provided by Lezhjani1444). Here are the other two sources mentioned, translated from French, which contradict "Bardhi" [10].:

Ernest Lavisse - Histoire générale du IV siècle á nos jours: Les guerres de religion, 1559-1648. P. 894 [11] All the mountains were engulfed by the hordes of Doudjé-Pasha: the majority of the Klementi, Albanians of the Catholic religion, were transplanted to Serbia and Macedonia (1638); and Sultan Mourad IV, to whom Albanian heads were brought, with their hair divided into four braids and decorated with silver chains, joked about it with the nobles of his court, saying: “See how well Doudjé adorned the heads of my subjects of Albania.“ This servitude of the Albanian and Serbian mountains was to last sixty years.
François Lenormant - Turcs et Monténégrins P. 129 [12] Despite so much suffering, they still resisted in 1638, when Sultan Mourad IV, freed from the war with Persia after the capture of Baghdad, charged Doudjé-Pasha, former bostandji-bachi, appointed governor of Bosnia. (...) Doudjé-Pasha's expedition opened in the heart of winter. The courageous mountaineers, although weakened by famine and lacking ammunition, put up a desperate defense. They rolled huge blocks of rock from the tops of the mountains onto the Turkish army. The death of their knèze Vokodoud, killed in a fight, and a few days after that of the voivode Hotasch, whom the Pasha himself surprised by climbing an inaccessible peak with crampons, deprived the Clementi of their best chiefs and determined their submission. The leaders of the tribe were decapitated, and their heads sent to Constantinople. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as currently, there is No consensus. A couple of comments, first, the time stamps on this AFD are all out-of-whack because the AFD wasn't transcluded correctly. It was started 9/14 but didn't get placed on the daily log page until 9/18. Secondly, User:Wafflesvarrg, please do not bludgeon this discussion. Do not respond to every comment here that has an opposing point of view with a contradictory comment. Finally, AFD is not the proper location for a content discussion so please do not get into a debate of minute details on each source that is better to have on an article talk page. This is a general discussion on whether this article should be Kept, Deleted, Merged or Redirected.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: Apologies all for hijacking the conversation earlier, I'm a newbie to this! I am summing-up all the findings below and on the article TP. I am not against a rename to "1638 Ottoman expedition against Kelmendi" for example, but is that enough material for an article? wouldn’t it make more sense to create a section with that name in the Kelmendi (tribe) article?. I will let the community decide and will do my best to improve the topic following whatever decision is taken. If new sources are found please share. Thank you to User:Lezhjani1444 for all his research, wishing everyone a good day. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC) edited (typo) Wafflesvarrg (talk) 13:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In February 1638, Sultan Murad IV commanded Vučo Pasha, the beylerbey of Bosnia, to lead a 15,000-strong army, composed of soldiers of various origins (Dalmatians, Croats, Serbs, Bulgarians, and Bosnians), to quell unrest in Malësia e Madhe and to punish the local tribes for brigandage. After stopping in Shkodër to receive an additional 1,000 Albanian soldiers, the military expedition entered the the highlands of Kelmendi. The challenging terrain and heavy snowfall compelled the Ottomans to resort to pillaging and razing villages in search of supplies. Anticipating the Ottoman threat, local Kelmendi rebels concealed their families, cattle, and valuables in a grotto in the mountains. Outcome of the campaign differs depending on sources: According to Ottoman historian Mustafa Naima, and to 19th-century French historians Ernest Lavisse and François Lenormant (using Ottoman and Western sources) Kelmendi leaders were caught and beheaded, their heads were then sent to the Sultan in Constantinople, while the surviving members of the tribe were relocated to Pristina and other regions. Austrian historian Spiridon Gopčević writes that starved to death, the Kelmendi surrendered after the death of their leaders Vukodud and Hotaš, and that the majority of the tribe was relocated to Pristina. According to Albanian bishop Frang Bardhi, and to modern Albanian scholars (using Bardhi’s report as source) the Ottoman force found itself encircled and attacked by the Kelmendi, during the confrontation a thousand Ottoman soldiers were killed, leading to the Ottoman force retreat to Bosnia. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - There are sources and there are questions about the sources. I suspect this article is not the correct final form, and a rename of the article may very well be in order, but that is not an AfD outcome. A redirect or merge does not seem like a good outcome in this case, as there is some subject here that has not been shown to be a clear sub topic of an existing target. The sources that are identified are sufficient to pass GNG for an article about these events. It may not be this article but improvement by way of renaming and refactoring the article would be a content discussion going forward and is out of scope of AfD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Can someone point to which secondary RS provide SIGCOV of this skirmish as a defined event? If the only sources with more than a passing mention are primary then they unequivocally do not contribute to notability and the article should be deleted.

JoelleJay (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ned Parfett[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not meet notability as this is "Classic one event" per last time this was deleted [13] Mason (talk) 03:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Events, History, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Pure WP:1E, page should never have been recreated after being deleted previously. Mztourist (talk) 05:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already paid a visit to AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option. We need more editor feedback.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Non-notable person who died in World War 1. This is about the best I could find [14]. Rest are basically trivia stories around Titanic lore, with several photos of different things. Oaktree b (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could perhaps redirect to an article about the photo [15]. There's been a limited amount of scholarly discussion around the composition and artistic points about the photo itself and what it represents. The person isn't notable, but the discourse around the photo is interesting. Oaktree b (talk) 13:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Malik ibn al-Nadr[edit]

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

No indication whatsoever of importance or notability. Wikipedia is WP:NOTGENEALOGY. WP:BEFORE shows no indication whatsoever of historical importance. Notability is also WP:NOTINHERITED, but even if it were, this subject is 14 generations away from Muhammad. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Islam, and People. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Goes for Al-Nadr ibn Kinanah, his equally non-notable father, too. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Being a distant ancestor of someone notable does not equate to notability. FatCat96 (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments:
- Family tree of Muhammad is a potential redirect page
- Comments similar to those above about notability could be made about Jesus’s ancestors, however articles about minor Biblical figures are usually retained in AfDs (sometimes “keep”, sometimes “no consensus”).

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I could go for it as a potential redirect (it borders on clutter, but redirects *are* cheap, and it'd make it easier for someone to rebuild the article if it ever acquires any sort of actual notability). Regarding minor Biblical figures, I can't say I know much about that. I would definitely still disagree with keeping a Bible figure of similar notability, but at the very least with a lot of obscure Biblical figures, I imagine there's been extensive, citable theological research about them (if not, then again I'd heavily disagree with keeping them on notability grounds). With this one, it's 1) some random person fourteen times removed from Muhammad 2) whose only source is a non-profit that 3) frankly doesn't even seem to mention him one time, let alone in any detail. Truthfully, I have no idea why the creator of these (I'll note previously deleted) articles even used this source when it doesn't mention the relevant subjects. Update: found him in another chapter. He's dedicated approximately 10 words in this entire thing. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’m not Muslim; I hope we’ll get Muslims joining this discussion.

As I understand it, Muhammad was created before other humans and then his Nūr was implanted in Adam. Adam in Islam is a bigger deal than in Judaism; he’s a prophet and not just some schmuck who ate the wrong apple. Muhammad’s nūr was carried down from Adam through multiple descendants to Muhammad. So Malik is important - not just some guy but the carrier of Muhammad’s nūr.

However, even if Malik’s important, is he notable if we don’t find something comprehensive written about him?

I’m no scholar; this is just what I’ve found since deleting the speedy tag.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@A. B.:, all figures of ancestor line of Muhammad are (not very, but average) a little bit important issues in Islamic studies, see my comment below, and the term nur is risky to use in case of Muhammad because of the important islamic basic ideology of Shirk (Islam), because calling him God's light (Nur of Allah, sometime being extreme and too much liberal in emotion) is an extremely controversial issue, because it can associate him in the part and power of God in Islam or Allah, which is prohibited in Islam as Shirk (Islam), you can study it on Sufi–Salafi relations, also search the topic in google, many contents related to it are available in english. 202.134.8.130 (talk)

Keep, ar wikipedia has an entry ar:مالك بن النضر with 6 more language entries. If مالك بن النضر is searched in google, a lot of important entries are found in google and google books. As a family ancestor of Muhammad, an important figure. Suggest to verily keep and improve the article, google translate can be used to translate the contents found in arabic while searching in google, in arabic, google translate really works nice. Btw, I added the article to the respective interwikilink of the rest 6s. The most important islamic academic database maqtaba shamila (ar:المكتبة الشاملة) has also 2 entries when searched in google (see here). And for help, if anyone wants to learn Arabic they can follow 3 minute lessons of lesson b's of this video series on youtube. And to know Muhammad's life, english translation of Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum is suggested, available in google as free pdf. 202.134.8.130 (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per 202.134.8.130. Thanks for explaining this to us! It was fascinating to read about this last night.

—-A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1807 in Chile[edit]

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

Article does not meet general notability guidelines, includes empty sections, doesn't cite any sources, and is only 693 bytes. A y d o h 8 ( t a l k ) 04:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Chile. A y d o h 8 ( t a l k ) 04:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can we not just merge all the "1800s in Chile" articles into one decade article? Are ten stubs really better than one semi-decent list where you may have to scroll once? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. Merge. The information is worth having, but shouldn't be spread over ten articles. Athel cb (talk) 14:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - This is not an article or a list, since it functions as a Category. I think that is the right navigation tool for this information. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge as proposed. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - Merge where? '1800s' is ambiguous as either the first decade of the 19th Century or, in almost all common usage, the entire century. How do we expect a reader to know we mean decades when everyone else means centuries? On a minor note, there are articles for every year. I assume the plan will be to consolidate all of them into decades. Is there a mechanism for that, or do we need 99 more AfDs? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rellisting comment, I echo others, what is the specific, existing Merge target article you are proposing?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe AirshipJungleman29's intention was to create a new page called 1800s in Chile to collate all of the entries from 1800-1809. They can feel free to correct me if wrong. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was my suggestion, yes. I'm not sure I'd call it my intention, since it was a throwaway comment, but now that I've looked through all of the hundred 18[xx] in Chile article, I can find nothing so good about any of them to overrule WP:PAGEDECIDE. As for confusion, "1800s in Chile (decade)" should solve that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A closer can Merge to an existing article but can not create one where none exist. It's not helpful to propose new articles unless you are willing to spend the time to create it. DIY. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'm completely confused now. It sounds like those advocating Merge have no existing target article in mind so no actual Merge can occur. This discussion is becoming a trainwreck.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was trying to think of a way to to accomplish this via AfD with a merge to 1800 in Chile and rename to 1800s in Chile, but considering all the unlisted pages that also need merging, it's just not the right forum for that outcome. @AirshipJungleman29: I recommend starting a merge discussion on Talk:1800 in Chile as soon as this closes for all ten "180X in Chile" pages, and pinging all the participants here to that discussion. —siro χ o 09:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure. Would someone mind pinging me when this closes? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Northeastern Ukraine campaign. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Battle of Romny[edit]

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

No real battle occurred; article merely discusses various incidents during the occupation period. Notability as independent topic is rather dubious. Article had been created by an editor who has been involved in similar cases in the past. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak delete it does look not notable to me. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Notability does look questionable. WP:NOTNEWS. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Most of the incidents are unconnected, nor was there a battle by any means. The whole article should be merged and pasted to a new section about Romny Raion in Russian occupation of Sumy Oblast. Jebiguess (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correction, merge. Jebiguess (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge into Northeastern Ukraine campaign, as appropriate. Searching for the exact title finds nothing significant. —Michael Z. 14:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge into Northeastern Ukraine campaign as per Michael Z BHC (talk) 08:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Merge as two different target articles are suggested here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge to Russian occupation of Sumy Oblast#Romny Raion looks the easiest, most of the material is already there. But further reorganization and merges of both targets are still possible based on the different ongoing discussions. - Indefensible (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge WP:ATD-M Lightburst (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

History Proposed deletions[edit]

History categories[edit]

for occasional archiving

Proposals[edit]