Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science - Wikipedia

Article Images

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.

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

Does not pass WP:ACADEMIC. Reasons given for notability are co-authoring books with husband. I understand it is difficult to know who is responsible for the written work in these circumstances, but I think co-authoring books that do not have their own article is a difficult justification for an article- I would suggest a merge with her Husband's article maybe (her husband is clearly notable as president of a learned body). I feel very bad about doing this, however, as obviously I do not want to underplay women's accomplishments in scientific fields. Spiralwidget (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: She's mentioned quite a bit in Gscholar [1] for example, but I suspect it was due to the era in which she lived and gender bias that "minimized" her contributions for lack of a better term. The 50s and 60s was still early for female scientists to be taken as equals to males. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This paper from 2015 seems to give her a proper discussion [2]. I think she's notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I sympathise with the proposer's dilemma. Although in Wikipedia terms "president of a learned body" gives us an easy basis for declaring someone notable, the lasting impact of this couple, and the real reason they're notable, is the anthropology they did, and their written output, not the husband's post. We cannot tease apart who contributed how much. Given that we don't know their relative contributions, deciding to put her contribution in an article with his name just feels too old-fashioned and patriarchal, as well as very arbitrary. Also, from a practical perspective, if we were to merge, her life prior to her marriage wouldn't fit well in her husband's article, giving too much weight to things that aren't directly about him; we'd have to consider moving the new merged article to "Felix Maxwell Keeling and Marie Margaret Keeling" or something like that, but then we'd need redirects anyway, so what's the point? "Keep" has the benefit of being a simple outcome to an inseparable duo. Elemimele (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Social science, England, New Zealand, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the co-author of Elite Communication in Samoa and Taming Philippine Headhunters, both of which seem to be significant books (I'm seeing lots of published scholarly reviews online, despite the fact they were published a long time pre-internet), she surely meets WP:AUTHOR. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You should have followed your initial hunch: "I feel very bad about doing this". Back then, it was absolutely normal that a woman would publish together with her husband. Even if she was the major contributor, it would go out with the appearance that it was mainly the man's work. We should not be perpetuating this custom and either way, it's clear that they were both notable for their work in anthropology, even if it appears that he is the major author. Schwede 66 18:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per Schwede66 and Josh Milburn and other arguments. Additionally the Pan-Pacific Women's Association was a redlink in the article due to a typo but is a significant organization. Major evidence comes from the article Oaktree found, "Applied Anthropology and Interwar Internationalism: Felix and Marie Keesing and the (White) Future of the ʻNativeʼ Pan-Pacific" -- when researchers are being the subject of others' academic articles, it's a very strong sign of WP:PROF passing. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or merge: weak delete because I agree with the points made above about women in science being overshadowed by men. However, we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, as much as I would like to. I think the alternative of an article merge would be good, but would require a rewrite of both articles to create a "joint" article for the couple. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 21:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

When I stumbled across this article, I was quickly struck by how many of the cited sources were the Socialist Alternatives magazine itself, making up more than half of the cited sources. Then I noticed quite a few citations were to self-published wordpress blogs, which wasn't encouraging. The Encyclopedia of British and Irish Political Organizations doesn't give much more detail other than it being the short-lived British section of the IRMT, and gestures at a couple other organisations it may have been connected to.

What is left over then are mostly sources about Keir Starmer's relationship to the magazine. When I looked up Socialist Alternatives on Google Scholar, I likewise only found biographies of Starmer. I haven't been able to find significant coverage of the group/magazine itself.

Given all this, I'm unconvinced that this group/publication is independently notable. Its only significant coverage in reliable sources are about its connection with someone that became important decades after his involvement with the group. As such, I'm proposing it for deletion; I'm not sure whether the articles on the IRMT or Starmer himself would be more appropriate redirect targets. Grnrchst (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Social science, and United Kingdom. Grnrchst (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If Wikipedia was around in the late 1980s or 1990s then this magazine\political tendency would easily meet notability criteria - it was an active political group and it managed to get a good number of the British left to contribute, including Tony Benn, Ralph Miliband and Hilary Wainwright. The person "that became important decades after his involvement with the group" was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom - and it's not unusual that large articles like Keir Starmer's will tend to have "sub articles". The basic argument for suppressing pages about movements that were notable once was that they didn't last - but even though I'd argue that Starmer's not the only reason we should keep the article, his political development as currently the most powerful single person in the UK is a sufficient reason. (It should also be noted that "half the sources are internal, misses out that there are currently 11 external sources, so it seems externally notable). JASpencer (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JASpencer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article about a business competition, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for business competitions. The main notability claim on offer here is that this existed, which is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself -- making this notable enough for a Wikipedia article would be a matter of showing that it passed WP:GNG on its sourceability, not merely of stating its existence. But the only source here is the self-published website of the thing itself, rather than any evidence of third-party coverage about it, and a Google search didn't find much else.
I'm willing to withdraw this if a British editor with much better access to archived British media coverage from 15-20 years ago than I've got can find the sourcing needed to salvage it, but it can't just be kept in perpetuity without sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Events, Environment, and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can’t find any third party coverage, the competition itself seems to have fizzled out in 2008/9, and there doesn’t seem to be any sources talking about it as having happened at any point after it stopped. Can’t seem to turn up further coverage on the winners either, so THEY don’t seem to be notable either… Absurdum4242 (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

None of the sources used in the page are reliable when it comes to language or proving this is a separate language from "modern" Corsican. Searching found a few user generated website discussions and usage of the phrase "old corsican" in contexts unrelated to language. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Is Wikipedia supposed to be a pronunciation guide for every dialect in the world? Western Catalan doesn't even have a separate article here. Fram (talk) 09:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Spain. Fram (talk) 09:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is based on Valencian, which has its own standard although I named it after Western Catalan. It's a quick guide to find when open /ɛ/ and /ɔ/ are found since some users confuse them in the transcriptions of Catalan and Valencian across Wikipedia. I think there is no harm keeping it. English has a lot of dialectal variation and lots of articles about mergers and splits of different vowels, so why couldn't Catalan have a table about the frequencies of open e and o. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 09:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since Western Catalan doesn't have an article (yet) I'll rename it to "Cases where /ɛ/ and /ɔ/ are found in Valencian" as according to sources. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 10:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: article is only sources to one book; I've found a few others [3] and [4]. This still seems a bit too specialized for wiki, might be better at wiktionary, but we have enough sourcing if we decide to let it stay here. Oaktree b (talk) 12:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, zero evidence of notability, even after looking at the above sources. At most, this would warrant a sentence or two in an (as of yet nonexistent) article on Western Catalan phonology, and certainly not an exhaustive list of words. Even the sources provided give understandably brief mentions of this particular sound among others used in the dialect, with no indication that this is some special topic of such interest on its own as to warrant in-depth discussion. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We could try to add the rest of Catalan dialects and also include the correspondences of stressed schwa in Balearic. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 16:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or transwiki per WP:NOTDICT. Nardog (talk) 13:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's not a dictionary, the article could be reorientated towards a different direction and speak about the difference in the vowel system. I think Spanish has an article about the lisp and the medieval readjustament of sibilants (Phonological history of Spanish coronal fricatives), which is similar to the evolution of the sounds of this article in Catalan, we'd just need to add further information about the stressed schwa of Balearic and the correspondent /ɛ/ in Central Catalan and /e/ in Western. This readjusrment takes place from mediaeval Catalan and I think it's quite relevant to leave it on Wikipedia. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 16:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I said it could be useful including these topics on Wikipedia. We could change the article to Phonological history of Catalan vowels. What do you think? — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 16:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balearic Catalan stressed /e/ (/ɛ/ in Central Eastern Catalan), which arose through the merging of Classical Latin /eː/ (ē) and /ɪ/ (ĭ), has been replaced by schwa highly systematically irrespective of syllable type, word position and length and the articulatory properties of the contextual consonants (Balearic [plə] plēnu 'full'). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuvolet (talk • contribs) 18:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is an entire (and rather detailed) article on Phonological history of Catalan - surely this would be most useful merged to that article. I find it dubious that anyone will search WP on "Cases where etc." It matters that the information seeking process be a major consideration. Lamona (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I agree with your proposal. I started that article (Latin-to-Catalan sound changes) a while ago, then someone copied it with a different label. Perhaps it could be divided between vowels and consonants (on the same article). — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 04:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Indiscriminate mostly unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, Europe, France, and Spain. toweli (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and is consistent with similar decisions—I see no reason why so many exonym lists exist. Are any such articles notable? pluckyporo ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a definition of exonyms given by the UN that means that such lists are not indiscriminate, but instead pass WP:LISTCRITERIA. By all means cull items that should not be there (such as toponyms that are the mere result of orthographic rules in different languages). But such lists themselves are encyclopedic. As for appealing to recent rulings, what's actually happened is that there has been a huge bunch of individual nominations, some closed very quickly, without any notification placed on the page most people interested in the topic would see: Talk:Endonym and exonym. OsFish (talk) 08:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LISTGLOSSARY provides that a list of words is encyclopedic only when the article provides an in-depth explanation for the significance of such a list (see, for example, List of English words containing Q not followed by U. I don't believe the list of Basque exonyms provides opportunity for such analysis. pluckyporo ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This person does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Her master's thesis garnered a major burst of one-off media coverage, but that does not satisfy notability requirements per WP:BLP1E. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 14:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Language. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 14:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, Europe, and Finland. toweli (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Finnish names for random places around the world are not encyclopedic; however, Finnish names for parts of Russia that used to be a part of Finland are encyclopedic, and the same might pertain to Sweden and Norway - Finns/Kven are a recognized minority in Norway and some places in Norway e.g. Porsanger have official Finnish names. Indeed, there is a Finnish exonyms for places in Norway. Perhaps there also should be a Finnish exonyms for places in Russia, and maybe Sweden, and this main Finnish exonyms page be an index for those two/three. Remove the rest. Geschichte (talk) 06:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is reasonable to cull exonyms that are simply a matter of spelling rules (in effect, a transliteration). But the rest are useful. There has been an attempted stealth cull of these pages. There should have been an announcement at least on Talk:Endonym and exonym.OsFish (talk) 05:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Indiscriminate unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, Europe, and Armenia. toweli (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Just because the French article was deleted, that does not automatically validate the others being deleted as well. There are around ~45 other "exonym" articles which still exist. They should all be nomed for deletion if we are going to use WP:NOTDICT as our justification. It is not fair to omit any of them based on this policy. If the policy isn't applied more fairly, I'd lean to a Keep and improve for this article. Archives908 (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki no evidence that WP:NLIST is met. Archives908, are you aware of significant RS coverage about Armenian exonyms as a group? (t · c) buidhe 13:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, Europe, and Switzerland. toweli (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Azuredivay (talk) 10:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a definition of exonyms given by the UN that means that such lists are not indiscriminate, but instead pass WP:LISTCRITERIA. By all means cull items that should not be there (such as toponyms that are the mere result of orthographic rules in different languages). But such lists themselves are encyclopedic. As for appealing to recent rulings, what's actually happened is that there has been a huge bunch of individual nominations, some closed very quickly, without any notification placed on the page most people interested in the topic would see: Talk:Endonym and exonym.OsFish (talk) 08:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But what makes this specific list wiki-notable? Which reliable sources have provided significant coverage of the topic of Romansch exonyms? I'm not aware of any policy that would presume automatic notability for lists of exonyms. There have been attempts to group exonym articles into one AfD nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of names of European cities in different languages and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afrikaans exonyms. They failed due to the large amount of articles being considered, resulting in no consensus (and some of the articles, such as Chinese exonyms, seem to be notable, due to having been discussed in sources). So, I couldn't have bundled many nominations together, and instead opted for an individual approach. Admittedly, I hadn't considered posting on Talk:Endonym and exonym, fair enough. And I also could've explained my approach, and the reasons for it, in the nominations. toweli (talk) 09:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary; an alternative to reading this article would be reading an Estonian dictionary. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms, which resulted in the French equivalent of this article being deleted. As argued there, this list is an indiscriminate list of place names. I agree that an article about the linguistic and historical aspects of the formation of place names in Estonian would be notable, but that is not what this is. SJD Willoughby (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Lists, and Estonia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trim: A few names in the list are evidently not cognate to the respective endonyms, and I'd preserve these. Otherwise, delete as trivial; each language adapts foreign words to its own phonology and orthography, okay, we get it. —Tamfang (talk) 03:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afrikaans exonyms) so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While this Afd discussion was up, the articles for Galician/Maltese/Catalan/Swedish exonyms were deleted for the same reasoning

SJD Willoughby (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a definition of exonyms given by the UN that means that such lists are not indiscriminate, but instead pass WP:LISTCRITERIA. By all means cull items that should not be there (such as toponyms that are the mere result of orthographic rules in different languages). But such lists themselves are encyclopedic. As for appealing to recent rulings, what's actually happened is that there has been a huge bunch of individual nominations, some closed very quickly, without any notification placed on the page most people interested in the topic would see: Talk:Endonym and exonym. OsFish (talk) 08:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, Europe, and Bulgaria. toweli (talk) 10:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It could be worth keeping if it excludes obvious respellings. —Tamfang (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afrikaans exonyms) so Soft Deletion isn't an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a definition of exonyms given by the UN that means that such lists are not indiscriminate, but instead pass WP:LISTCRITERIA. By all means cull items that should not be there (such as toponyms that are the mere result of orthographic rules in different languages). But such lists themselves are encyclopedic. As for appealing to recent rulings, what's actually happened is that there has been a huge bunch of individual nominations, some closed very quickly, without any notification placed on the page most people interested in the topic would see: Talk:Endonym and exonym. OsFish (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Simple failure of WP:NOTDICTIONARY as the article only consists of a definition. A potential WP:ATD is merge to Letter and spirit of the law, but that one is more in a legal context than a gaming one, and not exactly well-sourced or stable in itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Games, and Psychology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. come on, this is the stuff we come to Wikipedia for. Suppose it could be merged somewhere; would support that if appropriate placement is identified. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ILIKEIT. While you may enjoy the article, personal preference doesn't factor into AfDs, only evidence that a full article can be created based on the idea of "rules lawyering". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m satisfied what’s there shows it can. Tell me where you would merge it. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Role-playing game terms seems like a better place to merge it than letter and spirit of the law given its predominant use in RPGs. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article as it is now, although short, already has some content which would not fit into a dictionary. And a WP:BEFORE search shows that various sources dealing with table-top roleplaying games have more to say: On A Roll p. 45, The Civilized Guide to Tabletop Gaming p. 66 and The Postmodern Joy of Role-Playing Games all have about a page of content, including commentary. And the journal Analog Game Studies Vol. IV has a full essay on the topic. How can 6+ pages contain "only a definition"? So it seems to me the nomination is mostly talking about the current status of the article, which is not decisive when deciding about deletion. All that said, the first and primary paragraph could be merged in to Role-playing game terms, and later be spun out again as soon as someone uses the listed sources further. But aside from that fact that I see no advantage in that, it would already be akward to fit in the other contexts where same term may pop up, but more rarely so if the Google Books search is any indication. Daranios (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Analog Game Studies is a good source, the others seem like definitions or brief mentions in the middle of talking about something else. Usually one solid source is still not enough to merit a full page. Therefore I am still not "convinced", though I will admit there is a non zero amount of coverage about the concept of rules lawyering in RPGs. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: The first two books (sorry, I had a wrong link there) each have a specific section dedicated to the topic, so brief mentions in the middle of talking about something else is not correct here. The third one does talk about the concept in a larger context, but has significant analysis way beyond a definition (what it means for the game, contrast to other concept,...). So is there material to expand the article beyond the length of a stub? Absolutely! Daranios (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sources found by Daranios. BOZ (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge that one paragraph into Role-playing game terms. The relevance of the "Related terms" seems very tenuous to me. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 00:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with merge, Related terms would appear to be NOTDICTIONARY. IgelRM (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge main article content into Role-playing game terms, alongside Rule as Intended and Rule as Written which discuss two sides of the same coin. A list is a better place for this, since a standalone article is borderline WP:NOTDICTIONARY.Jtwhetten (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage is sufficient to meet WP:N and we have more than just a dictionary definition. I could see a broader article on this plus related things such as RAW and RAI (as mentioned above). Hobit (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as arguments are divided between editors advocating Keep and those pushing a Merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I still don't see a consensus and would rather not close this as No consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per previous keep posts. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Role-playing game terms per ClaudineChionh and Jtwhetten. The WP:NOTDICTIONARY argument is valid here, and there's also no sense in creating a bunch of stubs for something that can be adequately covered in a single article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesiMoore (talk • contribs) 16:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY, with the article besides the pure definition of gamesmanship (which, in itself, is partly WP:OR) being an example farm of different sports. Beyond that, it mostly cites the book written by the person who popularized (and possibly invented) the term, a primary source that doesn't contribute to notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Psychology, and Sports. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Competition. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is certainly in rough shape, but it already contains secondary sources establishing notability. For instance, The Timelessness of Steven Potter's "Gamesmanship" discusses the concept and its origins and impact ~~at length~~. That essay also contains pointers to additional potential sources such as this apparently-famous book which applies the concept to the behaviour of corporate executives. Similar sources appear to be plentiful on Google Books and Google Scholar. So this looks to me like WP:SIGCOV. Botterweg14 (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You say it discusses the concept at length, but it appears to be about the book itself. Do you have access to the book to pinpoint where exactly it discusses the concept alone and then demonstrate that evidence? Right now we have no way to know whether you have read the book or if it is simply an assumption. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. My comment above was based on a skim of the essay, and looking back now I do think I overstated things. You're right that the essay is primarily a literary discussion of Potter's book. However in its discussion of the book's legacy and impact it does verify that the concept of gamesmanship has had an enduring life of its own. So in combination with the other sources, I'm still satisfied that this counts as WP:SIGCOV. Botterweg14 (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep largely per Botterweg14. This is a reasonably well-sourced article on a notable concept that does not at all read like a dictionary definition. Frank Anchor 12:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a well-known, often used term (though perhaps mostly in Britain) by people who have no idea of the etymology. Little grape (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Okjeo (Okchŏ) was a polity described in the Dongyi section of the Chinese Records of the Three Kingdoms. They surely spoke some language, but not one word of it is recorded. The only information about the language is the statement in the above chapter that "the language is much the same as Goguryeo but with small differences here and there". That is not enough for an article, and is already included in the Puyŏ languages article, which is about four languages mentioned in that Chinese source.

All the references in the article are either paraphrases of that statement or are actually about the Goguryeo language, for which some (controversial) evidence does exist. Kanguole 22:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Although I cannot say if the article should be removed or kept due to my biases with my edits on the article, I just want to say that I don't believe deletion should be an option and at most, make it a redirect to the Puyŏ languages as you say the information is included in the article itself. Spino-Soar-Us (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Puyŏ languages. seefooddiet (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, History, and Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am satisfied with the sources and structure of the page and think it could be retained as a detailed article. Opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the amount of references is acceptable for the scope of this topic. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There doesn’t seem to be much more that could be added to the article, but what is in there is well sourced from scholarly articles. Well sourced articles being short / having differences of opinion between scholars is not reason for deletion so long as neutral viewpoint is maintained, and all opinions mentioned.

Absurdum4242 (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help noticing that all of these keep !votes are based on superficially measuring text and counting references, but have not engaged with the deletion rationale given above. Kanguole 18:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, “I disagree with what the scholars in the field say” isn’t a proper rationale for deletion though? If you have other scholars in the field that you know disagree, and they have published their work in reliable sources, then the article might breach Neutrality standards, but that’s something you edit into the article, making sure you cite your conflicting sources, not a reason for deletion Absurdum4242 (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing like "I disagree with what the scholars in the field say" in the deletion rationale, which makes a completely different argument. Perhaps the offhand remark "(controversial)"? But that was about Goguryeo language, which is a different topic from this one. Kanguole 19:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

very very weak keep - While it's true that much of the article does seem to restate information that can be found on the Puyŏ languages page, the only reason that I would vote keep is because the Okjeo language page elaborates a bit more information than on Puyŏ languages. (especially the comment about its relationship to the Nivkh languages).

Now I'm not sure if the extra details on Okjeo language merit its having a separate article. I would consider voting redirect if the extra tidbits of information were rewritten into the Puyŏ languages page itself. MetropolitanIC (💬|📝) 05:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MetropolitanIC: I've added Janhunen's view to Puyŏ languages, but he discusses only Buyeo (maybe Nivkh/Amuric) and Goguryeo (maybe Tungusic), and does not mention Okjeo. Reference [10] is a Korean translation of part of the Chinese Records of the Three Kingdoms, an ancient source that would be OR for us to interpret. Reference [12] (actually Miyake, not Robbeets) discusses Goguryeo and does not mention Okjeo. Kanguole 08:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If keep voters could more clearly refute the deletion rationale, that would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

tagged uncited for many years and does not seem to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I deproDed the page. I have seen other years taken to AfD. But why? This is a pretty standard way to approach history of television by country. Mexico has them, Korea has them, and so on. Turkey is a major country with a long history of television. What's the issue? Non-notable, how? I would !vote Keep but that would imply restoring all the other years. But I don't understand. It's very easy to source every event with books and/or news. And for general coverage, just open Yanardağoğlu, Eylem, Television in Turkey: Local Production, Transnational Expansion and Political Aspirations, Springer International Publishing, 2020; "The Transformation of the Media System in Turkey: Citizenship, Communication, and Convergence", Springer International Publishing, 2021; The Regulation of Turkish Network Industries. (2022), Springer International Publishing. A source for each and every programme broadcast is easily found. I am seriously confused.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article lacks sufficient independent sources to establish notability and relies heavily on a two local disputed references. Its content overlaps with broader articles on the Bangladesh Liberation War and Mukti Bahini, making it potentially redundant. Nxcrypto Message 09:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 09:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I think the article fails WP:GNG. --CometVolcano (talk) 09:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? This is a notable militia. At, this point, These AfDs does not seem like It's for improvement of Wikipedia and, instead it is for targeting anybody and nominating their pages for deletion every time. I can add way more citations, The page could've just been improved by looking for citations. If you wanna delete all pages I created, Just tell me, I now understand the reason for deleting pages of minor skirmishes, but this is just different. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk)
The user who nominated for deletion, literally deleted sources and then the argument was on relying on two sources, Seriously? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk)
Violation - Some of these AfDs have been decided on votes, and not proper arguments. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk)
Draftify if Needed If this topic does not have enough notability, We Shouldn’t Completely Delete it, We could put into draft. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk)
Delete: After conducting a notability test, I conclude that the article does not meet any notability criteria. The subject of the article does not have significant coverage from multiple independent sources. Tried to search, but unable to find such coverage, and the article fails to meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 12:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftification will not help because this is a historical article, and if no coverage is found now, there is little chance it will receive coverage in the future. GrabUp - Talk 12:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does not appear to be a notable ambush. All of the CNN sources that were used as sources appear to be dead. I think the content of the article can be merged into other related articles (2001 insurgency in Macedonia and National Liberation Army (Macedonia)) if other sources are found anyway. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Police, Albania, and North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't need to be a standalone article even if sources are found. --Local hero ^talk 01:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:NLIST Laun chba ller 13:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Aviation, Japan, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:SAL. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to meet WP:SAL. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. Aviation accidents in Japan involving U.S. military and government aircraft have been discussed as a group eg. [5], [6] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a WP: REDUNDANTFORK of Rathore rebellion (1679–1707). Such articles led to duplication. Also, out of the three sources, 2nd one inot a WP:RS. It is some personal commentary written by someone associated with the Kingdom. Hence it should be deleted and content, if something found relevant should be merged into the main article or the Durgadas Rathore. Admantine123 (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Admantine123 (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is no need of this standalone article as it is an insignificant event in the History of Rajasthan. The content should be merged into List of battles in Rajasthan or any article related to Shekhawats. There has been duplication of efforts by editors to convert minor events from some big events into seperate article leading to creation of WP: REDUNDANTFORK. Admantine123 (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Admantine123 (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to List_of_battles_in_Rajasthan#18th_Century seems like a good option.--Brocade River Poems (She/They) 21:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete or Merge into Illinois House of Representatives and appropriate elections articles. Unlike other electoral districts in Illinois or sub-national electoral districts in other countries, I do not believe individual state legislative districts in Illinois meet the standards of WP:GNG.

These are not like sub-national ridings in the United Kingdom or Canada, counties in the United States, in which there are political groups organized around district geography. They are not like wards in Chicago in which there are longstanding cultural associations or institutions independent of electoral politics.

Unlike congressional districts in Illinois, they do not elect Democratic or Republican committee-persons to any partisan body nor is there a substantial body of independent coverage regarding even their demographic characteristics.

The districts themselves are rarely written about. The "Representative district history" sections are a history of apportionment of districts generally as evidenced by the fact that all of the articles have identical excerpts. The more modern coverage that does exist is secondary to gerrymandering allegations (and the subsequent lawsuits) or the description of an election. While a subject of an article does not need to be the main topic to be significant coverage, it does need to be more than trivial. TLDR: These districts are not notable due to a lack of substantial, independent coverage just because similar enough entities might be. Mpen320 (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the articles are of substantially similar substance as Illinois's 1st House of Representatives district.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. --Mpen320 (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. --Mpen320 (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. --Mpen320 (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unlike congressional districts in Illinois, they do not elect Democratic or Republican committee-persons to any partisan body - do they not elect members to the Illinois House of Representatives (Democratic or Republican) in partisan elections? AusLondonder (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification. I was referring to the respective State Central Committees of the major parties [7]. Those offices are elected/selected from congressional districts. It is just another way that those districts are covered that state legislative districts are not covered.--Mpen320 (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because something isn't covered or has full articles doesn't disqualify it from an article. Other states have articles for every senate and legislature (or equivalent) district; just because Illinois does not (likely because many of them are small urban districts) doesn't mean we TNT every article that has been created, and it is undeniably partisan. Nate • (chatter) 16:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is just pointing out other stuff exists on Wikipedia. I also acknowledge legislative districts in other states could very well meet WP:GNG. Your remark about small, urban districts, well these are all small, urban districts with no significant coverage or independent coverage. Also, I have no idea where you are getting that I am being partisan. It's an unfair allegation.--Mpen320 (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the districts, not your views. Nate • (chatter) 22:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then I don't understand the criticism. This is the nomination procedure for multiple related pages.--Mpen320 (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure any of the reasons listed qualify this article for deletion. These electoral districts have been around for a long time and are historical. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. If they are so historically important, then why has no one been able to find any sort of independent, significant coverage of the districts? It exists for congressional districts. I could find a bunch of coverage on the creation/gerrymander of Illinois's 13th congressional district. I can find plenty of independent, significant coverage of Chicago wards such as Chicago's 11th ward (notably Ward by Ward by David K. Fremond. So why not these if they meet the barrier for significant, independent coverage? The fact that most districts have been around since no earlier than the Cutback Amendment in the early 1980s, is not in of its self meet WP:GNG. It is a classic case of existence does not mean notability.

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

This article is a WP: REDUNDANTFORK from Mughal conquest of Mewar. There was no need to create this standalone article as the content is already present in the other article. Hence it should be deleted. Admantine123 (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Admantine123 (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mughal conquest of Mewar per nom. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article is a poor WP:CONTENTFORK (WP:REDUNDANTFORK) from several articles like Rajput Rebellion (1708–1710), Rathore rebellion (1679–1707) and List of battles in Rajasthan. The individual topic like Battle of Khanwa has been stitched together to create an article suggesting that something like Mugal Rajput wars were a single homogeneous event spread over the different period of time. The individual topics are isolated events and a duplication from the List of battles in Rajasthan. So it should be deleted and content if anything that is here but not in List of battles in Rajasthan should be merged to latter. Admantine123 (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Admantine123 (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like so many Maratha/Mughal articles recently, a hopeless mix of WP:SYNTH, exaggerations, and misrepresentations. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article is not fulfilling WP:GNG. It is based on single source and also a very insignificant event with not much content to write has been converted into an article.It should be deleted and content, if any found relevant should be merged into something related to List of battles in Rajasthan.Admantine123 (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Admantine123 (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

A news story about a cluster of birth defects that was never substantiated as being noteworthy or having an external cause. The government study did not find anything; apart from one journal article [8] there does not seem to be any follow-up coverage. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Delete per the nomination.--Mpen320 (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be the subject of routine news coverage and nothing more. Pinguinn 🐧 02:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article about a non topic, consisting of snippets of information we already cover properly and in depth in other articles. Mccapra (talk) 08:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan and India. Mccapra (talk) 08:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or delete if not improved: The article is extremely sparse at present and everything there is already covered in other articles. But the historical-cultural idea of "northwest India" (as opposed to specifically the Indus Valley, Punjab, etc.) does seem to have some scholarly attention, at least from outsiders: [9], [10]. If the article weren't fairly new, I would be a firm delete, but I'm willing to give the author the benefit of the doubt for now. But the article as it is isn't ready for mainspace. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the author of the article, I don't have much to add to it or to voice on its fate. Some options might be to merge the contents into Northwestern South Asia, to redirect to Northwest India#Ancient era, or if seen as necessary, to create a new article called 'Northwestern Indian subcontinent' and then include the post-1947 history of the region as well into that article. GreekApple123 (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Geography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG. M.Bitton (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (with improvements) - appears potentially notable based on scale of the battle. Second source seems to be The Complete History which is a significant work. Probably needs some "according to" etc. given that we are inevitably dealing with historical accounts. Per WP:NONENG if any of the statements are controversial, some translated quotation of the original source(s) might be helpful. YFB ¿ 17:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Tunisia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Can't find any mention of this in reliable (English) secondary sources, so it's certainly not a major or noteworthy engagement. Ibn al-Athir (The Complete History) and al-Idrisi (quoted in text) are primary sources, so even if there's no WP:OR involved here (which I'm not confident about), its mere mention in primary sources, in the absence of any mentions in secondary sources, means it doesn't meet WP:GNG. Overall, it just looks like another pseudo-puffery piece squeezed out of an obscure historical military engagement. R Prazeres (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not easy to research this topic as most of the Arabic-language texts I can access e.g. via Google Books don't seem to support text selection (to check translation). However I found the following paper in the Algerian Historical Journal (for example) via a quick search for معركة سبيبة (Battle of Sebiba) https://www.asjp.cerist.dz/en/article/224926

I'm not sure how Ibn al-Athir can be considered a primary source in this context? He wasn't born until 95 years after this battle took place and he doesn't appear to have been directly connected to either of the combatant tribes. But IANA historian so perhaps I'm misunderstanding how this works. YFB ¿ 20:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found a French translation of Ibn al-Athir which is a bit more accessible to me at least. There is a whole section devoted to this battle, the context and its aftermath so it does seem fairly significant. Quick Google translation below of an extract:

"Then the Riyâh' and the Zenâta all set out together, and on his side En-Naçir having advanced at the head of the Çanhȧdja, the Zenâta and the Benoû Hilal, the two armies met [ P. 31 ] near the town of Sebiba ( 1 ) . Following the charge which the Riyâh' and El-Moʻizz made respectively against the Benoû Hilal and the Zenâta, these last two groups fled, and the troops of En-Naçir imitated their example. The fugitives were pursued with swords at their backs, and twenty-four thousand Çanhâdja and Zenâta were massacred. El-K'ȧsim ben 'Alennâs (2) , brother of En-Nåçir, was also killed, but the latter himself was able to flee with a small number of his men. The Arabs thus became masters of a rich booty consisting of everything that belonged to the vanquished, money, weapons, horses, etc., the sharing of which was carried out as agreed. This affair completed the Arabs' complete mastery of the country; having arrived without resources, poor and having very few horses, they then found themselves rich, abundantly provided with weapons and mounts, in the presence of a country almost without defenders. They sent the standards, the drums, the tents of En-Nâçir and the horses they contained, to Temim, who sent them back to them, saying that it would be shameful for him to seize the spoils of his cousin. The Arabs greatly appreciated this act of generosity."

I also found the following in https://www.persee.fr/doc/ccmed_0007-9731_1968_num_11_43_1452

"La défaite de Sabîba (1065), qui fait au Magrib Central pendant à celle de Haydarân, constraint bientôt al-Nâsir d'abandonner la Qal'a pour Bougie, qu'il vient de fonder (1068-9). Vannée suivante, il conclut avec Tamïm une paix que lui et ses successeurs respecteront jusqu'à la mort de Tamïm (1108)."

This is another secondary source that ascribes significance to the event. Definitely enough for GNG in my view. The article needs a lot of work, I will see what I can do to bring it up to scratch if retained or moved to Draft space.

YFB ¿ 00:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another source, in English, which devotes more than two whole pages to this specific battle: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BvTjCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA43 (pages 43-45) YFB ¿ 01:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking. That last source (Baadj 2015) is the only one that gives me pause about notability, but it's still just one book, which doesn't fully solve the WP:GNG problem because you'd have to write most of the article from this single detailed source. (As for Ibn al-Athir and Idrisi, as asilvering notes below they are primary sources in the sense that they are medieval accounts from the same era, so they should be mediated by professional historians.) A quick reading of Baadj's account also makes it clear that this article, as is, would need to be completely re-written to even be understandable. I'd support draftifying at best, if there's a chance a competent editor would rewrite it, but WP:TNT otherwise. R Prazeres (talk) 05:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy with WP:TNT. I will write a new article using the above sources plus this one https://ixtheo.de/Record/792329171 which dedicates three sub-chapters (6 whole pages) to the battle, its aftermath and a comparison to the Battle of Haydaran which was part of the same conflict. @M.Bitton would you be content with moving to Draft space for me to do that? YFB ¿ 21:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. M.Bitton (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yummifruitbat well, he's a secondary source in the sense that he wasn't at the battle, but from the perspective of writing history, we don't want to be basing articles on what someone said several hundred years ago, with no interpretation by modern historians. -- asilvering (talk) 03:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. YFB ¿ 21:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yet another installment of a WP:WALLEDGARDEN on the Jhala family created by a now-blocked sockmaster. The core sources for these articles are books of purported genealogy published by Jhala family descendants. This article takes a legendary genealogy and launders the sources to present it as history:

Genealogy, Archive, Image: Interpreting Dynastic History in Western India is edited by two Jhala family members, including one who presents himself as the current head of the Jhala dynasty and heir of its legendary founder. It presents a fantastic story of Ajja Jhala leading an army into battle headless.
Ulian's Rajput is a self-published book that repeats and embellishes the same rather fantastic legends.
This book is self-published through vanity press Notion Press.
The article also cites two explicitly fictional works to support factual claims: The Flute and the Sword and The Hero of the Aravalis.

Meanwhile, the independent/reliable sources do not present any of this legendary material as fact or otherwise.

Bhardwaj's Hemu gives a brief mention to Ajja Jhala (p. 49 and the same anecdote repeated on p. 87).
Hooja's A History of Rajasthan gives a single mention to Ajja Jhala.

In short, what WP:SIGCOV we have on the Ajja Jhala includes legend repeated by WP:SPS and WP:COI sources, making it a failure on WP:V. The independent coverage, such as it is, does not establish facts about this figure as presented in the article and is not sufficient SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 06:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and India. Dclemens1971 (talk) 06:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's thorough reasoning. APK hi :-) (talk) 06:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Mostly poor to unreliable sources and the somewhat reliable sources have entry to passing mention with no WP:SIGCOV. RangersRus (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The authors are of course interested in propping up their fanaticized family history. WP is not the place for this kind of promo. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article is another installment of a WP:WALLEDGARDEN on the Jhala family created by a now-blocked sockmaster. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harpal Dev Makwana for an example of a deleted article in this set and Jhala (clan) for an appropriately sourced version not created by a sockmaster. The core sources for these articles are books of purported genealogy published by Jhala family descendants. This article takes a legendary genealogy and launders the sources to present it as history:

The first set of sources are the unreliable ones:

Genealogy, Archive, Image: Interpreting Dynastic History in Western India is edited by two Jhala family members, including one who presents himself as heir and descendent of Harpal Dev and the current head of the so-called "dynasty." It includes fantastic stories from the vahi (legendary geneaologies of high-caste Indian families), for example one figure defeating a ghost in battle and marrying a goddess who supernaturally rescues their children from an elephant.
Ulian's Rajput is a self-published book that repeats and embellishes the same rather fantastic legends.
Kumarapala-prabandha appears to be mostly a repetition of legends
This book is self-published through vanity press Notion Press.

Meanwhile, the independent sources do not present any of this legendary genealogy.

Ramusack's The Indian Princes and Their States has a single WP:TRIVIALMENTION of the Jhalas (page 73)
Naravane's The Rajputs of Rajputana has a single paragraph describing the Jhalas as a "minor clan."
Singhji's The Rajputs of Saurashtra discusses the Jhala Rajputs but says of the earlier stories, "Bardic tales about their migrations from the Himalayan region to Sindh seem to contain little truth."

Additional sources include WP:RAJ-era surveys of questionable reliability and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in a gazetteer.

In short, what WP:SIGCOV we have on the Jhala dynasty includes legend repeated by WP:SPS and WP:COI sources. The independent coverage, such as it is, does not establish facts about this dynasty as presented in the article. With an adequately sourced article on the Jhala (clan) I think the best approach to this compromised article is WP:TNT. Bottom line: Fails WP:V and WP:GNG for lack of SIGCOV in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looking at the article page, it does not seem to contain any far-fetched claims except the Origin section which should be renamed to 'Origin legend' or clarified that it is a traditional legend.

Also, the argument for unreliabity of the source Genealogy, Archive, Image: Interpreting Dynastic History in Western India being that the co-author is a Jhala doesn't seem valid considering that there are probably a million of Jhala people and shouldn't make them ineligible to write on the subject. Both the authors are also scholars in anthropolgy with Jhala having served as the Professor of Anthropology at Temple University as per the linked press release.

I do believe more context can be added regarding the tradtional sources the authors have used. But deleting the article would be an extreme step. The subject is very much notable. Many later kingdoms, states and principalities claimed descent from the members of this dynasty. Thank you. Krayon95 (talk) 09:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Genealogy, Archive, Image isn’t only that it’s written by Jhalas. It’s that one of the authors claims to be the head of the dynasty (see link above) and the book is an effort to launder legends into a historical account. The other reliable sources to discuss the Jhalas do not do this, as I noted above. The appropriately sourced Jhala (clan) article covers this ground without retailing legends as facts. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Mostly poor to unreliable sources to WP:RAJ and does not meet WP:HISTRS and the somewhat reliable sources have entry to passing mention with no WP:SIGCOV. RangersRus (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Much of the content has nothing to do with the actual incident which is itself non-notable. The subject as a whole fails WP:GNG. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Bihar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep the nominator should have researched about the subject before nominating this. There are several high quality journals that are strictly written on this topic. Atleast they should have gone through reference section where they could've found following:

Sinha, Arun (1978). "Class War in Bhojpur: I". Economic and Political Weekly. 13 (1): 10–11. JSTOR 4366262.
Mukherjee, Kalyan (1979). "Peasant Revolt in Bhojpur". Economic and Political Weekly. 14 (36): 1536–38. JSTOR 4367921.
Rajendra Singh Yadav, Kalyan Mukherjee (1982). "For reasons of state: Oppression and resistance a study of Bhojpur peasantry, The Journal of Peasant Studies, 9:3". : Agrarian Movements in India: Studies on 20th Century Bihar: 119–147. doi:10.1080/03066158208438175. S2CID 154841960.
Sinha, Arun (1978). "Class War in Bhojpur: II". Economic and Political Weekly. 13 (3): 90–92. JSTOR 4366310..Admantine123 (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how any of these sources establish WP:GNG. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a significant event of the History of Bihar like Bihar movement. The Naxalism in Bihar has been a highly notable subject to write as in the history of Bihar, we have read caste wars happening over the decades between various faction of society for land and political power. This significant subject throws light on the early events sparking the naxalite movement in plains of central Bihar after it first emerged in the neighbouring state of West Bengal. You talk about "passing mention", let me tell there are seperate books written on the movement like some of the journals I have mentioned there. Anyone with fair judgement would have gauged the notability of the article. Admantine123 (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were asked to describe how does those cited sources establish WP:GNG. I am not asking why do you believe this subject is important. Ratnahastin (talk) 01:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the definition of Notability according to you? Admantine123 (talk) 03:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you got in these sources published by scholarly journals. Admantine123 (talk) 05:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No because you are yet to explain how any of these sources establish WP:GNG. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Passing mentions don't count when it comes to establish notability. Dympies (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly passes WP:GNG, many reputed media articles, journals available on internet! Youknow? (talk) 10:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems insignificant to begin with. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per the sources/journals, the article obviously passes GNG; there's no reason for deletion of the same! Ekdalian (talk) 08:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Ekdalian (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Keep – For those who still don't know, the article is about the Naxalite movement in Bhojpur, which started in the early 1970s. The topic is widely covered in scholarship and is clearly notable. I just needed to do a cursory search to find the following in-depth scholarly sources that are not even cited in the article, although most of the details covered in them are already summarised in it:

Kala, Manju; Maharaj, R. N.; Mukherjee, Kalyan (1986). "Peasant Unrest in Bhojpur: A Survey". In Desai, A. R. (ed.). Agrarian Struggles in India After Independence. Oxford University Press. pp. 263–274. ISBN 978-0-19-561681-1. Archived from the original on 12 May 2021.

[Check from The Movement section onwards of p. 263, although previous pages are also relevant, as they give the movement's background]

Sinha, Arun (1978). "The Awakening in Bhojpur". In Sen, Samar; Panda, Debabrata; Lahiri, Ashish (eds.). Naxalbari and After: A Frontier Anthology, Vol. 1. Kathashilpa. pp. 264–290. OCLC 1150867358. Archived from the original on 19 August 2019.

[this book's review: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4367846]

Das, Arvind N. (1983). "Agrarian Change from Above and Below; Bihar 1947–78". In Guha, Ranajit (ed.). Subaltern Studies II: Writings on South Asian History and Society. Oxford University Press. pp. 221–226. ISBN 978-0-19-561502-9. Archived from the original on 25 September 2018.
Banerjee, Sumanta (1984). India’s Simmering Revolution: The Naxalite Uprising. Zed Books. pp. 301–305. ISBN 978-0-86232-037-9. Archived from the original on 22 December 2023.

All of these sources give in-depth coverage of the Bhojpur movement. In fact, the article is already well-sourced and detailed. Having said that, the title of the article isn't good. It should be Naxalite movement in Bhojpur because that's how sources describe this movement, e.g. see here. Note that sources also describe it as Bhojpur movement (see here), although that title seems a bit ambiguous to me. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should create a Naxalite movement in Bhojpur or Bhojpur movement because that is a broader topic while this AfD concerns a non-notable event. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ratnahastin, I don't think you read the article, let alone the sources. The whole article from the first till the last sentence is about the Naxalite movement in Bhojpur. It already covers all relevant details of the 1970s as well as its background. So I don't need to create an article that already exists. The article requires page move, not deletion. Note that all these details were already there in the article before you nominated it. - NitinMlk (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should consider supporting the move to "Naxalite movement in Bhojpur" Ratnahastin (talk) 06:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The two votes of delete are frivolous. These editors are somehow related to Rajput article. This nomination happened after I checked the recent disruptive activity on Rajput article which was not liked by some. Bishonen is aware of the problem associated with this caste article. In past, you (Ratnahastin) were also in edit dispute with me over Rajput caste related articles. Admantine123 (talk) 05:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, the content is not limited to 1970 event only. It captures spread to other areas as well and I agree with NitinMlk that choice of title was bad. Admantine123 (talk) 05:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors having edited a similar page does not mean WP:CANVASSING. Stop disrupting this AfD with your nonsensical accusations. Dympies (talk) 06:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After checking the sources provided above, I have no problem with moving the page to Naxalite movement in Bhojpur per WP:ATD. Ratnahastin (talk) 06:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article is a POVFORK and we already have a decent article at Ingush people. There may be some elements of this article that can be merged there, but I don’t think this article as a whole should be retained. Mccapra (talk) 06:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Russia. Mccapra (talk) 06:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and History. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article is a clear case of WP:SYNTH. Google Books provide no results at all for "Northern Campaign of Raghunath Rao" or the original title "Northern Conquest of Raghunath Rao". The editor has arbitrarily linked various battles of his own choice into a single conflict, not supported by any RS. Also, note that the orginal creator has been banned for sockpuppetry, and multiple sockpuppets have often tried to restore the article after other editors redirected the page. PadFoot (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Afghanistan, Delhi, and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; clearly lacks notability as a singular subject. Much of the content fails verification and tries to blow out of proportion the historical significance of the events involving the winning states, as is typical with these socks. Noting to @Crashed greek that PadFoot was merely restoring the "backdoor deletion" rightly done by Sitush in October 2023 but repeatedly undone without just reason by socks. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User Sitush mentioned by you is not an administrator with speedy deletion privilege. Crashed greek (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He does not have to be. "Backdoor deletion" (less pejoratively referred to as WP:BLARing) can be done by any user. The only reason to revert such "deletion" would be if you have an actual objection to the reasons for the article's blanking and redirecting. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Maratha Empire expanded from Tamil Nadu to Peshawar due to this campaign. It is a very big territory he captured, so very notable campaign. Crashed greek (talk) 04:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But do sources say that this "campaign" as one coherent subject even existed? Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder which sources even claim this extent, or even associate a campaign by this name to this made-up exaggerated extent. PadFoot (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet more exaggeration, misrepresentation, and WP:SYNTH. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete
per nom. Article is full of WP:SYNTH and was written by confirmed sockpuppets, which is unfortunately common within this contentious topic area. Synth has no place here. Someguywhosbored (talk) 03:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect per wp:2DABS, unless there are more. --MikutoH ^talk! 00:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Sexuality and gender, Disambiguations, Georgia (country), and Georgia (U.S. state). --MikutoH ^talk! 00:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another option is merge with LGBT history in Georgia and move that to LGBT in Georgia. --MikutoH ^talk! 00:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no primary topic, so the base name needs to host a disambiguation page per WP:NOPRIMARY. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NOPRIMARY Demt1298 (talk) 01:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No primary topic. PamD 07:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a disambiguator in the absence of a clear primary topic, with a preference to Merge both LGBT history in Georgia and LGBT rights in Georgia into LGBT in Georgia, making the latter the host DAB instead of a redirect to just one of them. I agree with other !votes that each should be kept as a form of disambiguation as there is no a clear primary topic between the two, however I don't see why we can't redirect this to a more general article title which broadly covers the history and rights articles together. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, I have clarified my position that I concur with retaining as disambiguator without a clear primary topic, but with a preference to see it merged into a wider article title. @MikutoH: The consensus is fairly clear against a redirect as proposed, and you may wish to withdraw in the absence of any contrary expression. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:NOPRIMARYas above. The merge between two pages not under discussion in this AfD may well be a good idea, but (a) I don't see why they should then assume the status of primary topic over an eponymous country, so the merged title should remain LGBT history in Georgia (U.S. state), (b) neither of the pages for merge are the subject of this AfD so it should be done as a merge discussion, (c) that merge would, in any case need to precede a following RM discussion, and page moves are not AfD outcomes. So all of that can be pursued separately. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure a merge suggestion can form part of a discussion in an AfD, especially as renaming of pages is not actually a necessity to achieve that proposal. I also have no clue what you mean by point "a", perhaps there is a weak explanation on my part. Either way, I was clear that I agreed with the "keep" !votes in keeping the page as a means of disambiguating between two articles without a primary, but as the nom specifically mentioned the LGBT in Georgia (rights) article, I figured i'd offer a view on that too.

Besides, do we really need to have two DABs for the "history" and "rights" when we can just change LGBT in Georgia into a DAB article linking to all four? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A merge is a valid outcome for a page nominated at AfD. It is inappropriate for a page that has not been nominated as watchers of the pages you propose merging will not be notified of the discussion, and will not necessarily have participated. That merge discussion needs to be pursued separately. Since you have modified your !vote, this is, in any case, now moot. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, a merge would be a nice idea to address separately. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOPRIMARY, I'm sure this happens to other articles for Georgia and Georgia. Dr vulpes (Talk) 13:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Good way to disambiguate per WP:NOPRIMARY. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 15:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Preference is keep the status quo of two dabs per WP:NOPRIMARY. Merging the two into a single DAB would be acceptable as the line between the two is a bit fuzzy although I think in general we maintain both articles for many localities so having to is fine. Strongly oppose any sort of removing the dabs and replacing with a redirect to one with just a hatnote. That's been discussed many, many as a general concept between the two Georgias and the current consensus is clearly no primary so TWODABS suggests having a disambiguation page (see all the RMs in Talk:Georgia (country) for example). Skynxnex (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article has gotten a lot of attention from a series of Indian milhist sockpuppets that are particularly interested in embellishing histories of non-notable "battles" that are lost by Muslim forces. I find only two hits on google scholar at this title, and zero for its original title, "Battle of Anasagara". asilvering (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. asilvering (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete according to [11], entirely written by a WP:LLM. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
gptzero's false positive rate isn't great - but I agree, I believe this is an LLM creation. -- asilvering (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article sounds more like a book than a Wikipedia article. Henry (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Royalty and nobility, and Algeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject is plainly notable. Some of the article needs to be rewritten and looks to me like a cooyvio anyway, though I can’t get the source to load. Mccapra (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "Hussein's reaction" section was translated directly from this page: https://web.archive.org/web/20130612123908/https://www.algerie-ancienne.com/Salon/Galib/8France/01expedit/17staoueli.htm I also checked the "Early life" section but did not find copying there. Other sections may also have copyright violations or close paraphrasing, but it's unlikely the entire article has been copied or translated directly here, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article lacks WP:NOTABILITY, with only a single source provided which only briefly mentions the term. There seems to be no significant usage of this term in the scholarly community at all, with close to no scholars using this term. PadFoot (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh. Skynxnex (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears there is are scholar and book resources that mentions this event, so it may be supported by WP:RS. (click Scholar/Book link at the top of this AfD). Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are only two citations in scholar that mention such a term, one deals with paintings of early modern era India, and other deals with Vidarbha cotton, none of them are specialised histories regarding the subject. PadFoot (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure. The first citation is cited incorrectly, never a good sign in an article. It doesn’t link to the first paragraph at all. Google Scholar throws up three publications using the phrase, and they’re all 2023 and 2024… so maybe it’s becoming more popular recently, but it doesn’t seem to be there yet. I’d love to know if there are Indian language sources using the equivalent phrase, which is translated here into English? But I don’t have the language skills to find out. So, on the one hand, the article as written doesn’t establish notability, but there seems to be sources out there which might… means I can’t decide between weak keep and weak delete, but tend towards weak delete unless someone steps in and finds some sources so we can be sure it’s not something the creator came up with himself through synth. Absurdum4242 (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Britannica is okay but per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, secondary sources are preferable. If there’s only one secondary source shown, then for now I am okay with deleting the article, until notability is established. I can be persuaded from my vote if someone provides more sources using this term. Someguywhosbored (talk) 04:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or maybe merge) Notability for the term "Maratha Resurrection" is not an issue, as multiple articles discuss it in the context of Peshwa Madhav Rao, such as this [12]. If the historical facts are accurate, the term does not need specialized historical articles to validate its significance. A phenomenon's name can stand on its own merit, regardless of extensive historical analysis. Therefore, if the information presented is correct, I oppose deleting the article. Notability is notability; it is not solely defined by "specialized scholars." Scholars provide historical analysis, while any historical event can be labeled differently over time without distorting history, as long as the facts remain intact. If the historical facts here are wrong, then delete it. Otherwise-keep. Thanks.

DangalOh (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DangalOh, I think get what you mean to say here. The various battles mentioned in the article are notable, but the "Maratha resurrection" as a single event enveloping all these conflicts into a single one is not supported by many reliable sources. Such a term lacks notability and widespread usage in the scholarly community (see WP:HISTRS). A merger into another suitable article would be alright though. PadFoot (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it. If the series of events are absolutely unrelated and are being portrayed more like a synthesis, then it's a no. But if those events are related or depict a phenomenon that might not have been specifically termed as something like 'Maratha resurrection' by most of the WP:HISTRS, it might still merit inclusion. As logic suggests, WP:HISTRS is meant to establish or verify history. A term for a series of events (unless the events are entirely unrelated and someone is trying to make them seem connected) can be developed at any point in time. And yes, I do believe a standalone article is a bit too much. But I trust you—you will find a way to not completely remove this and find a good article (maybe the main one) to merge it into without compromising its integrity. The term might gain more traction in the future; maybe then people can discuss a standalone article. Thanks. DangalOh (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, I don't think there's enough scholarly sources that properly refer to a "Maratha resurrection". The scholar search up bit wasn't really much per Padfoot's explanation. Noorullah (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have been canvassed here. Noorullah21 Notice. Lightburst (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added some sources. It is a significant evening. Other Indian kingdoms had thought Maratha empire was weakened a lot after the loss of Battle of Panipat on 1761, but Marathas regained territory up to Delhi in 1771 and Najibababad 1772 battle. That is very much notable. And also the exact term Maratha Resurrection was used in multiple sources. Though Marathas could not occupy up to Peshawar like before the Panipat battle, this was a significant territory away from their capital Poona. Crashed greek (talk) 08:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The added source (snippet) only includes a brief mention of the term, without providing any explanations of the term. I'm not sure whether you understand WP:NOTABILITY. A simple scholar search will show that there are close to zero sources that use term "Maratha resurrection", clearly depicting that the term lacks notability in the scholarly community. PadFoot (talk) 13:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There doesn't seem to be enough context or content for a standalone article, but it seems this could easily be merged into Maratha Empire as a sub-heading in the History section. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Unless I am missing something these individual talk page notices from the nominator (@PadFoot2008:) look like WP:CANVASSING. Both AirshipJungleman29 and Flemmish_Nietzsche previously !voted delete on one of the nominator's other AfD nominations and Noorullah just looks like someone the nominator knows.

Lightburst (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst, sorry, I am new to AfDs, (this one is my first one). I wouldn't notify anyone else. So I can't notify people who often contribute to this field? PadFoot (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PadFoot2008: Always best to allow editors to find these through the projects- this AfD was posted in several. If you reach out to individuals it always has the appearance of bringing a like-minded editor to change consensus. I am sure others can explain better than I can. Also read the link WP:CANVASSING as it is nuanced. Lightburst (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst, Alright, thank you. PadFoot (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per DangalOh's admission, But if those events are related or depict a phenomenon that might not have been specifically termed as something like 'Maratha resurrection' by most of the WP:HISTRS, it might still merit inclusion... The term might gain more traction in the future; maybe then people can discuss a standalone article. As and when scholars will start using this term, we will swiftly create this article. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not persuaded by these keep !votes but it would be best to get a clearer consensus in light of the (good faith, out of inexperience) canvassing here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, only mentions and brief descriptions (for example, on ProQuest). toweli (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, History, Organizations, and United States of America. toweli (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Found some pieces that document the activity of the organization. Take a look [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. Piscili (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those don't provide significant coverage and/or aren't reliable sources. toweli (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

No significant casualties, no WP:LASTING coverage. Wikipedia discourages articles based on WP:NOTNEWS and this is nothing more than that. Nxcrypto Message 14:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Bangladesh, and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article seems well sourced, and several sources are in the late 2010s, some 40 years after the conflict itself, making a nonsense of the “no lasting coverage” claim… it’s… difficult not to see this as politically based spamming since the last couple of nominations on Indian-Bangladeshi border skirmishes from this same editor are just cut and paste, and they have nominated other similar articles last week too… I’ll assume good faith though, and just say that I disagree that the article meets the criteria for deletion based on the merits. Absurdum4242 (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a notable incident, Lasting effect? It did have some. Nxcrypto, I noticed that you are copying the same message in similar AfD Discussions, Without even checking the page and It's content and aftermath a lot. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (Message)
True The 1979 clash is very notable and it does not violate Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Nxcrypto for some reason is copying and pasting the same message in multiple AfD Discussions, And some people will not check the page and just want to delete it, So they will say "It does not establish WP:GNG and WP:Lasting", Even when, It is clearly notable event with coverage many years later. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (Message)
Citations - The page has several citations including from books and newspapers, some require subscription or have limited information but I think the page meets with General Notability Guidelines. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (Talk with BangladeshiEditorInSylhet)
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Creating an article by collecting outdated archives instead of modern sources ensures that the subject failed to attract lasting coverage. --Dympies (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The incident was itself so insignificant that it makes sense why it fails WP:GNG. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I remain confused at how the three last-minute delete votes on the day this was set to close can claim a lack of “modern sources” when the Indian Foreign Policy book, for example, was first written in 2007, with the 7th edition being linked to being published in 2018. Add in the cut and paste nature of the original nomination and… as much as I hate to suggest everyone isn’t arguing in good faith, this feels like brigading?

Also…. I don’t think that’s how WP:NOTNEWS works? Given that this happened almost 50 years ago? Absurdum4242 (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Absurdum4242: Notwithstanding how other participants have phrased it, WP:LASTING refers to lasting effects, not lasting coverage. The single 75-word paragraph in the book is lasting coverage, and distinguishes this event from some discussed at AfD recently which have none, but that paragraph's conclusion is telling: "forces of the two countries clashed but the tension soon cooled down." Nothing significant happened. No one was killed, injured, or taken prisoner; no territory, booty, or reparations changed hands; no new method of determining the border was adopted; no treaty was signed. The event was not a precedent or catalyst for anything. There were no lasting effects. The paragraph in the book suggests that the event may be worth a paragraph in an article more broadly focused on Bangladesh-India border relations. It is not suitable for a stand alone article. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so the correct WP would be WP:Continuedcoverge instead, where “ The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance.”? Absurdum4242 (talk) 04:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG, enough coverage in WP:RS including editorials. Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not at all. Nxcrypto Message 08:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft if Needed - I suggest draft if this does get deleted. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet
Delete Yet to see a single source that addresses the concerns of the nom. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bangladesh–India border as an alternative to deletion. This article is not primarily about the 1979 border firing. Three-quarters of it is about border incidents before or after that. The 1979 event had no lasting effect and there is limited sustained coverage of it in secondary sources, making it a poor choice of topic for a stand alone article. It would, however, be worth a paragraph in a broader article that put it in context with the many other exchanges of gunfire across this border. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Passes WP:GNG] and Wikipedia is well-known for its systemic bias against topics in this part of the world. A merge to Bangladesh–India border would also be acceptable as a secondary result. Deletion should not be an option here.--User:Namiba 16:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Theatre, Armenia, Greece, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No refs. If any coverage of this person ever surfaces, it would take exactly 10 minutes to write a better article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is a book reference in the article. I would suggest to keep the article, unless someone actually provided an assessment of its coverage. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoyfulTentmaker That is not a valid policy based keep vote. WP:SIGCOV requires multiple sources with independent significant coverage, which we generally interpret at AFD is a minimum of three sources. One book source, no matter how in-depth does not meet our notability guidelines.4meter4 (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I kindly disagree, a single book may indicate existence of more sources. Even without references, deletion nominators are expected to do a good faith WP:BEFORE: to check Google, Google Books, Google Scholar, and Wikipedia Library if possible. AfD is not a place to urge people to fix unreferenced articles. Nomination must come only after there are good indicators that the subject is not notable, regardless of the state of the article; as stated in WP:NEXIST. Sorry for repeating these in multiple nominations of yours, but there are not enough people watching these nominations about niche topics like this one, and I honestly believe it will be a loss for the encyclopedia if these are prematurely deleted. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CeeGee I think you created the article, pinging just in case you were not notified. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need other sources, suggesting that they exist isn't helpful Oaktree b (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoyfulTentmaker You seem to be misinterpreting policy language. WP:SIGCOV requires multiple sources as a non-negotiable criteria for all wikipedia articles. It's a must and its policy. Period. WP:NEXIST requires people voting to keep articles to produce multiple sources at the time of making a keep argument at an AFD. Asserting there are sources through guesswork is not following NEXIST; nor is arguing for keep based on a book you personally have not seen. Providing sources with url links or the names, publication dates, and pages of specific sources that you personally have looked at is following NEXIST. As for me, I looked at several standard opera reference works, including a Russian language music encyclopedia and found nothing on this person. My attempt at BEFORE may not be perfect but please WP:AGF. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you re-read WP:SIGCOV because it doesn't say what you think it does. The immediate subsection doesn't mention the number of sources but a bit further it says "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Multiple sources are not a "must" and the requirement is not "policy" (our notability documents relate to guidance rather than policy). Thincat (talk) 10:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, this source mentions this person [21], but that's all I can find. I don't think we have enough sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b Just a note: during the period she was active, The Ottoman Empire used the Arabic writing system. So search is not trivial. Even modern sources include various different spellings of her name. Trying the modern Turkish spelling Verkine Karakaşyan, I can easily find at least one journal paper. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I can only see a short segment from the Google Books preview, but the book you linked might have a significant coverage (there are three search hits in separate places of the book). Here is the the second one, page 67: "... Verkine Karakashian read his poem “Freedom” and moved the audience so deeply that the ceremony was repeated for several nights in a row. After this incident, gradually more young girls showed the courage to go onstage and break the ...". Seems there is more before and after this passage, and this itself probably has a citation in the book; so if anyone has access to this book it would be really helpful if you could check. Separately, I added two more sources to the article and found the ISBN number of the book, referenced by CeeGee, who created the article. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Armenian wiki has some links, but I'm not in a position to say if they're RS or not. Oaktree b (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 17:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC) struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sourcing is improved, now we have 6 references (one thanks to @Oaktree b's Armenian Wikipedia pointer), and hopefully notability concerns are now reduced. Also, I'm curious about the opinions @Basak and @Buidhe, who are experienced editors with contributions related to Ottoman Armenians on the English or the Turkish Wikipedia. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Covered by several additional Turkish sources [22][23] Additional Armenian sources [24][25] The main ref in the Armenian article is the Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia. Aintabli (talk) 03:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see that new relevant sources were added since the beginning of this discussion, therefore to me it is clear that the article should be kept. Of course, it’s possible to add more sources and improve the article. For example here, it’is possible to learn what were the important roles she played in her years at Güllü Agop Company and in Benliyan Operet Company: Women in Ottoman theater life — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basak (talk • contribs) 06:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC) --Basak (talk) 06:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been significantly improved since nomination with references including an encyclopaedia and a scholarly journal, and others, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Puyŏ languages. seefooddiet (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, History, and Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am satisfied with the sources and structure of the page and think it could be retained as a detailed article. Opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the amount of references is acceptable for the scope of this topic. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There doesn’t seem to be much more that could be added to the article, but what is in there is well sourced from scholarly articles. Well sourced articles being short / having differences of opinion between scholars is not reason for deletion so long as neutral viewpoint is maintained, and all opinions mentioned.

Absurdum4242 (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help noticing that all of these keep !votes are based on superficially measuring text and counting references, but have not engaged with the deletion rationale given above. Kanguole 18:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, “I disagree with what the scholars in the field say” isn’t a proper rationale for deletion though? If you have other scholars in the field that you know disagree, and they have published their work in reliable sources, then the article might breach Neutrality standards, but that’s something you edit into the article, making sure you cite your conflicting sources, not a reason for deletion Absurdum4242 (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing like "I disagree with what the scholars in the field say" in the deletion rationale, which makes a completely different argument. Perhaps the offhand remark "(controversial)"? But that was about Goguryeo language, which is a different topic from this one. Kanguole 19:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

for occasional archiving