From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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:
  1. 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.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Social science|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions ( prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Social science.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

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

See also: Science-related deletions and Medicine-related deletions.

Social science

Tampa Bay Parenting Magazine

Tampa Bay Parenting Magazine (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Clearly PROMO. No links to any critical discussions of the magazine, all I find are articles they've published. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Social science, and Florida. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ( work / talk) 16:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Speedy Keep Article edited to now include dozens of reliable and authoritative sources. Notability is presumed for magazines under WP:NMEDIA that verifiably meet, through reliable sources, one or more of the WP:NMEDIA criteria. Tampa Bay Parenting Magazine meets at least one, and probably all of them. It has (1) produced works that have received well-known/significant journalism award (multiple Florida Magazine Assn awards); (2) has a significant history (15+ years of issues); (3) considered by reliable sources to be authoritative / influential in subject area (cited dozens of times by every local TV station and newspaper); (4) frequently cited by reliable sources (cited dozens of times by every local TV station and newspaper); and (5) significant publications in non-trivial niche markets (Tampa Bay area, parenting).
Leglamp123 ( talk) 00:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Note to closing admin: Leglamp123 ( talkcontribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. The Grid ( talk) 20:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
For what it's worth WP:NMEDIA has been deprecated as a subject-specific notability guideline; it's currently an essay that lacks community consensus in support of it. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 06:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Keep While, it does have some issues with promo from the old version. With the edits however, it now seems like a fairly normal and good wikipedia article. It has a lot of sources and doing a quick Safari search wields a lot of results about them. Sorry if anyone disagrees with this. Have a good day. Tvshowoflife ( talk) 18:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

  • Delete: Simply no WP:IS WP:RS discuss the subject directly and indpeth. Affliated orgs publishing their works and promo articles do not meet the guidelines.  //  Timothy ::  talk  21:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

  • Delete fails [WP:IS] MetricMaster ( talk) 08:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC) This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked. Reply reply
  • Delete: This page was described accurately in the nomination. To their credit, pagecreator User:Leglamp123 immediately bulked up sourcing, but most of that has now been correctly slimmed by uninvolved editors (whom I thank for their efforts). IMHO, all the presented and applied sourcing amounts to entirely Tampa Bay local coverage. This is by no means a speedy keep, and the other keep assertion seems a vague exaggeration at best. I'd be okay with a merge to List of parenting magazines or List of Florida magazines, but the first is in debatable condition and second doesn't exist. BusterD ( talk) 16:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Social science Proposed deletions

Language

Serbian proverbs

Serbian proverbs (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

WP:NOTQUOTE #2; the article presently does what Wikiquote is there for: q:Serbian proverbs. – Vipz ( talk) 07:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Serbia. – Vipz ( talk) 07:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • The page is quite old, being only a month older than Wikiquote itself. I would support a cross-wiki merge to Wikiquote; the cited content on EnWiki seems to work fine there, and it would be wise to keep the attribution history for reasons of copyright. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 16:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    @ Red-tailed hawk: what kind of a cross-wiki merge are you supporting? To soft-redirect the article to Wikiquote's article + add a tag on its talk page telling it was copied from Wikipedia? – Vipz ( talk) 17:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    That's what I have in mind, yes. This would preserve the public page histories (i.e. the attribution history) for the authors of the Wikipedia article, while also properly placing the quote content on Wikiquote rather than Wikipedia. It's an application of WP:COPYWITHIN to moving content across wikis. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 17:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    @ Red-tailed hawk: yeah, just wanted to make sure we're thinking of the same thing. Not some sort of page-moving across different MediaWiki projects (which I wish was possible, though :P). – Vipz ( talk) 17:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    There is a way to move pages across wikis (i.e. transwiki), but seeing as the target of the would-be-move already exists on Wikiquote, I don't see a good reason to actually transwiki this. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 17:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Arche-writing

Arche-writing (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

WP:ESSAY, No sources cited. AtlasDuane ( talk) 03:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Philosophy. AtlasDuane ( talk) 03:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    Keep - while it's unclear if this would be best as a standalone article or a part of a more general article on Derrida's philosophy, that's no justification for deletion. Other than the lack of citations, the material scans fine as potentially verifiable, appears to be encyclopedic content. - car chasm ( talk) 04:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
Keep. Article needs sourcing work, but Google Scholar shows extensive references to this term ( https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Arche-writing%22), and many of them are specifically about the term, not about the creator. Jo7hs2 ( talk) 03:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep - As noted above, the article needs sourcing but sufficient sources clearly exist for this philosophical concept to pass GNG. WJ94 ( talk) 10:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Delete, or at least Draftify, as the article is a complete failure of WP:NOR. The "extensive" sources above don't seem to discuss the topic in-depth. The first ten I checked just name-drop the idea briefly without giving any actual discussion of it. Perhaps there's more out there, but until then, WP:TNT. 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 22:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    I've added a source that largely seems to cover what's stated in the article, I don't think there's actually any original research here, just statements about what Derrida said. - car chasm ( talk) 00:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Anthony Aristar

Anthony Aristar (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Fails WP:NPROF. References are of the most tenuous. Potentially notable. scope_creep Talk 19:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

I did notice that as a lifetime achievement award, fundamentally for turning up every and working. scope_creep Talk 09:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep. I just added half a dozen references, some from newspapers and some from scholarly journals, to text already there. The article certainly needs work, but I think there is plenty of room to expand on Professor Aristar's career. LINGUIST List, E-MELD, and Multitree (projects that he co-founded) are all pretty influential within his field. Cnilep ( talk) 05:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
I think what you are aiming for is #4 of WP:NACADEMIC: "The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions." If so, it doesn't come through in the sources. The quotes you added don't put this over the top to notability, IMO. Managing a list is not the same as making a significant discovery in ones' field. It isn't "academic work" per se. I looked up E-MELD in G-Scholar and it's mostly meeting reports with few published papers and very low citations. It does surprise me that there isn't more recognition of this person's work, but unless we find it there's not enough to support an article. Lamona ( talk) 15:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
I was questioning this, over the weekend. I went over the sources, that ones that I could access and it was definitely a mixed bag of what I would consider at the lower end of quality. I couldn'tt see anything that I could attach to as viable secondary source. It rotated around the question of "Is he notable for creating a bibliographic database". I don't see it, to be honest. Many of these types of database are created all the time. I don't it is possible to clarify it as something that is standalone notable and it all stems from that. scope_creep Talk 15:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 19:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Merge to The LINGUIST LIST seems the best option, I can't find much for this person though. He could earn a brief mention there, the list seems rather popular based on hits in Gscholar. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
I !voted to keep the article, above, but as LINGUIST List is one of Aristar's major contributions a merge would also make sense. See also the objections under my argument above. (I still think he is notable, but the contrary arguments of Lamona and scope_creep are also valid.) Cnilep ( talk) 23:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Romani ite domum

Romani ite domum (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Originally created on 1 March 2005 as a redirect to the article Life of Brian, it only took 103 days to be turned into essentially the same page it is now: failing WP:PLOT and WP:N for 17.76 years, it now manages to bear a single salient source (cited to "montypython.50webs.com").

It may be worth noting that steps have been taken repeatedly to return this page to a redirect. Samuel Blanning ( talk · contribs) redirected it again in January 2007, and was reverted by Michael Bednarek ( talk · contribs) in March 2013. MRN2electricboogaloo ( talk · contribs) redirected it a third time in December 2022 saying in part, the scene isn’t notable and neither is the phrase it seems; they were undone by Michael Bednarek again, who referred to deletion instead, saying there's a process to nominate articles for deletion. Today, I used one of those processes as instructed by Michael Bednarek, proposing deletion because Handily fails WP:PLOT & WP:N (nominated at the request of User:Michael Bednarek; that same editor reverted the {{ prod}} tagging, saying this time, I made no such request; if you want it deleted, take it to AfD.. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

  • Delete. If a scene from a film is notable (and I doubt it is), then it should be a section in that film's article. Gonnym ( talk) 15:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    I suspect this scene is notable enough for a mention somewhere. It is discussed in many Latin books unaffiliated with Monty Python, take a look on google books: [1]filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 15:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    It's not even mentioned in the film's article (that I could find). Gonnym ( talk) 15:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    This is how it's described in the plot section: To prove himself, Brian is tasked by the PFJ to paint slogans on Roman governor Pilate's palace, but is interrupted by a Roman officer. The officer, however, is more concerned with Brian's appalling grammar and, after correcting the slogan, orders him to write it one hundred times.filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 15:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Film. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 15:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep. The article subject is discussed in some depth here: Cognitive Linguistics and Humor Research Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 16:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    I cannot access your linked source. Could you incorporate it into the article so we can see whether it affects concerns about notability and lack of non-plot context (and won't make the page a coatrack of mentions/references)? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    A coat rack of references? That's what every Wikipedia article aims for. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 00:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    Sorry! That's not what I meant. What I meant in my reply to Barnards.tar.gz was whether their source helped satisfy N and PLOT, and wasn't just a mention (or a reference) to the topic at hand; i.e. does the source just name-drop or call-out to this particular TV scene. Does that make sense? We don't want to just list a bunch of sources that mention the topic in passing: a coatrack of [mentions, name-drops, call-outs, references]. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep. Individual scenes from some films take on a life of their own, and this appears to be an example. Wikipedia has at least two from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, concerning the Knights who say 'Ni!' and the Rabbit of Caerbannog. Evidently there are sources unaffiliated with the movie that discuss this scene, whether in discussions of Latin grammar or for the sheer silliness of it. Perhaps more such sources could be cited. As for the argument that it should be redirected to a list of Latin phrases, there is simply too much content necessary to explain it; and in fact this is much the same reason for not merging it with the article about the film: as a section of that article it would be too lengthy, and would probably need to be split off to produce—this article. Finally, it's harmless and people might just be looking for it, so there are good reasons to have an article, and nothing is really improved by deleting it. There may be other articles about scenes in films that can't really be justified, but this one seems good enough to stay. P Aculeius ( talk) 17:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    Do those sources provide the article requisite notability and real-world context? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Redirect or merge to the film. I'm not sure it's notable without the film, all discussions seem to be in context of the film itself. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep – P Aculeius gave the reasons against redirecting and merging. As for the phrase's notability on its own, the first three provided search links above (books, news, scholar) provide plenty of significant coverage. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 03:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    Without my own access to those sources, would you instead be able to incorporate them into the article, so we can all see how well and if they address the concerns about notability and lack of non-plot context (and won't make the page a coatrack of mentions/references)? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    Surely the Google searches provided at the top of this page yield results when you click them. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 00:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    I cannot access those sources, as I said. That's why I asked whether you could use your access to improve the article, so we could evaluate their qualitative effect on the concerns here. Also, if they're libre-licensed or public-domain sources, you could copy them here (or onto this discussion's talk page) for us to pick through. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Delete (or at the very least a smerge). The discussion on the grammar is a blatant violation of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and shouldn't be in the article regardless, and this is otherwise just a description of one scene in a movie. While it may be a well known scene, it doesn't rise anywhere near to the level of notability for a standalone article. WP:NOPAGE applies here. One single source which uses this as an example of linguistic humor is nice, but it's not enough for GNG. A couple sentences at the main article would be more than sufficient..."so-and-so has used this scene as an instructive example of linguistic humor in movies..." or something to that effect. 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 03:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    The discussion of the grammar is exactly the point of the scene's notability and its coverage. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 05:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    Even more reason that this shouldn't be an article then. Is the topic of the article the scene or is it the phrase? If it's the scene, WP doesn't include articles about individual movie scenes except maybe in very exceptional circumstances. The closest I could find is in all of WP was Poole versus HAL 9000, and that's really about the game depicted in the scene rather than the scene itself. Any well loved movie (and a lot of not-so-well loved ones too) are going to have their well known scenes dissected by critics, by cinephiles, by people writing in reliable sources. But again, WP:NOPAGE is key here. If it's particularly noteworthy, it can be mentioned in the main article on the film. Is the topic then the phrase? If so, it isn't notable except in the context of the film. Again then, at best, mention it on the film's article. Edit: oh wait, I finally did manage to find one: Han shot first. 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 06:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    In my reading, WP:NOPAGE (which is also called WP:PAGEDECIDE), supports the existence of this article. Ignoring sources "by critics, by cinephiles, by people writing in reliable sources" is ignoring WP:RS, which works both ways. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 06:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    I agree with Michael Bednarek: a cinematic debate or discussion of grammar is not what WP:NOTTEXTBOOK is about; this article is not a "how-to", but a discussion of a movie scene that has taken on a life of its own—the possibility that a reader might actually learn something about Latin grammar is incidental. I see nothing in WP:NOPAGE that suggests this article shouldn't exist; it's just general advice about how to determine whether a topic is better as a stand-alone article or as part of another article. In this case the discussion and explanation of the scene seems to be of an appropriate length and detail for the subject, and that discussion is too long and detailed to be folded into the main article about the film; hence, a stand-alone article seems justified. Often, notable scenes can be fully discussed within other pages, but this one simply requires more context and explanation than that treatment would allow. P Aculeius ( talk) 14:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    This scene has not "taken on a life of its own". It's one reasonably well known scene in a reasonably well known movie. You can find more written about countless others, but given the fact there's a total of one (1) other article in all of Wikipedia about a movie scene (that I could find), established precedent about how to handle this situation appears clear: individual scenes from movies do not get separate articles (at least not without some very extraordinary circumstance, like the SW one...this is where NOPAGE comes in). If you want to change this, you should write a new notability guideline on individual scenes and propose it for wider adoption. 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 16:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    That's your opinion—if various reliable sources talk about a specific scene, then one can certainly say it's taken on a life of its own. But as this is a metaphor, I'm not going to waste time trying to "prove" it to someone whose opinion is clearly different. I pointed out two other movie scenes that have their own articles, and I might have come up with others had I bothered searching for them; they were simply the ones that I was already aware of. And your lack of awareness of others does not constitute any kind of precedent or policy concerning their general notability. If anything, the fact that such articles have been created and curated for a number of years would seem to argue that there is a general consensus in favour of such articles existing, for the very reasons stated at NOPAGE. That doesn't mean that every memorable scene in every famous film should have its own article, but it's a long way from extracting a rule, stated nowhere in the encyclopedia, that no scene in any movie should be split off into a separate article. If you want to create such a rule, it's up to you to rewrite the notability guidelines. P Aculeius ( talk) 16:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    The two articles you pointed out were about characters, not scenes. 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 17:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    Splitting hairs doesn't change the basic reality of the situation. They're really about individual scenes, even if they allude to things that happened in other scenes, and there's never been anything wrong with splitting off articles that are too detailed for a proper discussion as part of larger topics. The only argument against it seems to be, "I don't think this is important, so it shouldn't have an article." P Aculeius ( talk) 21:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Draftify while it may be notable, it’s current state is not good and needs some work to incorporate actual sources and make the text more encyclopedic (precedent might actually lean towards deletion for this scenario, judging by another AFD I was in, for GONN but I don’t really agree with that) MRN2electricboogaloo ( talk) 14:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    This article does not appear to meet the criteria for WP:DRAFTIFY. Whether the article "has some merit" seems to be the main subject of discussion, although currently a majority of commenters including yourself seem either convinced or willing to entertain the possibility. However, it clearly "meets the required standard", as it is 1) already more substantial than a stub, 2) has a reasonable chance of surviving AfD, 3) is not a candidate for speedy deletion, and 4) is not a recent creation (it was created in 2005, and has over 200 edits, as well as an average of over 150 daily page views over the 90 days preceding its nomination for deletion, which is far more than many perfectly good articles). To this I would add 5) several editors participating in this discussion are satisfied that it belongs in mainspace, even if it could stand to be improved (as nearly all articles can—and many articles in mainspace are in poorer shape than this one), and 6) there do not appear to be any issues regarding copyright violations, as everything is properly attributed, or conflicts of interest involving the editors (not that we would expect any, given the age of the film). The defects in this article can be met by the normal process of editing it in mainspace—and Wikipedia policy explicitly states that there is no time limit for improving articles. P Aculeius ( talk) 15:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    Hi. I think those parameters are only pertinent when an article is simply draftified, without discussion. DRAFTIFY clearly states, "Articles may be moved to become a draft as a result of a deletion discussion." Onel5969 TT me 01:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    That doesn't appear to be the case. Otherwise the very clear guideline, "2d. The page is a recent creation by an inexperienced editor. Older articles should not be draftified. As a rule of thumb, articles older than 90 days should not be draftified without prior consensus at AfD." (emphasis in original) would not make sense. And we clearly do not have consensus for that, nor do the other criteria suggest that this article would be suitable for draftification. Or to restate: this article is not a draft, nor does it resemble a draft. If every article that could stand to have more citations were draftified, half the encyclopedia would vanish overnight. This is a simple case of a short article that could be improved by adding more sources, like countless others. It is already in better shape than many other articles that would never be draftified. The only reason for doing so would be as a backdoor to deletion—which AfD clearly states is not an appropriate reason for draftifying an article. P Aculeius ( talk) 04:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep or merge and redirect. Either would suffice for me. I have added a reference. BD2412 T 16:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

  • Redirect per nom. The various WP:ILIKEIT votes are not convincing. Walt Yoder ( talk) 20:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    … whereas the WP:IDONTLIKEIT voices are so much more convincing. BTW, those 2 shortcuts refer to the essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, here doubly irrelevant. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 01:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    The nom's argument was that this isn't an encyclopedia article, it is a coat-rack to quote a Monty Python sketch excessively. I agree. Walt Yoder ( talk) 01:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    Sounds an awful lot like IDONTLIKEIT to me. IMO that's the premise behind all of the delete votes: "I don't like it, therefore it's not sufficiently notable." P Aculeius ( talk) 03:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    Something about this particular claim has been bothering me: "a coat-rack to quote a Monty Python sketch excessively." Looking at the script (the very first source cited), the scene contains forty-four lines of dialogue, excluding stage directions. The quoted section contains seven consecutive lines focusing on the incorrect identification of domum as the locative of domus, when in fact the construction is accusative. These lines contain a total of forty-two words, less than half the length for which the Chicago Manual of Style would recommend a block quotation, if they came from a single paragraph (before I checked, I was thinking of a similar standard that requires just fifty words). There must be thousands of articles on Wikipedia that contain more and longer quotations of material still under copyright than this; the length and proportion of the original dialogue quoted is clearly not "excessive".
Nor can the article properly be described as a coat-rack to get the quoted lines into Wikipedia. The quoted lines are directly relevant to the section in which they occur, and illustrate what it is that is wrong about the dialogue; it is difficult to imagine a better way to do so. The quoted material does not contain any jokes, unless you count the description of the centurion holding his sword to Brian's throat—which while accurate and helpful, is not actually quoted from the script, and therefore occurs in square brackets. The scene is funny because of the context in which it occurs, as described by the non-quoted text and the sources cited, not because of the mistake made concerning the distinction between the accusative and the locative. There is no reason to quote these lines other than to explain the mistake.
Because there is a legitimate purpose for quoting these specific lines where they occur, which purpose is borne out by the sources cited in that section, and because the amount of material quoted constitutes only a small portion (a bit less than 1/7) of the dialogue in the scene, with a total of less than fifty words, the claim that the entire article is merely "a coat-rack to quote a Monty Python sketch excessively" is clearly wrong. P Aculeius ( talk) 13:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Redirect to Monty Python's Life of Brian#Plot. The sourcing to establish notability for this scene as a topic of its own is weak. Of the four cited sources, one is just a transcription of the scene from the film, and another is just a definition of the Latin word domus. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    There are now seven sources, with the addition of three scholarly discussions of the scene in historical, linguistic, and social context. The subject was already too detailed to be covered adequately in the article about the film, which is why it was split off in the first place. Now it is even more so. P Aculeius ( talk) 14:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep, per Michael Bednarek and P Aculeius. — Cote d'Azur ( talk) 08:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Comment: I have cited three scholarly discussions of the article. One discusses the use of the classroom discourse model to produce humor from linguistics, subverting the viewer's expectations from historical context; a second discusses how the scene depicts resistance to the Roman occupation of Judaea, compared with the historical reality; a third compares the use of satirical classroom discourse as a distraction from the primary issue of the Roman occupation to modern political debate over social matters, as the author suggests a misleading focus on details such as non-binary pronouns. I've also added a source further explaining the grammatical error involving the use of the locative, and rewritten the paragraph in which it occurs.
    All of these sources were easily obtainable just by clicking the links above—but once again, AfD has been used as a substitute for the appropriate editorial process. Please consult WP:BEFORE; for an article to be deleted due to lack of sources, the nominator should attempt to determine whether such sources exist, not whether they have been cited. If they exist, then the nomination should fail. But here the burden was inappropriately shifted to those voting "keep", thereby inverting Wikipedia policy to say the opposite of what it actually does. AfD is intended to deal with articles that cannot be improved through reasonable effort. It is not a tool for editors who can't be bothered to improve articles themselves to force others to do it for them. P Aculeius ( talk) 14:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    Your clairvoyance of my actions and intents notwithstanding, I did not find before, and am still yet to see, sufficient and focused analytical discussion of this television moment such as warrants its own standalone article separate from the episode in which it appeared. However, I've nonetheless been keen to follow-up with the several participants here who mentioned sources that were available to improve the article. One, linked to by Barnards.tar.gz, I can not access and asked impotently if they could share with us for evaluation. Second was your non-specific mention of apparent sources available, but when I asked about them above, you didn't reply. Third was Michael Bednarek, who claimed sufficient sources were surely available at Google resources to which I had no access; I asked for them to be shared with those participating here, but they didn't reply. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    That reliable sources exist is not dependent on whether every editor is able to view them over the internet. I cited only those sources I was able to review, or ascertain the purpose of sufficiently to determine that they consisted of more than a passing mention or "shout-out". Some were not available for me to view in any form, and I was therefore unable to cite them. I have however added citations to multiple sources indicating what it is that they say. Have you tried to access any of them from the links in the article, or by searching for them by author or title? Did you undertake a search, or merely rely on the fact that the other editors did not provide you with alternative links to the sources that they found? I cited to the work that Barnards.tar.gz linked, having reviewed it and determined that it was a detailed analysis of—not a passing mention of—the scene in question. So were the other sources that I cited, as I tried to make clear in the body text when citing to them.
    I find it difficult to believe that no sources indicating notability beyond passing mentions or trivia would be viewable by someone doing a general search. But I also note that sources do not need to be available on-line in the first place: it is perfectly acceptable to cite things to books or other media that have not been digitized or made generally available on the internet. I don't know whether your complaint is that you were not able to find any relevant sources online, or merely that you were not able to view the ones that other editors linked to—but in either case, being unable to form your own opinion regarding those sources does not invalidate their use, or demonstrate that reliable sources indicating the notability of the subject do not exist. Nor are other editors required to find or provide you with copies of those sources or their contents—their failure to do so does not determine whether such sources exist, and should not determine the outcome of the discussion.
    For my part, I merely alluded to whatever sources were referred to by the editors who commented before me, assuming that if they found good sources, then I did not need to verify that they were correct in their analysis. By joining this discussion, I only took on the responsibility to determine whether deletion was consistent with Wikipedia policy, not to hunt down sources myself or prove that they were sufficient to support the article; WP:BEFORE makes clear that that is the responsibility of the editor nominating an article for deletion. The fact that I subsequently found, reviewed, and incorporated good sources in order to settle this debate does not mean that the nomination was a good one before I did so; it was not, since the sources existed and were easily findable whether or not they were cited or incorporated into the article at that point. Now they have been, so the nomination that should have failed even without any further edits to the article cannot be sustained. P Aculeius ( talk) 19:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    I concede defeat at the mass of your accusatory words, and apologetically withdraw from engagement therewith. Mayhap somebody else will take up the mantle of MOS:ACCESS. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    WP:ACCESS has nothing to do with anything discussed here. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 23:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Salvio giuliano 16:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

О with left notch

О with left notch (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
Possible hoax article? Unreferenced, does not seem to be in Unicode, Google seatch fails to find anything except material sourced from thid article. It has been added to {{ Infobox Cyrillic letter}}, but is not found in List of Cyrillic letters. No corresponding article in any other language.

The facts that the creating editor's username is User:Cyrilliclols and that they have also previously created a rejected draft article for a fictional alphabet, may also be relevant.

Having said which, the glyph does occur on other wikis in edits dating back well before the creation of this article, and the image was created a long time ago, so this might be a good faith creation; but if so, it would still need a valid supporting cite to be kept.— The Anome ( talk) 23:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

It probably is. I have listed a source below. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 20:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
Merge seems like it deserves a spot somewhere if there is a suitable editor who is knowledgeable enough about Cyrillic to find the sources. But to my untrained eye, it looks like this is a marginal letter with little use. Maybe there could be a note or section somewhere about marginal/proposed letters? Not sure which would be the best place to merge, but agree it doesn't seem to have the notability/content for a page. JMWt ( talk) 07:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Comment there is an article on the Bashkir alphabet. I don't know enough to comment on either it or this AFD, but when I looked at it I saw a big table of multiple writing systems. Elinruby ( talk) 02:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

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

Prodded articles


History

Battle of Kungrat (1827)

Battle of Kungrat (1827) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

The article is unreferenced. Although this is not a sufficient reason for deletion, the problem is that "Battle of Kungrat" returns zero hits on Google (including Books). In fact, there's no Wikipedia on either Kungrat, Oydustbiy (first belligerent) or Muhammad Yakub (second belligerent). Pichpich ( talk) 16:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

  • Delete I found nothing to support notability. There were zero hits on Google Scholar and Google Books. I was able to confirm only that there is a Kungrat in Uzbekistan but not the occurrence of a battle there on the date specified. I did not see evidence of an alternate spelling, but absent evidence of one turning up additional information, fails Wikipedia:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (events). Jo7hs2 ( talk) 17:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Delete Agree, I also failed to find anything that would support this article or that the battle even happened. -- hroest 18:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Delete I’m fed up with made-up o4 wildly exaggerated Indian battles. Mccapra ( talk) 19:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Delete I've found the original source (or a clone of the original source) for the article here: [2]. Assuming the website is legitimate (whether or not it can be counted on to accurately represent specific facts), its existence suggests that the event is both real and notable, though it's possible this all ultimately comes from a citogenesis incident on Russian Wikipedia. I've tried a few different options for romanizing Ойдустбий and gotten nowhere. So: sources may exist, but there's currently no sign of any good ones - delete. -- asilvering ( talk) 21:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Walker Baylor

Walker Baylor (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

I don't see how Walker Baylor is notable. My redirect to his son Robert Emmett Bledsoe Baylor was reverted, so AfD can decide. Apart from the obituary, all sources seem to refer to him as "the father of", not about him personally, and just spend one line on him: e.g. this book, this book, or this book. Even this book, a detailed account of his military unit, gives only some small bits of information, and doesn't support the claim that he was a major of the unit (but only a captain). As it is a self-published book (authorhouse.com), it doesn't really count as a reliable source anyway. Fram ( talk) 07:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Kentucky. Fram ( talk) 07:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Delete I fail to see what is notable about this chap. He served in a war as a junior officer and was wounded. No high rank, no high-level decorations, no key role in a battle or contribution to military operational art etc. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 07:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Delete No credible claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep. The subject is notable for commanding Washington's Life Guard at either Germantown or Brandywine, where he was wounded while holding the colors. This is mentioned in all the sources that speak of him. I've found one obituary written in the year of his death, which focusses solely on the subject. There are probably others, just not on Newspapers.com. Also, this history of the Baylor family has information on the two likenesses of him which are known to exist and about which more may have been written. One of them was featured in a recent museum exhibition. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 10:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    • " One of them was featured in a recent museum exhibition"? That's not supported by that source, any other evidence for this? "Probably others" and "more may have been written" is speculation, not something we can base an AfD on, and it seems not very likely that these family portraits have been the subject of much attention anyway. The claim that he was a major is only sourced to an inscription on a photograph it seems. We don't know where he was wounded, never mind while supposedly "holding the colors" (source?), and "this" is not "mentioned in all the sources that speak of him", neither the sources I gave above nor the family history or the Virginia Magazine [3] mention him commanding the Life Guard, and this pdf which mentions his wound doesn't mention the Life Guards, Washington or "holding the colors" either. So it is rather strange that the sources which briefly mention him, don't mention the one thing he is supposedly notable for. Fram ( talk) 11:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
      Internet archive shows multiple references to him commanding the life guards. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 12:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
      • A "632" results list of many copyright registration cards, real estate tax list archives, ... Not helpful. Fram ( talk) 13:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
        Maybe scroll more than twice, and you'll see what else is there. Also, I've added information on the subject's life in Kentucky after the war from several sources. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 13:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
        See also this source, which besides describing some of his activities in Kentucky, also mentions another obituary in the Kentucky Gazette "with a short sketch of his revolutionary War services as head of a troop of cavalry." 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 13:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Delete per Peacemaker and Hawkeye, at least from a military perspective. Intothat darkness 15:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Delete, do not see how he is notable for stand-alone article. Not major medals and states, he "may have" obtained the rank of Major (so not a General officer). Too much speculation. Kierzek ( talk) 16:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Afshar Beylik

Afshar Beylik (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Only one source and that is non- WP:RS dead link. I'm having a hard time finding a good source for this. There are instances of "Sevindik Han", but there the state is not called the "Afshar Beylik". Best if this page is deleted or redirects to the Afshar people for now. Aintabli ( talk) 00:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Matiur Rahman (army officer)

Matiur Rahman (army officer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

BIO1E per article. No objection to a redirect to Assassination of Ziaur Rahman#Executed officers. Most of the article is about the event, and the event article covers it well. I don't see any sourced info worth a merge, but if someone sees material, I don't object to it (text added 01:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)). A best this is a completely unneed CFORK.  //  Timothy ::  talk  00:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

List of states of Greater Iran

AfDs for this article:
List of states of Greater Iran (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

There is only one source in this article. It mentions only three of the listed states and barely supports that these were located in the loosely-defined "Greater Iran". (The source refers to Iranian Intermezzo, which is not Greater Iran.) This article is almost wholly WP:OR. Aintabli ( talk) 23:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

History of Porto

History of Porto (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Already covered in the Porto article Chidgk1 ( talk) 15:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Zef Mirdita

Zef Mirdita (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

With an h-Index of 10, a high citation count of 38, and no qualifying positions, does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR, and does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 12:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Delete. For the reasons identified by the nominator. BoyTheKingCanDance ( talk) 12:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Comment: Due to the language barrier, I'm unable to check for academic reviews of his books, so I'll hold off on a !vote. From what I can see based on this and the Albanian Wikipedia article, he appears to be quite highly recognized for his contributions to the fields of Albanology and (less so) Illyrology, including having received presidential awards specifically for his contributions. Curbon7 ( talk) 13:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Comment given that much of his career took place pre-internet, and he was working primarily outside the usual set of collaborating Western countries, and his expertise is in a field of limited interest to those from the UK, US or most of Western Europe, it's impressive that he is as cited as he is. If I lift his accomplishments and place them in the 21st C in North America, I think it almost certain he'd have landed a named chair, been editor of a journal, or otherwise met NPROF. We need to match our criteria to the subject. I'd be very worried about deleting him unless someone with specific knowledge of Albanian language and culture declares he's not notable in that context. My edit summary is: "don't just delete academics because they lived a long time ago, somewhere else, and we don't speak their language". Elemimele ( talk) 17:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Albania, and Kosovo. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep. Am I missing something? How does he not meet WP:GNG? He's in two biographical dictionaries, and has significant coverage like this [4] (already linked on article). Since nomination, the article has been added to show his awards (like this one [5]), so it now looks to me like he passes all three criteria at WP:ANYBIO. -- asilvering ( talk) 22:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • I have cited a few reviews in the article, showing a pass of WP:AUTHOR on top of the above. Phil Bridger ( talk) 13:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    @ Phil Bridger If you intended this as a "keep" !vote, you forgot the "keep" at the beginning, fyi. -- asilvering ( talk) 17:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    Yes, I didn't start my comment with a bolded statement of what I want to happen, not because I forgot it but because such statements lead people to treat these discussions as battlegrounds rather than discussions that should lead to consensus. Phil Bridger ( talk) 19:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep. Clearly passes WP:GNG with entries in two dictionaries and awards. Probably no pass due to GS profile and its citations but everything else is more than enough. -- hroest 13:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep. I suspect that as a subject involving book publications in a non-global language, notability through journal citations is going to be difficult to document. But the multiple book reviews mentioned above make a borderline case for WP:AUTHOR, and inclusion in two national dictionaries and a published academic-journal obituary should be more than enough for WP:GNG. GNG-notable scholars don't lose their notability merely for not passing other notability criteria. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep per the sources mentioned by asilvering above. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 11:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Bulgarian Empire

Bulgarian Empire (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

There aren't any reliable sources that treat the First Bulgarian Empire and the Second Bulgarian Empire as one continuous empire. They were separated by more than 150 years. Sort of WP:SYNTH. It should become a dab page. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Warfare theater of Rudniki Forest

Warfare theater of Rudniki Forest (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

The article name yields no results on Google Books and Google Scholar. It is a neologism and a clear case of original research with minimal content as well. Following WP:DEL-REASON, it's a case of number 6. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 22:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Germany, and Lithuania. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep: I'm skeptical a proper WP:BEFORE search was conducted, considering a perfunctory search using a more accurate term returned this online source by Yad Vashem, as well as this book and this journal article. The article needs a rename, as the current name is an editor creation not reflective of reliable sources, but it is a bit misleading to state that a search returned nothing if you searched using an incorrect term. In addition, there are clear potential merge targets that have not been considered as WP:ATDs, such as Jewish resistance in German-occupied Europe and Jewish partisans. Curbon7 ( talk) 22:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    @ Curbon7 There are no articles on Wikipedia titled "Warfare theater of ..." That's clearly a neologism. The article's scope is unclear, while also being very much WP:OR, because there is no such thing as "Battle of Rudniki Forest", etc. in WP:RS. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 21:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    Yeah obviously that was a unilateral page move made by a single editor. Curbon7 ( talk) 23:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Merge to a proper location as suggested above unless some serious sourcing can be added and the article written in something approaching proper format and style. If enough information is added, I can see changing to Keep if the action proves notable on its own. Intothat darkness 16:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
Weird title, there was of course warfare in Rudniki forest, it was one of the main partisan bases in the region, Soviet, Polish and Jewish partisans were stationing there for sure; and there was a Battle of Surkonty, but it already have an article. Since there is no much to merge really, I think we should delete Marcelus ( talk) 21:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Merge to a consensus target(s). It seems this is a poorly source fork, that could be much better covered in related articles. There are several viable options for a target, no reason it can't be adapted to more than one. This title is not a good candidate for a redirect, but if there is a consensus for one, I have no objection.  //  Timothy ::  talk  21:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some merge targets have been proposed, but there's no consensus for where the article should be merged to (if consensus results in a merge).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh ( talk) 06:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

  • Delete as noted, the title is citogenesis. Curbon7's references discuss actions in 1943, while the stub says "1944 and 1945" (which is probably in error, as it would have been anti-Soviet actions at that time). Just because there was partisan activity in this region doesn't mean it is suitable for a stand-alone article. Whatever actual information there is should be discussed in a differently-titled and scoped article - perhaps Resistance in Lithuania during World War II. Walt Yoder ( talk) 15:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

David Doyle (writer)

David Doyle (writer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Can't find any sources referencing this author. Article is written in a very promotional tone. (Indeed, an editor with the same name has edited it extensively.) SWinxy ( talk) 04:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

After a short search, I found a considerable number of articles, that cite works of Doyle, David as sources, including: 2½-ton 6×6 truck, 5-ton 6×6 truck, 6-ton 6×6 truck, Autocar U8144T 5- to 6-ton 4×4 truck, Brockway Motor Company, Chevrolet G506, Diamond T, Diamond T 4-ton 6×6 truck, Dodge M37, Dodge T-, V-, W-Series, Dodge WC series, DUKW, Gama Goat, GMC CCKW 2½-ton 6×6 truck, Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck, Hercules DFXE, Jim Allen (4x4 writer), K-31 truck, Kaiser Jeep M715, Kenworth 10-ton 6x6 heavy wrecking truck, List of soft-skinned vehicles of the US military, List of United States Army tactical truck engines, M10 tank destroyer, M123 and M125 10-ton 6x6 trucks, M151 ¼-ton 4×4 utility truck, M19 Tank Transporter, M2 High Speed Tractor, M274 ½-ton 4×4 utility platform truck, M35 series 2½-ton 6×6 cargo truck, M39 series 5-ton 6×6 truck, M520 Goer, M6 Bomb Service Truck, M809 series 5-ton 6×6 truck, M816 Wrecker, M939 series 5-ton 6×6 truck, Mack NM 6-ton 6x6 truck, Mack NO 7½-ton 6x6 truck, Mack Trucks, Mack Trucks in military service, Pz.Sfl. Ia, Steven Zaloga, Studebaker US6 2½-ton 6×6 truck, Willys Go Devil engine, Willys MB, amongst others .. -- GeeTeeBee ( talk) 15:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Delete. No indication of notability in existing sources. Sources used in the article don't appear to be independent. Being used as a reference in a Wikipedia article does not contribute to notability. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 06:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 09:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

House of Dinaraja

House of Dinaraja (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Per WP:VERIFY and concerns raised during the previous AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Dinajara.

Question: What is the name of the dynasty which started by King Vimaladharmasuriya I of Kandy?

Ánswer: History books don't give us a name. So, we don't know. It does not matter whether this dynasty has a name or not. That doesn't give someone the licence to WP:OR. Literally, there are no WP:RSs that mention the name House of Dinaraja except for the dubious blog, mahawansaya.org. Chanaka L ( talk) 04:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Khormans

Khormans (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Non-notable. By author's admission, better sources aren't available, and BEFORE certainly finds nothing. None of the three sources cited meets the GNG standard, and the external links provided aren't any better. Has been repeatedly sent back to drafts, but the author insists on publishing it. Fails WP:GNG, as well as just basic WP:V. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 13:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Africa, and Libya. DoubleGrazing ( talk) 13:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Comment This article was draftified four times, it should have been brought to AFD after the first draftification was reverted. Thank you, DoubleGrazing, for nominating it now. Liz Read! Talk! 16:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Comment -- This appears to refer to an independent state existing 1300-1320. If so, having an article about it might be appropriate, even if the sources are scanty. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Delete - Not enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG - draft is where it should have remained, but kept getting recreated without improvement, so no point sending it back. Onel5969 TT me 01:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep. The more common spelling is Khurman (and there are others). Try "Banu Khurman". Deletion would only reinforce our systemic bias in favour of stuff that generates lots of results when copy/pasted into GScholar. For example, there is no "o" in the romanization used by Brill for classical Arabic, so you cannot expect this spelling in any of their publications. Srnec ( talk) 14:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Weak Keep - I think the concerns are legitimate, however I think there is something there with the subject even if the current article is not the greatest. I don't know how much more information exists on it and I don't know who else here could really go pull it up, but the chances of getting more information improve if the article stays. KatoKungLee ( talk) 05:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

  • Strong keep I’ve added three refs which indicate that although relatively little is known about this ruling clan, they are discussed in multiple scholarly journals and books. I think the title should be changed to “Khurman” to reflect the standard Arabic transliteration that is used in the sources. The current spelling looks French to me, which may indicate even more sources in that language, but I haven’t looked. Mccapra ( talk) 14:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Prosper Anton Josef von Sinzendorf

Prosper Anton Josef von Sinzendorf (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

No refs on the page for many years. I don't see anything other than the briefest biographical details in genealogical lists. To start we need sources to verify the claims before we can even establish if the subject meets the WP:GNG JMWt ( talk) 10:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. JMWt ( talk) 10:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    Sources are available on the German equivalent article. The German version uses general referencing, which is quite normal there, but viewed as unacceptable by many editors here. In any case, it makes it very hard to work out which statements are verified by the (two) sources quoted. Both sources look like directories of nobility, and I personally have no intention of trying to get hold of the Allgemeines Adels-Archiv der Österreichischen Monarchie to rescue a small article about someone whose historical significance may not be outstanding. Elemimele ( talk) 12:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    Can you link to the German article please, I cannot find it. CT55555( talk) 14:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    de.wiki. Curbon7 ( talk) 17:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 12:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Royalty and nobility. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Comment a courier at the royal court, and was lord of the Trpísty in Bohemia that appear to meet WP:NPOL as a member of royal parliament during the monarchy period. Taung Tan ( talk) 10:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Redirect: to Sinzendorf. Typically courtiers, particularly high-ranking ones like imperial chamberlains, have some mentions in era sources, but to the best of my ability, I was unable to uncover any sources mentioning the subject beyond listings. A redirect to his family makes the most sense, and he is already mentioned at that article. Curbon7 ( talk) 17:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep as there is coverage in German here 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 12:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
Which is literally a genealogical chart. The barest of details. JMWt ( talk) 13:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
Found several mentions of his name in Google Books, but i can't read German. Taung Tan ( talk) 15:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
As I said in the nom, I also found mentions -usually one-line references to genealogies. The debate is whether there can in any sense be considered non-trivial and significant as per WP:GNG. I say no. JMWt ( talk) 16:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep. An Imperial chamberlain and counsellor is very likely to be notable, even without much sourcing found on him thus far. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

  • Comment -- A "courtier, Counsellor and Chamberlain at the Imperial Court in Vienna" ought to be prominent enough to be notable and I would have expected him to have an article in some biographical dictionary. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A final relist. Some commenters here are probably right that there SHOULD be sources out there that mention this individual in some detail but, fortunately or unfortunately, an AFD discussion produces pressure to find and cite these references as a rebuttal to a nomination statement which hasn't happened. At this point, you might consider the option of a Redirect that has been suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

  • Delete per no sources even after a three week deletion procedure. Without applied sources, this might as well be pure fiction, because a reader wouldn't know the difference. The BURDEN remains on those urging keep to actually add RS in order to convince participants. I'm not convinced of presumed notability when the subject's mere existence isn't even verified on the article itself. BusterD ( talk) 15:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Battle of Qarawal

Battle of Qarawal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

The article Battle of Qarawal is on the same topic as Battle of Lahore (1764). The article Battle of Qarawal is completely problematic which relies on only one source which basically is a translation of a contemporary source. Even the title of the article is incorrect as Qarawal is not a location but a strong contingent as mentioned in the source of the article itself. Also there are reliable sources by accredited historians that claim that the battle ended with both parties retiring at nightfall. Therefore, there was no victory for either party. Rather the battle was inconclusive. Javerine ( talk) 01:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

User @ Javerine has went on a spin-off argument from the main deletion page request for his page at [6], Please read there for whoever handles this deletion request. Noorullah ( talk) 01:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
Both sources do not mention what User Javerine is trying to potray with his page of Battle of Lahore (1764), further explained on the talk page of the Battle of Lahore itself, [7] and the deletion request I put up for it. Noorullah ( talk) 01:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • MISTAKES ABOUT THIS ARTICLE

MISTAKE 1: The source on the article Battle of Qarawal, clearly states that "When the army went to the battle-field, their camps, kitchens, families and servants known as Bahir-o~Bungah .were left in charge of a strong contingent, which was called Qarawal. * Jang Namah, 83." This is mention at the bottom on page number 201 [8].
MISTAKE 2: The article is strictly is based on one source which is basically a translation of contemporary source Jang Namah, written by Nur Muhammad who was brought along with his masters to record his master's campaign. And historian have called his source, though valuable, but bias, prejuidice, discriminatory, very one-sided and based on personal observation.
MISTAKE 3: Noorullah keeps repeating that the reliable sources on my article by accredited historians do not claim that "The battle ended with both parties retired at nightfall. Here are the source links for anyone to verify: Page 216 [9] by historian Hari Ram Gupta and here is another source, Page 299 [10] by historian Ganda Singh (historian).
So based on all above information, article Battle of Qarawal is completely problematic and errors, including the outcome of the battle, which I have clearly stated as "Inconclusive" on Battle of Lahore (1764). User Noorullah clearly didn't study the sources on his article Battle of Qarawal and didn't make effort to study the sources on my article either. Javerine ( talk) 02:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Sorry but your point about the "Jang Namah" being an unreliable contemporary source also applies to every source you just listed? It is within the bottom of all the books you just posted that they follow the Jang Namah. As you can see with the following: [11] [12]
Also the same account is of Hari Singh Nawla's writing, though you are saying it as if it was another source, when it was the same writer. Noorullah ( talk) 02:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
I think you are not understading. Its what the historians analyze that is considered reliable by studying such contemporary sources. Jang Namah is considered valuable as it sheds light on events but you can see that historians when giving their own analysis, ignore the brava and prejudice observations, of a source, serving the master. Such as historian Ganda Singh said, "lts true that the Jang Nama, presents only one side piccture and that too from a bigoted crusader’s angle of vision. But that does not detract much from its historical value. In spite of his strong prejudice against the Sikhs, whom he remembers in no better words than dogs, dogs of hell, accursed infidels, unclean idolaters, fire-worshippers, etc., his description of the character of the Sikhs of the eighteenth century is invaluable to the students of history. And its value is immeasurably enhanced when we know that it is from the pen of one of their worst enemies, who prayed to God and appealed to the crusaders to destroy them root and branch. In short, the book has a great significance as a comtemporary historical document for the history of Ahmad Shah and the Sikhs". So that we is why instead of directly drawing from contemporary source, we have to use secondary sources written by historians who based their findings, study and analysis of such contemporary sources to draw conclusion. Javerine ( talk) 02:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
Where does this "quote" come from? You have completely made this quote without any citation? If you are also jumping between arguments about the Jang Nama.. calling it firstly "one-sided" and implying that it could not be trusted, then to now it could be because of its historical value?
Furthermore.. in those other sources it was just the Jang Nama cited? So how does that prove anything other then the contemporary source was used? The other part of Ram Gupta's source was a 1908 British Gazetter.
Regardless, I am not gonna respond further and let whoever handles the deletion requests to deal with this. Noorullah ( talk) 02:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
Why aren't you trying to make an effort as I already provided the link before. Historian Ganda Singh's opinion on Jang Namah is on page 420 [13]. Yes its better for others to make decisions. Javerine ( talk) 02:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
You did not provide the citation or link to that page whatsoever during the course of this dispute. Noorullah ( talk) 02:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
I provided the link before in the discussion with Ganda Singh's book. All you had to do was run a search. Javerine ( talk) 02:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
"Run a search", for what? That's not the purpose of the argument, your supposed to back up what your saying with citations. Noorullah ( talk) 02:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Noticed something very sneaky while the above discussion was going on. So Noorullah copied the source from article written by me Battle of Lahore (1764) and falsely attributed it on the article written by him Battle of Qarawal where it states that Qarawal is a location and where it states that "As the rest of the Durrani reinforcements came into battle, The Sikhs were routed from the battlefield, and fled from the battle at night." Here is the change he made [14] and here [15], when its clearly mentioned in the source that "It was a bitter contest and came to close only by nightfall". Here is for everyone to verify the source [16]. Also no where does the source mention Qarawal as a location, so why falsely attribute the source during this above discussion. I rest my case. Javerine ( talk) 04:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    I didn't "copy the source", you complained about there not being enough sources on the page of Battle of Qarawal, as a result I added Singh's citations in the appropriate areas, including the area where it said about a nightfall. The former was Ram Gupta's.. and then Singh's SFN for the battle concluding at nightfall. I'm not sure why you are pretending this is something sneaky to slip in?
    It says "A Place Near Lahore" in the article, while Ram Gupta mentions reinforcements were sent to Qarawal, how is this falsely attributing? You are meant to assume good faith rather then put out accusations to such matters. Noorullah ( talk) 04:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    And so I quote "As the rest of the Durrani reinforcements came into battle, The Sikhs were routed from the battlefield, and fled from the battle at night." The then cited sources were Ram Gupta and Singh. Noorullah ( talk) 04:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Comment This is just an observation but this AFD discussion has only existed for a couple of hours and it's already preoccupied with you two bickering. The more you argue with each other, the less likely that other editors will want to participate in this discussion. You need to offer your opinion and then step away and let other editors look over the content and sources and weigh in with their opinions. You need to make space for other participants. If this "discussion" just becomes you two talking to each other, it's likely to close with no decision being made at all. So think of what your goal is and act accordingly. Liz Read! Talk! 05:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    I'd redirect to the 1764 battle as mentioned. No comment on the above "discussion", but please keep it related to the AfD being reviewed. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Comment since both articles don't need duplicate discussions, I have commented at Battle of Lahore (1764).  //  Timothy ::  talk  13:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more comments regarding merging (and if so to what?), redirecting, or simply deleting. Same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Lahore (1764).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 22:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Battle of Lahore (1764)

Battle of Lahore (1764) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

This page confuses the Battle of Qarawal for "a battle at Lahore" here. See [17]

Sources point to this battle being at Qarawal, and I had already made a page for the Battle of Qarawal. The infobox also has incorrect information saying that it was inconclusive, and that both the Sikhs and Afghans withdrew, to which, one of the main cited sources of the article says that the Sikhs were routed, and affirmed an Afghan victory, see here: [18] Noorullah ( talk) 23:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

For some reason, user @ Javerine attempted to log a deletion request on the Battle of Qarawal itself without responding to anything here, or mentioned on the former talk page. (They also did not attempt to discuss it on the talk page either, or even open a deletion discussion). See here: [19] Noorullah ( talk) 01:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
SHouldn't you have discussed the matter before submitting my article for deletion without even properly studying the sources? Why didn't you have discussion in the first place before submitting my article for deletion? You article is Battle of Qarawal is clearly problematic, even the title itself. Javerine ( talk) 01:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
I..did study the sources, I pointed it out to you in the talk page of the article you created, I linked it multiple times and even said what the issue was here. So I am not sure why you are accusing me of not pointing that out.
You saying "the article is clearly problematic" does not refute any of the things said, especially with whats said in the source which you still for some reason tried to summarize it as "inconclusive", when the source clearly stated that the Sikh forces were routed.
I listed it for deletion because it is effectively the exact same page as Battle of Qarawal, except the page you created pushes forward that the battle was inconclusive, which is contradicted by the sources. Noorullah ( talk) 01:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
I will come back to the problems with your article. Give me few mins. Javerine ( talk) 01:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
I would like to furthermore add the second source for Singh does not mention that the Afghans withdrew as of nightfall either? And instead leaves the results vague and just after leads to Ahmad Shah Durrani congratulating Nasir Khan and warning him to stay away from frontline of battle.
This, meaning you completely made up the inconclusive remark. As none of the sources you had in the article mentions the Afghans withdrawing, and only Ram Gupta's mentions that the Sikhs were routed. [20] (Singh's account on the battle, is vague and doesn't mention the Afghans withdrawing) [21] (Ram Gupta's account, mentions the Sikhs being routed)
Alongside this, the "battle" according to Singh isn't even at Lahore itself, which you named the article. The source says "a battle near Lahore" [22] Noorullah ( talk) 01:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
So with this, the main two sources on the article clearly don't allign with what the page is attempting to potray. The battle can clearly be seen as not being inconclusive, but rather, an Afghan victory as the Sikhs were routed (See Ram Gupta's source). Noorullah ( talk) 01:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
MISTAKES ABOUT THIS ARTICLE

MISTAKE 1: The source on the article Battle of Qarawal, clearly states that "When the army went to the battle-field, their camps, kitchens, families and servants known as Bahir-o~Bungah .were left in charge of a strong contingent, which was called Qarawal. * Jang Namah, 83." This is mention at the bottom on page number 201 [23].
MISTAKE 2: The article is strictly is based on one source which is basically a translation of various contemporary sources such as Jang Namah, written by Nur Muhammad who was brought along with his masters to record his master's campaign. And historian have called his source, though valuable, but bias, prejuidice, discriminatory, very one-sided and based on personal observation.
MISTAKE 3: Noorullah keeps repeating that the reliable sources on my article by accredited historians do not claim that "The battle ended with both parties retired at nightfall. Here are the source links for anyone to verify: Page 216 [24] by historian Hari Ram Gupta and here is another source, Page 299 [25] by historian Ganda Singh (historian).
So based on all above information, article Battle of Qarawal is completely problematic and errors, including the outcome of the battle, which I have clearly stated as "Inconclusive" on Battle of Lahore (1764). User Noorullah clearly didn't study the sources on his article Battle of Qarawal and didn't make effort to study the sources on my article either. Also according to Noorullah, to discredit my article by the reliable source by historians, he states that "Historians make mistakes", [26]. A pointless reason. Javerine ( talk) 02:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Sorry but your point about the "Jang Namah" being an unreliable contemporary source also applies to every source you just listed? It is within the bottom of all the books you just posted that they follow the Jang Namah. As you can see with the following: [27] [28]
Also the same account is of Hari Singh Nawla's writing, though you are saying it as if it was another source, when it was the same writer. Noorullah ( talk) 02:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
I think you are not understanding. Its what the historians analyze that is considered reliable by studying such contemporary sources. Jang Namah is considered valuable as it sheds light on events but you can see that historians when giving their own analysis, ignore the brava and prejudice observations, of a source, serving the master. Such as historian Ganda Singh said, "lts true that the Jang Nama, presents only one side piccture and that too from a bigoted crusader’s angle of vision. But that does not detract much from its historical value. In spite of his strong prejudice against the Sikhs, whom he remembers in no better words than dogs, dogs of hell, accursed infidels, unclean idolaters, fire-worshippers, etc., his description of the character of the Sikhs of the eighteenth century is invaluable to the students of history. And its value is immeasurably enhanced when we know that it is from the pen of one of their worst enemies, who prayed to God and appealed to the crusaders to destroy them root and branch. In short, the book has a great significance as a comtemporary historical document for the history of Ahmad Shah and the Sikhs". So that we is why instead of directly drawing from contemporary source, we have to use secondary sources written by historians who based their findings, study and analysis of such contemporary sources to draw conclusion. Javerine ( talk) 02:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
Where does this "quote" come from? You have completely made this quote without any citation? If you are also jumping between arguments about the Jang Nama.. calling it firstly "one-sided" and implying that it could not be trusted, then to now it could be because of its historical value?
Furthermore.. in those other sources it was just the Jang Nama cited? So how does that prove anything other then the contemporary source was used? The other part of Ram Gupta's source was a 1908 British Gazetter.
Regardless, I am not gonna respond further and let whoever handles the deletion requests to deal with this. Noorullah ( talk) 02:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
Why aren't you trying to make an effort as I already provided the link before. Historian Ganda Singh's opinion on Jang Namah is on page 420 [29]. Yes its better for others to make decisions. Javerine ( talk) 02:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
You did not provide the citation or link to that page whatsoever during the course of this dispute. Noorullah ( talk) 02:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
I provided the link before in the discussion with Ganda Singh's book. All you had to do was run a search. Javerine ( talk) 02:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
"Run a search", for what? That's not the purpose of the argument, your supposed to back up what your saying with citations. Noorullah ( talk) 02:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Noticed something very sneaky while the above discussion was going on. So Noorullah copied the source from article written by me Battle of Lahore (1764) and falsely attributed it on the article written by him Battle of Qarawal where it states that Qarawal is a location and where it states that "As the rest of the Durrani reinforcements came into battle, The Sikhs were routed from the battlefield, and fled from the battle at night." Here is the change he made [30] and here [31], when its clearly mentioned in the source that "It was a bitter contest and came to close only by nightfall". Here is for everyone to verify the source [32]. Also no where does the source mention Qarawal as a location, so why falsely attribute the source during this above discussion. I rest my case. Javerine ( talk) 04:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    I didn't "copy the source", you complained about there not being enough sources on the page of Battle of Qarawal, as a result I added Singh's citations in the appropriate areas, including the area where it said about a nightfall. The former was Ram Gupta's.. and then Singh's SFN for the battle concluding at nightfall. I'm not sure why you are pretending this is something sneaky to slip in?
    It says "A Place Near Lahore" in the article, while Ram Gupta mentions reinforcements were sent to Qarawal, how is this falsely attributing? You are meant to assume good faith rather then put out accusations to such matters. Noorullah ( talk) 04:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    And so I quote "As the rest of the Durrani reinforcements came into battle, The Sikhs were routed from the battlefield, and fled from the battle at night." The then cited sources were Ram Gupta and Singh. Noorullah ( talk) 04:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Comment: There are numerous problems in both articles. I'm actually inclined to delete both since they are both so biased; the authors that do not have the experience to write articles about controversial subjects.
Both authors are obviously POV pushing for their chosen side. That these articles were created at the same time (~40mins) shows a battleground mentality the closing admin should note for AE subject.
@ Noorullah and Javerine: can you list the best two sources (per WP:RS, WP:V) that show what you believe the name of the article should be? No need to explain, I can read and just need the reference. Battleground is definetly a part of this so there is no need to respond to the other parties two sources. I intensely hate walls of text and POV refbombing.  //  Timothy ::  talk  13:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
User:TimothyBlue, replied with two sources you asked for. Javerine ( talk) 15:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 05:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

  • Merge (with the usual redirect). The consensus above seems to be that the two battles are one and the same. If so, there should be a single article on it. I know nothing of the subject, but an AFD is not the right place for WP editors to seek to resolve conflicts as to precisely what happened. That is a matter to be resolved by reference to published historical works (being RS). Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more comments regarding merging (and if so to what?), redirecting, or simply deleting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 22:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

History Proposed deletions

History categories

for occasional archiving

Proposals