Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/History

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
(Redirected from Wikipedia:DSH)
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to History. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  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|History|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to History. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


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


History

edit

Detentions following the September 11 attacks

edit
Detentions following the September 11 attacks (edit | 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 · TWL)

Could easily be merged into Aftermath of the September 11 attacks if a new section is created. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 22:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Han–Xiongnu War (215 BC–200 BC)

edit
Han–Xiongnu War (215 BC–200 BC) (edit | 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 · TWL)

Fail to see how this is notable, can't find any WP:RS on this "Han–Xiongnu War (215 BC–200 BC)". The creator of this article basically copied the stuff they were reverted (and blocked) for at Battle of Baideng here. They've misused tons of citations here [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9], and recently engaged in copyvio in another article [10], which may also be the case here. Most of the citations left are unverifiable (which is very convenient, I can't look for further violations) and doesn't strike me as WP:RS. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of English immigrants to America

edit
List of English immigrants to America (edit | 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 · TWL)

The scope of this list is too broad; there are 212 people in just Category:English emigrants to Massachusetts Bay Colony alone. There must be hundreds if not thousands of Wikipedia articles of people who were English emigrants to the North American colonies. toweli (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis Hicks

edit
Ellis Hicks (edit | 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 · TWL)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTGENEALOGY, and simply being a knight is hardly sufficient for WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I encourage everyone to check this forum post Microplastic Consumer (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 in hip hop music

edit
2025 in hip hop music (edit | 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 · TWL)

Comparing this to the various List of years in hip hop music articles, most recently 2024 in hip hop music, and given the ubiquity of Hip hop culture around the world, this may well merit an article once the year 2025 actually starts. As it stands as of 1 Sep 2024, this would appear to fall under any or all deletion criteria WP:P&G-s, including but not limited to WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. That said, I do not oppose its speedy deletion, given the nature of its 1 Sep 2024 content. As always, happy to be proven wrong about this. Or anything else. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Agreed on a lot of the points above. Absolutely not ready to be published in its current state, but oftentimes it's about that time where enough is known/covered that it could be created if someone actually tried. (2025 in heavy metal music is in a barely passable state and I've been putting material together for the rock music equivalent.) Thus probably needs to be sent to a WP:DRAFT in the meantime though. Sergecross73 msg me 12:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian engineering colleges before Independence

edit
List of Indian engineering colleges before Independence (edit | 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 · TWL)

This list has a finite boundary, which is a good thing, but I cannot see that this is a notable intersection. From that perspective I feel it fails WP:NLIST. At the very least it deserves the community's scrutiny. I feel the History section is valid. this, if the outcome is to delete I feel this shoudl be migrated, probably précised, in to a new article 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of virtualization development

edit
Timeline of virtualization development (edit | 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 · TWL)

It is not at all clear what anything in this article has to do with Virtualization or "Virtualization development" which is not defined in the article or even the article it links to (which I have also opened an AFD for). This appears to mostly consist of WP:OR and I don't think there's any way of cleaning it up or establishing notability as it is completely unclear what the article is even supposed to be about. If not deleted, I believe this needs to be moved to "Timeline of computer virtualization" or something similar and will require a complete rewrite. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The intent of the article is clear: a timeline of virtualization technologies, mirroring the history section of Virtualization. However, more could be done to highlight the relevance of each development to virtualization, particularly in the 60s and 70s. I think a name change could be justified ('Timeline of virtualization technology' perhaps? Compare with other related lists), and the article is currently suffering from WP:SYNTH - but there is no lack of sources on exactly this topic. Here are a couple from a preliminary search, and from the other article:
  • "1.1.1. Brief History of Virtualization". Oracle VM - User's Guide for Release 3.0.3. Oracle. June 2012.
  • "What is virtualization?". RedHat. 2 March 2018.
  • Linda Hammer; Ken Donoghue (2019). Virtualization (PDF) (4 ed.). For Dummies. p. 4. ISBN 978-1-119-59586-1.
  • Rodríguez-Haro, Fernando; Freitag, Felix; Navarro, Leandro; Hernánchez-sánchez, Efraín; Farías-Mendoza, Nicandro; Guerrero-Ibáñez, Juan Antonio; González-Potes, Apolinar (2012-01-01). "A summary of virtualization techniques". Procedia Technology. The 2012 Iberoamerican Conference on Electronics Engineering and Computer Science. 3: 267–272. doi:10.1016/j.protcy.2012.03.029. ISSN 2212-0173.
  • An Introduction to Virtualization Archived 2020-10-22 at the Wayback Machine, January 2004, by Amit Singh
  • Allison Randal (6 February 2020). "The Ideal Versus the Real: Revisiting the History of Virtual Machines and Containers". ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR). 53 (1). doi:10.1145/3365199.

Tule-hog (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skanderbeg's Serbian campaign

edit
Skanderbeg's Serbian campaign (edit | 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 · TWL)

Essentially a recreation of an article that was already deleted, just under a different title. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovo Raid (1448) (2nd nomination).

Needless to say the same issues persist. There is passing mention in sources of Skanderbeg ravaging Serbian towns as punishment for Brankovic's alleged actions, and that is the only thing that is referenced; the rest of the article is unsourced and it's likely WP:OR as well. Nothing in reliable sources about a significant "expedition" or "campaign" beyond the aforementioned incident, let alone the article topic meeting WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG. Griboski (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I performed the equivalent of an AFC acceptance since I removed the AFC artefacts from an article in mainspace. I will the remain neutral as is my policy were I to have performed a true acceptance. I do have a   Question: for the nominator. Is it sufficiently identical to the now deleted article to qualify for CSD, or is it sufficiently different to require a full discussion here? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not completely sure because the creator essentially took that "raid" event and turned into a broader "expedition" but the only thing that's verifiable and sourced is that raid. It seems it was just copied from the listing at List of wars involving Albania. I put it up for speedy deletion a couple of days ago but there was no admin action. So I figured it might be best to list it at AfD. --Griboski (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Anandpur (1703)

edit
Battle of Anandpur (1703) (edit | 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 · TWL)

This article has no references, and it's an incomplete stub, need I say more? Noorullah (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Noorullah (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: ~150 words of coverage here, ~250 words of coverage here, 7 paragraphs of coverage here (p. 112-114), and there is actually a lot more that I can't access on Google Books. C F A 💬 17:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @CFA One of the sources you cited from's author is not a historian, they don't follow WP:RS/WP:HISTRS and aren't scholarship.
    For example: Triloki Nath Dhar -- '...He graduated in science from Punjab in 1948 and received a degree in Indology from Sharda Peeth Research Centre, Srinagar, as approved by Dr Tuci of Rome." ... "...Mr Dhar is an author of short romances, tales, and collections of essays, as well, a theory of Cosmological Physics which he had included in a ‘romantic fiction’ novel which was apparently confirmed fourteen years later by a US space satellite’s discovery of a particularly massive cloud of gas and dust."
    Nath Dhar is not a historian, but an author.
    The other sources seem to check out however. Noorullah (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @CFA, I will comment on the Surjit Singh Gandhi source later after looking into it, but the third source you linked (from the Punjab Digital Library) does not actually make any sort of mention between a 1703 battle in Anandpur beyond "Hostilities again broke out in 1703 as the Guru had greatly increased his military strength and even extended his territory at the expense of the hill chiefs." From then on, the book's content is actually referring to this article [11], in which a joint siege by the Mughals and the hill chiefs compelled Gobind Singh to vacate Anandpur under allegedly false pretenses. It then goes to talk about this article's content-[12] and so and so forth. It's a bit confusing because some sources vary a bit in reporting the dates of battles, but rest assured the book's content (by Bakshish Singh Nijjar, p.112-114) is already covered on Wikipedia. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 05:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And as Noorullah mentioned, Triloki Nath Dhar's book is not a RS; it's a self published trade book by someone who has not authored any serious peer reviewed work-[13]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 05:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sikhism, India, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Macedonia (proposal)

edit
Kingdom of Macedonia (proposal) (edit | 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 · TWL)

Reason is the lack of notability of this article. Also, no reliable, secondary, independent sources can be found on this topic and this idea seems to be only an ephemeral short-lived proposal, if any. The only secondary source used in the article is a publication in Australian local Macedonian diaspora website and some claims there are incorrect from historical perspective as the story about the mass existence of Ethnic Macedonians then. The author of the article does not hold any university degrees and is not a historian. The rest are outdated publications from the beginning of the 20th century which do not confirm the notability of the article in any way. Jingiby (talk) 10:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Removed a PROD you might have placed on the article, or someone else, b/c PROD (proposed deletion) and AFD (this) cannot happen at the same time. Mrfoogles (talk) 10:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sevastopol: On Photographs of War

edit
Sevastopol: On Photographs of War (edit | 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 · TWL)

Created in 2004 as an unreferenced article, as was normal in the early days of wikipedia. The one literary journal that was used wasn't actually a review with a by-lined author but was an advertisement with a short quote by Patricia Spears Jones recommending the book with an amazon link pushing sales. I removed it as it looked like an advertisement. I was not able to find any reviews or independent sources, but there may be something in newspaper archives or journals behind pay walls that I don't have access to. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Delete per below. That Jones review doesn't appear to be an advertisement, it's from this book which has its full content, so I view it as legitimate. There's also this review - it was reposted by the author of the book, but does appear to be a legitimate review from the magazine Chelsea. I can't check to see if it's in there because JSTOR is being very weird about it, but I got a hit from it when I searched the words in the review so I believe it's a match to the review republished on his site, which shows sigcov. That's two reviews, passes NBOOK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA I would not consider that book independent significant coverage. The Directory of American Poetry is essentially a purchasing catalogue marketed to librarians. It's not a serious reference work, nor is it impartial. The content here is universally positive on every book through the entire volume series. There are no negative comments or reviews. The quotes in question are most likely grabbed from the book jackets. It's telling that most of the quotes don't say where they were originally published (if they were at all). It's not unusual for author friends of others authors to provide positive quotes to help their friends sell their book, or for publishers to get other authors they work with to help promote their other writers by saying something positive they can put on a book jacket. The fact that there are prices attached makes it clear this is a book intended to help librarians select content for expanding their collections on poetry. There's a financial motive here and a lack of transparency surrounding the content about each book which makes it not independent or reliable in my opinion.4meter4 (talk) 06:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 The fact that there are prices attached means nothing, that's the case for most book reviews in my experience. The other point may be fair. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, but I have never seen a by-lined journal article review not say something critical even if its an overall positive review. Academic journals (and even newspapers) don't generally publish puff pieces. The fact that this publication has no negative or partially negative comments in combination with a pricing guide should tell you it is a catalogue being used for marketing purposes as opposed to a reliable literary reference work.4meter4 (talk) 06:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Irritatingly I can find no images of the actual physical copy of the book to see if that's where it was gotten from. I change my vote to delete since I can't figure out where it's from. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom – not enough coverage available. It's telling that the author William Allen does not have an article – Aza24 (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harpal Dev Makwana

edit
Harpal Dev Makwana (edit | 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 · TWL)

This article is part of a WP:WALLEDGARDEN on the Jhala dynasty and Jhala (clan) 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 someone who is almost certainly a legendary figure and launders the sources to present him as a historical person. He may have been, but the sources do not indicate that:

Bottom line: What WP:SIGCOV we have on Harpal Dev is legend repeated by WP:SPS and WP:COI sources. The independent coverage, such as it is, does not establish him as a historical figure. I know WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP, but with such a compromised article I recommend WP:TNT instead of trying to battle an army of socks claiming legendary stories are real. Fails WP:V and WP:GNG for lack of SIGCOV in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muzaka-Serbian war

edit
Muzaka-Serbian war (edit | 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 · TWL)

No sources cited. Likely WP:OR as well. Most of it concerns a "Battle of Pelister" that was recently deleted (nominated by Golikom); see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Pelister (1340). So this creation seems to be a compensation for that. Griboski (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Drmies: Since you commented on the related afD, the editor is creating a bunch of POV, unsourced and OR articles. I'm wondering if administration intervention is appropriate here. It follows similar patterns of other new editors collaborating on re-creating similar bad articles that have to be taken to AfD (for example [14] [15]). At the very least, WP:COMPETENCY is an issue.--Griboski (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Griboski, that sounds like a matter for ANI, really... Drmies (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i apologise for this person, he was probably a new one in adding sources but i took responsability of it and modified the page and added the sources and some more, he probably didn't knew how to add them, it's a mistake that everyone can make and we shouldn't really delete this page over a simple mistake.
This page is well made and has some good information so i don't see why we should delete it Randomuser2412 (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not why the article was nominated for deletion. The purpose of adding references is to verify the content in the article. I checked the sources you added and the ones I was able to view had nothing to do with the text it was cited to. For instance:
You cited "The Muzaka-Serbian War was a conflict fought in 1369 between the Principality of Muzaka" to the website ancestry.co.uk's search bar.
You cited "To commemorate his new title, Andrea II adopted a new coat of arms, replacing the traditional Muzaka emblem of a water spring with a double-headed eagle under a star. This symbol was reflective of his enhanced authority and his close ties with the Byzantine Empire." to an irrelevant Euronews Albania article talking about a descendant of the Muzaka family.
You then cited two Wikipedia mirror websites.
Needless to say the book citations are likely also irrelevant to the article. This is now bordering on WP:HOAX. --Griboski (talk) 00:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Badami (1786)

edit
Siege of Badami (1786) (edit | 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 · TWL)

Y. N. Deodhar is not WP:RS/WP:HISTRS, nor WP:SCHOLARSHIP, they are not a historian and are thus an unreliable source. Google scholar wields no results; [16]

Sanish Nandakumar is not a historian, and has a B.S in economics, they are in no way scholarship, especially only having made one book. - No results on google scholar: [17]

This page is poorly created with a spam link of sources in each paragraph.

The other sources provide little but a passing mention. [18] Noorullah (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep
Y.N. Deodhar is a M.A. and also a PHD in history which is mentioned in the source used in the article itself. [19] and Another source calls Y. N. Deodhar an “veteran historian” [20]. Also your search results doesn't even mentions the name of "Y. N. Deodhar".
Y. N. Deodhar's book [21] along with these two reliable sources [22] (page no 52-53), [23] (page no 178-179) clearly gives significant coverage to the event. GroovyGrinster Talk With Me 13:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Y.N Deodhar is not cited as having a PHD in history, he's not even on google scholars, which is what you pointed out for me by saying "your search results doesn't mention the name", yes, that's the point, he's not a scholar cited on google scholars.
And I'm sorry but "Venkatesh Rangan" is not a historian, he's an author. [24]
Deodhar, already unreliable as aforementioned, his book provides little insight. The two other sources you cited, are already responded towards, Govind is not a historian. Noorullah (talk) 23:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move on from Google Scholars. I'm not gonna talk about Y. N. Deodhar again because I've already provided an source which literally calls Y. N. Deodhar an “Veteran historian”.

Although Venkatesh Rangan mentions Y. N. Deodhar as a historian, I've no idea that why does it matter that Venkatesh Rangan is a historian or not because Venkatesh Rangan's book isn't even used anywhere in the article that's totally irrelevant in the AfD (WP:AADP).

Even the Uttarakhand Open University here [25] (page no 239) mentions Y. N. Deodhar as a historian.
Govind Sakharam Sardesai is a famous historian,[26] there is literally a Wikipedia article on him (Govind Sakharam Sardesai) which also calls him a historian. GroovyGrinster Talk With Me 10:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The book written by Govind is outdated per WP:RAJ(1946). Couldn’t find much info about Deodhar other than the links you’ve showed. I guess he’s okay based on what I’m reading, but if that’s the only reliable source that mentions this, then I’m not sure it requires its own separate article.
“Consequent upon the capture of Badami, the strong fort of Bhadur Band capitulated to the Marathas and Haripant proceeded to capture copal, another fort about four miles distant.” There’s only one line that mentions this battle in Deodhars book, and there are no other details other than “it was captured”. This tells me that this event lacks Wikipedia:Notability, which means it doesn’t warrant its own article if it’s based on one line from a book. The other sources don’t seem reliable or fall under WP:RAJ. Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:

As per explanation given by @GroovyGrinster the article is notable and sources provided are WP:RS giving significant coverage of this Siege even if we don't consider YN Deodhar the other two i.e Sen, Sailendra Nath [27] (page no 52-53) and Sardesai Govind Sakaram [28] (page no 178-179) clearly gives significant coverage to the event.

Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 07:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Govind is WP:RAJ. His book was written in 1946. Which makes it outdated. Deodhar makes a small mention of Badami being captured but doesn’t mention a siege or any other details beyond that. As I’ve mentioned before, this event lacks notability, and I already pointed out many of the issues within this article. Someguywhosbored (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:
Not convinced that this needs its own article. Only reliable source here is from Deodhar and it’s one line about it being captured, with no other extra details or information(see context above). In fact it doesn’t even mention a siege, only that the town was captured. This article lacks Wikipedia:Notability. Govinds book appears to fall under WP:RAJ which makes it an unsuitable addition for any article. The other sources don’t appear to be reliable either per noorullah. One throwaway line/passing mention of this event doesn’t warrant a separate article.

Edit: I’m beginning to think that WP:SYNTH and WP:OR is at play here. How did the user who wrote this article get all this information from one line in Deodhars book? I don’t see how he got the numbers in the info box, nor how he managed to fill an entire article based on a throwaway line. Non of the information in the body for example seem to directly relate to the capture of Badami. There’s no mention of any of that in regards to Deodhars book. So again, there’s barely any information about the CAPTURE(not siege) of Badami in the sources provided. Most of this article employs original research and synth. Even the title is OR, there was no battle. Majority of the information here is falsified. Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Capture/Siege of Badami is given significant coverage in these two sources [29] (page no- 53-54), [30] (page no- 178-179). This source mentions this conflict as Siege of Badami in the page number 52 [31].

WP:RAJ doesn't apply to Govind Sakharam Sardesai's Book because it only applies to caste related stuff. Hence Govind Sakharam Sardesai's Book is a WP:RS, Also WP:RAJ isn't a policies or guidelines of Wikipedia, it's only an Essay. And All of the sources pass WP:RS, Can you explain that how according to you they aren't reliable? GroovyGrinster Talk With Me 14:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see why you’d assume that it only applies to caste related topics but that’s not the case. This has been discussed many times in the past especially on RSN, but typically, all sources that fall under the raj era are not seen as reliable. While the essay written by sitush focuses on caste, most of the same issues mentioned there apply to all raj era historians.
And btw, Govind was already picked apart in RSN for the same reasons I mentioned(WP:RAJ), it’s an outdated source.
“Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 291#Reliability of Govind Sakharam Sardesai
“The sources I have seen suggest that it was first published in 1928, which makes it a bit dated, I have no opinion on the accuracy of the source though. “
“I see to recall being informed that prior discussions has found any source published under the Raj was automatically not an RS”
Anything that was written during the raj era is outdated and thus not RS. Sitush can clarify this further for you if you’d like to ask him, as he’s already discussed this detail many times in the past.
“Also WP:RAJ isn't a policies or guidelines of Wikipedia, it's only an Essay”
It’s an essay written by one of the most prolific writers of Indian historical topics on Wikipedia. Sitush is a content expert. And this is something that has generally been accepted by the community. Raj era sources are typically almost always viable for removal.
Furthermore, the point of the essay was to let the readers know that RAJ era sources are unreliable and outdated. So even if this isn’t a policy(which is irrelevant, this issue was discussed multiple times), WP:RS still exists. We are looking for high quality sources on wikipedia, not outdated work from the raj era. And as I’ve clarified, Govinds work has already been picked apart by RSN.
“Can you explain that how according to you they aren't reliable”
well I should clarify what I actually meant. look at this source for example https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.69209/page/n56/mode/1up
it actually doesn’t seem unreliable based on what I’ve read, so this source is fine but where is the siege of Badami mentioned? I can’t find the quote in the page numbers cited. It seems that this was likely mistakenly added in. So we can’t use this source for information it doesn’t even have. Now as for the final source
https://archive.org/details/dli.csl.7298/mode/1up
There is no page number cited so I can’t even find where it mentions Badami. Furthermore I can’t find any info about the authors credentials, but even if he was reliable, where has he written about the the siege of Badami?
it seems to me that out of all these sources, only one of them mentions anything about Badami. Not that there was a siege mind you. Deodhar makes a passing mention of the town being captured and that’s it. There is no other details. So again, why is this a separate article? After checking all the sources, I realized this article is far more problematic than initially anticipated. The text doesn’t even correspond with what’s written in the sources cited. Someguywhosbored (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of Saturday Night Live (1975–1980)

edit
AfDs for this article:
History of Saturday Night Live (1975–1980) (edit | 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 · TWL)

I am also nominating the other pages in this SNL history series:

These articles are rife with original research, unsourced and poorly sourced statements, useless cast trivia, and redundant cast lists that are already located in their respective season articles. Most of the pages segment everything by season anyway and are not the broader look at the show history that they are supposed to be. Several of them have had cleanup tags for almost a decade. They are rarely edited. And they are arbitrarily segmented by five year increments for no specific reason; this appears to be a random decision made 20 years ago in 2004 that nobody has questioned since then.

Myself and another editor have been working on a successor for these pages; it's currently at Draft:History of Saturday Night Live. It functions as the broader look at show history that these nine pages were supposed to be. It is not just redundant of the existing season pages; it makes extensive use of reliable sources and is the broader look at show history. I propose that this new page replace these existing pages. There are many benefits to this: consolidating editor efforts on one page, ditching the arbitrary separation, less maintenance effort required across multiple pages, etc.

I have already merged any non-duplicate info from these old pages into the appropriate SNL season articles. There will be nothing lost by deleting/redirecting them to the new page. I announced this plan about a week ago on the SNL talk page and have received no opposition at this point. StewdioMACK (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • the current status of the draft vs. the mainspace article is confusing - is the draft article a copy of the existing article that got edited?
  • the draft is extremely long now, over 127K but the draft currently seems manageable because of headings/subheadings
Oblivy (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The draft started as a copy of the existing history on the main SNL page and was then expanded, and portions of some other articles were used in some cases, remixed, and condensed (per summary style) attempting to give credit in edit summaries where possible. Regarding the length, it is long, but it is a lot to cover and consideration has been given to give equal weight to different eras without breaching the rules of thumb on WP:LENGTH. Parts of the article may still be able to be optimised to further reduce size, but I'd argue that it's an appropriate size for the amount of time that it's covering. StewdioMACK (talk) 05:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Administrative close 1) To the extent that text has been used from these articles in a draft, we cannot delete these without deleting that draft, per WP:CWW. 2) The draft is apparently not ready for prime time, and a redirect from these articles to draft space would be an impermissible cross-namespace redirect. 3) There should be no waiting period per WP:RENOM to redirect these to the draft once it is mainspaced. That is, this is a bit premature, although the final solution is obvious and probably not controversial enough to even need an AfD discussion. Jclemens (talk) 00:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: To clarify, the article is ready for primetime; every part of the article is a significant improvement over its predecessors that I've nominated, and I've just made some further edits today. Apologies if this is seen as a misuse of AfD but I believed it was consenus to use AfD for potentially contentious significant moves like this. I've just attempted to mainspace the new article but ran into technical issues as there's an existing redirect at the new address (History of Saturday Night Live); if it's the preferred course of action, maybe I can take this to requested moves, boldly redirect the old articles (to preserve page histories), and we can close this AfD. StewdioMACK (talk) 05:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the corresponding sections of the full History article or the History article itself once the draft is moved to mainspace. (To clarify, I am one of the contributors to the draft.) If it were me, I would have moved the draft to mainspace first because it's already of decent quality, then AfD the articles, or even boldly redirect them. I would move it right now, but not until I get StewdioMACK's input, and the AfD is already ongoing, anyways. And as a note to other contributors, there are plans to develop the article to cut out cruft plus possibly sending it to PR for a check, so no worries on any problems currently existing with the draft. Spinixster (trout me!) 01:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Before anyone asks: StewdioMACK did say that they were going to AfD the articles here, but I misread it as AfC (Articles for Creation; I interpreted it as letting the draft go through the AfC process, which I had no objections with). Spinixster (trout me!) 02:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Moved the draft to mainspace (History of Saturday Night Live) per WT:AFD. C F A 💬 15:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

177 Franklin Street

edit
AfDs for this article:
177 Franklin Street (edit | 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 · TWL)

Appears to be short of WP:GNG and it doesn't qualify for WP:NBUILD, so the previous deletion opposition which was based upon "This is a contributing building to the Tribeca West Historic District and is substantially covered in the LPC report, which by itself is enough for notability. " is not national level recognition to presume notability under WP:NGEO Graywalls (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, and New York. Graywalls (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as per Greywalls. Axad12 (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Tribeca West Historic District should have its own article and if one is created then this can be merged with that. But until such an article exists, deleting information on an historic building which has its own entry in the designation report serves no useful purpose to anyone with any interest in historic architecture. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Necrothesp:, that's a NYC.gov, a local government. What part of this is national designation level as said in WP:NBUILD? Graywalls (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm aware. But that's not what I said. Just because it's not nationally designated doesn't mean it can't be notable. Plenty of New York City Landmarks do have their own articles. I see no value in deleting information on an historic building "just because"! It might certainly be better served in a wider article, but unfortunately there isn't yet one. But in any case, it does appear to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tribeca West Historic District Delete - this is a run-of-the-mill older building in NYC, like thousands of others in the city that have features like: Some surviving historic features include a pressed metal cornice, prominent brick-and-stone lintels, a brick corbel table, wood sash windows, and cast-iron piers, so I'm failing to understand what makes this one notable. The sourcing is quite weak, consisting of blogs like Curbed and trade journal-like websites like Commercial Observer or GlobeSt. Here's what GlobeSt's website says about their mission to publish native advertising: Native Advertising: Connect your content with our website audience in the context of the editorial user experiences; the result is higher visibility and engagement for your thought leadership content.[32]. In other words, "Pay to Play." I understand the building lies within the boundaries of the "Historical District" however, if the building were notably historic we would see coverage in books on architectural history, or critical/analytical analysis in architectural magazines or academic journals. An online BEFORE search finds real estate listings, more blogs but not in-depth coverage outside of the incident where the developer/owner wanted to mount a huge crucifix to the exterior. I agree that an article on the Tribeca Historic District would be the perfect place to redirect this, but one has not been created, yet. Fails GNG and NBUILD. Many houses on the very block I live on fall within our local "historical district", does that mean they are wiki-notable? No, it just means they are old and haven't been gut renovated.Netherzone (talk) 12:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: This building is a contributing property to a city historic district (not even an individual landmark), so it doesn't automatically meet NBUILD, but I'm leaning toward it meeting GNG. The LPC source does have a few details about the building's early history and facade, but since 177 Franklin was only designated along with 1,000 other buildings in Tribeca West, the info in the report is more limited. I did find a handful of sources about the Shinola store, like this New York Times Magazine source and this source from Hodinkee. I also found a source from the Wall Street Journal which describes how the building was supposed to become luxury apartments before becoming a store. This source from the Real Deal describes a few of the previous plans for the building. I haven't looked into pre-2000s sources, but like Netherzone, I was unable to find coverage of the building in architectural magazines.
    As for the other sources currently in the article, Walter Grutchfield is self-published, and Wikimapia isn't reliable. GlobeSt.com and Commercial Observer are both reputable trade journals with editorial oversight, but the sources from these websites don't comprise significant coverage. (As an example, this GlobeSt article about the building's sale, which ostensibly is three paragraphs long, only describes the number of stories and the building's cost—a total of two sentences). Though Curbed is now owned by New York Media, LLC, the two Curbed sources in the article were published when Curbed was still an independent blog, so I hesitate to call this reliable. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see how any reader could possibly benefit by having less factual information rather than more about a building that has been noted as contributing to the designation of a historic district. Station1 (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Hi, thanks for sharing your opinion, but it would be useful if you would substantiate policy based argument that supports your position Graywalls (talk) 08:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but I think far more important is the spirit of Wikipedia, "to benefit readers by presenting information on all branches of knowledge." Contrary to your bald assertions, without further explanation, that the article does not meet the guidelines (not policy) at WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD, the topic does have reliable secondary sources that address the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content, primarily and especially the LPC report. Furthermore, WP:NBUILD says buildings "may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." This building has historic and architectural importance documented by the LPC, a reliable third-party source. And no one has yet researched local papers for information about its social importance regarding the church controversy, where freedom of religion and zoning rules clashed, nor about its use as a public avant-garde concert venue in the '80s. And under WP:NGEO "national level recognition" only presumes notability, it does not mean other historic structures cannot be notable; besides which NYC is larger than about half the nations of the world. Granted, this is far from the world's most important building, but we have literally thousands of articles about similarly or less notable buildings on Wikipedia, and consensus is that they stay. Now that I've attempted to answer your question, perhaps you can explain how Wikipedia readers will benefit by depriving them of the facts contained in this article. Station1 (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, @Station1, as mentioned in my comment above I did indeed do a BEFORE search, which I consider to be best practices in AfDs. Newspapers.com had several hits, but these were simple mentions for things like, "so and so lived at 177 Franklin Street, who died on Friday" lot's of these types of mentions. I also found mentions of the address in listings for apartments that were for rent. But found nothing about the building itself or its architectural, historical importance. Additionally I did a Google search and only came up with blogs, real estate listings, primary sources, and a few pieces about the big crucifix event. I also did a search of the LPC report, and found nothing in it about this specific building at 177 Franklin. Do you have a page number in the report that you could direct us to? Netherzone (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's on pages 295-6. Station1 (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I found it with your help. What I found there is a short paragraph mainly describing the physical characteristics, but not any distinguishing characteristics that would indicate how this specific building is exceptional and set apart from the other many thousands of buildings that fall within drawn historical boundaries in NYC. This indicates run of the mill, WP:MILL at least to my way of thought. What would you consider to be the two other best sources? Netherzone (talk) 02:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A topic is either notable or it's not. Barely notable is still notable. A real-world reliable independent source with competence in the subject has taken note of this building and provided facts about it, facts that we can pass on to readers, however few, who might be interested in those facts, and that's enough for me. I still haven't heard any argument explaining why those readers are better off not knowing facts about this building. Station1 (talk) 03:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it isn't. There's a range of notability and if it doesn't meet GNG or the relevant SNG have no place on Wikipedia. A tract home chosen for a home makeover show is more notable than the rest of the homes in the subdivision but it's going to take a very significant, in-depth coverage in multiple sources with significant level of details by independent reliable sources devoted to that house to be considered for an article. Graywalls (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    GNG does not say very, or in-depth, or significant level [of details]. It does say "There is no fixed number of sources required..." and that the topic "does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Your criteria seem to be higher than what GNG suggests. Station1 (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete or draftify. Given the sources presented, the article does not appear to meat the GNG or other notability guidelines. Given that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory of historic buildings, I can't in good faith argue to keep in this case, but Station1 and Necrothesp make a good point that deleting verifiable, factual information is in tension with the overall goal of Wikipedia. Draftification, especially if someone is interested in putting together a brief Tribeca West Historic District article would be a reasonable ATD, but if no one is ready to do the work, deletion may be necessary. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eluchil404, thanks for explaining your reasoning. As a heads-up, someone else has now created the Tribeca West Historic District article. (Also pinging @Necrothesp who mentioned the Tribeca West red link.) Epicgenius (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed Bhutta

edit
Saeed Bhutta (edit | 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 · TWL)

I can find sources to show that other individuals with the same name are notable, but not this one. Mccapra (talk) 07:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Süleyman Şefik Pasha

edit
Süleyman Şefik Pasha (edit | 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 · TWL)

Surprisingly the Turkish article also has no sources. As a fair number of Turkish editors are interested in history I thought better to open for discussion rather than “prod”. Is he notable? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Short Life of Anne Frank

edit
The Short Life of Anne Frank (edit | 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 · TWL)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 18:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Central Illinois' On-Line Broadcast Museum

edit
Central Illinois' On-Line Broadcast Museum (edit | 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 · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG; written like an advertisement. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of original ideas but no consensus. If you are arguing Keep, you should respond to the nominator's statement about the lack of sources about the museum.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Pinterest

edit
Timeline of Pinterest (edit | 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 · TWL)

Basically per WP:WEBHOST. This article has been tagged as possibly having been "created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use" for over seven years with no resolution of that tag. Notable or not, Wikipedia should not maintain content that violates its terms of use for such a length of time. BD2412 T 02:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a well-articulated Keep argument and two valueless Delete comments that provide no explanations for why this article should be deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anabwani I of Bunyoro

edit
Anabwani I of Bunyoro (edit | 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 · TWL)

This appears to be a hoax, or at the very least non-notable. The article was created by User:Anabwani2007, whose only edits consist of creating and editing this article, as well as adding a mention of Anabwani to Omukama of Bunyoro. None of the links presently given in the article even mention Anabwani. I wasn't able to find even a mention in reliable sources either. A Ugandan newspaper, Daily Monitor, mentions him in an article, but that's it (and their list is sourced to the monarchy's website anyway, where he's similarly merely mentioned once). toweli (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep note that the source used for this was likely oral, and his being mentioned in a literate source should be enough to put it beyond reasonable doubt of him being genuine
Kowal2701 (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only source stems back to an honours mill that just had a half-dozen articles deleted within the last month for self-published promo. How is this any different if it’s all stemming from an interested party? —Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 04:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

edit
Eureka Rebellion in popular culture (edit | 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 · TWL)

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone article. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tentative keep? It seems that this article is sourced which suggests it is notable. Is there a problem with the sources here? If not, then it's fine. Parent article is very long so a spin-out on this topic per summary style is fine, as long as the sources discuss the later cultural influence - which it seems that they do. SnowFire (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SnowFire, I just want to note that the parent article Eureka Rebellion was significantly smaller prior to Robbiegibbons first edit. In December 2020, during their first edit, it was 87k bits long. This isn't a case of an article being so long that someone came along and made some splits to make things more readable. With all these articles, plus Battle of the Eureka Stockade, which they created, and all the other associated articles they have created or edited, we are looking at over a million bytes written on this topic by this user. I recommended a higher level article first, such as Legacy of the Eureka Rebellion, which could capture a lot of this information from all these topics. Taken as a whole, I think the purpose I am trying to get at is that this all needs to be better summarized in a succinct manner. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Backing up to first principles here... so there are parts of Wikipedia that are weirdly detailed walled gardens. Some of them are celebrated as a really talented writer collecting every scrap of well-sourceable information on a topic and providing a comprehensive overview, and others are derided as "cruft" and fans run amuck. But... what's the difference? To me the answer is: reliable sources. If there is a topic with extremely deep coverage and good sources on it, mining them out in detail is fine, as long as they're not overstretched to SYNTH degrees. (Think individual Bible episodes, Shakespeare sonnets, etc., which can have entire books on 'em.) If it's just OR and old Geocities pages and primary sources and fan webpages by random independents, then it's a problem. That's why I asked "Is there a problem with the sources here?" above. If these are good sources Robbie is citing, then all of these AFDs should be closed as keep. As he's pointed out himself, we have similarly detailed articles on the Alamo and the like, so I don't find it unreasonable to believe that similarly deep sourcing exists for the Eureka Rebellion as does the Texan Revolution. Now, if it turns out that the sources are, say, print-to-demand Kindle direct books published by a random fan, or the sources are being greatly misrepresented & stretched, I could be convinced to adjust my vote toward the deletion direction. But I'd want to see evidence of that - not merely a general "this seems like too much info" vibe. (See Category:Ned Kelly or the like for an example of an Australian with a bunch of stuff related to him that is presumably valid to have.) SnowFire (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In accord with SnowFire here, per WP:NEXIST, what sources exist? With a preliminary search, I can see Frost's chapter "Refighting the Eureka Stockade: Managing a Dissonant Battlefield" in Battlefield Tourism (Routeledge, 2007), Couzens' article "Cinematic visions of Australian colonial authority in Captain Thunderbolt (1953), Robbery Under Arms (1957) and Eureka Stockade (1949)" in Studies in Australasian Cinema (2016), Skilton's chapter "Mining, Masculinity, and Morality: Understanding the Australian National Imaginary Through Iconic Labor" in Gendering Nationalism (Springer 2018), Vine's chapter "Colonial Larrikins" in Larrikins, Rebels and Journalistic Freedom in Australia (Springer 2021). There's a very large amount of material on this, an event which has resonated through Australian history for more than a century and a half. This is a perfectly reasonable WP:OKFORK. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vexillology of the Eureka Rebellion

edit
Vexillology of the Eureka Rebellion (edit | 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 · TWL)

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone article. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there is a flags of the confederacy article that is along the same lines as the one nominated for deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America Robbiegibbons (talk) 04:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

White nationalism and the Eureka Rebellion

edit
White nationalism and the Eureka Rebellion (edit | 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 · TWL)

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone article. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep on grounds offered. This seems a classic WP:SUMMARYSTYLE spin-out of a subtopic to a separate article. It's possible that it should be merged or reorganized elsewhere but if there isn't an issue with the content, then complying with WP:SIZE sometimes means making such branch articles as these. Nothing new there. It's only a content fork if the exact same matter is discussed in two different places (usually the fork applying its own unique spin on the topic), and that doesn't appear to be the case? SnowFire (talk) 09:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • With some tightening of the text (which reads a bit too much like an essay rather than a statement of facts) this could merge with the main article on the Eureka Rebellion which has a lengthy quote about the Chinese presence but which does not explain the racial issues nearly as well as this article. Lamona (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one of many unnecessary WP:FORKs of the Eureka Rebellion. While it may have been a significant event in Australia we do not need such minutiae. Mztourist (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE : A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. Subject is notable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've not yet had a detailed look at this, but it appears to have significant WP:OR and WP:ESSAY issues. AFAICS none of the sourcing mentions white nationalism (as opposed to racism). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur. Taken together these articles on the rebellion are probably notable, but the style and the titling are not appropriate for Wikipedia. With a lot of editing these could be made into a single or a few good articles, but it will take a LOT of editing. Lamona (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a student of military history, I'm not particularly interested in the politics of the Eureka Rebellion myself. I was only trying to get the ball rolling. Robbiegibbons (talk) 04:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails verification and is WP:OR; the entire lede is pure WP:ESSAY. This is pretty typical of the entire piece: "Numerous authors have mentioned the antipathy of the European miners towards the presence of Asiatics on the goldfields, including Russel Ward, who has noted: "The Chinese ... were conspicuous by their absence at Eureka"" The quote from Ward demonstrates nothing about the "antipathy of European miners". Nor can I verify the source (unlisted in the bibliography); half the references cannot be verified. Per WP:NEXIST, there's no sources that I can find which speak of "white nationalism" in this context. White Nationalism is distinct from racism or, more specifically to Eureka, Sinophobia. There is definitely a stand alone article on racism and Eureka (although I think it would be better located in an article on the historiography of Eureka), but it is not this one. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it might just benefit from some copy editing. I don't see why Wikipedia won't let readers take a deep dive into the subject of the Eureka Rebellion as is the case with the series on the American revolution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:American_Revolution_sidebar. We're talking about the best documented event in 19th century Australian history. Robbiegibbons (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is not WP:OKFORK, the problem is original research. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not seeing the original research. The use of the Eureka flag and mythology by white nationalists is well known and documented. And I am having difficulty with your assertion that white nationalism is distinct from racism ie that it is possible to be a white nationalist without being a racist. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Part of the problem here is that the article is applying a term for a contemporary phenomenon (relatively speaking) to an historical incident. If the article was about how contemporary White Nationalists deploy Eureka mythology, that might be an article (although again I'd see that more for a piece on the historiography of Eureka). However, that's not the content of this article; it is simply a discussion of racism in the context of the Eureka rebellion. I'm happy to change my view if one can show the preponderance of historians discuss the anti-Chinese incidents around the Eureka rebellion as "White Nationalism". Described as racism and xenophobia, yes, sources discuss those terms. However, White Nationalism is a far more recent term (Ngram comparison with racism) more frequently associated with *movements/parties* of the far-right, not *generalised* racism within society. I'm not aware of its general use to describe racism in mid-19th Century Australia. In the Australian context, it is initially associated with the anti-communist far right movements of the 1950s and 1960s and susequentlty applied to neo-Nazi movements (and others) in Australia from the 1970s. It's OR precisely because it's anachronistic. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 Lamona (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Racism and xenophobia are also recent terms. Nor is it clear that the scope of the article is restricted to the 19th century. In the lead it reads: "The Eureka Flag is often featured on bumper stickers with white nationalist political slogans, and the Australia First Party has incorporated it into their official logo. Many, including Peter Fitzsimons, have criticised such use by 'those who ludicrously brandish it as a symbol of white Australia'." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Racism and xenophobia are not absent from historians' discourse about Eureka, "white nationalism" is. Without a prepondrance of reliable sourcing to show otherwise, it's WP:SYNTHESIS to conflate the latter (white nationalism) with the former (racism and xenophobia). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, WP:V is policy - the Fitzsimons quote is among five of the six references in the lede which fail that policy. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it has a valid reference, then it cannot fail WP:V. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge. Body of the article has no content on modern use of the Eureka Rebellion/flag in white nationalist movements in Australia which is the ostensible subject of the article. There may well be other RS on that subject matter but an effort should be made to cover it in that article before forking if it becomes unwieldy. Parts from the intro could be incorporated into political legacy in the main article. Section about colonial attitudes towards the Chinese could be incorporated into Racism in Australia or Asian Australians if not appropriate for the Eureka Rebellion article. Chaste Krassley (talk) 05:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian police in the Eureka Rebellion

edit
Victorian police in the Eureka Rebellion (edit | 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 · TWL)

Excessive detail, list of people who for the most part played only a very minor role in the Rebellion and which doesn't add understanding or necessary background. First entry "Atkins was with the foot police at the Eureka Stockade". Second entry "he was a police orderly at the Eureka Stockade." So what? Fram (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would just note that The Eureka Encyclopedia has a stand-alone entry for "Policing in Ballarat" where some of the information comes from. Robbiegibbons (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It gets worse: "Calvin ... May have been at the Eureka Stockade. Athel cb (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless they were listed as officially killed or injured it's hard to be certain of their status. Here's a typical entry from The Eureka Encyclopedia that shows how they deal with it:
"CULPECK, THOMAS A private in the 12th Regiment (no 2797), he was probably present during the storming of the Eureka Stockade on 3 December 1854, being in Ballarat during the third muster. He was probably the Thomas Culpeck who married Mary Putrtill in 1857 in Tasmania." Robbiegibbons (talk) 09:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
actually now that I think of it, what about renaming the article "Victorian police in the Eureka Rebellion" and then I'm willing to truncate it. Robbiegibbons (talk) 05:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename and improve, the topic is notable and needs to be more than a mere list of possible participants. The role of the police on the goldfields as a factor in the Eureka rebellion, their role at the stockade, and as witnesses in the Treason trials are worth documenting. Plenty of sources available beyond Eurekapedia which seems a little weak in this area. --Matilda talk 21:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    we can similarly replace the "List of colonial forces in the Eureka Rebellion" with another article "British army in the Eureka Rebellion" that will cover the topic and contain only a much-reduced list of notable soldiers if at all. We can discuss all the really important ones in the body of the article. Robbiegibbons (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

we need hear from more Australian wikipedians 2001:8003:22BA:7101:BD11:1799:9C87:E8A7 (talk) 05:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historical background of the Russo-Ukrainian War

edit
AfDs for this article:
Historical background of the Russo-Ukrainian War (edit | 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 · TWL)

It is with a heavy heart that I propose deletion of this page.

The reason is simple: the scope of this article is untenable. When this page was originally created in 2014, it attempted to provide socio-historical background information for readers of the article 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, which covered then ongoing protests in particular regions of that country. It primarily served as a sub-article of 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, because that article had got too long. The scope of the article at the time of its creation was a product of that time, and the limited sources that were then available. As the conflict evolved, it became apparent that the article was no longer functioning, leading to a previous deletion discussion in 2022. The result of that discussion was 'keep', despite acknowledgement of concerns about the article's content, including potential WP:OR analysis of primary sources.

All of the existing content has been systematically deleted from the article this year, and the article moved and rescoped. Now, this article purports to provide the historical background to the multi-faceted geopolitical conflict that is the Russo-Ukrainian War, and yet completely fails to do so. In fact, it is unlikely that it will ever be able to do so, because its scope is too broad, with much of the relevant content provided in other articles, such as Russo-Ukrainian War. At present, it seems to be nothing more than a WP:COATRACK for miscellaneous history, without any clear narrative or connection to the actual topic it purports to describe: no link is established between the article contents and the war that began in 2014.

Is the whole history of Ukraine within the scope of this article? The whole history of Russia? These could both legitimately claimed to be 'historical background' to the current conflict, and there may be reliable sources that establish such a reality. However, an article with such a scope could never actually function on Wikipedia as anything other than a WP:POVFORK of other better articles on this subject, such as Russia–Ukraine relations. Unfortunately, I think my dear friend Iryna, ever the wisest, has been proven correct by the test of time. She warned me and others that this article would become 'the biggest coatrack Wikipedia has ever seen', and that there was little hope in creating anything of value to the reader with an article scope this broad. Ah, the naivety of youth. If only I had listened...

Fundamentally, the deletion of the existing article content without community consensus is concerning from a procedural point of view. However, I agree in principle that the removed content no longer has an encyclopaedic purpose. For this reason, I suggest this article be deleted. 'Historical background of the Russo-Ukrainian War' may be a notable concept, though I note that no other war covered on Wikipedia has a similar article. I caution, as Iryna did so many years ago, that any such article is liable to become a WP:COATRACK. However, even if such an article is deemed viable for creation, in content, concept and scope, it would still be fundamentally different from the article the existed for ten years from 2014, and therefore I believe 'Blow it up and start over' applies. I propose a clean start. Who is with me? RGloucester — ☎ 05:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Brat Forelli: If the whole history of Russo-Ukrainian relations is to be considered the 'historical background' of the war, how will this article ever serve as anything other than a content fork of Russia–Ukraine relations? RGloucester — ☎ 00:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it serves a different purpose is because the Russian-Ukrainian relations do not provide a complete backgroud into the war, as there is also the Russian domestic developments and its relations with NATO that would be within the scope of this article. Brat Forelli🦊 01:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not provide a complete background into the war. No single article can ever provide a complete historical background of the war, because that would need to include the totality of Russian history, Ukrainian history, Nato history, &c., all of which are already covered in existing articles, which are already linked and described in the 'Background' section of Russo-Ukrainian War. For example, note Russia–NATO relations. Across Wikipedia, no other war has a 'historical background' article. What makes this a special case? What will this article achieve that is not achieved by the existing articles?　RGloucester — ☎ 01:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least two books by excellent, academic historians which we can follow when working on the article, see my "Keep" comment above. This war is special because Putin himself goes back all the way to the Middle Ages to justify the war, e.g. Putin's text On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The content in the article now, while referenced, does not indicate its connection to the subject it purports to describe, and is, at this time, merely duplication of content existing in other articles like the one you just referenced. 'This war is special', you say, but I can think of many other geopolitical conflicts involving mediaeval historical claims, for example the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict or the current war in Gaza. And yet, none of these have a 'historical background' article. RGloucester — ☎ 07:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. The scope is unclear (should we start from 1169? 1648? 1918? 1991?). The argument that there are books about this topic is untenable. Kapeller's book is about the relationship between the Ukrainians and Russians (Unequal Brothers: Russians and Ukrainians from the Middle Ages to the Present). We can and should use information in these sources to improve existing articles. Alaexis¿question? 09:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We start with Volodymyr / Vladimir the Great, because that's where Putin starts his narrative and where Kappeler and Plokhy (and Snyder and Jobst and possibly more historians) start. Kappeler's preface to the 1st edition mentions Russia's occupation of Crimea in the very first sentence, his preface to the 2nd edition mentions the Russian attack of February 2024 in the very first words. Plokhy's book title is "The Russo-Ukrainian War". Rsk6400 (talk) 06:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Iryna's metaphor of a lamb tied to a tree is well said and correct, if kept the article would need a high level of protection in order to avoid vandalism and excessive bias Microplastic Consumer (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the scope of this article is untenable
Why so? We have numerous academic books discussing the article subject in-depth.
Ukraine's Unnamed War - Google Books literally has "Historical background" chapter.
Some are even titled just like that: The Russo-Ukrainian War: The Return of History - Google Books ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Manyareasexpert: This seems to be a "Keep" vote. Is my understanding correct ? Rsk6400 (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a vote. The editor nominating the article for deletion was supposed to respond with an argument. If there is no response, that means their main argument is disproved, and the article should be kept. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and as I said in my proposal for deletion, I believe this article to fall under Item 5, 'content forks'. RGloucester — ☎ 21:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to approach your "fork" argument with the note that "history of Russia", "history of Ukraine" you suggested the "Historical background of the Russo-Ukrainian War" is the fork of, all have different scopes and so don't conform to the definition of WP:CFORK. But I also noted that your actual suggestion in a deletion proposal is to delete the current article and to create a new one. Which means your whole deletion proposal contradicts itself. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that WP:TNT is an essay about an editorial approach to a topic that meets our notability guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Going back to the 1930's famine and thousands of years before is a bit of a stretch... I mean, they don't like each other and this can be explained. But I would expect a history of the more recent past, why did they invade, what happened in the weeks/months and years before that, not a hundred or thousand years ago... This could basically be summarized as "The countries have a long history of opposition" or some similar wording, then go onto the most recent causes of the war. Oaktree b (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can replace this whole article in a sentence or two; the "history of opposition between Ukraine and Russia" could be an article, apart from this war. Oaktree b (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Going back to the 1930's famine and thousands of years before is a bit of a stretch
    It looks like a content dispute, but if sources are provided, what options do we have? other then to vote to delete the article because of that.
    I mean, feels like every book I encounter on Ukraine War, has some section on its historical background. Russia's Approach to Post-Conflict Reconstruction - Google Books "Root Causes" section starts in 1774... ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they do - it wouldn't be much good for a book to provide no context! They're also... books. They can take thousands and thousands of words to make an academic argument about the topic. When we need that many thousands of words, we split our articles into multiple, more specific articles. That's what has happened here. We're not obligated to keep articles simply because sources exist that deal with the topic - we can make editorial decisions about what articles ought to exist, and how. Have a look at Russo-Ukrainian War#History, which serves the remit of this article quite well, with many appropriate links to more in-depth articles on specific points of that history. -- asilvering (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have a look at Russo-Ukrainian War#History
    You probably meant the "Background" section which talks about our topic. The Russo-Ukrainian War is about 12,500 words which means a suggestion to divide or trim it is applicable - WP:SIZERULE . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you're right, I meant background. Though the history section does illustrate the same thing quite well. -- asilvering (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per the well-written and persuasive nom, the article doesn't have a clear scope and is a WP:CFORK of content that fits in other articles. It is unclear, reading the article, what the article is supposed to do, as it is essentially a bullet point list of various events that have occurred through the past 1,000 years. The topic area is broad, and in some way comes down to narratives of the past, which are interesting but difficult to write an encyclopaedia article about, and if they are tackled are probably best tackled in another framework. If the article served a different purpose yet had its content reshaped entirely as the nom suggests, then perhaps the original purpose was similarly diffuse and hard to define. In some sense, the historical background is just the history, and we have various History articles already. There is also a large history section in Russia–Ukraine relations which covers a similar set of events. That article could stand a little history trimming, or perhaps a sub-article, but that would be a general history of relations rather than trying to explore links to a specific conflict. CMD (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chipmunkdavis: Just for the record: What you call "well-written and persuasive" is at least in part misleading. The article with its shortcoming at the time of its creation was not a product of that time, and the limited sources that were then available. I pointed that out in March[37]. And there was no deletion of the existing article content without community consensus - I criticized the shortcomings a long time before fixing them, see Talk:Historical_background_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War/Archive_1#Scope and following discussions in that talk archive. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing in that archive anything that makes the opening here in part misleading. RGloucester seems to have written it at the time with the sources they had available, even if that was not every possible source that existed. CMD (talk) 08:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources, I must point out, that were previously considered seminal in the field, but that have now been completely eliminated from the article, such as Kuromiya 1998 and Siegelbaum & Walkowitz 1995. I do not disagree that there were and are shortcomings: that is why I have proposed the article for deletion. These shortcomings originate from the scope of the article itself; nothing other than deletion can solve the problems facing this article. RGloucester — ☎ 09:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources, I must point out, that were previously considered seminal in the field, but that have now been completely eliminated from the article, such as Kuromiya 1998 and Siegelbaum & Walkowitz 1995
You really say that 1998 and 1995 sources are "seminal" in a field of 2014 - 2024 events. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chipmunkdavis, as late as March 2022, RGloucester claimed that There was genuine domestic unrest in Ukraine in 2014[38]. A year later, I replied, You based the whole article on your idea that there was "genuine domestic unrest" in 2014, but you don't give any sources to support that idea - which is certainly not mainstream. Mainstream historians like the ones I mentioned below clearly state that the unrest was a result of decisions made in the Kremlin. That you followed a non-mainstream idea when writing this article seems to be the main cause of most of the problems of this article.[39] I still hold that the problems were not caused by the limited sources of the time. They were caused by that unsourced, fringe idea of the author. The second misleading claim is that I changed the article without consensus. I even pinged RGloucester more than three months before making significant changes to the article. Nobody is obliged to enter in a discussion, but they shouldn't complain afterwards that there was no consensus. If nobody objects, that's silent consensus. There is a third misleading claim regarding the moving of the article. In the edit summary to the move, which RGloucester correctly linked above, (repeating the link for convenience) I pointed to the relevant move discussion in which I had no part. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The move discussion is now in the arcive, Talk:Historical_background_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War/Archive_1#Requested_move_22_June_2020 Rsk6400 (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RGloucester: I just see that you supported the move. And now you are complaining about it ? Rsk6400 (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: See 'Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine', which was linked above. I expect someone forgot to do some of the necessary administrative work. Or perhaps, my error upon making this nomination? In any case, for your reference... RGloucester — ☎ 08:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; unsustainable article, clearly unnecessary WP:CFORK. The Russo-Ukrainian War is not so magically special that it needs a dedicated "historical background" article, something not done for any other conflict, (to the extent that this does by going back far more than a century) covered by the many other articles that make this one redundant; there's tons of academic, reliable content to source this article to, so notability is clear, but what should be in the article, or why we need it at all when it is covered by Russia-Ukraine relations, history of Russia and Ukraine, Russians in Ukraine, etc. is what makes this "historical background" article an unwarranted content fork, and any historical background article on a conflict for that matter, redundant. I disagree that this is simply a case of WP:TNT, in that I don't think unless something major changes any article of this sort is necessary, (and this already seems like a case of TNT without the delete button) nor is leaving it alone "as it just needs some improvement" a good idea either as that improvement realistically won't happen, and the current situation of the reader clicking on the "main article" hatnote from the Russo-Ukrainian War article in hope of a full-length article expanding on the background section (i.e. starting from 1991) only to find a ~600 word article largely unrelated to the "background" of the actual war (not the history of relations between Russia and Ukraine in general) is not great either. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Any information that is directly in the background of the Russo-Ukrainian War does not need its own article, and instead should be placed in the background section of the Russo-Ukrainian War article. Any information that is more broadly related to the relations between Russia and Ukraine should be placed in Russia-Ukraine relations. This article should be deleted, regardless of how much it is improved, because it is a content fork of multiple other articles. Gödel2200 (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    it is a content fork of multiple other articles
    WP:CFORK A content fork is a piece of content (such as an inter-wiki object, a page, or a page section) that has the same scope as another piece of content that predated it, essentially covering the same topic - how an article could have the same scope as multiple other articles? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the scope of this article is not clear. Is it attempting to cover Russia-Ukraine relations in general? (in which case it would be a fork of Russia-Ukraine relations). Is it meant to cover the entire history of Ukraine? (in which case it would be a content fork of History of Ukraine) the entire history of Russia? The scope of something talking about the "Background of the Russo-Ukrainian war" should be more restricted than the current article, and does not need a standalone article. Gödel2200 (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The scope of something talking about the "Background of the Russo-Ukrainian war" should be more restricted
Now, are we saying that the scope of the "historical background" is undefined, or are we questioning the current article content? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both. Much of the content in this article is only dubiously related to the Russo-Ukrainian war, or, at the very least, the article makes no indication of how it is related. We certainly should have a "Background of the Russo-Ukrainian war" (and we already do), but adding "historical" into the title seems to me to only cause confusion. Gödel2200 (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well the scope of the "historical background" article is easily defined if we as editors stop to try to define it using our guesses on what should it cover and what should it not, and let the RSs to define it, right? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is clearly simplistic and biased. Unless someone neutral wants to do a real effort on this, better delete it. 2001:638:508:F003:D7AA:DA60:16DA:2D64 (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GS/RUSUKR Rsk6400 (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Russia–Ukraine relations That article seems to have more or less the same scope. Putin uses the same timeframe in his justifications of the war and historians like Plokhy and Kappeler also use that timeframe. A redirect also has the advantage of preserving the long discussions on the talk page. The article was once called a "Good article". Rsk6400 (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Rumal

edit
Battle of Rumal (edit | 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 · TWL)

Low quality article about a relatively non notable event with limited coverage within sources. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion in hopes of more participation. Please focus on the article, its sources and whether or not notability is established. Stop making accusations about other editors, it doesn't help whatever argument you are making. If you suspect sockpuppetry, head to SPI, don't bring it up here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even ignoring opinions from accounts with few edits, I don't see a consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist in hopes of establishing some sort of consensus, which at present appears lacking. TarnishedPathtalk 12:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TarnishedPathtalk 12:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History Proposed deletions

edit

History categories

edit

for occasional archiving

Proposals

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/History&oldid=1243881122"