Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Social science|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science/archive

Purge page cache

watch

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

Social science

Issues in social nudity

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

This article hardly addresses issues, and is apparent from the get go with the introductory paragraph rehashing info that can be found in many other articles on nudism such as Nudity, Naturism, and Nude recreation, etc.. The article on Nudity especially has multiple sections dedicated to issues, in regards to its legality, cultural acceptance, and child development. The terminology section is totally unnecessary for an article about the issues related to a concept as it does not address any terms related to issues, only the history of naturist related terms themselves. Diversity in nudist clubs is not relevant to its issues unless those issues are stated, discussed, and sourced, which they are not, and would be more appropriate on articles covering specific cultural attitudes towards nudity as shown in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudity#Cultural_differences. The other issues and legality sections are short and can be moved elsewhere, other articles about nudity and naturism have subsections covering particular countries where these tidbits may be more relevant. Micahtchi (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Micahtchi (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Anything useful and not redundant here can be merged with one of the existing articles mentioned.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 05:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I poked around Talk:Naturism and apparently Issues in social nudity was intentionally spun off from Naturism in as part of an effort to reduce the size of that article. I don't think that has any bearing on whether or not to keep this article, but any editor wanting to move content from this article back to Naturism should be aware of the issues there. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social science Proposed deletions

Language

Global Language Monitor

AfDs for this article:

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

"Company" identifies no product or marketable service, notes no clients, as of October 2024 has no recent web or social media presence, url is for sale. Sources are dead and unrecoverable. It does however seem to have been a prolific producer of press releases and had garnered some publicity. Just no evidence it has ever existed as a real company. Doprendek (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I share the nominator's skepticism about the company's status as a company. However, claims attributed to this company have been reported frequently in the media. This in turn has triggered numerous debunkings in the linguistics blogosphere, as well as posts complaining more generally about the company's tendency towards misinformation. This isn't quite the gold standard of SIGCOV, but it's in the ballpark. Additionally, I think there's an IAR argument to be made in favour of keeping, namely that the article (if well-maintained) could help journalists vet their sources. Botterweg (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nerkin

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

This is little more than an Armenian dictionary definition. A soft redirect to the Wikitionary entry for ներքին would seem appropriate. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Armenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to Wikitionary entry for ներքին; this word is not notable, basically just a dictionary definition as stated. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 18:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:DICDEF, nor is there any particular reason to create a soft redirect to Wiktionary here any more than there is for any other random non-English word, especially since an external search for "nerkin" comes up with all sorts of other matches which have nothing to do with the Armenian word. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Many languages have words for 'lower' and 'upper' that commonly occur in place names; what makes Armenian special? —Tamfang (talk) 01:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:R#DELETE: If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. The Wiktionary article transliterates it as nerkʻin not as nerkin and no sources have been given showing discussion of this transliteration in English language reliable sources, so it qualifies as a "novel or very obscure synonym". Hence there is no need to make a redirect. Stockhausenfan (talk) 02:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Regular sound correspondences between Hungarian and other Uralic languages

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

The topics "Regular sound correspondences between Uralic languages" and "Historical phonology of Hungarian" are both notable. However, this topic does not have notability independent of those topics; Hungarian does not play such a critical role in Uralic reconstruction as to justify the existence of this page. Stockhausenfan (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Stockhausenfan (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valid points. Suggest rename and refactor, perhaps indeed as Historical phonology of Hungarian. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 09:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Tropylium, we don't rename as part of an AFD closure. Are you voting Keep? If this article is Kept, you can discuss retitling the article and changing its focus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I suppose that is strictly speaking keep w/ different discussion required afterwards. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 00:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Let’s be honest about some facts here: (1) it’s completely unreferenced and nobody is making any effort to find sources, (2) changing the title of this essay is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, and (3) it’s most likely original research. It’s time to source this and fix it, or delete it. If you want to fix this, but need more than a few days, Draftify it yourself. Bearian (talk) 11:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a shame that this article isn't sourced, but a search on G-Books and G-Scholar for "uralic languages hungarian" indicates that sources do exist. For example, g-book, other g-book, and these articles [1], [2]. It is possible that this information could be merged into Hungarian phonology, but that article is already quite long. It also does not this kind of comparison. Lamona (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the title, the content of the article is ultimately about the historical phonology of Hungarian, which is a notable topic. So I think all that is needed on that front is a title change, as proposed by Trɔpʏliʊm. On the other hand, I do share Bearian's concerns about WP:OR, particularly since this is the sort of topic that attracts crackpots and misinformation. What reassures me on that front is that all of the information passes a basic smell test, and I was able to verify a few of the lexical reconstructions, which would be the most likely target for OR. So I don't see any issues here that aren't repairable, or that are likely to pose a problem if it takes a while for them to be repaired. Botterweg (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 17:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete Unreferenced original research. --Altenmann >talk 19:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded articles

History

List of wars involving Magadha

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

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

List of wars involving Mughal Empire exists

List of wars involving Ottoman Empire exists

List of wars involving the Kingdom of France exists

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

All wars are properly sourced.

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

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

While on List of wars involving India

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a separate list looks unwarranted. Agletarang (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Shukuup

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk) 07:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk) 07:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk) 07:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Honduras-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk) 07:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I converted most of the sources to use our {{cite}} templates. I did a search as well, and the only reference I'm able to find is Triplook which Copan is the city of the Maya located in the western part of the country near Guatemala. It is the largest monument of ancient civilizations on the territory of Honduras. Copan was founded in the I century A.D. In the 7th and 8th centuries, it was the center of the ancient Mayan Kingdom Shukuup - I'm not convinced by this source, as Copán is a Good Article and doesn't mention the kingdom at all. Also, none of the English Language links in the footer mention the kingdom. ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 08:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Dabil (1517)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Iran, and Armenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I can’t find any sources at all to support this. In addition Kızıl Ahmet Bey did not die at it as shown in the Infobox, and according to thus source neither did Mirza Mehmet. Created by a blocked sockpuppet. Mccapra (talk) 06:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Qara-Hamid (1510)

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

Fail to see how this is notable. The only two remaining citations are poorly cited (and not verifiable) and seem to be based on translation of a primary source? This was moved to draft twice because of its poor quality [3] [4] but then quickly moved back with no explanation by two brand new users [5] [6], one of them being the creator of this article. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete

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

Settler colonialism in Australia

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

The article does not abide by NPOV requirements. It infers that Indigenous Australians have been eliminated and that settler colonialism is an ongoing process. Nothing that the article might cover were it to be expanded could not be covered by the Australian frontier wars or history of Indigenous Australians articles.

Not a single claim in the article, except for that in the last sentence, is an encyclopaedic proposition. Will Thorpe (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Will Thorpe (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this source indicates in the first line of its abstract that "Settler colonialism continues in Australia today." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the topic—of how settler colonialism applies to Australia, which is the application of a disputable academic theory, distinct from straight history—is substantially covered in reliable sources cited already in the article. I don't find the deletion rationale to square with our policies and guidelines. (t · c) buidhe 02:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep..... .massive amount of academic publications on this topic....article needs expansion not deletion.Moxy🍁 05:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the 2 comments above, but it does need some work. Bduke (talk) 07:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: May need work but is notable with a load of sources on the topic. GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – "Needs work" is quite an understatement but we have a few sources to help us get started. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 04:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kerh (1516)

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

Challenged draftification. I can’t find the necessary sources to verify and establish the subject’s notability. The subject currently fails to meet WP:GNG. Please ping me if you can find sources. A rewrite may also be needed per WP:NPOV. GrabUp - Talk 09:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. GrabUp - Talk 09:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Iran, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Unfortunately all of Hasanreels's created articles are like this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete likely hoax created by blocked sockpuppet, Mccapra (talk) 06:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchy of Ceylon (1948–1972)

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

WP:CONTENTFORK. A previous RfC at Talk:Monarchy of Ceylon#RfC: Merge and disambiguate found that this topic is the same as Dominion of Ceylon. DrKay (talk) 07:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Sri Lanka. DrKay (talk) 07:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: This article is about the institution of the monarchy, not the dominion or the country. Not to mention that almost all realms, former and current, have their respective monarchy/queen pages. As sourced in the article, British monarchs were acclaimed monarchs of Ceylon as successors of sovereigns of the ancient Sinhalese kingdom. Native monarchs are covered at Sinhalese monarchy. The discussion at Talk:Monarchy of Ceylon reflected that the term "Monarchy of Ceylon" may also refer to pre-colonial monarchs of Ceylon, and hence parenthetical disambiguation is used for Monarchy of Ceylon (1948–1972), similar to the situation at Monarchy of Nigeria (1960–1963). Peter Ormond 💬 07:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any merge: A merger with the dominion article would make all the content of this comprehensive article restricted to a paragraph or two under WP:WEIGHT, as there were other events and aspects to the Dominion of Ceylon, such as the 1953 Ceylonese Hartal, the Bandaranaike–Chelvanayakam Pact, the 1962 Ceylonese coup attempt, the 1966 alleged Ceylonese coup attempt, and the 1971 JVP insurrection. Peter Ormond 💬 07:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The RFC was in 2015 and consisted of one nomination and one agree vote. It's hardly a landslide. The content in this new article, Monarchy of Ceylon, (BTW, a very well researched, structured and written article IMHO) is substantively different to that in Dominion of Ceylon AFAICS. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Dominion of Ceylon. Applying WP:CONTENTFORK. This article has different content and sources to Dominion of Ceylon and I haven't come across evidence of disputed POV content leading to a fork; thus, I'm ruling out delete. However, it seems to cover the same period/topic as an existing article and the nominator made a fair case in the 2015 talk page RfC for a merge because of ambiguous title. Eventhough, this article is well written, sourced and more comprehensive than the existing article, the new content could conceivably have been added to the existing article. DrKay are you advocating for a merge rather than deletion? Rupples (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. For example, there's a history section and a list of monarchs at both articles. There's also a history section at History of Sri Lanka (1948–present)#Dominion (1948–1972) and a list of monarchs at List of heads of state of Sri Lanka#Monarch (1948–1972). I don't see why we have all this content triplicated. DrKay (talk) 09:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
List of monarchs has been removed from Dominion of Ceylon and List of heads of state of Sri Lanka. The content in the history section at History of Sri Lanka (1948–present)#Dominion (1948–1972) covers only the important events of that period, and is different from Monarchy of Ceylon (1948–1972)#History which focuses on the development of shared monarchy within the Commonwealth. Peter Ormond 💬 09:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of aircraft of Turkey during World War II

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

As Turkey hardly did anything during WW2 I don’t think this is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Equipment of X at Y time period" lists are rarely notable, and I don't believe this rises to the standard. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Okay, so the connection between Turkey, military aircraft, and WWII isn't as out there as you might think. But it's a small paragraph in a "Turkey in World War II article", not an original research-ey This shows how the Turkish Air Force would have been equipped throughout World War II list based off passing mentions in hobbyest websites listing countries that various models of planes were shipped to. The article cites one self-published source [7], which does actually deal with airplanes in Turkey during WWII. Instead, it deals with planes preserved in Turkey during World War II. And it makes it clear that this is not a subject of academic study, because the author thanks the readers for helping him crowd-source the list. It also contains an unattributed copy of part of our Military history of Turkey article, so it appears to technically be a copyright violation too. My WP:BEFORE has turned up nothing promising, but I do have to concede that my search is skewed by results related to the Battle of the Philippine Sea.

I could see an advantage of a "list of Turkish military airplanes" by decade style of list, for more directory-style purposes. if anybody feels like making one, and thinks this article would be useful for that, then the closer/deletion review can retroactively put me down as a merge. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the nom. Not important enough. Orientls (talk) 06:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plunder of Murshidabad (1742)

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Analysis:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jhala Ajja

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

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

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

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

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

Battles of Belonia Bulge

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

The "Battles of Belonia Bulge" article has faced multiple issues since May, as it does not meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Specifically, the article provides insufficient Doomguy427 (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tripura-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: It does have notability and good sources. At most it can be draftified. Wikibear47 (talk) 07:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adelle of the Saracens

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

I was quite excited to find this article - and ended up disappointed when I realized that despite its decent size, it does not refer to the subject once beyond the lead section. Of the three cited sources, two do not mention her at all, and the one that does seems to merely list her in an index. I found this book, which says: "Adelle was a physician active in Salerno. All we really know of her is that she was a lecturer at the Salerno Medical School." Indeed this is all the article said 10 years ago when it was created by Aciram, who likely thought that there was more about her somewhere. It seems, however, that nothing beyond these two sentences can be said about Adelle, and so there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. I propose mentioning Adelle in the background section of the article women of Salerno, which is about Salernitan women physicians. Surtsicna (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Medicine. Surtsicna (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Islam, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing with WP:SIGCOV found. Also per my source assess table below. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 19:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Daniel, Norman (1979). The Arabs and Mediaeval Europe	Held by university libraries	Nothing in the book at all about Adelle, just the Saracens in Italy.	✘ No
Retsö, Jan (4 July 2003). The Arabs in Antiquity: Their History from the Assyrians to the Umayyads	Held by university libraries	Nothing in the book at all about Adelle, just the Saracens in Italy.	✘ No
Britannica Concise Encyclopedia	? Per WP:BRITANNICA, other sources are preferred.	Adelle is never mentioned.	✘ No
Ferraris, Z. A.; Ferraris, V. A. (December 1997). "The women of Salerno: contribution to the origins of surgery from medieval Italy"		Never mentions Adelle	✘ No
Kyle, Sarah R. (2016-08-12). Medicine and Humanism in Late Medieval Italy: The Carrara Herbal in Padua	Held in university libraries	Never mentions Adelle	✘ No
The Biographical Dictionary of Women in Science	Held in university libraries	Barely mentions her	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete. According to this (Italian version here), there was no Adelle. She comes from a late foundation myth for the Salernitan school. There were four founding doctors: the Greek Pontus, the Hebrew Helinus, the Saracen Adela and the Latin Salernus. In the paper linked, the tale is taken as allegory of knowledge converging from the four corners of the Earth on Salerno, an acknowledgement of the culturally and linguistically diverse origins of its medicine. She is mentioned twice at Schola Medica Salernitana as "Abdela", which is not correct, but reflects (I think) the idea that Adela/Adala is a corruption of an Arabic name like Abdul. Srnec (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bojong Kokosan

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

Entirely unsourced, WP:BEFORE search shows little to nothing, and the AfC is also unsourced but with more context. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Indonesia, and United Kingdom. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while it's very much stub-class at the moment, during my WP:BEFORE (voting) search I found this reference from the Indonesian Government Ministry of Education and Culture - [8] - that supports everything said in the article and more and is almost the most WP:RS source possible. As well as a news article from an Indonesian news website [9] and from a popular Indonesian online magazine about history [10] that's notable enough to have it's own id.wiki article [11]. Molecular Pilot 06:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also another Indonesian news website with very clear editorial team and oversight (see the bottom of the article and also about pages) thus throughly meeting WP:NEWSORG, With all these sources talking about it extensively with whole, really long articles, and they all seem reliable (especially then government website), I strongly feel that this article meets WP:GNG. Note that I've added the government source as a reference in the article now. Molecular Pilot 06:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to link this "other" website! Sorry! https://tirto.id/sejarah-pertempuran-bojong-kokosan-penyebab-kronologi-dan-dampak-giPK Molecular Pilot 07:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per MolecularPilot's work. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: User:I dream of horses, this article has been extensively edited since its nomination. Does this change your position?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz It does. I withdraw my nomination. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reworked the lede paragraph significantly. I may consider creating a draft copy of this in my sandbox and working on it in my spare time, because it genuinely does seem to have some merit to it. Sirocco745 (talk) 07:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ebohon of Ova

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

Fails WP:GNG. The article was declined at Afc but finds it's way back to the main space. Ibjaja055 (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there’s a single source which, even if it’s reliable, constitutes original research. Bearian (talk) 02:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Altani

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Siege of Smoluća

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete for this kind of contentious and contested topic I’d expect sources of the highest quality. Failing that I don’t think we should take anything on trust. There’s too much POV-driven Balkan rubbish on this site anyway. Mccapra (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article has already been to AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Storm Prediction Center meso-gamma mesoscale discussions

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Storm Prediction Center meso-gamma mesoscale discussions (2nd nomination)

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

The meso-gamma designation has a clear definition, however it isn't marked on each Mesoscale Discussion individually. There's an OR problem when it comes to determining entry as to determine an entry in the list, barring a secondary source confirming the meso-gamma designation (which I don't believe exist on the list at the moment), the MD must be analyzed by Wikipedia editors and I don't have to go into any more detail to let you know that's a bad idea. I'd accept if this article was completely rewritten with sources confirming each entry's inclusion but I'm not holding out hope this goes down as anything more than WP:LISTCRUFT, as much as I'd like to keep this article. Departure– (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – False statement was given in the nomination. "the MD must be analyzed by Wikipedia editors" is a false statement. The definition is clear, as even described by the nominator. Just because the government doesn't mark them separately does not mean editors are "analyzing" it. I'd practically argue the basic principles behind WP:CALC & WP:DUCK. This list, simply put, is when the SPC confirms (1) an ongoing tornado or (2) 100+ mph winds. These are not analyzed by Wikipedia editors, as claimed by the nominator, but rather, literally editors looking at the NOAA text (cited obviously) where the NOAA forecasters (along with any RS media) say there is a tornado. To note, this article was kept following a previous deletion attempt for being "niche" and LISTCRUFT. Given the nominator acknowledged (1) there is a clear definition for this list's topic and (2) stated Wikipedia editors were violating OR (which has no evidence supporting that) and (3) this survived a previous AFD for being niche/listcruft, I see no new deletion reasons to try to overturn the previous consensus to keep this article.

RS media like this article from Forbes discussed the SPC issuance of one of the items on this list: "The Storm Prediction Center (SPC) even issued a mesoscale discussion—a small-scale, short term forecast—alerting the region that radar and environmental data indicated that the tornado was likely an EF-4 or an EF-5. Meteorologists usually don’t put out that kind of a statement while a storm is in progress, but the SPC closed the discussion with a harrowing, all-caps warning: “THIS IS AN EXCEPTIONALLY RARE EVENT.” While it may be a partially "niche" topic, it is clearly not OR violations and LISTCRUFT arguments were already under a "keep" consensus. No new deletion reasonings, in my point of view. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion there's far too many "Is this a meso-gamma discussion" topics on the talk page and too many "revert if necessary but I don't think these are meso-gamma" edits that aren't reverted for what I see as fit for inclusion. I see too many gray areas for WP:DUCK (especially considering it's a policy on sockpuppetry and wouldn't hold water on original research). Not every case has a bold "THiS IS AN EXCEPTIONALLY RARE EVENT" in it's text. Departure– (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(drive-by comment) This Forbes article is not reliable. It was written by a "Contributor" which is equivalent to user-generated content. See WP:FORBESCON. C F A 💬 01:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The duck test only applies to sockpuppetry and copyright violations. Not to article content like original research. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 16:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I don’t believe Forbes, especially “contributor” content from Forbes, is a reliable source. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 16:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I think this article is very good for what it does and its more rare than a tornado emergency, meso-gamma is basically a small area so that just makes sense for the name meso-gamma mcd ModdiWX (You Got Mail!) 14:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I myself almost nominated this for deletion too. And I have to disagree with WeatherWriter’s rationale here. And I’ll list the multiple reasons why this needs deleted below:

1. As the nominator points out; while the meso-gamma criteria is very clear cut, the SPC doesn’t mark them. In fact, the term “meso-gamma mesoscale discussion” is so obscure that I didn’t even know about it until I stumbled on this article.

2. Because it is so obscure; and because the SPC itself doesn’t even use the term in ANY of its discussions; it leads me to think that it isn’t the Storm Prediction Center determining which discussions are “meso-gamma”; it is Wikipedia making that determination. Which (unlike what WeatherWriter will tell you), would violate WP:OR and quite possibly WP:LISTCRUFT as well (although I’m not that familiar with the latter, so I won’t say for sure on the cruft part).

Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The ONLY keep argument that I might be okay with is if we renamed the title to something like “List of Storm Prediction Center Mesoscale Discussions that concern individual tornadoes”; since that would remove the WP:OR problems. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could get behind that, since that would remove the “OR violation” (I don’t see one, but I know you and Departure see one). That is basically what meso-gamma discussions are anyway, so yeah, I would 100% support a renaming over deletion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Departure–: Would this be something you could get behind? That topic would be well-sourced and clear any possible OR violations. If you do get behind it, then this AFD discussion could be speedy-closed and then the article instantly renamed and restructured appropriately. Thoughts? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really not sure about that one. What connects an MD to a tornado event? I could see news linking watches to events but I'd be shocked if they knew what a mesoscale event. Barring that and obvious cases, there's still the problem of meso-gamma discussions being hard to define without OR (no matter how simple). Departure– (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mesoscale discussions are named by the Storm Prediction Center. Like actually, that is their formal name (see SPC Mesoscale Discussions. The Mesoscale Discussion text themselves (for those that are "meso-gamma" directly mention an ongoing tornado. There would be 0 OR as every aspect would be cited. The entire possible OR issue mentioned by You and Hurricane Clyde are on the "meso-gamma" aspect, not "mesoscale discussion", which is a very well-known/well-cited thing. For reference, the SPC has issued thousands of mesoscale discussions. This list, simply put, is those that mention ongoing tornadoes. "What connects an MD to a tornado event" is the text of the mesoscale discussion. For example, this right here is the mesoscale discussion referenced by the Forbes article. which states directly, "...confidence is high for a likely violent tornado. A long-track tornado is expected to continue..." Those are obvious to connect with damage surveys/articles over on the yearly tornado articles (for that tornado, 2020 Easter tornado outbreak#Bassfield–Seminary–Soso–Moss–Pachuta, Mississippi). Others include this Mesoscale discussion which directly states "Intense tornado (EF3+) ongoing" (for the 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado...note, the mesoscale discussion is specifically mentioned in the article's "Storm development" section) or this Mesoscale discussion for the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado which actually stated, "A strong to potentially violent tornado is ongoing and expected to continue for at least another hour".

In fact, now that I think about it, I highly support keeping the article and renaming/restructuring it to be specifically mesoscale discussions mentioning ongoing tornadoes. No OR issue and those specific mesoscale discussions are often used in other articles as references + actual descriptions in the article text. With that explanation, does that satisfy your possible OR concerns with a renaming Departure–? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note, RS media does know what a "mesoscale discussion" is. I recommend going to Google, searching "Mesoscale discussion" and then going to the "news" tab. That will save me from linking the hundreds of articles mentioning them. For simplicity, here is an RS news article titled "What Is a Mesoscale Discussion?", so obviously, RS media does know what they are and can explain them, which would solve any "niche" topic arguments regarding a renamed/restructured list for any mesoscale discussion mentioning an ongoing tornado. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The small scale topic of the article may get it brought back to AfD, but I wouldn't be too opposed to that if it kills the OR concerns. But either way, I'd advise waiting until this discussion closes before taking any restructuring actions. Departure– (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion theoretically could be closed now per [[WP:CSK|Wikipedia's Speedy Keep reasonings], since the only 3 !voting editors involved in the discussion all are not opposed to a rename/restructuring. The 7-day AFD doesn't need to continue unless you want it to. So, do you wish to withdraw the AFD nomination and let the restructure/rename occur, or, do you want to wait the full 7 days before that could occur? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Departure–, the SPC does clearly say whenever the discussion concerns a single tornado. They just don’t use the “meso-gamma” wording.

But I am still going to support deletion; and just consider the renaming to be an acceptable alternative. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 05:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The first nomination was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Storm Prediction Center meso—gamma mesoscale discussions; the article was retitled to fix its dash very shortly after the first nomination closed. (No opinion or further comment.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Environment, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should note quickly, the reason the first nomination of this article for deletion ended with arguments roughly stating that it passed notability guidelines due to secondary sourcing and that more sources would be added. However, if you look at most of the secondary sources, most are for the ratings of tornadoes / wind events themselves, not at all the meso-gamma discussions. The meso-gamma discussions are hardly notable in themselves, nor is sourcing for the meso-gamma designation easy to come by directly without interpretation much more volatile and subjective than WP:CALC was intended for. This is also why I'm not fully in support of reworking the article to specific tornadoes, and why maybe the article shouldn't have survived that first AfD discussion. OR and notability of the meso-gamma discussions themselves is the debate, not the notability of the events they're linked to. Departure– (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – in that case, my original delete !vote remains valid. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 15:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion to completely change the direction of the page shouldn't be discussed here. If the article gets deleted, it gets deleted, and the new list can be WP:BOLDly created and challenged independently. See also WP:HIJACK, which, although not as blatant as the examples there, and guided by contributor's consensus, it's still better to make the page seperately. Departure– (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said @Departure–; my !vote to delete ain’t changing. I just threw out the move as an “acceptable alternative” that would solve the OR problem. Nothing will solve the LISTCRUFT problem. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which, I can understand @WeatherWriter‘s desire to keep the article. After all; he’s the one who created the article. I too would probably be passionate about keeping an article that I created. And would probably be real quick too !vote keep on the list of West Virginia tornadoes or the 2022 Appalachian floods article for that reason. But that still doesn’t change the fact that this is a potential OR violation. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to reiterate my support for deletion. The determination of what qualifies as a meso gamma discussion is apparently decided by Wikipedia editors and not by the Storm Prediction Center. That is WP:OR right there. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uşşaki

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theodore (Andrew Jackson captive)

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

Another non-notable individual, but may together with the two other such articles perhaps be merged into one? Barely anything can be said about the individual Theodore, the topic of the article, who died aged 1 or thereabouts. What the articles (and the sources) really are about is Jackson's treatment of or position towards Native Americans. Fram (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Discrimination, History, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't see how a child that lived for 6 months is notable. There is no claim to notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I read the article and looked over the sources. They're either books or paywalled, so I have not read them, but they're good quality and the topics look direct. I'm confident in the presumption of notability. I'm more concerned about neutral, encyclopedic wording than about notability. In addition to that, I feel including enslaved people, whose stories are undertold, in this encyclopedia is something we should err on the side of doing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Charley (Andrew Jackson captive) at a new page titled Creek members of the Andrew Jackson household or similar, which should obviously also refer to Lyncoya Jackson. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer keep but I have no objection to this. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29, does Indigenous members of the Andrew Jackson household make sense? Going by our article, it doesn't look like we have any real evidence for Theodore's origins. -- asilvering (talk) 04:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: President Andrew Jackson was somewhat unique in his adoption of native American children. All of these should be kept: Theodore, Charley and Lyncoya. The issue with merging is that it would be too large for many readers. This is a substantive part of Jackson's life and should be kept. — Maile (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This comment makes no arguments regarding notability and claims that a max 3,600 word article would violate WP:SIZERULE—obviously untrue. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, this is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charley (Andrew Jackson captive). -- asilvering (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even though I have trouble seeing how consensus will be reached if people don't include more policy-based reasoning, particularly regarding notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, for now, to Andrew Jackson#Family, where all three of these children are mentioned. Subsequently, editors may want to merge parts of them into a yet to be written article about Jackson's treatment of and relations with Native Americans. Notability is beside the point: these children are not covered by sources because of their individual characteristics but only in relation to Jackson; they exist in sources only as (minor) aspects of his biography. Since Wikipedia follows its sources, we must do likewise. Sandstein 21:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charley (Andrew Jackson captive)

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

Sad story which may be a paragraph in some other article perhaps (but where?), but not a notable subject on its own. Fram (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, History, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Theodore (Andrew Jackson captive) at a new page titled Creek members of the Andrew Jackson household or similar, which should obviously also refer to Lyncoya Jackson. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: President Andrew Jackson was somewhat unique in his adoption of native American children. All of these should be kept: Theodore, Charley and Lyncoya. The issue with merging is that it would be too large for many readers. This is a substantive part of Jackson's life and should be kept. — Maile (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aside. I object to the word "captive". That doesn't jibe with this article or Theodore's. Neither was captured by Jackson, and it seems to me to be a POV slur against him. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarityfiend It's funny, after reading the sources published in the last 20 years, I think I object to calling Lyncoya his "adopted son" but that's mostly me being emo and a different discussion that probably happens on generational timescales. ANYWAY, I assumed it would get moved at some point and I am very excited to see what another brain thinks of. My only caveat is that Theodore is not confirmed to have been Muscogee, and based on cultural norms of the time, was very possibly given as a gift/tribute by an ally (see Charley), so the title shouldn't be Theodore (Muscogee). I don't think it abrogates him being a captive that Jackson didn't personally throw a net over him and carry him home--Jackson had possession of a bunch of orphaned babies that didn't belong to him because he was a local warlord running a race war--but it doesn't need to be in the title of the article. But I don't know what else to use. Halp? jengod (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ADD: We could arguably merge them both into Lyncoya as subsections. I didn't do that in the first place because these two were separate human people with distinct stories and their burial in brittle letters and footnotes for much of the past 200 years was not accidental. They were very intentionally excluded from the narrative. jengod (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC

Clarityfiend,Jengod: Another thought comes to mind here: we look at this through the eyes of our era. There is a old tradition in Hawaii, even now, called Hānai (informal adoption) whereby parents gave their children to others to be raised. One of the reasons in earlier years was because you weren't likely to go to war against someone who was raising your child. Hānai is still practiced there, for a variety of reasons. We don't know the background (do we?) of why Jackson got these native American children. But there might have been reasoning for it. — Maile (talk) 04:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Andrew Jackson's Native American pet"? He called him a pet, so no slur here against the esteemed slaveholder, we wouldn't want to do that of course. Fram (talk) 09:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- As bad as that sounds in 2024, language changes over the centuries. "a pampered and usually spoiled child" Merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pet among a lot of different definitions pulled up by a search. Unless we can dig up the year 1814 definition, we'll never know. — Maile (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more input and perhaps a more clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Tails Wx 13:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity: this is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theodore (Andrew Jackson captive). -- asilvering (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, for now, to Andrew Jackson#Family, where all three of these children are mentioned. Subsequently, editors may want to merge parts of them into a yet to be written article about Jackson's treatment of and relations with Native Americans. Notability is beside the point: these children are not covered by sources because of their individual characteristics but only in relation to Jackson; they exist in sources only as (minor) aspects of his biography. Since Wikipedia follows its sources, we must do likewise. Sandstein 21:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History Proposed deletions

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

History categories

for occasional archiving

Proposals