Points of interest related to History on Wikipedia:
Outline – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment

Deletion SortingProject (talk)Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts .mw-parser-output .navbar{display:inline;font-size:88%;font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .navbar-collapse{float:left;text-align:left}.mw-parser-output .navbar-boxtext{word-spacing:0}.mw-parser-output .navbar ul{display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap;line-height:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::before{margin-right:-0.125em;content:"[ "}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::after{margin-left:-0.125em;content:" ]"}.mw-parser-output .navbar li{word-spacing:-0.125em}.mw-parser-output .navbar a>span,.mw-parser-output .navbar a>abbr{text-decoration:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-mini abbr{font-variant:small-caps;border-bottom:none;text-decoration:none;cursor:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-full{font-size:114%;margin:0 7em}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-mini{font-size:114%;margin:0 4em}v t e

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:

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|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.

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to History.

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/History/archive

Purge page cache

watch

History[edit]

List of battles in Penghu

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

Unsourced and very short (4 entries) list without much context. I don't think there's much reason for it to exist as its own article, as opposed to those events being described in the Penghu article. toweli (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, China, and Taiwan. toweli (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Penghu. A brief search did not produce any sources that list these battles in this way, which means the subject is not notable. Toadspike [Talk] 07:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prehistoric Irish battles

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

WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. Most entries WP:UNSOURCED, or WP:ONESOURCE by Standish Hayes O'Grady from 1892 (WP:AGEMATTERS). Follow-up to

List of battles in Albania
List of battles in Algeria
List of battles in Belgium
List of battles in Croatia
List of battles in Afghanistan
List of battles in medieval India
List of conflicts in Egypt. NLeeuw (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Ireland. NLeeuw (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect. Personally, I'd suggest merging the notable/supported entries (like the Battle of Magh Tuireadh and Battle of Maigh Mucruimhe) to Irish_battles#Prehistoric_era. Using WP:CSC as the selection criteria. And redirecting this title there. As an WP:ATD. Guliolopez (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to only move the problem rather than solve it. I am considering nominating List of conflicts in Ireland next anyway, but decided it was best to look at Prehistoric Irish battles first. As such, I'm not opposed to merging/redirecting as an intermediate step. NLeeuw (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of information, with no context. Not remotely encyclopedic. None of these alleged battles ever happened. They are medieval literary traditions, not prehistoric events, and the dates given to them are completely arbitrary. Worthless. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like others. Orientls (talk) 07:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of conflicts in Canada

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

WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN WP:UNSOURCED. Follow-up to

List of battles in Albania Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Albania
List of battles in Algeria Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Algeria
List of battles in Belgium Draftified
List of battles in Croatia Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Croatia
List of battles in Afghanistan Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Afghanistan
List of battles in medieval India Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in medieval India
List of conflicts in Egypt Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of conflicts in Egypt. NLeeuw (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Canada. NLeeuw (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you mind linking the AfDs? It would be more helpful than the red links above. Conyo14 (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. NLeeuw (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I lean delete for this, if not for the fact that we have Military history of Canada, but also that the grouping of conflicts/battles are better suited as a category. I couldn't find anything off a basic google search for this grouping, but maybe there's a book or something. Conyo14 (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Conyo14 Good point. Alternately, what we could do instead, is integrate this list into List of Canadian military victories, which would then be reworked to a standardised List of wars and battles involving Canada instead, while purging all wars and battles which took place on what is now Canadian soil that did not involve "Canada" as such. The current List of Canadian military victories relies on a single source, and conveniently leaves out all Canadian military defeats, and all conflict results which were a bit "meh" (also known as "inconclusive" or "indecisive"). NLeeuw (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Sauthoff

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

The article contains no notability claim under WP:NACADEMIC. Fails WP:GNG. Melmann 20:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Negligible impact yet on scholarly community. A misguided creation of this BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. An assistant professor with one book. I did not find any reviews of it. For this sort of field we are going to need multiple reviews of multiple books for WP:AUTHOR notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, Hong Kong, Bihar, Canada, Colorado, and New Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per WP:TOOSOON -- on the right track, but Xxanthippe and David Eppstein assessed the current notability properly. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

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

Continuing the assault on the Anglo-Australian cricket fanfict. Full of cruft. Duplicated infoboxes. Similar articles have been deleted before, and a large amount are currently almost deleted here. Before voting for merge, remember a lot of these articles is already on the main biography ones. Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

Removed redirects

Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment Maybe should have taken a little more time--many of the above are redirects which should go to WP:RFD instead. --Finngall ^talk 21:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since its a lot of similar articles, I will wait till they are deleted (if consensus is reached) and then list them there Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I'll repeat what I said at the Neil Harvey (in this tour) AfD, that holds true for each article here: "We have an article about every international match played on this tour; we have an article about the series; one about the Australian team playing the series; and one about the player. Any information that doesn't already belong in those three articles is, IMHO, too much detail to be covered in an encyclopedia: it is also essentially prosified statistics that we're not a database [...] While these articles are clearly a labor of love, at some point we need to recognize that not every incident in a month-long cricket tour is worth incorporating into Wikipedia. It may be the most famous example of an Ashes series, but there's been one approximately every two years for over a century, and it's hard to argue that similar articles could not be written about every player in the more recent ones, relying on online news coverage. Not every verifiable detail is encyclopedic. I'm inclined to believe the international matches, and the tour itself, deserve articles, but it's hard to justify coverage beyond that." Aside: I suggest purging the redirects from the list now, as there will most certainly be procedural back-and-forth that will muddy the waters. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will get to it but I feel that if this discussion goes through theres also no need for the redirects. They are dead weight. Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, England, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Australian cricket team in England in 1948 - There is no doubt that the quality of writing in these articles is good and someone (or a few someones) spent a great deal of time. However, the amount of duplicated info across this series of articles is staggering. How everyone in the peer review process failed to come to the obvious conclusion that this is an unnecessary content fork truly boggles my mind. – Pee Jay 10:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the Ricky Ponting and Mitchell Johnson articles should be merged to their respective tour articles (I missed them at the bottom of the list). – Pee Jay 10:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of content is already in the main articles. Pharaoh496 (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt it. My !vote is a call for any relevant content not already in the main articles to be moved there, and then for these articles to be deleted. – Pee Jay 13:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You specified merge all and didnt mention delete. Also for the peer reviews, they were reviewed in the 2000s. Pharaoh496 (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment 2 - the Keith Miller 1948 article is a featured article and a merge proposal less than two months ago reached a consensus to merge to the main article which has yet to be actioned. A merge discussion regarding the Ricky Ponting 2008 article was started in March 2024 and remains open. JP (Talk) 17:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all. Well written fancruft. Desertarun (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Sweetser

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and has no particular claim to notability. JFHJr (㊟) 05:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Politics, Education, Europe, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've been able to locate a few sources on Sweetser. Per this book, Sweetser's (1888-1968) was a journalist and League of Nations' staff member whose dense and global relations almost completely escaped historians' attention, so it seems like he was an important figure but just hasn't been written about too much. I was also able to find some biographical coverage in a few different pages of this book. Additionally, this contemporary journal article provides coverage of him and one of his books. If this article is kept, this brief note contains biographical info which can be used to source it. There are around 2,000 mentions of him on newspapers.com for the period between 1915 and 1945; I haven't gone through all of them of course, but [1][2][3] were some big mentions that came up. Additionally, his obituaries ([4][5]) provide further biographical information which can be used to source the article if it is kept. Curbon7 (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest of Hadoti

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

Another "Conquest of X" article with 2-3 lines of passing mention: "In the battle that took place at Maholi many Hadas were killed and their families were brought to Mandu. The fort was handed over to Qadam Khan." Clearly it fails SIGCOV, not enough coverage to warrant a standalone article. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 10:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found this, which has a whole page dedicated to the subject at page 122. Also search on Google Scholar locates "Sharma, R.K., 1985. MILITARY SYSTEM OF THE KOTA STATE (C-1250 to 1947 AD). Скорина и скориниана, 13, p.65." I can't view the second one so I can't get any comment on how much content is devoted to the subject. TarnishedPath^talk 11:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath that is the whole different event around 1436. The whole page except the last para deals with the conquest of Hadoti by Rana Kumbha, It's the only last para of 4 lines which covers relevant content:
The political situation soon changed, when Mahmud Khilji came to throne in Malwa, He had undertaken several expeditions to bring Hadoti under his sphere of influence. Kumbha adopted a successful policy to give sufficient support to the Hadas against the invasions of the Sultan of Malwa. And that too doesn't describe the outcome. As I said it fails SIGCOV and it's just a meagre part of a different event. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 13:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're making an argument for updating the article, not deleting it. TarnishedPath^talk 13:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not. What I meant is that the given source is completely unrelated to this event which happened in 1459 not 1436 per above given source. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 15:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, It is clearly a POV article focusing on establishing the dominance of the Malwa Sultanate over the Kingdom of Mewar. The article does not have proper detail of events, and the WP:RS does not have enough mentioning of events like how the seige went and how the fort was conquered. Rawn3012 (talk) 11:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest of Mandaran

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG as there are no reliable sources which provide significant coverage of this event or mentions the event as Conquest of Mandaran. it relies heavily on Non-WP:RS sources. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 09:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military and India.
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reviewed all the sources before they were removed and all are poor and fail WP:HISTRS like a source where N.K. Sahu is an editor of a book that was contributed by William Wilson Hunter, WP:RAJ and sources by Nitish K. Sengupta who was an IAS officer in 1957 and served as the Revenue Secretary of the Government of India. No source has a paragraph enough to give depth on the Conquest of Mandaran Page fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretenders to the throne of Mexico

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

Follow-up to c. 60 "Line of succession to the former X throne" precedents, almost all of which resulted in Delete. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretenders to the throne of Parma. NLeeuw (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Royalty and nobility. NLeeuw (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretenders to the throne of Parma

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

Follow-up to c. 60 "Line of succession to the former X throne" precedents, almost all of which resulted in Delete. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretenders to the throne of Mexico. NLeeuw (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Royalty and nobility. NLeeuw (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given that these lists of post-monarchy-abolition pretenders seem to continue to prop up – either as stand-alone lists or as (redirects to) sections in (otherwise fine) articles – and have so far only been taken down case by case, except through the more coordinated efforts of User:TompaDompa and a few others, perhaps it is time to develop and adopt some guideline about this? Like WP:NCROY, but then specifically for lists of pretenders to royal and noble titles of monarchies that no longer exist, or of clans that no longer make any claims to legitimacy to an extant throne (e.g. Jacobite succession)? This would WP:CENTRALise discussion and make future AfDs and cleanups a lot easier. I would suggest a shortcut like WP:PRETENDER, although I'm not sure which guideline would be the best place for it. NLeeuw (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’d support this. Mccapra (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I'm guessing this is in reference to the 40 "Line of succession to the former throne of X" articles that were deleted back in 2020 (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40). TompaDompa (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kleftopolemos

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

Poorly written and translated article that contains nothing but a version of guerilla warfare, written from a Greek nationalist POV. There is nothing in here that is specific to the Greek War of Independence and cannot be applied to guerrilla movements more broadly (ambushes, raids, small group tactics, field fortifications), as the article itself sort of admits. Delete and redirect to guerrilla warfare. Constantine ✍ 12:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Greece. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Surely, the first time anyone thought of an ambush was in the 19th century... Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Demetrios1993 (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American involvement in the 2013–2014 Ukrainian Revolution

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

Original research and WP:POVFORK, including fringe content. Any notable content can be merged into existing articles. NoonIcarus (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Ukraine, and United States of America. NoonIcarus (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge/Redirect or Draftify: Notable subject with WP:RS to back it up.--David Tornheim (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [add new options. reasoning here 22:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)][reply]
Could you identify sources currently used in the article that establish notability for the topic, quoting from them if they are not available online? --Hipal (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original version of the article had 114 citations and 5 works cited. Are you really claiming that all most every single one of those citations are meaningless in establishing notability? --David Tornheim (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taking reliable sources and cherry-picking facts out of them to create a picture opposite to their conclusions will get us an article worth deleting. I tried to assess the article and this is the impression I got: Talk:American involvement in the 2013–2014 Ukrainian Revolution#c-Manyareasexpert-20240602172700-Rsk6400-20240602093400 and Talk:American involvement in the 2013–2014 Ukrainian Revolution#Neutrality, quality, sources . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to add to my original comment before you came in, that I do agree that there is WP:SYN in at least some of the article. I just made an offer to remove some of it Talk:American_involvement_in_the_2013–2014_Ukrainian_Revolution#Original_research_WP:OR_/_WP:SYN here. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not RS but fringe, as Rsk6400 has mentioned. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is based on non-mainstream sources and supports the fringe theory that the Revolution of Dignity was in some way engineered by the West / the U.S. / the CIA. Reliable historians like Andreas Kappeler, Timothy Snyder, and Serhii Plokhy don't even mention the subject of the article (and are not used by the author of that article). Rsk6400 (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added quotes from Timothy Snyder and Serhii Plokhy. Regarding Andreas Kappeler. Not sure why not all his books have been translated into English if this researcher is so important. Any other questions regarding the sources used in the article? Алексей Юрчак (talk) 03:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Snyder quote you added[6] clearly shows the insignificance of American involvement. Did you read the context[7] ? Did you really understand the meaning of the expression "That was the best bit they [the Russians] could come up with." ? Rsk6400 (talk) 06:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm talking about. Taking sources and composing an article presenting a view opposite to what's in those sources. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: POVFORK. This is not even an encyclopedia article, nor a personal essay. It looks like content taken haphazardly out of a larger article, and some aspects of it suggest AI-written content. If the topic is notable, a total rewrite would be required. --Hipal (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this clear pov fork. Listing a bunch of comments from officials tied together with fringe writers and a huge over emphasis on stuff tangentially related to the protests with the clear aim of pushing a fringe theory is beyond wp:undue—blindlynx 21:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who exactly do you mean by "fringe writers"? Алексей Юрчак (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I too would like to know which of the authors used in the article are as insane and out of touch with reality as the people who believe in the Flat Earth. Authors cited include university professors and other academics, mainstream Western press, etc. Please identify at the article talk page, so we can delete any authors that are that crazy. I opened a section on the talk page here for this purpose: Talk:American_involvement_in_the_2013–2014_Ukrainian_Revolution#Claims_of_Fringe_--_which_authors?--David Tornheim (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem I see with the article is Taking reliable sources and cherry-picking facts out of them to create a picture opposite to their conclusions. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, the fringe is contained to the conclusions the article draws from the cherry picked stuff—blindlynx 15:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did look at Timothy Snyder and it's clear he is dismissive of the importance of Nuland's behavior in giving food to protesters and of the leaked phone call. He sees the coup as driven by a popular mass movement ("the work of more than a million people presenting their bodies to the cold stone") and hence any behavior by the U.S. as inconsequential. In a case like this, the Wiki article can be corrected by accurately including Snyder's opinion.--David Tornheim (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You calling it a 'coup' does not inspire confidence given that academic consensus is that it was not a coup and that that language is used by russian propaganda—blindlynx 17:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got the term from John Mearsheimer--who Britannica identifies as "a prominent American scholar of international relations"--who published this piece link in Foreign Affairs calling it a coup. You're not suggesting he is a Russian troll and Russian propagandist are you? Why do I have the feeling a bunch of editors will now jump on Mearsheimer's article, find everything possible to discredit him, and try to make him out to be a "fringe" figure for using the term "coup"?

I did find this article by Michael McFaul that directly challenges Mearsheimer's take. But even his critic identifies him as "one of the most consistent and persuasive theorists in the realist school of international relations."

Although I do suspect Mearsheimer's view is a minority opinion--especially among Western commentators--his explanation is well argued and convincing. He speaks with authority. That said, I am not as familiar as with the other sources, other than mainstream news sources like CNN, New York Times, and MSNBC, and other similar sources that come up in Google searches, many of which unfortunately resurrect and repeat the Cold War tropes advanced by the Democrats about the "evil" Russians that I had to endure when I was a kid--until suddenly they became human when the Berlin Wall came down.

I am not suggesting the Wikipedia articles use the word coup, because I have no doubt there are plenty of Western sources that don't call it that. Even Al Jazeera put the term in quotes here.

Because it bothers you, I'll try to avoid using the term on talk pages too--unless attributed to Mearsheimer or someone of similar academic standing. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mearsheimer is widely criticized, you could read that in an article on him if it would not get removed [8] . So yes, his views on this are a minority. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Mearsh has very rapidly lost credibility and has been pretty consistently panned in IR an Pol Theory circles because of his views on the war. Sadly, someone being a well respected in a field does not automatically make them immune from being fringe in some cases Nobel disease and arguments from authority are both things we should be weary of---especially in the case of someone as plainly arrogant as Mearsheimer.

It is worth noting that among other problems his writings on Ukraine is at odds with his own celebrated theories in 'Great power politics'. Not to mention that he consistently down plays Ukrainian's agency which is deeply troubling all on it's own.

For what it's worth thank you for understanding why such language is deeply problematic.

([9], [10], and even [11]) —blindlynx 21:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To Improve the Article: Please help identify any WP:OR/WP:SYN here: Talk:American_involvement_in_the_2013–2014_Ukrainian_Revolution#Original_research_WP:OR_/_WP:SYN. Please identify any claims of "Fringe authors" here: Talk:American_involvement_in_the_2013–2014_Ukrainian_Revolution#Claims_of_Fringe_--_which_authors?.--David Tornheim (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This whole article seems to be a POVFORK giving undue weight to the Kremlin-backed conspiracy theory that the USA was behind the 2014 Ukrainian revolution. It has many issues, which have been raised on this talkpage and which I've tagged in the article itself. It cherrypicks sources, as well as details from those sources, to push this fringe theory. It also cherrypicks events and statements that seem to support the theory, going into excessive detail on them, while ignoring or downplaying others that don't. Swathes of the article also go into great detail about things barely related to the protests, seemingly to push a narrative. I think it's absurd that a lengthy article has been written on this but not on Russia's large-scale direct involvement. Even if all the excess was trimmed and all the other issues were dealt with, the article's existence would still promote a pro-Kremlin conspiracy theory. Anything useful here can put (back) into the articles Revolution of Dignity, Euromaidan, Ukraine–United States relations etc. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 12:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the strong support for delete, could we instead turn the article into a draft in either Алексей Юрчак's userspace, mine, or somewhere else relevant--such as one of the articles you mention? Or make it a merge/redirect? (per your recommendation "Anything useful here can put (back) into the articles Revolution of Dignity, Euromaidan, Ukraine–United States relations etc.")

Even if the consensus is that it is unlikely to ever become an article, I do think there are valuable sources related to Revolution_of_Dignity, Revolution_of_Dignity#United_States_support, etc. and it would be preferable to have a history of the discussion of those sources, quotes of those sources, and concerns raised here and on the talk page about both. I think it would be helpful to keep the history rather than have all that effort thrown into the garbage can--which is what happens when an article is deleted.

I have changed my iVote accordingly. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just merged all that I thought worthy of preservation to the section at Revolution of Dignity. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those edits preserved very little of the many sources and quotes of the original showing the U.S.'s actions and interactions with Ukraine leading up to the protests, during the protests, and immediately after Yanukovych left. This is why I suggest we make sure the original article is either drafitied or the article is changed to a redirect--to preserve the relevant material that has not been included. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe (sic) authors and cherry-picked sources are not "showing" anything. Even if you don't want to listen: WP follows mainstream. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What else do you want to keep? The discussions are all about why most of the article doesn't belong in an encyclopedia—blindlynx 15:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polish raid on Kievan Rus' (1136)

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

WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:PRIMARY, WP:GNG, WP:NPOV. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bolesław II the Bold's expedition to Kiev (1076–1077). User:SebbeKg created this article on 18 February 2024, 4 days before he was blocked indefinitely for Adding poorly sourced content, false accusations of vandalism. We still need to clean up the rubbish he added, checking whether there is anything left of value, and throwing away the rest. Bolesław II the Bold's expedition to Kiev (1076–1077) was deleted on 27 May. Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135) was AfD'd previously, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135), resulting in no consensus. But Marcelus did the right thing by removing all informations referenced to primary sources, as obvious OR. I decided to WP:BOLDly turn it into a redirect to Wiślica#History, where I added 1 sentence to summarise the incident based on a source which Piotrus and Marcelus agreed was RS.

As for this article itself, it is clearly written completely from a point of view of later Polish chroniclers who invented lots of details out of their own volition, dramatising and exaggerating stories they had heard or read about. This whole text is basking in emotions of "revenge for Wiślica". Evidently, there was a Volhynian raid on Wiślica in 1135, but I have not been able to find any sort of "Polish" retaliation against "Kievan Rus" in the next year. It is striking that not a single toponym is mentioned in this article, except the vague " Entire communities surrounding the Principality of Volhynia". No standard history work on Kievan Rus' I consulted mentions this event. Not even the Kievan Chronicle, that has quite detailed entries for every year, says anything about 1135, let alone 1136. (There was a raging conflict between the Monomakhovichi of Kiev and the Olgovichi of Chernigov in the north and centre, but no hint of a conflict between Poles and Volhynians on the western edges of the realm). If there really was a frenzied massacre, sparing no Ruthenian soul in Volhynia in 1136, the Kievan Chronicle and modern literature would have talked about it. There is no reason for us Wikipedians to take the fanciful claims of later Polish chronicles at face value, especially from the hands of a now-blocked user with a poor record of using sources on this topic. NLeeuw (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Poland, and Ukraine. NLeeuw (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. First, I'll note that I reverted the de-facto blanking of Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135). There was no consensus to delete the article, so I find what happened since (Marcelus removal of 95% of the article, and then your redirecting it) to be against the outcome of the AfD. Feel free to start a new AfD for it if you desire (although note I've also modernized the article by adding the RS we found, which pretty much states the event might be a fabrication by old chroniclers... - but, IMHO, it is a notable topic).
Now, regarding the article nominated here. I do agree that the creator of this (these) articles was overly reliant on old primary sources. The article nominated here has only one footnote to a presumed modern source, and poorly formatted at that. I would be fine with this being redirected to the "Ruthenian raid...", if we can find a single non-historical mention of this event in modern RS. Otherwise, well, can't justify keeping this due to problematic sourcing to ~1000 year old chronicles whose authors clearly liked to invent history, not just record it :( I.e. in the current state, afer all I wrote, I guess I am not leaning to weak delete this one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus Thanks for your input. I responded at length at Talk:Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135)#Historiography for discussion on the 1135 event. It is interesting, but complicated.

For the 1136 article, did you mean to say "I am *now leaning" instead of I am not leaning? NLeeuw (talk) 08:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw Yes, I am leaning. Sorry, was writing while taking care of a baby :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Doljești and Orbic

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

I could not find any sources to prove that these events took place in the dates mentioned, which would fail WP:NEVENT. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Moldova, and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Campaigns of Nader Shah

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

The article doesn't have any source for its notability. There's no source explicitly mentioning "Naderian Wars" or "Campaigns of Nader Shah" with its fictitious timeline. Clearly it's full of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH mess, It's just impersonating Napoleonic Wars. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 12:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked at the equivalent articles on other wikis and most are barely sourced spam but the Italian one is extensively written and has numerous sources. I don’t think the nominator has clearly established that no sources use this term. Mccapra (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is indeed no source defining "Naderian Wars" or "Campaigns of Nader Shah" as a whole. At this rate anyone can create articles on the campaigns of any other personalities, but we have to make sure that sources do cover such campaigns or wars instead of covering some battles. Unlike Napoleonic Wars, it doesn't have any source for defining "Naderian Wars". Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 13:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find it a bit ironic that the nominator themself just recently made an article that is exactly the way they have described this one [12], whose deletion [13] they are opposing. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not ironic when I have myself asked to draftify the article so it can be improved. Could you please go through WP:AADP? Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 13:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify will not fix a WP:OR and WP:SYNTH mess that shouldn't exist in the first place (also, you initially pushed for a keep very hard, so you're not being completely honest here). If anything, you're the one who needs to go through our guidelines. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran Well, at least the sources I have cited do cover Devapala's conflicts with Tibet but that's not the case here. Can you give us a source where "Naderian Wars" is covered notably. And I still don't get why you are bringing other topics to this discussion. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 13:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick search at Scholar finds a multitude of sources. There is no reason whatever to claim that a source is off-topic just because it doesn't have two specific phrases. Just search for "Nader Shah" and lots of sources that describe his campaigns come up. The article is about a historical phenomenon, not about a phrase. The article at present is not well written and needs a lot more inline sourcing, but that is not an AfD issue. Zero^talk 03:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And at the same time, we don't find a source explicitly covering "Naderian Wars". Hope we are not creating "Campaigns of X" and "Campaigns of Y" just because there are lots of sources on X and Y. The article is full OR and SYNTH at best. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 13:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to understand the role of article titles. There are only a few articles where the title is the subject of the article. Usually the title defines the topic and there is no need for the sources to even mention the words that are in the title provided they address the same topic. Also if the article has OR and SYNTH that's reason to clean it up, not reason to delete it. The role of AfD is to decide if the topic is suitable for an article, not to decide if an article is well written. Zero^talk 14:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That said I can work on "Campaigns of Khalid ibn al-Walid" or "Campaigns of Bajirao I" if I want? And also in these cases there are many sources dealing with their military career. Moreover I find in the above HistoryofIran's comment contradicting you; Draftify will not fix a WP:OR and WP:SYNTH mess that shouldn't exist in the first place, I guess we need more participation in this discussion. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 12:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can work on any topic that meets the guidelines for having an article. Also, HistoryofIran is mistaken about the role of OR and SYNTH at AFD, and has also not provided any evidence of those defects being present. The only relevance would if there was something about the topic that prevented a policy-conformant article, which is obviously not the case. Zero^talk 13:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I think there has been a misunderstanding here. I was not referring to this article. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable topic and fair split from main biographical and region history articles. Sourcing and citations could be improved and infobox trimmed, but those are editing problems, not deletion criteria. Folly Mox (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just asking. Is it fair to combine all the campaigns and wars of historical figures in one article even if it's not given pass by reliable sources? Doesn't that come under WP:SYNTH? Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 18:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is normal to use multiple sources to create articles. It only becomes SYNTH when we use a combination of sources to draw conclusions that are not drawn by any of the sources. Zero^talk 13:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Short History of the Sudan

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

Completely unsourced; I can't find a single source that doesn't refer to the much shorter work by Margaret Shinnie. Rusalkii (talk) 04:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, History, Sudan, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mandour El Mahdi as an AtD. Published by a major university publisher; it may have received reviews in the 1960s (or for later reprints) that aren't available online. Redirect until/unless someone manages to locate such coverage. Jfire (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mandour El Mahdi with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources of the book. I support a redirect to the author's article, where the book is already mentioned.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here is a passing mention I found about the subject:
1. Fluehr-Lobban, Carolyn; Lobban Jr., Richard A.; Voll, John Obert (1992). Historical Dictionary of the Sudan (2 ed.). Metuchen, New Jersey: The Scarecrow Press. p. 251. ISBN 0-8108-2547-3. Retrieved 2024-06-05 – via Internet Archive.
  The source provides a passing mention about the subject. The book notes: "General reference works of special value are Richard Hill, A Biographical Dictionary of the Sudan, which covers ancient times to the 20th Century; Mandour el-Mahdi, Short History of the Sudan, presents a summary of Sudanese history from antiquity to present times; and two general, multidisciplinary descriptions are H. D. Nelson, Area Handbook for the Democratic Republic of the Sudan, published by the U. S. Government Printing Office, and Sudan Today, prepared by the Sudanese Ministry of Information and Culture."
Cunard (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Lushchai

AfDs for this article:

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

While it's not a G4, it does not appear that the issues raised that led to the prior version being deleted have been resolved. Lushchai was a wonderful person and active Wikipedian but does not appear notable as an author. WP:NOTAMEMORIAL unfortunately applies. Star Mississippi 02:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Ukraine. Star Mississippi 02:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, History, Military, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want just to note that I wasn't the one who moved the article to main space. Though I personally think that he is notable, I would be OK with submitting article later with more sources, which are listed on Russian Wikipedia forum and on Wikinews. BilboBeggins (talk) 06:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But there is significant coverage of the person. And lack of English language sources is never an argument for deletion.

I would also like to note thst I am XFD closer on ruwiki, and User:Андрей Романенко who moved the article is long-serving administrator on ruwiki. So we might now something about notability rules, right? BilboBeggins (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Different languages have different rules as far as notability. No one is saying he isn't notable on RU wiki, and non English sources are 100% welcome but may not meet the bar needed for notability as required here. Star Mississippi 13:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is his biography in the source listed.

There are also plenty of Russian language sources in his death, but they are not neutral and I would rather not include them in the article. BilboBeggins (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NOTMEMORIAL. Simply being a Wikipedian is rarely notable, the rest are stories of his passing. Nothing for notability. His life before death was very much non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His notability is also due to him being a poet and scientist. BilboBeggins (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To my mind, the key source for this case is the op-ed at Radio Liberty arguing at some length for the special status of Lushchai as a cultural figure. This was not the reason behind keeping the article about this person in ru.wiki, there the closing admin opted for other criteria. Possibly other available sources don't provide so direct and clear reasoning for Lushchai's notability. However, other memorial articles (like this, for instance) also provide significant coverage of his life and are independent of the aforementioned op-ed. All in all I see this person as notable according to WP:BASIC. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Andrei Romanenko above. — Maile (talk) 03:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is significant coverage in reliable sources. The article has enough prose, there is biography, death and legacy section. It could have been nominated for RD had it been in the same state back then. BilboBeggins (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La guerra civile

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

This article is very odd. It started life as what appears to be a personal essay/content fork about Italian politics (entirely sourced to La guerra civile) under the title Terrorism in Italy since 1945, then at some point someone misinterpreted the content as about the book itself and content about that book introduced and the essay stuff removed, so for the past 13 years it's been about the book, but under the original title. I tried to find sources under that title, failed for 20 minutes, realized what happened, and moved the page.

Anyway, still can't find any reviews/analysis/sources. It's probable they may exist given the language barrier and very generic title, but I couldn't find any. If sufficient sources are presented I can withdraw. As an ATD if there are no sources redirect to the author Giovanni Pellegrino. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Italy. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and Terrorism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles in England

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

WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN WP:UNSOURCED. Follow-up to

List of battles in Albania Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Albania
List of battles in Algeria Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Algeria
List of battles in Belgium Draftified
List of battles in Croatia Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Croatia
List of battles in Afghanistan Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Afghanistan
List of battles in medieval India Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in medieval India
List of conflicts in Egypt Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of conflicts in Egypt. NLeeuw (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and England. NLeeuw (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nederlandse Leeuw, I see no issues with the article, but it should have been merged not deleted. Am i getting this right. I split them because the parent article was very large, yet that lists don't have to be sourced. I would like to merge the content to List of battles by geographic location. I have no idea why my creations are getting reduced; I am current not happy with it. Toadette^Edit! 23:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, why don't you also nominate List of battles by geographic location too? Toadette^Edit! 23:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you're not happy about the fact that I am successively nominating articles for deletion that you just so happen to have created. I rarely look at who created it, only at what the contents are, and how valuable they might be. I've got nothing against you or your work in particular. That said, these split-offs are a cut & paste job that takes less than 5 minutes of effort each. Recycling existing content is a lot easier than writing brand new articles with proper sourcing.

The reason why I am nominating the lists is in this manner is that I am following a step-by-step approach, building broad consensus based on easy precedents before going on to complex cases. Since actively participating in CfD and AfD from 2023, I learnt that that is the most realistic strategy to solving issues, and avoid WP:TRAINWRECKs. The second reason is that List of battles by geographic location had already been AfD'd in 2022, closing as Keep but Split: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles by geographic location. If I still want to get it deleted anyway, then overturning that consensus is going to be difficult. The split-offs provide a good opportunity to show in smaller cases why creating lists of battles by modern countries' geographical borders is not very useful, and difficult to justify when done almost completely WP:UNSOURCED. It seems to be working, as 4 split-off lists have already been deleted, and a consensus has been building that they should be deleted, especially most recently in the Croatia case.

The new round I am going for now is Afghanistan, England, Egypt, and medieval India. You didn't create the latter two articles, so this is nothing personal. If all 4 are deleted as proposed, then perhaps I may nominate List of battles by geographic location next. But we'll see what fellow editors have to say first. Good day. NLeeuw (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -- This is a well-populated list, which provides better detail than is available from a category. It might be useful to purge by moving battles of the Civil War (War of the three kingdoms into a more specific list. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: List of battles in Afghanistan, List of battles in medieval India and List of conflicts in Egypt have just been deleted with a lot of participants and almost unanimous support. I wonder why it's so quiet here. NLeeuw (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Military history of England. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bronwyn Labrum

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. No inherent notability in the roles she held. LibStar (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, History, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just barely. The Stuff profile and Wanganui Chronicle article establish some notability. I'm not sure if WP:AUTHOR is the only criteria that applies here, as she has been a curator and researcher at multiple museums and universities, most notably Te Papa which is the New Zealand national museum. To me, this establishes notability as an academic. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 08:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does she meet WP:NACADEMIC? LibStar (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Likely passes AUTHOR as "Ockham New Zealand Book Awards finalist in 2016" per [14] and some book reviews here [15] and [16]. Appears to be a published academic author as well. Oaktree b (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: She also edited this rather comprehensive volume on clothing in NZ [17] Oaktree b (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Barwara (1757)

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

The whole article relies on WP:RAJ and out dated sources (WP:AGE MATTERS) and there is no mention of “Siege of Barwara (1757)” in the sources. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 09:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RAJ is not a policy or guideline. It is an essay on the quality of sources on the Indian caste system and those written by Britons or Briton diplomats and administrators or under the guidance and review of Briton administrators like Lepel Griffin, Michael MacAuliffe, Sir John Withers McQueen. Indian historians like Sarkar's sources are used because historians today depend on their secondary work. Sarkar is an eminent historian and is perfectly reliable. Source still needs to be reviewed and verified. RangersRus (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if WP:RAJ doesn't applies here it is still not a reliable source as per WP:AGE MATTERS and this is the only source used in the article thus it fails WP:GNG too. Mnbnjghiryurr (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock. RangersRus (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If old sources have become obsolete due to coverage in new sources then AGE matters and it does not apply here. Multiple sources are expected but there is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage. RangersRus (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just found it at RSN. Hope this helps to evaluate the reliability of Jadunath Sarkar. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 16:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, it clearly fails WP:GNG & there is only one sourced used in this article (Fall of the Mughal Empire by Jadunath Sarkar) which is not a reliable source as per WP:AGE MATTERS. Mnbnjghiryurr (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock. RangersRus (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I had to wait to be able to find the source on the page for verification. Source by Sarkar has enough coverage from page 191 to 193 on the siege. The name of location is Barwada not Barwara (spelling error?). Page passes general notability guidelines. RangersRus (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Nom & it fails WP:GNG Chauthcollector (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elmslie typology

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the typology in reliable sources. I found several mentions, but they were brief. toweli (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The typology is potentially important and is often referred to but full publication and critical discussion are hard to find. In fact, this article is one of the fullest detailed explanations easily available, yet is lacking in citations back to RS original publication or critical coverage. Would suggest we need an article on this typology but serious revision is in order to tackle the source issues. Monstrelet (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A necessary counterpart to the Oakshott system for double-edged blades. I agree that better sourcing is necessary, but I see no need to trim back to only the sourced parts. Most low-rated articles lack full sourcing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mughal–Kashmir Wars

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

This article literally has no sources or content in it. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 05:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than deleting the page, editors should work on it and improve it. It's an actual war provided with sufficient sources. Lightningblade23 (talk) 10:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The war is historically accurate. Citations and content can be added and the article can be improved but its deletion wouldn't be in good faith.EditorOnJob (talk) 12:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify. Poor, unreliable and unverifiable sources excluding two by Mohibbul Hasan and Majumdar. The complete page is from source by Mohibbul Hasan from page 183 to 186 that has a mention of two wars fought in 1527 won by Kashmir Sultanates and the other in 1528 won by Mughals. Majumdar source is used for mention of Khanua battle that has nothing to do with Mughal-Kashmir wars. None of the other sources have any ascription. The page numbers on source templates for Hasan are wrong. The creator of the page should hold back from primary sources like Chādūrah, Ḥaydar Malik who was an administrator and soldier under Mughal emperor in 17th century, Baharistan-i-shahi, a Persian manuscript written by an anonymous author, presumably in early 17th century, Tarikh-i Firishta written by Muhammad Qasim Ferishta presumably between 16th and 17th century and also Babur-nama. Page is also WP:SYNTH when you read a content written "The Mughals faced the Chaks at Naushahra and, despite early success, were defeated and forced to retreat back to India." No phases of wars are supported by reliable sources. Draftify vote is if the creator can bring on reliable sources to support many phases of wars to consider the page an actual full fledged Mughal-Kashmir Sultanate wars. RangersRus (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another WP:SYNTH like few other recently deleted pages revolving around the same subjects. Azuredivay (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess recent contributions to the article since the deletion nomination says it has no sources and that is no longer true.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per RangersRus. Mccapra (talk) 08:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bombing of Toncontín International Airport

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

Unneccessary WP:FORK of Football War, already covered there in a few sentences. Page unlikely to be expanded nor new RS published Mztourist (talk) 05:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

u can delete if u want Wikidude2243 (talk) 06:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

or i i can change text Wikidude2243 (talk) 06:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i can change the text Wikidude2243 (talk) 06:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, El Salvador, and Honduras. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imperium (film series)

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

The article is unsourced. I don't see why this topic deserves an article as there are no sources on the Imperium series, only sources on the individual movies. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, History, and Romania. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

V. N. Srinivasa Rao

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

I do not think that this person meets the criteria for notability. I have been unable to find any reference to him other than the The Hindu article (https://web.archive.org/web/20240317044514/https://www.thehindu.com/features/friday-review/history-and-culture/the-lawyer-as-a-writer/article4683660.ece), which just effectively said it was nice to read. And cryptic metadata from library websites who happen to have the book (which seems to just be stanford and nyu https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/in00000071311 ) Mason (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Law, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment he was pretty clearly a Madras barrister[18]. He's cited for appearances a number of times in the Madras Law Journal[19]. I'm not finding a lot more than that.
Are you questioning whether the Madras chief justices book exists? It is held by 8 WorldCat Participating libraries. The comment about cryptic metadata doesn't make sense. Oblivy (talk) 07:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe you are confusing notability and verifiability. Just because a source is hard to find doesn't mean it isn't reliable. See WP:PAYWALL. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I used my university's library to see if I could find anything else on the subject. My comment on cryptic meta data was that that was literally the only additional information I could find about him. I am not rejecting the source, for being difficult to get access to. My point was that there was literately nothing else when I searched other than that metadata. Typically for someone to meet notability they have to be covered by multiple sources. And, I can't find any support for independent coverage. The book in question wasn't even something he published. The book was edited by another person long after his death. Mason (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Will respond more at bottom. Oblivy (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage on the subject in the sources which are also poor. Subject does not meet basic criteria to be considered notable due to insignificant coverage in multiple published, secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If this criteria can be met, I would reconsider my vote. RangersRus (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closer. Page was created by sockpuppet and is good for WP:G5 speedy deletion. RangersRus (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RangersRus, this article is not eligible for CSD G5. You've made this kind of comment several times which is a mistaken interpretation of G5. Please review WP:CSD carefully. G5 is for block evasion, not simply for being the work of a sockpuppet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I striked my comment. Is it right though that "when a blocked or banned person uses an alternate account (sockpuppet) to avoid a restriction, any pages created via the sock account after the earliest block or ban of any of that person's accounts qualify for G5"? WP:G5. RangersRus (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see an SPI on 21 March and this article was created 19 March. Blocks were in April. Perhaps I'm misreading or missing something? Oblivy (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G5 does not apply to the initial accounts that are blocked for socking if they are not evading a block at that point. It only applies to the articles created by accounts that come after the initial case/block.

In this case, both the accounts were used simultaneously and neither of them had an active block. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided. Just FYI, a general comment for all AFDs, when an editor says "seems like" or "likely" or "appears to be" it means to me that the editor hasn't read or seen the sources and are basing their opinion on attributes like the title or the publisher. If that's the case, it's good not to have an absolutist opinion on what should happen with an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I am right down the middle on this. This guy seems to have been a prominent barrister, wrote a number of books including a treatise on administrative law. Maybe also wrote about temples (not sure if it's the same author).

But I've tried to find the sources, and don't find anything substantial about him except for the two links on the page, and as @Smasongarrison points out above that's a book by him, or perhaps comprising judgments curated by him. And one The Hindu journalist who liked his book.

Complaints about the origin of the article are, subject to further developments, misplaced. The author seems to have a particular interest[20] in Calamur.

If, on chance, there is someone out there who can improve this article let them do it. It will not be me. There's a conversation over unblocking going on so perhaps @Hölderlin2019 will live to edit another day. Oblivy (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be onboard with draftifying. If he were in my subject area, I'd inter-library loan the book. Maybe someone will be so motivated. Mason (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Draftify, either one. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Hindu source is fine, but it's one source. I don't find anything in Gscholar or Books, there are some papers he's written on various aspects of the law, but these don't affect notability here. I think there could be more sourcing in the local language, but I can't locate any. Oaktree b (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W. G. Grace's cricket career (1864 to 1870)

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

Too much cruft, must be deleted as per convention to remove the australian fanfict articles Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, History, Cricket, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

Pharaoh496 (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging @JoelleJay @Trainsandotherthings @Serial Number 51429 as I have seen them in support for such article removals Pharaoh496 (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:APPNOTE says "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it." James500 (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naughty, WP:CANVASSing shouldn't be carried out! AA (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is clear WP:CANVASSing of people they expect to vote with them. This canvassing should be considered by the closer of this AFD. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AA @James500 like I replied to Joseph2302 on my talk - I have pinged those who also voiced against such votes. The sole purpose of me pinging them was to invite more people into the discussion. I dont cherry pick people of one stance and bring them here. Afaik; thats allowed by the first para in WP:CANVASS. Pharaoh496 (talk) 06:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ill take that my wording says otherwise - my intentions dont Pharaoh496 (talk) 06:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is lurking around this now, Id suggest also checking out this. Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What are you referring to by "australian fanfict articles"? -1ctinus📝🗨 01:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948, discussion to merge completed (please see said discussion)
- Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1956 and Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1953 already merged, deleted earlier. However this set of wg grace articles have hardly one ga, so many stubs and other full of stuff not required. They arent notable enough for wikipedia.
Pharaoh496 (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the two pages was merged they should not have been deleted. Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. If you copy some text from another Wikipedia page it should be clear in the edit summary and/or the talk page where the text came from. Wikipedia is not public domain. Christian75 (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I havent done that mate, just nominated these pages Pharaoh496 (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I was pinged to this discussion, and that I'm not a fan of these articles, I believe we should delete all as fundamental violations of WP:NOT as cricket statistics turned into articles due to one person's consumption by what I like to call the cricket insanity. They are also clearly non-notable as the sources cover Grace's entire career, not simply his performance in any given event. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably merge the shorter articles, with less referencing, to larger articles covering longer periods of time. These articles do not consist entirely of statistics, though it may be appropriate to cut some material from them. A chronological split of our W G Grace article will satisfy GNG. See, for example, the coverage of the 1880s in Bax's chapter "The Glorious Eighties" [21]; the chapter on Grace in Portraits of the Eighties: [22]; Midwinter's chapters 7 and 8 on 1879 to 1891: [23]; and Darwin's chapter 6 on 1880 to 1891: [24]. So you could certainly write an article on W. G. Grace in the 1880s or the period 1879 to 1891. The question is not whether the main biography article should be split, but how. W G Grace is the subject of a large number of entire books, since he is probably considered the greatest cricketer of all time, so his biography is not realistically going to fit in a single article. James500 (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well other cricketers with longer careers do also have same articles. One new thing that has been inspired from football articles is a seperate career page - Career of Lionel Messi. Since Virat Kohli's page was long, I made this article Career of Virat Kohli. Maybe something similar? Pharaoh496 (talk) 04:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge all Is this a mockery of some sort? Sure you can split some details from the main article, but why the hell would you make more than a dozen subarticles, each with just a few paragraphs? WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:NOTSTATS come to mind here, we don't need prose sections for every season with the stats. Reywas92^Talk 20:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92, I don't think there's much content at all that could be merged. Having checked a few of the pages, much of the text is already repeated verbatim in the main bio. JoelleJay (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have never looked at these articles before, but would assume they would all be mostly more than a few sentences! The W. G. Grace in the 1878 English cricket season article can be selectively merged. AA (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – The player is very notable in Cricket, but it is possible to summarize the information in the main article, or recreate it in a less number of forks. Svartner (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Svartner, most of the info is already repeated verbatim in the main article. Would you support deletion? JoelleJay (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object. Svartner (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just a reminder, you can't argue for a Merge or a Redirect without providing a specific list of what the target article is for each article being discussed. The discussion closer carries out the consensus, they can't make these decisions up on their own. It's the discussants' role to provide a full resolution to an AFD nomination, not just an outcome. Otherwise, the closer might have to dismiss these kinds of opinions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean merging these various articles into something more direct, like "W. G. Grace's cricket career". I understand that it is possible to summarize the main content to avoid this number of forks. Svartner (talk) 08:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, I am not aware of any policy, guideline or consensus that says that. I do not think that is how we normally deal with mass proposals. The number of articles nominated, and the number of book chapters that would have to be examined, would make it difficult to compile a complete list of merger targets in the 7 days of an AfD. I think it is perfectly acceptable to say that articles should be merged in accordance with the scope of the chronological chapters in those books, and then leave the final determination to the WP:PROPMERGE process, which does not have a 7 day deadline. For the avoidance of doubt, I have proposed an intial merge of the relevant three articles to W. G. Grace's life from 1879 to 1891 based on the scope of the book chapters I mentioned. To insist that I provide, within 7 days, a list of each and every other target based on the other chronological chapters in those books (and their chapters are chronological) is certainly obstructive, and might confront me with a WP:FAITACCOMPLIS. I see no reason why a closing admin cannot look at the chronological scope of the chapters of those books. James500 (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are books even in question? Material / content from books do not have to be entirely pasted on here - WikiPedia isnt an alternative for any book. It should contain all relevant information - there is no point making a page of any period of life for any person. Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
James500, I'm just talking about the practical aspects of closing an AFD discussion. We use XFDCloser and if a closer closes a discussion as Merge, there must be an exiting target article included. It's part of the closure. And a closer is not supposed to be coming up with original solutions like deciding how articles should be divided up, they are supposed to determine consensus, that's all. If a closer did as you advise, they would be accused of making a "supervote" and probably brought to WP:AN or Deletion review where they would experience a deserved condemnation and mocking. I know because I was accused of making a supervote when I first started closing AFD discussions. No fun at all. So, I'll pass on following your advice. At this point, I've closed thousands of AFD discussions and I'm not going to invent some new solution for this one. But I feel involved now so I'll refrain from closing this discussion. I have a feeling that this discussion will close as "No consensus" unless there is agreement on a resolution that can be easily implemented. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like I mentioned - a seperate article called Career of W.G. Grace, which is like a few prexisting articles. That covers all Pharaoh496 (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Noting that I was pinged here after having participated in several other cricket career salami-slice article discussions (many non-AfDs). FWIW, I definitely would have !voted in this even without being pinged since I watch the sportspeople delsort. Anyway, I agree with TaOT and AA (!!!) that these articles are not salvageable and should be deleted (with maybe some content from the 1878 one merged?). They are largely prosifications of routine, primary stats reports from CricketArchive with a handful of trivial anecdotes and quotes sprinkled in. If there was anything from these time periods worth including in the main article it would not be from these articles and therefore merging is not appropriate.
As an example, of the 1871 sources: 34/58 sources are stats, corresponding to 1480/2348 words. Of the remainder, 777 are to presumably secondary independent sources, with 640 words outside the lead. Out of those 640, 411 are repeated verbatim (or nearly) in the main page. That leaves the total amount of content that could be merged at 229 words:
Grace turned 23 in July 1871
Grace in 1871 was principally involved with four teams: the Gentlemen, Gloucestershire County Cricket Club, Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) and the United South of England Eleven (USEE).
1871 was a wet summer and, even when the rain relented, there was a persistent chilly wind.[8] Grace, however, had the skill and resilience to cope with adverse conditions and some of his best batting performances were achieved on wet wickets.
This innings was played on a "sticky wicket" after rain and many people considered it the finest of Grace's career, though Grace himself disagreed.
Grace began the innings cautiously and took fifteen minutes to score his first run but then, records Rae, he "scored at a cracking pace".[9] MCC Secretary Harry Perkins had no doubts and insisted that it was Grace's greatest-ever performance with rain frequently stopping play and making the wicket at times "unplayable".
Grace's presence ensured a bumper crowd with over £400 being taken at the gate. This money went a long way towards the £1500 that Nottinghamshire needed to erect the Trent Bridge Pavilion.
Simon Rae remarked that cricket enthusiasts still argue about Grace's "greatest season" and that 1871 features in any such discussion.
He took 79 wickets at 17.02 with a best analysis of 7–67. He claimed five wickets in an innings 5 times and twice had 10 in a match.
The bolded "finest" innings being referred to is from a "Married v. Single" first-class match, which I've gone ahead and merged into the main article (with author attribution). The rest of the material is trivial or would be redundant. Considering the 1871 page is one of the few containing any unique non-trivial, non-primary content, I think it is reasonable to consider the rest of the articles unsalvageable forks that should be deleted rather than merged. JoelleJay (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh btw, I also finnaly nominated that dusty bunch of the 1948 ashes articles. Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cruft-based forks of the main biography. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since there's a valid ATD on the table, per Liz's comment, it would be helpful to know what information should be merged and to where.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The previous relister's concerns remain unanswered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Doczilla. You know perfectly well that I have already said, in express and unambiguous words, on two separate occasions, with this edit and this edit that the three articles W. G. Grace's cricket career (1879 to 1882), W. G. Grace's cricket career (1883 to 1886) and W. G. Grace's cricket career (1887 to 1891) should be merged together to form a single article at W. G. Grace's life from 1879 to 1891. You have been clearly told what to merge and where to merge it to. Please do not pretend that you cannot read what I have said. James500 (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - because Wikipedia isn't a mirror to hold minute by minute biographical details of a person. WP:NOTMIRROR Also I oppose a merge because that would create a massive wall of words that totally overstate the person's actual importance. We are supposed to be editors which implies distilling subjects down to the important points and not trying to write down every last fact we can find about a subject. JMWt (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge W.G. Grace was the outstanding cricketer of his time, but we only should have one biographical article on his career. The existence of multiple articles looks like an attempt to use WP as if it were a book, not an encyclopaedia. Having a book length biography would of course be wholly legitimate, but not within WP.

Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these pages go into unnecessary excruciating detail over his career. I oppose a merge/redirect because (1) the relevant information needed the main W.G. Grace article, and (2) these titles are highly unlikely search terms. For example, someone looking for information about W. G. Grace's cricket career between 1879 and 1882 is far more likely to search for Grace himself and find the appropriate content on his article, rather than searching for the oddly specific "W. G. Grace's cricket career (1879 to 1882)." Frank Anchor 18:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput Mughal marriage alliances

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:OR written to promote a POV. The topic itself is not notable that it would need a separate article.Ratnahastin (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It isn't well written and could use a more analytic overview, but the large number of sources is more than enough to establish notability. Marriages were an important aspect of diplomacy in many countries, as shown in Royal intermarriage. Zero^talk 09:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are comparing a GA article with a poorly written article that mainly relies on outdated unreliable sources and fails to establish notability. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Poorly written" is totally irrelevant at AFD. Also only a fraction of the sources are primary and more than half do not date from the RAJ. The fact that you link "unreliable" to PRIMARY suggests that you don't understand either. This article needs a good clean-up, that's all, as the topic is obviously significant. Zero^talk 12:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.This is a good article based on NPOV. I don't think so this article should be deleted because it has more than 53 reliable sources produced by various independent writers. It would be a significant loss if this article were deleted since it may require copyediting but not deletion, practically all sources are reputable, and the article fits the general notability criterion. The Mughal Rajput marital partnerships were a significant occurrence in Indian history during the 16th and 17th century so it should remain on free encyclopedia.2404:3100:188E:2F21:1:0:94AA:65C8 (talk)— 2404:3100:188E:2F21:1:0:94AA:65C8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete WP:SYNTH at best. I don't see any need for having an article on this subject. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Full of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH mess. There was no such thing as "Rajput-Mughal marriage alliances" in the cited sources. Based Kashmiri (talk) 06:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not denying that these marriages didn't happen, but the topic is not notable. Lorstaking (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Mughal Empire. Some reliable sources on the page from John F. Richards (historian), Ruby Lal (historian), Bonnie G. Smith (historian), Jayashree Vivekanandan (senior research associate), Barbara Ramusack, Satish Chandra (historian), David O. Morgan (historian), Anthony Reid (historian) and few others help with verification of the content on the page. Passes WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 12:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I mainly see it as a fork of various articles. I don't believe a merge would be needed. Srijanx22 (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly pass WP:GNG Most sources are reliable and meet the criteria of notability, as most of the references are written by notable individual authors, viz., Jayashree Vivekanandan (senior research associate), Barbara Ramusack, Satish Chandra (historian), David O. Morgan (historian), and some others.Feniles (talk)— Feniles (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Page seems to be illogical and a mixture of Tales. There isn't any particular record of such marriages Rudra Simha (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable topic mainly in western india (as the most classical example of Mariam uz Zamani and Akbar marriage belong to Rajasthan), cleanup of this article is required for better overview and number of reliable sources is also enough. TheSlumPanda (talk) 07:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is as trivial as it gets and Wikipedia appears to be the only source right now that happened to make a topic out of it. There are no WP:HISTRS sources that have provided coverage to this topic. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't see any validity of the topic or existence of an actual "marriage alliance". Article just lists some marriages that are speculated to have been between a Rajput and a Mughal. That is rather trivial. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, strongly. Am I seeing double? There is a preponderance of reliable sources on that article, some even discuss the dynamics of these marriages overall. Few of them are old primary sources, most of the sources that establish notability are from the 90s and later. I have not gone source-by-source (will do in a while) but is difficult to believe that the multiple Rajput marriages of Akbar and Jahangir alone would not generate sufficient scholarship for notability, let alone all the marriages of Shah Jahan, Aurangzeb, minor princes and nobles. Those bringing up OR, SYNTH, and RAJ don't mention a single specific example where the article fails these policies when it has inline citations for almost every sentence as well as overarching citations that unify them into a si gle topic. @Ratnahastin: what is the POV supposedly being pushed here? What am I missing? Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 12:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said the article has been created for pushing a POV because it relies on primary sources like Akbarnama, Jahangirnama for info and none of the references are exactly showing how this is a notable topic. Then there are some examples who have been hijacked by caste Rajput writers despite there is no evidence if they were Rajput. These things are better for discussing on the articles of the particular individuals instead of creating a list to impose a contradictory point of view.Ratnahastin (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not difficult to find sources even for the very trivial subjects but the major problem here is if WP:GNG was satisfied. I don't see if it has been. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 1226273371 by 2409:4085:9197:EABD:0:0:1C8:8B1 I had to revert your comment here. You need to write a comment without making WP:NPA. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh dear. Caste-pushing are we? I see this too often. I can't remember, but I saw an editor like this recently who did the exact thing. — thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: One part of me wants it deleted, but one it kept. — thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting seems unlikely to achieve consensus, but with this much discussion, let's give it a try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not my favourite kind of page, but I think it is undeniable that the phenomena is covered in scholarly literature, so the only WP:SYNTH argument is that the facts of individual relationships have been marshalled into a list. If that's SYNTH then all lists on en.wiki are at risk. JMWt (talk) 06:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The topic does not require a page of its own. WP:NOT specifically WP:DIRECTORY disagree with the page. (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (already voted keep above). I strongly object to the claim that this topic is not notable. Back when kings and princes ruled the world, arranged marriages were one of the most important ways that alliances were cemented and empires waxed and waned. This was true in Europe also. The political map of the world would be different today otherwise. So in fact this phenomenon is a key part of history. Zero^talk 03:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you mention which sources convinced you that the topic is notable?Ratnahastin (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seek and ye shall find. The Politics of Marriage in Medieval India is a book about it published by Oxford University Press, but surprisingly not cited. Zero^talk 15:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me where this book is focusing on this subject? The summary of this book that I have found tells it is rather talking about Rajput#Culture and ethos.Ratnahastin (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is scattered throughout the book. Note the emphasis on political marriage and marriage alliance — this was not just a matter of some people marrying each other. For example, on p80-81 we have "Political marriages soon came to play a significant role in the establishment of the Mughal rule. Akbar wanted to use political marriage alliances as an important means for building and consolidating local support. In fact, Akbar’s conception of the Rajput role in his expanding empire was responsible for a number of matrimonial alliances with the Rajputs, and he made at least 40 political marriages for himself, his three sons, and his eldest grandson. Ultimately the emperor made marriage alliances for himself and sons with almost all major Rajput chiefs." And on page 80, "the first Rajputs to make marriage alliances with the Mughal dynasty were seeking support for their efforts to gain or retain land. Raja Bharmal Kachwaha, involved in a long and bitter contest with a brother for the control of Amber and Mertiya Rathore, Jagmal Viramdevot, was similarly struggling with his brother Jagmal for Merta, both married their daughters to the young emperor in 1562–3 respectively." And the drama surrounding marriage alliances is exemplified by a quotation on page 79: "The Mugals demanded the hand of princess of Roopnagar, a junior branch of the Marwar house. But she rejected the proposal offering herself to Rana Raj Singh in return for her protection. The priest deemed it as an honour at being the messenger of her wishes. The Rana then appeared before Roopnager and took her away to his capital. This led to a war between Mewar and the Mughals." On page 84, "Marriage alliances were also entered into as a face saving device in order to bring an end to prolonged hostilities over land." On page 141, "When the Rathores of Marwar rose to prominence in the mid-fifteenth century, marriage alliances with them were keenly sought after." That's all taken from random pages and is more than enough to demonstrate not only the relevance of this book but also the notability of the topic. Zero^talk 14:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be discussing a broader topic, which is not just "Rajput Mughal" marriage alliance but more than that. Will you support moving the title to something like Political marriages in India? That would certainly clear up things and allow meaningful expansion and removal of WP:SYNTH from the present version.Ratnahastin (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have preferences as to how the topic is divided into articles. It can be discussed on the relevant article talk pages. Meanwhile it would be counterproductive to delete the part of the story that this article tells. Zero^talk 01:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This book also appears citable and contains a fair amount of relevant information. In particular it could help to move the article away from being a boring list. Zero^talk 06:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per above discussion. First move the page to draft space, then remove the content that isn't supported by the source with regards to politically motivated marriage, and then change the title to Political marriages in India. After that, we need to include other examples such as political marriage of Chandragupta Maurya and move the page into article space. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 06:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : This article is created by main contributor, User:Adhinayaka, appears to use multiple accounts to push a caste-biased narrative favoring Ahiras/Yadavas on Hindi Wikipedia. This politically motivated article compromises the article's neutrality and reliability. For this reasons, the article should be deleted.च҉न҉्҉द҉्҉र҉ ҉व҉र҉्҉ध҉न҉ Message 19:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NXcrypto, if you have evidence, please file a case at WP:SPI. But AFDs are not an appropriate place to cast aspersions and make undocumented accusations against another editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That editor must be talking about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HinduKshatrana. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above proposal to draftify as laid out by ArvindPalaskar seems good. I am not opposed to it. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 07:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 1980s

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages, TV schedules, those centrally about the season with the broadcasting being merely mentions and most of those being YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The events themselves are notable but the topic of whether they appeared or not on television is not. This serves as one massive collection of YouTube links. Ajf773 (talk) 09:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I personally find what networks aired what races interesting, but how it is presented in these decade articles is underwhelming (I understand why these pages will probably be deleted). It's also missing what is highly relevant information (up until the late 80s) regarding what sort of broadcast individual races received: live flag-to-flag coverage, joined in progress, tape delayed, condensed tape delayed, or not broadcast at all. The best place for that would be the individual season articles, though. They already have a section listing the entire schedule of races (not the partial schedules we see in some of these articles). A column for the TV network would be simple enough to add to that table and any out of the ordinary details about the nature of the broadcasts could be added to the sections for the individual races (probably not the broadcasting teams since that would be fairly repetitious). --NHL04 (talk) 05:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split from NASCAR on television and radio, alternatively merge to that target. Splitting individual decades keeps the parent article from becoming too cluttered and unreadable. See WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:NOMERGE. @Ajf773: Deletion is not cleanup. Inappropriate content can be removed without needing to delete everything which would potentially be mergeable. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the YT links then you barely have much left other than unsourced entries. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The events are covered in other articles, for example 1980 NASCAR Winston Cup Series and so forth for every year following that. Those lists are sufficient enough to present what is needed. Ajf773 (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per GhostOfDanGurney. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am sure this will close as "no consensus" but I am not seeing a point in keeping this collection on Wikipedia. Srijanx22 (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Srijanx22: Do you have rationale to provide other than "not seeing a point" in it? You personally not seeing value in it does not mean the subject matter isn't notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this goes as keep or no consensus, this tells you the state of Wikipedia. I do not see how a collection of YouTube links make a list notable. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SpacedFarmer: As has been told to you in the past, it's not about what the current sourcing is, it's about whether the subject as a whole is notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. The article is a coatrack for a list of (presumably bootleg) Youtube videos, most of which have been taken down. NASCAR on television and radio is a suitable redirect target, but the page history should not be kept. An improved "box score" format for races on pages like 1985 NASCAR Winston Cup Series might include this information, but it would need to be re-created. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand why the page history shouldn't be kept.

The problem becomes that the 60s, 70s, 90s, 2000s, and 2010s list nominations all ended in no consensus, while the 2020 nomination ended in keep. This would leave us with a hole between the 70s and 90s that's just not addressed, and any such attempt to fill said gap may end up being G4'd. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note WP:ELNEVER. Also, I see no reason why the 60s/70s articles should not also be deleted (or why the nominations weren't bundled to avoid that possible outcome). Walsh90210 (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They were initially, but the nominator botched the nomination completely by both forgetting a step and including more than just the "NASCAR on television..." articles. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep as a valid split per GhostofDanGurney, also bearing in mind that every other decade survived AFD, which would mean that we've got articles on every decade from the 1960s to present except this one, which would be disorderly and doesn't make sense. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to NASCAR on television and radio. Not seeing any valid use for this standalone. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Stifle: But then wouldn't the parent article be unbalanced, as it would be the only decade to be extensively individually focused on whereas all the others have their own standalones? BeanieFan11 (talk)
Keep. The topic is notable and splitting from the parent article is a good idea (per GhostofDanGurney). If the article needs to be cleaned up, deletion is not the way to do it. Malinaccier (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notable, at least for NASCAR on television and radio. What kind of message does linkdumping bootleg Youtube links sends? We should allow them to pass as WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep, merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History Proposed deletions[edit]

History categories[edit]

for occasional archiving

History[edit]

History Proposed deletions[edit]

History categories[edit]

Proposals[edit]