Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/History

Shortcuts

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.

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/History/archive

Purge page cache

watch

History[edit]

Paulette Flint[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO. Many of the citations are primary as her employer is The Observer (Gladstone). Not seeing indepth third party coverage to meet WP:BIO. Also an orphan article. LibStar (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Iași (1653)[edit]

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

A single publication ~~by an unkoen expert by nonnotable publisher~~ is insufficient for notability of an event, whose description per se is barely two phrases: "they attacked, they retreated" - Altenmann >talk 22:08, 13 July 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) 22:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tomasz Ciesielski is a professional historian and the claim that he is not an expert as you claim is total nonsense and stupidity of the submitter of this article I am in favour of keeping the article AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide an evidence that he is a recognized expert. - Altenmann >talk 18:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you have on the Polish nicely written who he was after all he is even the director of the History of the University of Opole [1], he has various scientific works, and his sources are used by the English wikipedia, the Polish wikipedia and the Ukrainian one, please do not write nonsense next time just check it out. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, sorry. Somehow I missed him in Google among numerous other Tomashes Ciesielskis. - Altenmann >talk 18:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

so why do you not retreat the Deletion request? Axisstroke (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1958 East Pakistan-India border clash[edit]

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

Still fails WP:N. It is yet another skirmish with no lasting impact. This new creation is itself 80% copy of the earlier article which was deleted after the last AfD. There is no change in the sourcing. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What should be done to the article to prevent deletion? And, there was another article similar to this, that was deleted? Clarify. User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (User talk:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet) (Talk of Georgethedragonslayer) 6:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BangladeshiEditorInSylhet: By "earlier article" I believe Georgethedragonslayer is referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1958 East Pakistan–India border skirmish, which was deleted in March 2023. --Worldbruce (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce: Alright, I read the discussion, I get it, I will try to do something.
Delete Non-notable skirmish. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject lacks sufficient notability and detailed coverage in reliable sources outside of local military records and local commemorations.Nxcrypto Message 09:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No change since the last AfD. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 07:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keturi Brūkšniai[edit]

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

Does not pass GNG, sources inadequate for a main space page. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, History, Politics, and Lithuania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only sources I can find referencing this book are things like book catalogues, so this does not pass GNG. Gödel2200 (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dacian fortress of Ponor[edit]

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

Ridiculously short article that fails WP:GNG and WP:NPLACE. No hits of reliable sources on google books or search. No article in Romanian is a bad sign. Template:Dacian cities lists dozens of these ultra stubs, but I won't do anything with them until we see just one. -1ctinus📝🗨 16:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ro:Cetățile Ponorului is the Romanian-language article (or, at least, the only plausibly-notable topic of a similar name). Walsh90210 (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That may be a step towards salvaging the article, but the Romanian article also cites no sources, andseems to be about a cave rather than a fortress :( -1ctinus📝🗨 17:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the "cave"/"ruined fortress" difference is somewhat concerning; but for a micro-stub like this it is easily dismissed as confusion by the enwiki article creator. As far as rowiki sourcing, there are some websites in the article (like [1]); it might not be enough to demonstrate notability but is enough to verify that something exists. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For all it's worth, that's not a cave, but rather, a ponor. Whence the name. Turgidson (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Archaeology, Geography, and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete without prejudice against recreation of a sourced version. It' shouldn't be AfD's job to research and write these articles; it should be the author's job. We are not losing anything by deleting these completely unverifiable articles, and we waste too much time on these. Mangoe (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Walsh90210 (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Huta Brzuska[edit]

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

The whole article is based on WP:PRIMARY document prepared by OUN (pdf, p. 340-341). I wasn't able to find any reliable informations about this battle or its importance, probably some minor clash, when to groups just fired at eachother. Of course OUN in his internal documents reported huge losses of the enemy, but as I said it's not reliable. Marcelus (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Poland, and Ukraine. Marcelus (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete immediately, this article cannot be allowed to remain, it is based on some UPA chronicle what is it anyway? Such a source will not be acceptable due to such as lying UPA documents often on which the book is based. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 07:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Interesting topic but needs independent sources to establish notability and verify facts. Right now this seems sourced to old wartime reports and documents (WP:PRIMARY? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I fail to see any sources in any of the three languages of the title. Meaning that the notability is highly questionable. - Altenmann >talk 18:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of armed conflicts between Bosnia and Serbia[edit]

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

This is on the face of it a violation of our policy on improper synthesis, these were wars fought between vastly different entities across different time periods, political systems, etc. Not every battle of e.g. the Ottoman Empire that had been located in or near Bosnia constitutes a "battle of Bosnia + adversary", because the term "Bosnia" (or indeed adversary, Serbia) is used as if it was a coherent entity at the time, which it typically wasn't, as it was usually an occupation or a vasselage situation of some kind. I don't know if it can be rewritten to be actually fine, and I frankly do not trust the quote-less referencing from the newbie user that I already had to warn about sourcing at User talk:Vedib#Introduction to contentious topics. It was passed through AfC but it shouldn't survive AfD as is. Joy (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia. Joy (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that the claims the list captions make are sometimes downright bizarre. Like Ottoman-Bosnian victory and Bosniak population in Podrinje massacred under First Serbian Uprising - this is both casually dismissing elementary facts of the situation, that these conflicts were between the Ottoman Empire and its subjects at the time, definitely not just Bosnia and Serbia as such; and it's making a point of listing massacres in some sort of a grief porn kind of way. It's really below the standard of an encyclopedia. --Joy (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article in its current form is extremely problematic; Siege of Belgrade (1521) is not a "conflict between Bosnia and Serbia". The nom's concerns would still apply even if only entries like War of Hum were included. It should not have been accepted at AFC, but I see no need to draftify it now. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . uf, there are all sorts of apples and oranges in this hodgepodge! (Shouldn't, say, Serbs of Bosnia rebelling against Ottomans be Bosnians fighting Ottomans, etc.?)--౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep. If the author of the article can write and source the article with the changes I list below (I welcome critiques and suggestions from the opposers @Joy, @Santasa99):

Bosnian War. The only point during the war during which an entity formally referred to in English as "Serbia" (shortened form) was in a state of war with an entity formally referred to as "Bosnia" (shortened form) was in April–May 1992 when the Socialist Republic of Serbia, as a constituent of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia or "Yugoslavia" (shortened form) was at war with the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Republika Srpska and Serbian Krajina were sometimes colloquially grouped together with Yugoslavia as "Serbia", but such nomenclature is not standard practice in this encyclopedia. If the author wishes to keep this entry, they are advised to replace "1992–1995" with "1992".
World War II in Bosnia & Herzegovina. Territorial control initially shifted from the Kingdom of Yugoslavia to the German Reich and Kingdom of Italy, partly transferred to the Independent State of Croatia (shortened form "Croatia"). at no point was the formal English name for either the Yugoslav government-in-exile or the Yugoslav Army in the Homeland "Serbia", although their political administration eventually included an entity referred to as "Serbia", parallel to to the Banovina of Croatia (shortened form "Croatia"). Beginning with 25 Novemeber 1943, the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (shortened form "Bosnia") was in a state of war with an entity that by that time included an entity "Serbia", so the inclusion of the entry is acceptable. If the author wishes to keep this entry, they are advised to replace "1941–1945" with "1943–1945". A more complex note will be required, complete with references, to explain its inclusion to the reader. Complicated by the fact that the Socialist Federation of Yugoslavia also included a "Serbia", meaning "Serbia" was both an enemy and an ally of "Bosnia".
Second Serbian Uprising. The Bosnia Eyalet (shortened form "Bosnia") was in a state of war with an entity that already considered itself the Principality of Serbia and was referred to in English as "Serbia" (shortened form), so there can be no objection to its inclusion provided you can source this. However, I would advise striking the sometimes problematic contents of the entire Location column as redundant and (in the case of more expansive wars) too expansive. The same applies to the inlcusion of the First Serbian Uprising, but strike Much of the Bosniak population in Podrinje massacred.
Hadži-Prodan's rebellion. Its inclusion is problematic. Yes, it was a "Serbian" uprising, but so was the uprising of 1882 for the most part. Both uprisings featured armies loyal to "Serbia" by that name (in translation), but demonstrating that practically requires the use of primary sources, so they are more appropriate for a "List of armed conflicts between ... and Serbs" type article (see List of Serbian–Ottoman conflicts) than a "List of armed conflicts between ... and Serbia".

Austro-Turkish War (1788–1791). It was this conflict that saw the resurgence of "Serbia" as a territorial entity in the first conflict since the death of Jovan Nenad, but it is missing from the list.
"Uprising in Herzegovina". Involved an army that mostly desired Austrian rule with a more religious than territorial conception of "Serbia", despite the term's use in a broader sense with undefined borders and administrative structure, making it ineligible for this list.
Strike the "Uprising in Drobnjaci", the Siege of Belgrade and the Hungarian-Serbian War from the list.
Entries from War of Hum through "Fifth Battle of Srebrenica" needs heavy revision, including additions, merges and clarifications. During this period, both states formally referred to as "Bosnia" and as "Serbia" existed, and conflicts involving both entities in a state of war ought to be included, but only with the appropriate caveats. Part of the issue involves states having rival claims to the title "Serbia"; see List of wars involving Russia for a possible solution.

Ivan (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with all of this is WP:NOR - if no historian would extend the description of e.g. Second Serbian Uprising as an "armed conflict between Bosnia and Serbia", then we can't do that either. By the fact that the term Bosnia isn't even mentioned in that article, it's safe to assume that we're looking at a hard fail here. --Joy (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vedib if you want a source for the inclusion of the First Serbian Uprising:

Teinović, Bratislav M. (2020). "Преглед политичког живота у босанском ејалету (1804–1878)" [A review of the political life in the Bosnian eyalet (1804–1878)]. Kultura polisa. 17 (42): 137–154. eISSN 2812-9466. Без сумње, у Босни је почетак рата са Србијом и Црном Гором значио прекретницу у даљим унутрашњим политичким односима. [Without a doubt, in Bosnia the beginning of the war with Serbia and Montenegro marked a turning point in future internal political relations.]

Ivan (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Defense of Kopanki[edit]

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

The whole article is based on WP:PRIMARY document prepared by OUN: https://avr.org.ua/viewDoc/2785/. Author of the article also omitted massacre of Polish inhabitants of Kopanki that happened the day before on April 10. I think it's quite important context.

In general, there are no reliable information about described events, I wasn't able to find anything in avaiable monographies. Marcelus (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Poland, and Ukraine. Marcelus (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete immediately, this article cannot be allowed to remain, it is based on some UPA chronicle what is it anyway? Such a source will not be acceptable due to such as lying UPA documents often on which the book is based. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 07:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Interesting topic but needs independent sources to establish notability and verify facts. Right now this seems sourced significantly to old wartime reports and documents (WP:PRIMARY? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original research based solely on primary sources. - Altenmann >talk 22:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Anarchist Congresses[edit]

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

In a previous iteration of this article, it consisted of a list of various different congresses held by different organisations with little tying them together but the broad "anarchist" label. That list was recently dynamited by Czar, leaving nothing but a contextless list of congresses of the International Workingmen's Association, which I don't think have ever been described as "anarchist congresses" in any sources (the IWMA consisted of various different socialist tendencies, not just anarchists). As this article would, at best, be a random list of various, disconnected congresses for different disconnected organisations; and as it is utterly worthless in its current state, I'm recommending the article be deleted. Grnrchst (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, Politics, and Lists. Grnrchst (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There might be a case for creating a list of anarchist congresses but we'd have to do some digging for sourcing. Or that might be a better job for a category. czar 13:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since there's useful stuff in the page history and the topic is broadly notable we should be avoiding deletion if possible. A list is better than a category in this case, I think, since the entries will need more context to be useful (as noted by nom, the current state of the article isn't useful because it lacks that context). We also have a lot of incoming links here. Even in this extremely reduced state, it does at least have some "see also" that are relevant to the topic at hand. I agree with czar that it's not great to have unsourced sections hanging around forever, but I think deleting the whole thing is an unnecessary amount of TNT. -- asilvering (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of incoming links, @czar, a bunch of the links aim at one of the sections you TNT'd. I think we might be able to source at least a skeleton of this to Skirda - but is there an easier way to search in the "what links here" results that I'm missing? I'd like to find the ones that redirect to a particular section without having to scroll through hundreds of results. -- asilvering (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Special:WhatLinksHere/International_Anarchist_Congresses showed the redirects and the sections they targeted. I cleaned up a bunch that should have been pointing to Anti-authoritarian International article sections. czar 18:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Gdeszyn[edit]

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

Poorly referenced, only one source says that such a "battle" existed and moreover the source is completely biased for the Ukrainian side. No polish sources or books talk about such a Battle of Gdeszyn . Fajowy (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Poland, and Ukraine. TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support this article is based on one sentence from Volodymyr Viatrovich's book which talks about this battle and nothing more and he is considered even for pseudo-historic AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the source is WP:PRIMARY and also it didn't say anything about a battle, but about such minor clash: On 14.4.44, in the village of Dedeshin, two Ukrainian self-defence riflemen were killed in an ambush by 7 Polish robbers.Marcelus (talk) 11:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
true, but the fight itself is taken from only one book and that is from a pseudo-historical one Historyk.ok (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Interesting topic but needs independent sources to establish notability and verify facts. Right now this seems sourced significantly to old wartime reports and documents (WP:PRIMARY? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. A single source, a primary too, is insufficient to establish the notability of the event.- Altenmann >talk 22:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1895 Pacific Tigers football team[edit]

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

After reviewing this article, I am not convinced that it meets the WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS. The only source is a database, and I'm not finding the sources needed to meet the notability guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and California. Let'srun (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that every other season on Pacific's football history has an article, I think some kind of merger would probably be best so that the information on this one is not lost. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you actually have a suggestion for a merge, perhaps to a combined season article? I'm all ears, but looking at 1898 and 1899, I'm not seeing much for those seasons either...Let'srun (talk) Let'srun (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention, there isn't much info here to save, considering the only source. Let'srun (talk) 02:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pacific Tigers football, 1895–99, perhaps? Or maybe extend it to include a few of their next seasons? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see coverage to meet NSEASONS even for that range, at least from a first glance at the sources in those articles and elsewhere. 1898 has only the database and a very short recap, while the 1899 one has only the database and a long section devoted to the rules of the game in the era with no references to the actual team. Reasonable minds may differ. Let'srun (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is the first game and the first season of the team's history. The year is a matter of record and the season covered to some extent in the sourcing. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

covered to some extent in the sourcing Where? All I'm seeing is one line in a database entry here. Cbl62 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (without prejudice). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS due to the lack of WP:SIGCOV. Pacific was a major program in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s but not so in the 1890s. Indeed, the program was practically non-existent prior to 1919 -- a grand total of five games played between 1895 and 1918 (zero wins, one tie, four losses, 11 total points scored). If someone some day wants to create an article on the early history of the Pacific football program, it might possibly be viable, but I certainly don't have the time or inclination to work on that when there are so many more worthwhile topics to pursue. Cbl62 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899. Jweiss11 (talk)

@Jweiss11: Two issues with your suggestion: 1) a closer cannot redirect to a redlink so that's not viable unless someone creates it; and (2) is there SIGCOV to support the proposed article? Cbl62 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably worth the editing time to create the proposed article, though, and merging the very small amount of information. The 1898 and 1899 articles aren't in great shape either, and it's possible the game(s) which were played were indeed covered in local papers of the time. SportingFlyer T·C 17:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is also not a directory. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge now that a target article has been created.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Personally, while I appreciate the work put in by jweiss11, I don't think that the combined article meets the WP:NSEASONS due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We could expand the scope of Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899 to include 1919 and perhaps some or all of the 1920s. I think Pacific may have played rugby at some pint between 1900 and 1918, a la 1906–1917 Stanford rugby teams. That could be covered in an expanded article as well. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: My inclination is to Merge but I'm a closer, not a participant, and I don't see a consensus to do that. Another closer might IAR this but I'm not ready to do that yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the merge target of Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899 had already been created (by me per precedent with suggestion from two other editors), what's the point of keeping this AfD open? I don't think there's any consensus to keep this as a stand-alone article. Randy Kryn, you were the only keep vote. Would agree now that the merge to Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899 is the best course of action? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Jweiss11, that works. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think all editors were in favor of this Merge. But I'm not the only closer in town, another one might decide to close this discussion presently. I just wanted to see more support which Randy's opinion helps. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, okay, I understand that it's not solely on you to close this. For the record, I'll note two similar recent AfDs with analogous content: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1884 DePauw football team and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1884 Wabash football team. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadakiyans[edit]

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

I was not able to verify the existence of this dynasty - the four references used in the article are also difficult to verify. Semsûrî (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Semsûrî (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 4, p. 227: "In other towns, too, Arab chieftains came to build their castles and dominated the inhabitants ... in Urmiya Sadaqa b. 'Ali, a client of Azd". See also https://iranicaonline.org/articles/rawwadids. I cannot verify the article as a whole or confirm if this is a notable dynasty, but it does not appear to be a fabrication. Srnec (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourcing is weak, and does not sufficiently convey the idea of a "dynasty"; if the individuals involved are notable, they should have their own article, but their three-generation "dynasty" is almost certainly not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that there is so little knowledge about them is that they lived over 1,000 years ago and only ruled for around 50 years in a region wich was made up of villages, lots of mountains and a few small cities. Besides that, they seem to be the first Kurdish dynasty in History, so little information is to be expected. Karkafs Desiderium (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is why they are not notable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd love to hear more feedback from editors who are knowledgeable about this subject area.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two of the references are from journals which are the subject of articles in the English Wikipedia: Revue du monde musulman and Revue des études islamiques, and the third cites the first edition of Encyclopaedia of Islam. References do not have to be online to be valid, but editors with access to a university library might be able to access online or printed versions of the references. The fourth reference, perhaps added in error, was in a battle infobox that another editor removed. It was to the book The sword of Persia : Nader Shah, from tribal warrior to conquering tyrant, about Nader Shah, who was ruler of Persia much later, from 1736 to 1747. That fourth reference is no longer in the particle, but I think the three remaining references are good ones. I think the article is adequately referenced. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know what content is covered by the references and what is unsourced. The third and last reference is on the fifth line of the article. Semsûrî (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No mention in modern scholarship. I was able to access one of the sources (from 1910): [2] And there, Sadaka ibn Ali is a passing mention, where we learn that he was a "client of the Azd tribe" and that he took Urmia and built a castle. Most of the content in the Wikipedia article is unreferenced, so I fail to see how this article can be considered adequately sourced. The article title itself is WP:OR as I failed to find any potential variations of it (let alone the form seen here). The source I linked above does not mention a dynasty, and I very much doubt the other two similarly-aged sources include anything close to that. The most inclusionist choice here would be creating Sadaka ibn Ali's bio, disregarding the small amount of available sources and content. Another inclusionist choice would be adding the sourced parts about Sadaka ibn Ali to a relevant article such as Azd. But in any case, "Sadakiyans" should not redirect anywhere as it doesn't appear to be a term precedented in the sources. Aintabli (talk) 09:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the claim this was a "dynasty" appears to be original research. The mention in al-Baladhuri is As for Urmiyah, 1 it was an ancient city in re- 331' gard to which the Magians (Ma jus} assert that their founder Zaradusht was from it. Sadakah ibn-'Ali ibn-Sadakah ibnDinar, the freedman of the Azd, made war against its inhabitants, finally entering and subduing it. He and his brothers built in it some castles. The Encyclopaedia of Islam citation appears to be referring to these three sentences. And while Sadaka ibn Ali's existence has clear attestations, the information about his descendants appears completely unsourced. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History Proposed deletions[edit]

History categories[edit]

for occasional archiving

Proposals[edit]