THC Science

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

Nationalities at the Eureka Stockade

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

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone article. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and ~~Austria~~. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just note that The Eureka Encyclopaedia has various entries such as "Canadians at the Eureka Stockade" and "Italians at the Eureka Stockade" etc. Robbiegibbons (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of the Eureka Rebellion

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

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone list. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Australia. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Needs trimming, but such bibliography articles are usually alright for extensively-covered topics. Curbon7 (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that it is well covered topic. We could trim the bibliography or we could triple the size of it actually. But all the really seminal sources are already there. Robbiegibbons (talk) 23:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it's a handy article. I see that there are other similar bibliographies, such as the Bibliography of the American Revolutionary War. Robbiegibbons (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This could be an easy keep if there is evidence presented that books about this topic have been discussed as a group. Have they? It seems notorious enough that it's possible. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weather by year

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

A poorly sourced list of largely unrelated statistics. No idea why it jumps from 1946 to 1997, no idea where the number of snowstorms comes from, no idea why we would add the number of tropical cyclones (extreme weather events) to the number of tornadoes (for the most part very local, very minor events) and not count e.g. the number of rainfall-induced floods instead. While comparing the number of US tornadoes or the number of cyclones year by year is done and may be useful, this grouping of these statistics in a kind of novel synthesis with very unclear inclusion rules doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic. WP:NOTSTATS and so on. Fram (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. Fram (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I never thought the article should exist. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka Rebellion in popular culture

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Popular culture, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep? It seems that this article is sourced which suggests it is notable. Is there a problem with the sources here? If not, then it's fine. Parent article is very long so a spin-out on this topic per summary style is fine, as long as the sources discuss the later cultural influence - which it seems that they do. SnowFire (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vexillology of the Eureka Rebellion

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Turkic-Azerbaijani relations

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

Synthetic topic: Azerbaijani is a Turkic language, and there's nothing here that isn't better placed somewhere either on Azerbaijani language, Oghuz languages, or Old Turkic. The roughly analogous Proto-Germanic–English connections article would surely seem absurd. Remsense ‥ 诉 10:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Azerbaijan. Shellwood (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

White nationalism and the Eureka Rebellion

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on grounds offered. This seems a classic WP:SUMMARYSTYLE spin-out of a subtopic to a separate article. It's possible that it should be merged or reorganized elsewhere but if there isn't an issue with the content, then complying with WP:SIZE sometimes means making such branch articles as these. Nothing new there. It's only a content fork if the exact same matter is discussed in two different places (usually the fork applying its own unique spin on the topic), and that doesn't appear to be the case? SnowFire (talk) 09:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Republicanism and the Eureka Rebellion

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Politics, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Loyalism and the Eureka Rebellion

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

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

Delete Per nom, completely unneeded fork of a standalone article that itself (the fork) doesn't fulfill notability. Noorullah (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable public officials in the Eureka Rebellion

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

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone list. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, Military, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to say these lists are exactly what I was looking for when I started researching the Eureka Rebellion though. There has already been complaints about the length of the main Eureka Rebellion article. We were told a few years back to start creating new sub articles and then link them to the main article instead. I see the Alamo article has two associated lists. Most of the List of Alamo defenders don't seem to have their own biographical entries either. I reckon some of these stories about the more minor officials will help our readers with the big picture. Robbiegibbons (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to keep the article and limit new additions to people who already have their own wikipedia article. However, most of what I know about lists on wikipedia comes from studying other wikipedia lists. And I've seen many lists where not even five per cent of the people on it are hyperlinked. Robbiegibbons (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable civilians in the Eureka Rebellion

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

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone list. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, Military, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of military leaders in the Eureka Rebellion

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

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone list. Most of the people in the list lack notability for a Wikipedia article. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, Military, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Going all the way down to ensigns and corporals is excessive. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do we feel about possibly finding a way to incorporate some or all of this information about the opposing command structures into the article on the Battle of the Eureka Stockade instead? Robbiegibbons (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Eureka Stockade defenders

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

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone list. Almost all of the people in the list lack notability for a Wikipedia article. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, Military, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a similar List of Alamo defenders article and some of them aren't notable enough for their own biographical page either. Robbiegibbons (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Alamo has a much higher significance, and a good proportion of those defenders do have articles. A list of every defender, absent defender and non-combatant caught in the middle is too much. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I grant you that the Alamo might have more significance to our American readers. But in Australian terms the Eureka Stockade is definitely folkloric. I've seen Wikipedia lists where some of the people wouldn't meet the general notability criteria to qualify for a biographical entry of their own. Some of those names on the List of Alamo defenders do have their own Wikipedia articles. But I just picked about a dozen people from the Alamo list at random and searched Wikipedia for them and nothing else came up. I don't know about the rest of you. But what I'm hoping to do here is help Wikipedia take over from Eurekapedia. And Eurekapedia has a list of Eureka Stockade defenders. Robbiegibbons (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought that the Eureka Stockade defenders should have a list of their own if the Alamo defenders also have one. Robbiegibbons (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robbiegibbons I leave it up to others as to whether or not there will be a list. The Alamo is different in that we honestly don't know, and may never know, who all was there. All the time, we find new evidence of someone, and also pull someone we listed in error (Talk:List of Alamo defenders). The entire Texas revolution was about slavery. The constitution of Mexico outlawed slavery, but the white slave owners who moved to Texas, brought their slaves with them. Good luck, and keep doing the good work you do. — Maile (talk) 01:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Eureka Rebellion is a bona fide part of Australian folklore. The article on the rebel war flag the Eureka Flag says the design pattern was a rival to the official Australian national flag twenty years ago before the Eureka Flag started to appear on bumper stickers with racial slogans. And that's the other point I would make. The people at Ballarat Heritage Services are always adding to the body of knowledge as well. If we decide to keep these lists then you can rest assured that as detailed as they are. They're not as detailed as they're going to be. I always hoped the Wikipedia Eureka Rebellion series itself would spur some more research. As good as www.eurekapedia.org is. I want to be given the opportunity to see if wikipedia can do even better. If we can get every article in the series up to good article status then BHS might be willing to donate some or all of their image library to wikimedia. The list of Eureka Stockade defenders is vastly more informative than the one on the Alamo defenders if the truth be known. Some of those obituaries of the Eureka rebels contain some pretty interesting stuff. If the list is going to stand then I do have about ten more sources with additional details that I could cite. Robbiegibbons (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Alamo defenders were [nearly] all killed, and a number of them were very famous in their own right before the battle; most of the Eureka Stockade ones weren't. It makes a significant difference. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see List of Texian survivors of the Battle of the Alamo. Not everybody inside the Alamo died. — Maile (talk) 11:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly, compared to the mostly surviving ES defenders. A last stand vs. a not-last stand. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on grounds offered. Maybe there's some other unfixable problem here (e.g. if "The Eureka Encyclopedia" is argued an unreliable source), but "Almost all of the people in the list lack notability for a Wikipedia article" is not a valid deletion reason - see WP:NLIST, where lists of individually non-notable yet collectively notable groups are explicitly allowed. Article creator makes a decent case that the defenders are notable collectively so this is a valid WP:SUMMARYSTYLE spinout of the Battle of the Eureka Stockade article, which is already on the long side. SnowFire (talk) 09:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of detainees at the Eureka Stockade

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

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone list. Almost all of the people in the list lack notability for a Wikipedia article. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, Military, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is along the same lines as the List of Alamo defenders article and some of them aren't notable enough for their own biographical page either. Robbiegibbons (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do we feel about incorporating some of this information into the 1855 Victorian high treason trials instead? Robbiegibbons (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of colonial forces in the Eureka Rebellion

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

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone list. None of the names in the list are notable enough for a Wikipedia article. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A listing of every soldier and policeman present is far too much detail. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I note that with the article on List of Alamo defenders we only have scant information about most of them too. Not many of them seem to have their own biographical entries either. So allow me then to suggest something. We could merge the article List of military leaders in the Eureka Rebellion with the articles on List of Eureka Stockade defenders and List of colonial forces in the Eureka Rebellion. What we would be left with is one article with a list of all the rebel commanders and the Eureka Stockade defenders. And another list that includes only the top-level military and police commanders along with some of the more notable attackers. Like those who were killed and injured and were involved in taking the rebels prisoner etc. Robbiegibbons (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far too much detail. Also delete the similar additions to Suffolk Regiment and 40th (the 2nd Somersetshire) Regiment of Foot. These huge lists are undue and swamp those articles. Also see WP:VNOT. Dormskirk (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chartism and the Eureka Rebellion

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Pokémon

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

This article, I believe, fails standards immensely. There is no inclusion criteria for this list, for a start, and with a franchise as large as Pokémon, it's unclear what makes the cut. Should releases of games be included? Release dates for consoles that host these games? When merchandising and crossovers are announced or released? Should anniversaries be commemorated? Should associated companies that are relevant have important fixtures included? I could go on, but this timeline is very indiscriminate in what it includes, and thus is very unhelpful to readers, as there is no clear idea of what is actually important to the franchise's history, whether it be in terms of release information or otherwise. Additionally, this timeline only covers major dates, and no actual historical background. This information is covered at the main Pokémon article already in far greater depth, with notable releases and developments covered there. There are already several infoboxes with release schedules for important subgroups as well that can be used at other articles with far greater aid to readability. Given all relevant info is covered at the parent article, and this list itself is incredibly unwieldy and impossible to properly organize/categorize in any context, this list feels incredibly unhelpful and redundant to readers. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, History, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the nominator pointed out, it's not clear what the inclusion criteria here are. There's an entry for "Tenth anniversary of the Pokémon anime". Okay, should anniversaries for everything else also be included? Which ones? Fives and tens? This list is largely pointless; we already have articles for the games and for Pokémon as a franchise. Cortador (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a redundant to the already existing Pokemon series and List of Pokemon games articles. It's like a worse, bullet-point version of those articles. Sergecross73 msg me 19:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing clear inclusion criteria here, timeline can mean many things including game releases, anime or manga releases, store openings, etc. It falls under indiscriminate lists. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup; second choice merge as there's at least potential here. (Canvassing disclaimer: Saw this due to the nominator mentioning it on Discord.) Yes, there are some bad items on this list like anniversaries of unclear notability - just remove them? And yes, stronger inclusion criteria would also be nice. But none of these are reasons to delete. Having a clean, "bullet point version" of the main article that is strictly chronological rather than prose hopping between different media types can be a useful thing. The nominator seems to mention this when saying "covered in far greater depth in the main article" - well yes, that's the point, this is a clean links-only version that's easier to find stuff in, "Greater depth" isn't always desired. This article seems like a great start toward making such a resource. I dunno, in more "serious" topics, it's not uncommon to have both a simple table of Governors of Province X and the same info in more depth in "History of Province X" in prose. That's... fine. Both the list article and the prose article are useful; I'd say that this timeline is far less "unwieldly". SnowFire (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I removed the anniversaries of unclear importance. And I again want to emphasize that I'm not saying the timeline is perfect, it's far from it, but that many of the complaints above sound like reasons to delete any timeline, e.g. "impossible to properly organize/categorize in any context" - the organization is the date it happened. That's it. There is no categorization other than again by date. That's how timelines work, and IMO that can be useful sometimes. SnowFire (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My main concerns are less so improvement, but that there are several large-scale problems that are difficult to resolve. I can definitely agree it may be decently useful in most other contexts, but Pokémon is such a wide franchise as to where determining what is actually useful to audiences is downright impossible because of how much goes on with it. It's easy enough to clean out anniversaries, but how do you choose what to include? If you choose to include important dates in development, then it just overlaps with the main Pokemon article in a worse context even more than it already is. If you choose to focus on game releases, then List of Pokémon video games covers that. If you focus on the anime, Pokémon (TV series) already has its own navigational boxes. If you focus on meshing them together, then that's just two lists randomly smushed together that have no real need being tacked on to each other when they're better covered separately. If you want to include more occasions, then what do you choose? Real world events? How do you determine which are notable enough to cover? Do you cover every single tournament and site pop-up? If you expand the scope to far, then it just becomes a list of everything vaguely Pokemon related that's occurred, which just falls under Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE, as there's no real rhyme or reason to these all being in this timeline together that benefits the reader because these subjects are all so wildly random and not very substantial to the series' overall development. There's so many moving variables, and if you were to include everything, it would just be a more unwieldy version of the multiple easier to use lists. It's not like a lot of timelines where their information is valuable in the context of a timeline, as we have several other versions of this around the website already that are infinitely more readable and usable and have less problems with inclusion criteria, while being infinitely more helpful in terms of their navigational use and educational use. This list is just largely unnecessary and impractical, hence my argument for deletion here.

I will note on the canvassing concern- I had asked about this list in the Discord earlier today to get another opinion before I took any action on it, which was a discussion entirely unrelated to this AfD. I took care in not acknowledging or linking to this AfD after the fact in order to prevent potential problems, and if there were further actions to take beside that, then that's a mistake on my part, and I'll seek to improve on that in the future. Either way, it's very much not my intention to canvass, and if I did so unintentionally, then I do apologize. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear I wasn't accusing you of the "bad" form of canvassing. Rather I always state this if the only reason I know about an AFD is via Discord to avoid complaints if a bunch of people who don't normally vote on a topic suddenly show up for unclear reasons - it makes the reason more clear. I suppose we might need a new term for "canvassing" (negative, accusatory) and "canvassing" (neutral, factual report to put off-wiki influence "on the record"), but it's the second meaning.

Anyway, for a topic like "Timeline of Pokemon", I'd say that the answer is yes to all of the above? Sure, include media, video games, business, and culture together here. In fact, it's what gives this timeline more reason to exist separate from things like the List of Pokémon video games article. If I was very hardcore on the topic and trying to make it featured-quality, then I'd start with the very best published sources on it, see if they include tables or timelines, see what they think is relevant to include, and then try to tie them together - e.g. things that appear in multiple sources are more likely to be "relevant" enough to include. It can be tough, but it's no different than the discretion editors exercise in every other article. Even many lists have to struggle with the same issue - take a games list, what about an obscure flip phone mobile game? A now-unplayable web Flash game? Cameos? Fan-games but big and popular ones? The answer is, as usual, to reflect the sources. This article definitely needs work to draw from "Pokemon histories" rather than individual links, but it could exist, which is why at worst it should be redirected & merged while waiting on such published, strong sources to clarify the inclusion criteria. SnowFire (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this is the fact there aren't many sources showing a whole chronological timeline like this to verify this information. I found plenty of in-depth sources, but those only covered the early days of the franchise's history. Beyond that, there aren't many overarching sources to look for to characterize what should or should not be included, and many lists and sources I could find that were chronological either lacked dates, were only covering a small sample pool (Such as the main series games exclusively) or both. I'm afraid this approach just doesn't really work here. Without sources to verify it, it's entirely up to editors to decide what is "relevant," which is something that can't really be decided effectively per my above rationale. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article's purpose and criteria is very questionable, not to mention redundant. While I recognize SnowFire's argument above I think it's an overly generous view of the article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a chaotic mish-mash news ticker. Pokémon (video game series) presents the info much better. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of the Republic of Benin (1967)

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

No reliable source confirms this flag's existence; James Minahan has absolutely no sources cited in any of his books for this flag (and others). The Flag Bulletin (#023) Vol.6 No.4 on page 134 says that "its flag, if any, is unknown". NorthTension (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Geography, and Nigeria. C F A 💬 16:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Republic of Benin (1967). Djflem (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The claim is that the flag doesn't appear to have been real, so I don't see how a merger is appropriate. Mangoe (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Mangoe (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alfonso de Ceballos-Escalera y Gila

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The presently used references are either primary or unreliable sources. The article was deleted on Spanish Wikipedia in 2018; that discussion also points out the issues with this article. toweli (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, History, Law, Military, Royalty and nobility, and Spain. toweli (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see he is the author of multiple books and there us significant coverage of him in the news (see 1 and 2. Not the strongest case for keeping and the article itself is pretty weird but I think it passes. Mccapra (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Bayonet Lightning

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

Also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

One of many individual articles created 20 years ago in the wake of the Iraq War that would not meet WP:GNG today. Articles cover WP:ROUTINE and non-notable military operations, of which there were tens (if not hundreds) of thousands during the war. None of these are significant like Operation Red Dawn is. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, any coverage around these operations is in the context of the war and don't warrant a standalone page. Merge selectively into List of coalition military operations of the Iraq War, which provides better context, then redirect. Longhornsg (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, Iraq, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Politics. Curbon7 (talk) 09:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to List of coalition military operations of the Iraq War. Limited sourcing and individual notability, no need for standalone articles. Reywas92^Talk 13:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Victorian police in the Eureka Rebellion

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, Police, and Australia. Fram (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would just note that The Eureka Encyclopedia has a stand-alone entry for "Policing in Ballarat" where some of the information comes from. Robbiegibbons (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It gets worse: "Calvin ... May have been at the Eureka Stockade. Athel cb (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless they were listed as officially killed or injured it's hard to be certain of their status. Here's a typical entry from The Eureka Encyclopedia that shows how they deal with it:

"CULPECK, THOMAS A private in the 12th Regiment (no 2797), he was probably present during the storming of the Eureka Stockade on 3 December 1854, being in Ballarat during the third muster. He was probably the Thomas Culpeck who married Mary Putrtill in 1857 in Tasmania." Robbiegibbons (talk) 09:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone list. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy for it to be deleted then Robbiegibbons (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

actually now that I think of it, what about renaming the article "Victorian police in the Eureka Rebellion" and then I'm willing to truncate it. Robbiegibbons (talk) 05:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preparations for the 2003 invasion of Iraq

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

WP:POVFORK of 2003 invasion of Iraq, where this content is already covered (and in a less POV way). Redirect to 2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Preparations_for_war. Longhornsg (talk) 07:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Terrorism, Iraq, United Kingdom, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 07:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is indeed a problem but I don't think redirect is a good idea, let alone a solution. This article was created back in 2003 as a very reasonable fork, in my view sensibly. The main article was, as is, far too long. For most of these 21 years there has been no adequate link from the main article to this one and so this spin-off has languished. Material from 2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Preparations_for_war should be moved here leaving behind only a brief summary. This would improve both articles. Thincat (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with the above suggestion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Don't think it's a good idea to try to merge or redirect. 2003 invasion of Iraq was put up for Feature Candidacy in 2006, and as mentioned above, was deemed too lengthy and had to be trimmed. This is what was forked off into its own article. — Maile (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historical background of the Russo-Ukrainian War

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Historical background of the Russo-Ukrainian War (2nd nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep The article is based on books by highly renowned historians, e.g. Andreas Kappeler and Serhii Plokhy. Those books were written explicitly to provide the historical background of that war. I don't see any of our guidelines supporting deletion. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a poorly written essay that heavily focuses on the Old Rus' question, while only briefly mentioning the other historical contexts of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. It almost completely omits the modern history of both countries. Additionally, some statements are of questionable neutrality. For example: 'The legal and bureaucratic traditions of Kievan Rus' were inherited by Lithuania, but not by Muscovy,' which, as far as I know, has no basis in historical fact.Marcelus (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I would also think creating a draft or starting over may work if it is considered viable (assuming there is no longer the problem with WP:OWN here). Mellk (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has been marked as a stub since June 2024. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Ukraine has been notified of this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ukraine#Deletion_discussion_at_WP:Articles_for_deletion/Historical_background_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War_(2nd_nomination) Rsk6400 (talk) 08:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Smuts in British Transvaal

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

This article is entirely unsourced and reads like an essay. The topic itself does not appear sufficiently notable for its own article. While a merge has been suggested in edit histories, doing so would require the introduction of unsourced and essay-like material into an otherwise non-problematic page. Additionally, a section to this effect already exists at Jan Smuts. The content of the article is not suitable for any page and thus should be deleted. Garsh (talk) 02:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Garsh (talk) 02:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and South Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Content is already well covered in the main Smuts article and this is a wholly unsourced and one-sided. Nate • (chatter) 21:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An essay that has remained unsourced and relatively unchanged since its creation in 2005. Some of the content is already contained at the main article and as it is unsourced a merge is inadvisable. Surprised it's been around this long. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Bangladesh-Myanmar border skirmish

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

This type of skirmish is not uncommon in the region. The event had no lasting historical significance, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Worldbruce (talk) 06:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Bangladesh, and Myanmar. Worldbruce (talk) 06:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 07:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1866 Finnish typhus epidemic

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, specifically the lack of significant coverage. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Finnish famine of 1866–1868. The role of diseases in the famine is discussed at https://www.duodecimlehti.fi/duo10652 (in Finnish) which includes some offline references that could be used (e.g. Turpeinen 1986, Pitkänen 1993; but I don't actually have access to these). Making such a strict separation between the famine and the diseases associated with it does not seem very natural, and it would be better to discuss this in the parent article, which gives the proper context for the epidemic. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The nominator initially placed a PROD tag (with the same rationale) before later taking it to AfD — with the PROD tag remaining as well. Since it is up for AfD, I have procedurally deproded. Notwithstanding that, I offer no opinion regarding the article itself at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and History. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Finnish famine of 1866–1868. While there looks to be plenty of Finnish literature to support a notability pass, based on a (admittedly very brief) literature search the typhus appears to have been just one of multiple diseases rampant around the time of the famine. If this was a long and well-developed article, I'd see an argument for keeping it separate, but it's not and thus I think handling this in the broader context is better for our readers. And nothing prevents a future split if the relevant content somehow expands to overshadow there rest of the famine article. -Ljleppan (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Finnish famine of 1866–1868. As creator of the article, I agree with the merge suggestion and the rationale given above. But I'd like to call CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath's attention to Ljleppan's point that this article easily passes GNG if you look for Finnish-language sources (and probably Swedish or Russian). I'd encourage CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath to consider this kind of possibility before proposing articles for deletion in future. Alarichall (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alarichall I will definitely keep this in mind moving forward! I also support the merge, with the possibility that someone who is fluent in these languages and English could make a separate page in the future. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 23:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll be happy to perform the merge, if no-one else does it, but I think I'm supposed to wait for someone to close this discussion before doing that, right? Alarichall (talk) 00:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alarichall I do believe you have to wait, but I'd be more than happy with you doing the merge. The only issue I would consider is that the lead sentence for the typhus page is marked as ^{[citation needed]} so it might be worth looking into how to source that better. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 05:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Finnish famine of 1866–1868 makes sense; it’s notable but the target article could use the information and citation. Bearian (talk) 01:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bajrur

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

Low quality article about a non notable event with limited coverage within sources + the third ref does not contain a link to a book whose content can be verified. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, India, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Rumal

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jammu and Kashmir-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - from a quick glance at Google books there are various mentions of this battle. Notability is not temporary, so if it was notable at the time it is enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. AfD is not the place to raise quality concerns. --Soman (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Soman None of the sources have any WP:SIGCOV significant coverage of the topic. This seems like it would be better suited for a consolidated page like Hill States-Sikh wars. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This all references incline in this article are more than sufficient with solidarity sourced apparently this article don’t need any kind of insertion 2402:8100:217A:E8B4:ADBA:BB28:A502:E613 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: I am a frequent recipient of harassment and targeting by an incredibly pertinacious sockmaster-[1] who created more than a dozen burner accounts in just the past year solely to target me. His socks most recently targeted my AFDs and PRODs- [2] and [3] and [4] and [5]. The most recent examples are this- in which his IP/proxy removed my PROD on the article Katoch-Sikh war, 2 admins have stated that this was almost certainly HB block evading- [6] + [7]. He has also employed meat puppetry to target AFDs and PRODs. Note that this IP also created a draft for Katoch-Sikh war, the same page HB's sock targeted, very heavily indicating sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry at play here. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also the IP has the exact same writing style as HB. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry what, It upon their own determination rather He isSockpuppet or intruder but definitely non of your expedition but suspiciously why did you creating pointless arguments you don't have any right to blast decretory statement on someone else you might face some serious consequences for such speculation @Southasianhistorian8 MasterofRepulse (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Newly created account creating same articles that were AFDed and successfully deleted by me-[8] + [9]. Thanks. Will be taking to SPI or AN. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: In addition to very obviously being HB's sock/meatpuppet, you can see the IP and the account are clearly operated by the same person since they both submitted their drafts (Battle of Rori Sahib, Battle of Ambala, and Katoch Sikh war) minutes apart from each other-[10] + [11]. At the very very least, these votes should be accorded zero weight and obviously proves my point of a sock/meat campaign to target AFDs/reinstate articles which aggrandize their religion. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you but how regressively your oppressing other on behalf of their religion with propagating your pathetic statement you need to be calm down sir for our both MasterofRepulse (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of windmills in Friesland (T–V)

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

Unclear why we would need such a detailed list of a type of building, most of which are not individually notable and no longer existing. Replicating other, highly specialised databases here is not really the purpose of Wikipedia. There are or were more than 20,000 windmills in the Netherlands, and many more in other countries. Fram (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, Lists, and Netherlands. Fram (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All - per WP:NLIST - the individual windmills do not need to be notable. As the editor doing the majority of work on the various lists of windmills, I've been using my discretion to include all windmills which can be verified to have existed. That the Friesland list has had to be split into several sub-lists is determined by the amount of templates that can be included before the limit size is exceeded. There are over 100 lists of windmills, many of which include all mills. Are we to delete those too? Mjroots (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The individual entries don't need to be notable if the group is notable, and even then "editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." A list which needs to be split in 9 separate pages is a large list, and a discussion whether this isn't overkill (assuming the group is notable) is perfectly acceptable, independent of whether we have other lists of windmills or not (I note that many of these other lists seem to be limited to still existing windmills, not including the often shortlived ones from the past). Fram (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of the UK windmills lists cover all known windmills. Mjroots (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And articles like List of windmills in North Brabant cover only the existing ones, no idea what your point is or how this is relevant for this AfD discussion. Fram (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The intention is for all Netherlands windmills lists to cover all mills. Also Belgium as their mills are also well documented. It is easier to verify mills standing than those not standing, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to cover those lost. We've both said our piece, now let's let other editors have their say. Mjroots (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Condense down to a single list of the entries that have their own articles, as a reasonable navigation aid (as much as I think that gets overused, it's actually pretty appropriate here). Otherwise, this is just a massive database dump. It may or may not even be reasonable to combine all the separate province lists into a single list for the whole country, but I'll remain ambivalent on that one. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as they are reliably documented, and the list is too long to be in one article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VNOT. This isn't a valid keep argument and doesn't address the concern that this essentially just a massive database copy/dump. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete as WP:COPYVIO I have to agree with Fram: making an inferior copy of someone else's database is really not within our purview. There's probably some WP:NOT guideline covering that aspect, but the fact that it is a copy of only some of the fields doesn't ameliorate that it is a comprehensive copy of every entry. And without that copying there's really nothing here, as it is the sole source for it would appear well over 90% of the entries. I have to think that it's not possible to source this otherwise without repeating the other author's original research. I wouldn't have a problem with the obviously much smaller list of surviving mills, for which the copied database could be used as a source for certain information. But in this case we are just stealing someone else's work, even if we aren't stealing all of it and that theft was not the intent. Mangoe (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I contest the claim of copyvio. As for the one source claim, the DHM database itself draws on many sources. Thus the lists draw on many sources too. For info, the Dutch Wikipedia lists cover all windmills, though they have split by existing and "vanished" mills. Mjroots (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say it, but even though I agree with not retaining a copy of the database, facts aren't copyrightable, only the presentation of those facts. Still though, what's essentially a copy is still essentially a copy, and not something we should be hosting. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs further discussion and contribution from other editors to reach a clear consensus. Would encourage editors to consider neutral notices at neutral venues to seek further input, if they feel it is appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if it meets WP:NLIST it still goes against what Wikipedia is not supposed to be. A list of every single windmill in the Netherlands that is just a copy of a database is not within the scope of the project. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samsun clashes (1920)

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

Article doesn't seem notable, sources are not reliable or verifiable. Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Turkey, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment tr:Samsun is featured but as far as I can tell does not mention this - I have linked this discussion on that article talk page in the hope someone knows better than me. Also if the clashes with British were significant I guess one of you military experts can find an English language source Chidgk1 (talk) 06:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've searched and have not found anything. Insanityclown1 (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They have replied by pointing me to tr:Samsun_tarihi#Millî_Mücadele_sırasında but I am not competant to say which of the cites in that are reliable Chidgk1 (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tal Afar uprising

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

This doesn't seem like a notable event. There are no records cited of casualty figures or combatant numbers. The British commander isn't even noted. Not to mention, this article is written pretty poorly and with a clear nationalist slant. Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Iraq, Turkey, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Did the nominator conduct a WP:BEFORE search? The nominator would benefit from reading WP:NEXIST and WP:DINC. Curbon7 (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I will note that Chapter 8 of British Miscalculations does give some coverage to this rebellion (though they at times write the name as Tal'Afar). The introduction of the same book also comments as follows: The Fall of Tal Afar in June 1920 was the signal for a general uprising of all the tribes in the north. It spread to the middle of the Euphrates, and the position became serious. There are other works I see that describe it as the "Mesopotamian Rebellion of 1920", if that would help with a source search. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to Michael Andrew Kappelmann, Parallel Campaigns: The British in Mesopotamia, 1914–1920, and the United States in Iraq, 2003–2004 (2014), p. 53, the "insurgent rising at Tal Afar, a Turkmen village in the northwest Mosul vilayet, was the single deadliest incident since the end of the [first world] war. . . In all, 16 British soldiers, including two officers, were dead." He cites Aylmer Haldane, The Insurrection in Mesopotamia, 1920, and Gertrude Bell, Review of the Civil Administration of Mesopotamia. Srnec (talk) 01:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaji Bhangare

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

WP:CASTE cruft bio created by IP socks of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala. First tried to hijack Gamaliel when that failed started this page through another IP hop. Gotitbro (talk) 10:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, History, Military, India, and Maharashtra. Gotitbro (talk) 10:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. I can not verify any sources except for one but that is not on the subject of this page. RangersRus (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although the article is not properly written but it meets the WP:GNG and WP:V per the cited sources.2409:4051:38B:9FBC:2307:730F:F39B:ED93 (talk) 03:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)— 2409:4051:38B:9FBC:2307:730F:F39B:ED93 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: article is related to the Maratha Army of the Maratha empire that ruled northern India from 1600_1800 and also meets Verifiability.195.170.172.189 (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)— 195.170.172.189 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG. One trivial mention in this journal (with the same text as this book). Nothing else. Although weirdly a mention apparently appears in The Wikipedia Revolution (Andrew Lih, 2009) but the contents are unavailable on Google Books so I'm not sure why. C F A 💬 16:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jurij Viditsch

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

A 17th century Slovenian mayor is hardly notable enough to keep a page here. Although he was mayor of Ljubljana, the capital city of Slovenia, which could be grounds for some notability, no sources exist which make significant mention of his life or do anything more substantial than say his name.

Here are all existing sources I could find about him:

[12] (which apparently consists of articles from Wikipedia according to this site here)
[13] (only mentions him once)

The only page on Wikipedia that even makes mention of him is List of mayors of Ljubljana. If it weren't for similarly useless pages about mayors from Ljubljana's history whose pages should be deleted alongside this one, this page would be an Orphan. Fringe, Suspect The (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Slovenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Slovenia was not an independent country at the time and Ljubljana not a capital. This weakens the case for NPOL. The first source mentioned above is very obviously a Wikipedia collection. Several other mayor articles are in the same dire state, including Horacij Carminelli and other successors. Many of these only duplicate List of mayors of Ljubljana and can be redirected there. In that list, a few other details such as birth and death year can also be added whereever known. Geschichte (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agreed. Fringe, Suspect The (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This was all I could find [14]; just not enough sourcing for our needs here. Sourcing now in the article is a list of mayors from the city, not helping notability (and a primary source). Oaktree b (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Royalty and nobility. Curbon7 (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The cited source [2] names A) his reelection B) German name: Under "Georg Viditsch" you will find him several listings in google books plus a secondary literature that states that he was judge at Laibach afterwards. Axisstroke (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No more information here than is already given at List of mayors of Ljubljana, which is true of a number of other mayors in that list with similar stub articles that should also go. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we should avoid having contemporary notability standards for historical figures for earlier epochs. Just because a person isn't highlighted by contemporary historians doesn't mean he wasn't notable during his time period. The name has different variations, Georg or Jurij, Vidic or Viditsch, probably some other variants in Latin. A mayor of a mayor city in this period wasn't a 'local politician' as we understand it today, that person would have been a person of significant notability. He also served as 'Stadtrichter' of the city. Here we see his heraldic shield. He is mentioned here across story of several pages, but I can't make sense of the Fraktur script, not sure if journalistic account or prose. ([15] mentions a Georg Vidic born around 1540 in Blečji Vrh, as the first known in a genealogical line of Vidic... but DOB doesn't really match our Georg Vidic) --Soman (talk) 12:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Soman. Nvss132 (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was a town judge, an innkeeper, and a mayor of what is now a capital city of an independent country, so there clearly is historical interest in keeping information on this person. There are in-depth discussions of him in the relevant literature; see e.g. Ljubljana Mayors Through Time (pg. 73). I could agree on having this article merged elsewhere but not on its outright deletion. --TadejM ^{my talk} 13:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. The currently cited sources are short descriptions or lists. There is no WP:SIGCOV on online sources. The source cited by TadejM is also a short description, not in-depth discussion. I would have agreed with Soman on being careful with applying contemporary notability standards for historical figures, however, notable historical figures are still covered in-depth by reliable sources; old, printed ones, if not available online. We don't have proof of those at this time to say the subject merits an encyclopedia article. Prof.PMarini (talk) 01:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SIGCOV: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention," which is a clear case here. The said article illustrates the person's notability and it is not a trivial mention. There is no mention of 'short description' in the relevant guideline. You may compare this article e.g. to this one that we have decided to keep. I would hope that a historical personality is at least on par with a random sportswoman who got to participate in the Olympics. --TadejM ^{my talk} 05:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here (Something about Ljubljana street names and surnames from the early 17th century (according to two new urbaria from 1620-1633)) is another reference that provides further information on Jurij Viditsch (Georg Widitsch) and describes him as a very notable personality for Ljubljana at the time. The article discusses in depth two urbaria composed under Jurij Viditsch. --TadejM ^{my talk} 07:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

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

Similar to other articles in the Career achievements of basketball players category, this is a collection of indiscriminate trivia with trivial statistical cross sections, which is a violation of WP:NOTSTATS and does not meet the notability criteria under WP:NLIST. The most pertinent info is already included in the main article. Let'srun (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but with severe pruning. Ditch the NBA statistics and Career high sections and trim the NBA records, but that still leaves a notable boatload of the last, e.g. most points scored, most blocks (both now second), etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Too many for one regular bio page. KatoKungLee (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless there's a solid reason to delete it beyond being statistics-heavy. Kareem is one of the sport's greatest players, something which has drawn extremely extensive commentary, so I don't think this is really indiscriminate.

jp×g🗯️ 21:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... unless there's a solid reason to delete it beyond being statistics-heavy: The nom mentioned WP:NOTSTATS, which is a policy. —Bagumba (talk) 04:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unneeded WP:CONTENTFORK packed with WP:UNDUE, indiscriminate, trivial stats minutiae. Major, defining achievements should be captured in the main bio. The basic achievements are already at Kareem Abdul-Jabbar § NBA career statistics, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar § Athletic honors and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar § Legacy. Also fails WP:NOTSTATS: Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing As most of this page is unsourced (tagged since April), there's no opportunity to merge either. Consistent with consensus against standalone odes to other Basketball Hall of Fame players and "top 10" of all-time like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Hakeem Olajuwon and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Larry Bird.—Bagumba (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, there is no consensus. Let's see if a relisting helps.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. ~~The sole delete vote recommends merging the material into the main article.~~ However, that article is very long (8098 words), and WP:SIZESPLIT applies. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not recommend a merge at all: As most of this page is unsourced (tagged since April), there's no opportunity to merge either. As also mentioned, WP:NOTSTATS applies for the trivial numbers as well.—Bagumba (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First all-time (second now) scoring, rebounding and blocked shots are "trivial numbers"? Also, why are you typing "*:"? ":*" actually does something with the asterisk. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned previously, major stats such as those are presented in prose at Kareem Abdul-Jabbar § Legacy. It doesn't need a standalone list conflated with unsourced trivial stats. As for the indenting question, I was using the reply tool, and its formatting seems consistent with Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks § Best practices—Bagumba (talk) 07:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Colons_and_asterisks#Best_practices says to use things like ":::" or "***", not a mixture. If the reply tool is doing something else, then it's faulty in a minor way. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC) [reply]

There's a mixed example there showing *****: sixth reply.—Bagumba (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Bagumba. The important material is already at Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, either in the infobox or in the body. I suspect that quite a bit of this is inaccurate or out of date. For starters, LeBron James now holds the record for most All-Star games, not Kareem. That's a relatively major fact that hasn't been corrected. That may just be the tip of the iceberg. Generally speaking, I think Wikipedia does a poor job maintaining articles of this nature, and even if someone does some short-term cleanup, that effort won't be sustained over time. Zagalejo (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Wikipedia does a poor job maintaining articles of this nature ...: Yes, it's been tagged for months requesting more sources. Per WP:V:
Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed.
There's nothing sourced left here that isn't already mentioned in the main bio, if unsourced content is removed.—Bagumba (talk) 06:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to break the divide between editors arguing to Keep this article and those proposing a Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History Proposed deletions

History categories

for occasional archiving

History

History Proposed deletions

History categories

Proposals

Leave a Reply