Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/History

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

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


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


History

[edit]

Vlora incident

[edit]
Vlora incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:HOAXy framing as a battle when the Soviets simply withdrew under diplomatic pressure and harassment of their sailors. The most violence described in a recent news article is that an Albanian sailor tore a Soviet flag. [1] All the life.ru article cited here says is "портили имущество, каждый день скандалили с советскими моряками, провоцируя их на драки и ссоры и буквально гадили на крыльце комендатуры." ("they damaged property, quarreled with Soviet sailors every day, provoking them to fights and arguments, literally on the porch of the commandant's office.") The claim that Soviet vessels were fired upon is not to be found in the life.ru article and thus fails WP:V. Thus, I would conclude that this article is a kind of WP:SENSATIONAL WP:CFORK, and there is nothing about the Soviet's withdrawal that can't be adequately summarized at Albanian–Soviet split and Pasha Liman Base. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Foča

[edit]
Battle of Foča (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:POVFORK of Foča ethnic cleansing. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 12:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ambush near Cazin

[edit]
Ambush near Cazin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of countless clashes that took place during the Siege of Bihać (1992–1995). Fails WP:GNG, possibly a WP:HOAX given the framing as an ambush when the article describes it as an offensive that led to the capture of several villages. Adds nothing to readers' understanding of that siege or the wider war. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 12:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Governor Sheng (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle for Bosanski Brod

[edit]
Battle for Bosanski Brod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:POVFORK of Operation Corridor 92. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Italo-Yugoslav crisis of 1953–54

[edit]
Italo-Yugoslav crisis of 1953–54 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CFORK of Free Territory of Trieste. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Foča

[edit]
Operation Foča (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I fail to see why this was created when we already have Operation Trio. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 12:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Drënas

[edit]
Battle of Drënas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:POVFORK of Gornje Obrinje massacre, which took place in the same municipality at the same time. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of philosophy anniversaries

[edit]
List of philosophy anniversaries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

a list of when every philosopher was born and died is not remotely helpful, and impossible in practice to maintain, this is WP:LISTCRUFT Psychastes (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sambalut

[edit]
Sambalut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination. Turtlecrown came onto my talk page demanding to know why I tagged this stub as "sources exist". After answering by finding two good, albeit passing, reliable sources, I also explained my process why I won't work on sourcing locations anymore, but haven't gotten a reply yet. I'm leaving it up to the community to decide what to do with this stub that has been unsourced for 15 and 1/2 years, without any subsequent content or similar improvements, and also if you want me to continue to source locations or not, because I'm getting a lot of negative feedback and to be blunt I'm tired of wasting my time. Bearian (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I see plenty of books and academic sources that at least mention its founding. I don't know if there's any more in-depth discussion in the literature of the location, but it seems like it meets geographic historical location requirements. SilverserenC 23:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - will vote later. I'm looking at Google Scholar and saw 6 results of which 4 are false positives (discussing Hinduism from an Indonesian context, the Dayak people of Indonesia, or simply a typo). From the other two sources, the first source says: the towns founded by the Khazars, after conquering Transcaucasia, received the names of Samiran, Samsakly, Sambalut, Samakha, Samkalako, and others. and . In the Khazar language, as in many other Turkish dialects, the word sam means "top," "high," or "main,' and was used as a name for many towns. The second source directly references the first source, so there is no additional information. This is very little information. I will have to further review Google Books and other areas. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's nothing on Google News, nothing on TWL, nothing on Newspapers.com. Looking at Google Books there are several more false positives regarding the Dayaks of Borneo, Indonesia; another false positive along the Nile river in Africa; there is a map that Google says supposedly mentions Sambalut along with a whole host of other places but I can't decipher the map (you are welcome to try), there's a third and fourth and fifth and sixth and seventh and eighth and ninth (including duplicates) sources that discuss Sambalut but most probably they say nothing more than the first source above (you see they also mention Samakha, Samiran etc). There are several more inaccessible sources that are probably false positives. There's also a German source but I can't read German, perhaps I should ask a German editor, but maybe it's a false positive also that the actual word may be "Sambalu". starship.paint (talk / cont) 03:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • At this point, if the German source is not substantive, we should probably delete this article. We can simply mention Sambalut in the Khazars article. I don't think it should be a redirect due to the usage related to Dayak people and other Indonesian content. starship.paint (talk / cont) 03:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see only the first page of the source, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:20, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • One thing we might want to try and find out first is how Sambalut is spelled in Turkish or Arabic and see if sources show up when those names are searched. Since it's not like we would expect much of the academic coverage to be in English. SilverserenC 04:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
          • That German book from 1576 mentions Sambalut in a chapter which describes (or purports to describe) Tartary. Paraphrasing: There is the province of Tangut (!) – which provides the world supply of rhubarb – and the land of Cataio (Cathay) with the city of Sambalut, 20 Italian miles in circumference according to Niccolò de' Conti, or 32 miles according to Marco Polo. The city is of a rectangular layout with castles at each corner. Make of that what you will . -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Michael Bednarek: - greatly appreciate your translation. I am now more confident that the German source is a false positive as well. de' Conti and Polo were born after the end of the Khazars. It is highly unlikely that Sambalut would ever have been considered to be in China. Observing the German source closely, line eight of that paragraph, and the fourth last line of that paragraph, clearly write "Sambalu" and not "Sambalut". starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sure, you can try that, Silver seren. I used Google Translate, no change of name when in Turkish, name changed to سامبالوت in Arabic, and nothing found for سامبالوت in Google Scholar/Books/News/Search. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
            • I found a better version of the map I mentioned above. It shows Europe upside down though. Okay so from staring at the map, there's a drawing of a man at the bottom left. Above his head and to the right, is a black dot with the black name "Samarchat". Maybe that's Sambalut. Either way, not enough information to go on. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on what I've found above. Not enough information to pass WP:GNG and this is a word used in other languages or referring to other places. I'll just include what I found in the Khazars article (done!). Ping me if there's anything that came up in other language sources and I will reconsider my vote. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Albania–Yugoslav aircraft incident (1967)

[edit]
Albania–Yugoslav aircraft incident (1967) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Where there are any working sources they're to blogs or forums. no indication that this passes WP:GNG. Very minor Cold War incident. Molikog (talk) 05:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Khillia and White fortresses

[edit]
Siege of Khillia and White fortresses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's hard to see a notable topic here for this 1420 siege. It's sourced to two YouTube videos and a coin-selling site, none of which mention, as far as I can find, a siege or any fortresses. And it is completely the work of an editor who has done nothing else, so may not even be serious. Dicklyon (talk) 04:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source notes: This 1420 siege might may be related to Siege of Chilia (1484), a fortress with some similar variant spellings, but in a different year? Possibly also related to the "White Citadel" (Cetatea Alba) besieged in 1484 according to reddit, which says "However, Moldovans lost Cetatea Alba in 1484, after an Ottoman siege. The loss of this fortress (along with the fortified city of Chilia) forced the country to start repaying tribute to the Ottoman Empire." Was the 1420 siege a predecessor to the 1484 siege, or is this article just made up and unsourceable? I don't know. I actually hope someone can figure it out and rescue it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found some – using the spelling Chilia I was able to find some scholar articles that seem to mention a 1420 repulsion of the Ottomans, so I admit now it's real and probably notable, just needs a lot of work. E.g. this book with Cetatea Alba, but no Chilia in 1420. Dicklyon (talk) 05:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Kostiantynivka

[edit]
Capture of Kostiantynivka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

That's yet another small engagement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine given a page for no reason. References 2, 4, 9, 11, 13 (that's just 2 but repeated), 14, 15 and 17 do not even mention this village. Half of the ones that do are from the Institute for the Study of War, which gives daily updates about all engagements regardless of notability. Actually most of this article does not even deal with the village but with the surrounding settlements. This is an useless content fork of 2025 Sumy Oblast incursion, with much duplicated information. Kostiantynivka is a small village of 243 people (in 2001) which most likely no particular military or strategic value. The Sumy incursion article only has 1,963 words [3], far from the recommended 6,000-word threshold after which a split is plausible [4]. And this article was written by ChatGPT as you can see by checking the url of references 6 and 15. The little care that the supposed author of this article has given it is evident considering this source [5] is cited when it doesn't even talk about this village but about a town also named Kostiantynivka in a different province and front and with 66,000 inhabitants. Super Ψ Dro 09:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Morina

[edit]
Battle of Morina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I reckon this fails WP:GNG. According to Vickers & Pettifer, there were "25 minor battles in the Koshare/Morina corridor, between 1 January and 31 August 1998, more than in the rest of the Albania/Kosova border areas put together". [6] This clash appears to be one of them. Boolean searches using numerous different permutations ("KLA" AND "Morina" AND "1998", etc.) turn up nothing pertaining to it other than this very article and Wiki mirrors. A Google search for the Albanian term "Beteja e Morinës" between 1999 and 2022 returns 9 results, mostly Youtube videos and Facebook posts. [7] It is only in July 2023 that we see a couple of articles in mainstream Albanian-language sources from Kosovo marking the 25th anniversary of what was supposedly a great KLA victory. [8]

This sparsity shouldn’t be all too surprising considering the fatalities on the Yugoslav army side, and by extension the significance of the event, are made entirely from whole cloth. According to the Kosovo Memory Book, which contains a detailed list of all 13,000+ conflict-related fatalities from 1 January 1998 to December 31, 2000, 6 ethnic Albanian combatants and 1 civilian were killed in the municipality of Đakovica/Gjakovë on 7 July 1998, which aligns with the article’s claim of 6 KLA killed. However, no other military or civilian deaths are recorded in the municipality on this date, let alone 64. [9] Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kleçka

[edit]
Battle of Kleçka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doubtful whether this meets WP:GNG. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deblocking of Dulje, of which this is somewhat of a WP:CFORK. The whole article can be summarized in the background of Klečka killings, which were uncovered as a result of this operation. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Dulu

[edit]
Battle of Dulu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

subject previously declined at AfC due to lack of reliable sources and notability concerns I know it's a different user who created it this,but they cited the same unacceptable sources, And it appears to have same sourcing deficiencies, with only one reliable academic source (Beckwith) among five citations. Remaining sources include file-sharing sites (dokumen.pub), primary source translations, and unverifiable PDF links that don't meet Wikipedia's reliability standards. Battle does not appear to meet WP:NHIST requirements for historical events and doesn't meet WP:GNG. R3YBOl (🌲) 12:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seventy-second firman of the Yazidi

[edit]
Seventy-second firman of the Yazidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I accepted this at WP:AFC in good faith, but having seen comments on the talk page it seems that the article is contentious, and possibly misleading so bringing it here for a community discussion. Theroadislong (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stubify or redirect to persecution of Yazidis. It is likely possible to write some sort of article on this topic, but this one would to be scrapped and rewritten to satisfy WP:VER. I don't object to deletion. On second thought just delete the article; content has enough issues that preserving is more harmful than helpful and I've begun to doubt the notability since all the sources I've found are either passing mentions or derivative of the Six-Hohenbalken paper. It's a shame this topic is not better documented or researched, but we can't change that. (t · c) buidhe 18:01, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't remember well but This article was first named as "Yazidi genocide" and as I do remember it was drafted because of multiple problems, I can see that they changed everything in the draft and then moved to article (Or maybe requested for moving it to articles), and I am right about this, you can check the history editing of the article for my claims about it's old title and topic. Since the creator has been involved in Creating hoax content, I support the deletion of the article, and maybe another good faith editor can re-create it with a better version. R3YBOl (🌲) 18:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Skitash (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draftspace. The article is clearly not ready, which I thought it was, which was why I submitted the draft for review. I am still trying to make sure the article can work and be on Wikipedia. If you have any problems with the article, please contact me. I will try to fix every part of the article, as I don't believe this article is a hoax either. Thank You.Spino-Soar-Us (talk) 11:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revue des questions historiques

[edit]
Revue des questions historiques (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced translation of the unsourced French article. What at first glance appears to be dozens of sources, turns out to be dozens of articles in the Revue about other things. A few passing mentions here and there, but no significant secondary coverage that I can find. Other than Google, I recommend searching Qwant and Persee; see those links among the set of find-source links on the Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 06:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
  • Serious claim to be first modern scholarly journal in both France and the French language
  • Publication that went for 80 years
  • Important in France as an intellectual cornerstone of the Nineteenth Century Catholic revival
  • Important outside (and in) France as an early stage in exporting German "scientific history" methods
  • A linked internet archive and 4 (post AfD) references undermine the "unreferenced" claim
JASpencer (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only ref #1 is promising; the rest are passing mentions:
  • Ref 1: One solid paragraph about the journal; borderline WP:SIGCOV. Replicate this several times in secondary sources, with sources that have deeper treatment, and you probably have it.
  • Ref 2: mentioned in passing (2x) on page 158; e.g., In sum, the Revue historique served ideological purposes no less than the legitimist and conservative Revue des questions historiques, an historical journal which began to be published ten years earlier, in 1886, and which, as Carbonell writes, has been just about totally ignored by the few French historians who have written on the history of history in France..
  • Ref 3: One passing mention:
One passing mention

Like the discipline of history, which was divided between the conservative and Catholic Revue des questions historiques (1866) and the republican Revue historique (1876), the major textbooks on the history of law distinguish between, on the one hand, the work of liberals such as Adhémar Esmein and Jean-Baptiste Brissaud and, on the other, those carried out by Catholic jurists (Ernest Glasson, Paul Viollet, and Émile Chénon).

Original: À l'instar de la discipline historique, clivée entre la conservatrice et catholique Revue des questions historiques (1866) et la républicaine Revue historique (1876), les grands manuels d'histoire du droit laissent distinguer, d'un côté, les entreprises menées par des libéraux comme Adhémar Esmein et Jean-Baptiste Brissaud et, de l'autre, ceux réalisés par des juristes catholiques (Ernest Glasson, Paul Viollet et Émile Chénon).

See the links at the Talk page for additional possibilities for sourcing. Mathglot (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you are continuing to add citations; that's great. Checking 5 and 6:
  • Ref 5: Ten passing mentions, with one on p. 111, as you noted. I don't see anything involving a significant treatment of the topic here, but if you can show that there is continual treatment on the three pages from 108 to 111 and not just passing mentions, that might help.
  • Ref 6: This is a 20-page article by esteemed French historian Charles-Olivier Carbonell about the birth of the similarly named journal, Revue historique, which to a large extent, was founded in reaction to the Revue des questions historiques and mimicked its format but not its content. I would say that this certainly counts as a reliable source with significant coverage of the topic (the first one that does, by my reckoning).
Is he the only French historian who ever wrote about it, or are there other serious treatments of it? Find two more like #6, and you're good. Mathglot (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian-Kurdish Clashes (1840-1895)

[edit]
Assyrian-Kurdish Clashes (1840-1895) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article lacks sufficient reliable sources and appears to reflect a non-neutral, possibly partisan narrative. It fails to meet Wikipedia’s standards for notability, sourcing, and neutrality. Much of the content is unsourced or poorly cited, and it presents a historical conflict in a way that seems one-sided, potentially violating Wikipedia's policies on neutrality (WP:NPOV) and verifiability (WP:V). A search for academic or high-quality sources on this specific topic yields very little coverage, suggesting it may not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for historical events (WP:NOTE). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madeaccountfr (talk • contribs) 08:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Check the page now Suraya222 (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are some pretty poorly written sections, both from a sourcing standpoint and actual written English (the ones with seemingly random capitalized words are especially jarring to look at), but the article is salveagable and I think there's at least a good chance a good article can be written on the subject. In any case I'm not going to give the benefit of the doubt to the banned (not just blocked!) nominator who is a notoriously bad faith participant. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Iraq, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.  Zemen  (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.
Jackhanma69 (talk) 10:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'''Keep''' - I don't see the reason for Deletion, And I provided the sources and Made the Page better Suraya222 (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'''Keep''' – if there's another problem, please tell me so I can change it. Suraya222 (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'''Keep''' Suraya222 (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can Anyone Please Tell me how the hell do I type Keep but Bold and Black Suraya222 (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The information is backed by the sources. Assyrians and Kurds had many clashes in Hakkari in the 1800s that are well documented. Termen28 (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. StrongCap (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC) Blocked as a sock. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@StrongCap Explain why you want the page to be deleted Suraya222 (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Suraya222 (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note here that both the nominator Madeaccountfr and voter StrongCap have been blocked as sockpuppets of notorious WP:LTA editor Tishreen07 [10]. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FR Yugoslav Strike Mission

[edit]
FR Yugoslav Strike Mission (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was redirected to Kosovo War 12 years ago before being recreated by an IP a few months back. [11] [12] Not only does it not meet WP:GNG, as others have noted, but under the current name and within the current framing it is essentially a WP:HOAX and it makes no sense to redirect it to Kosovo War again. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Sadko (words are wind) 20:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks on Ponoševac

[edit]
Attacks on Ponoševac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While it is mentioned in contemporary sources, a clash in which 1 combatant was killed on one side and 3 on the other over the course of 3 days certainly falls under WP:NOTNEWS, WP:EFFECT and WP:DEPTH and is of questionable notability. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Sedrenik '94

[edit]
Operation Sedrenik '94 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Other than a passing mention by the CIA and at an ICTY trial, this operation isn't explored in any great depth in reliable sources. The article itself makes no mention of casualties, nor is the significance of this offensive readily apparent. Fails WP:GNG. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only reference for this is Balkan Battlegrounds (I'm unaware of the primary sources you refer to). It is mentioned in both volumes, Vol 1. p. 237 and Vol 2. p. 456, which are almost identical in wording, and are cited to essentially the same sources. The current Incident section is basically a direct cut and paste of the relevant paras, which in both volumes are headed "September: The ARBiH at Sarajevo/Sedrenik". At no point in the main text of the refs or the relevant footnotes is this "very small attack" referred to as an "operation", let alone "Operation Sedrenik '94". So it isn't a plausible search term, because no such named "operation" exists in the refs. This is a name for an isolated and inconclusive piece of fighting over two days that has been editor-generated. Let's not perpetuate it, even if in a redirect. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Expulsion of Soviets from Albania

[edit]
Expulsion of Soviets from Albania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An obvious WP:CFORK of Albanian–Soviet split combined with parts of Vlora incident, which was created by the same sockpuppet account and which itself is a CFORKy take on Albanian–Soviet split. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brest attack

[edit]
Brest attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An ambush with 2 overall deaths doesn't meet WP:N criteria and falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: It's safe to assume anyone typing in Brest attack will be looking for the disambiguation page Battle of Brest, not this incident. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wynwick55gl: An event simply being mentioned in WP:RS is not the foremost criterion when deciding whether to keep or delete an article, see WP:EVENTCRITERIA. This is especially true of an event that is just another Tuesday in Chicago in terms of fatalities. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is laughable. Are you seriously comparing murders committed in a city like Chicago, which has more inhabitants than all of North Macedonia combined, with this insurgency? I don’t see rebels taking over parts of Chicago and ambushing some of its highest ranking politicians. And besides, a military engagement doesn’t need 500 casualties to deserve its own article, otherwise you could start AfD's for 90% of the wikipedia articles related to combat history. GermanManFromFrankfurt (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, what's laughable is your belief that Wikipedia is an indiscriminate repository of information, when we have entire policy guidelines and essays explaining why it very clearly isn't. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The battle does hold significance, it was the very engagement that allowed the NLA to expand its activities into the Kumanovo region, as mentioned in the sources. These events were also widely reported in Western media, such as the LA Times, CNN, and the BBC. Furthermore, it marked another escalation of the conflict, as the NLA targeted Macedonian politicians, including Deputy Interior Minister Refet Elmazi and State Secretary of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Ljube Boškoski. GermanManFromFrankfurt (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep

While the Brest ambush in 2001 may appear to involve a relatively small number of casualties, we must not forget that brest was a significant route for the NLA to reach the Karadak zone. This conflict was an insurgency, and it didn't require heavy losses to have an article. Otherwise dozens articles would have to be deleted as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daddyson11111 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, dozens of articles need to be deleted. Also, see WP:WHATABOUTX for arguments to avoid in a discussion. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Glanasela

[edit]
Battle of Glanasela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CFORK of Central Drenica offensive. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Vast majority of the article is cited to an unreliable blog. --Griboski (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it has sources from multiple sides and they are very reliable, your personal opinion does not effect facts. 79.140.150.3 (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a matter of opinion. WP has guidelines on what constitutes a RS. "srpskioklop.paluba.info", a forum and blog, would not be one of them. --Griboski (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Sadko (words are wind) 20:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Đocaj and Jasić

[edit]
Battle of Đocaj and Jasić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CFORK of Battle of Junik. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, There is no reason why this battle shouldn't stay as an article. The battle should stay as its own article because it was the very battle in which Goran Ostojic, a major commander of the Yugoslav Army and the chief of staff of the 63rd Parachute Brigade, was killed in action along with two other VJ commanders. For this reason alone, the battle deserves to remain its own article. However, I also noticed some people trying to add Goran Ostojic to the Battle of Junik as the battle in which he died, but the battle in question was not actually part of the Battle of Junik. GermanManFromFrankfurt (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vërrini Conflict

[edit]
Vërrini Conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CFORK of KLA Summer offensive (1998). Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is a total mess and full of original research as well. --Griboski (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Sadko (words are wind) 20:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Llapusha-South Drenica Front

[edit]
Llapusha-South Drenica Front (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CFORK of KLA Summer offensive (1998). Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Šušaja

[edit]
Battle of Šušaja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Small skirmishes like this one, from an insurgency in which a total of several dozen people were killed over the course of two years, clearly falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems like Amanuensis Balkanicus is on a bit of a rant, trying to delete anything that even mentions an Albanian insurgent victory. A battle that lasted four days, involved multiple APCs, seven tanks (one of which was damaged), as well as special forces, and left around 9 to 12 participants dead or wounded—including one member of the SAJ special forces—is clearly not a small skirmish. If we're going by that logic, why not start an AfD for the Battle of Oraovica too? GermanManFromFrankfurt (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this was a rather big escelation in insurgency, hence meets the criteria of WP:N and should stay. Durraz0 (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Dobrosin

[edit]
Battle of Dobrosin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Small skirmishes like this one, from an insurgency in which a total of several dozen people were killed over the course of two years, clearly falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Again, just like in the case of the Battle of Đocaj and Jasić, this battle holds significance. It was the very battle that marked the outbreak of the Insurgency in the Preševo Valley. This was the first major engagement between the LAPMB and Yugoslav forces. I see no reason why it should be deleted. Furthermore, it was widely reported on in Western media, as shown by the sources mentioned in the article. GermanManFromFrankfurt (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Cerevajka

[edit]
Battle of Cerevajka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Small skirmishes like this one, from an insurgency in which a total of several dozen people were killed over the course of two years, clearly falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. --Griboski (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Sadko (words are wind) 20:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bukoc

[edit]
Battle of Bukoc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Small skirmishes like this one, from an insurgency in which a total of several dozen people were killed over the course of two years, clearly falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Skirmish on Saint Ilija Mountain

[edit]
Skirmish on Saint Ilija Mountain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Small skirmishes like this one, from an insurgency in which a total of several dozen people were killed over the course of two years, clearly falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a random skirmish as you may think, its very imporant to not have its page, it was a big strategical operation which affected result of the Insurgency by a lot. 79.140.150.3 (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Radonjić operation

[edit]
Lake Radonjić operation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly a WP:CFORK of Lake Radonjić massacre. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History of Northern Epirus from 1913 to 1921

[edit]
History of Northern Epirus from 1913 to 1921 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

History of Northern Epirus from 1913 to 1921 is a WP:CFORK of various parts from Northern Epirus, Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus, World War I in Albania, Albania during the Balkan Wars, Demographics of Albania and others. All parts of the article are in fact parts of other articles and within their scope.

There is no part of this article which isn't discussed in another article because the subject of the article itself is not an academic subject per se as there was no Northern Epirus as a defined geographical area between 1913 and 1921. Northern Epirus is a term which was first very loosely defined in the modern sense in the Balkan Wars (1912-1913) and was used in the context of Greek-Albanian politics, but it was not a defined ethnographic, geographical or historical region which had any distinct history. It still isn't and both Albanian and Greek historians fully agree on this subject.

This would explain why there is no academic coverage for the history of this area and illustrates why the article is a POV content fork: it exists in order to demonstrate that such a region both existed and had a defined history and boundaries a century ago. It is not different to an article with the title History of Transnistria from 1913 to 1921 or an article about any irredentist claim which uses the geographical name of the claim about past history. Nishjan (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article is not a content fork, and covers a notable topic in far greater detail than the articles it supposedly forks. It is also far more useful for readers to have the material in a single article that scattered across a large number of article. The arguments about the quality of some of the sources are specious, as that is not a reason for deletion. The dates of coverage (1913-1921) are not arbitrary, but historically grounded, as 1913 marks the beginning of the Northern Epirus question as a result of the Balkan Wars, and 1921 is the year the region was definitively awarded to Albania and hence represents a sense of closure. Lastly, considering that the topic is controversial with some editors, I'm wondering if there is an element of WP:JDL involved in the nomination. Khirurg (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which sections of this article aren't covered in existing articles? I will change my vote if such a point can be argued for. I voted delete because even if the article was deleted right now, there would be no missing content which isn't discussed in a broad range of different articles. This is the main question which every Delete/Keep should try to answer.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The articles covers the crucial period of history of Northern Epirus in much greater detail than Northern Epirus does or theoretically could (such a level of detail would not be appropriate for a main article). Splitting off detailed content to dedicated sub-articles is univerally done across wikipedia. Khirurg (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article lacks originality and adds little to what is already available across related topics. Its chronological scope appears arbitrary and insufficiently justified, raising questions about why certain years were selected while others equally or more relevant were excluded. Several of the sources cited do not meet Wikipedia’s standards for reliability and neutrality, and some of the claims presented are not supported by credible academic research. In fact, certain statements contradict well-established scholarship and present a skewed perspective that is not reflected in the broader, consensus-based literature.Alltan (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the above is correct, or a reason for deletion. "Lacks originality" is an opinion, and not a policy-based criterion for deletion, the dates are not arbitrary (as explained above), and sourcing issues can be fixed and are not a reason for deletion. The article uses a large number of high quality sources, as is immediately apparent to anyone who reads it. Khirurg (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has nothing to do with a so-called content fork as claimed. It is dedicated to an important historical topic and offers further in-depth compared to similar historical ones. The same article is awareded as a featured article in French and Greek wikis because it covers such an important and crucial time period in Balkan history.Alexikoua (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article is a WP:CFORK as the article's subject and scope are covered and discussed in other articles which are listed in the nomination. The article is a redundant fork (When a content fork occurs by the creation of a pair of pages of the same type (such as two articles, or two templates, or two outlines) on the same subject, it results in two different versions of the same thing, which is unacceptable. The new page in such a pair is called a "redundant content fork".) and POV fork (A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid a neutral point of view (including undue weight), often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts.) as it covers parts which in Northern Epirus are covered differently. Side comment: All territorial claims have been settled since the Balkan Wars. The area was not definitely awarded to Albania in 1921.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is not a fork, because it discusses the topic in much greater detail than Northern Epirus or any other articles. When a topic reaches a certain size, splitting off content to smaller articles that cover specific periods is universal. There are countless such situations across history articles, e.g. with Macedonia (ancient kingdom) and Expansion of Macedonia under Philip II or Byzantine Empire and Byzantium under the Isaurians . Khirurg (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the term "Northern Epirus" has been variably defined, it was actively used in political, military, and diplomatic discourse between 1913 and 1921, making this period both historically grounded and suitable for focused treatment. Rather than stretching across decades of vague relevance, the article confines itself to a time when Northern Epirus was the subject of sustained political and military contestation. As such, this framing offers readers a coherent and manageable scope. Presenting the topic as a distinct historical phase adds encyclopedic value, particularly given its long-term relevance to Greek-Albanian relations. While concerns about POV pushing have been raised, they remain vague and unsubstantiated in this context. And even if bias were present, be bold and improve it. W:NPOV is a standard for improving content, not a justification for erasing notable, well-defined topics. Azor (talk). 23:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article covers a historically significant phase in the broader topic of Northern Epirus, namely 1913–1921. This period includes the aftermath of the Balkan Wars; the short-lived Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus; shifts in control between Greece and Albania; and efforts to settle the region's status via the Protocols of Florence and Corfu, as well as other international negotiations. The article's chronological focus adds value by presenting a self-contained series of events not cohesively treated elsewhere. This is an acceptable case of content forking, splitting off a well-defined subtopic that warrants standalone coverage. Furthermore, the parent article Northern Epirus exceeds 100 KB of wikitext, which supports splitting out detailed coverage of this period. While related articles—such as Northern Epirus, Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus, Protocol of Corfu, and Northern Epirote Declaration of Independence—touch on aspects of this history, none provide a continuous account of the 1913–1921 developments. Concerns over neutrality are better addressed through improvement than deletion, per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. – Demetrios1993 (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Based on the old sources being used, this article is just a copy-paste of parts of various other articles, which have been listed above. For instance, the "Historiography and legacy of the autonomist movement" section is a verbatim copy of older versions of the "Legacy" sections of Protocol of Corfu and Northern Epirus. Large parts of the article are sourced to nationalistic or outdated sources such as Ruches, Miller, Kondis and Stickney. For example, the legacy section is sourced to early 1990s sources and says that the autonomy question is alive and an important part of the Greece-Albania relations. Instead, if you check Northern Epirus, you will see that both Greece and Albania consider the issue as closed 3 decades ago. Many sentences have grammar or clarity issues due to GoogleTranslate usage; some for example start in the past sentence and end in the present while talking about past events. If kept, the article will need to be rewritten almost entirely, as it has huge issues with sourcing, POV, factual accuracy and grammar. Per WP:POVFORK and WP:TNT, it should be deleted. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, no academic RS treats this time period as separate or "special" from the history of "Northern Epirus". Not only the chosen period is arbitrary, but the events of that period are arbitrarily chosen. Some important stuff is missing, some irrelevant stuff is there. For example, the article talks a lot about how much Greeks wanted the region, but nowhere are mentioned the numerous massacres, famines and village burnings committied by the Greek army and its militants against local Albanians and Aromanians. The "Epirus in the Balkan Wars" section, made of three subsections, fails to say a word about the Albanians who had been fighting for years to make the area part of an independent Albania. Instead, it just says that Essad Pasha and some tribal leaders wanted to remain part of the Ottoman Empire. The article says, sourced to Ruches, that all Orthodox Christians in the area spoke Greek. This is nonsense, and one can easily find many RS of recent times saying that most Orthodox Christians there did not speak Greek and were not Greeks. There are many such issues in every part of the article. This is just a mixture of arbitrarily chosen events instead of a RS-based structuring of the article. It is a fringe Greek nationalist talking point, avoiding some aspects of history, changing others, mentioning only what fits the POV. What is the point of keeping an article which needs a nearly complete rewrite while its topics are covered in other articles? Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • A classic example of a small paragraph having several issues: "In the region, the opposition between Muslim and Christian populations was a long-standing and historically entrenched phenomenon. In September 1906, Muslim nationalists assassinated the Orthodox Metropolitan Photios of Korytsá, accusing him of being an agent of Panhellenism.[4] This act resulted in heightened tensions between communities, with even Albanian Christian nationalists in the diaspora not immune to its effects.[5] In this context, the support of Orthodox Epirotes for an Albanian government led exclusively by Muslim leaders (who were in opposition to each other) was far from unanimous in 1914."
This has several issues. One, the conflict at the time was not only Muslim vs Christian, but also Christian Albanian vs Christian Greek. Most of the activists of the Albanian National Awakening in the region were Orthodox Albanians, but the article only makes it look like the conflict was between Muslims and Christians. Second, among all incidents, it chooses to mention a single one, the murder of Photios and makes it look like the Orthodox did not trust the government of Albania because of Photios's murder. The sources don't make that connection. Neither was Photios' murder the only incident, nor was it the most consequential. Third, the wording gives the impression that the murder of Photios created tensions only between Muslims and Christians, but the source tells a more nuanced version. It says that "The rejection, then the instrumentalization of the murder by Orthodox Albanians at a time when the aim was to dissociate Orthodoxy and Hellenism, by forging an Albanian expression of Orthodoxy and moving towards the creation of an Albanian Orthodox Church, demonstrates this." Many Orthodox Albanians supported or did not oppose the murder, as Photios was seen as an anti-Albanian figure. The story of the background and early stages of the NE conflict is much more complex, and much better elaborated on in other articles. This article from the beginning to the end has such issues and it would need to be rewritten if kept. A few weeks ago I worked a lot to bring Northern Epirus to the standards, this one needs way more work. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean Keep I've seen this discussion a while ago; I initially thought I wouldn't participate, since, despite my general focus on Balkan history, this topic and period is not within my main interests and expertise and I don't have strong opinion about it, but I thought I might give my two cents for what is worth, having also read parts of the responses above. It's been a while now that I try to approach things in WP in a neutral manner so, indeed, the topic is nuanced and complex and I don't deny that the existance of issues, such as the case provided above. For example, User:Ktrimi made an effort above to provide an example of the nuanced historical reality of the era. They closed by saying that if the article were to be kept, it would require work to be brought to higher standards. As far as I am concerned, I don't necessarily see this as negative. In short, if we compare: maintain with rework or complete erasure, I believe that objectively the former can be more beneficial. Ideally, the older editors who have a deep knowlegde of the era would work on gradually finding some natural middle ground. There wouldn't be any hurry for that and also the page, I belive, is very low-visibility anyway. Nevertheless, I do think that there still might be merit to the topic and the history of the era, worth keeping, and the page also follows the typical WP format of article "X" and article "History of X", which could justify its existence. Piccco (talk) 00:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if we compare: maintain with rework or complete erasure There would be no erasure, as the content is already covered in other articles.
Ideally, the older editors who have a deep knowlegde of the era would work on gradually finding some natural middle ground Ideally yes, but in practice no. Northern Epirus was in a crappy state for almost 2 decades until a few weeks ago, when I took the intitiative and worked a lot to bring it to the needed standards. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not beneficial to keep the article because it is a WP:POVFORK of info already covered in a neutral way in other articles. It also has a POV title, because an entity called "Northern Epirus" existed only in 1914. The rest is the history of territories of southern Albania claimed by Greece after it annexed from the Ottoman Empire the southern territories of the region it called "Epirus" in line of its classicizing policy. This article, with such title and arbitrary selection of the time span is not neutral for Wikipedia. There is no reliable source that describes such a subject as the "History of Northern Epirus from 1913 to 1921", something invented by an editor in another wiki, and provided here in en.wiki as a translation. If editors don't provide RS that dedicate a chapter or at least a paragraph to the alleged subject of "History of Northern Epirus from 1913 to 1921", it constitutes an original research POV topic that can not have its own Wikipedia article as per Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Article inclusion criteria. – Βατο (talk) 07:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Helge Mathisen

[edit]
Helge Mathisen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mostly based on a personal website and a database, lacks reliable indepth sources to establish notability. Fram (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate as to what parts need more referances? I have found more sources for his service, but naturally his early and late life is not much covered by other sources than helgemathisen.com LillaRis87 (talk) 06:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:GNG/WP:NBIO. We need independent, non-database reliable sources which give significant coverage to him. Some newspaper articles about him, a chapter or some pages in a book, ... It doesn't need to cover his whole life, though it should be about more than one event normally (see WP:BIO1E, but that doesn't seem to be the issue here). Fram (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. I will look, and I'll understand the deletion if I fail in finding anything. LillaRis87 (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Will the sources the site helgemathisen.com use be valid? They are from an independent newspaper. I apologise if I'm posting too often on this discussion, but I want to do this properly. (As I've never been through this proccess before.) LillaRis87 (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have some examples? Fram (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.helgemathisen.com/kilder is the page where helgemathisen.com lists it's sources. They are independent newspapers like "Tromsø Avis", a newspaper based in Tromsø and a few other sources. LillaRis87 (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that helps. First one seems to be about him, so looks like a good source to establish notability. As far as I understand them (but feel free to correct me), second and third are more about the regiment in general, with some attention to him but a lot about others? The fourth one doesn't count for notability, it's the family posting an obituary (again, if I see it correctly).
Perhaps merging this article to No. 331 Squadron RNoAF or starting an article specifically on the squadron during WWII, with some info on Mathisen included, may be a good solution? In any case thank you for helping to think about this and to get all available info in here. Fram (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first is about Helge, the second is about the boat Helge took to England, the third is pretty 50/50 about him and the 331 Squadron, and the fourth is an obituary by his family, yes. I'm not sure if I should maybe remove the parts with limited sources/evidence, and add the new sources, or if I should merge it. I'm new to wikipedia, and I'd like you to make the choice. LillaRis87 (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also wondering if I have to delete the sources listed under the sites not good enough, if so, I'll be happy to do so. LillaRis87 (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have consolidated the references somewhat, and added author names to some. It seems that so far, we have two independent sources - the Nordlands Fremtid article from 1965, and the Tromsø Avis article from 2005. Both are in the article as scans of the original articles. I think they're independent, secondary sources, although I don't know Norwegian, so I'm not sure - the 1965 article may be Mathisen's story in his own words, so not independent or secondary. The warhistoryonline source is based on family information, so isn't independent either. Unless there are more independent, secondary sources, it's not looking like there's enough for a stand-alone article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The articles listed in the sources page for helgemathisen.com are all fully independent except for the last one, which is not independent whatsoever. (Of the four articles, all the other sources are lost.) LillaRis87 (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Could I not remove the parts only covered by personal sources and keep what's also covered by independent ones? LillaRis87 (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete reluctantly, as it's really hard to tell whether he is notable, but based on the sources which are available I don't think we're quite there yet. The articles are all from his hometown. There may be good coverage in the books, but the website also tells exactly where he's mentioned and without access I'm not sure we can assume? The other thing though is this is nowhere near a firm delete - we could easily keep this on the assumption the book sources are good enough to pass GNG, especially the second book on that website where he has 13 pages of coverage, so the closer should treat this !vote lightly if others advocate for it to be kept or if new sources are found. This is actually an odd instance where the fact he has a web site dedicated to him hurts as that's all that comes up in my search results and the sources there don't clearly clear the GNG bar... SportingFlyer T·C 03:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So what should I do? LillaRis87 (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Earl of Rothes (Baronage of Scotland)

[edit]
Earl of Rothes (Baronage of Scotland) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

From my research, this seems to be a paid-for "title" sold by a variety of 'heritage' companies. The article creates a deliberate confusion with the Earl of Rothes, which is a real heriditary title in the Peerage of Scotland. The article implies there was somehow a split between the "peerage" title and the "feudal" title of Earl of Rothes, which would allow the "feudal" title to be bestowed on someone else. No source is given for that claim.

The current "holder" of the title is supposedly a guy with Swiss and Antigua & Barbuda citizenship with a peacock article, a bunch of other weird awards and titles, and no connections to Scotland whatsoever.

The article itself wasn't created until December 2024 by the account Royalorders whose main task seems to be to anchor the claim into a variety of Wiki pages.

I can find no reliable sources that back up the claim that this title even exists, how and why it's different from the established Earl of Rothes, and who the current "holder" is. The only consistent source is a list from registryofscotsnobility.com, a nondescript and unverifiable website without listed owners or administrators, and which is likely just another forum for those who bought these kinds of titles. It's also noteworthy that the public agenda of the next meeting of the 'Registry of Scots Nobility' specifically mentions the creation of Wikipedia pages of their 'titles' as a success. All looks very fishy to me. — Arcaist (contr—talk) 11:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP The title exists (non-peerage in the baronage of Scotland) and was recognised by Lord Lyon, officer of the crown and the monarch's representative in Scotland: Sir Philip Christopher Ondaatje was infeft as at 26th November 2004 in “All and Whole the lands and other heritages forming the barony and territorial lordship of Leslie and the territorial earldom of Rothes together with the territorial office of Sheriff of Fife”, and was designed by Lyon Blair by Warrant dated 5th September 2006 (amended from 6th December 2005) Court of Lord Lyon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellycrak88 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP In addition to what Kellycrack88 said, the existence, validity, and ownership of the title are confirmed by: 1) Crown Charter of Confirmation dated October 19, 1859. NAS Ref. C2/262/No. 4/Folio 8; 2) Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000, Section 63; 3) Certificate of Registration issued by the Scottish Barony Register (which is the only document that is taken into consideration by the Lord Lyon); 4) The mention of the title and its holder in Debretts (which requires proof of title for inclusion in its list) Royalorders (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Baronage of Scotland, no need for a separate article for something that exists but isn't notable at all. These titles don't have a real history (the actual notable title with history is the other Earl of Rothes) and aren't an honour or distinction but something you can simply buy and get registered. Fram (talk) 10:14, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes by only if the existing holder sells - I believe there are only about half a dozen scottish baronial earldoms in existence so its very rare if to be able to buy one - and Lord Lyon only grants arms to a virtuous and deserving individuals i.e. no criminal record or history that could bring the baronage into disrepute etc. Also a very interesting development is that the Baronage of Scotland Association has The Pledge an initiative that coverts these titles in a lifelong, hereditary honour rather than a temporary office that can be sold -- and binds the baron to a Baronial Code of Honour, allegiance to the crown, and paying a tithe to charity, if they get a criminal record as judged by their fellow barons they lose recognition of their title on the Roll. Anyway, I'm happy with what you propose Fram as yes the history should not be copy and paste of the peerage. Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fram @Royalorders Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Lord Lyon only grants arms to a virtuous and deserving individuals" I'm sorry, that's bullshit. "no criminal record or history that could bring the baronage into disrepute" is 99% of the population. That that charity now proposed some non-binding, voluntary "pledge" for members (where barons don't need to be members at all in the first place) is of no value in general and certainly not for this AfD. Fram (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fram@Kellycrak88
    1. The non-peerage title of Earl of Rothes actually has its own separate history from the peerage title beginning on October 19, 1959, the date of the Crown Charter of Confirmation that I mentioned above.
    2. Parliament, in passing the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000, in Section 63 sought to guarantee the right to bear the non-peerage title, recognizing in it a cultural historical value.
    3. Can we supersede the assessment already made by parliament and consider these titles of no value? No, in my opinion.
    4. We need to distinguish the notability of the non-peerage title (which is given by the history of its grant and its successors) from the notability of its current holder. The latter is not relevant to our considerations.
    5. However, it should be remembered that some of these non peerage titles even belong to Prince Williams or King Charles.
    6. The fact that these non peerage titles can be transferred to third parties is not decisive. In Germany and other countries there have been several cases of nobles agreeing to adopt aspirants to their title in exchange for many millions. None of this detracts from the notability of the transferred title.
    7. The question also remains whether it is useful and appropriate for non-peerage titles to have their own page. In my opinion, yes, if there is a clear and unambiguous statement on the page that the title has nothing to do with the peerage title. In my view, creating a page dedicated to a non-peerage title, with the clarification just mentioned, serves precisely to avoid confusion of the two titles, as well as to recognize the historical and cultural dignity of both.
    Royalorders (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any independent sources about this specific title? That is, sources independent from the holders and from the grantibg authorities? Have e.g. any newspapers given significant attention to this newish title? That´s the kind of thing we need to establish WP:GNG. Fram (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fram A secondary source that mentions the creation of the title in 1859? Difficult and unnecessary. You probably won't even find a secondary source that mentions the creation of the peerage title itself in 1458. What is certain is that the article on the peerage title of Earl of Rothes does not mention any secondary sources other than Debretts and Burke’s. However, Debretts (together with the certificate of registration in the SBR) is also mentioned on the page subject to this AfD. It is difficult to understand this disparity in requirements.
    The Crown Charter of Confirmation of 1859 s a public document and is accessible to the public, which is sufficient to prove that the title has its own history and dignity. A historical fact attested to in official documents has inherent notability. Royalorders (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read WP:N. That is not the way notability is determined on Wikipedia. And no, thexsource doesn´t have to be from the time it was created, any time since then will do. But it has to be independent and about the title, not just mentioning it. Fram (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with @Fram they are nearly always right Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fram interestingly there are seven baronage earldoms in the Baroange of Scotland (Arran, Breadalbane, Crawfurd-Lindsay, Errol, Nithsdale, Rothes, Wigtoun), one baronage marquisate (Huntly) and one baronage dukedom (Hamilton), all held in baroneum, where there is entitlement. Of these, four of the earldoms are extant, two are unclaimed, one is in dispute, the marquisate is extant held by a non-peer and the dukedom is held by a senior member of the Scottish peerage. Such nobles bear the honorific "The Much Honoured" (The Much Hon.) for distincting from honorifics attaching to peers of the realm. Kellycrak88 (talk) 11:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    its own separate history from the peerage title beginning on October 19, 1959 – Why was a baronial title created with the same style as an unrelated peerage that had existed for 501 years? —Tamfang (talk) 07:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Re your BS comment please kindly see: On behalf of The Sovereign, the Lord Lyon King of Arms exercises the Royal Prerogative committed to him by the Acts of 1672 cap. 47 and 1867 30 & 31 Vict. Cap. 17, to grant Arms to “virtuous and well deserving persons”. Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's all part of the same absurd self-promotion campaign. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP The feudal Earldom of Rothes (Baronage of Scotland) is more than a personal title: it is a legally recognized dignity of ancient origin. By law it survived the 2004 abolition of feudal land tenure (Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000) and is recorded in Scottish registers. This institutional status, and its coverage in heraldic and genealogical sources (e.g. Debrett’s, Burke’s, the Scots Barony Register, Roll), meets Wikipedia’s general notability guideline (WP:GNG). In particular, Scottish peerage and baronage titles are documented in numerous reliable publications, and important legal documents (Acts of Parliament, Crown Charters) attest to the title’s existence and history. The information in the article can be verified against these sources (satisfying WP:V), and the title has been the subject of court proceedings and heraldic rulings. Thus the subject is “notable” by WP:GNG/WP:N standards and can be covered under WP:RS. The article subject to AfD deserves to be kept also because it provides historical information on the origin of the non-peerage title and its extension, which the article on the peerage title does not cover as it is not relevant to that topic. Mediascriptor (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: "Earl of Rothes (Baronage of Scotland)" has significant historical importance to the Scottish history, with original usage dating as far back as 1458 as a feudal title in the British nobility. Even after the feudal land system abolition in Scotland in 2004, the nobility title continues as a legitimate nobility title in Scotland according to "Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000, Section 63". This establishes the historical and current notability of the title in UK/Scotland history. Furthermore, there are multiple sources confirming the existence of the title "Earl of Rothes" to this day, with the latest source of title being December 2024. Sources:
    • Encyclopedia Britannica 1911. "Earls of Rothes". Retrieved 2025-06-12.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
    • legislation.gov.uk. "Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000, Section 63". legislation.gov.uk. Retrieved 2025-06-12.
    • Scottish Barony Register (2024-12-19), "Certificate of Registration" (PDF), Scottish Barony Register, retrieved 2025-06-11
      • "The Dignity of the Feudal Earldom of Rothes"
    • Registry of Scots Nobility. "Baronage – Registry of Scots Nobility". Retrieved 2025-06-11.
      • "Ambassador Dario Item, Earl of Rothes in the County of Fife and Sheriff of the Sheriffdom of Fife"
    • "H.E. Pr. Dario Item, PhD". The Royal House of Georgia. Retrieved 2025-06-11.
      • "Earl of Rothes and Hereditary Office of Sheriff of Fife"
    • "Royal House Government". The Royal House of Georgia. Retrieved 2025-06-11.
      • "Earl of Rothes"
    • CreateAccou4343nt555 (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    First source is about Earl of Rothes, nothing about this spinoff. 2nd is not about this title but general. 3 and 4 indicate that this title has been registered, doesn't give any notability, just verifies its existence. 5 and 6 are not a reliable source, Georgia hasn't been a monarchy for a long time now, and wannabe kings discussing wannabe nobility or vice versa is of no value for us. Finally, can you please indicate where you heard about this AfD? Your sudden reappearance gives the impression that some WP:CANVASSING has been going on. Fram (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Recognised noble titles form part of a person’s name and identity (per WP:NAME and WP:BLP), especially when recognised by the British Crown. Titles like these are comparable to honours or offices (see WP:NPROF and WP:ANYBIO), and are routinely included on Wikipedia.
    This specific title has historical and encyclopaedic value, with coverage sources above. Notability doesn’t require mainstream media attention when there’s verifiable, published recognition — as per WP:GNG. Deleting such pages risks inconsistency, given the many similar titles already retained. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how this is either a reply to my post adressing the specific sources, nor a correct reading of WP:GNG. We are not discussing whether a person's article may mention that they are the Earl of Rothes, we are adressing whether this version of the title Earl of Rothes should have a stand-alonge article or not. So your first paragraph is not relevant here. The second one makes claims without evidence, none of the sources give "historic and encyclopedic value" to this specific title, as the first two don't mention it, the final two are not reliable anyway, the third is a primary source, and the fourth is a one-line entry in a list of titles. None of these support your claims. Fram (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Fram — to clarify, my point wasn’t about inclusion in a biography, but about whether a noble title itself, like Earl of Rothes, merits a standalone article under Wikipedia’s notability guidelines.
    Under WP:GNG, a topic is presumed notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources — not necessarily detailed prose or news reports, but coverage sufficient to verify that the subject has enduring encyclopaedic relevance. Noble titles that have been legally recognised, or publicly documented in multiple independent sources — even if some are specialist or historical in nature — can meet this bar, especially when they are used as identifying elements in formal contexts.
    Re the sources: if some are judged insufficient (e.g., primary or brief entries), that’s fair to discuss, but the overall test is whether the title’s existence and context can be reliably verified and shown to have historical or social significance beyond trivial mention — which many noble titles, even lesser-known ones, do.
    If the issue is sourcing quality, let's improve them. Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Significant coverage", as is clearly explained in the GNG, is not about whether the topic is significant, but about the depth, the length of the coverage. A brief mention is not significant coverage. Fram (talk) 05:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, you say "not necessarily detailed" while the GNG literally, explicitly says it has to be detailed. Please read it thoroughly, it really is essential for these discussions. Fram (talk) 05:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for a sock free discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP – I’d like to respond to the recent claim that this title is “made up” or not a “real” title. Respectfully, that is a misunderstanding of Scottish legal history and heraldic practice.
This is a comparable situation to the Baron de Longueuil — a French colonial title that, while not part of the British peerage system, is nevertheless recognised by the Crown and has its own Wikipedia article. Baron de Longueuil is widely accepted as the only extant French title acknowledged by King Charles as King of Canada. Similarly, the non-peerage EARLDOM OF ROTHES IN THE BARONAGE OF SCOTLAND is one of only a handful of surviving baronial earldoms in Scotland.
It is distinct from the peerage title of the same name and a recognised title of nobility in Scots law under the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000, specifically Section 63, which protects the dignity of baronial titles despite the end of feudal land tenure. The title was confirmed in a Crown Charter dated 19 October 1859, and its current status has been publicly recorded via the Scottish Barony Register, which was established with the cooperation of the Court of the Lord Lyon for registering surviving Scottish baronial dignities.
Further, it is a public fact that the previous holder Sir Philip Christopher Ondaatje was officially designed as EARL OF ROTHES in 2006 by Lord Lyon so RECOGNISED BY THE CROWN — for holding the baronial earldom of Rothes, based on this lineage — a matter of public record from the Lyon Court. These are legal and heraldic facts, not speculative claims.
ON NOTABILITY: While mainstream press coverage is limited (as is often the case with heraldic or baronial dignities, I'm assuming these individuals mostly wish quiet enjoyment of their title privately), the topic is verifiable via:
These are accepted secondary and tertiary sources for matters of nobility and heraldry under Wikipedia's WP:RS framework, and satisfy WP:V. Notability does not require tabloid-style coverage when a subject has institutional recognition and encyclopaedic value.
ON STRUCTURE: A standalone article is helpful here precisely to avoid confusion with the peerage title. The current peerage holder does not hold this separate baronial dignity, and merging the two would misrepresent the legal and historical distinction. Wikipedia hosts many pages for noble dignities of this nature — some of which are even less well-documented.
COI DECLERATION: For transparency, I’ve contributed to a wide range of Wikipedia articles across nobility, clans, biographies, historic estates, heritage preservation, and nightlife culture. While I have made considerably contributions to nobility and baronage topics, I am not a single-topic account. My interest lies in historically and legally accurate representation of undexplored topics.
The existence of a non-peerage Earl of Rothes arises from Scotland’s historic system of territorial dignities, where titles were originally tied to land ownership. Following legal reforms after 1874, it became possible to transfer land and its associated title separately from the peerage, allowing a distinct line of baronial succession. With the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000, these dignities became non-territorial but legally protected, which explains how a separate, lawfully recognised dignity can now coexist with the original peerage title.
This subject meets WP:GNG when interpreted in its proper legal-historical context, and if the article needs improvement in tone, structure, or citations, then I welcome collaborative work on that basis. Thank you you for your attention to this matter @LWG @Oaktree b @Hroest Kellycrak88 (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick follow-up, as I noticed several delete comments seemed based on this being a made up or not real title — which I completely understand, given how unclear the history can be. Context 🙏 @Bearian @Necrothesp @Nayyn @Tamfang @Celia Homeford @Fram Kellycrak88 (talk) 19:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Kellycrak88, thanks for your comment. I don't doubt that this title exists (in the sense that somebody somewhere claimed to possess it and sold it to Dario Item as a fun curiosity), but I have serious doubts about its notability. None of the sources you have presented appear to me to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. They are either simply lists of titles, which are trival and do not establish notability, or they are primary/self published (the zenodo links you shared), or they appear to relate to the peerage and make no mention of this baronage. As I said in my reply, it would be debatable whether this is even worth mentioning on Dario Item. It's just not that notable. -- LWG talk 19:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge to Dario Item. Given that it's debatable whether mention of this merits inclusion in our article about the current title holder, it certainly doesn't merit its own article. None of the cited sources in the article are actually about the article subject, just tangential mentions in lists or primary sourcing to legislation about baronies in general. -- LWG talk 15:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The real peerage exists, this incarnation doesn't/isn't notable. You can only find sourcing to the true peerage item. What's used now for sourcing isn't RS, primary or otherwise. I don't see sourcing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: while the real title does exist, this just looks WP:MADEUP without any sources to back this up. --hroest 16:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial order of chivalry

[edit]
Colonial order of chivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find sources discussing colonial orders of chivalry as a group like this article aims to do, seems to fail GNG/NLIST. Eddie891 Talk Work 10:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of military attachés and war correspondents in World War I

[edit]
List of military attachés and war correspondents in World War I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

What possible reason is there to join two distinct groups in a "list" that is not a list, when the two groups have their own separate lists? Clarityfiend (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Puzzling: I see now in the talk page that the decision was made in 2022 to split the list in two. However, is still retaining an article (of sorts) the only way to keep the edit history? Clarityfiend (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of World War II war correspondents (1942–43)

[edit]
List of World War II war correspondents (1942–43) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Arbitrary criterion (" war correspondents who reported from North Africa or Italy in 1942-43") fails WP:NLIST. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oppose deletion, does not fail WP:NLIST because of established notability Vofa (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Backyard History

[edit]
Backyard History (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG. Insignificant coverage in reliable sources; mostly self-sourced sources or trivial coverage. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, none of the media references are "trivial", they are all stories ABOUT Backyard History - which is itself published in 12-20 papers across Atlantic Canada (and has spawned 3 books, a television show, podcast, etc) - and functionally none of the sources are "self-references', they are the NB Authors government site, the province's largest media Telegraph-Journal, CTV, Yahoo News and CBC - those would be among the largest regional news outlets that exist nationwide - in addition to being referenced on the SJ tourism site, his alumni newspaper and other small outlets. (I'm not him, I've never met him, I noticed they are also used as a source on 9 different Wikipedia articles about Atlantic Canadian history). Fundy Isles Historian - J (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did an analysis of the sources originally present on this article, after it was tagged for notability and that tag was subsequently removed. My analysis is available on the talk page for the article, and determined that significant coverage specifically about Backyard History is lacking. I did some major Googling, and turned up some additional sources which were then added, but the bar for web content is decidedly higher and I'm unsure if this has met it. I do however believe that with the references on this article, along with others that discuss Andrew MacLean, an article about him could be created which this could then be redirected to. I would prefer to abstain from voting on this one, and this comment should not be interpreted as support for keeping or deleting this... Just wanted to provide some context. MediaKyle (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Cormier, Kristina (2024-01-03). "Un balado sur les histoires méconnues du Canada atlantique se transforme en livre" [A Podcast About Little-Known Stories From Atlantic Canada Is Being Turned Into a Book] (in French). Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Archived from the original on 2025-05-31. Retrieved 2025-05-31.

      The article notes: "Backyard History est un balado qui explore les histoires méconnues du Nouveau-Brunswick et de l'Atlantique. Ces histoires sont désormais offertes dans un livre. Le livre, disponible uniquement en anglais pour le moment, a vite trouvé preneurs. Ce succès a surpris l'auteur, l’historien Andrew MacLean de Fredericton. La première impression s’est rapidement écoulée et il attend une réimpression au cours des prochains jours. Le balado anglophone Backyard History est né lors de la pandémie. Il transporte ses auditeurs dans le temps afin de découvrir des légendes, des histoires connues ou méconnues du Canada atlantique qui datent de nombreuses années et même de siècles."

      From Google Translate: "Backyard History is a podcast that explores the little-known stories of New Brunswick and the Atlantic region. These stories are now available in a book. The book, currently available only in English, quickly found buyers. This success surprised the author, Fredericton historian Andrew MacLean. The first printing sold out quickly, and he expects a reprint in the coming days. The English-language podcast Backyard History was born during the pandemic. It transports its listeners back in time to discover legends, well-known and little-known stories of Atlantic Canada that date back many years, even centuries."

    2. Cochrane, Alan (2025-04-03). "Backyard History author carries on tradition of storytelling: Andrew MacLean has compiled three books, weekly newspaper columns, website and podcasts with actors who bring old stories to life". Telegraph-Journal. p. A10. ProQuest 3186672039. Archived from the original on 2025-05-31. Retrieved 2025-05-31.

      The article notes: "Andrew MacLean has turned his passion for historical research into a brand called Backyard History, with weekly newspaper columns, three books, a website and podcasts telling unusual stories from Atlantic Canada. From the tale of the Dungarvon Whooper in the Miramichi to rum-runners shooting it out with police in Bouctouche, and a Russian bomber landing in Miscou Island, MacLean says he's carrying on the Maritime tradition of storytelling, while researching the facts behind them. ... His three books include "Backyard History: Forgotten Stories From Atlantic Canada's Past," volumes one and two; and "Rebellious Women in the Maritimes," which includes stories about women who have done extraordinary things, told through various letters, diaries and historic documents."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Backyard History to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first source--six sentences long--could be described as "trivial mention". The second source is a bio for Andrew MacLean. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An article about the subject, with the subject referenced in the headline, exclusively about the subject and its creator, is not a "trivial mention". "Trivial mention" is when there's an article about a car accident and it says "a nearby bystander, author Andrew Maclean, whose program hits Bell TV this summer, says the green pick-up truck swerved just before the incident". Fundy Isles Historian - J (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a couple important things to note here. First of all, Backyard History is described in the article as a "history project" - it is a newspaper column, podcast, and 5-episode docuseries at this time. The Telegraph-Journal is not an independent source, as they are one of the main publishers of the Backyard History column, it's still a good source but may not contribute to GNG for this reason. The CBC Radio-Canada article I think would contribute to GNG, but that's really about it - there's much more coverage about Andrew MacLean than there is about Backyard History specifically. MediaKyle (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 06:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chattha Dynasty

[edit]
Chattha Dynasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most of the sources give information about a clan by the name of the Chatthas but nothing about any sort of dynasty. There's already a separate article for the clan any under Chattha (clan) anyway.

Given that it is hard to find any substantive information from a reliable source about a "Chattha dynasty", I feel the article should be deleted and any relevant sources or info can be moved to the article relating to the clan. Ixudi (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are Multiple sources of a Chattha principality/state.
E.g 1. http://archive.org/details/TheEncyclopediaOfSikhism-VolumeIA-d
2.
https://books.google.com/books?id=rKkPEAAAQBAJ&dq=Chattha+rule&pg=PA83
3.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?redir_esc=y&id=lD9uAAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Pir
As I explained while removing the deletion template. The name of this page is chosen as "Chattha Dynasty" because all of the ruling chieftains were from the same family.
The order being Nur Muhammad and his son Pir and Ahmad Chathha then Pir's son Ghualm Chattha and then Ghulams son Jan Chattha. So that is why "Dynasty" is an appropriate term.
If the name is the issue that can be discussed separately.
The article should stay on wikipedia space because it highlights a significant regional power in 18th-century Punjab and a less known prospect of punjabi history. Jatwadia (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These sources all refer to a Chhatha clan. Not a dynasty. Ixudi (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source 1 clearly mentions a Chattha state on page 449 if you read carefully.
Source 2 "Occupants of areas such as Rasulnagar on the border between the Punjab and afghan lands" this source proves they were independent rulers and not tributary to Afghans and had thier own teritories such as Rasulnagar.
Source 3 clearly mentions Pir Muhammad Chattha succeding a "principality" from his father.
Again the "dynasty" bit is not the issue the point being is that an independant Chattha state/principality existed which was ruled over by the same family that is why it is called a dynasty. Jatwadia (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2 more sources
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.206739/page/n220/mode/1up
Page 202 : "Ghulam Mahomed, who succeeded to the estate, succeeded also to the hatred of the Sukarchakias"
https://archive.org/details/resistance-themes-in-punjabi-literature/page/52/mode/1up?q=Chattha
Page 52 : "Of the Mohammadan tribes who Struggicd with most success to maintain their indépendence the most prominent were the Bhattis and Tarars in Hafizabad and the Chatthas in the Western half of the Wazirabad tehsil." Jatwadia (talk) 12:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2025-05 ✍️ create
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 06:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Association for the Study of Silk Road Textiles

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
International Association for the Study of Silk Road Textiles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails to meet the WP:NORG due to a lack of in-depth, secondary coverage about the organization. Let'srun (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, this article has already been at AFD so Soft deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aulikara−Hunnic War

[edit]
Aulikara−Hunnic War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject matter doesn't meet notability according to WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT. It has not received enough coverage in reliable secondary sources; primarily, the content is original and speculative. There is also significant overlap with existing articles on Aulikaras and the Alchon Huns, making the entry a copy. The Red Archive (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ashitha Revolt 1843

[edit]
Ashitha Revolt 1843 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. No sources on this exist. None of the sources in use in this article support 99% of the text in this article 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the Wiki page has its sources, no reason for deletion, Jsanihsjsn (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking through the sources, Aboona 2008 devotes an entire section spanning several pages to "Armed Revolt at Asheetha, November 1843". The Seyfo Center devotes 3 paragraphs to a revolt in 1843. Nala4u.com seems to be of dubious reliability, and citations 2-5 are incomplete to the point of being almost useless, but I think there's enough to go on from the first two to surmise that additional sources likely exist, albeit potentially using different spellings of Ashitha and not necessarily calling it "Revolt" in a canonical sense. The article does indulge in unencyclopedic tone, although it is worth noting that our best source thus far, Aboona 2008, does describe atrocities at length. signed, Rosguill talk 20:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – It has good sources describing in detail what happened and it was an important event that took place in Hakkari in the 1800s. Termen28 (talk) 23:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Support per nom. R3YBOl (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: some specific discussion of what the sourcing looks like would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 11:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History Proposed deletions

[edit]

History categories

[edit]

for occasional archiving

Proposals

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/History&oldid=1295394517"