Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/History

Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/History/archive

Purge page cache

watch

History

Seventy-second firman of the Yazidi

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Discrimination, Events, History, Military, Iraq, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:08, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Skitash (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article's creator is known for creating hoaxes here 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:35, 9 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and France. 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).

Ref 4: Ten passing mentions. Find more and deeper coverage like #1.

See the links at the Talk page for additional possibilities for sourcing. Mathglot (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:04, 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]

Keep per JASpencer. Absolutely notable. The French version of the article is in much better shape. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Conservatism and Christianity. JASpencer (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian-Kurdish Clashes (1840-1895)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Middle East. Shellwood (talk) 11:29, 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]

FR Yugoslav Strike Mission

(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. [1] [2] 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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kosovo and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks on Ponoševac

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kosovo and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Timeline of the Kosovo War. There was contemporary coverage in secondary reliable sources like The New York Times [3], Vreme NDA [4], El País [5], Chicago Tribune and many others (see ProQuest, for example, not so widely available online nowadays). There was some later non-breaking news coverage, in Kosovo: War and Revenge book cited in the article (Yale University Press, 2000). So I would say this is due, but not meeting notability for a standalone page. This can be redirected to Timeline of the Kosovo War which currently mentions the clash, without prejudice of redirect/merging to another target if another page gets more content about it. MarioGom (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Sedrenik '94

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bosnia and Herzegovina and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:EVENTCRITERIA. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Siege of Sarajevo. Unless the operation is known by a different name, there's really not much coverage in secondary sources. Per primary source documents, it appears that the operation did, indeed, exist and so it is a plausible search term. MarioGom (talk) 15:34, 8 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is indeed a significant overlap. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator's rationale. I don't think a redirect is necessary either given the terminology does not see common usage. Yue🌙 19:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brest attack

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and North Macedonia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:35, 7 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]
Merge with 2001 insurgency in Macedonia. I think it is relevant enough for the main article. There are at least two post-conflict sources about it. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:48, 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]

Keep BUT ONLY IF WP:RS are found. I am no expert in this area. Wynwick55gl (talk) 08:40, 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]

Battle of Glanasela

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Kosovo, Serbia, and Yugoslavia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Đocaj and Jasić

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:12, 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Kosovo, Serbia, and Yugoslavia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:11, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Llapusha-South Drenica Front

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kosovo, Serbia, and Yugoslavia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Šušaja

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Albania, Serbia, and Yugoslavia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:28, 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]

Battle of Dobrosin

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Albania, Serbia, and Yugoslavia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:26, 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Albania, and Yugoslavia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bukoc

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Albania, and Yugoslavia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Skirmish on Saint Ilija Mountain

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Radonjić operation

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Lake Radonjić massacre. There does not seem to be a notability issue, and so no grounds for deletion. But it indeed looks like a fork, and so a merge of both articles seems appropriate. MarioGom (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History of Northern Epirus from 1913 to 1921

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Albania, and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This just repeats content found in other articles such as; Northern Epirus, Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus, Protocol of Corfu, Assembly of Delvino, Northern Epirote Declaration of Independence, Albania during the Balkan Wars and World War I in Albania. The timespan chosen for the article is arbitrary. Why 1913 to 1921 and not 1913-1945, 1912-1990 or 1913-today? Some of the sources are not WP:RS such as Hellenic Army General staff, the oudated Stickney, Kondis or Ruches who uses ethnic slurs to refer to Albanians. Some statements made in this article(and not found in any other article) are rejected in neutral mainstream scholarship, such as Ruches claim that all Orthodox Albanians in southern Albania spoke Greek. Durraz0 (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Helge Mathisen

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Norway. Fram (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 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]

Battle of Mount Handrin

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

Two of the three sources provided lack page numbers, making verification of specific claims impossible per WP:VERIFY. The article contains detailed tactical descriptions and casualty figures that cannot be verified against the cited sources. The writing style also raises concerns - AI detection tools (including GPTZero) indicate a high probability (100%) of AI generation text in the article, with template-like prose and generic military terminology lacking specific historical details expected from reliable sources. The combination of unverifiable content and questionable sourcing fails to meet Wikipedia's standards per WP:RS and WP:V. R3YBOl (🌲) 13:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Iraq. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Earl of Rothes (Baronage of Scotland)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, and Scotland. — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 11:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Earl of Rothes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD article just uses bits of the Earl of Rothes article, and then argues that the (Baronage of Scotland) title is different from the 'normal' Earl of Rothes. The latter is alive and well and holds the title, as you can see in the main article. So unless the merged article should say that two different people (the "Earl of Rothes" and the "Earl of Rothes (Baronage of Scotland)") hold the same title, there's nothing to merge. — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 16:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a made up in one day distinction. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
see my comment below Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:56, 8 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

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)[reply]

Dodiya

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

Unsourced, not enough coverage, hoax article, There is no identification of the notability of this article that was created by WALTHAM2 who created many Hoax articles using unreliable RAJ sources. 🦅Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, History, Asia, India, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan. Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Totally unsourced. A simple BEFORE yields plenty of people with either name, and also a genus of moth, nothing for a clan per se. UtherSRG (talk) 11:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator has been blocked as a sock; as another editor has already expressed a "delete" opinion, that won't be enough to end this nomination. No opinion on the article or whether its contents are factual. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The mentioned article is without any sources and it doesn't prove its notability, therefore, it should be deleted.110 and 135 (talk) 10:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial order of chivalry

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Africa, Asia, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:49, 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]

Redirect to Order of chivalry. Wholly unsourced and without adding almost anything on top of Order of chivalry, I think this is just a matter of WP:NOPAGE regardless of notability. MarioGom (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My concern with a redirect would be that I think the concept of a distinct category of "colonial orders of chivalry" existing is not reflected in reliable sources at all. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of military attachés and war correspondents in World War I

(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]

The attribution history must be preserved, one way or another. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:48, 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]

The article cannot be deleted, since the historical attribution before the split must be preserved. But the article is not needed now that both lists are split. So I guess options are either pick a redirect target somehow, or turn this into a brief disambigation page. MarioGom (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Get rid of this page but in a way that enables us to preserve the attribution history. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Journalism, History, and Military. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of war correspondents#21st century. It's rather weird for this to apparently be limited to those in North Africa or Italy since the title does not reflect that. Anyway, I see no reason to have a list that only has thoses place or these two years, but if there are any blue links not already in the main list, they may be added there. It's broadly a good list topic but needs some organization. Reywas92^Talk 23:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to merger, but 21st century? Clarityfiend (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, 20th century obviously! Reywas92^Talk 23:47, 1 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 16:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Backyard History

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Companies. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:30, 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Pakistan, and India. 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]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

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

AfDs for this article:

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, and Archaeology. Let'srun (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the references all seem to be press releases/announcements put out by the organization, often being passed along by partner organizations. Or they don't mention this organization at all. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV. --Here2rewrite (talk) 15:53, 2 June 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]

1948 Palestinian Declaration of Independence

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

Reason: There is All-Palestine Government article, with the same flag. This article is poorly sourced, and does not have other language's articles. It is also written on a talk page. The article Palestinian Declaration of Independence leads to 15 November 1988 (by Yasser Arafat). _Dgw|Talk 20:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG. _Dgw|Talk 22:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~::Keep. Hannis Biotechnology Inc (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)~~ _{Strike non-ECR user, per WP:ARBPIA}[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Palestine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the nominating statement. Are you saying it's a hoax? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it doesn’t meet GNG. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If an article is poorly written, then we improve it instead of deleting it. What other languages do and what other articles exist is not relevant to whether this one should exist. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien, do you think this subject’s notability is shown? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Palestinian law. This was not notable at the time, and would be better suited in context. Bearian (talk) 23:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability often builds up over time, there's no such thing for the purpose of our notability criteria as being not notable at a past point in time. Notability is based on all sources a available now. MarioGom (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any written document of the declaration? _Dgw|Talk 21:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Keep Obviously passes GNG. I Love the Earth Now 2 (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2025 (UTC)~~ _{Strike non-ECR user, per WP:ARBPIA}[reply]

Delete or redirect to All-Palestine Government. Fails WP:GNG as an independent document due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Longhornsg (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to All-Palestine Government per Longhornsg. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with All-Palestine Government: per above 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sources such as books, but the nominator did not conduct thorough research as they should have. [6], [7], [8] Hauskasic (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pasht Ashan massacre

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

The article lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. Only one source (Tareq Y. Ismael's The Rise and Fall of the Communist Party of Iraq) appears reliable, which is insufficient to establish notability under WP:GNG. The other sources are either questionable or fail WP:RS. There is not enough in-depth coverage to justify a standalone article. R3YBOl (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Skitash (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, History, Politics, and Iraq. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Iraqi Communist Party#The party under Ba'athist rule. Yue🌙 03:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - major event, with major political impact. The legacy of the massacre remains controversial, with demands raised from families of victims. In-depth coverage available, [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Here debated in interview ([14]) on Al Iraqiya. Here debated on TV [15]. See also [16], etc. --Soman (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Book on the subject [17]. --Soman (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's notable enough to have its own article DataNomad (talk) 07:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep its a major event, there is no reason to delete.Ilamxan (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Moments of Silence (2016) discusses how the massacre is represented in literary story. --Soman (talk) 00:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A Modern History of the Kurds (2021) mentions how Nawshirwan Mustafa's role in the massacre affected his political legacy decades later. --Soman (talk) 00:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aulikara−Hunnic War

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Hinduism, India, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh. The Red Archive (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 26 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]

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

The result was merge‎ to Bletchley Park#Bletchley Park Museum. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bletchley Park Museum

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

New page created a couple of weeks ago:

a clear WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Bletchley Park given the very large overlap in the content (entire paragraphs, section headings...)
the title (capital 'M') implies that there is an organisation called "Bletchley Park Museum", but as far as I can see this is neither an official name nor a WP:CommonName – the museum is simply named "Bletchley Park"
the title fails WP:Criteria because it's not clear to the reader what the difference in remit between the new article and the existing Bletchley Park article would be (as evidenced by the fact that the 2 articles need hatnotes to try to explain it)

I think this was intended as a WP:Spinoff, but for the reasons above I don't think it works as one, and if Bletchley Park is too long it would be better to use summary style. I mentioned all this last week at Talk:Bletchley Park#Splitting article to Bletchley Park Museum and got no response. Given there might be a lot of work to unpick the split from subsequent edits, it would be good to find a consensus before anyone does any more work either way. Joe D (t) 13:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and History. Joe D (t) 13:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've asked @Steinsky to withdraw this on the talk page for Bletchley Park as a good faith measure as I did not see the notification there last week. That's the better place for that discussion. The article was created so that the details around Bletchley Park could be separated from those around the site and the museum trust. A summary style wouldn't work as a lot of information would be lost. As Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, the better alternative would be splitting the Bletchley Park Museum article - which has taken the hydra like quality of the pre-split Bletchley Park article, into constituent articles for things like the trust, the country house aspects, the human interest aspects, etc. But that discussion is better for the article itself (and I promise that if I'm tagged I will endeavor to answer, although I'm on holiday so give a couple of days) and come on here if there isn't consensus in the article. 13:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JASpencer (talk • contribs)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note There's discussion on the Bletchley Park article that isn't reflected on this page. (1) there is strong opposition on the page from long standing editors to remerging the two articles and (2) the nominator has expressed willingness to withdraw the nomination while this gets flashed out on the Bletchley Park talk page. JASpencer (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was among those who was strongly opposed but, as the debate developed at talk:Bletchley Park, I have come round to the view that a broad concept article is the best compromise solution. So, with regret, I now support deletion of the new article. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Bletchley Park#Bletchley Park Museum: The Museum is not notable by itself, only in the context of the historical site. A fork is not necessary. While there is coverage in RS about the museum, I believe it's inherited from the historical site. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bletchley Park#Bletchley Park Museum, per Itzcuauhtli11. — The Anome (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of mass escapes from German POW camps

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

We already have List of prison escapes, List of prisoner-of-war escapes, and German POW camps in WWII, so possibly merge? But no sources, making things confusing and hard to verify (home run?) and has been edited maybe ~50 times in the 15 years since its creation. GoldRomean (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing different from what we already have. Koshuri ^(グ) 10:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of prisoner-of-war escapes any entries that can be sourced and don't already exist there or in the linked sublist List of attempts to escape Oflag IV-C. The criterion of 5+ prisoners is arbitrary anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this seems to be a better method of organisation than putting them all in the main article, as the list is rather long. Sources can be added. Element10101 T ~ C 02:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Query: What about the arbitrary cutoff of five POWs? Clarityfiend (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary cutoff? Element10101 AIW WPI TOLT ~ C 23:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, arbitrary. Who decided that five = mass escape? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:44, 7 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!} 01:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ashitha Revolt 1843

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bro what? The sources are cited, read them, you have no valid reason to issue a speedy deletion. There are multiple sources on this, reported by even contemporary missionaries. Stop excluding the cited sources; which are enough to make the page stay. 2A02:AA1:115D:84B3:ACB2:8E83:1328:5261 (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – how are all the sources fake? DataNomad (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 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]

Delete per nom. The article fails WP:GNG. Skitash (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"'Keep"' I don't see the reason of the deletio Suraya222 (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't fail WP:GNG. It is a notable event but some of the sources are in Syriac. The article has more than enough coverage. Termen28 (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Dragonfly

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

Article has been sitting since its creation on 25 October 2023, having not been expanded at all since then. It is about a unique, out of many, Ukrainian strike against Russian forces. The only reason why it could be notable would be for it being the first instance of ATACMS usage by Ukraine in the war, according to the article.

The first results when looking up "Operation Dragonfly" on Google aren't even about the invasion of Ukraine. In five pages of results in Google, I could only find the following sources about this strike: [18] [19] [20].

I could find more sources without using the "Operation Dragonfly" name. [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]. The most recent source is the latter, from 23 October, six days after the strike happened. I do not believe the strike has long-lasting coverage in sources. Simply by reading the article, the strike surely was not nothing, but it doesn't seem worth a Wikipedia article. Super Ψ Dro 20:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Super Ψ Dro 20:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that this was a significant event. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect It's true that the article is relatively short and the page might not have merit to exist on its own, but that doesn't mean the content is not worthy to exist at all. It would be better if the information are merged onto a larger page that discusses airstrikes in the war, because this page is certainly not the only one and there are many more similar to this one in Category:Attacks on military installations in Ukraine or Category:Ukrainian airstrikes during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I would also prefer this page become a redirect after the merge as it is still the first result after a google search. TeddyRoosevelt1912 (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Super Dromaeosaurus, @Shwabb1, @NickK, @Aleksandr Grigoryev For discussion TeddyRoosevelt1912 (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation. Hard to say:

On one hand, this is likely the first ever use of ATACAMS by Ukraine, with significant (from military point of view) result. As such this is a notable enough military operation and it has enough sources.
On the other hand, it is very likely that no further information about this operation will be released until the war ends (for obvious reasons). As a result, this article will likely stay in current state for a while.

I would read this that fundamentally this is a notable military operation, but practically we will not be able to improve this article further for unknown period of time — NickK (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that's the case as well. Overall I don't mind the idea of merging this into a larger article that lists major airstrikes including this one, as this article is quite small on its own and, as you've said, we're not getting much more info on it any time soon. Shwabb1 ⟨ta co⟩ 01:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Also, User:TeddyRoosevelt1912, you need to identify a Merge/Redirect target article. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't appear to have had any lasting effect, almost two years later. I don't see sources discussing this, only news coverage4 from the time of the event. I suppose the use of the ATACMS would be notable, but it could be a one liner inserted into an article about the war. Oaktree b (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Khankala (1735)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Battle of Khankala (1735) (2nd nomination)

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

Poorly sourced. The only source used is some book Хожаев, Д. (1998). Чеченец (in Russian). Khozhaev seems to be a Chechen field commander, brigadier general and doesn't seem to be a reliable source, since no degree in history. And I couldn't find the book on the Internet, must be WP:RSSELF. Devlet Geray (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Devlet Geray (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's first nomination in fact Devlet Geray (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't think "Poorly sourced" is in the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. More relevant is "articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" and "articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". Has WP:BEFORE been done? I also am dubious that you have to have a degree in history or history books you write will be considered unreliable. It seems that plenty of authors have written histories without a formal degree in that subject (one even got a Nobel prize for theirs). But even in that case, our own article on Dalkhan Khozhaev states "In 1983 he graduated from the faculty of History of the Chechen-Ingush State University" and that he was a researcher at the Chechen-Ingush Republican Regional Museum, the author of works on the history of the national liberation movement of Chechnya in the 19th century and Head of the Archives Department. It seems strange you've copied "Chechen field commander, brigadier general" from the start of our article but chosen to edit that from the full description "Chechen historian, field commander, brigadier general and author with numerous works on the centuries-old confrontation between Chechnya and Russia". Given his publication history, he was an academic and writer before his military service, and continued the former during the latter. The article on the Russian wikipedia has quite a bit more on him and has a number of his books listed. The source used in the article is his 1998 «Чеченцы в Русско-Кавказской войне» (Chechens in the Russo-Caucasian War), published in Grozny by Seda Publishers (isbn and catalogue listing here). That you only suspect he might not be reliable, you assume that the source must be self published, these weren't really strong arguments for deletion without having done a proper WP:BEFORE. And given that these things have been disproven, there's nothing left in the nomination. Spokoyni (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll also further add that Khozhaev's book is not "the only source used", there's another in the article, and a WP:BEFORE would have shown there were originally four sources in the article, two of which the original author later removed on the incorrect rationale that they did not add any additional content to what the other sources stated. Spokoyni (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly wrote that he does not have a degree in history, he is not a specialist in the history of Chechnya (no PhD thesis). How can he be used as a source for a topic like this? Makes absolutely no sence. Moreover, the figures and data presented in the article are initially implausible. In addition, the links are given for show, since it is impossible to verify them. Plus, zero cross-wiki and no information on this "battle" on the Internet, makes the article absoulte original research Devlet Geray (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since none of that makes any sense, suggest speedy keep under "the nominator failed to give intelligible grounds for content deletion". He has a degree in history, he is a speciality on the history of Chechnya, and if you are suggesting only history books written by those with a phd in history are reliable, you need to go and change the entire nature of what makes a WP:RS. If you mean sources rather than links, they are published accounts and are verfiable (that you personally can't or won't verify them is not an acceptable reason). The absence of articles on other wikis is not a criteria for deletion here, nor is lack of google hits. You tried to get this speedied as a hoax, that was declined. Then you prodded it "because it never happened", and that was declined, and now you're attacking one of the two (out of originally four) sources in the article as a reason for deletion because the book's author doesn't have a phd. I can see your desire to get this deleted for some reason, I'm just not seeing any actual rationale for it. Why do you think this is a hoax, or an invented instance? Spokoyni (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:BURDEN, the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Devlet Geray (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

‌‌‌‌‌Meanwhile, I found a pdf version of the book «Чеченцы в Русско-Кавказской войне» (Chechens in the Russo-Caucasian War), published in Grozny by Seda Publishers and there is no mention of such a "battle". Devlet Geray (talk) 23:59, 22 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 06:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don’t see anything reliable that tells us this alleged battle ever took place. Mccapra (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD, not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable battle. Segaton (talk) 06:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Tashkent (1603)

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

I am unable to find any sources in Latin or Cyrillic about a battle of Tashkent in 1603. It may have happened but it does not seem to have been notable. Mccapra (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Uzbekistan. Mccapra (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Kazakhstan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this one has an English language source in the article, although the battle, an attempt to conquer Tashkent, reportedly occurred in Ikriyar. But this leaves me a little puzzled about the wording of the nomination. Jahaza (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it means that when I did a search, the English language source did not come up so I can’t verify that it is indeed a source for the material claimed. Mccapra (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What did you search? I was able to read it on Google Books[26], it's available from the publisher's web site, and WorldCat lists more than 300 libraries as holding it. Jahaza (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks unfortunately the relevant pages don’t show in my Google books view so I can’t verify it. Mccapra (talk) 03:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe this comes up on the odd occasion, where refs (and even their articles) are challenged because someone wasn't able to see/read the source to "verify" it, whether it's a web article behind a paywall, or a web page with some other form of restricted access, or physical books and other media, that "can't be found at local library or for sale online", etc., etc. I don't recall that itself being a reason to remove a ref, and delete an article, (I could be wrong). I don't believe it should be a reason either, whether it's having faith in the fellow editor that added it, or just the fact that there are numerous articles on WP, with even more refs that can't be easily and readily accessed, yet there hasn't been (to my knowledeg) any widespread efforts to initiate any massive deletion campaigns because of this. (jmho) Perhaps there's a guideline that covers this, but none have been cited here as of yet. - \\'cԼF 10:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunately in recent times some editors have taken to creating many articles about battles which are completely fictitious. These articles are decorated with pseudo-references to offline books in other languages. Other editors like to create battle articles based on a couple of passing mentions. If I look for sources and can’t find anything that supports what the article says then AfD is the place for it. Mccapra (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I apologize in advance if there are any mistakes in my words — I am writing through a translator. All the articles I have written are based on real books, but the problem is that some of them are not available in open access. So how do I have them? — I bought them. And as for the fact that they are hard to find online — the answer is simple: the history of Kazakhstan develops more slowly than that of other countries.

I write articles, and I know that the way I cited the sources is poorly done — I will try to fix that as soon as I have the time. Онеми (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The discussion is helpful but we need some opinions about a preferred outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to summarise: of the three sources cited in the article, 1 (Alexeyev) is not accessible: 2 (Burton) is not accessible and 3 (Atgaev) simply says of this battle “In 1607, a vassal of Vali-Muhammad Khan named Muhammadmed-Baki-biy Kalmak managed to capture Tashkent. However, he was not allowed to rule the city for a long time, he was driven out of the city by the troops of Yesim Khan.” That’s all it says. My search found nothing else, so while I suppose there was in fact some combat in or near Tashkent in 1607, this clearly isn’t a notable battle and fails WP:EVENT. Mccapra (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History Proposed deletions

Hume Peabody (via WP:PROD on 12 May 2025)

History categories

for occasional archiving

Proposals