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

Lewis Kayton House

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

It's not even a NRHP. Once upon a time, a house that is more elaborate than common was built. It changed ownership a few times and have seen several uses, like most buildings. It's now a hotel.

WP:MILL old building. I don't think it meets GNG. Graywalls (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, and Georgia (U.S. state). Graywalls (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Borchers

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

Not really clear to me how notable: sources include a few local news sites about his books, but the books themselves don't seem to be notable; orphan article and may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, so page does not really contribute to the wiki in any meaningful way while possibly contravening its terms of use Toffeenix (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Toffeenix (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Football. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neshat Quaiser

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

Doesn't pass WP:NACADEMIC, no sigcov in article. Also strongly suspect WP:COI; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThePerfectYellow grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, History, Islam, Medicine, Social science, and India. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citations are nonzero, but look well short of WP:NPROF. No other assertion of notability in the article, no other notability apparent. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doctory: as a WP:ATD. I note that doctory was created by ThePerfectYellow and might also need to be examined. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yea that page is also a little sus. I'm unlikely to nominate myself (working on other things atm) but encourage others to grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raziuddin Aquil

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:NACADEMIC, and I'm nominating in part because this article was created and largely written by a sockpuppeter, and I suspect WP:COI. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThePerfectYellow grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, History, Islam, and India. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar, Delhi, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine jade culture

AfDs for this article:

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

This article appears to be some combination of WP:OR and pure fabrication, and I'm not sure where the balance lies. Three sources ("Neolithic interaction between Taiwan and the northern Philippines: the evidence of jade mining and exchange"; "Maritime Jade Road: The Neolithic long-distance exchange of nephrite in Southeast Asia"; and "The Archaeology of the Philippines: The Past of the Other Filipinos") appear to be completely made up or perhaps hallucinated by an LLM. They do not come up in any search results and the one with a link goes to a different source. The actual sources do not describe a jade culture specific to the Philippines but rather focus broadly on the jade trade across SE Asia ([1], [2]), make a passing mention ([3] or do not discuss jade at all ([4]). My WP:BEFORE search does not indicate this is a notable topic deserving a standalone page. An AfD discussion earlier this year resulted in a "delete" on WP:TNT grounds, and I'd argue that applies here. (This recreation has survived G4 deletion and is likely just over the line of additional users' substantial edits to survive a G5, which would otherwise apply since its creator is a sockpuppet.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Archaeology, and Philippines. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to @Toadspike, @Bearian, @Lenticel, @143.44.193.226 and @Chipmunkdavis, who participated in the first AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I think the logic behind the previous consensus still holds... None of the new material addresses the significant concerns raised. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete: previous consensus still applies here in my view, and the article reads like LLM output. hallucinated sources are a bad sign. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 04:02, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
also: the article uses the term "culture" incorrectly (see archaeological culture), which is further indication that this is not a real archaeological topic defined in scholarship. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 04:05, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My reading is that G5 still applies, no additional substantial edits have been made. It's an interesting rub that WP:G4 was declined because an llm rewrote the page. CMD (talk) 04:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis Let's just say I've had G5s declined before for "additional substantial edits" on this scale, so I'm wary of nominating anything unless the other users' edits are pure gnoming. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It's best that we don't use material that might have been hallucinated by AI --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. This is the same fabrication as last time. Since this appears to be a target for nationalist POV-pushing, I strongly suggest SALTing as well. Toadspike [Talk] 06:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT. I visited the Palawan museum in Puerto Princesa on March 10 of this year. While the museum shows evidence of trade between mainland and (at least) Palawan, I didn't see a lot of jade; almost entirely it was basic material objects like giant turtles, baskets, earthenware jars, metal fishing hooks, bones, and shells. Lost, but presumed inside those, were foods like salted pork and fish, and turtles/meat. The instant article vastly overplays the "Jade trade" as if it was integral, with a hidden agenda, but it was peripheral at best: a rare luxury item that might have been packed in with other goods. When I get a chance, I'll upload some photos. Bearian (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator: I am also supportive of SALTing given the recreation and the fabricated sources. SALTing will force any recreation through AFC where sources can be properly evaluated. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Not notable and uses fake sources, I don't see any harm in salting a non-notable subject for a page that's already been recreated once. DervotNum4 (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dachau Uprising

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

The article lacks sufficient scholarly references. While the death marches are well documented in reliable sources, there is limited direct coverage of the Dachau Uprising itself. I’ve made efforts to improve the page, as it was previously poorly written and somewhat misleading, but ultimately, I believe it would be more appropriate to delete the article or merge relevant content into the main Dachau concentration camp page. Plantbaseddiet (talk) 20:03, 24 June 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 June 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Empire Taff

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

Lacks indepth WP:RS to establish notability. Sources are lists and routine database-like coverage in Lloyds. If sources are found and the article is kept, it should probably be renamed (it was only the "Empire Taff" for two completely unremarkable years, it was longer known as either the Apollo or the Alhama, so no idea why this title was chosen). Fram (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Transportation, Germany, and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oppose Have you searched for sources yourself and found none? if not otherwise i believe that it should be kept but be given the lack of reliable sources tag and any others that fit. no opinion on the the renaming tho.

AssanEcho (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. Doesn't mean no better sources exist, my search isn't universal or infallible of course. And I first tagged it for notability, but that was quickly removed. Fram (talk) 07:38, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

understood, thanks for the clear response! AssanEcho (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Empire ships (Ta–Te). I believe that there is a German book on the history of DG "Neptun", though it is not cited in the deWP article, but I cannot find the details at the moment. - Davidships (talk) 09:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I do not see Fram on the list of WP:SHIPS participants. Fram, what do you know about which historic merchant ships are notable, and why? You slapped a "notability" template on the article less than an hour and a half after I created it. You would have been welcome to discuss the article with me first, but you lacked the manners to do so. You went straight on the attack. That is gratuitous.

So I deleted the template that you applied, and when doing so, I provided good reasons why. So now you have retaliated with a nomination for deletion. If you want additional sources, fair comment. But nominating the Empire Taff article to be deleted, rather than augmented, is gratuitously destructive. People contribute thousands of hours of intelligent, meticulous work to this website for free. If you want a formula to drive able and willing contributors away, congratulations; you have found it.

Gustav Bauer and Hans Wach at Joh. C. Tecklenborg patented their exhaust steam turbine system in 1926, just months before Tecklenborg became one of the founder partners in Deutsche Schiff- und Maschinenbau (DeSchiMAG). AG „Weser“ was another of the founder partners in DeSchiMAG, and as such, got access to the Bauer-Wach patented system. The next year, AG „Weser“ built a class of four cargo ships for Dampfschifffahrts-Gesellschaft „Neptun“.

As pioneering examples of cargo ships with Bauer-Wach exhaust turbines, the Ajax class is notable. I could have written an article about the class as a whole, but that is not something that I have experience of doing. So I wrote about one member of the class, with a section outlining the class as a whole, to set her in context. I could have written the article about Ajax, because she was the lead ship of the class. Instead I chose Apollo, because she was the only member of the class that became an Empire ship. WP:SHIPS members have striven for decades to increase this site's coverage of Empire ships. User:Mjroots, for example, has done sterling work on them. I therefore thought that Empire Taff would be of more interest to British and other English-speaking readers.

Most of the people who write about steamships on Wikipedia seem either unaware of what the Bauer-Wach system is, or unaware of how important it was. Exhaust steam turbines on steamships were introduced in 1908, on Otaki and Laurentic. This "combination machinery" achieved better bunker economy than steam turbine ships with direct drive. However, also in 1908, the Parsons Marine Steam Turbine Company used Vespasian to pioneer reduction gearing for steam turbines. This also increased bunker economy; but was simpler, lighter, and more compact than "combination machinery". By the mid-1920s, barely 40 ships had been built with "combination machinery", whereas hundreds had been built with steam turbines plus reduction gearing. "Combination machinery" was dying out.

All that changed when Bauer and Wach invented a simpler and more cost-effective way to combine exhaust turbines with reciprocating engines, via a Föttinger fluid coupling. As a result, between the late 1920s and the early 1960s, at least 1,250 steamships were fitted with an exhaust steam turbine, coupled to the same drive shaft as the reciprocating main engine, whose low-pressure cylinder(s) provided the exhaust steam. Exhaust steam turbines were widely used by UK, German, and some other shipbuilders. I think the last shipbuilder to use them may have been the Gdańsk Shipyard in Poland, which was sitll installing them in 1961.

In the vast majority of cases, the Bauer-Wach system was used. However, Bauer and Wach's success stimulated competition, for example from Brown, Boveri & Cie in Switzerland, who circumvented the Bauer-Wach patent with a different type of coupling; and White's Marine Engineering Company in England, who were more innovative, but commercially less successful. Empire Taff is thus notable as a very early example of a trend in marine engineering that remained significant throughout the second quarter of the 20th century.

The Ajax class is notable also as the precursor to DG „Neptun“'s Helios class, which was built in 1929. These also had Bauer-Wach turbines, but the new feature of the Helios class was that they had a Maierform bow. Fritz Maier founded Maierform GmbH in Bremen in 1927, and three fishing vessels with Maierform bows were built in 1928. Then AG „Weser“ built the Helios class in 1929, making them very early examples of cargo ships with Maier's new bow. English Wikipedia has an article about one member of the Helios class, Kirovograd, which was built as Hercules.

DG „Neptun“ were early adopters of both the Bauer-Wach system, and the Maierform bow, and there is a direct relationship between the two classes of ship in which DG „Neptun“ first used these concepts. The Empire Taff article provides background to the Kirovograd article. The two articles complement each other.

Fram's claim that "Sources are lists and routine database-like coverage in Lloyds" is inaccurate. It ignores the fact that I cite Mitchell & Sawyer's The Empire Ships, which is the standard work on the topic. And it is facile to dismiss Lloyd's Register and the Mercantile Navy List. They are authoritative commercial and government records. We do not need other sources to prove that Empire Taff existed. And the fact that she was a very early Bauer-Wach ship, and therefore notable, is self-evident from the fact that she was built as early as 1927.

I have searched in vain for books about exhaust steam turbines, and especially about the Bauer-Wach system, which was commercially the most successful. All I found was a booklet in German about Bauer-Wach turbines and couplings, which DeSchiMAG published in 1934. I bought a copy of it, but it is purely a pocket handbook for marine engineers, and seems to offer nothing suitable to contribute to individual Wikipedia articles.

There are two books in German about DG „Neptun“. One was published by the company itself in 1939. The other was written by Reinhold Thiel, and published in 1998. Both are out of print. Online, second hand, their prices start at $55 and $71 respectively. Please do not expect a pensioner to spend that much on a book to support one small article, just because you denigrate the authoritative Lloyd's Register and Mercantile Navy List. If you think the article should have additional sources, you are welcome buy those books in German, and expand the article yourself.

I disagree also with Davidships' proposal to merge the text of the article into List of Empire ships (Ta–Te). Each entry in that list should be brief; and in as many cases as possible, it should link to an article about the individual ship. Empire Taff's entry on that list now does.

The only "argument" that Fram has cobbled together is that the article could be renamed. I named it Empire Taff because this is English Wikipedia, and some people on here have a particular interest in Empire ships. It conforms with the principle of "least surprise", so that if someone reading the "List of Empire ships (Ta–Te)" article clicks on the "Empire Taff" link, they find an article called "Empire Taff". If you want to rename it Hercules or Alhama, you are free to do so. But there is no cogent case for deleting the article. Motacilla (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you have no better sources, just a lot of WP:OR amidst some irrelevant personal remarks? Not meeting WP:GNG is a quite cogent reason for deletion or redirection actually. Fram (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, you may need to work on your spelling. :-))

Motacilla, you've been around Wikipedia long enough that you should know the requirements laid out at GNG. Currently, the article does not meet those. The most salient of your points above is the paragraph beginning "There are two books in German ...". Unfortunately, we would need info from them to confirm whether or not they would count as significant coverage for this specific ship. Have you tried to get access via WP:RX? Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, mobile editing sucks, I have corrected the numerous typos. The 1939 book mentioned above is published by the original company of the book, so doesn´t help for notability (would be good for reliable information of course). Fram (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the main argument in the deletion nom seems to be the quality of sources. As we all know, needing improvement is never a reason to delete. She has an entry in Mitchell & Sawyer's The Empire Ships, which can be used to reference some of the facts. Mjroots (talk) 05:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Mjroots, but I fear you've misinterpreted or overlooked the nom's first sentence. The argument is that there is no indication in the given sources, which are nearly all non SIGCOV-meeting entries from Lloyd's, that this ship has independent notability and meets GNG. See WP:N##cite_note-1. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 06:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Davidships. The stuff provided by Motacilla is notable for a list (as for what that ship is notable for), but the ship itself is not inherently notable because it used a specific type of machinery. This is similar to all the specific production models of cars that do not get individual pages but have weird engine formats. In this case a class page might be notable, as much like production cars, there might be enough coverage on all the ships of the mentioned class. I understand this is not a policy page, but going forward I would suggest creating a class/type page and from there, one can see if there is enough notability to create an individual page for the ship, or if a redirect would be enough. Llammakey (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

J. Eric Robinson

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

Assistant professors are seldom notable under NPROF, and I see no evidence of NPROF notability here. The subject has one published book, but I did not find reviews of it. (If reviews could be found, then redirection to a stub on the book could be a sensible alternative to deletion.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, History, and Missouri. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The page's creator, Approved2025, has been sockblocked as part of an undisclosed paid editing group here. G5 was not used as another user had made significant contributions. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 11:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He seems to pass GNG. Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 23:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not seem to pass GNG, unable to find significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Additionally the subject does not seem to meet any of the eight criteria of WP:NACADEMIC, nor any of the four criteria for WP:NAUTHOR. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 09:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreed, not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO, doesn't meet WP:NPROF, and I couldn't find any reviews of his novel, so doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR. Tacyarg (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an assistant professor, he's not tenured, and we normally don't consider that notable. Is there significant coverage of his other work? Ping me. Bearian (talk) 02:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2033 in rail transport

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

A single event which may well happen in a different year eventually. WP:CRYSTAL Fram (talk) 10:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, Lists, and Canada. Fram (talk) 10:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:Crystal and WP:TOOSOON Servite et contribuere (talk) 13:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Also, lists with one entry are completely pointless. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One event, likely TOOSOON for it to be listed anyway. The list wouldn't be helpful as it stands. Oaktree b (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Notaoffensivename (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete case of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Azuredivay (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Return (2001)

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

Searches like "Operation Return" and "Preševo" and similar search terms turn up negligible results, almost exclusively wiki mirrors. This isn't much of a surprise considering this operation consisted of troops essentially walking in unopposed after the Končulj Agreement, and can be described in a few sentences at Insurgency in the Preševo Valley. Fails WP:GNG. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:28, 23 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) 00:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kosovo and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 09:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Operation happened and it doesn't fail notability. Editor also seems to erase any conflict during Preshevo valley with claims like "ohh small skirmish that happened during small Incurgency" or "oh but this fails notability trust" GazuzBaguzz (talk) 06:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A new account with this comment as its first edit. Hmm. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ikafa

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

The article seems to be mostly WP:OR. None of the sources mentions any such battle and even doing a google search brings up no results. Ixudi (talk) 08:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Pakistan, and India. Ixudi (talk) 08:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don’t see anything to suggest notability. Mccapra (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks near Dobrosin

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

Most of the article fails WP:V; the part dealing with the attacks themselves. The article states that "the LAPMB took control over Dobrosin, Lučane, Končulj, Mali Trnovac and Breznica, as well as 4 police stations", but the sources cited, BBC and Večernje novosti say nothing about that. The BBC source reports on a ceasefire and short summary of the events leading up to it, while the Večernje novosti article is from 2012 and reports the arrests of Albanians related to the war by Serbian authorities. They make no mention of three members of the MUP being killed and five wounded in the first ambush (the BBC does however confirm four casualties and several wounded in the presumably second attack mentioned in the article).

The article also says that "Special Police Units from Gornji Milanovac were forced to withdraw to Konculj, Lučane and Bujanovac" but the Yugoslav survey book has no page number or quote to verify, and the other citation is inaccessible. The rest of the paragraph is unsourced. Griboski (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 23:57, 21 June 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 June 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article most definitely fails WP:V, alongside other listed problems. — Sadko (words are wind) 00:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:DEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Willard

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

WP:BLP of a local historian, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for historians. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they have or had jobs, and have to be shown to pass certain defined notability criteria supported by WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about their work in media and/or books -- but this is referenced entirely to primary source content self-published by non-media organizations she was directly affiliated with, and shows absolutely no evidence of GNG-worthy sourcing at all. (For example, people do not become notable enough for Wikipedia articles by having staff profiles on the websites of their own employers, or contributor directories on the websites of publications that they wrote for — media unaffiliated with her work have to write about and analyze the significance of her work as news to make her notable on that basis.)
As her potential claim of notability is primarily local in nature rather than national, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to the necessary resources than I've got can actually find sufficient RS coverage to get her over the bar, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have significantly better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: She did win awards, including a state-wide award for her work. WP:Author doesn't require national accomplishments. One might make the case that winning an award from the state's primary historical society might be "significant critical attention"? --
Jaireeodell (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say people always have to have nationalized accomplishments to be eligible for an article — I said that because her notability claim is local rather than national in nature, I lack access to the kind of resources necessary to determine whether the article is salvageable with better referencing or not on my own, without bringing it to wider attention. People can get into Wikipedia on primarily local significance — but regardless of whether their notability claim is local or national in scope, people aren't exempted from having to have WP:GNG-worthy reliable sourcing.
Also, every award that exists does not constitute an automatic notability freebie — a person is not automatically notable just because the article has the word "award" in it, if the article doesn't have GNG-worthy reliable sourcing in it. "Significant critical attention", for the purposes of GNG, is a question of whether she's had news reportage and/or books written about her and her work, not just the fact of having been singled out for just any old award that exists — an award might help if it could be referenced to a newspaper article treating "Shirley Willard wins award" as news, but it doesn't help if you have to depend on content self-published by the organization that gave her the award to source the statement because media coverage about the award doesn't exist. We're not just looking for "has done stuff", we're looking for "has had media coverage and/or books written and published about the stuff she did". Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ミラP@Miraclepine 21:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wonderful woman, no doubt, but I simply cannot find any of her writings that aren't "self-published" - i.e. by the historical society she was working with in some capacity. She did get two awards from the Indiana Historical Society, but I don't think that is going to confirm notability. She is given credit for unearthing the story of this "Trail of Death" but I only find a very few mentions of it by folks not directly associated with the historical society. Lamona (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just asking for clarification on what you are asking for here- are you asking for the historical veracity of the Potawatomi Trail of Death? If so, there is already a Wikipedia article discussing its history. I am not writing that she was responsible for discovering it, she is just a historian who has taken important steps to preserve its memory in local history. Willard is responsible for the Trail of Courage festival and commemorative caravan, if that's what you meant. Here are some mentions of the Trail of Living Courage Festival and caravan from sources not associated with Willard or the Fulton County Historical Society:

https://www.dar.org/national-society/american-spirit-magazine/beacon-history-shirley-willard (Page dedicated to her on the Daughters of the American Revolution website, already in article)

https://www.southbendtribune.com/story/news/local/2018/09/13/caravan-to-trace-potawatomi-trail-of-death-from-rochester/45724091/ (News article about about Trail of Death commemorative caravan Willard organized)

https://www.in.gov/ibc/legacyprojects/3261.htm (entry on Indiana government website about the festival, already in article)

If these sources are satisfactory, I can start reworking the article around these and replace the Fulton Co. Historical Society ones. DeishaJ (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will look at these sources, but, no, I'm not asking about the trail of death. This article is about HER so we need sources about HER. Lamona (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some additional sources I've found:

https://www.carrollcountycomet.com/articles/historian-recognized-with-statewide-award/ (News article referencing her Lifetime Achievement award. I have contacted the Indiana Historical Society to see if they have any writings or press releases on her that would work as citations).

https://www.rochsent.com/willard-featured-on-publishers-blog/article_1ec925d0-4190-541b-9020-c01655ba74d8.html (Lists her history and achievements with the Fulton Co. Historical Society. Also mentions her Lifetime Achievement award and Golden Hoosier award, mentions her being a torch bearer in the Indiana Bicentennial Torch Relay. I have confirmed her participation, she is listed here under Fulton County. Link to the page of the Indiana government website I found the PDF on.

Additional sources for consideration:

https://www.potawatomi.org/blog/2016/09/28/chairman-barrett-honored-at-2016-trail-of-courage-festival/

https://www.potawatomi.org/blog/2017/06/27/indiana-declares-indian-day/

I will let others decide if these sources are good enough to work in this article, as they are technically blog posts. I will argue, though, that they are from the official Potawatomi tribe website. These sources mention Willard playing a key role in securing proclamations from Mike Pence and Eric Holcomb in recognition of the Trail of Death and establishing remembrance/heritage days. These might be notable additions to her article, but I am unsure if they would meet proper reference criteria. Is there any way to find good sources for these proclamations:

Mike Pence declaring Sept. 20, 2014 Potawatomi Trail of Death Remembrance Day

Eric Holcomb declaring April 22, 2017 Indiana Indian Day

Thanks!
DeishaJ (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Udo of Neustria

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

Article does not show notability and a google search could not find any additional sources. Nixleovel (talk) 00:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies and History. Nixleovel (talk) 00:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, France, and Germany. Curbon7 (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Look at the German article. Try searching "Udo of Lahngau" (article should possibly be moved there). His name is spelled "Uto" in Goldberg's Struggle for Empire. Donald Jackman's books make many references to him. Plenty of sources if you know how/where to look. Srnec (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Srnec. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:58, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Baballoq

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

Fails WP:GNG. The results of searches for "Battle of Baballoq" (alb.), "Battle of Bazaljica" (sr.), and various similar permutations including search terms "Kosovo" and "KLA" are negligible. Created by a blocked sockpuppet account. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:52, 18 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) 15:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kosovo and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sack of Old Oyo

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

The sources cited in this article don't support the idea that the sack of the city was a battle at all. In fact, after the Battle of Ilorin the inhabitants evacuated the city to avoid a brutal sack, and Ilorin forces "sacked" an entirely empty town. This content belongs on Oyo-Ile rather than in a standalone page. Catjacket (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Nigeria. Catjacket (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topic: Military. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why this was marked for deletion? This fall wasThe history of the Yorubas : from the earliest times to the beginning of the British Protectorate - https://archive.org/details/historyofyorubas00john/page/266/mode/2up?q=katunga (archived so anyone can read) page266 & 267. clearly narrates why oyo, or katunga fell. There was a resistance, and it was a battle-esque that led to the fall. Though it fell for other reasons, mostly because of ilroin, and people deserting it. And all the towns "any allegiance to Oyo, and hence Gbodo was besieged" - Page 260. So again can you explain why this is going on deletion? The same book is one of, if not the most documented histories of the Yoruba People, and is also on Google books, you can find this everywhere > https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_History_of_the_Yorubas_from_the_Earl/RL7WAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PR19&printsec=frontcover . I put great work, and a lot of hours, of research, and reading for my wikipedia pages, why are they consistently being nominated to get taken down? I have a smear campaign against me. And i would liek to appeal this, Please! Oluwafemi1726 (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I don't mean to discredit the work that you're doing, and I'm certainly not trying to smear you. I just think that the content that you've put on Sack of Old Oyo would be better placed on Oyo-Ile rather than on a standalone page. Samuel Johnson is pretty clear that Old Oyo was cleared out of almost all of its inhabitants and their belongings before the Ilorin troops showed up. Akinwumi Ogundiran and Stephen Akintoye agree. So it wasn't a battle, and whether or not it was a sack is debatable IMO since there was little or no population in the town at the time. But just because there isn't a standalone page doesn't mean the content doesn't matter. It should just be on Oyo-Ile, where it'll be easier to find anyway.

As for your other articles that have been nominated for deletion, I'd be happy to help you get Battle of Pamo, Mugbamugba War and Battle of Aboh up to Wikipedia standards if you'd like. I just finished reading Ogundiran's Yoruba: A New History and Akintoye's A History of the Yoruba People, and they both could be useful. Catjacket (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't tihnk you're trying to discredit my work, but when you're splitting hairs over things that are miniscule, and saying a wikipedia page doesn't deserve to exist, I believe so. The fall or "sack" of Old Oyo (also referred to as Katunga) represents a major turning point in Yoruba history. As documented in The History of the Yorubas by Samuel Johnson (pages 260, 266–267), the event was not merely a peaceful abandonment, but part of a gradual disintegration exacerbated by political fragmentation, internal rebellion, and eventual military incursions. While some inhabitants had fled, Johnson explicitly notes resistance and a form of confrontation with Ilorin forces. This process, whether described as a "sack" or a strategic collapse, has been characterized as both military and political in nature, warranting more than just a paragraph in a general article on Oyo-Ile. Your argument would be fine, if you say maybe change it from "Sack of Katunga" to abandoment, or desertification. But again, that shouldn't remove the fact, that this is more than credible to be a wikipedia page. And the fact i cited multiple times arguably the most detailed pre-colonial history about Yorubas, should show this is is a legitimate page, with a historical goal.

As for helping me get the battle of pamo, mugbamugba war, and aboh, up to wikipedia's standards, please let me know. Oluwafemi1726 (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the page covers the general overview of the sacking of the capital, this event basically marks the point at which the very decisive collapse of the empire's political center in the 1830s fell. But the page might need a little rephrasing since calling it a battle might oversimplify the event, since it was less of a single battle and more a series of invasions, etc, and eventual abandonment of the city around 1835–1837. But it's important to note that the term "sack" in historical contexts does not require the presence of a battle or active defense, since the sacking of a city refers to the looting and destroying, or even razing of a city at times, often after it has been abandoned or conquered.[5] Considering the symbolic and political importance of the town, even if the citizens of the town fled or didn't flee, there would still be valuable resources, possessions, and also infrastructure left behind. The invading army could still seize these assets and leave the city stripped of its wealth and resources. Whether there was an actual pitched battle in the area is secondary to the fact that its fall marked the end of the Oyo Empire itself. Also, sources in the article support the term “sack,” evidenced in Samuel Johnson’s History of the Yorubas "Oyo at length capitulated and the Ilorin troops entered and sacked the city. Oyo was plundered of nearly everything, but no captives were made excepting some Oyo beauties who were carried away with the spoils." [6] Also, Wikipedia hosts many pages about historical events that involved little fighting but had a massive political impact so the Sack of Old Oyo, as the final act of a once-dominant West African empire, clearly meets this precedent. The page needs a simple reframing since sack seems to be a problem, maybe fall or siege would be better.Bernadine okoro (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your feedback. I think your proposal to reframe the page to clarify that there was not an active defense or population present is a possible compromise. Perhaps renaming it to 'Evacuation of Old Oyo' would be more accurate than 'sack', since it was the fleeing inhabitants who stripped the town of valuables more than the invaders. But even in that instance, I think it fails the WP:NOTE test and would be better as a section on the Oyo-Ile page. After all, Johnson only dedicated 2 sentences to the whole event: "The citizen's fearing that he would receive re-inforcement from Ilorin did not wait to try any further conclusions ; the great metropolis was deserted, some fled to Kihisi, some to Igboho, and some even to Ilorin. As it was not a flight from an enemy in pursuit many who reached Kihisi and Igboho safely with their family returned again and again for their household goods and chattels till one Agandangban went and told Lanloke that Oyo had been deserted, and the latter proceeded immediately to plunder, and carry away what was left by the citizens."

One of your examples, in fact, illustrates my point nicely. The sack that Johnson is referring to on page 217 is not the final fall of the city, but rather one that took place earlier, during the initial rise of Ilorin. A page called 'Sack of Old-Oyo' should probably be about this first sacking rather than the later abandonment, but we don't have enough information about either 'sacking' to merit a standalone page, as far as a I know. Catjacket (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughtful reply and for engaging in this discussion with care and good faith. I see your point regarding the earlier reference to a “sack” on page 217 of The History of the Yorubas, and I agree that it’s important to distinguish between the various phases of Old Oyo’s decline—particularly the initial incursion during the rise of Ilorin and the final abandonment of the capital. However, I would argue that the cumulative process—including military action, desertion, and political collapse—forms a historically significant event that is often collectively referred to (in both academic and public discourse) as the "fall" or "sack" of Old Oyo. To clarify, the article I created focuses not just on a single "battle" or isolated event, but on the entire chain of events—including the Ilorin campaigns, the resistance described in Johnson (pp. 260, 266–267), and the subsequent loss of hegemony over subordinate towns like Gbodo. In this context, the term “sack” may be interpreted as a figurative description of collapse due to sustained conflict and internal disintegration, not necessarily a single moment of conquest like a classic battlefield engagement. I also believe the topic merits a standalone article for several reasons: Academic treatment: Authors like Akinwumi Ogundiran (Yoruba: A New History) and Stephen Akintoye treat the fall of Old Oyo as a distinct, analyzable phenomenon in Yoruba political and military history—even if it's complex and unfolds over time. Public interest and educational value: Many readers search for the fall of Old Oyo as a standalone subject, not just as a subsection of a broader article. Having a dedicated page improves accessibility, clarity, and depth. Title flexibility: If the term "Sack of Old Oyo" causes confusion or implies a narrow focus, I am more than open to renaming the article to something more neutral and descriptive, such as “Fall of Old Oyo”, “Collapse of Oyo-Ile”, or “Decline of the Oyo Empire’s Capital”. Incompleteness ≠ Non-notability: While the primary sources may not offer precise dates or a blow-by-blow account of either “sack,” that doesn't diminish the notability or historical impact of the event. Wikipedia hosts many articles about gradual collapses or unclear sequences of events, particularly when multiple reputable sources discuss them in depth. I welcome collaboration to clarify the scope and strengthen the sourcing. But I believe that merging this content into Oyo-Ile would oversimplify a pivotal transformation in Yoruba history. A separate article—properly framed, titled, and sourced—allows space for nuance and invites further expansion. Thanks again for your time and feedback. Oluwafemi1726 (talk) 04:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Sack of Old Oyo page right now only has a 'Background' and 'Aftermath' section. In other words, none of the page's content is about the actual fall of the city of Old Oyo - it's just about the events going on around it. So either we change the title to match the content, or we delete it.

I think I understand better where you're coming from now. Sounds like you think of the Sack of Old Oyo page as the place where you can read about the entire war, or entire series of conflicts that included the ultimate fall of Oyo-Ile. If I'm understanding your position correctly, then the page should be renamed something like 'Collapse of the Oyo Empire'. I don't hate that option, but I still don't see how that page would make life easier for readers. If you're looking for a history of the empire and its fall, the first place you would look would be Oyo Empire or Yoruba Wars, maybe Battle of Ilorin. If you wanted a history of the city specifically, obviously Oyo-Ile is the place to go. Creating new articles when there are existing articles that need this content just makes it harder to keep Wikipedia at the high level of quality and reliability that we all want.

Johnson, Ogundiran, and Akintoye all treat the fall of the Oyo Empire as a distinct, analyzable phenomenon in Yoruba political and military history. But none of them treat the fall of the city of Oyo-Ile as such. In fact, in their books the fall of the city only stands out because it is such a non-event - after the Battle of Ilorin, people just evacuate the city on their own. You're right that the evacuation is a watershed moment and shouldn't be oversimplified, but it is the sources themselves who are doing the oversimplifying. As I pointed out before, Johnson only dedicates two sentences to the sack. And we have to follow the sources: WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. Catjacket (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

”Keep I respectfully disagree with the nomination for deletion of the article titled "Sack of Old Oyo". While I appreciate and understand the concerns raised, I believe the topic merits its own dedicated page based on historical significance, available sources, and the guidelines for notability outlined by Wikipedia. The fall or "sack" of Old Oyo (also referred to as Katunga) represents a major turning point in Yoruba history. As documented in The History of the Yorubas by Samuel Johnson (pages 260, 266–267), the event was not merely a peaceful abandonment, but part of a gradual disintegration exacerbated by political fragmentation, internal rebellion, and eventual military incursions. While some inhabitants had fled, Johnson explicitly notes resistance and a form of confrontation with Ilorin forces. This process, whether described as a "sack" or a strategic collapse, has been characterized as both military and political in nature, warranting more than just a paragraph in a general article on Oyo-Ile.The Johnson text is a foundational source on Yoruba history, widely recognized and cited by scholars and available publicly through Archive.org and Google Books. Other sources, including Akinwumi Ogundiran’s Yoruba: A New History and Stephen Akintoye’s A History of the Yoruba People, further contextualize this event. While interpretations may vary slightly between scholars, the event is consistently recognized and discussed in scholarly literature, fulfilling Wikipedia’s requirement for significant coverage in reliable sources.Wikipedia regularly hosts dedicated articles for pivotal historical events, even when closely related to larger subjects (e.g., individual battles, uprisings, or sackings). Keeping the Sack of Old Oyo as a standalone article allows for more comprehensive treatment, sourcing, and debate around its nature, without overburdening the main Oyo-Ile page. Furthermore, this enables clearer navigation and improves reader access to deeper historical information.As the article’s creator, I invested considerable time in reading, interpreting, and referencing multiple scholarly sources to develop content that meets Wikipedia’s standards. I welcome collaborative editing and criticism in good faith and am happy to revise or restructure the article where needed. However, outright deletion risks disregarding both historical nuance and the labor involved in preserving underrepresented African historical narratives.

If the primary concern is scope overlap with the Oyo-Ile article or concerns about whether "sack" is the most accurate term, I am open to renaming the article (e.g., “Fall of Old Oyo” or “Collapse of Oyo-Ile”) and improving source attribution and language clarity. But deletion is not the ideal solution for a historically attested and sourced subject.

The event commonly referred to as the “Sack of Old Oyo” represents a complex, consequential episode in Yoruba and West African history. It is sufficiently covered in reliable sources and meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria. I respectfully request that the page not be deleted but instead improved collaboratively. Thank you for your time and consideration. Oluwafemi1726 (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC) Oluwafemi1726[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:30, 25 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]

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 [7]. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. R3YBOl (🌲) 06:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@R3YBOl could you please Explain Why do you want the page to be deleted? I mean every page I made you wanted it to be deleted Suraya222 (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep -~~ Suraya222 (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think its informative and gives a good overview of Assyrian-Kurdish relations in that period. I can't find any issues with the article that's worth deleting it for.Ilamxan (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

idk why @R3YBOI Want to delete every page i make Suraya222 (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is a mess. @User:Suraya222, you are only allowed to make one bolded !vote per AfD discussion – please strike the rest. Could we get editors from outside this topic area to weigh in please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 23:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't know Suraya222 (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes, you could Suraya222 (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks a case of WP:SYNTH as none of the sources discuss this subject in the context of this very specific timescale. Instead it's a bunch of meh sources not addressing the overall subject and being bolted together. That's classic synth and this feels like its either a fork from a wider more general article or should be in a wider history of the conflict if specific sources addressing the conflict as a whole are not available. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are you even talking about??? Suraya222 (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Suraya222 Please review WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK. The editor raised legitimate policy concerns about WP:SYNTH that deserve a substantive response rather than dismissal. R3YBOl (🌲) 15:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:07, 23 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]

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]

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]

Keep it definetly meets the criteria of WP:N and has a lot of RS backing it up. This battle is acknowledged by a plethera of sources as well. Durraz0 (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Direct comment on the sources would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:49, 15 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 05:41, 23 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]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Neither of these keep !votes show that the topic meets WP:GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: per the last relisting comment
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 05:43, 23 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]
I understand your concerns, but this page is not connected to the Massacre itself, its just a prelude to the happenings, its a important fight which i see deserves its own page rather then being merged. 79.140.150.3 (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it is a prelude then content can be merged. GaLLOp3333 (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the article already copy-pastes the background and aftermath section of Lake Radonjić massacre, so there's nothing to merge anyway. --Griboski (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History Proposed deletions

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

History categories

for occasional archiving

Proposals