Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science

From Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Social_science

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary, it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Social science|~~~~}} 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.
Note that 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 links to other discussions ( prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Social science.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


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

This list includes sublists of deletion debates on articles related to language and history.

See also: Science-related deletions and Medicine-related deletions.

Social science

Free structuring

Free structuring (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

This is a non-notable name for node–link diagramming. I searched in a variety of search engines and did not find reliable sources indicating notability. The claim by the person who allegedly coined the term that it is a "distinctive way of recording one's own thinking" only betrays ignorance of the use of such node–link diagramming in, for example, graphic facilitation and sketchnoting. Biogeographist ( talk) 22:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist ( talk) 22:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist ( talk) 22:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist ( talk) 22:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist ( talk) 22:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Comment: By the way, before MrOllie helpfully trimmed it, the original version of the article was also an WP:ADVERT for yet another node–link diagramming web app. Biogeographist ( talk) 00:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Comment: Later it occurred to me that what the creator of this article was trying to express is equivalent to the common adjective freeform or free-form (see also wikt:free-form), "structure" being a synonym for "form". But there is no evidence that "free structuring" is a notable name for free-form diagramming, and Wikipedia is not for publicizing non-notable neologisms. Biogeographist ( talk) 14:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Delete - Neologism. The only sources I can find are related to the advertised webapp, nothing independent or reliable. - MrOllie ( talk) 21:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Comment - Biogeographist general node-link diagramming as linked is very different to what free structuring is. Sketchnoting seems to put emphasis on different elements and hand-drawing. Graphic facilitation is emphasizing hand drawing again. Digital tools enable more freedom in information structuring compared to anything paper based, therefore concrete examples (two very much different ones at that) were mentioned so that anybody can create their own impression. I don't think the trimming was actually helpful, because anything concrete is missing now. There is no history, no further leads. Free structuring is quite notable in the czech pedagogic community so this is basically a translation to facilitate better understanding e.g. when talking with partner schools elsewhere. The linked article by Barbora Jeřábková was published by the National Pedagogic Institute (NPI), which is a public institution related to the ministry of education. NPI creates e.g. the framework for education in public schools. To summarize, free structuring is putting a label on a specific approach to working with information that was researched for ~ 40 years by doc. Zdeněk Hedrlín. For this event, the mathematical community gathered for a whole day to commemorate his contributions. As the author of the article, I am quite open to improving it to help international audience better understand the concept, its significance and the history leading to it. It is my first article here, until now I only helped to make existing articles better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaliszad ( talkcontribs) 15:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
This comment by the article's creator does not add any information that refutes the rationale for deletion. I looked at screenshots of the web app that was mentioned in the article, and what the web app does is very obviously node–link diagramming. Free-form node–link diagramming is often used in graphic facilitation and sketchnoting (among other kinds of visual organization), so I don't see anything "distinctive" about "recording one's own thinking" in "free structuring" as the coiner of the term is quoted in the article as saying. And of course mathematicians played an important role in the development of node–link diagramming software, and of course mathematicians with long careers often get commemorated in special events: none of that is a surprise, but it is irrelevant to this deletion discussion. And Kaliszad, if you are connected to the software in any way, you should disclose that. Biogeographist ( talk) 21:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
The article wasn't meant to be about specific software, else I would write a specific article about OrgPad.org or OrgPad.com, which I haven't. Both are very different, the first being open source. I am involved with OrgPad.com as can be easily spotted because I use the same username on GitHub and it is linked there. I am not paid to write anything on Wikipedia or anywhere else and it is not my job to do anything like it. I am not sure at which screenshots from which software you have looked at. By looking at a horse carriage and the very first cars you could easily mistake one for the other. The same is with sugar or salt until you taste them. If you want to talk specifics about software that was mentioned in one sentence, please try it out first. You can use both webapps for free, so actually trying it out would be great if you consider deleting any work of other people. It is quite cavalier to write of basically life-long contributions of a person to multiple areas of study, such as category theory or graph theory. E.g. Václav Chvátal, a student of Z.H., came over from Canada for the commemoration and gave a talk. It is especially important, because doc. Zdeněk Hedrlín was in fact the father of the ideas behind free structuring. The article as is doesn't add much value to any reader, since you have collectively removed at least half of its utility instead of suggesting e.g. a better formulation. Perhaps it would be best to extend the article about Z.H. and dedicate a section of it to free structuring or the ideas behind it. That would perhaps take some heat out of the discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaliszad ( talkcontribs) 00:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
None of this is relevant to the rationale for deletion. Instead of continuing to talk about your software as you did in half of the content of the article you created, if you want to save the article from deletion then you should present sources that show the WP:NOTABILITY of "Free structuring" and use those sources to write an informative encyclopedia article instead of a few sentences that are so vague that other editors are forced to guess what it is supposed to be about. A Google Images search for OrgPad shows images that I would call node–link diagramming. If that is not what free structuring is, then why don't you edit the article and explain what free structuring is in a way that differentiates it from free-form node–link diagramming, using references to a variety of reliable independent sources? People shouldn't have to use your software to learn what free structuring is; it should be possible to learn what free structuring is simply by reading the article. The fact that you are telling people just to use the software to understand free structuring makes the whole purpose of the article look even more like an WP:ADVERT for the software. Biogeographist ( talk) 01:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Delete as neologism not in common use. If the editor wishes to provide material on Hedrlín's work, might I suggest expanding the article Zdeněk Hedrlín instead? That could really use some love, and some content beyond the bare-bones biographical material. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 17:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]

Social science Proposed deletions

Language

Rohingya Language Academy

Rohingya Language Academy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

I found no notability per WP:CORP. SL93 ( talk) 00:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talkcontribs) 00:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talkcontribs) 00:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]

Phonetically Intuitive English

Phonetically Intuitive English (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Notability concerns. The PCWorld reference doesn't demonstrate notability to me and I don't see anything else substantial. Chrome Web Store suggests this has ~1000 users and was last updated in 2015 so I wouldn't expect to find coverage. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]

Prodded articles


History

Grzegorz Bębnik

Grzegorz Bębnik (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Grzegorz Bębnik does not appear to pass WP:NAUTHOR. Additionally, the only source in this WP:BLP is a self-published source from the author's employer and the Wikipedia articles on the individual written in Afrikaans and Polish both appear to not be sourced whatsoever. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 21:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Weak keep. He has habilitation which passes Polish Wikipedia's equivalent og NACADEMIC; our is unclear on whether this is sufficient but I think it should be enough. His work has some visibility, ex. [1]. Additionally he publishes newspaper articles on popular history in some notable Polish newspapers: [2] (Polish Press Agency reported on an event/forum related to on of his books). He received a minor local award for popularizing history on 2013: [3] (it does not have en wiki page but does have a pl one: pl:Nagroda im. ks. Augustina Weltzla „Górnośląski Tacyt”). His books got some reviews: academic [4], [5], [6], popular history magazine: [7], newspaper: [8]... I think that's enough for NPROF on en wiki too. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Comment. I found two book reviews [9] [10], the second of which is for an edited volume. It's not enough yet to convince me of a pass of WP:AUTHOR but maybe there is more out there to be found. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]

Hugh of Austrasia

Hugh of Austrasia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

I believe that this article should be deleted due to the nature of this article being sourced by nothing but unsourced genealogical entries on findagrave. In fact, if you search on Google for Hugh of Austrasia, all of the first page is nothing but unsourced genealogical sources, or the Wikipedia article.

I have actually heard of Hugh before, while doing genealogical research. I came across it on a very poorly sourced megatree and I have a feeling that either, this dude isn't real, or he is unverifiable.

Setting a Google search parameter for anytime before Dec 31 of 2015, shows no results for me on Hugh whatsoever, except for a WordPress, and a few other sources that don't provide any sources, and seem to be merely lists or previously stated genealogical sites. I think that someone needs to show me a scholarly article or source mentioning Hugh, or else this article should be deleted, perhaps along with some other Austrasian Kings.

EytanMelech ( talk) 20:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Keep. See the text and the references in the corresponding article in the French Wikipedia, fr:Hugues (maire du palais) Automatically notable as either the equivalent of a cabinet minister or as a de facto ruler of Austrasia. I added {{ Find sources}} for different versions of his name. Eastmain ( talkcontribs) 17:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
The French article includes as references two editions of a book on the ancestors of Charlemagne. I have added both to the English article. Eastmain ( talkcontribs) 18:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Thanks, it's nice to finally have a source for the article. EytanMelech ( talk) 19:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talkcontribs) 18:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 16:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Keep per Eastmain. The article has been expanded He was a court minister of the absolute monarchy. Automatically notable and passes WP:NPOL. VocalIndia ( talk) 17:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Keep Not crazy about the sources available so far, but after reading about his role I feel it is worth keeping. Jamesallain85 ( talk) 21:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
    Yes, I agree that the new additions and sourcing makes it a viable article. EytanMelech ( talk) 15:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]

20th-century events

20th-century events (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Redundant to Timeline of the 20th century. Interstellarity ( talk) 13:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Delete. Also redundant to 20th century. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Keep. Covers the history, whereas 20th century does not (and is not chronological). Timeline of the 20th century is just a timeline. Already contains good content that would not otherwise have a home. Some overlap is ok; there seems to be a reasonable delineation already.  dmyersturnbull  talk 03:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Delete as hopelessly broad. Packing every significant event of an entire century into one article is a silly proposition. Clarityfiend ( talk) 04:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
It only seems to cover politics and war so far, and it's still vastly inadequate. Clarityfiend ( talk) 08:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Keep - Biased by the fact that I contributed to the article back in the day, but I don't really see how this is redundant. The "timeline" article is just a list of dates and short sentences that offer no context. This article is far from being perfect, but a more narrative article detailing the history of the 20th century is needed. PraiseVivec ( talk) 11:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Comment - I'd be interested to know why this particular century has its own page compared to 21st-century events, 19th-century events, and 18th-century events. Interstellarity ( talk) 17:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]

The Matter of the Jews

The Matter of the Jews (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Non-notable book lacking WP:SIGCOV. WP:BEFORE search yields only irrelevant results and the single source used in the article is not a review, rather just information about the book that does not verify notability. Fails WP:NBOOK. Waddles  🗩  🖉 03:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Waddles  🗩  🖉 03:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Waddles  🗩  🖉 03:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Waddles  🗩  🖉 03:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Waddles  🗩  🖉 03:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Draftify There seems to be perfectly usable references, and possibly reviews to show notability in the Hebrew WP version of the article, as judged by Google Translate. I think it's reckless nominating an article for deletion for lack of sourcing without checking the linked WP article in the relevant language. IThisdoes not seem to be an actual translation, but similar to the situationwhere people translate parts of an article from another WP without also transcribing the references. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Do not delete: Added "External links" section, renamed per WorldCat -- Thanks for motivating me to add external links and adjust the title according to WorldCat. These corrections were absolutely necessary. The book made quite a splash, and Berent is being constantly invited to talk about it on high-brow shows, podcasts, YouTube channels, etc. This makes it a very notable and salient topic. -- Guybas ( talk) 16:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]

Heinrich Thoma (general)

Heinrich Thoma (general) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

This article was nominated for deletion just over a year ago and closed as no consensus. Arguments for keeping at that time were mostly that Thoma satisfied WP:NSOLDIER criteria #1 and 2. NSOLDIER has since then been deprecated and is a mere essay. The relevant notability criteria are therefor now the any biography and general notability guidelines. The argument at the time that Thoma did not meet these criteria is still valid. Fellgiebel (1986), Scherzer (2007) and Von Seeman (1976) are abbreviated one-line listings and Keilig (1983) little more. Hartmann (2010) appears to have some passing mentions to Thoma in footnotes and abbreviated promotional records. Mitcham (2009) also merely lists Thoma's promotions with no attempt at context or tying Thoma to any events. Weber (2010) isn't about Thoma at all. No evidence of any signifcant coverage in reliable sources is apparent in the article or in searches, which fails both NBIO and GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Comment He won the Iron Cross award thing and has several chapters in the books shown about him, seems semi-notable. I still am not sure if he's a notable general, but he's got a few things written about him. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Almost 5 million Iron Crosses were awarded in WWII and over 7,300 Knight's Crosses [1]. Neither is significant and almost all the sources merely list his dates of promotion and award. None of the sources given can be called "several chapters". What's been written about him is almost entirely the bare details of his service history and most sources seem to be copying either the same primary source or each other. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Keep. While Hartmann mainly talks about Thoma in footnotes, these are not passing mentions. He discusses his views in quite some depth, and uses him to clarify the political position of Wehrmacht generals of the time, mainly in regard to his pronounced antisemitism and murder of partisans. The discussion by Hartmann certainly qualifies as "significant coverage"; as you pointed out, though, further sources are quite lacking indeed. However, Thoma also received "a well-known and significant award or honor" (although Eggishorn correctly pointed out the problem of said award in regards to notability) and was a relatively high-ranking general. IMO, there is enough about him to qualify for an entry. Applodion ( talk) 20:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]

References

  1. ^ For context, the American and German militaries had about the same number of men under arms and the Medal of Honor was awarded to a mere 472 individuals
  • Keep As a Knight's Cross recipient he would be considered notable per WP:ANYBIO. Jamesallain85 ( talk) 20:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Delete fails WP:BASIC. The Knight's Cross (without embellishments) does not satisfy #1 of WP:ANYBIO. Mztourist ( talk) 03:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
What about the five secondary sourced books? Did you check out all of those too or take them into account? Obviously meets WP:GNG without a doubt. Jamesallain85 ( talk) 09:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Naturally I conducted a WP:BEFORE and looked at all the references that could be accessed online, they are mere listings with nothing that addresses the topic directly and in detail. As you know I don't share your views on what does or does not meet GNG. Mztourist ( talk) 09:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Again, per WP:GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Just in Hartmann's book alone he is listed 6 times in footnotes and the text, and is even quoted. The guy doesn't need a biography written about him to be notable. You like to arbitrarily applies notability guidelines, sounds like a clear case of WP:IDL, because the stack of secondary sources are there. Jamesallain85 ( talk) 14:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
You keep saying the same thing as if we're all unfamiliar with it. I can't access Hartmann's book (and doubt that you've seen it either), but it would take more than a few footnotes in one book to convince me that BASIC is satisfied. If he was notable it shouldn't be difficult to find sources about him. Mztourist ( talk) 17:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
You should be able to access the book through archives.org, it does not require a subscription and is entirely free. You can choose make a free account which allows you to check out books like a library. I linked the book below in one of my comments. It is an excellent resource which even allows users to search the text of literally millions of books in a few seconds. Jamesallain85 ( talk) 21:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG and as a divisional commander also meets WP:COMMONSENSE. One again, I am mystified by those who believe the best way to serve an encyclopaedia is to delete information on clearly notable people. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Totally agree, how many significant secondary sources does this guy need to be considered notable. I swear editors vote without even taking the articles own sources into account. He is listed in book after book, what standard are trying to hold here? Jamesallain85 ( talk) 09:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Notability is established by the existence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" which is not the case here and not by the fact that someone held a particular rank. A great example of this I found recently is Esteban Hotesse, a non-notable Tuskegee Airmen 2nd Lt who achieved little before dying in a plane crash in 1945, but in 2015 The Atlantic did a story about him and that essentially made him notable, common sense tells me that he shouldn't have a page, but he has "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Mztourist ( talk) 09:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
To many of us, notability is established by common sense, not rigid, unbending rules. They have no place on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Unless it was WP:SOLDIER or a User's own criteria apparently... Mztourist ( talk) 10:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
If there is one thing I have discovered edited Wikipedia is there is a complete lack of common sense especially concerning AfDs. Someone please break down the sources listed and explain why he isn't notable. There are numerous independent published sources which attribute notability again and again. He was a divisional commander on the East Front for three years, he is listed in a stack of books independent on the matter and reliable, which are all secondary sourced. So please explain. Jamesallain85 ( talk) 14:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
@ Jamesallain85:, did you actually read the nomination? Because if you had, you'd have seen that I did exactly that. They are not WP:SIGCOV by any reasonable standard. Being listed again and again is worthless if its the same repeated scraps of information. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Oh I did, I just disagree with your assessment. Are you fluent in German? It would be difficult to assess many of these sources if you weren't in this case. Jamesallain85 ( talk) 14:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
I am not fluent but I submit for the eventual closer's evaluation that fluency is not required to see that two pages and a small handful of footnotes in a thousand page tome are not evidence of significant coverage. Neither is it necessary to recognize any of the other scraps that this article is sourced to. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
I am fairly fluent in German and double checked my translation with a native speaker, I mentioned in another comment specifically that Hartmann p.267-268 discusses not only his role as 296th Division commander, but also his underestimation of Russian defences as a shortcoming. I think it speaks to notability as it is more than a passing mention. Jamesallain85 ( talk) 21:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Because they were and are common sense in my opinion! WP:SOLDIER was blatantly common sense; its deprecation was a complete breach of common sense. I'm still mystified as to how that served Wikipedia and I always will be. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Well few other Users seem to share that view. Mztourist ( talk) 14:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Whether one understands the reasoning or not, the discussion was well-attended and reached a community consensus. AfD is not the place to attempt overturning that consensus. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
It certainly is the place where the discussion starts. Looking how notability is applied in cases such as this is a good argument for its return. Jamesallain85 ( talk) 14:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Perhaps, or perhaps it is "repeating the same argument without convincing people". Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Looking at the comments here, I'm really not sure that's true! -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]

I was one of the many users baffled by the abolition of WP:SOLDIER. It could have possibly been tweaked, yes, but most of it was a very solid, commonsense notability guideline. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]

Once again, I am equally mystified by editors who claim "clear notability" based on mere position instead of actual sourcing. Claiming that an officer is notable because they were a division commander is exactly equivalent to claiming they are notable because they were a general - field grade officers did not command divisions. There were somewhere north of 600 German divisions in WWII and Hitler cycled through his general officers with abandon. That cannot be considered notable on its own by any reasonable standard. More importantly to the eventual closer, the community has recently clearly rejected the position that rank or awards or commands held grants "clear notability", as shown by the discussion linked in the nomination. Necrothesp having participated in that discussion should surely be aware of this community consensus. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Comment My vote on Keep based upon Thoma being a division commander was *not* equivalent to claiming they were notable because they were a general. It is based on the different between 2 and 3 stars who *did not* command a substantial formation, a division, in combat, and those who did. Also, I would also vote Keep on colonels (who I am sure did command divisions in the Wehrmacht Heer on occasion, certainly did in the Red Army, and many elsewhere, any other view is over-British/American) who had substantial time or repeated time commanding a division in combat. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Keep per Necrothesp. Divisional commanders pretty notable; agree with the citing of WP:COMMONSENSE. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • CommentAnyone critical of the secondary sourcing should look at Hartmann p.267-268. The text not only speaks about him being the 296th Division commander, but also his weaknesses that he made in command in underestimating the Russian defences, much more than a passing mention. Sources should not be rejected based on language per WP:NONENG Jamesallain85 ( talk) 14:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Really? Please provide a link, its odd that those pages aren't cited on the page if they're so detailed about him. Mztourist ( talk) 17:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Here is the link, [ [11]], the book linked is the most used resource, but I do find it interesting that the pages I found were not resourced, because I think they speak more to his notability than the pages listed in the article. Jamesallain85 ( talk) 00:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Keep the detail now in the article about his early life and WWII is more than enough for those aspects of his biography, and to fill out the WWII career aspects we know what divisions he served in, which indicate he was involved in the invasions of Poland, Low Countries/France and Barbarossa. There is plenty of information on the activities of the relevant divisions in those operations to add to the article, including in Hartmann re: Barbarossa (Hartmann bothered to examine his journal). We also have his promotions and dates of promotion, including in the interwar period, and there is information available about the makeup and activities of the two divisions and the military district he commanded in the latter stages of the war. The details of his Knight's Cross citation could also be added (although I accept a bare Knight's Cross does not meet WP:ANYBIO, it was far too common). I have no doubt that more books in German mention him, Google Books is a poor judge of that. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Keep agree with Peacemaker67 MisterBee1966 ( talk) 11:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]

Josephus (grandfather of Flavius Josephus)

Josephus (grandfather of Flavius Josephus) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. The sources only say in passing that Josephus's grandfather also had that name, while the rest of the article is a WP:CFORK of the 1st paragraph of Josephus#Biography. There seem to be no sources actually discussing his life and deeds, or demonstrating any notability. Avilich ( talk) 14:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Avilich ( talk) 14:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Avilich ( talk) 14:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Delete - As nom suggests, the article basically is "Josephus was a Jerusalem Jew with the name Josephus, and here are all the people he was related to . . .". No basis for personal nobility, and WP:NOTINHERITED. No need to merge because it is all already covered on prospective target pages. Agricolae ( talk) 14:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Delete -- This article adds nothing to the content in Josephus, which is about his grandson the historian. I am strengthened in my view because I strongly suspect that we will never know more about this subject than can be deduced from the historian's work, which already gives good details of his ancestry. Accordingly this is one of many stubs on people from the ancient world about whom we know (and can know) nothing to provide more than enough for a stub. I might have voted to redirect to his grandson, but the article title is an improbably search term. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Delete - Per WP:NOTINHERITED. Jamesallain85 ( talk) 22:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]

1898 Baloch uprising

1898 Baloch uprising (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Only contains one source with an insignificant mention, no suitable sources to be found online. Fails WP:GNG. RealKnockout ( talk) 13:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. RealKnockout ( talk) 13:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talkcontribs) 14:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talkcontribs) 14:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talkcontribs) 15:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Comment -- If real, I would expect this to be notable. However it contains a great number of redlinks (which is worrying). If real, I would expect it to be covered in contemporary newspapers in India, but I have little idea where to look for these. I note that the normal English spelling is Baluchistan, so that this may need renaming. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Comment I find nothing in GScholar, using either Baloch uprising, Baluchistan, Balochistan uprising. There would be something written about it in a historical scholarly journal by now if it was important... Oaktree b ( talk)
  • Weak keep. This appears to have been a real event of some significance. It's discussed in detail in some self-published books (e.g. The Baloch and Balochistan), but also in some more reliable sources such as Baloch Nationalism: Its Origin and Development (2004) and Contemporary History of Balochistan (1994). (I searched for "Mir Baloch Khan" and "1898"). pburka ( talk) 20:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Keep. My search for "Mir Baloch Khan Nousherwani" also threw similar results as listed by pburka. ( The Baloch and Balochistan) confirms the incident did happen with at least 300 casualties. That itself should qualify the article to be kept. -- Venkat TL ( talk) 19:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Keep The mention in Titus' 1998 text is different and covers a much wider Pathan rebellion (NB Balochistan is a different region). There's also a broader set of events happening in Balochistan at this time, but what the article focusses on is an event from January 1898 where there is clear reliable sourcing. The title of the article could possibly do with changing (the event is also referred to as the Battle of Gok Prosh, the Battle of Gokprosh and the Makkoran revolt) and no doubt the text needs editing...but none of that is the point of AfD. A comment in good faith: more WP:BEFORE necessary. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

References

  1. ^ "Baloch vs the English". Daily Times. 26 January 2019.
  2. ^ Dashti, Naseer (October 2012). The Baloch and Balochistan: A Historical Account from the Beginning to the Fall of the Baloch State. Trafford Publishing. p. 269. ISBN  978-1-4669-5896-8.
  3. ^ Breseeg, Taj Mohammad (2001). Baloch Nationalism: Its Origin and Development up to 1980 (PDF) (PhD). School of Oriental and African Studies. pp. 128–129. This infuriated the British, who ordered an attack on the district from Karachi to assert their authority. Resistance was organised by Mehrab Khan and Mir Baloch Khan. A large number of lashkar (tribal force) gathered at Gokprosh, a few miles from Turbat, on 27th January 1898 to fight the advancing British troops. The British forces, however, defeated the Baloch lashkar, killing all 250 of them including their leader Mir Baloch Khan.2
  4. ^ Dashti, Jan Muhammad (12 November 2020). The Baloch National Struggle in Pakistan: Emergence and Dimensions. Trafford Publishing. ISBN  978-1-6987-0396-1.
  5. ^ Pastner, Stephen L. (1979). "Lords of the Desert Border: Frontier Feudalism in Southern Baluchistan and Eastern Ethiopia". International Journal of Middle East Studies. 10 (1): 93–106. ISSN  0020-7438. . In I898 a revolt against the British-backed khan and his naib was instigated by one such disgruntled power seeker, the brother of the British-Kalat supported Gitchki sardar of Ketch. The insurrection ended with a defeat of the rebels in the Gokprosh hills of southern Makran by a force of native troops under British officers, and in the establishment of an even firmer and more rigid administration by the Kalat-British condominium
Regards,-- Goldsztajn ( talk) 23:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]

Charumitra

Charumitra (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

The subject does not meet WP:GNG. TrangaBellam ( talk) 11:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam ( talk) 11:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam ( talk) 11:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talkcontribs) 14:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Keep. The spouse of a king or emperor is usually an exception to WP:NOTINHERITED Eastmain ( talkcontribs) 15:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
    • Eastmain, you need to provide reliable references that she is the spouse of a king or emperor. TrangaBellam ( talk) 15:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
    Disagree with this proposal. I have explained below. Venkat TL ( talk) 09:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Redirect to her husband Bindusara. Queens/Empresses would indeed be an exception, but we need some substantial detail about her life. The article suggests that we know nothing about her except as a wife and mother. At this remote period, it may well be that we know nothing more. I assume that the content is accurate. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
    • Peterkingiron, you need to provide reliable references that attest her to be Bimbisar's wife. A redirect is otherwise a hoax. TrangaBellam ( talk) 18:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
    Disagree with this proposal. I have explained below. Venkat TL ( talk) 09:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Delete for now. If somebody can validate that she was genuinely the queen, a redirect can be easily created. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 20:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Redirect to Chakravartin Ashoka Samrat#Supporting cast. Empress Charumitra is the name of a fictional character of a TV show named, Chakravartin Ashoka Samrat. There is also a drama written by Ramkumar Verma [12] [13] with the title Charumitra. In my opinion neither of the 2 deserve own article. Redirecting to the TV serial is an acceptable outcome to me, since it is a search keyword for the fans of the TV serial. I dont think there is a historical person with this name. Charumati exists but is a different name and person not related to Charumitra. Venkat TL ( talk) 09:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Comment. Venkat TL How do we know Charumitra is fictional? The wikipedia article on the real prince Susima names her as his mother. I also found this 1977 historical play named Charumitra for the Empress; so at the very least the TV show was not the first to invent this person (if she was indeed invented). 4meter4 ( talk) 01:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]

Olympias (sister of Praetorian prefect Seleucus)

Olympias (sister of Praetorian prefect Seleucus) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Deprodded with empty reasoning as usual. I couldn't find anything even remotely constituting significant coverage. She lacks an entry even in the basic PLRE (she doesn't even appear on the family tree in p. 1132), and it's hard to find anything at all since search results are all about her aunt, Saint Olympias, or her great-aunt, Olympias of Armenia. She does seem to have existed, but even the article creator himself had trouble finding anything good, to judge by his edit summary ("new article and unfortunately couldn't find anymore information on her"). I admittedly cannot access the sources in the article, but they presumably go no further than simply stating family relationships (failing WP:NOTGENEALOGY). Finally, the article itself asserts its subject's non-notability: "Unfortunately little is known of the life of Olympias". The title itself seems an implausible redirect or search term. Avilich ( talk) 03:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Avilich ( talk) 03:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Avilich ( talk) 03:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith ( talk) 03:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Weak keep; this is a period of remote history in which record-keeping was patchy. That someone's name is even remembered 1500 years later suggests they may have had some importance in their time. We can either help our readers by summarising honestly the current state of knowledge, or we can wash our hands of it, declaring that what little there is to know, is not worth knowing. I think the former approach more helpful. And I also think it's bad practice to delete articles where sources exist, but no one involved in the deletion process has actually looked at them. Elemimele ( talk) 06:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
I did find some sources aside from those in the article, and they go no further than including the subject in a family tree or stating the family relationship in the text. See also wp:burden WP:ONUS. Avilich ( talk) 12:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
WP:BURDEN is not relevant here, as we are not arguing about whether the subject is verifiable; that has been conceded. This is a deletion discussion, and the question is what to do with the contents of the article. As a matter of professionalism, however, one should not first determine that reliable sources exist, and then attempt to shift the burden onto other editors to identify, locate, and incorporate them into the article in order to prevent you from deleting it. Strictly speaking you do not have to add them yourself, but if you know that reliable sources exist, then you cannot justifiably delete the article because they have not been added to it. You can, however, merge the article into others and change this title into a redirect if there does not appear to be a compelling reason to keep it as a stand-alone article. That would be much faster, and avoid the need to have this discussion in the first place. If anyone objected, they could of course start such a discussion or re-create the article, but I don't imagine that would tend to happen in articles such as this, provided that the subject is adequately covered elsewhere and can be readily located. P Aculeius ( talk) 12:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
As the nominator I'm supposed to do a reasonably diligent WP:BEFORE, which is what I did. BURDEN is the wrong one, I should've posted WP:ONUS. Avilich ( talk) 01:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Merge into the articles about the notable persons to whom she's related. The argument that anyone from antiquity about whose name has been passed down to us remains strong, and the fact that notable persons from antiquity had families we know about is relevant to their own articles. If there's nothing further notable about the subject, however, there's no point in a stand-alone article. The merging process involves only a couple of steps and can be done easily: 1) make sure that the subject is mentioned and adequately sourced in the related articles about notable persons, where one would expect her to be mentioned; 2) change this article into a redirect for the most appropriate location, perhaps the Seleucus referred to. That preserves the page history should anyone need to see what was done here in the past, including this discussion. In the event that the article is recreated in the future, there will be a record to examine. Possibly the redirect could be moved to a better title, i.e. "Olympias (sister of Praetorian prefect Seleucus)" that would make it easier for people to find the right article. P Aculeius ( talk) 12:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
    • I'd have no objection to a merge; seems a very sensible, pragmatic approach. Elemimele ( talk) 12:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Merge or redirect to Seleceus. I see nothing about her that is notable. No doubt there is (or should be) a disambiguation page which will need to be altered point to this seleuceus. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Merge or redirect to Seleceus. 4meter4 ( talk) 00:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]

Ulpia (grandmother of Hadrian)

Ulpia (grandmother of Hadrian) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. I can find nothing worthwhile in secondary sources other than confirmation of the name, and the article is just a restatement of genealogical trivia already covered elsewhere. Avilich ( talk) 02:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Avilich ( talk) 02:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Avilich ( talk) 02:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith ( talk) 02:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Weak keep -- In some cases like this, I would have voted to redirect to her husband, but she is important as part of the genealogical link between the successive emperor Trajan and Hadrian. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Redirect/delete Restating the family tree into words does not show notability; sources do not provide significant coverage, just relationships. Template:Nerva–Antonine family tree shows the connection to both, which is not enough to keep as an article too. Reywas92 Talk 20:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Weak keep per Peterkingiron. 4meter4 ( talk) 00:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]

Ragusan trade with India

Ragusan trade with India (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

WP:GNG is not met. Ample pseudohistory - see this book. TrangaBellam ( talk) 13:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Non-English sources are not forbidden or even, discouraged. That being said, consult footnote 329 at Lach, Donald F.; Kley, Edwin J. Van (1993). "Empire and Trade". Asia in the Making of Europe. III: A Century of Advance - Book 1: Trade, Missions, Literature. University of Chicago Press. p. 111. ISBN  9780226467535. TrangaBellam ( talk) 19:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Of course not, but it's best to actually use them to substantiate a claim... what does this source actually say, can you explain? Did Vuk Vinaver write a book to say the whole story is a legend, or? (Either way, this seems to inherently undercut the idea that this topic is not notable... even if it's a legend, it was worthy of a book specifically about it?) -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 21:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
    • I will provide a short summary; give me a day. TrangaBellam ( talk) 19:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 16:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 16:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Keep and rename to São Braz: This would benefit from a rename to the colony itself, rather than the generic term. A number of sources describe the colony in detail ( [14] [15] [16] [17] (I can't access the latter source, but the google preview shows it talks about it. [18])). The colony itself would pass WP:GEOLAND. Also @nominator, what are you referring to with the book you linked? Curbon7 ( talk) 16:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC) Comment: I just read the ANI related to this page. Striking my comments, I want no part in this. Curbon7 ( talk) 21:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • I don't think such a title would be better compared to the current WP:NDESC title, especially when we literally have the article currently quoting a historian saying there's no conclusive proof of a colony there. We know the church was named after St. Blaise, but not much about the trading post / potential colony per se. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 18:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • BTW that journal article is from 1963, while the source I mention, that is in the article, is from 2018. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 18:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Yeah, Croatia Week (and TOI, declared to be of dubious reliability at WP:RSP) are definitely reliable sources to document economic history in a controversial domain. Himal Southasian is a decent magazine (employs academics as editors) but have you read it? This article can be redirected to Gandaulim at best. TrangaBellam ( talk) 18:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Potential keep -- I see nothing incredible in the content. Of course I do not have the book and my Italian is minimal. The article needs a lot more citations, but the test is verifiable, not verified. I do not think it is implying a colony in terms of foreign settlers in India, more likely a community of merchants cooperating together. This is how overseas trade often worked. Accordingly I doubt this is pseudo-history. Even if it was, the fact that a view has been put forward and later debunked may be sufficient to justify a WP article. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
    • Deserves nothing more than a paragraph at Gandaulim. TrangaBellam ( talk) 19:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
    • Colonization of India is not an area that is yet to receive due attention from scholars: on a topic, which has a few hundred books and a few thousand journal articles, why are there hardly any sources documenting this part. subject? I think that is the answer to this AfD. TrangaBellam ( talk) 19:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
      • Sure, it was a relatively minor event, but then you're not actually arguing for deletion, merely for merging into a more relevant article, hence using the AfD process is largely pointless. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 12:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
        • In light of this section, what is left to do is a redirect. TrangaBellam ( talk) 23:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
          • I'm actually not sure if this is better - this now seems like the modern-day village article is being WP:COATRACK'ed with a bunch of information about a historical story that may well have a different context (this reminds me of having to clean up talking about Roman times in Zagreb instead of in Andautonia). -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 18:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
  • Keep. I'm not seeing a strong policy based argument for deletion; and as others have pointed out sources do exist which verify the content. I think there are enough sources to pass GNG based on those in the article and those presented above by Curbon7. Currently, discussion is centering around the need for this topic to exist as a stand alone article or whether it should be merged somewhere else. AFD isn't really the right venue for determining a merge where an article's deletion is not necessary. As such, I suggest closing this AFD as keep and discussing merge options on the article's talk page before making a formal merge proposal at the proper venue. 4meter4 ( talk) 22:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
    • 4meter4, so you find TOI and CroatiaWeek to be reliable sources for these areas?
      The Himal Mag's is a photo-essay.
      If the topic passes GNG, why can't you produce a single scholar who devotes more than paragraph to the topic? To reiterate, Colonization of India is not an area that is yet to receive due attention from scholars: on a topic, which has a few thousand books and tens of thousands of journal articles, why are there hardly any sources documenting this part. subject? TrangaBellam ( talk) 22:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[ ]

History Proposed deletions

History categories

for occasional archiving

Proposals