Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science Information

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 as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|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

Social science Proposed deletions

Language

Gramogram

Gramogram (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

WP:DICDEF. Prod contested by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ten Pound Hammer( What did I screw up now?) 20:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

*Delete. Agree with nominator. Not a dictionary. CT55555 ( talk) 21:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

I'm removing my delete due to the convincing argument of Lord Belbury CT55555 ( talk) 12:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep. Seems broader than a simple dictionary definition, given the half-sourced arts and culture section which the nominator deleted as trivia immediately before prodding the article last week. There's surely more to be said about their use in SMS language and possibly telegram style, also. -- Lord Belbury ( talk) 08:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep. Deletion based on nominator's gutting of it would set a dreadful precedent. Agree article could be improved, but deleting it on those grounds would also set an impossible precedent. -- Soundofmusicals ( talk) 03:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 11:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Prepositional adverb

Prepositional adverb (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Unsourced and not notable. The phenomenon itself is notable, and is discussed in our article Phrasal verb. However this particular terminology and implied category is not one that linguists would recognize. A Google search shows that a few language teachers are using the phrase, but not serious sources, and not enough to make this "a thing". In language history, words do migrate from one part of speech to another, and there is nothing unusual about dig sometimes being a verb and sometimes a noun, or down sometimes a preposition and sometimes an adverb. Prepositions and adverbs do often have the same form in many languages, but "prepositional adverb" is not a standard term. Delete or possibly convert to a redirect? Doric Loon ( talk) 10:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Delete due to the article's WP:OR and its use of terminological quackery. -- Kent Dominic·(talk) 15:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Linguists would recognize it, not least from its entry in Chalker's and Weiner's 1998 Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar where it is on page 311. It's in Blake's 1988 Traditional English Grammar and Beyond, too. I hardly think that either Edmund Weiner or Norman Blake invents "terminological quackery". Very poor research, people. Uncle G ( talk) 03:12, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    • The terms themselves aren't quackery; the quackery is in the article's convoluted use of the terms – so much convolution and conflation beyond simple fixes, esp. since the subject matter is well covered elsewhere. Kent Dominic·(talk) 18:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
      • The subject matter is not covered in that article--and of course it's not covered well in this current article, but that's not for AfD. Drmies ( talk) 15:56, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Linguists do recognize it (present!), and besides by Uncle's book hits, JSTOR is full of references where the term is used commonly. And if the Shakespeare Quarterly has proper editorial control against quackery, then we can even speak of a "quasi-prepositional adverb". Paull F. Baum (needs an article--look at what links there) recognized as "bi" (in Beowulf l. 3047) as a prepositional adverb, and five examples as "mid", and that article is so ancient that he calls it "the Beowulf". Worth citing as a possible example of 1902 quackery is Gildersleeve, Basil L. (1902). "Problems in Greek Syntax". The American Journal of Philology. 23 (1): 1–27.: "We can see how habit brings about love (consuetuda concinnat amorem)--how the independence of the prepositional adverb gives way to the seduction of the verb". I don't know what he means but it sure is pretty. So, keep.
    (As for grammar, modern grammarians like Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum and Drmies would simply call it a preposition and do away with that whole nonsensical "must govern a noun" nonsense, but that's for another day. Still, Doric Loon, this isn't really about Denominal verb or Deverbal noun--this isn't a matter of diachronic linguistics; it's a matter of definition, and the influence of 18th-c linguists--some of whom were indeed quacks who in turn influenced more quacks, which is how we end up with a bunch of silly "rules" and the intellectual laziness of the College Board.) Drmies ( talk) 17:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Delete (or redirect) because it's unsourced, doesn't say much, and I believe the topic is best treated elsewhere (preposition and/or adverb) - it could redirect to Preposition and postposition#Adverbs and particles as it should NOT redirect to English phrasal verbs as that's specific for English. But as others points out, there's not actually any quackery or the like to the term itself (which could argue for a redirect). Replayful ( talk) 18:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    • Replayful, "unsourced" is not an argument for deletion; it has been pointed out in this AfD that at least two books and two academic articles discuss the term. Drmies ( talk) 02:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 14:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 02:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Prodded articles


History

Eustace IV de watford

Eustace IV de watford (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

I've PRODded this, but the page author removed it. There are references to the existence of this person, but nothing that could make him be considered anything other than one of millions of random documented people in history who at some point owned land and engaged in business and thus left some paper records. Ari T. Benchaim ( talk) 00:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Hi!! I'm the creator of this article, he held two noble titles, was named in major historical documents (Incl. Cambridge in references) & held relation with the English king. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyaytyhyaynyiyeylyluytyeysy ( talkcontribs) 00:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • Weak Delete - There is nothing in this article that explains how he was notable. I almost always consider dead people who lived 100 years ago to be notable if there is an adequate account of them, but this account is not adequate. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Confederation of sultanates in Lanao

Confederation of sultanates in Lanao (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Article is largely a original research. The 16 royal houses of Lanao is not a hoax and continues to exist as non-sovereign monarchies but the more comprehensive information here are unsourced. Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 21:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Battles involving the Jat

Battles involving the Jat (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Sources mostly look suspect. I am also not sure that it’s common practice to create Battle list articles for ethnic groups and rather to do so for kingdoms or nations e.g. Battles involving the Maratha Empire or List of wars involving Finland. Surely it would be better to have separate articles for the kingdoms/states involved in these battles rather than just for an ethnic group. RuudVanClerk ( talk) 11:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

List of years in Liechtenstein

List of years in Liechtenstein (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

I redirected this to History of Liechtenstein, but was reverted. This list is nearly empty, and the few articles it points to are nearly empty as well (and could do with a discussion of their own). E.g. the first one, 2007 in Liechtenstein, just has a joke trivia entry. Perhaps the Template:Years in Liechtenstein could be added at the bottom of the "History" article to help people who really want to access these "years" articles. But for most readers, arriving at this "list of years" article and then the underlying individual years will just be a disappointment instead of something helpful. Fram ( talk) 07:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

You make very good points. I couldn't agree more on the articles such as 2007 in Liechtenstein and any others that are nothing more than a single event being deleted. You are also right on the fact that there really are not many 'year in' articles for Liechtenstein to begin with, so the article is in essence a lot of red links, which is certainly not much of a page. The reason I still created the article with this in mind is because every other European nation has one, and I felt that Liechtenstein should have one too. The years I added on the page were only until the year 1900, which is about as far back as I thought year in Liechtenstein articles would reasonably have a chance of being created, but that probably is a push too. I really hope I did not offend you when undoing your edit and I'm sorry if it looks like I disregarded it. That really wasn't what I meant to do, I even added a citation to remove the unsourced tag, but I understand that is not the issue with this article. I am going to edit the article again removing all year links until 2000, but if there is a problem with this as well, it makes sense if you would like to revert the article back to a redirect and Template:Years in Liechtenstein again, but I hope it doesn't come to that. One thing the article does have going for it is a link to the nation by decade, which is something the template does not include. I hope what I am saying makes sense and thank you for discussing your stance on the article rather deleting it, I am glad I was able to respond. Thanks, Johnson524 ( talk) 12:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep All articles like this are fine, shouldn't have to have AFDs of them separately. If there isn't enough information for articles by years, do it by decades instead. We need a bot to get things listed in the many categories and sub-categories to properly populate these lists. Dream Focus 13:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    • Do you have an actual argument to keep them? Because your current "keep" is just an "it's fine". Fram ( talk) 13:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
      All nations listed this way, it a complete set, look odd to have any of them missing. Dream Focus 14:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
      So, no actual argument, thanks. Fram ( talk) 14:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Redirect both this list and the individual year articles to History of Liechtenstein. There is no reason to think such a small country would need by-year articles. The mere fact it's a country doesn't mean it needs a series of articles structured the same as countries hundreds or thousands of times larger. Make a Timeline of Liechtenstein if a bulleted format is preferred. Reywas92 Talk 13:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    • Monaco, San Marino, and Vatican City all have some degree of by year coverage and are far smaller. This is especially true for Monaco and San Marino, and I am currently working on the Vatican. -- Johnson524 ( talk) 14:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
      • Well, List of years in San Marino was created by you on 19 May 2022, so perhaps not really fair to include that one. As for e.g. Andorra, the page of "list of years..." links e.g. to 2010 in Andorra, which is a redirect to 2010s in Andorra, which has one single entry. One unsourced "scheduled" thing for the whole of the most recent decade. This is a good argument to delete / redirect more than just Liechtenstein, not to actually keep Liechtenstein. It is also indicative of why "keep this one, we have them for other countries" is not a valid argument either. Fram ( talk) 14:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
        • Consistency is relevant in my opinion but I see what you mean. I have never worked with Andorra before but there is no argument for keeping a year in article which is a redirect. As per the article of discussion though, there are actually decent articles by year for Liechtenstein, so I don't think this article should meet the same fate as Andorra. -- Johnson524 ( talk) 16:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

History of the Jews in Derbent

History of the Jews in Derbent (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Mostly unsourced article, including information and pictures that is not even directly related to the topic. - LouisAragon ( talk) 15:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Judaism, and Russia. LouisAragon ( talk) 15:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Merge any sourced material to Derbent#Jewish_community as ATD. Mccapra ( talk) 20:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep -- I edited the page and added sources. Thank you for your help. Boxes12 ( talk) 05:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep -- The article makes clear that Derbent was a significant historical centre for Judaism. I do not think that merging is the right solution, as this would not give the subject the weight it deserves. A lack of sourcing is not a ground for deletion, unless the subject is a hoax or BLP. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep -- The article improved significantly in terms of added sources. There is no reason to delete this article. Tanya82 ( talk) 02:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep - The addition of reliable and verifiable sources about Derbent's Jewish community supports the claim of notability and rebuts the argument for deletion made by the nominator. Alansohn ( talk) 02:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep: The images on the page are relevant and have Creative Commons licences (varia). After ploughing through heaps of Google Translate, I find notability in the additional sources added to the article. It is very clear that Jews have a history in the Caucasus and Derbent. Even if Benjamin spells it as Derbend. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 06:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Battle of Kakor (1759)

Battle of Kakor (1759) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

It also exists here Battle of Kakkor, we should not have two articles on the same subject. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Fantasy genealogy

Fantasy genealogy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Not a coherent topic, combining what appears to be a User-generated WP:DICDEF with an arbitrary listing of examples that basically amount to 'anything genealogical and not true'.

It begins by defining the term, but for this it cites an entire book without page number, that as far as I can tell from Google Books snippets does not give any such definition or even include the term in its text (it does once refer to "genealogical fantasies" without a specific definitition distinct from those of the two words being used consecutively). The second paragraph seems to be an entirely editor-generated, unfocussed, description of some of the instances where such genealogies arise, but ignoring entire categories that are then included in the list of examples that follows. Finally we have arbitrarily-selected examples of untrue genealogies that combines everything from the sociopolitically-motivated medieval monarchical origin legends, to modern genealogical fraudsters making things up to bilk clients, to honest mistakes and exaggerations, to the relationships created by fiction authors to connect people in their fictional worlds. These are each distinct phenomena, only sharing the characteristics of being genealogical and not being true.

The citations are mostly to self-published or wiki material, with only three seemingly-reliable sources cited, of which two fail verification and the third doesn't refer to the example it is supporting as a 'fantasy genealogy'.

That some genealogies incorporate untrue information for a range of reasons is not something that needs a Wikipedia page to explain, any more than 'mathematical errors', or 'broken tools', and even if it did, this would not be that page. Agricolae ( talk) 19:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Royalty and nobility. Agricolae ( talk) 19:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Delete per the nom's description as "not a coherent topic". The first example given is Queen Elizabeth II, about whom the article says, "Chroniclers of Germanic peoples traced the ancestry of their kings back to the god Wōden ( Odin). If such descents were true, Queen Elizabeth II would be a descendant of Woden, via the kings of Wessex." However, the cited source ( [1]) does not mention Elizabeth II in connection with Odin. This seems to be original research, as Elizabeth II may be descended from the kings of Wessex, while medieval writers may have claimed that the kings of Wessex were descended from Odin, that does not mean that anyone actually claims that Elizabeth is descended from Odin. The article later says, "Fraudulent genealogies are created through honest mistakes, exaggerations, and deceit." How could a fraudulent genealogy be created from honest mistakes? An incorrect genealogy, yes, but not a truly fraudulent one. The article also mentions fictional genealogies from the fantasy works of J. R. R. Tolkien, J. K. Rowling, and George R. R. Martin, but has nothing substantive to say about them except that, indeed, such genealogies were created in connection with the relevant novels. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Comment -- This is a real topic. It is quite common for ancient genealogies to have elements in them that are ancient fabrications. This applies to all the Anglo-Saxon royal dynasties. These make the earliest known ancestor a son of a god, often Woden. In the same way some Welsh genealogies have purported links to Roman Emperors (such as Magnus Maximus) or to earlier emperors. One traces the genealogy back to a cousin of Jesus Christ. It is a well known phenomenon that links will be fabricated by genealogical historians to make the subject appear more important. This is a variety of myth. Mythical genealogies might be a more appropriate title, which would require modern fiction (Middle Earth, Harry Potter, etc.) to be purged (or split off) the article. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Yes, this is a well known phenomenon. As is the issue of fraud in genealogy, and error in genealogy, and exaggeration in genealogy, and genealogies of fictional families. For that metter the type of 'mythical' genealogies you are describing also exists in numerous flavors, e.g. linking to gods, prophets or figures from antiquity; de novo dynasties linking to the prior ruling families; political genealogies created to portray new unrelated allies as kinsmen; pedigrees full of eponymous ancestors of trabes and ethnicities to show that the people are really all one blood, etc.). The problem with this page is not that genealogies that are not reflect historical reality don't exist. It is that it doesn't all belong together under the banner 'fantasy genealogy', and the material provided on any one topic that is currently on this page is of such poor quality that any more focussed article woulld need to start from scratch anyhow (and not under this namespace, which is indeed used by some genealogists, but only in a non-specific manner to express that a genealogy under consideration is bull$#!t in a more polite manner - it has no specific definition beyond 'nonsense' of one form or another). Agricolae ( talk) 23:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Delete It doesn't make sense to combine two topics: the genealogies of fictional characters from novels, with the claimed descents of certain princes from various gods. Noel S McFerran ( talk) 20:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Rajasbai

Rajasbai (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Not Notable enough to have a dedicated page, there were numerous such wives and consorts. Lord 0f Avernus ( talk) 07:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Before We Ruled the Earth

Before We Ruled the Earth (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

PRODded with notability concerns, but it had already been prodded in 2010 over unclear concerns about original research that likely regarded content that is no longer in the article. Only current source is IMDB, Allmovie has no reviews ( Part 1, Part 2), and the miniseries is not even on Rotten Tomatoes. – LaundryPizza03 ( d ) 04:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and History. – LaundryPizza03 ( d ) 04:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    • Delete as prodder (There really needs to be a better way to catch that). Nominator has proven my point that no sources exist. Ten Pound Hammer( What did I screw up now?) 15:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Delete -- A two-programme TV series of 20 years ago is clear NN. It is merely reporting facts on certain species, probably nothing particularly original. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Klossner, Michael (2006). Prehistoric Humans in Film and Television: 581 Dramas, Comedies and Documentaries, 1905–2004. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. pp. 172–174. ISBN  0-7864-2215-7. Retrieved 2022-05-21 – via Google Books.

      The book provides 2.25 pages of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "Before We Ruled the Earth (2003) U.S.; dir. Pierre de Lespinois; Evergreen Films/Discovery Channel. 2 49-min. parts; color. Producer, Bill Latka; writers, Brian Fagan, Sandra Gregory, Bill Latka; music, Dean Grinsfelder; narrators, Linda Hunt, John Slattery."

      The book further notes: "Dramatic reenactments (including computer-generated images of extinct animals) show the lives of Homo Erectus, Neanderthals and early Cro-Magnons, including the use of fire and tools and the development of communications. There are several brief segments titled "How We Know What We Know" which discuss fossils and other evidence on which the program is based. ... This excellent documentary packs a lot of information into its little dramas. The first part is about humans whose bodies and brains were different from ours. The second part deals with anatomically-modern humans. Humans advance from scavengers to predators. People first speak not at all, then fluently. ... Of course the reenactments are speculative but they reflect sophisticated, up-to-date information about prehistoric man. ... The stories are dramatically effective precisely because they are convincing. The tale of the Neanderthals' failing in their last hunt is perhaps the saddest scene in any prehistoric film or TV show, while the story of the three incredibly brave Berringian women killing the mammoth is probably the most terrifying and awe-inspiring scene involving early humans. There are no films that do as much as this program to encourage respect for our ancient ancestors."

    2. "Glimpse into prehistoric Earth". New Straits Times. 2003-04-28. Archived from the original on 2022-05-21. Retrieved 2022-05-21.

      The article notes: "The series started yesterday with the premiere of Before We Ruled the Earth. The two-hour programme looked at the development of humankind from as far back as 1.7 million years ago in Africa. Hunt or be Hunted, the first part of the programme, featured the evolution of early humans, Homo Ergaster. In the world of scavengers, it was men against beasts. However over the years, men made major progress with the discovery of fire and various uses of stone. From scavengers, men became predators. ... To end the week-long series, dinosaurs come into focus in When Dinosaurs Ruled: At the Ends of the Earth. A far cry from the action-packed movie Jurassic Park, this documentary showcases the toughness of dinosaurs which survived the extreme heat of Australia and the icy cold of Antarctica."

    3. "Before We Ruled the Earth". Radio Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-21. Retrieved 2022-05-21.

      The article notes: "Before We Ruled the Earth is an odyssey of evolution, from Homo ergaster in Africa at 1.7 million years ago, to Paleo-Indians living in North America at 11,000 years ago. Detailed recreations of hominid life over seven time periods, stunning wilderness locations, state of the art makeup effects and photo-realistic 3-D animated animals bring the past to life. Factual. Entertaining. Riveting."

    4. Less significant coverage:
      1. Zad, Martie (2003-02-09). "'The One,' Plus Amazing Dogs". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2022-05-21. Retrieved 2022-05-21.

        The article notes: "SUNDAY ON THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL at 8 p.m. "Before We Ruled the Earth" airs two one-hour episodes, "Hunt or Be Hunted" about the Homo ergaster who scavenged to survive in Africa 1.7 million years ago, and "Mastering the Beast" about the Cro-Magnons 15,000 years ago, who possessed all of the abilities of modern humans: speech, reasoning skills and a belief in the afterlife. The program combines dramatizations with photo-realistic animated creatures."

      2. "Complete list of Emmy nominees". Deseret News. Associated Press. 2003-07-18. Archived from the original on 2022-05-21. Retrieved 2022-05-21.

        The article notes (my bolding): "75. Sound Editing for Nonfiction Programming (Single or Multicamera): "American Experience: Seabiscuit," PBS; "American Masters: Joni Mitchell: Woman of Heart and Mind," PBS; "Before We Ruled the Earth," Discovery Channel; "James Cameron's Expedition: Bismarck," Discovery Channel; "Unchained Memories: Readings From the Slave Narratives," HBO."

      3. Daudelin, Art (December 2002). "Broad strokes". Emmy. Vol. 24, no. 6. p. 19. ProQuest  2293605241.

        The article profiles Pierre de Lespinois. The article notes: "In 1999 de Lespinois founded his own company Evergreen Films, based in Pacific Palisades, California. Impressed by Verne, Discovery Communications came knocking, which resulted in their 2001 co-development of Montreal-based Meteor Studios for the latest visual effects and digital animation. "In the first year, we delivered forty films," he says. A dozen more were due to wrap by Christmas, including Before We Ruled the Earth and Prehistoric Worlds, upcoming on Discovery."

      4. "From bad puppets to Atwood Stories; Canadian lineup borrows old ideas, tries some outrageous new ones and relies heavily on documentaries". Waterloo Region Record. 2002-09-07. Archived from the original on 2022-05-08. Retrieved 2022-05-21.

        The article notes: "Before We Ruled the Earth offers the latest scientific knowledge on evolution from early Homo sapiens' fight for survival over seven time periods. Speed: Without Limits takes viewers on a fast-paced look at the world behind the wheel."

      5. "The city slicker falls for the crusty cowboy (again)". Sun-Sentinel. 2003-02-08. Archived from the original on 2022-05-21. Retrieved 2022-05-21.

        The article notes: "Discovery Channel's Before We Ruled the Earth airs two one-hour episodes at 8 p.m. Sunday: "Hunt or Be Hunted" deals with the Homo ergaster who scavenged to survive in Africa 1.7 million years ago; "Mastering the Beast" is about the Cro-Magnons 15,000 years ago."

      6. "Quest - Eureka!". The San Diego Union-Tribune. 2003-02-05. Archived from the original on 2022-05-21. Retrieved 2022-05-21.

        The article notes: "Before We Ruled the Earth. 8 p.m. Sunday on The Discovery Channel. A new two-hour special on evolution that examines the first days of our lives, or rather, our ancestors', from Africa's Homo ergaster 1.7 million years ago to the paleo-Indians of North America 11,000 years ago.  Filmed in wilderness areas around the world, with dramatizations using photo-realistic animated creatures."

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

    Cunard ( talk) 09:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Neil Harvey with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

Neil Harvey with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

This fork of Neil Harvey does not meet Wikipedia's expectations for notability. Neil Harvey is notable, as is the team he played on, but the intersection of the two does not merit an article of its own. The role section should be merged to Neil Harvey, and everything else simply removed. This article is largely just a collection of statistics. One will notice that the references by and large are not about Neil Harvey, but other people. Just 3 of the 84 footnotes mention him by name. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 03:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • Keep. This article is one of 13 about individual players on that tour, see [2]. It is unclear why just one of so many is being targeted for deletion. WWGB ( talk) 03:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Other similar articles existing is not a reason for keeping this one; note that some have already been merged, e.g. Doug Ring, and it was previously agreed that the articles should be nominated individually as some undoubtedly merit standalone articles due to their contribution and resultant coverage. Please can you try to assess this article on its merits? wjemather please leave a message... 07:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
OK, how about "Harvey had the 4th-highest Test average on the tour." WWGB ( talk) 11:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
No. Please try policy/guideline based reasoning. In general, that required demonstrated significant coverage of the subject, not just passing mentions and statistics. wjemather please leave a message... 11:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
WP:N through multiple WP:RS: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. WWGB ( talk) 12:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Apologies, I wasn't clear and omitted "secondary". Secondary coverage please. wjemather please leave a message... 12:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Your ongoing harassment is becoming tedious. Cast your own !vote and stop trying to own the discussion. WWGB ( talk) 12:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Additionally, the sourcing needs to support sufficient encyclopedic content to justify this spinout. Reciting endless trivial details from his appearances on the tour, which is largely what we have here, is not encyclopedic. We also have substantial amounts of prose that is entirely unrelated to Harvey, and already exists in the main article. If this can be reasonably condensed into a few paragraphs by removing this fluff/filler (I tend to think it can), then it should be merged. I am open to being convinced otherwise before !voting. wjemather please leave a message... 12:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Several of these such articles have been brought to AfD by me, most with a strong consensus to merge to the articles on the players themselves. Consensus is that each of these forks must be evaluated individually for notability. It is my belief that this article does not meet our notability requirements. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 21:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep - if the issue is about sourcing, then you should fix the sourcing, don't just take the lazy option and bring it to AfD because you can't be bothered doing hard work on the actual article. The article is fine as fork of the 1948 cricket tour article and is properly referenced and notable. Just because a lot of the sources are statistics is an unremarkable argument - it's a sporting article after all. The statistics do feature Harvey in them. Deus et lex ( talk) 10:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    First, please refrain from making personal comments. Second, more than stats are required to justify such an article. Please provide evidence (i.e. significant coverage of this intersection specifically) to demonstrate the notability you are claiming. wjemather please leave a message... 11:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Firstly, this was directed at the nominator, not you so I'm unclear why you are commenting in response. Secondly, asking people to follow proper process and do some hard work to repair a Wikipedia article if they believe it is in error, instead of following a process not designed for a content dispute, is not a personal comment. Following an improper but easy process to avoid doing work is laziness. Thirdly, the nominator is raising a dispute about the sourcing of content, at its heart - that's not a notability dispute, so there's no need for me to "please provide evidence" of the notability. This article is a featured article that has been through a proper review process - it can't just be deemed to be unnotable because some person says it isn't. This is a poor quality nomination that should be withdrawn. Fourthly, please read WP:BLUDGEON and don't do that. Deus et lex ( talk) 13:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    FYI, the target of abuse doesn't have to be the one to call it out. You raised notability as an issue, so it is not unreasonable to request justification for that statement (unnotable is not a word). Of course, the real issue here is whether this spinoff is justifiable based on secondary coverage that is specifically related to Harvey's involvement in the tour, not just primary coverage, teamsheets and scorebooks from which prose is then synthesised. wjemather please leave a message... 13:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    It is not "abuse", so please don't exaggerate. Not following the proper process is laziness and I'm entitled to make that comment - it is not a personal comment at the nominator, it's a point about the lack of the right process. Can I raise again - you are not the nominator here, so please read WP:BLUDGEON and stop commenting on every post that is put forward. I did not raise notability - the nominator did, but what they are raising is a content dispute which is inappropriate for AfD. Deus et lex ( talk) 13:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Crying foul because you cannot address (or recognise/comprehend) the issues is not ok. wjemather please leave a message... 13:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    I do not appreciate your assumption of bad faith on my part. That is bordering on a personal attack. AfD is a Wikipedia process whether you like it or not. As has been mentioned elsewhere, several of these forks have been merged in the past year. I do not need to be an expert on cricket to know that these forks are unfit for Wikipedia. It's not a "content dispute": I believe this subject does not merit a standalone page in Wikipedia. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 21:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    And if you do not understand that the entire point of AfD is to delete or merge or redirect articles which are not notable, then you do not have the understanding necessary to participate at AfD. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 21:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    For the umpteenth time, I am not making a personal attack - I just think the bringing of this article is trying to avoid work to fix up the article. The nature of the complaint you have raised is a content dispute (you have raised inadequate sourcing) - that's not a notability dispute, it's a problem with whether the article needs better sources. You haven't demonstrated that the existing sourcing shows a lack of notability - you've just complained they don't discuss Harvey enough. There's no consideration more generally of Harvey's notability on the tour at all which is what the question would be aimed at if this was a genuine AfD dispute about notability. I think the best case is for this AfD to be closed down and some work done to improve the article - or, to the contrary, for it to be shown that there are inadequate sources in general about this topic (which would be a notability dispute). Deus et lex ( talk) 03:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Comment: there have been a number of similar AfD nominations, all of which have resulted in mergers: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Saggers with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin McCool with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. But this one is not quite as clear-cut as the others, as Harvey is a more significant player, and one of the features of the 1948 tour was a handing of the baton, as it were, from Bradman to Harvey. St Anselm ( talk) 14:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Delete -- This is far too detailed to belong in an encyclopaedia. An article on the 1948 tour would be appropriate but not separate articles on each member of the touring team. We should have a joint nomination for all such articles, probably to merge back into the tour article, without leaving redirects. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    I tried this a while back. Numerous editors insisted the articles must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. So here we are. I think they all should be merged as you suggest. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 21:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep In my opinion there is enough GNG sourcing here on Neil Harvey's participation in the 1948 tour alone for a standalone article. The article here is very well written, although parts of it are a bit bloated, however there is merging information here into Neil Harvey's article, or the 1948 tour article would make them excessive, meaning a separate article here should be acceptable. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 09:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Merge content from the lead and role section (and very little else) to a short sub-section in Neil Harvey. The bulk of the article is duplication from Australian cricket team in England in 1948 and not directly relevant to Harvey's involvement; the Harvey specifics are almost entirely trivial, synthesised, the writers opinions, or massively excessively detailed for an encyclopedia (e.g. three sentences describing his dismissal, and the lead up to it, in the 5th Test; an entire paragraph about Lindwall's "injury" in the 1st Test and Harvey substituting for him, etc., etc.). wjemather please leave a message... 10:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Merge selectively per Wjemather. The fact that particular details wouldn't be appropriate to merge to Harvey or the 1948 tour is probably a good indication that they aren't encyclopedic: excessively-detailed play-by-plays, minor statlines, and anecdotes from each test do not belong on any WP page, per WP:NOT and WP:DUE. This intersection overall also seems very synthetic; if you could easily swap out Harvey for any of his teammates without changing the references, then his role in the tour is not notable enough for a standalone article. JoelleJay ( talk) 06:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Battle of Tamworth

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

The article is about a supposed Battle of Tamworth in 873-74. The only source cited in the article at [15] does not mention Tamworth in this period. PROD was reverted on the ground that the battle is mentioned in Tamworth and Burgred of Mercia. Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources and neither articles cites a source supporting the claim. The Burgred article cites [16], which does not mention Tamworth. I work extensively on the history of this period and I believe that the article is about an imaginary event, but I will of course be happy to change my mind if there is evidence from a reliable source otherwise. Dudley Miles ( talk) 14:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)-[ reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Shellwood ( talk) 14:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Delete - the purported "source" given in the article (The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle) does not mention Tamworth at all. And it's not mentioned in Stenton's Anglo-Saxon England at all as a site of a battle. In fact, Stenton states "From Torksey, late in 873, the army [Ealdgyth note - The Great Heathen Army] moved to Repton in the centre of Mercia. After a war of which no details are known Burgred, king of the Mercians, left England to spend the rest of his life at Rome." (pp. 250-251 3rd edition). So... Stenton knew no details but this article purports to give a lot ... it's feeling like a hoax to me. Ealdgyth ( talk) 14:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    • Further - Richard Abels' biography of Alfred the Great, when discussing the events leading up to Burgred's abdication ... mentions no such battle/siege at Tamworth - in fact doesn't mention Tamworth at all. I think that Stenton and Abels, two modern historians well versed in the sources and period covered, should be considered much more authoritative than a 1913 article in an illustrated general-readership magazine. Nothing else I have on my (extensive) shelves mentions any such siege or battle at Tamworth. Ealdgyth ( talk) 15:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
      • I gotta ask - did no one at Articles for Creation who checked off on this article here it is as it looked when it got sent to mainspace even LOOK at that source link? First - the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle so it's ability to show notability is a bit suspect, but that aside - on the given source here, there are TWO mentions of Tamworth (it was easy - I did a "find" on the page!) .. and one relates to events in 913 and the other to events in 918. Okay, so let's check the 873 ad 874 entries - well, nothing in 873 has anything about sacking ANY town. 874's entry is "This year went the army from Lindsey to Repton, and there took up their winter-quarters, drove the king, Burhred, over sea, when he had reigned about two and twenty winters, and subdued all that land. He then went to Rome, and there remained to the end of his life. And his body lies in the church of Sancta Maria, in the school of the English nation. And the same year they gave Ceolwulf, an unwise king's thane, the Mercian kingdom to hold; and he swore oaths to them, and gave hostages, that it should be ready for them on whatever day they would have it; and he would be ready with himself, and with all those that would remain with him, at the service of the army." Again - no seige, no sack. Nothing about Burgred going into hiding, nothing about Ivar or Ubbe, nothing about Leofrith... did no one READ the source? It's blatantly not supporting the information it's purporting to support! Nowhere on that source page is Ivar or Ubbe or Leofrith mentioned at all!!!! How did this pass AfC?? Ealdgyth ( talk) 19:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
        • So ... we're to take the word of a local government over the word of Frank Stenton or Richard Abels - two historians who extensively studied the period and know the sources and stuff? GAH! Ealdgyth ( talk) 19:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
          • As I seem to be the only one who has mentioned local government on this page, I am assuming that this last comment is probably directed at me. If that is so, you appear to have missed my point. If we have a government entity reporting something as fact then we probably need to make a note of it, even if we say; "Tamworth Castle and related tourism information refers to a battle in Tamworth in 874. However, this is not supported by academic sources." From Hill To Shore ( talk) 19:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • That is an argument for a note on the Tamworth page, not for keeping this article. Dudley Miles ( talk) 19:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Not an expert and haven't even been to AfD before. That said, Cox, Thomas (July 1913). "Ethelfleda's Fortress: Tamworth's Bye-Gone Glories". The English Illustrated Magazine. p. 378., says that "To Tamworth, between his warlike excursions, Offa, the greatest of the Mercian Kings, retired, and kept royal state in a palace whose proportions and magnificence are described as 'the wonder of the age'. The town was destroyed by the Danes in 874, and Mercia, as a kingdom, fell." Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk) 14:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
(This is not a vote to keep the article, or of any kind, I just wanted to note that something did happen..!) Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk) 15:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • A 1913 article in a popular magazine is not evidence that anything happened. Dudley Miles ( talk) 16:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    It wasn't my intention to prove that any siege or battle happened, but I'll leave you to it. Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk) 16:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Further enquiries needed Given the prevalence of the idea that Tamworth was burned by the Danes in 874 in numerous online local history articles, it may be that further investigations of reliable local history sources might reveal an origin for the story. However, the article title "Battle" of Tamworth seems purely a Wikipedia coinage, repeated only on mirror sites. Even if a source relating to the burning of the town did surface, whether the burning is in any way notable must still be demonstrated Monstrelet ( talk) 18:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Weak Keep This page from the local government site for Tamworth says they created a re-enactment of the 874-75 siege. That isn't an authoritative source to say a siege happened but it is a clear indication that there is significant belief that it happened. If there isn't reliable source material to report the event as fact, we probably still need an article to report it as an unproven myth or hoax. However, this same function of noting the myth/hoax may be filled by a brief note on another article. From Hill To Shore ( talk) 19:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Delete. Popular histories aren't reliable sources for Anglo-Saxon history; I haven't seen anything cited that I think qualifies as a reliable source for this. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 01:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Delete apparently my error. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Delete -- The only source (or main source) on this period is Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which merely tells how the Danes conquered Mercia. Anything beyond that is Original Research (in the sense used by WP), properly described as historical fantasy. We do not know what happened to Tamworth on c.874. Anything found in local histories is without any reliable source. The article quotes ASC for 913 and 918: ASC text C s.a. 913 says that Aethelflaed built a burh at Tamworth. ASC C s.a. 918 records her death there. If there was a battle of Tamworth, it was in 943 (ASC D text) says that Olaf "broke down Tamworth and great slaughter fell on either side". That is a more likely occasion for any destruction recorded by archaeology, but we should NOT have an article on this, because we know no more detail than the quotation I have just given. There is far too little known to warrant an article. If not deleted, it should be redirected to Tamworth#history, where the Anglo-Saxon section covers the subject, thiough naming a different Danish commander. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Comment It's more than that, this claim has been made in numerous published sources. There is a related discussion goin on at Talk:Tamworth,_Staffordshire#Vikings_sacked_Tamworth. G-13114 ( talk) 21:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    If you can provide an example of a source that makes this claim that would be considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards, I would change my !vote to "keep", but as far as I can tell it's only popular histories which say this. I know I've seen examples of Victorian antiquaries adding made-up details to their accounts of Anglo-Saxon history, and those old books, which are accessible on Google Books to anyone interested, get used as sources in their turn. Hence this is a topic area where academic sources are really necessary. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 21:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Kazakh tribes

Kazakh tribes (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

This article doesn't keep to an encyclopaedic style and lacks almost all necessary citations. It's also incomprehensible to someone without specialist knowledge. I don't see how this article can be cleaned up, and propose that it either be deleted or redirected to a more well-written article on the same topic. — Jthistle38 ( talk) 10:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Kazakhstan. — Jthistle38 ( talk) 10:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Redirect to Zhuz -- The article has far too many redlinks, each of which is liable to be used to create a stub article. This is trying to be a main article to a section of Kazakhs, but starts by mentioning three hordes where the articles all link to sections of Zhuz. That seems to be the covering what this article is trying to cover in a more encyclopedic way. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Emilian Makhno

Emilian Makhno (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

PROD removed. The references in this article inherit notability from this person's brother, Nestor Makhn. That he was shot in mistaken indentity of his brother does not give notability. The references do not address the biography of this person.
Checking references, two references do not bring results; another gives several mentions (the last reference). Fails WP:NBIO Whiteguru ( talk) 21:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Ukraine. Whiteguru ( talk) 21:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Russia. Curbon7 ( talk) 21:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • two references do not bring results Can you elaborate and which sources? czar 21:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • The reason that two of the references are not yielding results for you is likely because of different transliterations. Palij 1976 uses "Omelian", Malet 1982 uses "Omelyan", Peters 1970 and Skirda 2004 both use "Emilian", and Darch 2020 uses "Emel’ian". As "Emilian" seemed to be the common name, this is the one I used for this article. -- Grnrchst ( talk) 21:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Delete. Non notable and a lack of apparent sources indicating notability when searched. A MINOTAUR ( talk) 21:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep. I remain unconvinced that the subject is indeed non-notable, per the reasons mentioned above. -- Grnrchst ( talk) 09:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Merge/Conditional Delete- I fail to see the notability of this individual, rather his notability is only in relation to his brother, Nestor Makhno. Merging the info and creating a redirect would likely be the best outcome unless something more substantive is added. If the page can be expanded to include more notable events than just him getting shot for his brother, then it can be kept. Etriusus 17:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Heresy in Christianity in the modern era

Heresy in Christianity in the modern era (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

This article is mostly unsourced and I do not see it as having an encyclopedical value.
I do not see how it is something else than an arbitrarily chosen ( WP:OR) compilation or list of recent cases concerning Heresy in Christianity. Why are those people notable? The criterion are obscure and arbitrary. Is any person considered a heretic by their congregation (however small it may be) worthy of being mentioned? Is every trial for heresy, even those which ended up with the innocent verdict ( Tony Campolo has his own section here), notable? Wikipedia would soon run out of server space if all those cases were added. "Walter Kenyon (Presbyterian, United States, 1974)" was allegedly (no source are given) refused ordination in a Presbyterian assembly after his refusal to ordain women. Is this latter case notable and why?
The earliest case here is in 1893. There is no indication in the article of what modern era is supposed to mean when it comes to date, and the Wikipedia redirect defines it as what comes after 1500. Why is the date of 1893 used, can we go before?
Most of the cases are unsourced, and some concern allegedly WP:BLP.
I fail to see how the the classification and difference of "modern" and "non-modern" treatment of heretics among the whole Christendom is taken into account, because it is unclear if there is even a difference.
In conclusion, this article is WP:OR and does not meet WP:GNG, therefore it should be deleted. Veverve ( talk) 00:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Christianity. Veverve ( talk) 00:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Delete for the reasons given by the nom (well, except about server space), especially because this contains some extremely alarmingly uncited BLP material that has managed to fly under the radar here because the article itself is not technically a BLP. -- asilvering ( talk) 03:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep but prune -- This is essentially a list article, which has a validity of a kind, but there is a real BLP issue. There should in every case be a link to an article on the subject, which needs to comply with the BLP guidelines. Those found innocent after an enquiry should not be listed; equally if the subject's explanation is that he has been misunderstood. Being refused ordination shpould not be sufficient to merit inclusion. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Merge with Heresy in Christianity and prune. As User:Peterkingiron said, there's some validity to the list itself, but I disagree with that "keep" because I think after it is pruned and cited appropriately, it will fit perfectly well within Heresy_in_Christianity#Reformation_and_Modern_Era_(1520–present); there's really no need for it to have its own page. Sleddog116 ( talk) 16:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Merge makes the most sense, allowing accommodation of all the critique. 68.131.82.138 ( talk) 18:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Comment: for the merge/keep folks @ Peterkingiron: and @ Sleddog116:, any objections to me pulling out all the unsourced stuff now? Should give a better idea of what might get merged in the first place. -- asilvering ( talk) 17:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Certainly no objections from me. If we can prune this list and start paring things down to where they should be, it could be that we'll find there's not much reason to keep/merge. Go for it. Sleddog116 ( talk) 17:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Alright, I've made no content decisions whatsoever (ie, I have not looked at the strength of any individual sources or the neutrality or notability of any of the content) and simply removed every person on the list for which there were zero inline citations. That leaves us with this diff: [17]. We've lost all the Anglicans, Reformed, and Lutheran examples, and most of the others too - a total of six examples remain. I propose:
    • merge the bit on George Burman Foster to his article, which is pretty stubby
    • the bit on Tony Campolo is already in his article; no further action needed
    • Jon Sobrino's article deals with this already, in fuller detail; no further action needed
    • the Methodists: the only useful thing left, I think? Unfortunately we don't have a "heresy in Methodism" article to merge them to, and they don't appear to have articles of their own. I don't really think they belong in the Heresy in Christianity article (the 1520-present section is pretty brief and I don't think it would be significantly improved by the two additions, but someone might disagree here). I'm not terribly concerned about losing these two examples.
    • Don Stroud: a BLP violation in hiding, I'd say - I think this should be removed entirely.
    So, still a delete vote from me overall, aside from the selective merge of George Burman Foster. I don't think we should keep the essay that is currently residing in the lead. -- asilvering ( talk) 04:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ( TCGE) 03:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • Delete Enough original research and trivia that it warrants deletion. Srijanx22 ( talk) 03:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Delete: non encylclopaedic entry -as per nom. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 08:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

History Proposed deletions

History categories

for occasional archiving

Proposals