From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Palestinian culture (disambiguation)

Palestinian culture (disambiguation) (  | 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 · TWL)

Are Jewish culture or Culture of Israel often refered to in the relibale sources as "Palestinian culture"? I never saw this meaning, although it could be logical. Onlk ( talk) 22:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Delete Distinct meaning. Nobody searching Wikipedia for articles on Palestinian culture can be reasonably assumed to be looking for information about Israeli or Jewish culture. Toomuchcuriosity ( talk) 23:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

That's Not What I Meant!

AfDs for this article:
That's Not What I Meant! (  | 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 · TWL)

Does not appear to pass WP:NBOOK - no references to reviews in major publications, or evidence of any of the other criteria for notability. Appears to be written as self-promotion or otherwise as an advertisement. UndercoverClassicist ( talk) 18:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    1. Elgin, Suzette Haden (March 1987). "That's Not What I meant! How Conversational Style Makes or Breaks Your Relations with Others". Language. 63 (1): 200. JSTOR  415426.

      The book review notes: "I disagree with this hypothesis; I believe it to be a valid description of communication only in persons who are extremely insecure and lacking in self-confidence. ... I suspect that this book is in some ways the product of strong pressures from agent, editor, and publisher, who did their best to convince T that a linguistics book for the general public should contain very little linguistics. I would enjoy seeing her write a book on this subject, or a related one, which did not suffer from the constraints those pressures impose on an author."

    2. Craig, Paul (1986-02-27). "Conversation is all talk". The Sacramento Bee. Archived from the original on 2023-01-30. Retrieved 2023-01-30 – via Newspapers.com.

      The book review notes: "This book has come out of her observations, and she notes a number of barriers to bliss, such as some of us expressing things indirectly, a disaster when one is trying to reach somebody accustomed to bluntness. ... She also delves into what could be the most controversial aspect of the book, her assertion that there are male/female differences in communication. ... This is obviously oversimplification for the self-help book audience and Tannen knows it, although, in a communications lapse of her own, she buries her realization in a footnote at the back of the book ..."

    3. Wolfe, Winnie (1992-07-12). "That's Not What I Meant!". The Pink Paper. p. 16. ProQuest  2081973842.

      The book review notes: "An international bestseller in the best tradition - a do it yourself guide to conversational style. If you have a problem in making yourself understood, or a desire for a classy turn of phrase then Deborah Tannen's little book is the guide you need. Although written to explain why we find it so difficult to talk to the "opposite sex" and discusses heterosexual misunderstandings, That's Not What I Meant will no doubt be of interest to many lesbians and gays who find talking to each other problematic."

    4. Hall, Genae A. (April 1992). "Aspects of Conversational Style—Linguistic Versus Behavioral Analysis". The Analysis of Verbal Behavior. Vol. 10. doi: 10.1007/BF03392876. Retrieved 2023-01-30.

      The paper notes: "This paper will focus on certain concepts presented in Deborah Tannen's book That's Not What I Meant, analyze them from a linguistic and a behavioral perspective, and compare the relative utility of the two approaches. In That's Not What I Meant, Tannen's basic premise is that people have different conversational styles and these different styles lead to misunderstandings and disrupted relationships. ... In her book, Tannen describes certain elements of conversational style and illus- trates how individual differences in these areas can lead to misunderstandings. One important element identified by linguists is known as "indirectness.""

    5. "That's Not What I Meant!: How Conversational Style Makes or Breaks Your Relations with Others". Publishers Weekly. Archived from the original on 2023-01-30. Retrieved 2023-01-30.

      The review notes: "Part pop psychology, part sociology and part anthropology, this book by a linguistics professor at Georgetown University focuses on the uncomfortable moments when a conversation inexplicably breaks down, and suggests how such awkwardness can be avoided."

    6. "That's Not What I Meant!: How Conversational Style Makes or Breaks Your Relations with Others". Kirkus Reviews. Archived from the original on 2023-01-30. Retrieved 2023-01-30.

      The review notes: "Tannen's strengths are in pinpointing the dilemma, but when it comes to giving advice, she falters. In fact, the problem with a book like this is that the reader, if he takes it seriously, will come away paralyzed into speechlessness; the random ""um"" or ""ah"" carries too much weight."

    7. Bailey, Moira (1986-01-28). "That's not what I meant!". Orlando Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2023-01-30. Retrieved 2023-01-30 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Deborah Tannen, a linguistics professor at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., would tell us to blame cultural differences between the sexes. In "That's Not What I Meant!" (William Morrow and Co., $12.95), Tannen explores the multitudes of misunderstandings that people encounter in conversation. Tannen draws from her own experience and that of her students. She cites, for example, the breakdown in husband–wife communication that led to her divorce."

    8. Morrison, Meris (1986-03-19). "Say what you mean!". Brattleboro Reformer. Archived from the original on 2023-01-30. Retrieved 2023-01-30 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Life is a matter of dealing with other people, and that means a series of conversations. "That's Not What I Meant" will assure that when conversations seem to be causing more problems than you're solving, you aren't losing your mind."

    9. Stone, Elizabeth (January 1986). "Are You a Talk Hog, a Shouter, or A Mumbler? Decoding Conversational Styles—Deborah Tannen's "That's Not What I Meant"". Ms. Vol. 14, no. 7. p. 88. ProQuest  1877163761.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow That's Not What I Meant! to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 06:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Social science Proposed deletions

Language

Intermediate station

Intermediate station (  | 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 · TWL)

Unnecessary WP:NOTDICDEF. Perhaps quite telling that the links to other types of stations (through station, branch-off station) also don't link to articles about that type of station, but to vaguely related articles which don't really explain these terms anyway. Anyway, not really a necessary or enlightening article, basically (also according to the source used in the artice [2]) intermediate stations are all stations between end stations. Well, yeah, that's quite obvious. Fram ( talk) 08:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Transportation. Fram ( talk) 08:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Delete, article feels like a written version of Just a Minute: see how long you can write, without repetition, deviation or hesitation, on what is ultimately a plain and simple dictionary definition. Elemimele ( talk) 13:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    Keep. This is not a dictionary definition - you won't find it in a standard dictionary - but it is a very common railway term and a very common railway facility. In fact, the majority of stations are intermediate ones and that means they are different in significant ways from others such as termini, transfer stations and junctions. The fact that English Wikipedia is underdeveloped in this area of railway business, which is why some of the links don't yet have their own articles or article sections, is not a good reason for deletion; otherwise the subject area will never get covered. This article needs to grow and the links need to be developed; that's how Wikipedia gets improved. I'm willing to work on that with the cooperation of other interested editors. And taking the mick as per Elimimele is hardly a good encyclopaedic argument and fails the dictionary test as well. Bermicourt ( talk) 13:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    I'm well aware of our deficiencies in this area, as I'm the one who made Passenger train, Freight train, and Maintenance of way into standalone articles, created a number of articles that were missing for railroad maintenance of way equipment, and am responsible for the only such article to reach GA status ( Train). I'm not saying this to brag, but to show that I am familiar with the topic area and feel confident in saying this doesn't need its own article, and instead should be incorporated into our existing train station article. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 16:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    I'm sorry that this was seen as taking the mick. But it is a dictionary definition. It just says, in an incredibly long-winded way, that an intermediate station is a station that's intermediate between other stations. It's possible to write a useful history of such concepts as a passenger train, while maintenance of way is a subject that cries out for an encyclopaedia article, but it's impossible to write anything about intermediate stations that isn't just general stuff about stations. Intermediate stations are an inevitable feature of a rail system, and no more interesting as intermediates than a bus stop half way along a route. Articles that rely on extremely pedantic mini-distinctions between near-identical items don't improve the encyclopaedia. Elemimele ( talk) 09:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
For example, one source that could be used to expand this to a decent sized article has an entire chapter on the "Organization of Intermediate Station Operations" which covers their definition, responsibilities, passenger and freight operations, safety operations, train-receiving and dispatching and car-marshalling, operational plannning, equipment management and and personnel. So we're being a bit hasty condemning this as nothing more than an "dictionary definition" when is in fact a broad topic that easily merits an article. Bermicourt ( talk) 13:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
Do you mean this Communist China manual? Fram ( talk) 14:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
No, but the text is the same as the British source it drew on. Try googling "intermediate station" and "train" and you'll get a gazillion hits, many related to the features of an intermediate station and how it's used. Here's another source that describes, among other things, the main operations at intermediate stations. And here are some university course notes that make frequent mention of intermediate stations and give a typical layout, so it's reached academia. In this source the modelling of intermediate stations is presented to the European Conference on CIS. It's pretty clear that there is a vast amount of material on the topic that could be used to expand the article. Bermicourt ( talk) 17:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
Of course if you're an academic or engineer you should know the principles of station design, but stuff like how to calculate track lengths, design of basic platforms and intermediate platforms for passengers in a station, that a passageway connecting them should be "no less than 2.5 m" wide, design of ordinary platforms and high platforms for freight, tables of parameters, etc. are too intricate for an encyclopedia ( WP:NOTTEXTBOOK). What I'm reading in this chapter can still be covered in some ways at Train station, Railway platform, Freight yard, Catch siding, etc. There are also chapter sections on how to design high-speed stations, district stations, etc. that don't need separate articles either. Reywas92 Talk 20:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Delete/merge Seems like a few sentences could be merged to Train station or maybe Railway stop, but this is a pretty basic definition that wouldn't inform anyone who's been on a train before of anything new. I don't think there's a word in the manual linked by Fram that's actually specific to intermediate stations – dealing with lines, passengers, and freight applies to other stations too, and everything in here likewise seems kind of obvious that you should have safety procedures, communication equipment, shift plans, etc., all generic stuff perhaps for Rail transport operations. Reywas92 Talk 15:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Merge or redirect to Train station. I note that the term "intermediate station" is not present at either train station or Glossary of rail transport terms. There is no need for a standalone article when this can easily be defined in the train station article. Essentially anything you could say about intermediate stations would be redundant with the train station article, as the vast majority of train stations are intermediate stations. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 16:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Merge into Train station. Intermediate station is a preliminary and unjustified WP:SPINOFF. It belongs under Train station, under the same category as Terminus, though with a significantly lesser propensity to justify a WP:SPINOFF one day. When fitting Intermediate station in, please make note of the partial overlap of Intermediate station with Railway stop, belonging to another category. gidonb ( talk) 21:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Merge into train station. I'm sympathetic to the existence of this article but it can't stand on its own; an additional complication is that the German language has specific terms for concepts that are recognized in English but don't have specific analogues. Keilbahnhof is a good example of this, and one where an article is justified. Mackensen (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Romanian numbers

Romanian numbers (  | 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 · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a language translator. Someone who wants to know the name of a number in Romanian can do so by looking up the English word for the number in Wiktionary and then going to the Translations template and finding the Romanian word. Georgia guy ( talk) 21:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Romania. Shellwood ( talk) 21:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex ( talk) 21:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep this isn’t a quick “how to say ‘eight’ in Romanian” guide but a valid encyclopedic exposition of the unusual grammatical characteristics of numbers in Romanian and some of their variations. Mccapra ( talk) 04:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep — valid topic, in line with many others of this type. Has been covered as such by reliable sources. — Biruitorul Talk 21:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Delete: There is far too much-unsupported material that one cannot possibly tell what is original research or not. Three inline citations citations and seven "general references" do provide adequate sourcing let alone advance notability. -- Otr500 ( talk) 00:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep - goes well beyond dictionary definitions. I agree it could be better sourced and I will tag it for that. Elinruby ( talk) 23:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep The stated rationale for deletion does not apply to this article. If anything, the article explains why translation is more complicated than just going to Wiktionary and reading off a list. Yes, it is presently undersourced, but this is the kind of topic that linguists can noodle about indefinitely. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

City slicker

City slicker (  | 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 · TWL)

Article lacks sourcing and reads like an extended dictionary definition reaching toward but not quite achieving encyclopedic tone. Recommend deleting and moving city slicker (disambiguation) here. QuietHere ( talk) 06:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Corpora in Translation Studies

Corpora in Translation Studies (  | 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 · TWL)

The article is written like a personal essay, has no inline citations and is an orphan. Furthermore, the article does not contribute anything to existing articles on Machine translation and its related articles Statistical machine translation, Example-based machine translation among others. A merge or redirect would not be useful. Ruud Buitelaar ( talk) 04:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Delete or seriously overhaul for tone issues - Kazamzam ( talk) 19:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

L'Enciclopèdia in Valencian

L'Enciclopèdia in Valencian (  | 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 · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NWEB. The only independent source provided is an announcement of the site reaching 25,000 articles. Notability maintenance tag was repeatedly removed by article creator. No sources provided to show how this website is important or influential. 331dot ( talk) 00:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

  • Keep. The article has already 3 different references to 3 different mass media. The reasoning that the sources provided are of "dubious notability" is a subjective and particular opinion that does not correspond to reality. They are independent digital newspapers from the Valencian Community (Spain), current and active, written by journalists.
    It's not completely true that I have remove the "notability maintenance tag repeatedly removed by article creator". I only have remove the tag two times, and the last time I added before removing the tag, another mass media reference (right now 3 references to diferent mass media), as the Wikipedia rules indicate.
    I can't find the reason to delete this article and other articles of other encyclopedias wikis has no problems in Wikipedia in English, as all of these: Enciklopedio Kalblanda, Sarvavijnanakosam, Enciclopedia Libre Universal en Español, Vienna History Wiki, Banglapedia, Metapedia (neo-nazi encyclopedia!) and so on.
    I'm a collaborator of Wikipedia since year 2008 and I have created many articles in Wikipedia in English, Spanish, and other languages and this is a strange behavior.-- Valencian ( talk) 01:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
Please see WP:other stuff for why that is not a great argument. Also your WP:BADGEring is not going to help your case. I am quite sympathetic to wanting to preserve this Article on a fascinating media wiki/minority language preservation protection. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him •  talk) 02:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Delete with regret. I checked JSTOR, Google Scholar and other places for any possible arguments of WP:PUBLISHER or other references to this Encyclopedia in a minority language, but I couldn't find anything beyond the 3 news links mentioned above. Only one of which has a named author. All three are on short side, and reference the same bench-mark of 25,000 article, so this does not pass WP:BASIC. To ensure this info is not lost on enwp I would recommend to move some of the content to Valencian language#Media in Valencian should this be deleted. One more source from a reputable scholar would sway me. Hopefully this changes in the near future, but for now I don't see any other possibilities. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him •  talk) 02:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Delete Obvious cross wiki-spam (the creator of the articles is administrator of the same websites and one of few regular contributor to it), no clues to prove actual relevance, the three mentions are from regional confidential online newpapers (Valencia News, is probably directly related). CaféBuzz ( talk) 17:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Delete per nominator reasons. Also there's a second user (also active in that project) that helped in the crosswiki promotion (in artificial and some African languages). Is blatant promotion. Taichi ( talk) 19:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep. It is a useful information tool in Valencian and about the Valencian Community with 26,000 articles and it is obvious that it is relevant about the Valencian Community (Spain). I certainly do not find any serious reason to be deleted. The sources are regular newspapers from the Valencian Community which are already cited in other articles. They are common users between wikipedia and this encyclopedia? It has always been between encyclopedias and wikis, it is nothing strange, on the contrary, it is something common. -- Okkto ( talk) 00:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
Okkto Do you have a reason for your opinion? 331dot ( talk) 01:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
Note that User expanded their answer in response to my query. Thank you 331dot ( talk) 02:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep. A wiki with more than 26,000 articles and the article has references. As abovementioned, the fact that the authors are users of both wikipedia and this encyclopedia doesn't mean anything, given the fact that this is quite common among Wikipedians. -- Caro de Segeda ( talk) 09:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
Caro de Segeda But what matters is if independent reliable sources give this encyclopedia significant coverage. Only documenting its number of articles is not significant coverage. 331dot ( talk) 11:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep. The article is correct, well written and its reference sources are independent and journalist-run media and even used as a reference in other articles of the Spanish Wikipedia. We have in this Wikipedia other articles much more incomplete and with fewer references for encyclopedias and wikipedias in other languages such as Enciklopedio Kalblanda , Sarvavijnanakosam , Universal Free Encyclopedia in Spanish , Vienna History Wiki , Banglapedia , Metapedia among others.
    As for the number of collaborators you simply have to see the evolution of this encyclopedia that has already exceeded 26,500 articles and 250,000 editions, to understand that it is not the product of a handful of contributors as it is intended to imply, but the teamwork well done by all its collaborators.
    I see no reason whatsoever for it to be deleted. LuisMM54321 ( talk) 11:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
LuisMM54321 It being correct is not relevant, the issue is that it does not meet the definition of notability here on the English Wikipedia. The Spanish Wikipedia is separate. No sources are provided that discuss this website in detail, telling why it is significant or influential. 331dot ( talk) 11:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
LuisMM54321 : The two accounts "Jose2" and "Valencian" have created the majority of the articles on this website. CaféBuzz ( talk) 17:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
Well, I have also created many articles and added information in others in the Valencian Encyclopedia, but anyway I do not think that the number of creators of articles in an encyclopedia is relevant in this case, what does matter is the veracity and quality of them and their impact and in the Encyclopedia in Valencian people come and go as in all and maybe one is months without collaborating And then it re-engages, as has been my case a couple of times. And well you think that it is not relevant and others think that if it is, even much more than other articles that are here about other wikipedias and encyclopedias and that have not been proposed for deletion, so I think that this deletion proposal is totally unnecessary and unfair and that it is coindicated not by the quality and importance of the
Encyclopedia but for the language it deals with, I sincerely believe that this is the only reason why it has been proposed to delete the article of the Valencian Encyclopedia and not that of other wikipedias of lesser relevance and with less number of articles. LuisMM54321 ( talk) 17:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
First you pretend "it is not the product of a handful of contributors as it is intended to imply", but when it is proved that it actually is "I do not think that the number of creators of articles in an encyclopedia is relevant in this case"...
The self promotion by a handful of users you're obviously part of is blatant.
Also, I cannot accept your insinuation that what motivates this debate is the language it deals with, I have wrotten a good bunch of articles about Valencian language and culture on French Wikipedia, it's actually a language I've learnt and I do enjoy it (and to say the truth, I am currently listening to the Valencian Community radio station). The motivation for this debate is the irrelevance of the main subject. I've implied myself in several other cases of crosswiki spam, some affecting small wikipedias like here, which is a really shameful practice, because they are very weak to face this kind of spamming. For the rest, see Wikipedia:Other stuff. CaféBuzz ( talk) 18:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
The user CaféBuzz who initiated the last week the article deletion in French Wikipedia is just a second profile of the user Xic667 as him recognize on his user’s page in French Wikipedia. The user Xic667 has been a regular contributor to the Catalan wikipedia since 2013 and even "Amical Wikimedia" offered to this user to be part of this association that promotes the Catalan wikipedia. L'Enciclopèdia in Valencian considers Valencian as an independent language from Catalan, not a dialect from Catalan and this and not another seems to be his basic problem with this article. L'Enciclopèdia in Valencian use the Norms of El Puig, a linguistic rules developed exclusively for the Valencian language in year 1979 by the Royal Academy of Valencian Culture (RACV). This encyclopedia doesn't use the Catalan language rules. This user has a clear conflict of interest by affinity. I want to think that everyone who has voted in the deletion of this article knows the Valencian linguistic conflict, that as you can see has an article in the English wikipedia since year 2010. Valencian ( talk) 22:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
Ridiculous accusations. I have used years ago an account, I have not used it for years. I had less than 400 contributions in 6 years on Catalan Wikipedia, and this offer about "Wikimedia Amical" was some automatical message left on my talk page I have no idea about.
Moreover, please note that the debate about deletion has been initiated before on English and Spanish Wikimedia. You removed maintenance tags on all Wikipedias without a good reason, don' try to drown the fish. CaféBuzz ( talk) 23:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
As I have already told you before on the deletion page in French, you and I discussed extensively on the topic of Valencian language in the French wikipedia years ago. And what I have said is that it does not seem to me entirely ethical that a person who has previously discussed with the creator of the article on the same subject, is the same one who proposes the deletion of the article. The logical thing is to propose a more neutral person.
I removed the template because I previously added one more reference to another mass media and then withdrew the template. With this reference there were already 3 references to 3 different newspapers, enough for an article of such short length. It’s something I’ve done before and many users do when adding references and other times I have not had any problems. Valencian ( talk) 02:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
You have no neutrality lesson to give. So YOU are allowed to remove the template on this article about your website but other people are not allowed to do whatever just they because discussed with you about you spreading unrecocognized theories all along Wikipedia while there is a scientific consens against it? It has nothing to do about the current debate. Which ethicals model are you allowed to defend, while crossspamming this article about your confidential encyclopedia on small wikis? Please stop giving the argument of the number of articles, most of them have been written by the same person. Come on, be serious just one minute. CaféBuzz ( talk) 06:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
Let's refrain from the personal attacks, please. We're discussing the suitability of this article for wikipedia, nothing more. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Delete @ LuisMM54321 You said "I do not think that the number of creators of articles in an encyclopedia is relevant in this case, what does matter is the veracity and quality of them and their impact..." That is not what matters for an article in Wikipedia. As already mentioned, what matters is what independent, reliable, published sources have written about the subject.
David10244 ( talk) 04:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Question: Why have you created articles about your/this website in astwiki, dewiki, enwiki, eowiki, eswiki, frwiki, iawiki, iewiki, itwiki, novwiki, nywiki, ptwiki, tumwiki, but not in the catalan-valencian-language edition of Wikipedia? I find this suspicious. Visite fortuitement prolongée ( talk) 12:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    Very simple, impossible that this article was not deleted or boycotted in the Catalan wikipedia from the beginning. L'Enciclopèdia in Valencian states that Valencian is a language, not a dialect from Catalan. L'Enciclopèdia in Valencian use the Norms of El Puig, a linguistic rules developed exclusively for the Valencian language in year 1979 by the Royal Academy of Valencian Culture (RACV). This encyclopedia doesn't use the Catalan language rules. In the Catalan wikipedia the contents that claim that Valencian is a language and not a dialect from Catalan, have it very complicated. Explained in one word that sounds very bad but still exists in the 21st century, censorship. I want to think that everyone who has voted in the deletion of this article knows the Valencian linguistic conflict, that as you can see has an article in the English wikipedia since year 2010. Thanks for your kind attention. Valencian ( talk) 22:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    Thank you for your clear answer. Visite fortuitement prolongée ( talk) 16:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

  • Probably keep - based only on the notability, it appears that there are sufficient RS to meet the GNG. There are various other issues about POV etc but I'm not sure how to unravel them to !vote. JMWt ( talk) 17:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
JMWt Please list some of these RS you say establish this meets GNG- they aren't currently provided in the article AFAIK. 331dot ( talk) 18:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
I include here a new article dated January 15, 2023 on "L'Enciclopèdia in Valencian", in this case the newspaper Las Provincias, one of the two most sold newspapers in the Valencian Community, published in Valencia. Article about "L'Enciclopèdia en valencià". Author: Òscar Rueda. Newspaper "Las Provincias", edition January 15th 2023, Valencia (Spain).
Online link: L'Enciclopèdia del valencià
With this new article right now there are 4 different mass media from the Valencian Community with reference to "L'Enciclopèdia in Valencian" in the last months. Thanks for your attention. Valencian ( talk) 01:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
I can't examine the source due to a paywall(which is okay, I'm just saying I can't read it), but its validity would depends on its contents. 331dot ( talk) 07:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
The content of the article is possible to read it here: Article about "L'Enciclopèdia en valencià". Author: Òscar Rueda. Newspaper "Las Provincias", edition January 15th 2023, Valencia (Spain). Thanks Valencian ( talk) 08:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Notability is a guideline, and the difference with a policy is that there is always space to manoeuver. This article is not about somebody's cat, webshop or stamp collection, it is one of those many examples of a big fish in a small pond, in other words, it belongs to a grey area where any decision is subjective. Even if this encyclopedia is of some regional significance only, the worst one can say is that notability is doubtful, and where there's doubt, there is room for the benefit of it. Since neither verifiability nor article quality seems to be the issue here, I'm inclined to keep it. Alternatively, it should at the very least be merged into Valencian language. — IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 09:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep. Interesting case in the regional linguistics and knowledge. Sepharad1 ( talk) 12:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
Sepharad1 This is specifically named as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. The main issue here is if this has sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to be considered notable. 331dot ( talk) 15:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Delete, it's only spam across multiple versions of Wikipedia. -- Arroser ( talk) 23:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • By direct reference to an earlier comment from days ago, I would like to clarify that the opinion that Valencian is an independent language and not a dialect of Catalan, is the majority in the Valencian Community and among Valencians and has always been so. These are not strange or extravagant theories of mine or of any user. To this end, I quote from the article Valencian in the English wikipedia, section "Politico-linguistic controversy" the following sentences:
Despite the position of the official organizations, an opinion poll carried out between 2001 and 2004[19] showed that the majority (65%) of the Valencian people (both Valencian and Spanish speakers) consider Valencian different from Catalan. According to an official poll in 2014,[18] 52% of Valencians considered Valencian to be a language different from Catalan. Thanks -- Valencian ( talk) 08:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
This has nothing to do with this debate. Many people believe they are two different languages but the huge majority of people writing in Valencian doesn't use the orthographic norms you are using on your website, which are not the ones taught in schools or in the universities, and are marginal in the edition too. According to the promotors of these norms themselves, there are about 1000 people formed to those orthographic norms, that represents less than 0.1 % of people able to write in Valencian CaféBuzz ( talk) 20:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Delete This is basically a wikipedia clone in another language, as noble as that may be, there are no sources found that discuss it that meet our notability criteria. This appears to be PROMO for the encyclopedia, which is not allowed. There is no coverage in French either, I've looked there. As excited as the editors above are, we can't keep an article with a lack of reliable, neutral, third-party sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Delete The independent sources are local and not notable and uses the site itself various times as reference. The main reason for my !vote is that it is clearly promotional. It has been created with a COI by Valencian, an editor since 2009 and admin of the site he wrote the article about. There has been a clear crosswiki effort by Valencian and another user of the site. they have created versions in multiple exotic minority languages. In the deletion discussion at eswiki that I closed as delete, the user Linuxmania pointed out that some articles can not be edited by users so the wiki label is misleading ( see here in Spanish). -- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 19:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Prodded articles


History

East Polish Soviet Socialist Republic

East Polish Soviet Socialist Republic (  | 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 · TWL)

The marginal idea of Jan Ciechanowicz, a Polish activist in Lithuania, was supported by him and his ephemeral Polish Party for Human Rights, which was not even registered in the USSR. The idea was expressed only in the party's program, and was never supported by any concrete action. The party, moreover, probably did not include many people, except the founder. Suggestions that Gorbachev or Jaruzelski supported the idea can be put between fairy tales.

The article itself is erroneous, since this "republic" was intended by the author to include all the lands that belonged to Poland before World War II and were later incorporated into the USSR, that is, part of Lithuania with Vilnius, Western Belarus and Western Ukraine with Lviv. Because of this, I do not suggest a merge with the Jan Ciechanowicz article.

The notion should not be confused with Vilnius autonomy, which was an actual political idea. Marcelus ( talk) 18:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Siege of Semerkand

Siege of Semerkand (  | 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 · TWL)

Another one of many battle articles which fails WP:VER, WP:NOTABLE and seemingly WP:RS as well. HistoryofIran ( talk) 23:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Fuhitobe

Fuhitobe (  | 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 · TWL)

Please draftify. The topic may have potential but the text of the article makes no sense. To begin with, the first paragraph introduces four names (Fuhitobe, History Department, Tomo, and Kabane) without making it clear if these are synonyms or in any way different. The next paragraph continues with new names without any bridging between the paragraphs. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Japan. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Delete. This is a direct translation of the first link, which is a non-free source, Encyclopedia Nipponica. It is also somewhat inaccurately done (for example, they weren't "given the family name 'Kabane' (史)", they were "given the kabane (family name) Fuhito/Fubito (史)"). As noted above, the topic itself might have potential, but this is not something that can be fixed in its current form. Dekimasu よ! 15:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • To be honest, this appears to point at an uncomfortable overlap between the editing and citation patterns of certain editors, but at any rate it looks like other pages in the category also need attention (e.g. Shinabe clan, which is a translation of the Japanese Wiki page but has a number of other problems) and other pages involving similar topics are also worth a look (e.g. Yamatai Honshu Theory). Dekimasu よ! 15:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Subsequent edits here made what I was referring to unclear, but this cannot really be considered an improvement: there was no person called "Fuhito Be". Dekimasu よ! 06:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

List of countries by GDP (PPP) in the nineteenth century

List of countries by GDP (PPP) in the nineteenth century (  | 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 · TWL)

All or most of the article appears to be original research and it seems unlikely it could ever achieve a standard of verifiability.

The vague sources cited at the top of the list section do not provide this data. It looks like it might be based on the "Maddison Project", but even when looking at the full documents there the numbers can't be found (which means they were somehow decided by editors), and the project itself says that its own data cannot be taken at face value (see link). The "Methodology" section of the article, especially the last paragraph, clearly reads as an explanation of the article's own original research.

Even if a properly sourced list is possible, it would require a completely rewritten and re-sourced article, which seems unlikely. As there are no precise and reliable records of GDPs in the 19th century, any such list would be necessarily incomplete and the data itself subject to academic debate, so I would question whether it belongs on Wikipedia at all. R Prazeres ( talk) 18:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Economics, and Lists. R Prazeres ( talk) 18:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    Delete all kinds of wrong with this article. There are some sources, most I find are estimates, mostly for the big powers at the time. Most of what we have now is OR and we'd have to blank the article. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Comment -- This is potentially a valid topic but the detailed data relates to 1879/80 so that it should be List of countries by GDP (PPP) in 1880. The situation of countries in 1880 may be quite different from that in 1800, particularly where considerable industrialisation took place in the period. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Delete for now: Potentially helpful and suitable list for an encyclopedia, but the sources just aren't there for Wikipedia to provide a definitive, scholarly answer. Why? I Ask ( talk) 19:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Marriages of Pompey the Great

Marriages of Pompey the Great (  | 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 · TWL)

The article was unilaterally pushed from draftspace (at Draft:Marriages of Pompey the Great) by User:Avilich recently, in relation to a deletion discussion ( here). The sole author of the page, User:UndercoverClassicist has indicated that this move will be to the detriment of the development of the article (seen here), and requested my aid with nominating it to move it back to draft/userspace. Given the circumstances, I recommend it be user-fyed, rather than draftified, again. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, History, and Politics. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep. If the creator wants to work on it in userspace, s/he can duplicate it there. I see no need to remove it from public view. Srnec ( talk) 14:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    @ Srnec: That would disrupt the article history, and necessitate a copy-paste. The article is only roughly half-complete at the moment, so this is no small amount. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Delete in main and move to userspace per nominator's rationale. jengod ( talk) 15:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Delete and move to userspace per jengod and User:Iazyges (whom I asked to create this request) above. I'm very happy for anyone who wants to continue helping with it to do so, but it's really not ready for mainspace at the moment and it is, frankly, a little embarrassing to have what is effectively my own half-finished work out there in the public sphere. UndercoverClassicist ( talk) 16:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Comment maybe draft space would be for the best. ★Trekker ( talk) 17:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep: This perhaps shouldn't have come to main space the way it did, but I see no reason why the article can't be improved in main space now that it is there (that's what WP is about, after all...). Furius ( talk) 17:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Weak keep. I am sympathetic to the fact that the creator did not want to publish the article, but I can see no real legitimate reason to re-draftify or userfy the article. WP:Drafts specifically says that An article created in draftspace does not belong to the editor who created it, and any other user may edit, publish, redirect, merge or seek deletion of any draft. The article is not in such a bad state as to need draftification on its own merit, and there's nothing to stop people improving it in mainspace. That said, I don't care so much as to strongly object to userfying as a courtesy. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 19:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep: Notable topic; not a big deal that it is a little prematurely in main. However, Avilich should be reminded not to mess about with drafts other users are actively working on, as there is no time limit. Curbon7 ( talk) 20:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Reuser-fy move to keep on 29 January 2023 as UndercoverClassicists work on this article is just too good to be deleted. But since the draft was released into article mainspace without the consent of the draft creator. Drafts should be given the time to develop since some editors might want to create/nominate an article they feel comfortable with either to DYK or GA. At least the draft creator could have been consulted before their draft was released into article main space.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradise Chronicle ( talkcontribs) 02:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Delete, but keep each article on his wives. I don't think there is a need for this synth article, which subject can be covered in both Pompey and articles about his wives. In addition, I think there is enough ground to create an article about Aemilia (wife of Pompey)—right now the only wife without an article. T8612 (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep. As Furius and Caecilius point out, nothing prevents this from being improved in article space, and frankly it's not that bad considering that this arose out of having one of the individual articles—likely the most substantial—nominated for deletion. Creating a page like this was the best alternative to deletion; deleting it, whether by turning it into a draft or something else, potentially eliminates the contents from the encyclopedia if the other article is deleted. P Aculeius ( talk) 17:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
But if the other articles are kept, there is no need to keep this one? T8612 (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
If all of the wives were adequately covered elsewhere, then there would be no need to duplicate the material here, but given the number of them and how little is known about them—other than who they were related to—it still seems like a good idea to consolidate them into one article. P Aculeius ( talk) 13:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
I disagree, as I said in the ANI, I like "Wives of ____" articles but they should not be used at the expense of individual articles about women, doing that sets a dangerous precedent about the coverage of women on Wikipedia. ★Trekker ( talk) 14:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
I don't think it sets any precedent regarding the coverage of women—it's simply better to keep related material together when it's pretty skimpy and liable to be nominated for deletion, even if the ultimate result of the discussion is, as it has been in this instance, "keep". This is especially the case when so little is known about someone that most of the discussion concerns the other people to whom the subject was related, since that is a constant theme of deletion discussions (the lack of "inherited notability"). And even if the article on Antistia can be beefed up to avoid future deletion nominations, the fact that there are other wives about whom even less can be said—or at least has been written in other articles—is a strong argument to keep this one. P Aculeius ( talk) 18:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
Thing is, before the Antistia article was expanded upon due to the AFD one could make the same claim about her as about Pompey's other wives, truth is that when it comes to ancient women there is often a lot of scholarly coverage which is burried and hard to find, I feel fairly certain that Aemilia could have a good article as well, but if we decide that its ok to have "Wives of __" articles instead of an individual article that does set a dangerous predecent in my opinion. ★Trekker ( talk) 21:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
Now that the discussion on Antistia (wife of Pompey) has closed with Keep, this article needs even more work, since the Antistia section (currently almost identical with some of that article's sections) needs to be reworked as a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE distillation. UndercoverClassicist ( talk) 16:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Torture and castration of a Ukrainian POW in Pryvillia

Torture and castration of a Ukrainian POW in Pryvillia (  | 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 · TWL)

A discussion to merge this account of a war crime into the article of the war crime's location (which quickly accrued opposition) cited WP:EVENTCRIT, which I still think holds true if we look at the criteria:

Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.

This is a single incident of a war crime among many other incidents of war crimes. This one incident and its six sources can be reduced into a paragraph of information: it already has been at War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which contains the same information as this article.

Google hits for "Pryvillia war crime", including any word from Bellingcat or other Western sources, fall off after August 2022. Even if newer sources were presented to argue that this topic has "enduring historical significance", they would still be best added to the one paragraph in War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. There are no individual articles for every ISIS beheading video; there are individual articles for notable individuals that became the subject of ISIS beheading videos. I'm not proposing against the inclusion of the atrocity at all, but whether the sources indicate this topic is significant enough to merit an article is questionable when its impact is minimal and serves best as an example to be listed in a larger, related article—which, again, it already is. ‒ overthrows 23:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

* Merge without prejudice to War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Castration and murder of a Ukrainian POW in Pryvillia. It absolutely merits inclusion on Wikipedia somewhere, but despite how horrific it was, currently there is no evidence of enduring historical significance. Even the Russian and Ukrainian wiki articles don't seem to have sources beyond August last year. I say without prejudice because I think it is plausible that after the war it may receive more attention as a war crime. I thus disagree with the OP about the emergence of new evidence of enduring significance. If that existed (or is produced during the course of this discussion), that would change matters and a standalone article may well be merited. OsFish ( talk) 02:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

  • Keep (changed vote). Having seen some of the other pages on incidents from the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it became clear to me that what was missing in this page was details of formal international reactions in order to raise the story above gruesome detail. I looked those up and added them. I now think the article should be kept. OsFish ( talk) 02:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep based on significant coverage. Yes, the coverage has 'fallen off' since it happened, but that is true for ANY event. There's always more coverage initially then after awhile. Also, yes, I know about WP:OTHERSTUFF but there's nothing special about this article, we have a lot of these articles from this conflict that document one-time incidents or individuals who were briefly in the news and then disappeared. For example: Torture of Russian soldiers in Mala Rohan, Makiivka surrender incident, Stara Krasnianka care house attack, Vita Zaverukha. All these articles are in the same situation - initial coverage (maybe even less in some of these cases) and then a falling-off. Volunteer Marek 18:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    Thanks for those links to similar pages. They helped me grasp what was missing from this page. I've added international reaction to the page and have changed my vote to keep. OsFish ( talk) 02:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep per arguments presented by Volunteer Marek. There are currently 71 entries listed under Category:War crimes during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and, while the all-inclusive article War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is useful for a condensed outline of each such crime, as of this writing, it consists of 247,013 bytes and contains 378 inline cites. The nominated article, on the other hand, has 6,464 bytes and six inline cites. Thus, merging an abridgment of it into the already-overlong entry would not be helpful to users especially since the event has confirmed its notability via major media coverage. — Roman Spinner (talkcontribs) 21:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep. This incident has a borderline notability, just as several other incidents noted by VM. In my opinion, this is not so much a matter of coverage in RS (all of them are covered), but having the incident investigated by a 3rd party reputable organization, Bellingcat and Conflict Intelligence Team in this case. Without such investigation, one could question if the incident had actually happen (and what exactly had happen), which would be an argument for deletion I think. An additional factor here is the extraordinary cruelty. That is what makes it notable; this is not just shooting someone. My very best wishes ( talk) 22:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep, no merge to Pryvillia. This is not a routine crime blotter event. In general I am uncomfortable with articles based on Telegram videos, but there's no question that Telegram is used for messaging in this war, so here we are. The primary reason I unreservedly support keeping this one is that Bellingcat believes this, and they are authoritative. I urge other editors not to take the Mala Rohan article as a model, since it, on the other hand, does in my opinion need to be deleted as incoherent. I've spent more time at the War crimes article than was good for me, and can attest that if anything it needs to spin off more daughter articles. So no to merge back. Elinruby ( talk) 07:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep per WP:HEY due to User:OsFish's work. I also agree with User:My very best wishes' point about "extraordinary cruelty". Gildir ( talk) 04:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Comments: I would like to present that the title is wrong. I am sure that it was missed that "and shot him in the head" is included. Although not as shocking as the"castration of a Ukrainian POW" it is nonetheless horrendous and likely a war crime, per chapter III Article 86: "No prisoner of war may be punished more than once for the same act, or on the same charge". Of course Part II, article 13 ("Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated") would be violated. At any rate it would seem that a better title could be used in an encyclopedia. -- Otr500 ( talk) 20:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Mauro-Roman Kingdom

Mauro-Roman Kingdom (  | 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 · TWL)

Potential hoax.

I've searched on Google, Google Books and Scholar and found nothing pertaining to this subject. There's some mentions of Romans in North Africa, but no mentions of a "Mauro-Roman Kingdom". Greyhound 84 ( talk) 19:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Greyhound 84 ( talk) 19:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Comment: I haven't had a chance to look into the sources yet, but I doubt that an article that has passed a GA review from a competent user who is knowledgeable in the topic ( User:Iazyges) could be a hoax. Curbon7 ( talk) 20:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep the article is properly sourced. M.Bitton ( talk) 20:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    I've looked through several of the sources and none of them mention Mauro-Roman Kingdom. Greyhound 84 ( talk) 20:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    Likely a sampling error, as a number of them are used for context not directly related to the Mauro-Roman Kingdom, or use names not identical to it. See the link below. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Speedy Keep properly sourced, but niche topic (and a huge variety of names, such as Moorish-Roman Kingdom) is likely to interfere with an easy search result. @ Greyhound 84: among other sources, see this for confirmation. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    @ Curbon7: Appreciate the compliment ;). You can find easy proof from the link above, as well as the other sources. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    That's only one source and it's quite vague. I looked up "Regnum Maurorum et Romanorum" on Google, Google Books and Scholar and that's the only thing that comes up. There's a couple other books but they seem to be translations of said book or cite that book. Greyhound 84 ( talk) 20:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    @ Greyhound 84: On its own, it's a reliable source that supports its existence, and disproved a hoax. See also this. Again, there are a number of sources that use different names for a niche subject. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    @ Greyhound 84: With respect, I suggest withdrawing the nomination. It's an understandable mistake, given how hard the niche sources are to find. But its demonstrably not a hoax, as several reliable sources refer to it and confirm it's existence. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    @ Iazyges: I think the title is a Wikipedian invention. It cannot be found in RS. Srnec ( talk) 00:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    @ Srnec: Hmm. Perhaps Moorish-Roman kingdom? That's in the RS. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep Concerns have previously been raised about the title ( Talk:Mauro-Roman_Kingdom#Title_and_Latin_name) and although there was general agreement that something ought to be changed, there was no consensus on what that change should be. However, whatever issues exist there are not justification for deletion. Furius ( talk) 00:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep but re-title and re-jig. I raised the same issues as Furius on the talk page. It's not a hoax, but it probably shouldn't be a GA until the problems are fixed. Srnec ( talk) 00:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep and retitle such as Moorish-Roman Kingdom as under that name it is covered in reliable sources as identified in this discussion, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 23:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep pretty funny situation to be honest. The kingdom is mentioned in an extremely wide variety of sources including Procopius's history of the war, who refers to it either simply as "Moors" or "Altavans", and Corippus's Iohannus, who referred to it by the same names. The name "Mauro-Roman kingdom" comes from an inscription made by king Masuna which called him the king of the Maurs and Romans. I believe this name is used instead of the alternative "Kingdom of Altava" to differentiate from the later runp state that came after the fall of Garmul, last king ruling over this unified kingdom.

Whatever748 ( talk) 00:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

  • Keep probably renamed - There must have been some one ruler this area in the late antique period. I see no reason to regard this as incredible. However the current name needs reconsideration. That is not a reason for deletion. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

List of wars named after animals

List of wars named after animals (  | 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 · TWL)

Was prodded by me in April 2020 due to failing WP:LISTN and WP:OR, but deprodded without explanation by Andrew Davidson ( talk · contribs), who is now banned from deletion-related activities. I'm still confident that this fails LISTN and OR because there are zero relevant search results. – LaundryPizza03 ( d ) 09:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, History, Military, and Lists. – LaundryPizza03 ( d ) 09:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep Valid information list and a valid navigational list for those who wish to find wars with the name of an animal in their name. Dream Focus 15:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep -- A valid list article on an unusual topic. We could not have this as a category as SHAREDNAME categories are forbidden, so that a list is appropriate. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Delete This is an indiscriminate list of Wikipedia articles with "war" and the name of an animal in the title. Many of the list entries aren't actually wars. The Fish Wars were a series of civil disobedience protests. Pig War (1906–1908) was a trade dispute. The Dog Tax War had shots fired, but was bloodless. Pig War (1859) had a military confrontation, but was bloodless. Saukrieg was a bloodless feud. Sheep wars and Oyster War were violent disputes between Americans over access to natural resources. Turbot War, Cod Wars and Lobster War were 20th century disputes over fishing rights that involved military confrontations but which were mostly bloodless. Crow War and Fox Wars were named after Native American tribes named after animals. Emu War was a military operation aimed at exterminating animals. Plantdrew ( talk) 21:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Delete, a WP:LISTN failure, since no sources have covered this grouping, and also serves no navigational purpose since the inclusion criteria has no relevance to the actual content of the articles. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 02:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep per WP:CSC: Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own article in the English Wikipedia. This makes verification easy. That said animals are, in fact, animals, is also easy to verify; we are not talking about unicorns or mermaids. Plantdrew has a valid point that not all entries were actual "wars", but that could easily be mitigated by altering the opening sentence: This is a list of wars or other conflicts named after animals. That "war" is often used as hyperbole for a conflict that is (mostly) bloodless is a very common occurrence. The inclusion of all entries is based on the titles English Wikipedia has given said articles, which is again easily verifiable. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 15:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
PS: This is not meant to be a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, as each article/list needs to be judged on its own merits, but I think it's worth comparing it to the List of wars named for their duration. That has no sources either, but also passes per WP:CSC, and concurs with the arguments given by Dream Focus and Peterkingiron in favour of keeping this list. It was nominated in 2015, resulting in Keep and Rename, because it was considered valid and useful for navigational purposes. Because we are in a different but similar situation here, I think this is an important precedent to take into account. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 15:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
The big difference is that those are actual wars, which is not the case with this list. Lamona ( talk) 16:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
Delete per Devonian Wombat- there is no coherence to the entries in this list, nor do any sources group them together. SilverTiger12 ( talk) 22:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Delete I haven't looked at as many linked articles as Plantdrew but I also note that of the ones I looked at most were not wars in the conventional meaning of that, but various types of conflicts that for some reason were given a name with "war" in it, including so-called trade wars. Also, many of them are not animals (e.g. lobsters and fish). So this list makes no sense from a logic point of view, and probably neither from an informational one. Lamona ( talk) 03:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 13:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Nazran conflict

Nazran conflict (  | 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 · TWL)

This article is very flawed, it is solely based on 1 story from a man who is biased, wasn't there and contradicts history even according to the source, please check the talk page for more info, the last section is enough to understand the problem Goddard2000 ( talk) 16:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

This is how the battle is described in Ingush folklore. Historical Russian sources contradict the folklore and describe the incident as following:



Chronology — Butkov P. G. Materials for the new history of the Caucasus, from 1722 to 1803. - SPb., 1869. Volume 3. page 171.

Here are the details of the battle from the Author. — Butkov P. G. Materials for the new history of the Caucasus, from 1722 to 1803. - SPb., 1869. Volume 2. page. 111 -- Товболатов ( talk) 18:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

  • This document is talking about a battle between Ingushes and Chechens that happened in 1783 while the Nazran conflict happened in 1781. The dates don't even match and it doesn't disprove anything. WikiEditor1234567123 ( talk) 19:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • During the discussion of the article in the "talk" section, I proved that the article deserves the right to exist, and there is far from one source in the article. WikiEditor1234567123 ( talk) 17:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply


Товболатов , WikiEditor1234567123 We obviously disagree with each other and we have talked 100 times in talk pages, let the admins decide now, if they want us to make our case again in here then we'll do it. It's better if we don't debate in here now. Goddard2000 ( talk) 19:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Hello, i don't understand why this article hasn't been deleted yet. I recommend reading the talk page, this whole article is based on the words of 1 single man from the Dalgat source. 1 man who was not present during the battle (he claims it happened 200 years ago), he contradicts history which is confirmed by the author that records this story from him, he is biased as he is Ingush and aggrandizes the history of his hero, the story is not corroborated in Russian military records or any other source from that period. Why should we allow wikipedia articles to be made on the words of 1 man? this is not a credible source, especially not since this article tries to aggrandize Ingush history against 3 of their neighbors. This article is too biased. Please read the talk page in the Nazran conflict page. Goddard2000 ( talk) 10:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Leave, It's not based of a word of a single man, if it was then Yakovlev and Krupnov wouldn't have mentioned this story. WikiEditor1234567123 ( talk) 17:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Delete. lack of confirming sources described in the article
Merjuev Salovdi ( talk) 09:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Battle of Kadino Selo

Battle of Kadino Selo (  | 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 · TWL)

No importance, no sources. Jingiby ( talk) 07:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, North Macedonia, and Turkey. Shellwood ( talk) 13:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Comment I see something about the mayor in 1902 in snippet view here but clicking the link doesn't give me enough to verify let alone get a quote. This does tell me that the confrontation probably happened however and that there is probably more in specialized journal or databases. Elinruby ( talk) 18:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    Yes the battle really happened, Metodi Patchev died in March, not April as his biography shows in Wikipedia. The Turkish Ottoman Mayor of Kadino Selo betrayed the rebels. Just i am not sure what date in March, 1902 ? Can you please change the wording in the article. The article should be included but changed to correspond to Wikipedias policies. From Kajmakcalan. Thanks. 58.179.181.212 ( talk) 21:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

@ 58.179.181.212: the part of Wikipedia's policies that the article doesn't meet is references. Since you seem familiar with this event, perhaps you can help us out there? Elinruby ( talk) 22:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC) @ Kajmakcalan: Elinruby ( talk) 22:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

The bio for Patchev has the following references for the battle:<ref>[http://www.kroraina.com/knigi/hs/hs_a_26.html Писма и изповеди на един четник,XXVI,Хр.Силянов,1902 г.]</ref><ref>Николов, Борис. "Вътрешна македоно-одринска революционна организация. Войводи и ръководители (1893–1934). Биографично-библиографски справочник". София, 2001, стр. 125.</ref> Elinruby ( talk) 00:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

  • Comment -- This seems to be a minor engagement in one of the Balkan wars, but it is written without context, and lacks a lead or any categories. If improved to a normal WP structure, I would be prepared to judge its merits, but at present I cannot. I expected this to be another vehicle for deploying the battlebox template, but it is not. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 17:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Northern Song (960–1127)

Northern Song (960–1127) (  | 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 · TWL)

This article is entirely redundant as we already have a very good Song dynasty article as well as many sub-articles. By its very nature, this article would have to repeat a massive amount of stuff from the Song dynasty article. Plus, this article is almost entirely uncited. Mucube ( talkcontribs) 00:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

  • Redirect The FA Song dynasty features all the content we need on the Northern Song period, which was after all, more or less half of the Song Dynasty. JohnmgKing ( talk) 12:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Redirect+Merge Totally redundant article (I don't understand why there is an article for Northern Song but not for the Southern), only some copy-and-paste work needed for the FA Song dynasty. Timothytyy ( talk) 08:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Clydesdale (1819 ship)

Clydesdale (1819 ship) (  | 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 · TWL)

No evidence found of actual notability, sources are primary or passing mentions. Being the largest vessel of a short-lived company, carrying some passengers of little notability, and basically doing what trade ships do (including, as was very common in these years, colliding with another ship), all amount to not much in the end. Fram ( talk) 10:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Transportation, and United Kingdom. Fram ( talk) 10:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep per WP:GNG. The article on Clydesdale by Sindall (1937) is not primary and not a passing mention. The coverage in Ships of the East India Company (2001) also appears to be substantial. The coverage in the 19th century (contemporaneous), 20th century, and 21st century (young) show sustained interest in the Clydesdale and in other major vessels of the East India Company. gidonb ( talk) 16:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Dubious -- While I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the content, I remain dubious of whether any merchant ship of a past era is notable unless there is something quite special about it. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep jengod ( talk) 22:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
Hi jengod, thank you for sharing your opinion on this AfD! Could you still explain, even briefly, how you reached it? gidonb ( talk) 13:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • 9 sources, 2 explanatory footnotes, an infobox, a little table, and a mention of Mauritius are things I like to see in a Wikipedia article. jengod ( talk) 15:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    It's the quality of the sources that matters, not the number. An article could have 50 sources, but if they were all unreliable, it would be the same as having zero sources as far as notability is concerned. Conversely, an article could have 3 sources and be notable if they're all significant coverage, reliable, independent, and secondary. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 15:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Delete I do not see evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Keep voters have asserted that coverage "appears to be substantial" without any evidence. Most of what is cited to Hackman 2001 isn't even about the ship! Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 22:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep. The proposal for deletion makes clear that significance is subjective, and notability is mutable. I consider the references in the histories of Greenock to be notable and significant to the authors: there are hundreds of vessels they could have mentioned but did not mention. Clydesdale was worth mentioning; it had meaning to the readers at the time. As for mutability, the article by Sindal is based on Captain Rose's journal or logbook. There may be more, but all I could access was a Google snippet view, and the book in which it appears is rare and not in any library to which I have access. So does notability depend on whether an editor lives in city with a library that has a particular book, or if relevant material is out of copyright? Furthermore, when one deletes an article, it cannot improve, even if someone can find the book, and if there is more in the article. Earlier today I found a photo of an 1820 painting of "Clydesdale of Glasgow" by the noted marine painter Robert Salmon. The permalink is: [3]. The Paul Mellon Centre Photographic Archive had a project of photographing art as it came up for auction, and this is a photo of the painting when it came up for auction in 1984 at Sotheby's. The photo is available under a Creative Commons license, but I cannot see any point in trying to figure out how to get permission to add it to the article and how to add it to the article when editors remark casually that they are "dubious of whether any merchant ship of a past era is notable...", and the article may well be destroyed shortly. Should the picture come up for auction again and a colour copy be available for adding to the article, that is just too bad. What is the point of correcting typos or grammar, improving readability, or adding background and contextual information, or adding pictures to any article that is not already certified as notable? Acad Ronin ( talk) 04:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
    I don't have time to transcribe now but I just added a photo of text from the Edinburgh Advertiser about the "Clydesdale of Glasgow." If nothing else it'll exist in Commons as a resource for a future article about this painting LOL jengod ( talk) 15:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

  • Keep. I can't find free online access to some of the sources cited in the article, but User:Gidonb says Sindall (1937) is more than a passing reference and I see no reason not to AGF on his assessment. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 09:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
Thank you, 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆. It's a magazine article on the ship, 2 pages long (477-478), in the series "Ships of the Past". gidonb ( talk) 13:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Argo (1806 Liverpool ship)

Argo (1806 Liverpool ship) (  | 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 · TWL)

No indication of any notability found. Fram ( talk) 09:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Transportation, and United Kingdom. Fram ( talk) 09:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Delete -- Another NN ship. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Keep So bizarre the double standards around here for notability. Every car make in history and every beauty pageant is notable but not this merchant ship that was stolen and used for slave trafficking and that sank and her crew was rescued? Crazytown. jengod ( talk) 22:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Delete There is no significant coverage in reliable, secondary, independent sources to justify this article's retention. The keep "argument" above makes no policy or guideline-based arguments and I have therefore ignored it. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 22:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
  • Merge. I would prefer to Keep, but perhaps a careful merge will limit the unnecessary destruction of information. I am still baffled to understand how destroying information makes an encyclopedia better, or makes it possible for the article to improve, but wiser, more thoughtful people than I apparently disagree. Acad Ronin ( talk) 03:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. What Merge target are you proposing Acad Ronin?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Hi Liz, I would merge the article with the entry in the Argo ship index. Acad Ronin ( talk) 23:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
Acad Ronin, I was hoping for a link so I don't have to go searching for a page you are referring to. I look at a lot of AFDs every day. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 03:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
Apologies. Argo (ship) Acad Ronin ( talk) 03:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

History Proposed deletions

History categories

for occasional archiving

Proposals