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:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|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.

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science/archive

Purge page cache

watch

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

Social science[edit]

Luxury belief[edit]

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

Page does not meet notability as it is a concept essentially by a single author, and there is already a subheading on the Rob_K._Henderson_(author) page concerning this idea. Any content (if there is any) of additional value can be placed there and this article can be made into a redirection. A previous editor requested deletion, but that was reverted without discussion. There is little to no support for this article on the associated talk page. PaigePhault (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Psychology, and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this page might incorporate more perspectives cross referencing, ACTIVISM, SOCIAL INJUSTICE, PRIVILEGE, POSTURING Comcredo (talk) 07:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The terminology is (correctly) attributed to Rob Henderson. However, the concept is much older, and may be used in many other contexts than family structure.

More important, it is used all the time, and it is quite important, to understand the conflict between materialistic and moral ideologies characterising modern debate. Gamle gnavne mænd (talk) 07:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The concept has been the subject of a New York Times arcticle (see https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/10/opinion/campus-protests-progressive-henderson.html). The concept can thus reasonably be said to be in wide circulation, and it is useful to have a page describing it. 2A00:23CC:B720:AC01:3588:782F:4F03:50B9 (talk) 09:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coined by a single author (as most terms are), but apparently adopted in academic writing. --bender235 (talk) 22:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The term was coined in 2019 according to Henderson in the NYT opinion piece he just published. Keeping in mind [[WP::SET]] there are only 50 hits for that term, and if you search without Henderson the number drops in half. A cursory scan of those remaining mentions does not provide much evidence of independent support for this term. Maybe a 'keep' supporter has the patience to dig through this to find one? PaigePhault (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The mention that this is a "concept by a single author" is puzzling, as many articles would have to be deleted under that criterion. Perhaps the nominator meant to suggest that this concept has not been discussed by other authors, but this is clearly not the case. The notion of a "luxury belief" (or at least the term itself) is recent, but has already received widespread coverage. Henderson himself has discussed it in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Telegraph, the Times, etc. Restricting ourselves to articles independent of the subject (i.e. not written by Henderson), on a quick search I found the following articles where the term "luxury belief" is the primary focus:

Astaire (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of those not written by Henderson, it look like 100% of them are about Henderson or his book. This supports the argument that the citations and supporting material all belong on Henderson biography page with a redirect. Making that page better and more encyclopedic and it's better than having a poorly sourced article. PaigePhault (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki articles about a notable concept coined by a particular person deserve room to breathe beyond the person's own page. The articles I listed above are not "100% about Henderson or his book" as you claim. They certainly mention the book as a way of introducing a novel terminology to the reader, but they go beyond parroting Henderson's own discussion of the concept and make the term their own. This article argues that right-wingers also have their own luxury beliefs, in contrast to Henderson who mainly focused on the left wing. This article disputes Henderson's characterization of marriage as a luxury belief. This article analyzes luxury beliefs in public school education, which Henderson did not discuss. There is clearly enough substance here for an independent page. Astaire (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. There does appear to be scholarly uptake of this concept sufficient to justify having an article. BD2412 T 00:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Someone somewhere has to come up with any particular term and put it in writing, why would this be a strike against inclusion? There is substantial coverage and usage of luxury beliefs, in manners independent of and divergent from Henderson's own applications, throughout RS. It's certainly not just Henderson himself that is working with and applying the term. KiharaNoukan (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bottom line is that it passes the WP:SIGCOV bar. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient sources. The fact that the sources attribute the term's origin to Henderson is evidence that it is a notable concept, rather than a few scattered attestations with different meanings. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social science Proposed deletions[edit]

Language[edit]

CEFR companion volume[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG and is poorly written. Notaoffensivename (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Notaoffensivename (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
merge into CEFR what is referenced (80% is unreferenced or irrelevant). 04:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

List of Generation Z slang[edit]

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

This seems like the most direct violation of WP:DICTIONARY possible; an indiscriminate collection of words used by (predominantly American) teenagers, with little prose and often sourced exclusively to barebones Dictionary.com entries.

There are no lists of slang used by other generations on WP, and nearly all of the terms included here were/are used for a vanishingly short period of time before disappearing into obscurity. Such is the nature of language, particularly among young people, but that doesn't mean we need to be documenting every weeks-long language trend among a relatively small demographic group. AviationFreak💬 15:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. AviationFreak💬 15:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Bougie, brainrot and AF are terms I've heard used and use, I'm nowhere near GenZ. This suggests notability... Seem well-sourced, not a slam dunk, but it's ok. Oaktree b (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of words that I've heard, including many outside of the "Standard English" dictionary, that don't have an entry anywhere on Wikipedia (nor do I think they should). Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should not be in the business of cataloging words outside of legitimate glossaries that aid in a reader understanding articles on a particular topic. AviationFreak💬 17:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Zoomer slang has received particular coverage from prominent/WP:RS sources - Insider ([1] [2]), LA Times ([3] [4], WaPo ([5] [6]), NYP ([7]), Politico ([8]), USA Today ([9]), Newsweek ([10]) - with the related topic of Gen Alpha slang receiving coverage from the NYT ([11]). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightoftheswords281 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Granted, the article has WP:OR issues, but this topic (Gen Z slangs) has received a lot of coverage from reliable sources. (The article's also receiving ~5860 page views daily [12]). Some1 (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to having an article just on "Generation Z Slang", but this list format is not what that article should look like. A well-sourced prose article (using some of the quality sources in the current article) would be fine, but the article at present is exactly the kind of thing that WP:NOTDICTIONARY is aimed against. Reliable sources absolutely do cover this topic, and the topic as a whole is notable, but a poorly-sourced exhaustive list with little actual explanatory prose should not be the way we cover the topic. AviationFreak💬 02:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So be bold and fix it, including moving the article to Generation Z slang if necessary. But requesting the deletion of the entire article because you disagree with the format and structure, even though you agree that Reliable sources absolutely do cover this topic, and the topic as a whole is notable, is not the way to go. Some1 (talk) 03:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think editing a page at that scale (i.e., an entire rewrite and page move) is beyond what WP:BOLD is getting at. I do not believe a "List of Generation Z Slang" as an article has a place on Wikipedia, so I've requested its deletion. A prose article on the overall topic of Generation Z slang seems reasonable, but I believe that's an entirely separate article. Surely a better alternative to a BOLD edit of that scale would be a discussion like the one we're having now, given the possibility of the WP:BRD cycle undoing a time-consuming page rewrite. AviationFreak💬 03:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to note that List of ethnic slurs has a list format similar to List of Generation Z slang. Some1 (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note also the clearly-defined inclusion criteria on the talk page, quality sourcing, and lack of OR. Additionally, that article has long been a part of Wikipedia, and when it went through a number of deletion discussions, the main focus was on the offensiveness of the content, not its format or status in functioning as a dictionary. Other stuff exists. AviationFreak💬 00:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others and maybe Move to List of 21st century youth slang or something similar. - Sebbog13 (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ta Re Moriori (app)[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:N. Ref 1 and 2 are dead (WP:404) and it appears to be taken off the Play Store. Ref 3 reads like an ad ver tize muhnt. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Education, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Scoop (website) publishes press releases and has pretty much no standards. They're absolutely useless for notability and should only be used where primary sources are appropriate. The name doesn't help but there does appear to be no independent coverage. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Moriori language; the app on its own seems unlikely to become noteworthy. —Tamfang (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor coverage about its release but no coverage about its usage or impact. Does not meet WP:N. Adabow (talk) 05:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andh Bhakt[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recent AFD resulted in deletion. Article was then re-created, but still isn't notable. PepperBeast (talk) 02:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Politics, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Was deleted literally last month. Still doesn't show any notability for inclusion. Would be better suited for a Wiktionary entry. Procyon117 (talk) 09:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haliey Welch[edit]

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

Latest viral meme, very WP:BIO1E. WP:TOOSOON to tell if this is lasting. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Language, Entertainment, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there are several internet celebrities and personalities with their own articles. Ben76266 (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft: I guess, this is likely TOOSOON, but it's got decent enough sourcing. Time will tell if it's notable or not. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am amenable to this WP:ATD. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you copy my draft? I created this page first User:UtherSRG Comintell (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry confused you with User:BullDawg2021 Comintell (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I created the draft first Comintell (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I had no idea that you also created a draft. BullDawg2021 (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify per nom - WP:BIO1E, but possible WP:TOOSOON. KylieTastic (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I created this article first and it's already in drafts and was submitted to AfC. Edit history proves I created the draft first. It's current in draft space. user basically copied my draft Comintell (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Comintell did create first at the article is now a copy-paste of that draft Draftify no longer makes any sense. Also I agree if kept it should be as "Hawk Tuah" not Hailey/Haliey Welch, and as BullDawg2021 has accepted Comintell as the creator it would be best to delete this as move Draft:Hailey Welch to Hawk Tuah to keep creator attribution. KylieTastic (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Her name is Hailey Welch, and I created this page fitst and submitted through AfC. Draft:Hailey Welch

The user paraphrased much of my draft, and changed the name because my draft already existed. THIS is incredibly disingenuous.

To clarify. If you read my draft, I think you will see that Welch DOES qualify for notability, specifically because of sustained significant coverage over the last month, and her pivioting into a career and getting mentored by Shaq. I can't believe this UtherSRG basically copied my draft and moved it to mainspace with a spelling error in the name Comintell (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Super suspicious that this article says "Often misspelled as Hailey Welch" When All reliable sources cite her name to be Hailey Welch Comintell (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to her social medias. Her name is Haliey Welch. BullDawg2021 (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rdirect or merge: to Draft:Hailey_Welch: I created this page first. Technically this qualifies as speedy delete under WP:A10 Comintell (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As can be seen by the edit history on this article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haliey_Welch&action=history the page was created 13 minutes after I created the inital draft:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Hailey_Welch&action=history Comintell (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. I had no idea you created a draft. Also, you spelt her name wrong. BullDawg2021 (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your source for this? My article was much more detailed. You literally copied the same flow of facts as I did. What source spells her name this way. Every single reliable source says her name is Hailey. Sure I will assume good faith, but you shouldn't have been permitted to create this article Comintell (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please calm down. Her name is Haliey Welch. You are blowing this way out of proportion. I did not copy you. BullDawg2021 (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To the both of you: there are established procedures in place to preserve the page histories and authorial credits. If this article is kept and you continue the article improvement process, both of you should receive the appropriate credits for things like DYK, etc. I suggest you put aside your differences and work together, not against each other. Viriditas (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Comintell and BullDawg2021: Both of you need to stop edit-warring on this article. jp×g 🗯️ 06:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Absurd as it may seem, the phenomenon has started to gather coverage in reliable sources and move from mere Tiktok gag into a Let's Go Brandon-style cultural moment. Here's eg Slate, 7News, Rolling Stone. That said, this likely belongs under Hawk Tuah, not under Ms Welch's name. Jpatokal (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keep per Jpatokal, or redirect to either Zach Bryan or Shaquille O'Neal. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comment in the discussion Comintell (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - @Comintell:, come again? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even if the meme is receiving media coverage, one single TikTok meme is hardly enough to provide notability for a person. WP:1E comes to mind as this person really has no other claims to notability. Di (they-them) (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify: There is not only the fact that the nominator is correct, there are two "competing" drafts, both containing overlapping information. Since it is WP:TOOSOON both draft creators should work together in Draft space to create one draft which may become appropriate to accept when the subject meets WP:BIO which I am not persuaded thsat it does currently 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be opposed to that. BullDawg2021 (talk) 06:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, @BullDawg2021 I'm sorry that I got so protective and frustrated. Even assuming good faith, this was a frustrating experience for me and I'm sorry if I came off as aggressive or un collaborative. Comintell (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the purely clerical issue here: there seem to be two pages here, Draft:Hailey Welch (created 2024-07-02T20:47:03) and Haliey Welch (created 2024-07-02T21:54:54‎). The overlap between both articles is fairly significant. I don't know to what extent one was copied from the other, but it seems like this may be worthy of later consideration in some other venue (assuming this is kept, otherwise there is no point). jp×g 🗯️ 06:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notable for making a joke on a street interview? This is the epitome of people notable for only one event. It's possible the event (the joke itself (Hawk Tuah)) is notable, though even that is too soon to tell imo. ato—mic 06:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder: There are two issues at play here, whether the "Hawk Tuah" event meets WP:GNG (based on the amount of reliable sources garnered, probably yes) and whether Ms. Welch herself is notable (probably no, it's hard to dispute that this is WP:BIO1E). If you're suggesting that this article be deleted entirely, please clarify your stance on both these points. Jpatokal (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E Celjski Grad (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Creating an article for the notable controversy or Hawk Tuah event will solve this problem. Clearly, this is a problem of WP:TOOSOON for the subject, as well as WP:BIO1E. In such a situation, there is only one way out–having an article about the popular word, "Hawk Tuah", and the influencer (not yet meeting WP:ENT) will redirect to the article. We don't need to argue on an article and a existing draft; it isn't necessary here. Who can/will create the event's article, and save us this stress? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. The person herself obviously falls under WP:TOOSOON (WP:1E), but an article about the phenomenon/trend is much more suitable. There's definitely enough coverage in WP:RS for this. I think a lot of people voting delete here are simply saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Many TikTok trends (no exception here) do receive lots of reliable media coverage and do meet WP:NEVENT/GNG. I hope editors start to realize this — it's not 2010 anymore. C F A 💬 01:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2010? Hilarious. "Every generation thinks they invented sex". I created the article on Pinky the Cat a viral video from 1992. Viriditas (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Comintell, why not create the event with this energy of dragging having your draft and a post mainspace move by another editor? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is notable. Publish the story, under EITHER title to eventually be personalized if she becomes more famous. Thank you, either way likely a Hawk Tuah page is indeed coming to Wikipedia, especially if this story expands further. Thanks again, can't wait to see the page that IS coming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.137.161 (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is well-cited, subject is notable. I get that memes are not the most encyclopedic topic, but this one definitely meets the criteria at WP:SIGCOV. 162 etc. (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing notable about this subject. I watched the original video, the interview, and read the sources. There is literally nothing there. Her entire claim to fame consists of expressing her enthusiasm for fellatio. That's it, nothing else. I watched her entire interview that was published the other day, hoping for something, anything, that I could glom onto and say, that's something we should have an article about. There's nothing. She likes to use saliva as lubrication during oral sex. That's the entirety of her notability. Now, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, and she seems like a very sweet young lady, but how do we write a biography about this? We can't. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria for deciding notability is WP:GNG, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jpatokal (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say I didn't like it. I said there's nothing encyclopedic about the subject. The entire article is a promotional advertising campaign for Welch by her management team who are trying to capitalize on a five second joke she told on social media. This has the longevity of a mayfly. She isn't notable for doing anything. Yes, the video went viral, but Welch was only one of a dozen random subjects interviewed by Tim & Dee TV, which itself isn't even notable. There's nothing here. Nobody will know who she is next week. Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The articles written about her by The Guardian, Vanity Fair, People, Forbes, etc. etc., will certainly still be there next week. A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. 162 etc. (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Warhol was right: "In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes." Welch even alludes to that in the Guardian article. There's nothing here to write about. "Haliey Welch is a young woman who was randomly interviewed in the middle of the street and made a joke about fellatio. A video of her went viral, and she was soon approached by an agent who sought to capitalize upon her sexual-themed joke by making clothing with her name on it." That's what we're doing now? Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of this coverage calls her 'Hawk Tuah Girl'. Unless she starts a show, becomes a musician, etc, and receives coverage unrelated to Hawk Tuah, this is WP:1E ato—mic 23:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas's prediction "Nobody will know who she is next week" (above) is commendably free of hedging, obscurantism, waffle. Let this AfD run on until next week, and then reconsider. The article will then live or die; either way, this AfD (with its miscellaneous expressions of indignation) will survive "for ever". -- Hoary (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want a "like" button, @Hoary!!! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The early filmmakers of the 20th century and the former journalists of MTV News would like a word. The topic of media preservation is one of the most depressing ever. Nothing lasts, everything fades away. Consider, if you will, the Silurian hypothesis. In the far future, nobody will ever know you or I existed. People like to think they are making their lasting mark on the world, but it's a bedtime story we tell ourselves to keep the terror of the dark at bay. Viriditas (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We've kind of got two subjects there: 1) Haliey Welch and 2) the Hawk Tuah meme. There's already a lot of good coverage and it's highly likely coverage of one or both will be lasting. There's something notable here. Similar memes and figures that come to mind are The Crazy Nastyass Honey Badger and Jenn Sterger. Tiffany Gomes, aka the "Crazy Plane Lady", is still getting coverage a year after her initial internet meme moment. Surprised there isn't an article about her. Probably should be. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jenn Sterger's article is a biographical page discussing her successful careers in television, modeling, and writing. Where is the comparison? Vanilla Wizard 💙 03:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article.

"Sterger and Catherine Perry (who later gained fame in WWE under the ringname Lana) were among a group of friends called the FSU Cowgirls, known for wearing skimpy clothing and cowboy hats to football games. She first came to attention when she was shown during a 2005 Florida State–Miami football game televised on ABC Sports. On seeing the shot, announcer Brent Musburger commented on-air that "1,500 red-blooded Americans just decided to apply to Florida State.""

She gained fame in a similar manner to Haliey Welch. RTredwell (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Point being? Jenn Sterger actually went on to become a notable person in her own right. If she and her friend were only known as "the FSU cowgirls", a subject that has no article on the encyclopedia, neither she nor her friend would have articles either. Sterger has an article because she gained further notability as a journalist, television personality, and model, enough to justify a BLP page. This article is just the short story of how someone's impromptu joke became a viral moment and she quickly cashed in and got to hang out with a few celebrities as a result. Vanilla Wizard 💙 15:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You asked what the comparison is, I explained it to you. RTredwell (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RTredwell, yeah, thanks for your explanation. That was my thinking. Obviously Sterger has had something of sustained notable career, and it's too early to tell if Welch will. But it's worth noting that the article for Sterger was created on February 11, 2006, before she had had much of that career, and after she was known almost entirely for being a memetic hot chick who happened to get on national TV at a football game. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too soon; for now, likely fleeting WP:BLP1E. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and move to the incident rather then the person to comply with WP:BIO1E -1ctinus📝🗨 21:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and adding that if this page is kept in any form, it should be exclusively about the meme, not the person. The person is not a suitable subject for a biographical article. This is a textbook example of WP:BLP1E. The meme itself is highly unlikely to have any enduring notability. Vanilla Wizard 💙 02:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also feel like it's worth noting this may be a rare example of a situation where WP:NOTNEWS (WP:ENDURING) is actually potentially applicable in a deletion discussion. A significant percent of what's here is just a description of the subject's fifteen minutes of fame, just listing out every time the subject has appeared near another celebrity in the last few weeks. There's not exactly a lot of encyclopedic material to salvage here. Should also mention that not all of the sources in the article are quality sources. There's a handful of reliable ones, but TMZ, Times of India, Dexerto, and Distractify are not. I'm not convinced a page about the meme itself is justified. Vanilla Wizard 💙 04:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think the meme is unlikely to have any enduring notability? What makes you think you can predict what will be popular in the future? It's impossible to predict the future. RTredwell (talk) 04:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's WP:TOOSOON to properly assess if it meets the criteria on enduring notability, too soon for this to be a mainspace article. Vanilla Wizard 💙 04:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I agree with LilianaUwU's comments below that draftifying can be an acceptable outcome, too. I don't think this page is ready to be in mainspace. But it is not impossible that the meme/catchphrase could be article-worthy at some point in the future, and there's no harm in incubating it in draftspace as a work-in-progress. The page will need a lot of reworking, anyways; there seems to be little disagreement that the page should just be about the "hawk tuah" phrase — this cannot exist as a BLP page about Haliey Welch. Consider this a delete as first preference, draftify as second preference !vote. Vanilla Wizard 💙 00:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. or merge into an article about the meme itself if it does not meet notability guidelines for a biography. The meme has gained massive coverage and notability, and this article cites numerous reliable secondary sources. Thousands of people are looking up Hawk Tuah Girl daily looking for a Wikipedia article on the subject, they should be provided with one. RTredwell (talk) 03:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Definitely the case of WP:BLP1E and may be WP:TOOSOON at best. So I'd suggest to delete this and see this notability is sustained, but definitely delete for now. Coderzombie (talk) 06:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Whether we like it or not, she is notable per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Extensive and continued media coverage as well.BabbaQ (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or draftify, see below) per common sense, and the ten-year test. No one will remember this in 10 years. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With that said... I'd be down with the idea of having an article on the meme rather than the woman behind it, considering BLP1E and all that. The meme has gotten loads of coverage and will be remembered. So... perhaps draftify, maybe? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We are not here to judge worthiness; we are here to judge whether a topic has been the object of multiple, independently-published, instances of significant coverage in sources which are presumably reliable. This fits the bill. GNG pass from sources showing in the footnotes. Carrite (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extensive media coverage. Too soon to delete; nominator's argument that this will not have lasting notability is WP:CRYSTALBALL. —Lowellian (reply) 00:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Hawk-Tuah I think it's pretty clear that WP:BLP1E applies to Hailey Welch's article since well they are famous for one thing and one thing only as of the present day, most of the coverage is in the context of the meme not the person itself and I think we should have a article about the meme rather than the person themselves. Sohom (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anyone considering whether to keep or delete this page, should look at the original draft, Draft:Hailey Welch which has been expanded is formatted properly.

Comintell (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. The problem isn't with the formatting, it's with the article being about the person rather than the event. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As my draft was updated to note, she is in talks to get a reality TV show about her life, and further, the Hawk Tuah phrase origins are disputed, with many sources citing that Welch is garnering interest as an individual and public figure. I was just saying. Comintell (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe recreate this if the news is somehow still obsessed with her in a few months. I'm pretty sure there's just going to be a deluge of articles for the next few days and then none at all. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 01:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This girl is essentially Bhad Bhabie/"Cash Me Outside Girl" (who unfortunately also recently made tragic news) for Zoomers instead of Millennials. She is more notable than some other articles.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 02:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E. Zinderboff(talk) 06:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hailey has a fair amount of coverage in reliable sources (see USA Today, Rolling Stone & The Guardian) and has already collaborated with Shaq and Zach Bryan. She gained online virality in a similar fashion to Gorilla Glue Girl, Bhad Bhabie, and Jenn Sterger - with Sterger also discovered from a passing comment made in a vox pop. While WP:CRYSTALBALL is always a fair argument to suggest she won't forever be notable, it can also be used on the contrary, as this may just not die down any time soon. If there is still not enough supporting evidence for Welch to have her own article, then the video should be the subject instead, e.g. "Looking for a Man in Finance" and Chewbacca Mask Lady. But not delete. --Mechanical Elephant (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are plenty of reliable sources and flash-in-the-pan memes get articles due to proper sourcing all the time, such as rizz or gyatt XanderK09 (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@XanderK09: The problem here is that the article is about the person, not the meme. Since the person is only notable for the meme, she falls under WP:1E. C F A 💬 03:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Worst case scenario, move the article to Hawk Tuah and redirect Haliey Welch to it. But I think it's pretty clear that we're at the point where Welch herself is notable. See Tay Zonday / Chocolate Rain. 162 etc. (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel like this might be of some importance as we have articles on stuff like "your mom jokes" and stuff Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that WP:BLP1E lists three criteria, all of which are required for deletion. Please address the actual criteria rather than merely WP:VAGUEWAVE "per BLP1E".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a clear BLP1E situation. The coverage of the individual is because of the video, the person absolutely is still a low-profile individual (assuming she's going to successfully parlay this into wider fame is impossible to say at this point), and point three doesn't particularly apply to this (if it's about the meme, she would be a footnote in the article.) "Subsequent" developments like her finding representation or starting her own company are still in relation to being the "Hawk Tuah Girl". The best you could argue is the meme should have its own page, but this bio ain't it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think at this point there's clearly enough references and global news articles defining her as a notable person, and just based on the interviews she's done over the past week or so, she's clearly got plans to stay in the public eye. I would suggest a cleanup however. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify the page until enough time has passed to assess whether sustained notability exists beyond the initial viral meme phase. The focus should be on documenting the Hawk Tuah meme rather than emphasizing Hailey Welch, unless she achieves broader recognition and is demonstrated to be notable through continued media coverage. Ynsfial (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep // Gargaj (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, the person is likely to remain a low-profile individual, and the event (a TikTok interview that went viral) is not significant. Zacwill (talk) 02:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Echoing what other users have pointed out, the subject of the article is known only for one thing. Unless the subject gains notability in the future for something else, this article should be deleted as opposed to draftified, as there already exists an article for this subject in draftspace. (Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 06:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not only was she known for her catchphrase, but she also received over a million followers on TikTok insanely quickly. Especially with her capitalizing on the meme. As the other "Keep" votes noted, she is like Bhad Bhabie in which she became known for her catchphrase. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 14:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Follower counts aren't relevant in notability discussions, and Bhad Babie's bio article is primarily about her musical career. Maybe we can revisit this discussion if Welch becomes a successful musician or something. But it seems like Hawk Tuah's time in the media spotlight has already come to an end (at least for now, who knows if she'll be relevant again in the future). That the deletion discussion lasted longer than her fifteen minutes of fame should give us some pause. Vanilla Wizard 💙 18:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For WP:TOOSOON, some articles about disasters or events that are recent I haven't seen a notice about this.

For WP:SINGLEEVENT, (this may not count) articles about the Super Bowl, the event only happens on those days pacifically. And the players involved in the football game may not return to the Super Bowl.

Turning it into a draft probably would be a good idea if the article doesn't apply to the rules. Tonkarooson (discuss). 22:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded articles[edit]

History[edit]

Paulette Flint[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO. Many of the citations are primary as her employer is The Observer (Gladstone). Not seeing indepth third party coverage to meet WP:BIO. Also an orphan article. LibStar (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: although being an orphan isn't a reason for deletion, there's not enough WP:RS to meet WP:GNG, and none of the WP:AUTHOR criteria apply. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 09:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Iași (1653)[edit]

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

A single publication ~~by an unkoen expert by nonnotable publisher~~ is insufficient for notability of an event, whose description per se is barely two phrases: "they attacked, they retreated" - Altenmann >talk 22:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Moldova, and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tomasz Ciesielski is a professional historian and the claim that he is not an expert as you claim is total nonsense and stupidity of the submitter of this article I am in favour of keeping the article AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide an evidence that he is a recognized expert. - Altenmann >talk 18:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you have on the Polish nicely written who he was after all he is even the director of the History of the University of Opole [1], he has various scientific works, and his sources are used by the English wikipedia, the Polish wikipedia and the Ukrainian one, please do not write nonsense next time just check it out. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, sorry. Somehow I missed him in Google among numerous other Tomashes Ciesielskis. - Altenmann >talk 18:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

so why do you not retreat the Deletion request? Axisstroke (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam.

🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 07:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1958 East Pakistan-India border clash[edit]

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

Still fails WP:N. It is yet another skirmish with no lasting impact. This new creation is itself 80% copy of the earlier article which was deleted after the last AfD. There is no change in the sourcing. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What should be done to the article to prevent deletion? And, there was another article similar to this, that was deleted? Clarify. User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (User talk:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet) (Talk of Georgethedragonslayer) 6:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BangladeshiEditorInSylhet: By "earlier article" I believe Georgethedragonslayer is referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1958 East Pakistan–India border skirmish, which was deleted in March 2023. --Worldbruce (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce: Alright, I read the discussion, I get it, I will try to do something.
Delete Non-notable skirmish. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject lacks sufficient notability and detailed coverage in reliable sources outside of local military records and local commemorations.Nxcrypto Message 09:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No change since the last AfD. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 07:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keturi Brūkšniai[edit]

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

Does not pass GNG, sources inadequate for a main space page. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, History, Politics, and Lithuania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only sources I can find referencing this book are things like book catalogues, so this does not pass GNG. Gödel2200 (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dacian fortress of Ponor[edit]

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

Ridiculously short article that fails WP:GNG and WP:NPLACE. No hits of reliable sources on google books or search. No article in Romanian is a bad sign. Template:Dacian cities lists dozens of these ultra stubs, but I won't do anything with them until we see just one. -1ctinus📝🗨 16:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ro:Cetățile Ponorului is the Romanian-language article (or, at least, the only plausibly-notable topic of a similar name). Walsh90210 (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That may be a step towards salvaging the article, but the Romanian article also cites no sources, andseems to be about a cave rather than a fortress :( -1ctinus📝🗨 17:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the "cave"/"ruined fortress" difference is somewhat concerning; but for a micro-stub like this it is easily dismissed as confusion by the enwiki article creator. As far as rowiki sourcing, there are some websites in the article (like [13]); it might not be enough to demonstrate notability but is enough to verify that something exists. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For all it's worth, that's not a cave, but rather, a ponor. Whence the name. Turgidson (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Archaeology, Geography, and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete without prejudice against recreation of a sourced version. It' shouldn't be AfD's job to research and write these articles; it should be the author's job. We are not losing anything by deleting these completely unverifiable articles, and we waste too much time on these. Mangoe (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Walsh90210 (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Huta Brzuska[edit]

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

The whole article is based on WP:PRIMARY document prepared by OUN (pdf, p. 340-341). I wasn't able to find any reliable informations about this battle or its importance, probably some minor clash, when to groups just fired at eachother. Of course OUN in his internal documents reported huge losses of the enemy, but as I said it's not reliable. Marcelus (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Poland, and Ukraine. Marcelus (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete immediately, this article cannot be allowed to remain, it is based on some UPA chronicle what is it anyway? Such a source will not be acceptable due to such as lying UPA documents often on which the book is based. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 07:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Interesting topic but needs independent sources to establish notability and verify facts. Right now this seems sourced to old wartime reports and documents (WP:PRIMARY? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I fail to see any sources in any of the three languages of the title. Meaning that the notability is highly questionable. - Altenmann >talk 18:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of armed conflicts between Bosnia and Serbia[edit]

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

This is on the face of it a violation of our policy on improper synthesis, these were wars fought between vastly different entities across different time periods, political systems, etc. Not every battle of e.g. the Ottoman Empire that had been located in or near Bosnia constitutes a "battle of Bosnia + adversary", because the term "Bosnia" (or indeed adversary, Serbia) is used as if it was a coherent entity at the time, which it typically wasn't, as it was usually an occupation or a vasselage situation of some kind. I don't know if it can be rewritten to be actually fine, and I frankly do not trust the quote-less referencing from the newbie user that I already had to warn about sourcing at User talk:Vedib#Introduction to contentious topics. It was passed through AfC but it shouldn't survive AfD as is. Joy (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia. Joy (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that the claims the list captions make are sometimes downright bizarre. Like Ottoman-Bosnian victory and Bosniak population in Podrinje massacred under First Serbian Uprising - this is both casually dismissing elementary facts of the situation, that these conflicts were between the Ottoman Empire and its subjects at the time, definitely not just Bosnia and Serbia as such; and it's making a point of listing massacres in some sort of a grief porn kind of way. It's really below the standard of an encyclopedia. --Joy (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article in its current form is extremely problematic; Siege of Belgrade (1521) is not a "conflict between Bosnia and Serbia". The nom's concerns would still apply even if only entries like War of Hum were included. It should not have been accepted at AFC, but I see no need to draftify it now. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . uf, there are all sorts of apples and oranges in this hodgepodge! (Shouldn't, say, Serbs of Bosnia rebelling against Ottomans be Bosnians fighting Ottomans, etc.?)--౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep. If the author of the article can write and source the article with the changes I list below (I welcome critiques and suggestions from the opposers @Joy, @Santasa99):

Bosnian War. The only point during the war during which an entity formally referred to in English as "Serbia" (shortened form) was in a state of war with an entity formally referred to as "Bosnia" (shortened form) was in April–May 1992 when the Socialist Republic of Serbia, as a constituent of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia or "Yugoslavia" (shortened form) was at war with the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Republika Srpska and Serbian Krajina were sometimes colloquially grouped together with Yugoslavia as "Serbia", but such nomenclature is not standard practice in this encyclopedia. If the author wishes to keep this entry, they are advised to replace "1992–1995" with "1992".
World War II in Bosnia & Herzegovina. Territorial control initially shifted from the Kingdom of Yugoslavia to the German Reich and Kingdom of Italy, partly transferred to the Independent State of Croatia (shortened form "Croatia"). at no point was the formal English name for either the Yugoslav government-in-exile or the Yugoslav Army in the Homeland "Serbia", although their political administration eventually included an entity referred to as "Serbia", parallel to to the Banovina of Croatia (shortened form "Croatia"). Beginning with 25 Novemeber 1943, the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (shortened form "Bosnia") was in a state of war with an entity that by that time included an entity "Serbia", so the inclusion of the entry is acceptable. If the author wishes to keep this entry, they are advised to replace "1941–1945" with "1943–1945". A more complex note will be required, complete with references, to explain its inclusion to the reader. Complicated by the fact that the Socialist Federation of Yugoslavia also included a "Serbia", meaning "Serbia" was both an enemy and an ally of "Bosnia".
Second Serbian Uprising. The Bosnia Eyalet (shortened form "Bosnia") was in a state of war with an entity that already considered itself the Principality of Serbia and was referred to in English as "Serbia" (shortened form), so there can be no objection to its inclusion provided you can source this. However, I would advise striking the sometimes problematic contents of the entire Location column as redundant and (in the case of more expansive wars) too expansive. The same applies to the inlcusion of the First Serbian Uprising, but strike Much of the Bosniak population in Podrinje massacred.
Hadži-Prodan's rebellion. Its inclusion is problematic. Yes, it was a "Serbian" uprising, but so was the uprising of 1882 for the most part. Both uprisings featured armies loyal to "Serbia" by that name (in translation), but demonstrating that practically requires the use of primary sources, so they are more appropriate for a "List of armed conflicts between ... and Serbs" type article (see List of Serbian–Ottoman conflicts) than a "List of armed conflicts between ... and Serbia".

Austro-Turkish War (1788–1791). It was this conflict that saw the resurgence of "Serbia" as a territorial entity in the first conflict since the death of Jovan Nenad, but it is missing from the list.
"Uprising in Herzegovina". Involved an army that mostly desired Austrian rule with a more religious than territorial conception of "Serbia", despite the term's use in a broader sense with undefined borders and administrative structure, making it ineligible for this list.
Strike the "Uprising in Drobnjaci", the Siege of Belgrade and the Hungarian-Serbian War from the list.
Entries from War of Hum through "Fifth Battle of Srebrenica" needs heavy revision, including additions, merges and clarifications. During this period, both states formally referred to as "Bosnia" and as "Serbia" existed, and conflicts involving both entities in a state of war ought to be included, but only with the appropriate caveats. Part of the issue involves states having rival claims to the title "Serbia"; see List of wars involving Russia for a possible solution.

Ivan (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with all of this is WP:NOR - if no historian would extend the description of e.g. Second Serbian Uprising as an "armed conflict between Bosnia and Serbia", then we can't do that either. By the fact that the term Bosnia isn't even mentioned in that article, it's safe to assume that we're looking at a hard fail here. --Joy (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vedib if you want a source for the inclusion of the First Serbian Uprising:

Teinović, Bratislav M. (2020). "Преглед политичког живота у босанском ејалету (1804–1878)" [A review of the political life in the Bosnian eyalet (1804–1878)]. Kultura polisa. 17 (42): 137–154. eISSN 2812-9466. Без сумње, у Босни је почетак рата са Србијом и Црном Гором значио прекретницу у даљим унутрашњим политичким односима. [Without a doubt, in Bosnia the beginning of the war with Serbia and Montenegro marked a turning point in future internal political relations.]

Ivan (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not a source for a historian, because that seems to be a political science journal and the first Google hit for Bratislav Teinović is Institut za političke studije. We would absolutely not be serving the average English reader well if we try to serve them this in lieu of actual secondary sources relevant to the topic. --Joy (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The journal describes itself as "a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary journal, which publishes original scientific manuscripts on topics from the humanities and social sciences field".^[1] The reviewers that year included historians Darko Gavrilović, Davor Pauković, Nebojša Kuzmanović, Vassilis Petsinis and Wolfgang Rohrbach.^[2] The website you cited for Teinović is not his primary affiliation, which is the Muzej Republike Srpske (according to that page and elsewhere). An understandable mistake. He received degrees in history from B.A. in 2001 through Ph.D. in 2019 at the University of Banja Luka.^[3] But this is just one of a number of sources stating as much. Ivan (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC) Ivan (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw he's also associated with a museum - but that's not reassuring at all, because some of the worst scholarly citations I've seen have been in works associated with museums as opposed to other kinds of research institutions. The issue here should still be fairly obvious - this person has 75 mentions on Google Scholar, where someone like Sima Ćirković has 1560. I've linked the policy on original research twice already, here's now a link to WP:RS for more information on identifying reliable sources. --Joy (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a counterclaim from Ćirković, please do provide it, and I will introduce that into the article in parallel. Even then, one would have to cite more than one source to show something is against consensus. Citation counts are a poor metric for determining what is and is not a "RS", especially in a field of study as small as the wartime politics of the Bosnia Eyalet in the early 19th century. Some of the worst scholarly citations I've seen have been in works associated with museums as opposed to other kinds of research institutions. I laugh in agreement, but while Teinović himself is associated with a museum, the work in question was published in a journal published by a university. And some of the best scholarly works I've read have been associated with museums. Especially true for archaeological museums. I wouldn't cite Teinović for 1992 because he was effectively WP:INVOLVED even though his military service did not begin until 1994. But he is one of the few to have defended a doctoral dissertation to encompass the war of 1804–1813.

The worst that could be levied against Teinović is not providing reasoning for what to call the Bosnia Eyalet ("Bosnia") and the new Serbian state ("Serbia"), but the only work I know of offhand that discusses extensively the English terminology for the Serbian state during the First Serbian Uprising is only available in a few libraries currently unavailable to me, so I couldn't quote from it. Although there are many scholarly sources calling Serbia by that name when discussing this time period, as is the case with Bosnia, there are only a few sources discussing the involvement of Bosnia (and especially Sinan Pasha) in the suppression of the uprising. Maybe 10-20 at most. I chose a recent one with a concise statement for quotation purposes, but there are plenty of others you could select to avoid WP:SYNTHESIS.

For an English example that discusses the formal name of Serbia during the revolution with "Karageorge Petrović, supreme commander in Serbia"^: 115 while also describing "Bosnia" and "Serbia" in conflict:^: 125

Baković, Dušan T. (2006). "A Balkan-Style French Revolution? The 1804 Serbian Uprising in European Perspective". Balcanica: Annual of the Institute for Balkan Studies. 36: 113–128. ISSN 2406-0801. The resounding victory of 12,000 Serbians over the powerful 20,000-strong army of Bosnian beys at the Battle of Mišar in 1806 raised hopes among Serbian peasants in Bosnia that Ottoman rule might be replaced by that of Karageorge's Serbia.

Ivan (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the new "First Serbian Uprising" entry for a rough idea of what my version would look like. Ivan (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, did you just oppose the underpinning of WP:V? :D The burden of proof that something is out there is on the parties trying to introduce this list article. Y'all have to convince everyone else that this would be the encyclopedia describing something from the real world. If all you have is scattered, vaguely relevant mentions of the topic from vaguely relevant sources, that's just not it. The Bataković 2006 citation likewise does not support the case for this list article - yes, there's a sentence that talks of Bosnian beys, but then it also talks of Ottoman rule and the next sentences talk of Ottoman troops and Muslim violence and Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Muslim forces and it goes on and on. If we cherry-picked any one of these appellations and chose to create a list article based on that, it would be absolute madness. --Joy (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan, I am pretty much totally mentally and physically incapacitated with the heat wave we are experiencing around the Adriatic for the last few days. I barely managing to open my laptop and concentrate, and your proposal requires giving some real thought. But, if you think that you can somehow fix it, and if Joy gets on board, I won't oppose. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, thank you. Ivan (talk) 11:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

References

^ Bjelajac, Željko (n.d.). "About the journal". Kultura polisa.
^ Bjelajac, Željko (2020). "List of reviewers for the year 2020". Kultura polisa.
^ Milošević, Borivoje; Branković, Boško; Vasin, Goran; Niković, Nenad (2019-06-20). "Извјештај о оцјени урађене докторске дисертације" (PDF). University of Banja Luka.

Defense of Kopanki[edit]

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

The whole article is based on WP:PRIMARY document prepared by OUN: https://avr.org.ua/viewDoc/2785/. Author of the article also omitted massacre of Polish inhabitants of Kopanki that happened the day before on April 10. I think it's quite important context.

In general, there are no reliable information about described events, I wasn't able to find anything in avaiable monographies. Marcelus (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Poland, and Ukraine. Marcelus (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete immediately, this article cannot be allowed to remain, it is based on some UPA chronicle what is it anyway? Such a source will not be acceptable due to such as lying UPA documents often on which the book is based. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 07:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Interesting topic but needs independent sources to establish notability and verify facts. Right now this seems sourced significantly to old wartime reports and documents (WP:PRIMARY? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original research based solely on primary sources. - Altenmann >talk 22:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, Per Piotrus. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 07:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Anarchist Congresses[edit]

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

In a previous iteration of this article, it consisted of a list of various different congresses held by different organisations with little tying them together but the broad "anarchist" label. That list was recently dynamited by Czar, leaving nothing but a contextless list of congresses of the International Workingmen's Association, which I don't think have ever been described as "anarchist congresses" in any sources (the IWMA consisted of various different socialist tendencies, not just anarchists). As this article would, at best, be a random list of various, disconnected congresses for different disconnected organisations; and as it is utterly worthless in its current state, I'm recommending the article be deleted. Grnrchst (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, Politics, and Lists. Grnrchst (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There might be a case for creating a list of anarchist congresses but we'd have to do some digging for sourcing. Or that might be a better job for a category. czar 13:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since there's useful stuff in the page history and the topic is broadly notable we should be avoiding deletion if possible. A list is better than a category in this case, I think, since the entries will need more context to be useful (as noted by nom, the current state of the article isn't useful because it lacks that context). We also have a lot of incoming links here. Even in this extremely reduced state, it does at least have some "see also" that are relevant to the topic at hand. I agree with czar that it's not great to have unsourced sections hanging around forever, but I think deleting the whole thing is an unnecessary amount of TNT. -- asilvering (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of incoming links, @czar, a bunch of the links aim at one of the sections you TNT'd. I think we might be able to source at least a skeleton of this to Skirda - but is there an easier way to search in the "what links here" results that I'm missing? I'd like to find the ones that redirect to a particular section without having to scroll through hundreds of results. -- asilvering (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Special:WhatLinksHere/International_Anarchist_Congresses showed the redirects and the sections they targeted. I cleaned up a bunch that should have been pointing to Anti-authoritarian International article sections. czar 18:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Gdeszyn[edit]

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

Poorly referenced, only one source says that such a "battle" existed and moreover the source is completely biased for the Ukrainian side. No polish sources or books talk about such a Battle of Gdeszyn . Fajowy (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Poland, and Ukraine. TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support this article is based on one sentence from Volodymyr Viatrovich's book which talks about this battle and nothing more and he is considered even for pseudo-historic AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the source is WP:PRIMARY and also it didn't say anything about a battle, but about such minor clash: On 14.4.44, in the village of Dedeshin, two Ukrainian self-defence riflemen were killed in an ambush by 7 Polish robbers.Marcelus (talk) 11:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
true, but the fight itself is taken from only one book and that is from a pseudo-historical one Historyk.ok (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Interesting topic but needs independent sources to establish notability and verify facts. Right now this seems sourced significantly to old wartime reports and documents (WP:PRIMARY? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. A single source, a primary too, is insufficient to establish the notability of the event.- Altenmann >talk 22:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1895 Pacific Tigers football team[edit]

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

After reviewing this article, I am not convinced that it meets the WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS. The only source is a database, and I'm not finding the sources needed to meet the notability guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and California. Let'srun (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that every other season on Pacific's football history has an article, I think some kind of merger would probably be best so that the information on this one is not lost. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you actually have a suggestion for a merge, perhaps to a combined season article? I'm all ears, but looking at 1898 and 1899, I'm not seeing much for those seasons either...Let'srun (talk) Let'srun (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention, there isn't much info here to save, considering the only source. Let'srun (talk) 02:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pacific Tigers football, 1895–99, perhaps? Or maybe extend it to include a few of their next seasons? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see coverage to meet NSEASONS even for that range, at least from a first glance at the sources in those articles and elsewhere. 1898 has only the database and a very short recap, while the 1899 one has only the database and a long section devoted to the rules of the game in the era with no references to the actual team. Reasonable minds may differ. Let'srun (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is the first game and the first season of the team's history. The year is a matter of record and the season covered to some extent in the sourcing. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

covered to some extent in the sourcing Where? All I'm seeing is one line in a database entry here. Cbl62 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (without prejudice). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS due to the lack of WP:SIGCOV. Pacific was a major program in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s but not so in the 1890s. Indeed, the program was practically non-existent prior to 1919 -- a grand total of five games played between 1895 and 1918 (zero wins, one tie, four losses, 11 total points scored). If someone some day wants to create an article on the early history of the Pacific football program, it might possibly be viable, but I certainly don't have the time or inclination to work on that when there are so many more worthwhile topics to pursue. Cbl62 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899. Jweiss11 (talk)

@Jweiss11: Two issues with your suggestion: 1) a closer cannot redirect to a redlink so that's not viable unless someone creates it; and (2) is there SIGCOV to support the proposed article? Cbl62 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably worth the editing time to create the proposed article, though, and merging the very small amount of information. The 1898 and 1899 articles aren't in great shape either, and it's possible the game(s) which were played were indeed covered in local papers of the time. SportingFlyer T·C 17:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is also not a directory. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge now that a target article has been created.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Personally, while I appreciate the work put in by jweiss11, I don't think that the combined article meets the WP:NSEASONS due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We could expand the scope of Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899 to include 1919 and perhaps some or all of the 1920s. I think Pacific may have played rugby at some pint between 1900 and 1918, a la 1906–1917 Stanford rugby teams. That could be covered in an expanded article as well. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: My inclination is to Merge but I'm a closer, not a participant, and I don't see a consensus to do that. Another closer might IAR this but I'm not ready to do that yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the merge target of Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899 had already been created (by me per precedent with suggestion from two other editors), what's the point of keeping this AfD open? I don't think there's any consensus to keep this as a stand-alone article. Randy Kryn, you were the only keep vote. Would agree now that the merge to Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899 is the best course of action? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Jweiss11, that works. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think all editors were in favor of this Merge. But I'm not the only closer in town, another one might decide to close this discussion presently. I just wanted to see more support which Randy's opinion helps. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, okay, I understand that it's not solely on you to close this. For the record, I'll note two similar recent AfDs with analogous content: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1884 DePauw football team and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1884 Wabash football team. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899, as it is unlikely to see enough sourcing for its own article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. There's no 'merging' to be done as all relevant content is already included at the target. Simply redirect it to Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beanie - I've previously taken the same position, but I think that may be wrong. I think (someone correct me if I'm wrong) merging preserves the edit history of both articles. If that is correct, the merge maintains the attribution history on the original work. Cbl62 (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Merge or redirect. Favoring merge if that preserves the attribution history. Otherwise redirect for the reasons outlined by BeanieFan. Cbl62 (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose an admin could perform a WP:HISTMERGE here if that's deemed necessary. But there's never been a whole a lot of substance in this article. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in the case of 1884 Wabash football team merging to Wabash football, 1884–1889, no history merge was performed. Same for 1884 DePauw football team merging to DePauw football, 1884–1889. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadakiyans[edit]

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

I was not able to verify the existence of this dynasty - the four references used in the article are also difficult to verify. Semsûrî (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Semsûrî (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 4, p. 227: "In other towns, too, Arab chieftains came to build their castles and dominated the inhabitants ... in Urmiya Sadaqa b. 'Ali, a client of Azd". See also https://iranicaonline.org/articles/rawwadids. I cannot verify the article as a whole or confirm if this is a notable dynasty, but it does not appear to be a fabrication. Srnec (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourcing is weak, and does not sufficiently convey the idea of a "dynasty"; if the individuals involved are notable, they should have their own article, but their three-generation "dynasty" is almost certainly not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that there is so little knowledge about them is that they lived over 1,000 years ago and only ruled for around 50 years in a region wich was made up of villages, lots of mountains and a few small cities. Besides that, they seem to be the first Kurdish dynasty in History, so little information is to be expected. Karkafs Desiderium (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is why they are not notable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd love to hear more feedback from editors who are knowledgeable about this subject area.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two of the references are from journals which are the subject of articles in the English Wikipedia: Revue du monde musulman and Revue des études islamiques, and the third cites the first edition of Encyclopaedia of Islam. References do not have to be online to be valid, but editors with access to a university library might be able to access online or printed versions of the references. The fourth reference, perhaps added in error, was in a battle infobox that another editor removed. It was to the book The sword of Persia : Nader Shah, from tribal warrior to conquering tyrant, about Nader Shah, who was ruler of Persia much later, from 1736 to 1747. That fourth reference is no longer in the particle, but I think the three remaining references are good ones. I think the article is adequately referenced. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know what content is covered by the references and what is unsourced. The third and last reference is on the fifth line of the article. Semsûrî (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No mention in modern scholarship. I was able to access one of the sources (from 1910): [14] And there, Sadaka ibn Ali is a passing mention, where we learn that he was a "client of the Azd tribe" and that he took Urmia and built a castle. Most of the content in the Wikipedia article is unreferenced, so I fail to see how this article can be considered adequately sourced. The article title itself is WP:OR as I failed to find any potential variations of it (let alone the form seen here). The source I linked above does not mention a dynasty, and I very much doubt the other two similarly-aged sources include anything close to that. The most inclusionist choice here would be creating Sadaka ibn Ali's bio, disregarding the small amount of available sources and content. Another inclusionist choice would be adding the sourced parts about Sadaka ibn Ali to a relevant article such as Azd. But in any case, "Sadakiyans" should not redirect anywhere as it doesn't appear to be a term precedented in the sources. Aintabli (talk) 09:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the claim this was a "dynasty" appears to be original research. The mention in al-Baladhuri is As for Urmiyah, 1 it was an ancient city in re- 331' gard to which the Magians (Ma jus} assert that their founder Zaradusht was from it. Sadakah ibn-'Ali ibn-Sadakah ibnDinar, the freedman of the Azd, made war against its inhabitants, finally entering and subduing it. He and his brothers built in it some castles. The Encyclopaedia of Islam citation appears to be referring to these three sentences. And while Sadaka ibn Ali's existence has clear attestations, the information about his descendants appears completely unsourced. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History Proposed deletions[edit]

History categories[edit]

for occasional archiving

Proposals[edit]

[1] Bjelajac, Željko (n.d.). "About the journal". Kultura polisa.

[2] Bjelajac, Željko (2020). "List of reviewers for the year 2020". Kultura polisa.

[3] Milošević, Borivoje; Branković, Boško; Vasin, Goran; Niković, Nenad (2019-06-20). "Извјештај о оцјени урађене докторске дисертације" (PDF). University of Banja Luka.

[1]