Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science

Points of interest related to Social science on Wikipedia: Category – Deletions – Stubs

Points of interest related to Sociology on Wikipedia: Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

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.

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.

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.

WikiBhasha (edit | 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 · TWL)

No significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Ampercent.com doesn't seem like a reliable source to me. Maybe this Wikipedia-related article should be moved to Wikipedia namespace instead of deleted? Mika1h (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Software. Mika1h (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weakest keep: I found a full article from the Independent. However, that's just one. The article cites a reviewed paper by the authors of the program; I don't think that (or Wikimedia Diff) counts. There are quite a bit of trivial mentions in other papers. Meanwhile, The Hindu and Time of India each devote a paragraph. I feel like there's marginal notability here. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tale of the Tribe (edit | 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 · TWL)

Fails WP:NBOOK. Unpublished books can be notable, but I could barely find any coverage of this book during WP:BEFORE. Astaire (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Literature, Philosophy, Spirituality, and Psychology. Astaire (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Both of the current sources are listed as unreliable on WP:RSPS. I can't find anything reliable enough to even mention in Robert Anton Wilson that he was working on this book before his death. hinnk (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The book was never published, and I can't find SIGCOV in an RSes. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CEFR companion volume (edit | 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 · 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)
• Merge the only 4 references to CEFR. Plutocow (talk) 04:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the vauluable, and reliable segements into CEFR. Bunnypranav (talk) 06:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Just noting here that a Merge to CEFR is impossible as this page is a Redirect. If you have the right script installed, the link shows up as green. Did you mean another target article? Please check target articles before proposing them so that they are feasible tartgets. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 22 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!} 23:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gramos Incident (edit | 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 · TWL)

There are no reliable sources about this alleged military operation. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Albania, and Greece. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. 21 Andromedae (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zhu Zhigeng (edit | 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 · TWL)

WP:NOTGENEALOGY. No significant coverage in reliable sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Royalty and nobility, and China. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Prince of Qin (Ming dynasty), where he already has a blurb that substantially if not fully includes all the information currently in the article. This fella has no biography in Dictionary of Ming biography, 1368–1644, vol. 1 (he'd be around p. 294), nor indeed in 明史, where he is allotted a measly thirteen graphs (in 卷116), stating he succeeded to the Principality of Qin and died without heirs in Yongle 22. It's never a great sign when the sole source of an article is a Shilu, which are primary sources. There may be other specialist sources somewhere ("秦僖王" "永樂" might be my search strings if I were to look for some, which I'm far too tired to do at the moment). I'm not especially hopeful about the existence of more sources. Folly Mox (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philippa Hobbs (edit | 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 · TWL)

Created by a single purpose editor. Google news comes up with a different person, and google books comes up with 1 line mentions of this person. Fails WP:ARTIST. LibStar (talk) 04:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Visual arts, History, and South Africa. LibStar (talk) 04:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a WP:NPROF/WP:NAUTHOR pass. With Elizabeth Rankin, she has been a prominent curator/art historian in post-apartheid South Africa. For an example, one of the book reviews I've added to the article says It is not the first time that they have paired up to write the definitive book on aspects of South African art and artists - that is, the books Hobbs has written are known as the "definitive work" on the subject. I'm confident there will also be biographical information on her available in South African newspapers. -- asilvering (talk) 04:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you have actual sources? LibStar (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You mean like the ones I said I added to the article? That I added to the article? -- asilvering (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Apologies. I will check out the sources you've added. LibStar (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are plenty more, as well - I stopped when I hit two reviews each on two books, since that's the usual minimum standard, but she does exceed that. -- asilvering (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Kehler (edit | 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 · TWL)

Appears to fall under WP:BLP1E as he doesn't appear to have done anything else worth of note outside of anger the IRS. BangJan1999 21:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: Some coverage here [1] and [2]. Seems to have been notable in relation to Eisenberg as well. Oaktree b (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Resisting taxes for years isn't a single event. And he's also well known for his anti-Vietnam War actions, such as refusing the draft which received a large amount of news response at the time, and his anti-nuclear actions, all of which received significant coverage.

• ‘The ultimate person of conscience’: Friends remember anti-war activist Randy Kehler - Greenfield Recorder
• Doing The Right Thing In Massachusetts - Sojourners
• Growing Up With the War Tax Resisters - The New Republic
• Nuclear Protester May Lose Home Over Tax Stand - The New York Times
• New Party Forms In Franklin County - Daily Hampshire Gazette
• Draft Protester Facing 5 Years - Casper Star-Tribune
• Colrain's Kehler played role in release of Pentagon Papers - The Recorder
• An American Hero - The Brattleboro Reformer
• An activist's life recalled - Athol Daily News
• Legal snag perils Colrain house deal - The Republican

Not to mention there's an entire documentary about him. Silverseren^C 22:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per above. Just added another documentary that featured him. Leutha (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Clear keep. There are thousands of individuals with articles who are far less notable, including dozens included in the List of peace activists. Given its stated rationale, the proposed AFD does not even seem to have been made in good faith. As already noted there are numerous reliable sources following his activities and career; he is the subject of a doc that has its own Wikipedia article; he was the leader for years of a national non-profit advocacy organization that had widespread popular and celebrity support; and his public discussion of his own draft resistance is what specifically moved Daniel Ellsberg (according to Ellsberg's autobiography) to release the Pentagon Papers. User:PDGPA User talk:PDGPA
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Politics, and Massachusetts. Curbon7 (talk) 03:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep. This Randy Kepler’s importance and influence will grow with time and history. 2601:193:8200:1884:EC0A:BE50:D3C9:AADE (talk) 12:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: BLP1E concerns one event. Not a lifetime of numerous well-documented events. That's like claiming that Barry Bonds wouldn't clear BLP1E because his notoriety was solely connected to baseball. Ravenswing 03:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. There seems to be sufficient coverage about the subject, although in local/regional publications, even before. Now, coverage is also present regarding his recent death. Prof.PMarini (talk) 06:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: - Article is self-evidently notable and we are approaching the snow. Jusdafax (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sourcing is sufficient per WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly meets GNG. Thriley (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh (edit | 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 · TWL)

One of those seemingly cursed articles, created by a subsequently blocked sock, that becomes an eternal battleground between editors claiming it's historical and those claiming it's legendary. Either way, my review of the English-language sources finds no WP:SIGCOV of this campaign, just brief mentions. I propose to redirect to Chandragupta II#Punjab region where this campaign is already covered at only slightly shorter length. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Afghanistan, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. Mccapra (talk) 06:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States presidential candidate firsts (edit | 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 · TWL)

WP:NOTTRIVIA, Does not meet WP:LISTN, while claims can individually be verified, the set as a whole suffers from the same issues as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian prime ministerial firsts, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States vice presidential firsts. I read through the prior AfD for this page and find the keep rationales expressed there unpersuasive (and essentially identical to the arguments raised in the later discussions I've linked here that were both closed delete) Wikilawyering: I think that the close of the first AfD for this page is particularly incongruous with the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States presidential firsts two weeks later, a page with a much stronger claim to meeting LISTN, as sources compiling the firsts of US presidents as a set do exist, but which was closed as no consensus...but perhaps closer to delete than to keep. There is possibly some information in this page that could be merged to related biographies or related lists, although other than perhaps List of United States presidential firsts there is unlikely to be a good candidate for this to redirect to post-merge. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and United States of America. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP - Not sure how we could delete this one, when it comes to Presidents, we have Category:Lists relating to the United States presidency. — Maile (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This page fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTTRIVIA. Any information in this list could be added to the pages of the presidential candidate if it is not already there. --Enos733 (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - WP:NLIST merely states that "one accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Simply pointing out that an article doesn't meet a Wikipedia policy criteria that merely states "one accepted reason" for meeting notability is not itself a valid argument for deleting a page. And this is clearly a notable topic, as demonstrated by the numerous sources on this page as well as recent media coverage such as the The Washington Post which have discussed presidential candidate firsts. Orser67 (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Reliable sources cover this, it has references to prove that. Dream Focus 03:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NLIST. There are plenty of sources for presidential firsts, but candidates? None that I've been able to turn up. The Washington Post article is about the firsts of a single candidate, Kamala Harris, not a group. (It's also very silly to include the candidate for the first election because everything old George did was a first.) Clarityfiend (talk) 13:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, some of these firsts are pretty damn silly, e.g. "First major party nominee to die before the official tallying of electoral votes". Clarityfiend (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Why is that silly? He lost so it didn't ultimately affect the 1872 United States presidential election, but it was an important event in the history of the electoral college: United States Electoral College#Continuity of government and peaceful transitions of power. Reywas92^Talk 15:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Per nom, I can see why this article meets some criteria for deletion, but upon reading it, its content seems worth keeping. It was put together well. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philippine presidential firsts (edit | 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 · TWL)

WP:NOTTRIVIA, Does not meet WP:LISTN, while individual claims can mostly be verified, there don't appear to be any publications dedicated to discussing Philippine presidential firsts as a set, along the same lines as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian prime ministerial firsts, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States vice presidential firsts _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and Philippines. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mexican presidential firsts (edit | 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 · TWL)

WP:NOTTRIVIA, Does not meet WP:LISTN, while individual claims can mostly be verified, there don't appear to be any publication dedicated to discussing Mexican presidential firsts as a set, along the same lines as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian prime ministerial firsts, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States vice presidential firsts _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and Mexico. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. I appear to be this article's only major editor aside from its creator, who doesn’t appear to have edited since 2022. To give this article a chance, I shall do a search myself, to see if sufficient sourcing exists. I doubt it, though. When I am done, I shall either present my case with sources or change to delete. ThaddeusOrlando55 (talk) 05:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Life with Elsie (edit | 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 · TWL)

Article with flowery language for a non-notable memoir that fails the notability guildelines for books. No reviews or other mentions online that I could find. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and History. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources to prove notability. Prof.PMarini (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of passing WP:GNG/WP:NBOOKS which for me are more or less equivalent: we need in-depth coverage in independent reliable publications, most likely book reviews, but I couldn't find any. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can only conclude that this book is self-published. "Briarwood Printing" is indeed a printing company, not a publisher, and seems to currently specialize in printing stickers. I don't find the book in any libraries holding it, and there is one copy available used on Amazon. Lamona (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It comes nowhere near to passing the relevant standard. The massive list of "references" is pure spam, since they predate the book: a local news story from 1949 cannot be evidence of the noteworthiness of a book published in 2006. This looks more like someone pasting their family genealogy notes into Wikipedia than a serious attempt to write an encyclopedia article. If there's not a personal COI through the author's family, there might be a professional one through his employer. XOR'easter (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with extreme prejudice. I never thought we'd see the day where "Wikipedia is not a hosting platform for your book report" could possibly be a logical reaction to an article's contents. That day has come. On top of the obvious lack of any notability as demonstrated above, this is obviously AI-generated nonsense (I wanted to use garbage, but even garbage has uses, and this article none). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish-Georgian War (1921) (edit | 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 · TWL)

Looks made up, couldn't find any WP:RS on this supposed "war". Article was filled with non-WP:RS/WP:VER issues which I have now removed, so there isn't a single actual WP:RS in this article currently. This is not surprising, considering the WP:TENDENTIOUS track record of the creator of this article, see [3] [4] and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BaharatlıCheetos2.0. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Georgia (country), and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I spent some time reviewing this new article and came to the conclusion it was probably nonsense. Mccapra (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unable to find sources as well. Aintabli (talk) 06:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not able to track down any supporting material of any merit. This reads like a nationalist screed.Insanityclown1 (talk) 08:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Poorly sourced; all sources seem to be Turkish articles and pages of questionable reliability; some of them are not even verifiable, as the links seem to not work at all. Piccco (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago and North Western 7009 (edit | 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 · TWL)

Redirect I had set up was reverted. Subject lacks independent notability from the EMD SD50 and should be redirect to that topic. No prejudice to a merge. TarnishedPath^talk 09:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Transportation, and Illinois. TarnishedPath^talk 09:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect to EMD SD50#Preservation. Level of detail in the article is fannish overkill for what is a perfectly ordinary example of the model. Mangoe (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer redirect to Illinois Railway Museum#Locomotives per below. Mangoe (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to EMD SD50. Agree with the nom, however the article presents us with some information and references which would totally enhance the quality of the former. Vorann Gencov (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Illinois Railway Museum#Locomotives. Some of the background information from the article is also suitable to add to EMD SD50, but I think it makes the most sense to redirect to the locomotive's entry in the table on the museum article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I added some information from the Trains Magazine news article to the EMD SD50 article back in 2022 when the preservation was first announced. Therefore I don't think we need to merge much, if anything. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have no issue with a redirect to Illinois Railway Museum#Locomotives as an alternative to my suggested redirect above. TarnishedPath^talk 13:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Illinois Railway Museum#Locomotives. The brief burst of coverage that the locomotive received upon the preservation announcement (preservation of a locomotive model built until 1987 is news given how long locomotive lifespans go) isn't enough to pass GNG and support a dedicated article for this specific locomotive. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Jhain (edit | 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 · TWL)

This article clearly fails WP:GNG & full of WP:SYNTH mess and WP:OR. There is not any battle named as the "Battle of Jhain", the name of the battle is fabricated Hashid 09:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- A battle happened in Jhain during Jalal-ud-Din Khalji. The book 'The History of India' mentions it. Medieval India, Volume 3 also talks about the campaign. Early Chauhān Dynasties also mentions it. Though it was not called as 'Battle of Jhain' by any historian so it could be renamed. Changeworld1984 (talk) 09:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Changeworld1984 Battle of Jhain isn't any official battle, it was a minor conflict during Jalal-ud-Din Khalji's Ranthambore campagin which turned out to be unsuccessful Hashid 13:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If it’s not called “battle of Jhain” by any historians what are we calling it that for? What do they call it? Mccapra (talk) 13:17, 21 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!} 03:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article passes WP:GNG and is well cited with reliable sources. Article suffers less from WP:SYNTH or WP:OR and more from non-encyclopedic writing style, which isn't means for deletion. An example would be "Some sources say ..." John.mark1956 (talk) 03:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per above Lordseriouspig 07:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goodwill tour (edit | 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 · TWL)

Reads more like a stand alone list than an article, and I don't think it meets notability for stand-alone lists. Many of the individual tours might be notable, but I don't think there's discussion of goodwill tours as a group, or at least I can't find any. If anyone can, though, then that would be great. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Travel and tourism. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the article is a disaster. This seems like a well-defined term, but apart from the dictionary definition I'm not sure there is anything to say; I don't see a redirect target. Wiktionary doesn't have a dictionary definition so a cross-wiki redirect can't be done yet either. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• recommendation: Delete because wikipedia is not a dictionary and the article is unreferenced. Agreed with the above coments. Effervescent-lightbulb (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Unreferenced since 2008. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. From a cursory look at Google Scholar, sources exist. The article is almost unchanged since its creation but a lack of editorial interest should not be a reason to delete. As always, deletion is not cleanup. It is not the easy button for when nobody wants to the hard work. Srnec (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Are those sources about specific goodwill tours, or about the concept in general? (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Merge. Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY this page should not stand alone. I dug into the Google Scholar results mentioned above. The "cursory look" reveals lots of sources, but they are almost exclusively WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of a particular "goodwill tour" in the context of other coverage. The only thing that gets close to significant coverage is Black 2013, but even that is more about the broader concept of cultural diplomacy, to which I recommend a redirect. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into cultural diplomacy, with a redirect, which is much better than deletion. There are sources , and just because it’s neglected by editors doesn’t mean it’s neither notable nor worthy of at least a mention. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 25 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!} 23:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I like the idea to Merge into cultural diplomacy, I think it would make sense as as subsection under tools and examples. I would be willing to perform the merge if there's consensus. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

De'Anyers family (edit | 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 · TWL)

WP:NOTGENEALOGY. I don't think any reliable sources cited or available elsewhere provide significant coverage of the article subject, instead providing lots of tangential mentions that do not by themselves confer notability. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Royalty and nobility, and United Kingdom. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an accurrate statement, the sources listed are entirley comprehensive, I ask which ones precisely are 'tangential'.

Notability is sufficent as seen in the extensive sources primary and secondary. Starktoncollosal (talk) 08:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to discuss which sources in particular do not provide significant coverage and see where we go from there, I am aware that there are yes a significant number of sources used which may convey this, however are consolidated by a number of reliable and imparital sources used in this article as well as other articles of a similar nature which cover landed families. Starktoncollosal (talk) 08:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

proposing Keep, I have had a look through the source list comprehensivley and would very much like to discuss this and see if we can reach a consensus.at some point ? several main sources used for the article are all impartial and well known genealogical publications - Burkes, Ormerods, ect. The Battle Abbey Role by the Duchess of Cleveland published I believe in the 1890s covering the families on the scroll, also a book on a biography of the family. Other verified wikipedia pages exist for 3 members of the family listed on the page as well as others not mentioned (artists William Daniell and Thomas Daniell, and Thomas Daniel)

The issue is perhaps the interchangable use of De'Anyers and Daniell between sources however this I have found to be the historical case.. in looking to upload several Van Dyck portraits (Peter Daniell MP) and his sister and aunt I have found them to be listed as De'Anyers however it is the same family.

I am happy to explore and make any edits you may suggest ? (I wondered if perhaps some paragraphs could be slimmed down slightly). However based on pages existing for other identical landed families in Cheshire (several of whom intermarried and are included in the Daniell article) and based on historical significance, and the other reasons mentioned It has its place on wiki, and just needs fleshing out being comparativley newer, which I was activley working on :). Starktoncollosal (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources go into significant prose depth on the family? Keep in mind that genealogies and other directories are not SIGCOV. Coverage of individual members of the family does not count towards notability of the family. Primary sources and passing mentions do not count at all. JoelleJay (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

source 6 - A Biography written on the family, and 1 certainly are the first to spring to mind. Can I ask the issue with primary sources coming from an academic writing background in early modern history i thought inclusion of these would bolster an articles notability and conslodiate its relevance ? I understand that for one or two members having pages not warranting a notability claim but surley the case can be made for, as seen in other noble families pages, members consistently throughout an extended time period having influence (as nobility did), - thus warranting notability ? Starktoncollosal (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starktoncollosal Source 6 was written in 1876. Source 1 was written in 1673! While I cannot access the latter, the former is essentially a family tree written out in prose. Significantly better sourcing is needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, could you suggest what kind of sources you are looking for ? I thought that the 1876 Biography was well sourced in its own bibliography however I do agree with you, in that case could we possibly reach a consensus that on basis of introducing a more thorough source that the article no longer be marked for deletion and instead voted keep.

look forward to your advise and what sources would be best, Stark Starktoncollosal (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technology Connections (edit | 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 · TWL)

I follow this channel and had the redlink watchlisted, so I was cautiously optimistic to see it turn blue. But unfortunately I don't think it's reached notability yet. The existing sources are all primary links to the channel itself, and a BEFORE search for others turned up only interviews on other YouTube channels I wouldn't consider sufficiently reliable (e.g. [5][6], a one-paragraph entry at [7] that's borderline for SIGCOV, and short summaries of videos like [8][9] that either aren't SIGCOV or aren't RS or both. Sdkb ^talk 00:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, and Technology. Sdkb ^talk 00:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep: I'm a fan of his youtube channel, but it's hard to find things about it. This seems like a RS [10], a few hits in The Verge which is a RS [11], [12] and this which I think is also a RS [13]. We probably have at least enough for a basic article about this person, or the youtube channel he hosts. Oaktree b (talk) 00:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am also a fan of his YouTube channel but the sources provided thus far are not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. ElKevbo (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Internet, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Unfortunately weak delete. The DigitalCameraWorld source above is the only one that qualifies for a full unit of SIGCOV, while the rest don't quite meet the mark, even when combined. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <nowrap>Aydoh8 (talk | contribs)</nowrap> 14:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Iași (1653) (edit | 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 · 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" The cited source does not even mention the term "Bate of Iasi".- 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]

  We !vote here not per wikipedians, but per Wikipedia rules, which say "multiple reliable sources that cover the subject in detail" Now, which sources discuss "Battle of Iasi (1653)", in your opinion? - Altenmann >talk 16:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with regret after wading through a bunch of machine-translated sites. I couldn't find any RS in English so I tried searching "Bătălia de la Popricani" for Romanian results as well. The ones that looked best were: [14] (not exactly SIGCOV though); [15] (Vice has no consensus in terms of reliability, and I'm not seeing any sources in the article that we could follow for more info). There might be something in [16] but I think someone fluent in Romanian would be needed to translate. And even assuming it's reliable and there's at least a few pages on the battle, that's two sources at best if we also accept the Vice article. There simply doesn't seem to be enough. StartGrammarTime (talk) 09:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't really matter if there is one or two sources what matters is its credibility I know the rules say more than one but if it is credible and recognised in the historical community such as books from Cambridge university then I don't understand removing article one. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please tell us which books you have in mind which write about Battle of Iași (1653). - Altenmann >talk 18:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless, in Wikipedia there is a clear distinction between "credibility" and "notability". Expert historians with years of research in some time period would probably write somewhere about every Battle of Asshole Pass (Polish: Potyczka na Dupskim przełęczy); that's what experts do and are respected for. But not every skirmish makes its way as a separate entry in encyclopedias. - Altenmann >talk 18:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per lack of sigcov. Yilloslime (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear opinions from more editors. This will probably not take a full week but please offer policy- and source-related arguments instead of "per X" ones.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify/Weak keep: The event is real and not spamy. But, there is no reliable resource that support the event over Internet. But, I think there could be hard copy materials in Libraries and maybe some interested individuals would bring them and include to the article so it is better to give editors chance to edit it. Instant History (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of armed conflicts between Bosnia and Serbia (edit | 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 · 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]

I am communicating that I can rescue the article, because its subject is something from the real world. An entity known as "Bosnia" has been in conflict with an entity known as "Serbia" on 6 occasions since 1788 and on more still before the death of Pavle Bakić. The Tanzimat reforms removed most of the autonomy the pashas of Bosnia had previously enjoyed, so you could make the case for excluding the Serbian–Ottoman Wars (1876–1878). But even the Serbian Despotate in exile enjoyed considerable military autonomy, to say nothing of the Banate of Bosnia. These were entities that could be punished if they did not answer a call to arms, but were so autonomous that they often did not, and often undertook military campaigns on their own, with little to no involvement of the central authority they answered to.

The relevant portion of the Bataković quotation is in Bosnia that Ottoman rule might be replaced by that of Karageorge’s Serbia, but the preceding part shows that at times it was specifically the Bosnia Eyalet that was in conflict with Revolutionary Serbia. I still need to introduce more sources to help delimit the duration of conflict between those specific entities, but I have already shown that parts of the conflict are indeed described by historians as one between Bosnia and Serbia. And that is the norm rather than the exception for those parts of the conflict. So it is not a redundant duplicate of "List of Serbian–Ottoman conflicts", as "List of conflicts between Devonshire and the Upper Palatinate" would be a redundant duplicate of "List of conflicts between England and Germany".

Your opposition is 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. My support is because both "Bosnia" and "Serbia" were usually singular, militarily independent entities even when they were vassals. The Banate of Bosnia was on average even more independent than the Banate of Croatia, yet the latter's ban Pavao Šubić was so powerful he became ban of both entities following his conquest of the latter in 1302, entirely of his own initiative and with hardly any input from the King of Hungary.

Ivan (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funny that, List of conflicts between England and Germany could have a redundant duplicate - if it existed. It probably doesn't exist because it's not a topic area that attracts so much contrived conflict. If this list is just going to be replicating low-quality nationalist axe-griding from the real world - Wikipedia still shouldn't have to include it, and WP:ARBMAC has a very clear rule against furtherance of outside conflicts. --Joy (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently rewriting the article. In a few days, it should be well-sourced. Ivan (talk) 14:00, 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]

• Redirect to Bosnia and Herzegovina–Serbia relations#List of wars. Good last point, @Joy. For the most part, "List of wars involving Entity A" is sufficient, otherwise the possible combinations would produce thousands of stub articles. There are a few exceptions, such as List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Russia. But List of armed conflicts between Bosnia and Serbia is shorter and could be relegated to a section within Bosnia and Herzegovina–Serbia relations. Ivan (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• AFC reviewer comment: I accepted this with the understanding that it would probably get sent straight to AfD, on the grounds that the topic is broadly notable and this kind of more specific editorial decision ought to have some kind of consensus rather than just be the decision of a single AfC reviewer, especially since it's an obvious POV magnet. (Judging from the above, I was right.) If it's deleted, I think it's pretty likely that someone will try to create it again, so if this doesn't end as a merge-and-redirect, it's probably worth salting this one. -- asilvering (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. Judging from the above, I was right. Out of curiosity, what POV do you think I represent? Ivan (talk) 11:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If you think I was implying that you or anyone else in this discussion was POV-pushing, I apologise for that. What I meant by Judging from the above, I was right. is that the fact that the discussion above is so extensive shows that this is indeed a topic that requires broader consensus than a single AfC reviewer's opinion. -- asilvering (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to hear from some new editors about how to consider whether: 1) there is improper original research (current consensus is leaning towards yes) and 2) whether or not deletion or something else is the right remedy if there is improper OR.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article has changed drastically between the first discussion and now, and will likely continue to improve for several days. Ivan (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There have been substantial changes to the article since its nomination and removal of content seen as problematic in this discussion. Does this make a difference in participants' assessment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I still don't think the 19th century uprising against the Ottomans is really describable in list format like this, because these references are insufficient to prove that the scientific consensus is to call this so trivially/casually like that. Either way, whether it's a list of three or two items, it's still a pointless list article, and we don't have sources for the list itself as such. As the title is not really a common search term - I think it's reasonable to assume that the average reader would rather just use search terms like "war Bosnia Serbia" if they wanted to find something like this - we should still get rid of it. Whatever useful content was found in this process can be used to create or improve a paragraph or two in other articles. --Joy (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]