Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/History

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to History. 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|History|~~~~}} 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 History. 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/History/archive

Purge page cache

watch

History

American propaganda in the Mexican–American War

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a trainwreck of an article. It has been appropriately tagged as being written like an essay, lacking notability, and possible original research. This simply is not an encyclopedia article at all, and the references are pretty threadbare. It was nominated for deletion twelve years ago, but comments about biting the newbies and allowing it time to be developed led to a "no consensus" result. Well, it's been twelve years and the article still has all of the same problems, so I don't think waiting is the correct strategy at this point. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Mexico, and United States of America. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I would normally advocate for cleaning up the article itself, but the entire article needs to be rewritten. It consists entirely of WP: OR. Because of this, WP: TNT applies here. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nominator reasons and follow up comments by HyperAccelerated — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goodwill tour

(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]

Music in Dresden

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

This article cites no sources and contains almost no prose. It claims to be about "Music in Dresden", but it contains only three timelines of classical music composers who allegedly "spent a significant amount of time in the German city of Dresden". It makes no mention of any other kind of music that may have existed at any time in that city. I don't think there is any hope for a reliably sourced version of this article that is anything more than a list of trivia. If there is such a hope, this article is probably not useful as a base for creating it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, Lists, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SELCRIT, there is no clear selection criteria (having spent "a significant amount of time in Dresden" seems quite arbitrary). Without any sources to support it, it is a case of WP:TNT. The list could be recreated if an editor wants to define precise verifiable criteria for inclusion. In this state, it should not stay on Wikipedia. Broc (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced, unclear how these people are relate to Dresden, there is no references that the subject "music in Dresden" was discussed in sources, i.e., the subject is of dubious encyclopedicity. - Altenmann >talk 16:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral history of Billy Hughes

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

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE/WP:NOTSTATS - not really clear what purpose this page is serving. It's a series of transclusions (mostly unsourced) from pre-existing results pages. Have read a few biographies of Hughes and as far as I'm aware no one has analysed his electoral record as a discrete "topic". I T B F 💬 17:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. I T B F 💬 17:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this seems to be a reasonable approach to split-for-size. If there were only half-a-dozen election results, this would be appropriate content on Billy Hughes; with 25 election results it would be excessive. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid page split. --Enos733 (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Hughes was one of Australia's most notable politicians with a convoluted electoral history across multiple parties, parliaments, and electorates, it is handy to have the details set out clearly like this. I concur it would be excessive to put it in his bio page and makes more sense as a separate page. Axver (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was Australia's longest-serving federal MP, eight different parties including multiple leadership elections (all of which well documented) Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

De'Anyers family

(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]

Technology Connections

(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. [1][2], a one-paragraph entry at [3] that's borderline for SIGCOV, and short summaries of videos like [4][5] 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 [6], a few hits in The Verge which is a RS [7], [8] and this which I think is also a RS [9]. 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]

List of Indian prime ministerial firsts

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

WP:NOTTRIVIA, does not meet WP:LISTN. Along the same lines as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States vice presidential firsts. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and India. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of capacity for reasonable WP:SELCRIT. On this day, the Indian prime minister became the first in history to eat a donut which contained a jam filling and brown sprinkles before 9am on the 2nd day of february while wearing a yellow turban... BrigadierG (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going with your logic shouldn't we just delete List of Mexican presidential firsts, List of Philippine presidential firsts, and List of United States presidential firsts as well? — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 01:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, probably. BrigadierG (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is a significant coverage about the Indian prime ministerial firsts. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 01:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources do you have in mind? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 12:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for WP:NOTTRIVIA. We should also likely delete the other "Presidential Firsts" list articles for rhe same reason. CoconutOctopus talk 06:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Purely going by the fact that List of United States presidential firsts exists and the article is on similar lines to that. Xoocit (talk) 08:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That article should likely also be deleted, although it is possible that coverage exists to meet WP:LISTN there so it would require patiently working through its mountain of sources first. WP:OSE _signed,Rosguill ^talk 12:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Curbon7 (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning keep given the fact these exist elsewhere, but I can't quickly find a source which would get this past WP:LISTN (covering several firsts at once as opposed to just being a trivia section). SportingFlyer T·C 10:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN. There are practically an infinite number of unnotable firsts. First PM to visit Canada??? What next? First left-handed PM? First to catch a disease in office? First to play a video game? Clarityfiend (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The List of Indian prime ministerial firsts fails encyclopedic merit without contextual information. RangersRus (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of anthropogenic disasters by death toll

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

This whole article is one long mess, which if you look at the talk page has been very contentious for years. It's heavily biased in many ways and doesn't appear to have any clear rules regarding what is actually included. It describes itself as a list of events with a "measurable drop in human population" yet also contains many events with as few as 40 deaths, and repeats itself at multiple points, such as listing "Various Fascist/Marxist leaders" as distinct events along with each major leader as a unique event. All in all this article is unnecessary, as it contains nothing that is not duplicated on other better articles such as List of wars by death toll. I fully believe WP:TNT applies here. CoconutOctopus talk 13:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and History. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It is entirely WP:SYNTH, and redundant to such lists as List of wars by death toll that provide more detail than you can get from two numbers and their geometric mean (which is not properly justified by what I can acess from Ref. ^[1]). The list also improperly adds figures with varying precision as if they were exact. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Agree with previous justification. Figures are arbitrary and calculations are via unvalidated means for the presentation of scholarly data. "Measurable drop" is vague. Any drop is measurable. Greyspeir (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Pinto, Carla M. A.; Lopes, A. Mendes; Machado, J. A. Tenreiro (2014). "Casualties Distribution in Human and Natural Hazards". In Ferreira, Nuno Miguel Fonseca; Machado, José António Tenreiro (eds.). Mathematical Methods in Engineering. Springer Netherlands. pp. 173–180. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-7183-3_16. ISBN 978-94-007-7182-6.

If this AfD closes as delete, can the talk page and its subpages be preserved at this AfD's talk page? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paulette Flint

(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]
Delete: In a Newsbank database search (deeper and wider than Google) I found many articles by her but few about her, insufficient to meet WP:ANYBIO,WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF (in her capacity as a Gladstone regional historian). She seems to be a WP:RTM Gladstone regional journalist. Cabrils (talk) 01:22, 17 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)

(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]

List of armed conflicts between Bosnia and Serbia

(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]

Merge with Bosnia and Herzegovina–Serbia relations. 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

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.

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]

International Anarchist Congresses

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1895 Pacific Tigers football team

(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]

History Proposed deletions

History categories

for occasional archiving

Proposals

[Pinto_2014_173–180-1] Pinto, Carla M. A.; Lopes, A. Mendes; Machado, J. A. Tenreiro (2014). "Casualties Distribution in Human and Natural Hazards". In Ferreira, Nuno Miguel Fonseca; Machado, José António Tenreiro (eds.). Mathematical Methods in Engineering. Springer Netherlands. pp. 173–180. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-7183-3_16. ISBN 978-94-007-7182-6.

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

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

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

[1]