Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
Deletion Sorting
Project

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.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

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

See also: Science-related deletions and Medicine-related deletions.

Social science

edit

The Fair Start Movement

edit
The Fair Start Movement (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)

Seems like astroturfing to me. Clear neutrality issues in the writing, and the vast majority of sources are either directly self-published by the organization or otherwise written by people tied to it (Carter Dillard, Policy Director and Board Member of the Fair Start Movement; Esther Afolaranmi, co-executive director at the Fair Start Movement). There are a few cursory mentions in news articles, but not enough to establish notability. I have checked on Google, Google Books, and Google Scholar, and the results don't seem much better there. Spookyaki (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheInevitables (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Among the sources listed in the article, this is the best one, it contains two paragraphs on the organization. Also this is the only source not authored by Dillard/Afolaranmi when I searched in Google News. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That statement is false. Here are multiple articles cleared by editors or in some cases authors unassociated with our organization, including one published at the MAHB at Stanford University: https://www.rubywarrington.com/wwk_podcasts/questioning-our-procreative-ethics/, https://mahb.stanford.edu/blog/family-planning-offers-the-best-means-for-combating-climate-change-an-interview-with-carter-dillard-fair-start-movement/, https://planetcritical.substack.com/p/who-pays-the-cost-of-growth, https://www.newsweek.com/its-earth-overshoot-day-future-generations-are-calling-opinion-1728512, https://www.planetcritical.com/climate-reparations-esther-afolaranmi/, https://youthtimemag.com/whats-the-fair-start-movement-and-how-it-leads-us-towards-a-better-future-an-interview-with-carter-dillard/, https://www.newsweek.com/todays-trolley-problem-only-one-track-leads-future-opinion-1787190, https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/ab05c291-1556-41a0-a328-f59cdd5c842a/episodes/0f95b1c0-a4f3-4b66-ae65-cfbbb68e750e/the-simple-heart-w-wayne-hsiung-from-cop-to-criminal---carter-dillard. There are dozens more. CarterDillard (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article can be kept if it can be shown that there are sources that pass WP:NGO. The ones provided above fail the criteria for independence. Going through them one by one, 1. A podcast with Carter Dillard, who is listed in the "Our People" section of the movement's site[1]. 2. Interview with Dillard. 3. Substack is not a reliable source on Wikipedia. 4. Authored by Dillard. 5. Podcast with Esther Afolaranmi, who is associated with the movement. 6. Interview with Dillard. 7. Authored by Dillard. 8. Podcast with Dillard. All these sources fail WP:ORGIND because Dillard/Afolaranmi have basically co-authored them. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Podcast hosts and interviewers are persons not associated with the movement, and the material cited is published by institutions not associated with the movement. Newsweek editors are not associated with the movement, for example. Stanford MAHB employees were not associated with the movement. CarterDillard (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair Start reforms that elevate birth equity as the preemptive standard for legitimate cost/benefit analysis significantly increase liability for a variety of harms linked to the climate crisis, the decline of democracy, and increasing maternal/child mortality rates. Our advocates have seen multiple attempts to remove our information and hide that increased liability, often by those engaged in growthwashing (https://www.counterpunch.org/2025/01/07/how-the-world-hides-liability-for-climate-deaths/) for example. The legal research underlying the idea that measurable birth equity is the first and overriding human right, and the baseline for measuring liability for the polycrisis, has an H-index of 10 on Google scholar: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=WCOdw3oAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao, with publications appearing in variety of peer-reviewed legal journals. The research is discussed in a variety of more commonly read publications: https://observatory.wiki/Fair_Start_Movement. Discussion of deletion seems retaliatory for our recent coverage of Wikipedia's omissive standards in publishing content around environmental impact claims(true neutrality requires first accounting for one's privileged birth and developmental positionality and the full impacts of the system that create it) that are false and misleading: https://fairstartmovement.org/factchecking-wikipedia-and-the-center-for-biological-diversity-take-action/. We will certainly be adding additional sources to the page, but also adding new pages regarding evasion of liability as climate-related deaths increase, and the equitywashing and fraud that gave rise to our organization: https://www.laprogressive.com/gender-discrimination/birth-equity CarterDillard (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this kind of proves my point. Spookyaki (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How so? CarterDillard (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You do admin work on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Human_rights page Spookyaki. That page has no discussion of birth equity as a preemptive human right, or the simple concept that authority to govern must be derived back to the measurable empowerment of those subject to it. Those ideas have multiple peer-reviews supporting them. Instead, the human rights page excluded that information, and replicates the error detailed here, https://www.radiofree.org/2024/07/09/how-a-twentieth-century-family-planning-strategy-fueled-the-climate-crisis/, a mistake now fundamentally leading to the deaths of millions. CarterDillard (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place to discuss this sort of thing.
The sources for this article are unreliable and also seems rather promotional. Delete. GarethBaloney (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Carter Dillard appears to be an attorney, and so presumably is able to read and understand WP:N and the key material linked from it, particularly that on source reliability and independence. He's had two weeks to show us such sources, but instead pontificates about WP:Righting great wrongs. Time's up. EEng 06:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Social science Proposed deletions

edit

Language

edit

Uralo-Siberian languages

edit
Uralo-Siberian languages (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)

Uralo-Yukaghir and Eskimo-Uralic are both notable, but Fortescue is essentially the only person proposing the combined hypothesis, and his work hasn't gained enough traction to have its own article. Stockhausenfan (talk) 11:38, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fortescue's article per nom. (t · c) buIdhe 06:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yombe language (disambiguation)

edit
Yombe language (disambiguation) (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)

Only lists two items, with one being treated on the project as the primary topic (automatically linked from here), so very close to WP:G14 – unnecessary disambiguation. A dab template on top of Kongo language does the work just fine. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 15:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect: to Yombe. These are two different languages of the same name which can easily be confused, and there are also two people group of the same name. Both languages and people group of the same name are not related to each other. At very least, redirect to the said page. I am the creator of the AfD disambiguation page. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We are discussing a page that has “language” in its title. The peoples per se are already left out. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe keep... Yombe language redirects to Kongo language. Oddly Kongo language is not even listed at Yombe language (disambiguation) and it is apparently the primary topic. If its added there are three topics, making the need for the dab page clear.4meter4 (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Kongo language is listed. Anyway, the alternative is moving to Yombe language and change the automatic link from the module above. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. It was confusing the way it was laid out as typically a primary topic gets linked at the top of the dab page. The alternative you just suggested seems like a good choice.4meter4 (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @4meter4, @IvanScrooge98, please explain to me as you would to a five-year old. This is because there are actually two different languages that share the name “Yombe language”. They are not the same, neither do they have the same history, and at least one of them is not part of Kongo language at all. At the moment, “Yombe language” redirects to “Kongo language”, but that redirect is only correct for one usage of the name. As for the otherr language, it is completely inaccurate. If we move this page to the base title, we would end up sending readers to the wrong language. That’s exactly why the disambiguation page was created, to separate two unrelated languages that happen to use the same name. Instead of deleting it or moving it, it’s better to keep the disambiguation page so that both topics are properly directed. So currently, I am leaning towards "keep". -Tumbuka Arch (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, if we conclude that there is no defined primary topic, we move the dab page to Yombe language and fix the automatic links. It’s an alternative. The only thing that is certain is that when there are only two topics involved the situation shouldn’t stay the way it currently is. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And by the way, when you created the dab page, the first thing you should have done was to link to the it from Kongo language, which you didn’t. That also made it almost completely useless. But in general, if between two topics one is primary, there is no need for a dab page because a simple link from a note at the primary article – like the one I added to Kongo language – suffices. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Kongo language, the current target of Yombe languageYombe language, is truly the WP:PTOPIC, then this is a no-brainer delete per WP:ONEOTHER. If neither is primary, then it's a no-brainer move to the base title per WP:MALPLACED. I don't know enough about the topic to weigh in on which is preferable, but I don't see how there's really any other option here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:28, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And just to note, the current target really is one of the two entries at the current dab page, just piped. Also, redirecting as suggested would make no sense for a "(disambiguation)" titled page like this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:29, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noric language

edit
Noric language (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 is poorly sourced, only single distinct source exist, and I wasn't able to find more actual sources. Two inscriptions cannot be considered a separate language for at least linguistic reasons. Instead, maybe we should create an Eastern Celtic article which will combine all views on the entire topic, like this? From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 08:16, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec Eventually what we have? I suggest renaming the article to Eastern Celtic language and deleting the main content, lefting only inscriptins and brief mentions about the proposed Noric language. Other parts of the article should include information about Eaastern Celtic in common, and that in total gives us a stable article about a Celtic language that won't leave people with questions about the language of the Eastern Celts. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PersonallyI think that it should be kept, a simple Google search shows multiple discussions and articles on the inscriptions and therefore although only two have been found perhaps more will be, especially as it appears they were written on wood. Perhaps it should be kept and improved upon, and I hope with new discoveries more works in Noric Celtic will be found. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 12:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I decided to try Google scolar to find sources this time and found this interesting section from this PDF [[2]] "three lesser-known languages which are close relatives of Gaulish: Galatian, Lepontic and Noric" And here are other sources to pull from The Celts and the Origin of the Runic Script [[3]] A Disregarded Celtic Script

at the End of the First Millenium BC [[4]]

@Agnieszka653 First of all, what happened to your reply button haha? It just disappeared. Secondly, this source mentions Noric only once per entire article. It cannot be considered a reliable source here sadly. Third, this seems to be good, but as far as I understand it refers to Latin language of province of Noricum, not Noric as a Celtic language. And even if it did, it only mentions Noric inscriptions from Magdalensberg which are written in Latin, not in Celtic. Fourth - I can't understand this, since I don't see any good information about Noric there. And lastly, we cannot propose a separate language out of 2, 3 and even 4 inscriptions. I mean, we can propose it but not claim it. To prove that Noric is a separate language we need, I suppose, more than 10 inscriptions + some toponymy. And I only see studies about Eastern Celtic toponymy/onomastics in total, but not Noric-language specific. This is why I proposed creating an Eastern Celtic article. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk)

European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information

edit
AfDs for this article:
European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information (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)

In 16 years of article existence the sole source is primary. Nothing in google news, 1 hit in gscholar. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:42, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign language

edit
Foreign language (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)

Whatever this article might have once been, it's been rendered a useless slop puddle by LLM-crazed editors. Essentially the entire article is duplicative of Language acquisition, Language education, and Multilingualism, plus likely a couple of others in the "see also" list at the bottom, and those articles at least don't have "In summary..." at the end of every section. Get rid of the duplicated content and you have a WP:DICTDEF. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There is just so much wrong with this article it could also even fit the criteria for blowing it up and starting over. CabinetCavers (talk) 12:58, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also be OK with WP:BLAR'ing it if we can't figure out how best to start over. Thoughts? Gommeh 📖   🎮 20:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: LLM, delete. We can't/shouldn't verify each and every citation given to even see if it's true or not, that is a waste of the editor's time here. No inline citations either, which doesn't help. Easiest is to delete. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a longstanding article since 2004; the very beginning of the encyclopedia. We have years of article history since before LLM editing was even a thing. Simplest thing to do is revert the article to the time from before any LLM content was added. What we shouldn't do is delete the lengthy history of contributors over the past 21 years in an article that is clearly on a notable topic. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, and LLM cleanup shouldn't be done through deletion in articles that have lengthy editing histories prior to LLM editing. That would set a very bad precedent.4meter4 (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to restore several sections that were marred by LLM editing, but unfortunately this article has not been in a very good state since before 2022. -- Reconrabbit 18:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a duplication of several articles anyway. It serves no purpose. Drafting a 20 yr old article doesn't fix the problem. Oaktree b (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom. As an ATD, we could restore the article to what it was before LLMs turned it into slop, but I'm not sure how practical that would be. We'd need way better sourcing, and I haven't done any research on this so I can't say whether or not it would work, but it may be good to look into. Gommeh 📖   🎮 20:48, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep LLM additions have already been removed. The article is not a duplicate, it is a broad-concept article that should provide an overview of language acquisition, language education, multilingualism, and other topics. Kelob2678 (talk) 15:05, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the reversions have mooted the problem. As we go forward, we may have to do this more often. Bearian (talk) 03:39, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, utter trainwreck of an article without any clear topic. Consider this unsourced gem from it:

    "Although significant differences between the definitions of second language and foreign language may be hard to find as the two terms are often taken as synonyms, research has been carried out to shed light on the differentiating traits of the two. The distinction between acronyms TESL (Teaching of English as a Second Language) and TEFL (Teaching of English as a Foreign Language) shows the attention different researchers have paid to the concepts of foreign language and second language. "

    What even is this other than WP editor commentary trying to justify this as a topic mid-article? We already have a fairly cohesive article at Second language, and there's no apparent reason why this should exist. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your yourself state that this is unreferenced. Here is a quote from RS:

    Foreign language learning and teaching refer to the teaching or learning of a nonnative language outside of the environment where it is commonly spoken. A distinction is often made between ‘foreign’ and ‘second’ language learning. A second language implies that the learner resides in an environment where the acquired language is spoken. In the area of research, the term second language acquisition (SLA) is a general term that embraces foreign language learning and investigates the human capacity to learn languages other than the first language once it has been acquired.

    The article is not only about learning, its scope includes topics of papers such as Foreign language effect in decision-making: How foreign is it? and Automatic processing of foreign language documents Kelob2678 (talk) 09:19, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The LLM-generated content appears to have been dealt with, but is there is a viable topic here, or is it duplicative by definition?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Violates WP:MOS + reads more like an essay at best and a potential copyvio at worst. -- in the club bumping that 09:12, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not copyvio, as the text in the article existed since 2011[5] and the preprint was published in 2014. So it is the latter that plagiarized the former. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:24, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:N has two arms. A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets WP:GNG or a relevant SNG, BUT only if it is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. This article is a WP:DICDEF. What is it about? It can't be about languages in general, because it would be fork of all the language articles we have. It is specifically about a concept of a language that is foreign. But the only thing that makes a language foreign is that it is a language spoken by foreigners. There is no encyclopaedic subject there. It is all dictionary definition, and what we have in the article meanders into the subject of other pages, because there is no tightly defined subject here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:10, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is literally no reason to hold on to this article. As @Deacon Vorbis pointed out the absurdity of the unsourced portions, I noticed this fact included in the article with a citation:

    An article from The Atlantic claims that only 1 percent of the adults within the US population consider themselves proficient in speaking a foreign language. This is in stark contrast to many other countries, where the percentage is much higher.

    The article in The Atlantic makes no such claim whatsoever as to the percentage of Americans proficient in a foreign language, and I find it absurd to think that just 1% of Americans know a foreign language. aaronneallucas (talk) 06:08, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good article BathTubJesus (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article hasn't reached good article status, and even if it had that isn't an argument that would stop it from deletion anyway. Plenty of GA's have been sent to AfD in the past. If you meant that we shouldn't delete the article because you like it, that would be an WP:ILIKEIT argument. What is it that you like about the article specifically? Gommeh 📖   🎮 17:09, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If someone wants to properly revive it, I guess they are free to do after deletion so that all the AI slop doesn't stand in the way. Oakchris1955 (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vranyo

edit
Vranyo (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)

None of the sources can be considered reliable when it comes to the Russian language and culture. I tried searching for any reliable sources in both English and Russian, but none support the definition of “Vranyo” given in the article.

Most of the sources used in the article are political opinion pieces written by journalists, where the concept of “Vranyo” is mentioned in passing to support a larger point [1,2,3,4,8,9,10].

Out of the sources where that isn’t the case, [5] is indeed written by a Professor of Russian and Slavonic Studies. However, it is still an opinion piece, and very remotely supports the definition of “Vranyo” given by the article. It also uses “one wag on Reddit” as one of its sources, raising questions regarding the academic quality of the piece.

For sources [6,7], the article gives a quote of a Russian-American professor of history, but nothing in the sources indicates that the given quote has any relation to the concept of “Vranyo”.

[11] is a book on workplace practices, also mentioning “Vranyo” in passing to support a larger point. The author is a Professor of Sociology with nothing to suggest he’d be an authoritative source on Russian language and culture.

As one of the editors in the old talk suggested, it does seem to be the case that the concept of “Vranyo”, as used by the article, is a concept that a small group of English-speaking journalists have decided to label using the Russian loanword "Vranyo", completely detached from the actual word “Vranyo” in the Russian language.

In this regard, it is quite interesting, but requires more original research. If the original contributor would like to completely rewrite the article, I am not against incubating the article, but as it currently stands, I would suggest DELETE

--Deliberate Baobab (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need WP:OR. Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, and the article is sourced. The article has over eleven references, all of them including the word/concept, including experts and scholars, Russians and non-Russians, but it doesn't seem to matter since this article appears to have struck some kind of nerve.
This is the English Wikipedia, so if “Vranyo” here has a different connotation than it does in the general Russian language or on the Russian Wikipedia, that's fine. If you want a more Russian POV, you could provide reliable sources for that rather than suggesting that the entire article be deleted, given that whether some people like it or not, this definition of “Vranyo” does exist and it would be silly of a neutral encyclopedia to delete it per WP:NPOV. I'm not against adding some good Russian sources if they can be found, if simply having "in Russian, the literal translation is x" would make you feel better. TylerBurden (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONTEXTMATTERS None of the cited sources are written by experts in the appropriate field. Please refer to my commentary in the orignal message regarding the quality of the used sources. Deliberate Baobab (talk) 12:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't think they're experts, then that's your POV, some of them are literally described as such by secondary references. For example, "Galeotti, an expert and prolific writer on Russia".
We're just in WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory, I get that this might not fit with certain people's own narratives about Russia or that it might even be considered offensive to some, but thankfully we have WP:NOTCENSORED. TylerBurden (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable sources (WP:RS). Yes, Galeotti is an expert, but an expert in Russian crime and security. He is not a reliable source on Russian language and culture, and his opinions do not represent the mainstream academic view. With all the sources being not unlike this one, the article currently puts undue emphasis on a WP:FRINGE theory held by a minority.
Now, the article is not completely hopeless, and could be rewritten in a draft space so it is up to the standarts of Wikipedia, but I would argue there is not enough quality research on the topic yet. Deliberate Baobab (talk) 07:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't only about the Russian language, it's about the term in English, because we're on the English Wikipedia. If it's a fringe view, then go ahead and provide some sources debunking the term and concept, because surely someone would be calling it out when high profile sources cover it. TylerBurden (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps due to how niche this is, I wasn't able to find any authoritative sources discussing the topic at all, whether supporting the view of the article, or opposing it. But I'll try searching again.
All in all, I believe I made my argument on the non-reliability of the sources, so I'll let more experienced editors weigh in from here on.
On an unrelated note, in your experience, do interested editors usually come upon AfD discussion such as this one on their own, given time, or would something like a post on a Wikipedia noticeboard by neccessary here to get more opinions? Deliberate Baobab (talk) 07:18, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So there's all the sources cited on the article (over a dozen at this point) actually supporting and discussing the term and you can't find a single one debunking them or the concept itself, I don't buy the excuse of it being "niche", because if it was, there wouldn't be this amount of sources covering the topic. It seems the actual WP:FRINGE view here might be the one that this is some imaginary thing invented by western journalists.
I don't think it's necessary to do anything further than await input from others. TylerBurden (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Every single reference specifically mentions the term, this is a blatantly false statement and the timing here is also convenient since you added this the same day you started engaging in a content dispute with me on Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present). TylerBurden (talk) 10:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already checked them before submitting this !vote. Source 7 doesn't mention it. Sources 10 and 8 are duplicates, sources 1, 2, and 3 are paywalled, source 11 only mentions it twice and doesn't delve further into it. There is also nothing showing vranyo is a Russian concept in particular, rather than just a concept that happens to be part of Russian culture. For me, the sources don't show that vranyo merits its own article just yet.   Jalapeño   (u t g) 11:26, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. As the article stands now, the sources fail WP:SIGCOV, but reliable sources can be found. If I search for "vranyo" in quotation marks, a search on Google Scholar yields 106 results, a search on EBSCO yields 95 results, and a search on JSTOR yields 19 results. Z. Patterson (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't have time to go into much more detail right now, but the sourcing as it stands seems plenty sufficient to demonstrate notability already. Multiple sources discuss the topic in significant depth and even allude to further academic study. This is discussed not just as a WP:DICDEF, but as the concept behind the word, as a part of Russian culture. Here's one from 1962 that appears to go into great depth, although it's paywalled beyond the first page, unfortunately. The current sourcing is certainly passable, and appears quite improvable. This doesn't even need draftification, which tends to be reserved for things that are just really nowhere close yet. And for what it's worth, I consider myself a pretty staunch deletionist, but this one looks fine. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:43, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have yet to come across a non-political source that discusses vranyo. The article you mentioned was published in the "Problems of Communism" journal (can't find if it's peer-reviewed), and is available at [6] under the 1962 folder, issue 2. As is the case with all the sources on the topic, I highly doubt the academical quality and reliability of this source. WP:RS
    On the second page, what the author claims to be a "great prerevolutionary statement" on "vranyo" is actually a humorous short story published in a collection called "Humorous Stories".
    The source also doesn't support the claim made in the Wikipedia article. As the Wiki article currently stands:
    "[Vranyo is] a lie being told despite it not being expected to be believed, but the person being told the lie goes along with it anyway". While the most concrete definition of vranyo in the source is:
    "Thus an accusation of indulging in vranyo is likely to be merely affectionate and adds up to little more than a charge of possessing a lively imagination".
    Most of the other sources directly contrast "lozh" and "vranyo", while the source:
    "[It should be a] reminder that [lozh and vranyo] are at least juxtaposed if not overlapping concepts, and that one could be too pernickety in trying to draw a firm line between them". Deliberate Baobab (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is discussed not just as a WP:DICDEF - but it is indeed explained through a dictionary-like definition of the word in most of the sources. I.e. they say: this is what the word means in Russian, as if it were defined in a dictionary. The distinction between the dictionary definition and the word as a reference to the concept "behind the word", "as a part of Russian culture" isn't drawn anywhere (I don't think these two could be sharply distinguished anyway). — Phazd (talk|contribs) 01:38, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I thank @Deliberate Baobab for opening this discussion. I'd note that the user does not appear to be a single-purpose account because they simply have no serious editing history to speak of. Lacking an editing history shouldn't mean that the user shouldn't open an AfD discussion.
Deliberate Baobab has already covered the key problems and I'd elaborate on them (partly restating some of my points from the talk page). I apologise for the extensiveness of the reply.
The fundamental problem is that the stated meaning of the word does not appear to exist in practice. The meaning is provided by people who are almost without exception not academically relevant in the study of Russian language, culture and society (so I'd expect linguists, sociologists, etc. being the sources, and not only e.g. journalists and military experts), solely in opinion pieces (sometimes with obvious political motivation), and the meaning does not correspond to what actually can be found in Russian sources. No Russian dictionary (I can provide probably a dozen examples) supports the rather extravagant meaning provided by the article. According to the extensive Oxford Russian Dictionary it's translated simply as 'lies' or 'nonsense', labelled as "informal". Have generations of linguists really missed this supposedly prominent meaning that (according to the current sources) the majority of Russian population is familiar with? Checking a variety of Russian news pieces and other texts online does not result in any usage examples where the meaning provided by the article is particularly needed or appropriate for understanding it - even the examples presented in Bermel's article seem to work fine by translating vranyo as 'bullshit' or with the terms provided by Oxford Russian Dict. Russian scholarly articles on the word make no mention of it either (more on that below). And purely personally - if anyone can provide at least a few examples of Russians writing/communicating in Russian unambiguously operating with this meaning, I'll be more than ready to take back much if not all of my criticism of the article. The following criticism that I provide, however, seems to align with my strong impression that the term doesn't have the stated meaning.
The oldest currently used source for the meaning is D. Shipler's article from the Cold War period. The procedure used for obtaining the "definition" disregarded normal linguistic procedure - it is based on one single speaker's (quite possibly hyperbolic) interpretation of the word, rather than on analysis of actual usage. I assume that a Wikipedia article about a word and its semantics should follow principles of scientific linguistics (see Linguistic description#Methods), i.e. Wikipedia should be consistent with itself, and not discard the principles in specific articles simply due to the inadequacy of the available sources. The other sources are not any more academically reliable:
Murray's source of the definition is "one of my colleagues". (Murray is "an educator specializing in the treatment of trauma".)
Horowitz's main example is from a fictional novel (note that the character who accepts the vranyo behaves in socially unusual ways: The Idiot).
Gorokhova's source is her kindergarten "aunt Polya". This together with Shipler's description and perhaps Dostoyevsky's text (see below) is the strongest available source that at least some Russians do actively use the provided definition - though not necessarily that they really use the term in accordance with the definition they provide. Unprofessional native speakers' judgments of their language is by default not scientific, it is frequently classified as folk linguistics. Gorokhova can probably be regarded as a primary source.
Bermel's key source is literally a single reddit comment. And that's by far the most reliable and competently written source, the only one whose author has relevant academic background, and the only one that rises above being purely an opinion piece and directly showing (what are supposed to be) examples of usage of the term.
The reference to V. Medish has no value at all and isn't verifiable. It is sourced to Rachlin which does not provide any further information about Medish's statement, where it is sourced from, where Medish published his studies on vranyo, it's not even evident that Medish's quote is from his scholarly work (it doesn't sound like it) or that it's explicitly about vranyo (as noticed by Deliberate Baobab).
Horowitz refers to Dostoyevsky's 1873 essay. However, most of the essay itself operates with "vranyo" simply as lying, and doesn't necessarily entail both parties being aware of the lie. That element is mentioned only once in the text, in the context of people lying in public to impress others: "Разумеется, из них мало кто верит один другому, но расстаются они почти всегда один другим совершенно довольные и друг другу даже несколько благодарные." (The Russian text is available here.) I am not of the opinion that this is sufficient to count Dostoyevsky as using the article's definition of vranyo.
Since the meaning does not exist, or at the very least the sources aren't directly or indirectly based on studying it, every other source can spin up some new spicy detail about it, creating contradictions and an overall incoherent picture of the topic. The more sources are added, the less sense it all makes. The current WP article already contains one major contradiction:
"The concept of vranyo dates back to the Soviet period."
"Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky, perplexed by the universality of vranyo, suggested in his essay Something about Lying (1873)"
If we took the other sources seriously and systematically, and not selectively, we'd easily create an even more contradictory article. Adding to the above inconsistency regarding how old the concept is, according to Rachlin Russians "have cultivated [it] for centuries as an art form", which seems to push back the origin of the term even further into the past.
Who uses vranyo? According to Bermel, typically the Russian government. According to Murray and Gorokhova, Russians in general (but not the younger generations, according to the latter). Bermel expands its meaning to US politics, specifically Trump. According to Shulman, however, in workplaces it is a universal phenomenon.
Why do Russians lie? Because they're being oppressed (Galeotti), out of contempt (Bermel), because they're ashamed of themselves (Dostoyevsky/Horowitz), or "just to keep in shape" (Medish/Rachlin).
Rachlin says Potiomkin villages were vranyo. Schillinger says Potiomkin villages were pokazukha.
It seems just about anything can be ascribed to vranyo. What sort of an article would we end up with if all these unrelated and more or less contradictory statements were accepted into it?
Now I'd also address some of TylerBurden's responses to the criticism:
TylerBurden is asking for sources that debunk the concept. The problem is that the concept really isn't all that well-covered or well-established, particularly not in publications where it might receive scrutiny by relevant experts. The sources are all mostly journalistic and even essayistic pieces that are very unlikely to receive systematic attention by e.g. a Russian language professor.
"This isn't only about the Russian language, it's about the term in English, because we're on the English Wikipedia."
Any Wikipedia can be about any term in any language. The article in fact mostly isn't about the term in English but in Russian - a few sources do ascribe vranyo to US politics as well but that claim is not reflected in the article, and there's one source talking about it in the context of workplaces without apparent cultural/national affiliation (it is unclear if other scholarship on workplace sociology uses the same term, or if it's the referenced author who introduced it into the context). As the basis and the bulk of the article is about the Russian concept, one expects sources with expertise in Russian culture and language, which are lacking.
"The article has over eleven references, all of them including the word/concept, including experts and scholars, Russians and non-Russians"
Actually just one scholar with truly relevant academic background (Bermel), and two Russians who both live and publish in the west. For an article that deals with an entire culture, including saying that the culture heavily promotes lying, even lying just for fun, I think we need something a bit more academically reliable.
How do Russian sources treat vranyo? As I said above, dictionaries say absolutely nothing in support of this idea, which can be taken to represent the consensus of literally generations of linguists. But we can also consider more specific and extensive scholarly works on lying in Russia, which sometimes do use the term vranyo, but never with the specific meaning found in the article, never as if it were a technical term. It is consistently a mere synonym or near-synonym to lozh'. I'd particularly note these two texts:
"Для дальнейшего рассмотрения поставленного вопроса следует особо подчеркнуть, что грань между словами «враньё» и «ложь» в разговорной и письменной речи практически неразличимо." = For the further study of the question it is necessary to stress that the difference between the words "vran'jo" and "lož'" in colloquial and written word is practically nonexistent. (p. 24)
On the basis of textual examples, the article establishes several semantic/conceptual differences between lozh and vranyo, as seen on the table on p. 5. E.g. lozh is marked by presence and vranyo by absence of usefulness for the liar, lozh is associated with a higher stylistic register and vranyo with lower, lozh is more typical for men and vranyo for women, etc. None of the differences has anything to do with the other party's (un)awareness of the lie, which is the key element of Wikipedia's vranyo. The article also includes an extensive paraphrase of A.D. Shmelev on p. 3 showing a slightly different view of the lozh-vranyo differences, though the paraphrase is somewhat confusing and circular. Nonetheless, in the extensive paragraph there is again not one mention of both parties' awareness of the lie.
While the two articles do not entirely line up with their interpretation (in part due to the different goals and methodologies), both are based on study of Russian language material and previous scholarship, and in sharp contradiction with the numerous sources by non-linguists currently referred to - many of them explain vranyo by contrasting it to lozh, but with completely different conclusions. It is also likely that further inquiry into Russian scholarship on lying would again result in absence of the usage of the term vranyo with the given meaning, and/or absence of the term altogether.
Finally, after one last search, it appears to me that the term was introduced into English by Donald Hingley in his articles (already discussed above) and his 1979 book The Russian Mind. One reviewer of the book, Gleb Struve, explicitly says:
"Hingley is wrong, however, in drawing a sharp distinction between the verbs врать (to fib), from which the verbal noun вранье is derived, and лгать (to tell lies) with its corresponding noun ложь (lie). The two are, in fact, interchangeable, and that is how Dostoevskij uses them."
To finish off: obviously, I'm for deleting the article. Perhaps the article can be kept, but in that case it should be edited in a way that clearly contextualises the claims that come from non-scientific observation and opinion pieces, as well as include the Russian sources that don't neatly follow the presented (re)definition of the term. Actually writing out e.g. "Vranyo is defined as [definition], according to D. Shipler's Russian friend, Murray's colleague, Gorokhova's kindergarten caretaker, and a reddit comment", as well as mentioning the contradictions found in the sources and not glossing them over, would likely result in a silly and confusing article - but that really would just fairly reflect the sources. An another alternative is looking for further sources such as the ones I provided above and refocusing the article onto lying in Russia and Russian culture in general; vranyo as currently presented may merit a brief mention in that context, as one of the descriptions of lying in Russian culture, although clearly with almost no presence in actual academic discourse. I do not think the proposed draftifying of the article can be satisfied because it doesn't seem substantially better academic sources can be found, aside from perhaps Hingley's works. The mentions I found on JSTOR appeared no more well-researched than what is already available (maybe a more careful look would find something better, I haven't checked them all in detail), and Medish who's referred to by Rachlin looks like a dead end.
— Phazd (talk|contribs) 01:24, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis table would be helpful. For those suggesting the concept is indistinguishable from something we already have an article about, would a merge/redirect be appropriate here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:38, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure whether a source analysis table would be helpful. The main topic of contention seems to be the reliability of the sources used.
Proponents of deletion argue that most of the sources are opinionistic essays and would probably not be subject to the usual fact-checking procedures that you would expect from their otherwise trustworthy publishers. Furthermore, even though the authors of the sources are journalists who work on Russia-adjacent topics (mainly Russian domestic and foreign politics), that doesn't make them reliable when it comes to the area of the article (that being Russian culture/linguistics). The short statements provided by actual experts in the field either only remotely support the claims made in the article or fully contradict them. A breakdown of the sources from this perspective can be found in my original nomination, and in Phazd's detailed comment above.
The opponents of deletion say that the sources come from respectable newspapers, and the authors are journalists who write on topics related to Russia, thus, making them reliable enough to speak about the usage of "vranyo".
To answer the question about merge/redirect, the claim being made is that the meaning of "vranyo" is barely distinguishable from the simple English noun "lie". Now that you mention it, the Wiki article Lie does have a sentence on "vranyo". But the definition there lacks a citation, and is different than in our article. Deliberate Baobab (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We could also merge this with lie.   Jalapeño   (u t g) 13:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are evidently enough sources for an article on the subject, given that it has been specifically pointed out as a Russian cultural phenomenon. The alleged concerns can be addressed by for example fleshing the article out with either counterpoints to these sources that are being labelled ″political″ by the dissenters (as long as they meet WP:RS standards) or other changes, I fail to see what is productive about deleting a topic that evidently has coverage within reliable sources, and some of the arguments made here for deleting are really leaning into WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TylerBurden (talk • contribs) 18:38, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I also seriously doubt that the concept of vranyo only exists in Russia. None of the reliable, non-political sources show this form of lying is specifically Russian (which would be Russophobic to blindly assume it is).   Jalapeño   (u t g) 09:40, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:57, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded articles

edit

Redirects for Discussion

edit


History

edit

List of battles fought in Indiana

edit
List of battles fought in Indiana (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)

An essentially unreferenced article that goes against the WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN guideline. Nominations of other articles like this, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles fought in South Dakota, have resulted in deletion. toweli (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iran Historical Sovereignty over the Tunbs and BuMusa Islands

edit
Iran Historical Sovereignty over the Tunbs and BuMusa Islands (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)

Does not meet notability Kingsacrificer (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving Mongolia

edit
List of wars involving Mongolia (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:TNT, fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NLIST. Wars fought by ancient Xianbei tribes bear no relation to "wars involving Mongolia"; neither do battles fought by the Kalmyk Khanate, Ilkhanate, Golden Horde, or the Khoshut Khanate. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait so it's by geographically Mongolian like the nations based on modern day Mongolian lands and not by ethnicity which includes nations like Kalmyk Khanate or the Khoshut Khanate, or the Succesor state of Mongol Empire which is Golden Horde and the Ilkhanate? HorseBro the hemionus (talk) 07:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Staff of the Krushevo Revolutionary Region

edit
Forest Staff of the Krushevo Revolutionary Region (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 notability. The creator of the article was also blocked as a sockpuppet. StephenMacky1 (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Militsiya of the Kruševo Republic

edit
Militsiya of the Kruševo Republic (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 notability entirely. Has been unsourced for a while now. I could not find anything to salvage the article in another language version of Wikipedia either. StephenMacky1 (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Heart of a Negro

edit
The Heart of a Negro (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)

Announced but never created film without reliable indepth sources. I redirected it to Lincoln Motion Picture Company#Unreleased future projects because it lacks notability, but was reverted. Part of a school assignment apparently. Would suggest redirecting it again as an WP:ATD. Fram (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the inconvenience. Even though the assignment is over I still intend on coming back to edit the article at a later date with more reliable sources because I am genuinely interested in creating Wikipedia articles. This is also my first time with something like this and I do not have any external help or assistants so I am trying to learn this on my own. Aidan Fields (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. It looks like this was planned, but never came to fruition. I think that this is something that could be covered in the company's article, but I don't think that it's notable enough for its own article, based on what I was able to find. The mentions are generally in passing and it doesn't sound like they did more than announce it and plan actors. Since this is for a class assignment I would recommend moving the article into the user's draftspace so they can have a copy for grading, if there isn't a copy already. This would also give them a place to work on this if the AfD ends with the article getting redirected or deleted prior to the end of their course, just in case there is enough coverage to justify inclusion and they weren't able to get it into the article before then. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Imai Sadakiyo

edit
Imai Sadakiyo (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 has not shown WP:GNG. Looking at the history of this article, the sole source that was used for this article was [7], which is currently dead, and "wiki" raised a huge flag for me; the main website, [8], is also currently defunct. Being a samurai and a samurai only doesn't mean the samurai deserves a Wikipedia article. HwyNerd Mike (t | c) 02:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The only mentions of the subject are in wikis, being [9] and [10], the first sourcing the dead source above and the latter not even sourcing. HwyNerd Mike (t | c) 03:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Wuchale

edit
Battle of Wuchale (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)

After searching on on google scholar, I am unconvinced this battle even occurred. A handful of blogs and wikias mention it, with just as much brevity as the page here. Fails WP:PROOF.

(I did remove a sizeable chunk of text prior to putting this here, but that entire section seemed to be a LLM hallucination talking about the 1896 Battle of Adwa against Italy.) Zygmeyer (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I agree if that’s all there is then the battle isn’t notable and the article should be deleted. Mccapra (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pax Indica

edit
Pax Indica (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 term is barely mentioned in the sources (mostly in source 2 with a passing mention in source 1) and the article appears to be WP:OR in that it is combining three disparate periods into an overarching theme. If the Varghese and Sangeeth book is notable, then perhaps an article on the book is warranted, but this article looks like original research. RegentsPark (comment) 17:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, as there is essentially no scholarship that treats these three disparate, although similarly named, topics as part of the whole. We already have articles for two out of three. Split the Pax Mughalica part into a separate article. Convert this article into a four-way WP:DAB, including the Pax Indica (book). Викидим (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pax Mughalica barely had any expanding factor as per my research. Hence doesn't warrant its own article. ScrubbedSoap (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would support also turning Pax Mughalica into a redirect to a section in Mughal empire. Викидим (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also why aren't Zac Sangeeth considered "notable"? ScrubbedSoap (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Articles like Pax Gupta, Pax Mughalica themselves don't have any expanding factors and hence will be very short.
Infact if you will see the Pax Gupta article now, it's very short. Hence I thought it would be better if they were clubbed together. (Also Pax Sinica exists).
I think it can be considered fair if you want them seperate, but remember these articles if separate will be very small.
Anyways, Pax Indica
  • 1 -being used for Kushan Empire
  • 2 -being used for Mauryan Empire
  • 3 -being used for Gupta Empire
  • 4 -being used for period of Mauryan and Gupta
  • 5 -being used for Mauryan, Gupta and Kushan.
  • 6 - being used for Islamic Period.
ScrubbedSoap (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • These citations contain only passing mentions of pax indica and often it is mentioned only once. What you need is several academic sources that discuss pax indica as an overarching term for various empires-empires that, presumably, maintained peace on the Indian subcontinent. RegentsPark (comment) 20:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have that, except one that is mentioned in the article.
    But all these "Pax" Kushan/Gupta/Mughal
    Are all related to peace in the Indian subcontinent only.
    I am okay with this article (Pax Indica) serving as a disambiguation page.
    But I still stand that these Pax Gupta, Pax Mughalica don't have enough material for themselves to be stand out as an article. ScrubbedSoap (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:23, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- additional searches have yet to show enough SIGCOV to this topic, though searches on the Google books do see it bein mentioned more.Lorraine Crane (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erumduli Barlas

edit
Erumduli Barlas (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)

Half the content is genealogical connections, therefore failing WP:INVALIDBIO. The other half only vaguely refers to who the subject "served", with no further elaboration.

Two out of the three cited sources (I am unable to access the third) fail verification, therefore failing WP:V. (I note that the article creator has recently been perma blocked for poor sourcing among other reasons.[11])

Searching Google Books with three spelling variations returns little/no results, therefore failing WP:GNG due to limited coverage.[12][13][14] Even the results that do return seem to be entirely genealogical, with no mention of life events. Alivardi (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This Article about the Person was historical character its mentioned in both three biggest sources and that is Timurid Scribes, Jāmiʿ al-Tawārīkh [Secret History of The Mongol], the first earliest sources from Secret History of Mongols mentions about that Erdemtu Barula was the son of Yeke Barula son of Qachula son of Menen Tudun son of Habich Baghatur son of Bodonchar Munkhag,
Erdemtu Barulas descent form a Barulas Clan which later Suqu Sechen, Qarachar Noyan, Tuqachar Kuregan, Qhubilai, Qudus etc members of Barulas were mentioned in The Secret History of The Mongols, all were groups of Borjigin tribes of subclan of Barulas,
and the life events and all biographies are from Timurid Scribes, and the reason i support Timurid scribe is the most trusted sources is from Rashid al-Din Hamadani, he writing a book named Jāmiʿ al-Tawārīkh that before Timurids cames, that was the genelogical references go check this 👉 [Rashid al-Dins geneologies of Barulas peopels]
where he mentioned that Tumanay Khan have son named Qabul Khan and Qachulay, Qachulay have son named Erdemchi Barula, Erdemchi Barula have two sons, Sughu Sechen and Tudan, Tudan have son named Chuchiye, Chuchiye have son named Buluqan Qalja,
So at The end of Conclusions i dont find any logical or, rational reasons to deleting this pages ?, this page so significant and important that its part of Mongolian ancestries of Timur, and Timurid dynasties and Mughal dynasties, the Mughal emperors of Indian subcontinent themself for there legitimacies as semi-divine rulingships, they making this geneologies of Eremduli Barlas as there anecstors, here the references 👉 (https://chaihana.wordpress.com/the-mughal-line-adam-to-aurangzeb/ |The Mughal Line – Adam to Aurangzeb), the third Mughal emperor Akbar I his minister Abul Fazl makes Akbarnama about this geneologies.
However there is some Timurid and Secret History of Mongols disputes over lineages but overall they were parts of Borjigins sub-tribes its confirmed for sure, so i don't know any other reasons to justifying to delete it, Ajrun Amir'za-da (talk) 13:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources in the article failed verification, the third one can be accessed on archive.org. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete… I find his name in various translations: Эрдэмчи Барлас (Mongolian), 亦儿占赤 (found in genealogical records corresponding to “Irdamji/Erdemchi”), and Erumdji Barlas (as given on Italian Wikipedia). I found only passing mentions and no significant detailed information about him. Of course, he may pass WP:NPOL as a court official of the Khamag Mongol Confederation, but he should have been discussed at length by scholars. So, weak delete for now, and if someone finds detailed academic sources, I am happy to change my vote. Hteiktinhein (talk) 06:11, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its clearly mentioned name Erdemtu Barula, his father Yeke Barula, his father Qachula, his father Menen Tudun, his father Habich Baghatur, his father Bodonchar Munkhag
while in Timurid sources mentioned Erdumchi as son of Qachulay or Qachula they linking there progenies sources from Famous Historian Rashid al-Din Hamadani, from his book Jamiwal Tawarikh, which is discussing between the scholars of Royal Asiatic Societies of Britain's click here 👉 (https://www.academia.edu/figures/11579753/figure-1-lines-parallel-the-imperial-chingizid-house-issuing)
so there only 2 Academic Sources The Secret Histories Of Mongols and Jamiwal Tawarikh
i know theres debating about origins of Secret Histories Mongol chronicles, however this book is widely accepted as parts of Academics, because its the only earlier 12th and 13th Centuries histories to learning about Mongolians which is deeply detailed ✅
  • Adding 1 more Academics The third Mughal emperor Akbar his minister Abul Fazl writing a a book which is scholaristic books of that era in Mughal India, which is Akbarnama where he clearly mentioned about Erumduli Barlas as search in Barlas word on the page no. 190 the chapter about Irdamc-chi Barlas, and he said about him that

Irdamchi Barlas was the upright son of Qachuli Bahadur and was distinguished for his wisdom and military talent. On his father death, the patent (tughra) of the Commander-in-Chiefship was exalted by the entry of his name and he manage affairs according to rules which his father had made illustrious. He was the first who bore the title of Barlas, the meaning of which fine word is brave and of a noble lineage. The whole Barlas clan trace its origin! from him. When Bartan Bahadur died, Yesugie Bahadur, the third of his four sons, and father of Cingiz Khan, and who was adorned with the cairess of wisdom and the helmet of courage, placed the crown of the Khanate on his head and graced the throne of world-sway. At this time Irdam-chi Barlas died, leaving twenty-nine sons.

Now guys tell me about your all opinions in this historical figure ?

Ajrun Amir'za-da (talk) 08:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jammu (Occupied by Pakistan)

edit
Jammu (Occupied by Pakistan) (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 is basically a WP:POVFORK of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. If there is any historically worthy material in here, it can go into either that page or the individidual district pages. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Pakistan, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To address concerns raised above:
    1. This article is not a POV fork.
    Jammu Province is a historically distinct administrative division of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, consistently documented in reliable sources (Drew 1875; Lydekker 1883; Imperial Gazetteer 1909; Lawrence 1895).
    It is not covered in depth under Azad Jammu and Kashmir, which describes a modern political entity, not the historic Jammu Province.
    2. Title issues do not justify deletion.
    Per WP:ATD and WP:MOVE, if the title is considered non-neutral, it should be moved.
    Title disputes are not a deletion rationale.
    3. The page is being actively improved.
    I am revising wording for full neutrality and adding inline citations from established academic works already used on related Wikipedia pages.
    4. Content is verifiable and non-original.
    All statements are based on long-standing historical sources and existing district-level Wikipedia pages (Mirpur, Kotli, Bhimber).
    This is not new analysis; it is a summary of published classifications of Jammu Province.
    Given these points, the appropriate action is Keep (or, if needed, rename), not deletion. RYasmeen12 (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A10. Mccapra (talk) 10:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The topic is notable, historically defined, and supported by multiple reliable, published sources. The article is not a POV fork; it documents a historically verifiable sub-region of the former princely state of Jammu & Kashmir whose distinct administrative, linguistic, and cultural identity is well-established in the literature.
    1. Historically verifiable administrative unit (WP:RS / WP:V).
    Multiple colonial administrative works explicitly classify Mirpur, Bhimber, and Kotli as part of the Jammu Province, not the Kashmir Valley:
    Drew, The Jummoo and Kashmir Territories (1875)
    Lawrence, The Valley of Kashmir (1895)
    Imperial Gazetteer of India (1909)
    These are widely used scholarly references across South Asian historical research. The article relies on these precise, verifiable sources.
    2. Linguistic distinctiveness (WP:NOR and WP:RS).
    G. A. Grierson’s Linguistic Survey of India, Vol. 9, Part 4 classifies the vernacular spoken in Mirpur/Bhimber/Kotli within the Western Pahari/Lahnda group, not the Kashmiri (Dardic) group. This is a published, secondary source demonstrating that the region is linguistically distinct and historically treated as a separate cultural unit.
    3. Contemporary academic usage (WP:V).
    Modern scholarship on the British Pahari-speaking diaspora (e.g., Hussain 2015, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development) explicitly treats Mirpur/Bhimber/Kotli as a culturally and linguistically distinct Jammu-origin region. This shows continuing use of the distinction in peer-reviewed literature.
    4. The article is not a POV fork (addressing WP:POVFORK).
    A POV fork occurs when content is duplicated to advance a viewpoint. This article does not duplicate existing content. It covers:
    A historically recognised administrative division (Jammu Province)
    Districts currently administered by Pakistan
    Their distinct linguistic, cultural, and historical identity
    These topics are not covered in Azad Kashmir, which predominantly focuses on the political entity formed in 1947. Historical Jammu Province material would not be appropriate to insert there.
    5. Consistency with Wikipedia’s existing naming conventions (WP:NPOV / WP:CONSISTENCY).
    Wikipedia already includes neutrally documented titles such as:
    Indian-occupied Kashmir
    Pakistan-occupied Kashmir
    Tibet (occupied by China)
    Baltistan (occupied by Pakistan)
    The title here follows the same descriptive pattern used for historically distinct territories under current administration. This is not more POV than existing occupation-based titles.
    6. Improved sourcing directly addresses concerns.
    The article has been updated with citations from:
    Drew (1875)
    Lawrence (1895, 1909)
    Grierson (1916)
    Imperial Gazetteer (1909)
    Modern peer-reviewed diaspora research
    This resolves the earlier concern of insufficient sourcing. The content relies on established historical geography and linguistics, not opinion.
    7. Neutral and factual framing (WP:NPOV).
    The article does not assert political claims about sovereignty. It describes:
    historical province boundaries
    linguistic classification
    cultural identity
    the fact of current administration by Pakistan
    This matches the neutral, descriptive approach taken by comparable Wikipedia articles.
    For these reasons, the article meets Wikipedia’s criteria for notability, verifiability, and historical neutrality, and therefore should be kept RYasmeen12 (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article Azad Jammu and Kashmir is a general encylopedic coverage of the region. Whereas a significant portion of this article is specifically about its socio-political functioning. My reasoning is per WP:CONSPLIT Kvinnen (talk) 10:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? A huge section called "Azad Jammu & Kashmir - a misnomer by Pakistan"? How is that better than the Azad Kashmir#Name section? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Azad Jammu Kashmir per nomination. This is clearly a POV fork, but it should be redirected rather than deleted so any sources or other encyclopedic material can be added to the target article, if there are any valuable contributions that can be saved. Katzrockso (talk) 12:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to AJK or delete. POV fork. If anything worth inclusion is there it should be added to AJK. UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, oppose redirect. GPTZero states that the section "Azad Jammu & Kashmir - a misnomer by Pakistan" was AI generated with 98% probability. References "Proclamation of Azad Government Distributed in Western Jammu Districts" and "Linguistic Survey of India, Vol. 8: Indo-Aryan Family, North-Western Group" link to archive.org, but when I click on them, I get an "Item cannot be found" error. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Try this link: https://archive.org/details/dli.pahar.2036/page/n995/mode/2up RYasmeen12 (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Linguistic Survey Of India Vol 9 Part 4 Pahari Languages RYasmeen12 (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect this effectively unsourced page to Azad Kashmir and use reliable sources to explain any issues there. It is unclear why editors above are proposing redirecting this page to pages that are themselves redirects. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and oppose redirect. Wikipedia does not decide the ownership of any of the disputed territories, nor, therefore, who "occupies" any of it. This is a PoV title, supporting one side of the dispute, whereas we should remain strictly neutral. - Arjayay (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Arjayay: But Indian occupied Kashmir exists, as does Pakistan occupied Kashmir. Both are redirects. This redirect would not be any more POV than those. If we were to treat this redirect as absolutely unacceptable then those would be so as well. Courtesy ping @Kelob2678, UmbyUmbreon, and Athanelar: also. UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the question is whether the term is used widely in reliable sources. Also, even that being the case, then the better redirect would be the more natural sounding "Pakistan-occupied Jammu" rather than "Jammu (occupied by Pakistan)", not least because the formwr implies "that part of Jammu which is part of Pakistan" and the latter implies that Jammu in its entirety is 'occupied by Pakistan' which is obviously not true Athanelar (talk) 12:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Athanelar - I've obviously heard of PoK and IoK quite frequently, but never Jammu (Occupied by Pakistan), moreover, that is an awkward phrase. If you want to reword it, I could agree to a redirect, provided we balance it with a similar redirect for a reworded Jammu (Occupied by India). WP:NPOV is the first of the three Wikipedia:Core content policies. Arjayay (talk) 13:11, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the comment. The reason the title uses “Jammu (Occupied by Pakistan)” rather than “Pakistan-occupied Jammu” is historical accuracy.
    Before 1947, the districts of Mirpur, Kotli, Bhimber, and Poonch were part of the Jammu Province of the princely state of Jammu & Kashmir under the Dogra (Singh) dynasty. These districts were historically identified as Jammu, not an entity called “Pakistan-occupied Jammu”.
    The events of 25 November 1947 relate specifically to the entry of Pakistan-backed forces into the western Jammu districts. In historical writing, this is described as the occupation of the Jammu region’s western districts by Pakistan, not “Jammu created by Pakistan”.
    Thus, the phrasing:
    “Jammu (Occupied by Pakistan)”
    accurately reflects:
    1. The pre-existing territorial unit (Jammu Province)
    2. The direction of occupation (Pakistan entering Jammu territory)
    3. The wording used in diaspora, human rights, and some academic discussions
    This is consistent with how Wikipedia titles are constructed when the occupied entity existed prior to the occupation (e.g., Baltistan (occupied by Pakistan) in scholarly literature; Tibet (occupied by China) used commonly in academic discourse).
    If the community prefers a different phrasing, I am open to a move discussion, but the historical basis for “Jammu (Occupied by Pakistan)” is clear and not an invention. RYasmeen12 (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want AI-generated content to be preserved in any way. LLM bludgeoning by the creator in this thread convinces me further. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the concern raised about “AI-generated content”: the underlying ideas, sources, structure, and historical content were developed by me as a human editor. English is not my first language, and at times I use automated tools for assistance with grammar or phrasing. However, the content itself—including the sourcing, historical distinctions, administrative classifications, linguistic references, and diaspora research—is based entirely on verifiable publications and my own editorial work with those sources.
    Using a tool to refine wording is not equivalent to generating content, nor does it undermine the validity of the sources cited. Wikipedia’s policies (e.g., WP:AGF and WP:V) evaluate the verifiability of information, not how polished a sentence appears. All citations provided in the article are drawn from reliable, published works (Drew 1875; Lawrence 1895; Grierson 1916; Gazetteer 1909; Hussain 2015, etc.), and every factual claim is grounded in these sources.
    In short: grammar assistance does not create content; it only helps present content more clearly. The substance of the article is human-curated, fully sourced, and verifiable. RYasmeen12 (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a POVFORK per nominator and Oppose redirect. As above, the title given to this article is not from a neutral POV, and should not be retained. When I first saw it in recent changes, I thought it was move vandalism to begin with. - Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 03:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, my intention here is to document the historical and linguistic classification of the Mirpur–Bhimber–Kotli region as described in long-standing reliable sources such as Drew (1875), Lydekker (1883), Lawrence (1895), and the Imperial Gazetteer. These sources consistently treat the area as part of the Jammu Province, distinct from the Kashmir Valley. The article summarises this published scholarship and does not advocate a political position.
    I recognise concerns about phrasing in the title and I am open to participating in a move discussion if the community feels a different wording would be more consistent with existing naming conventions. However, the underlying topic is verifiable and documented across the literature, and the article itself presents the material neutrally. RYasmeen12 (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and oppose redirect. I also thought this was move vandalism when I spotted it in RC. The title is blatantly partisan. Athanelar (talk) 03:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose deletion.
This article summarises well-documented academic facts about the historic Jammu Province of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir.
Multiple scholarly sources (Drew 1875; Lydekker 1883; Imperial Gazetteer 1909; Lawrence 1895; Snedden 2013) place Mirpur, Kotli and Bhimber within Jammu Province, not the Kashmir Valley. These districts later became part of Pakistan-administered territory after 1947, but their historical classification is consistent across over 150 years of published literature.
This topic is not original research. It is based on the following verifiable sources already used across Wikipedia:
– Mirpur District
– Kotli District
– Bhimber District
– Dogra dynasty
– Jammu and Kashmir (princely state)
This article simply summarises those existing facts in one place.
I am currently updating the language to ensure full neutrality and encyclopaedic tone, and adding additional citations from published academic sources.
For these reasons, the article meets Wikipedia’s verifiability and notability standards and should not be deleted. RYasmeen12 (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First to the creator, please stop bludgeoning this AfD with LLM cruft. I see no original (non-LLM) comment or event a hint at understanding the issues raised. The same goes for the LLM content in the article. That it is a POVFORK can be gauged from the fact that the much more broader and neutrally titled Pakistan-administered Kashmir is a redirect per consensus. No strong opinions on whether this (and corollary for all sides) should exist as rds, contrary to comments above POV rds are well in line with enwiki guidelines. Gotitbro (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comment. I would like to address the points raised with reference to Wikipedia policy.
    1. “LLM cruft”
    If there are specific diffs indicating non-human or non-compliant content, please identify them. Wikipedia requires evidence-based concerns (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BURDEN). No such evidence has been provided.
    2. Neutrality / POVFORK
    For an article to be a POV fork, it must duplicate existing content in order to promote a particular viewpoint (WP:POVFORK). This article does not duplicate Pakistan-administered Kashmir. That article covers Muzaffarabad, Neelum, Bagh, Haveli, etc., and does not describe the historical Jammu Province districts (Mirpur, Bhimber, Kotli, Sudhanoti) as a distinct pre-1947 administrative region.
    This article addresses a different historical unit — the Jammu Province districts west of the LoC — as documented in reliable sources (Drew 1875; Lydekker 1883; Census of India; Gazetteers). Therefore, it is not a fork but a topic with verifiable historical boundaries.
    3. Verifiability and Sources
    All statements in the article are supported by published academic or historical sources (WP:RS). These include 19th-century surveyors, census records, and contemporary South Asian scholarship. If any statement requires further citation, I am happy to add it.
    4. No personal or political agenda
    My edits follow WP:NPOV and the purpose of the encyclopaedia — summarising reliably published knowledge. The pre-1947 administrative structure of the Jammu Province is a matter of historical record, not opinion.
    In summary, no policy-based rationale for deletion has been demonstrated. I am continuing to improve the article’s tone and citation density to meet all Wikipedia content standards. RYasmeen12 (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the pre-1947 administrative structure of the Jammu province is a historical fact. But its relevance to today's world is an opinion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. I would like to summarise the key points that demonstrate why the article Jammu (Occupied by Pakistan) meets Wikipedia’s standards for inclusion:
    1. The article covers a historically documented region
    The “Jammu Province” existed as an administrative division of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir from 1846 until 1947. This is supported by multiple reliable, non-controversial sources including Drew (1875), Lydekker (1883), the Census of India, and contemporary historical scholarship.
    The article summarises these facts already verified in established literature.
    2. It does not duplicate existing articles
    Unlike “Pakistan-administered Kashmir” or “Azad Jammu and Kashmir,” which describe the modern political entity, this article documents the historical Jammu Province and its specific districts (Mirpur, Bhimber, Kotli, Sudhanoti).
    These areas are ethnographically and linguistically distinct from the Kashmir Valley, and this distinction is repeatedly noted in reliable sources.
    3. It is grounded in verifiable pre-1947 history, not political opinion
    The content relies on published academic works, archival materials, and neutral historical accounts.
    The focus is on factual mislabelling and the absence of a consolidated history of the western districts of old Jammu Province — not on any contemporary political claim.
    4. The Treaty of Amritsar (1846) itself reinforces the article’s legitimacy
    As participants have noted, the treaty formalises the creation of the Dogra-ruled princely state and demonstrates the administrative coherence of Jammu Province under the Dogra dynasty until 1947.
    This directly supports the historical framing of the article.
    5. No significant policy-based reason for deletion has been demonstrated
    Notability is satisfied through multiple independent scholarly sources.
    Verifiability is satisfied through citations already in the article.
    Concerns raised so far relate to personal interpretation rather than policy.
    For these reasons, the article aligns with Wikipedia’s requirements on verifiability, notability, neutrality, and scope, and should be retained. RYasmeen12 (talk) 01:17, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Occult History of the Third Reich

edit
The Occult History of the Third Reich (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)

Found no sigcov of this film, though has a few passing mentions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler and the Occult

edit
Hitler and the Occult (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 cannot find a single source, anywhere, that gives any sigcov about this film. Most searches for this phrase are either generic, or related to the notable book by Ken Anderson. I have found nothing except TV listings, more reviews of the Anderson book, and passing mentions in articles using this as an example of ridiculous History channel programming.

Note: the article is wrong, this film actually released in 1996 or 1997.

Note 2: This is an entirely different documentary from the 2007 National Geographic documentary of the same title, which is based very, very loosely on the Anderson book. That one has some brief reviews. This does not. it could redirect to In Search of History which seems more likely to be notable (though its chances aren't great), though we'd have to move the redirect PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of early Acadian families of Port Royal

edit
List of early Acadian families of Port Royal (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)

Per WP:NOTGENEALOGY. This is a huge list of non-notable people who lived in a particular geographic area. I removed some of the "famous descendants", because they were not supported by the source cited. I'm wondering what possible use this would be to a reader of Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This does probably pass NLIST. These families are listed in a number of books, also see the List of family names at Port-Royal in Acadie and along the Rivière du Dauphin before the Great Upheaval from the Government of Canada... And the article does make it clear why we care, when it says up to 5 million people in Canada and the United States can today trace their ancestry to the original 400 Acadian settlers in Port Royal and the Rivière du Dauphin -- MediaKyle (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Still not sure why I'm supposed to care even if I'm one of the 1% of Americans/Canadians descended from them, this is just a list of names and birthdates, one of the most pointless articles I've ever seen. Everyone is descended from somebody, most of whom are recorded in censuses and other documents. Worthwhile prose summary can go at Port-Royal (Acadia). — Reywas92Talk 15:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note this type off list has several precedents including:List of Jamestown colonists, List of Mayflower passengers, List of Mayflower passengers who died at sea November/December 1620, List of colonists at Roanoke, First Families of Virginia. HISTORBUFF (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Precedents? That's like saying Mozart family is a precedent for Ozzy Ozbourne family. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are very different pages and contexts... — Reywas92Talk 15:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Galindo Garcés

edit
Galindo Garcés (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)

Unsourced since 2004. This might be better covered at García Galíndez per WP:NOPAGE. I would suggest a merge, but it's unreferenced... So maybe delete is best?4meter4 (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fu Liang

edit
Fu Liang (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)

Unsourced. I could not verify the content. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those are WP:PRIMARY ancient histories (one of from the 5th century and one from the 11th century) and aren't usable in the sense that they require trained historians to properly interpret them, and for that reason we can't and shouldn't build an article around them. We need usable contemporary sources for WP:SIGCOV. If she's a notable historical figure there should be 20th century and 21st century coverage in WP:SECONDARY sources. In general this whole series of Ancient Chinese nobility articles appears to be built entirely on ancient primary documents. In my opinion, if this is all we have, it is a fundamental verifiability problem and it is still a clear delete. 4meter4 (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, these are not primary sources as they were not the original source materials that these histories derived from. And frankly, regardless, deletion is not appropriate even if the sources were, arguendo, wrong sources to cite (which, again, they are not) - when the historicity and significance of the person are not in doubt. --Nlu (talk) 06:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nlu, per WP:OR policy, medieval and ancient works, even if they cite earlier known or lost writings are considered primary. JoelleJay (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that guidance seems incorrect in at least the Zizhi Tongjian case, as it was written 600 years after the persons death and the fall of the dynasty he lived in; it would certainly be a secondary source. As far as I understand there is no Wikipedia policy/guideline that makes sources expire if they are too old. Jumpytoo Talk 23:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Someone should open an ANI case for this. @4meter4: and @JoelleJay:} are often falsely claiming that all historical works from Asia are primary sources by saying in every AfDs that, "per WP:OR policy, medieval and ancient works, even if they cite earlier known or lost writings, are primary". I have been keeping an eye on him for a long time, and in my view he is doing this intentionally. Thanks to Jumpytoo and Nul for disproving his argument, especially by noting that “at least in the case of the Zizhi Tongjian, since it was written 600 years after the person’s death and after the fall of the dynasty he lived in, it is certainly a secondary source.” If we followed his reasoning, then all historical books would be treated as primary sources, which would make it impossible to properly source articles on historical figures—because most of them are recorded only in ancient texts, and you cannot expect 21st-century works to contain all details. It seems like they want to use this argument as a weapon in future AfDs. Hteiktinhein (talk) 06:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. These are normal questions involving the historicity of historical documents (ie is the document itself reliable?, was the author reliable?, what was the author intending to communicate to their audience within its cultural context?, etc.) and the way we interpret sources written before the creation of modern history as an academic discipline. WP:AGEMATTERS discusses this and we already have a policy for WP:GRECOROMAN sources from antiquity. There is already a discussion over these materials at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard where conversation is moving in a direction to treat older Chinese documents in the same way. We shouldn't be building articles from 5th and 11th century materials under any circumstances. We are not subject matter experts and should not be interpreting materials from this period in time. We need historians/anthropologists/archaeologists etc. applying the lens of their academic disciplines onto these materials in order to address the content in these documents. 4meter4 (talk) 14:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 Your statement... “If she’s a notable historical figure there should be 20th- or 21st-century secondary coverage” . It is simply not grounded in policy, practice, or basic historical reality. Honestly, in my long time on Wikipedia, I have never seen such a baseless expectation. According to what? Your personal opinion? This is one-sided and completely unfair.
This kind of expectation cannot be applied to South Asian history. In many Asian regions, especially before the colonial era, information was preserved through chronicles, palm-leaf manuscripts, stone inscriptions, royal records, monastic texts, and oral tradition. These are the primary sources historians rely on, and modern scholarship often consists of commentaries on those ancient sources, not mass-media coverage. I have no comment about Latin or Greek sources, but South Asian history is not your area, and it cannot be judged by applying one universal rule based solely on your own viewpoint.
Insisting that pre-modern Asian figures must have modern newspaper-level coverage is not only unrealistic ... it seems a Western-centric bias that Wikipedia policies explicitly warn against.
How is it even possible for a 14th-century figure to have 20th- or 21st-century media coverage? You are indirectly blaming ancient eras simply because they did not have modern media. That makes no sense.
South Asian history cannot be judged solely through one editor's personal expectations. Reliability for historical sources requires: evaluation of the source traditions of that region understanding how history was recorded in that culture, and case-by-case review, not a blanket rule imported from Western media norms.
Wikipedia is not a Western-filtered encyclopedia. Applying modern Western media standards to ancient Asian history is neither fair nor consistent with policy, and it effectively silences regions with different historical record systems.
If we are discussing South Asian historical sources, then input from editors who understand the region, its culture, and its archival traditions is essential. A one-sided interpretation cannot decide the validity of centuries-old historical documentation. The 21st century is not the main standard for every subject. Your statement indirectly suggests that "without 21st-century sources or news articles, we should not write articles about historical figures on English Wikipedia." That is how your comment comes across to me. Hteiktinhein (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I realize how South Asian historical sources were documented. The issue here is that we live in the now and without specialized training and knowledge we cannot understand or interpret those documents because we don't have the proper cultural framework or historical knowledge to interpret them accurately without being a highly trained subject matter expert. (ie a university diploma in Ancient Chinese history and/or archaeology) Wikipedians cannot do the work of historians by evaluating and interpreting sources from the long ago past. Modern academic practice in history/anthropology/archaeology etc. was not developed at the time those materials were made so in in order to accurately evaluate A) Whether the source is accurate B) What the author's intent was c) what it's audience would know when reading the document which wouldn't be stated (ie subtext) but which would have been readily obvious to readers at the time document was written and essential to properly understanding what was written, etc. D) What sorts of errata may be present. Etc. The source interpretation curve here is too high for any non-specialist to do it competently. In short we need a modern historian/anthropologist to do their work within these materials and publish about these materials in order to engage with them on wikipedia. I note that China does have many universities with history departments, so the idea that China isn't doing historical research using modern standards of historical research into the past is silly (and insulting). There are also many Western Universites with journals and research department that study Ancient China. There is a large volume of usable literature in this area. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But not every historical subject or book is going to have modern academic interpretation. You cannot say a historical chronicle is “unreliable” or “primary without interpretation” simply because no 20th–21st century scholar has written a commentary on it. Scholars and anthropologists have no obligation to reinterpret every ancient source, and we cannot demand that they do so.
I evaluate reliability case by case, as Wikipedia policy requires. Historical chronicles often record events differently. For example, Chronicle A might list 1,200 casualties in a battle, while Chronicle B records 1,000. Thailand may record events in a way that favors Thailand, while Myanmar records the same events differently. This is completely normal in ancient history.
The correct solution is simple and neutral:
“According to the Thai chronicle…”
“According to the Burmese chronicle…”
There is no need to overcomplicate this.
Your argument sounds as if you are requiring that multiple historians or specialists must analyze every ancient source before Wikipedia can use it. If we followed that logic, Wikipedia would need to hire historians just to interpret regional chronicles. The lack of historians from a particular region is not a reason to reject that region’s historical sources. Hteiktinhein (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You accurately summarized what I stated. Engaging with ancient sources and evaluating/interpreting them is a form of WP:Original research because the writer is taking on the task of a historian and making judgements about the material and the culture within it was written, and translating that into text for the modern reader's time and culture (see historical research). That is a skill that mandates specialized training. Historical topics lacking modern scholarship in multiple sources fail WP:GNG. It's as simple as that. Unfortunately that does mean that not everything written about in a historical document will be able to be discussed on wikipedia by virtue of our policy of WP:No original research. This is why historians/academics doing their jobs first is essential to our work. A note too on quoting ancient documents. Ancient documents may be based on copies with errors of one kind of another, or be based on fragments, or have arguments in scholarly work over interpretation and meaning. Even quoting ancient documents can be taking a position on the source (even if unintentionally) if one hasn't read the scholarly literature on the document. A translation could be discredited, or the document viewed as being in error or other sorts of issues. That's why even quoting sources can pose problems and its important to look for modern scholarly engagement which will address these sorts of things. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Here are some contemporary sources:
  • "六朝表策文流变及其文学史意蕴——以傅亮、任昉、徐陵文章为考察对象". 广西社会科学. 2013 (04).
  • "Talking about Fuliang's Prose". Journal of Yili Normal University(Social Science Edition). 2008 (1).
The article can be stubified to resolve the WP:V issues. Jumpytoo Talk 23:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: The nominator is really something, and his future AfD nominations should be watched closely. I was surprised that he brought an important figure from ancient China to AfD without proper research. Even after several editors presented sources, he refused to accept them, calling historical books from the 11th or 15th century “primary.” Really? Is the nominator trying to rewrite how historical figures are evaluated?
If you expect 21st-century sources for people who lived more than a thousand years ago, then you would need to write them yourself. Modern Asian scholars are not going to publish new papers about every single historical figure. In this case, the subject was a top minister in the royal court, one of the four regents of the Liu Song dynasty, and held countless important imperial positions. He clearly passes WP:NPOL, and many sources can be found simply by searching his Chinese name 傅亮 (六朝), including contemporary and later historical works.
The notability of a historical figure is based on whether reliable sources....especially historical ones...discuss what they did in their lifetime. If you do not want to use historical sources, then open an ANI case and get consensus for that view. "There is no Wikipedia policy/guideline that makes sources expire if they are too old" agree per Jumpytoo. Hteiktinhein (talk) 07:29, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's 5th century not 15th century. Try a thousand years earlier. This type of discussion has been had many times at the reliable sources noticeboard. If this went to ANI all we would have to do is point to conversations like Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_479#Classical_sources_(Herodotus,_Plutarch_etc)) to demonstrate that editors have real and valid concerns over the way older historic documents are used. These are not spurious opinions but ones that have actually led to policy changes at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (RSPS). We already treat Roman and Greek histories/documents from this period in these way under policy RSPS and we are currently discussing adding an identical parallel policy for these types of Chinese languages sources. I don't see why one culture should be treated differently than another. There's precedent set in this area. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is nonsense. You guys are trying to destroy the stability of historical articles. Even though knowing there are very few South Asian editors, you are still trying to dominate the use of historical sources on Wikipedia without involving South Asian Wikipedians. And even if they want to participate, sorry...there are only a few, and most of them are not fully familiar with all Wiki policies.
Even for me, it is almost impossible to defend or counter all of you. I will not accept a one-sided judgment on South Asian historical sources, no matter how old they are. Without using historical books, it is simply impossible to write articles about ancient history. I will decide case-by-case.
Myanmar has the Glass Palace Chronicle... so if you dare to judge historical sources, please also apply your standard to this main chronicle of Myanmar. Hteiktinhein (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. As demonstrated by Jumpytoo above in this discussion modern sources do exist on these topics. Editors need to select WP:BESTSOURCES when writing in this content area. That is responsible editing. I note that this isn't just about Asian sources, we should be treating sources globally in this fashion. Part of the problem at the moment is that the original discussion in this area was only on Western sources from Greco-Roman period. We need to treat all sources from the long ago past consistently and not single out any one culture.4meter4 (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please carefully point out that this is only your opinion; unfamiliar new editors might think your statement is actually Wikipedia policy. Thanks Hteiktinhein (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. WP:AGEMATTERS is policy, and these ideas are in principle already covered in that policy. Pointing to other similar outcomes in source discussions also points to WP:CONSENSUS on how to treat older documents. So... I frankly think policy is on my side.4meter4 (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, discussions are meant to reach WP:CONSENSUS. But I have seen previous disputes ...such as the one about Korean chronicle where only a few Western editors participated, with no Korean editors involved at all. Decisions about an entire region's historical sources were made by people who openly admitted they had limited or no familiarity with that culture.
Then the discussion was kept open for only a short period (sometimes just 14 days, or one month), and once closed, that limited discussion effectively became the “standard” for how those sources are treated. I was shocked when I saw that. I had no chance to participate because I do not have enough knowledge of Korean history to make a judgement there.
For major decisions about source usage that affect whole civilizations, discussions should stay open much longer...at least a year....so editors from those regions can contribute. Right now the situation feels like: “a few editors act as historians for regions they do not know, and then set the rule.” Native or knowledgeable editors are not invited, not notified, and not given time to participate.
This is not how global consensus should be built. Hteiktinhein (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you are wanting to make exceptions for certain literature from certain cultures. The arguments being raised here are beyond any one single culture but are foundational to questions of epistemology and reliable Research methods. There are no cultural exceptions because this applies to all of history in all cultures. This is fundamental to WP:Verifiability and how we can be assured that what we are saying is accurate and true. If you are disagreeing to foundational ideas widely accepted in universities globally about how we determine what is true, than I see that as a big problem. That's fundamentally attacking the idea of knowledge itself, which you can do personally, but its not something we can or should endorse here at wikipedia.4meter4 (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 Thanks for the explanation in a calm manner. I was honestly worried that all chronicles might end up being banned from use on Wikipedia in the near future. In any future discussions about source CONSENSUS, please ping me. Even if the topic is not my country, I will try to make time and notify scholars early so they can give comments.
I am not trying to “make exceptions for certain literature from certain cultures.” My point is that native experts must be included in major source-policy discussions. They should be invited, even if they are not aware of the discussion by default. For my own country, I have deep knowledge, can research offline and online, and can respond clearly because I understand the language, context, and historical system.
Without native or region-knowledgeable editors, the discussion becomes incomplete like food without salt. At the very least, I can try to extend the discussion time, so more informed editors have a fair chance to participate. Hteiktinhein (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Champawat Tiger

edit
Champawat Tiger (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)

Trash expansion article using blogs and wordpress sites with spam gaming refs. Atrocious. Originally from redirect to Tiger attack#The Champawat Tiger Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 18:59, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article fails to pass WP:GNG — EarthDude (Talk) 08:04, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Castell-Remlingen

edit
Castell-Remlingen (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:GNG. I was unable to verify the content in this article.4meter4 (talk) 05:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was listed in this 1839 book as being a part of Bavaria [21] with population 9,700. Not sure what kind of polity it was at that point in time.
it was a county based on a fairly small town. As you say it seems to have been mediatised. Mccapra (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sources are very confusing, because they seem to suggest that it's a branch of the House of Castell, rather than a geographic location (e.g. [22]).
It seems likely this was a mediatised house at that point in time, but we largely have only primary sources on this subject. Redirect to County of Castell unless someone can sort out this mess Katzrockso (talk) 07:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article says that a portion was split from Castell-Remlingen too, called Castell-Castell :) Geschichte (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a confusing tangle, and the sourcing isn't great... Hence why I said I couldn't verify our presentation. It doesn't help that the German wikipedia doesn't currently cover this either (not that it is always accurate).4meter4 (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 11:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noric language

edit
Noric language (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 is poorly sourced, only single distinct source exist, and I wasn't able to find more actual sources. Two inscriptions cannot be considered a separate language for at least linguistic reasons. Instead, maybe we should create an Eastern Celtic article which will combine all views on the entire topic, like this? From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 08:16, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec Eventually what we have? I suggest renaming the article to Eastern Celtic language and deleting the main content, lefting only inscriptins and brief mentions about the proposed Noric language. Other parts of the article should include information about Eaastern Celtic in common, and that in total gives us a stable article about a Celtic language that won't leave people with questions about the language of the Eastern Celts. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PersonallyI think that it should be kept, a simple Google search shows multiple discussions and articles on the inscriptions and therefore although only two have been found perhaps more will be, especially as it appears they were written on wood. Perhaps it should be kept and improved upon, and I hope with new discoveries more works in Noric Celtic will be found. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 12:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I decided to try Google scolar to find sources this time and found this interesting section from this PDF [[23]] "three lesser-known languages which are close relatives of Gaulish: Galatian, Lepontic and Noric" And here are other sources to pull from The Celts and the Origin of the Runic Script [[24]] A Disregarded Celtic Script

at the End of the First Millenium BC [[25]]

@Agnieszka653 First of all, what happened to your reply button haha? It just disappeared. Secondly, this source mentions Noric only once per entire article. It cannot be considered a reliable source here sadly. Third, this seems to be good, but as far as I understand it refers to Latin language of province of Noricum, not Noric as a Celtic language. And even if it did, it only mentions Noric inscriptions from Magdalensberg which are written in Latin, not in Celtic. Fourth - I can't understand this, since I don't see any good information about Noric there. And lastly, we cannot propose a separate language out of 2, 3 and even 4 inscriptions. I mean, we can propose it but not claim it. To prove that Noric is a separate language we need, I suppose, more than 10 inscriptions + some toponymy. And I only see studies about Eastern Celtic toponymy/onomastics in total, but not Noric-language specific. This is why I proposed creating an Eastern Celtic article. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk)

Artistic revolution

edit
AfDs for this article:
Artistic revolution (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)

Doesn’t seem to be notable. It hasn’t changed much since it was written and reads like an essay. — Awesomecat / ✉ / ✎ / 00:04, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if this article were draftified, actually. I think it has potential, although I do not have much knowledge on art. I think ideally this article would be rewritten into a description/definition of artistic revolutions and include a timeline of artistic revolutions. — Awesomecat / ✉ / ✎ / 00:14, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's too old to be moved to draftspace (made in 2001) aesurias (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yeah just seems like fundamentally an essay rather than an encyclopedic topic. Since there's nothing to do here encyclopedically that's lead to 25 years of unproductive edits, mostly people adding various lengthy POV sections that eventually get removed. --Here2rewrite (talk) 02:05, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems like more of an essay than an encyclopedic topic as noted above. Whether or not something is a "revolution" is always going to be subjective for the arts and I don't think this works as a general term. Certain drastic changes in artistic methods/style could be termed revolutions, but that will be more a result of the terminology critics/art historians give to these changes rather than something with a specific definition. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:44, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yŏn Chayu

edit
Yŏn Chayu (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'm concerned that this may be a hoax article. I don't speak Korean, but none of the four forms of his name (Hangul, Hanja, RR, MR) came up with anything seemingly relevant in my searches (there were a few possible matches on Google Scholar for the Hanja name, but I couldn't be sure it was definitely about this person with just machine translation). It's absolutely possible that all sources for this person's existence are offline, but I have no way to check that. Suntooooth, it/he (talk | contribs) 02:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He appears to have been a real person, these sources are just Korean wikis/Encylopedias so they're not like the most ideal but they do suffice. I do think the figure is very obscure though hence why theres almost nothing on him, his most noteworthy things really are just being Prime Minister (but no records of what he did survive) and being an ancestor of his much more famous descendent. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you want me to look at other potential sourcing? Sunnyediting99 (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can do what you want. Suntooooth, it/he (talk | contribs) 03:13, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 12:42, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist. Still no ! votes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:39, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History Proposed deletions

edit

History categories

edit

for occasional archiving

Proposals

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Social_science&oldid=1325486210"