Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/History

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to History. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|History|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/History/archive

Purge page cache

watch

History

Battle of Karuša (1993)

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

Whole article have 3 sources which are not really reliable and appear to be news portals Wikicommonsfan134 (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Zeibgeist (talk) 05:52, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unable to find sources for this battle in English, nor in other languages to be frank. The foreign language sources that exist do not seem reliable and translate poorly. Kvinnen (talk) 06:22, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting in Pastasel

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

Small non notable clash that resulted in few casualties and massacre of 100 people, we had even bigger events deleted than this Wikicommonsfan134 (talk) 05:27, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Wikicommonsfan134 (talk) 05:27, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. Zeibgeist (talk) 05:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - The subject seems to provide useful information elaborating the "background" section in the Pastasel massacre page. However, most of the article is dependent on the HRW source and I'm not seeing a huge diversity in the references here. Kvinnen (talk) 06:39, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Alternatively, a merge with Pastasel massacre is also acceptable. Kvinnen (talk) 06:40, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Litvinism

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

Does this phenomenon exist? Yes. Is it worth describing on Wikipedia? Probably yes. Does this article do it properly? No. What we’re dealing with here is not an encyclopedic article but a long, chaotic, poorly thought-out, and badly written essay that mixes facts, half-truths, and myths. The article is a product of the sudden wave of panic that swept through Lithuania in 2023 regarding the supposedly reviving “Litvinism” among Belarusians, especially the émigré opposition. That panic has since faded; the whole thing was most likely a provocation by Belarusian and/or Russian intelligence services. Today nobody even remembers it anymore, and Litvinism has once again returned to the margins.

In my view, this article is precisely a fruit of that panic. It reads like a collection of the greatest fears, resentments, and frustrations of a Lithuanian patriot. I suggest applying WP:TNT and starting from scratch. I tried to fix it by removing the most absurd parts (for example, a photo taken at an angle in which Saint Sophia Cathedral in Polotsk isn’t even visible, used as “proof” of deliberate “de-Lithuanization” of the city; quotes taken from obscure websites; and so on), but there is simply too much of it.

Above all, the article is incomprehensible: it cannot clearly explain the phenomenon it describes or even clarify the basic terminology (we get lost in who is a Litvin, Letuvis, Litwin, Litwin [in Polish], etc.). It is also not based on serious academic sources: 90% of the references lead to niche websites or popular-science periodicals. There is really nothing to salvage here. Marcelus (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Belarus, and Lithuania. Marcelus (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not very informed in the topic, I started a stub article on it in 2021 because I found Litvinism an interesting phenomenon. As far as I know, Pofka is the author of most of the article. What I know is that I am opposed to turning this into a redlink. If Pofka's edits are found to be problematic, I suggest instead restoring the article to this version [1], before Pofka made any edit. Apart of the sources on that version not being of the highest quality, there is no WP:POV, WP:SYNTH or other major issues.

By the way, I believe the OP's first comment could attempt to be more persuasive and policy-based. I am not disputing their claims, but issues are named while few examples are actually given. For someone unfamiliar with the subject (since AfDs are open to everyone, not only topic area regulars), the explanation on the first paragraph is particularily obscure, are there sources for this 2023 "panic"?. A link to this thread in the talk page [2] that apparently preceded this AfD was not even provided. I think I will not be making any further comments here. Regards, Super Ψ Dro 23:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:DINC. This page should be improved instead of deleting it. In addition, the problem of Litvinism has been going on for the last 30 years and has certainly not faded. I had problems with such individuals in my real life, but I have decided to avoid editing this page in order not to waste my time. – sbaio 06:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep, even though right now it's very biased and violates NPOV policy. It frames a legitimate historic perspective (that Belarus shares the heritage of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania) as a "hostile pseudoscientific theory" or a "Russian psy-op." But that can be fixed. Preferences (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. The topic has been covered by Lithuanians[3][4], Belarusians[5][6][7], and Russians[8]. The article certainly suffers from WP:NPOV issues, but they are absolutely surmountable. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:25, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forró and Redemptive Regionalism from the Brazilian Northeast

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

No significant reviews found in a search of proquest, ebsco, google scholar, google books, google, or archive.org. The single review here is from Reference & Research Book News, which while reliable is too short to contribute to notability. Book review indexes list this as the only review. It is also given a sentence in a higher education chronicle but also not sigcov. All other hits are non-sigcov citations. Fails WP:NBOOK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Brazil. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and History. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:47, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. 09:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

BlookyNapsta (talk) 09:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: from my own research, I agree with nom that this fails WP:NBOOK. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 18:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soldiershop

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

Found no independent sourcing to pass WP:NCORP. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Companies. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No secondary coverage. BlookyNapsta (talk) 08:54, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No WP:SIGCOV for the subject. Notability template from 2017 that has not been resolved is not a good sign. Kvinnen (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Dialectology, Onomastics and Folklore Research in Umeå

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

Unsourced since 2004. Swedish wiki page also has zero references. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Sweden. 4meter4 (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and History. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not finding the Swedish page you mention? It seems that sv:Dialekt-, ortnamns- och folkminnesarkivet i Umeå is a redirect to Swedish Institute for Language and Folklore; something that could be done here with success. --//Replayful (talk | contribs) 13:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Swedish Institute for Language and Folklore. I found a few sources about DAUM when it was closing in 2014, but that probably isn't enough to establish notability by itself. --EdTre (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

29-Article Ordinance for the More Effective Governing of Tibet

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

There does not seem to be adequate notability backed up by WP:RS to warrant a stand-alone article. Amigao (talk) 03:47, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Law, Politics, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13-Article Ordinance for the More Effective Governing of Tibet

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

There does not seem to be adequate notability backed up by WP:RS to warrant a stand-alone article. Tibet under Qing rule can cover this sufficiently. Amigao (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Law, Politics, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thirteen Articles for the Settlement of Qinghai Affairs

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

There does not seem to be adequate notability backed up by WP:RS to warrant a stand-alone article. Amigao (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Politics, Religion, Economics, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Discourse of Lama

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

No evidence of notability backed up by WP:RS that would warrant a stand-alone article. Amigao (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Stele Inscriptions of the Pacification of Tibet

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

This is of questionable notability and it does not appear backed up with WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, Military, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Sakha Republic

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

Large portions of the article contain material that would fall under WP:COPYVIO. See [[9]] this result from Earwig's Copyvio Detector. CabinetCavers (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Russia. CabinetCavers (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The content here is mostly copied from the article Republic of Sakha as indicated in this edit[10]. The only new section is History of the Sakha Republic#Sakha during the Civil War. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Republic of Sakha#History. The article is not large, so there's no need to create a separate page for history. This one, as I said above, consists of a copy of that page and unsourced additions. The IP that created the page hasn't edited it since 24 November, so it's unlikely the article will get any better. Kelob2678 (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ekkehard of Huysburg

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

Unsourced since 2006. I was unable to verify this content. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 15:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 15:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not sure, but at least one of the sources on the German article for this guy seems sourced to an RS academic book. I don't speak German and don't have those sources in front of me, but maybe someone who can investigate further can find something there. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's too bad these are offline. It's hard to assess without seeing the sources and knowing the extent of the coverage in them and what they say. Our article looks to be a translation of the German wiki page. If someone on the English wiki hasn't actually confirmed that veracity of the German article (ie looked at sources covering the topic) I don't think we can keep it.4meter4 (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:AGF means we can translate articles from other Wikipedias without verifying the sources ourselves. If the article is a translation, we could just port the citations over. Srnec (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found a mention in English and in French. Unfortunately, I could not find anything substantial about him in a language I can readily read, only in German. The German WP article satisfies me that we should not delete. Srnec (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brahui Confederacy

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

This entire article relies on a single unreliable source. It also faces issues of WP:POVPUSHING, WP:OR and WP:NOTABILITY, and appears to be content fork of Khanate of Kalat. Sutyarashi (talk) 10:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and History. Fade258 (talk) 13:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete I agree, if the content is covered on another page then it should be a redirect, any knew info can be added to the Khanate of Kalaf page if there is enough evidence (which this page certainly doesn’t have), I suggest a redirect to the proper page. Perhaps even a warning for the original creator who needs to understand that one source cannot be used. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The term "Brahui Confederacy" gets legitimate use, but I do not believe it is a distinct topic from the Khanate of Kalat. Srnec (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles fought in Indiana

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, United States of America, and Indiana. toweli (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Wikiproject style guideline is not a Wikipedia notability guideline. Moreover, that section of MILMOS refers to categorization, not what is permitted in articles, and I don't think the debates it is concerned with are particularly salient for US states. Anyway, there's still Category:Battles in the United States by state. This seems to be a perfectly valid and informational navigational list. Reywas92^Talk 02:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the South Dakota verdict. What applies to categories applies to lists of this sort. Also, there was no Indiana at the time of half the battles listed. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as the nominator does not provide a policy-based rationale for deletion. Categories =/= lists. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid navigational and information list. Enough things on the list have their own articles linked to, its a valid list. Dream Focus 22:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iran Historical Sovereignty over the Tunbs and BuMusa Islands

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, History, Politics, and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsure of the quality of the sources used now in the article, I don't find any sourcing that even talks about this concept, let alone a book about it. Lack of any kind of sourcing to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’m old enough to remember that rejecting Iran’s claim to the Tumbs and BuMusa was one of the reasons Iraq invaded Iran in 1980 with support from the UAE, so the underlying question of sovereignty is certainly notable and we even have an article, Seizure of Abu Musa and the Greater and Lesser Tunbs. Whether this book is notable or not I’m not sure, but will search in Farsi. Mccapra (talk) 06:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Farsi Wikipedia article has three sources that I think demonstrate notability, 1, 2 and 3. In addition I’ve found 4 and 5. It looks to me as though the book is cited in journal articles but I’m not up to searching to verify that in Farsi. Searching is fairly hard because the sovereignty over these islands appears to be a constant obsession of the Iranian regime, and there is so much written about it. Mccapra (talk) 06:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article can be expanded with other sources. Moondragon21 (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we are not RevanchiPedia. Bearian (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving Mongolia

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Lists, and Mongolia. ~~ 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]

Possibly salvage by restricting to separate lists for the Mongol Empire and its successor states only? Also delete individual battles, raids, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just discuss what should be included. Category:Military history of Mongolia has a subcategory Category:Military history of the Mongol Empire which includes Category:Battles involving the Mongol Empire and Category:Sieges involving the Mongol Empire, these could easily fill a list titled List of wars involving the Mongol Empire. There is a category for Category:Wars involving Mongolia for the different countries called that at times, which could perhaps be a different list. Dream Focus 22:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep unnecessary nomination, just remove things that are irrelevant

Wikicommonsfan134 (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Staff of the Krushevo Revolutionary Region

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete incoherent with no indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Kruševo Republic. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Kruševo Republic. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this topic is not so significant. Jingiby (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourcing I find is in EduRank and FanFix, neither of which is a RS. The one source used isn't online, so I can't say how good it is, but one source isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Militsiya of the Kruševo Republic

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Police, and North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or, if proper sourcing appears, merge selectively into Kruševo Republic.
Delete or merge to Kruševo Republic. The Macedonian verson of the page does seem to have a couple of sources, but I wouldn't blame anyone for deleting this. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has two cited sources, which are not enough to establish notability. Hristo Silyanov's source only mentions it in passing. StephenMacky1 (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the whole article is bla-bla. Jingiby (talk) 04:45, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- even though it is seemingly sensible to merge to the Kruševo Republic article, the info here is currently unsourced, so is unverifiable with what's here at the moment. additional searches fail to turn up anything SIGCOV to back up the article. Lorraine Crane (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any sources manually, and the Macedonian article sources are of questionable reliability. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Heart of a Negro

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, History, and United States of America. 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]

Battle of Wuchale

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Ethiopia. Zygmeyer (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can’t find any reliable independent sources for this battle. However our article Tekle Giyorgis I mentions it and provides a source - Weld Blundell, The Royal chronicle, pp. 287–290. Does anyone have access to this? If we decide this is not verifiable, references to the battle will also need to be removed from List of battles 1601–1800, List of conflicts in Africa and possibly elsewhere. Mccapra (talk) 08:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found a scan of it https://archive.org/details/royalchronicleof00welduoft/page/289/mode/1up, seems to be old enough to be out of copyright. It's a translation of a primary source, and the cited section describes a campaign against the "Wechale men". The decisive battle is listed as occurring on the 5th of Magabit, which roughly matches with the 14th of March listed on the page.

However, I don't think this is enough to build an article off of, as it is purely WP:PRIMARY. Also I don't know if translating the dates out of the Coptic calendar or listing the "Wechale men" as being Oromo would violate WP:OR. I feel like it might, but please tell me if that isn't the case. Zygmeyer (talk) 18:49, 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]

The Occult History of the Third Reich

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and History. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Redirect - Review by Military Illustrated: [11], Paragraph in this Tate published book: [12]. There are other hits on Google Books but they are not fully viewable, for example: [13]. --Mika1h (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That first review is probably fine, though it really only summarizes it which is not really helpful for notability since we cannot have summary-only descriptions of works. The second source is from a vanity press and so does not help for notability, but is also not helpful for notability based on its contents alone, and also doesn't really say anything about it other than that the author takes it as proof that Hitler is the devil. The third hit is a few sentences. We have one OK source which is not enough for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it could be redirected to List of programs broadcast by the History Channel unless someone finds an additional review. --Mika1h (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Another book, calling it "a “classical” series" [14] In a review of Rüdiger Sünner#Schwarze Sonne, Cinéaste (magazine) notes: "In 1998, Madacy Entertainment released a 150-minute,three-DVD settitledTheOccultHistoryof theThird Reich, which covers much the same material with more archival footage,often going into greater depth and, a big plus, providing broader historical context" [15] Geschichte (talk) 06:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was one of the passing mentions I saw. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to Wikipedia:Notability (films), re-release five years after its initial release indicates historical notability. Besides the 1998 release mentioned above, Amazon says it had a 2004 release. I also want to note that it has a paragraph at Occultism in Nazism in the Documentaries section, with another reference not yet used here. 5Q5|^✉ 13:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NFILM prefaces that with 'The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist'. So it only applies if there are sources. There are not. That book is questionably reliable and is, again, only a passing mention. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even outside of the publisher, all it says is this: "In the documentary, Kuisma is always keen to recruit new members to his cause, and one clip shows him bringing a shy comrade to his home to watch Dave Flitton’s documentary The Occult History of the Third Reich (1991)." It is about a specific neo-Nazi watching this movie. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:BLAR to Occultism in Nazism. Unfortunately, it was released in 1991 and if there was any SIGCOV at the time it was not transferred online. 5Q5|^✉ 13:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unclear where this should be redirected to. Relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:59, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I started this AfD, but I would prefer a redirect to List of programs broadcast by the History Channel since that seems more defining. The section on the other article is unjustifiable and will probably be removed soon. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of early Acadian families of Port Royal

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Canada. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:SALAT, specifically being too selective. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unclear why I'm supposed to care about any of these names (literally just names for the most part). Reywas92^Talk 03:00, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:12, 28 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). — Reywas92^Talk 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... — Reywas92^Talk 15:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is it any different from the list of Jamestown colonists or list of mayflower passengers? The list can easily be referenced by the Port-Royal (Acadia) page. Fin 22:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's time to start removing long lists of non-notable family members, starting here. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe this does not fall under Wikipedia:NOTGENEALOGY as it works as it fits the criteria for inclusion as a standalone list per Wikipedia:CSC as only 1 of the people (currently) have their own article. I do believe the article should be unorphaned, and I am going to try to work on that myself. Fin 22:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page is unorphaned now. 3 Pages link to it (including one that was already linked to it). Fin 00:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:34, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Galindo Garcés

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – Per offline sources mentioned in es.wiki. Svartner (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — He has enough information in the EU Wikipedias, such as it:Galindo I d'Aragona and the Spanish version, and there are many dictionary entries about him both online and offline. For example, here is one from the Royal Academy of History: [16], and also ES Historia de Aragón, page 196. He is a historical figure and a sovereign of Aragon, so he passes WP:NPOL. Hteiktinhein (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. Srnec (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article remains unsourced.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Champawat Tiger

(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_creep^Talk 18:59, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, History, Nepal, and Uttarakhand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 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]

Keep There is a book titled No Beast So Fierce: The Terrifying True Story of the Champawat Tiger, the Deadliest Animal in History, it was reviewed by the Scientific American[17] and the WSJ[18]. The article is based on it. I don't see why it falls under the "blogs and WordPress sites with spam gaming refs" classification. Kelob2678 (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does Man-Eaters of Kumaon count as a reliable source or is it too old? Orchastrattor (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

why should it be too old? thanks! Keep, in view of the two books with significant coverage mentioned here+ sources on the page +https://www.forbes.com/sites/scotttravers/2025/01/16/meet-the-worlds-deadliest-man-eater-killed-over-400-people-and-escaped-an-army/ +https://www.publishersweekly.com/9780062678843 and plenty of other sources. ~2025-38537-34 (talk) 12:52, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per evidence of Kelob2678 and Orchastrattor. Srnec (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Forbes reference is non-rs. The fact the book is notable doesn't make the article notable, since the article isn't a book article. Its about the tiger only. We will take a detailed look at the references this week to see if they they are sinificant, in-depth and independent. The article will need copyedit to remove crap in pop culture which is zero connection to the subject. scope_creep^Talk 21:11, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Castell-Remlingen

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 05:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Geography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it was a minor county but it certainly existed. See 1, 2 and 3. Mccapra (talk) 06:17, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was listed in this 1839 book as being a part of Bavaria [19] 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. [20]).

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noric language

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, History, Austria, and Slovenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While the topic here would be notable if it clearly existed, this article seems heavily based on original research and relies on primary sources originating from a long-dead language. Based on what I can see, I can't even be 100% certain this is clearly a unique language or has been described as such. If someone has evidence to the contrary on this, I'll change my vote. aaronneallucas (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. "Celtic inscriptions from Noricum", for example. Srnec (talk) 02:24, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought that it would be better to make the "Eastern Celtic" article specifically mentioning the inscriptions these as a separate heading. In this case we can include both what is known about Eastern Celtic in common and information about inscriptions from Noricum. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that idea makes more sense, since I don't think this article has enough significant coverage to stand on its own. aaronneallucas (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want an Eastern Celtic article, this is that article. What is the point in deleting it an starting from scratch? Srnec (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if we're going to create a new article like I suggested we will include only these two inscriptions. No infobox about Noric and no treatment it as a separate language aside from mentioning that some scholars proposed it as such. Practically, there's no difference if we first delete this page and then include inscriptions content into a new one or rename this page and delete all the content except for inscriptions themselves. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 05:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concur Srnec. Please read again Wikipedia:Moving a page. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 09:45, 28 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]

Sadly its too unsourced as both an article and language. If we left it here, we will practically continue to disinform people that Noric is a real and sourced language with enough evidence. I suppose from this point its better to delete it fully than to left it as it is, if we are not creating a separate Eastern Celtic article or renaming this page to something like @Srnec suggested. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I decided to try Google scolar to find sources this time and found this interesting section from this PDF [[21]] "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 [[22]] A Disregarded Celtic Script

at the End of the First Millenium BC [[23]]

@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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History Proposed deletions

History categories

for occasional archiving

Proposals