Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science/archive

Purge page cache

watch

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

Social science

Immunocapitalism

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

The topic appears to be a WP:NEOLOGISM that is only used in the first reference, a ~~call for papers in~~ introduction to a special journal issue. The other references cited do not use the term and either are on different topics, or describe "immune capital," which is a completely different concept (being immune to a disease confers economic value, Refs. 3 and 8 use this term). Article appears largely LLM-generated to boot, but the real reason for deletion is this is just a non-notable topic with several authoritative but irrelevant references thrown in to make it look legit. Vaguely promotional, as well. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Social science. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep IMO a Cringeworthy nomination. The first source is so obviously academic in nature and 100% not affiliated with the originator of the term. The second source covers the exact same topic as the author of the book intended in which the term originates. "Vaguely Promotional as well" sounds like "I have no arguments so let me just play mindreader and ad hominem falsely discredit the notability of the subject." I know Wikipedia is a cesspool for the nerdy & neurodivergent (if you take offense to me using these terms you must reckon these are bad things) but you people get annoying after a while. Whatever dude Wickster12345 (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Social science Proposed deletions

Language

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]

Chukotko-Kamchatkan–Amuric languages

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

Hypothesis without any traction advocated by a single person. Stockhausenfan (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the theory is mentioned within multiple reliable sources, and Fortesque is a well respected linguist within the field of Arctic languages. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indirect self-reference

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

Unsourced. Fails WP:DICDEF.4meter4 (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Philosophy. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to self-reference. I've reduced the uncited fluff, expanded what's left a bit, and added cites. There is certainly more than just a dicdef here. I propose this should be merged into the self-reference article as a section. — The Anome (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to agree with merge here. The content can be mostly saved. Just as a reference point, SEP has no article for indirect self-reference but does discuss it as part of the broader article Self-Reference and Paradox; that's probably a pretty good model for what we should do here. Caleb Stanford (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as the nominator I support a merge to self-reference per the discussion above.4meter4 (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uralo-Siberian languages

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Asia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge per nom. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 22:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yombe language (disambiguation)

(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]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 November 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Africa. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:17, 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

(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 [[1]] "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 [[2]] A Disregarded Celtic Script

at the End of the First Millenium BC [[3]]

@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]

European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information

AfDs for this article:

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Events. LibStar (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not 100% sure yet if sufficient sources exist to meet WP:GNG, but it doesn't seem like a proper WP:BEFORE was done here. I'm actually seeing 9,270 results on Google Scholar and a quick Google search turns up this and this and this and more. Botterweg (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Education, and Mathematics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Redirecting and merging to the Association for Logic, Language and Information would be a very sensible alternative to deletion here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:01, 22 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]

Merge to Association for Logic, Language and Information per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 01:52, 28 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!} 21:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Association for Logic, Language and Information. Two sentences referenced to a primary source shouldn't be a standalone page, notable or not. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign language

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Education. 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. -- Recon rabbit 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[4] 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gommeh 📖 🎮 19:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per arguments around revisions. Regarding a comment from Gommeh, we could restore the article to what it was before LLMs turned it into slop, well I think "we can restore the article to what it was before LLMs turned it into slop". But WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vranyo

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 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]

Perhaps worth a note to reviewers, this new account appears to be a WP:SPA. TylerBurden (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or delete per nom - over half the references used in the article mention vranyo never or only have passing mentions. Jalapeño (u t g) 17:49, 12 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 [5] 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. There's definitely no such concept in Russian culture that's distinct from the global concept of lie, and its usage in English language looks like a political neologism that doesn't seem to be notable per comments above. Finstergeist (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then one has to wonder why there are numerous sources saying that Russia in particular has an interesting cultural relationship with lying, this vote seems particularly WP:IDONTLIKEIT. TylerBurden (talk) 18:29, 24 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:

В.А. Шаповалов, И.В. Истомина: «... Лгали им на каждом слове»: ложь в системе коммуникации русских крестьян и помещиков в конце XVIII — нач. ХХ вв. ["... They lied to them at every word": lie in the communication system of Russian peasants and landlords in the late 18th — early 20th centuries]

"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)

О.В. Кнорц: Ментальные сценарии с семантикой «неправда» в русской языковой картине мира (в сопоставлении с китайской) [Mental scenarios with semantics “untruth” in the Russian language picture of the world (in comparison with Chinese)]

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]

Keep. The sourcing appears to pass WP:SIGCOV, and appears to be published in reliable publications and by reliable authors. I'm not seeing a valid reason under policy to delete this. The delete arguments essentially boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT opinions which frankly is an attempt to censor content. That's a no go per WP:NOTCENSORED.4meter4 (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read....any of the delete !votes? Jalapeño (u t g) 13:06, 24 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

Redirects for Discussion

Schmear at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 4#Schmear (4 November 2025 – 7 December 2025)

History

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]

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 [[6]] 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[7]. 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]

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]

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]

Imai Sadakiyo

(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 [8], which is currently dead, and "wiki" raised a huge flag for me; the main website, [9], 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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Japan. HwyNerd Mike (t | c) 02:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The only mentions of the subject are in wikis, being [10] and [11], the first sourcing the dead source above and the latter not even sourcing. HwyNerd Mike (t | c) 03:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of WP:V. Svartner (talk) 06:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if it's not verifiable, then we can't have an article about it. Bearian (talk) 04:21, 5 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:56, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pax Indica

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:08, 30 November 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]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 18:06, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erumduli Barlas

(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.[12])

Searching Google Books with three spelling variations returns little/no results, therefore failing WP:GNG due to limited coverage.[13][14][15] 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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Military, and Mongolia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:27, 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]

The Reason Deleting This Page Should not be Valid Because You have to go to The Secret Histories of Mongols click here 👉 (https://books.google.com.bd/books?id=JtOqIc9t2qsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Secret+history+of+Mongol&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Barula&f=false)

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]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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: [16], Paragraph in this Tate published book: [17]. There are other hits on Google Books but they are not fully viewable, for example: [18]. --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" [19] 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" [20] 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: [21], 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[22] and the WSJ[23]. 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]

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 [24] 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. [25]).

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

(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 [[26]] "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 [[27]] A Disregarded Celtic Script

at the End of the First Millenium BC [[28]]

@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