Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/History

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|History|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to History. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


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


History

edit

2009 Istanbul mayoral election

edit
2009 Istanbul mayoral election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article says the election was notable but does not have any cites to show notability. The single cite on the Turkish article shows the results but does not show notability. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tanori's Raid

edit
Tanori's Raid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MILNG. Most of the sources fall under WP:PRIMARY & WP:AGE MATTERS, maybe merging this event in Refugio Tánori could have been better but a standalone article is not warranted for this. Garudam Talk! 10:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skirmish at Grass Valley

edit
Skirmish at Grass Valley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MILNG. Most of the sources fall under WP:PRIMARY & WP:AGE MATTERS. Nothing significant or even relevant context found in the Bancroft. Garudam Talk! 09:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalena Affair

edit
Magdalena Affair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Magdalena Affair" is a hallucinatory title not used by sources/historians. The entire article is a WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE of the one accessible link; the other two primary news sources are simply copied from the first source and certainly not actually consulted for writing this. Notability is not established for this event to justify a standalone article. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Battle of City of Rocks. Reywas92Talk 05:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sulphur Springs

edit
Battle of Sulphur Springs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Battle of Sulphur Springs" is a made-up title not used by the source. The entire article is a WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE of the one accessible link; the other primary news source is simply copied from the first source and certainly not actually consulted for writing this. Notability is not established for this event to justify a standalone article. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Battle of City of Rocks. Reywas92Talk 05:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of City of Rocks

edit
The Battle of City of Rocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails establishment of notability. ––kemel49(connect)(contri) 18:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ganja (1796)

edit
Battle of Ganja (1796) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced and was already draftified once. A WP:BEFORE only brings up other events of the Persian expedition of 1796, or other battles having happened in Ganja in other years, but nothing about this specific battle. This source provides an overview of the region during the time, and confirms the general situation in the year preceding the battle (with Erekle/Heraclius and Javad Khan respectively under Russian and Persian allegiance), but does not mention a battle taking place in Ganja in 1796. This excerpt from Azerbaijan's Presidential Library briefly mentions that Russia, not Georgia itself, occupied Ganja in 1796 (and links more sources, although they are all written in Azerbaijani). All in all, there doesn't seem to be enough sourcing to confirm that a battle between Georgia and Azerbaijan took place, let alone to verify WP:GNG. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legends of Africa

edit
Legends of Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a list of random people (and weirdly some states) who may have once lived on the African continent whom the author felt were "legends". In other words, a mess of original research and WP:SYNTH. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Belh

edit
Battle of Belh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage in reliable sources. Created by a user known for poorly-sourced battle articles, with four out of eight creations already deleted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pantodapoi

edit
Pantodapoi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced stub gives a definition for "Pantodapoi" which appears to be original research as the main sources found online are product pages for "Pantodapoi Phalangite" miniatures made by a maker called "Xyston". Does not meet WP:GNG. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Toys, and Greece. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not expert enough with Greek military units to feel confident in voting, but I did check some typical reference sources, including Harper's Dictionary of Classical Antiquities and Pauly-Wissowa, neither of which has an entry for "pantodapoi". I also checked under "auxiles" or related headwords. A broad search of the classical materials at Perseus turned up the word with reference to a kind of sauce (perhaps I misunderstood) and in a couple of other places, but not with reference to soldiers. A Google search for "pantodapoi soldiers" turned up a set of circular-looking definitions, perhaps based on this article or wherever its definition came from in the first place.
I suspect that what has happened here is that the article's creator confused a description of some auxiliary soldiers with a name for their unit: pantodapoi phalangites means "miscellaneous soldiers (in a phalanx)", not "a particular type of soldiers (natives) making up a phalanx". But it would be nice to see if anyone with more expertise in Greek military history concurs with this. Not certain that the general notability guideline is what's relevant here; if the definition were correct, I think the topic would be notable. But if, as I believe, the article is the result of a misunderstanding, then it can be deleted as though it were a hoax (albeit an accidental one). P Aculeius (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peace efforts during World War II

edit
Peace efforts during World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Somehow, it seems like a synthetic topic—should we really have a terribly under-cited laundry list under this heading? Its items do not seem like they go together except superficially. Naturally, no connective sources are cited. Remsense ‥ 论 01:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is a valid and important article. If it requires improvement, the right thing to do is to fix it, not delete it. There is plenty of information available on this topic online! Valorthal77 (talk) 04:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not convinced it is valid, is the thing. Rather, I'm not convinced an article of this particular scope—one that includes both Swedish pacifists, American isolationists, and Rudolf Hess—is valid. Remsense ‥ 论 06:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Bduke (talk) 05:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it needs to be Draftified for now; the subject of 'attempts of the belligerents to come to some peace agreement during WW2' is not necessarily out of scope for Wikipedia, and it might be useful to have it all summarised in one place. But the current state of the article requires a lot of work to bring it up to standard, e.g. the lead reads like a fragment of an idea that's not mentioned elsewhere - rather than a summary, there are almost no in-line citations, and it's all worded like an essay with quite a few assertions in wiki-voice that need to be attributed to sources. The 'analysis' section, in particular needs immediate attention if the article does remain, 'analysis' is WP:OR almost by definition. JeffUK 14:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: essentially a list at the moment but does not meet WP:NLIST: as the nominator points out, the articles it claims as its scope have not been discussed as a set in RS. Thus, WP:SYNTH. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it synthesis if the goal is to prevent war and resolve conflicts peacefully? It seems the request to delete is just because the topic is unwelcome. There’s even an article about World War I, which was less severe than this war! Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup Valorthal77 (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not subject to NLIST; there's far too much text for NLIST to apply. This seems like a good place to bring various strands together in one spot, just like its World War I counterpart. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Libyan–Syrian Union

edit
Libyan–Syrian Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is at least two-thirds fluff. In its entirety, it is background, direct excerpts from a book, an uninformative scheduling timeline, and the personal puffery and conjecture of the respective heads of state. Given it is about a polity that never existed or even got at all close to existing, coverage of it should likely be limited to a blurb between a sentence and a paragraph in length on a handful of related articles. Remsense ‥ 论 01:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Africa, and Middle East. Remsense ‥ 论 01:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify or Merge into Federation of Arab Republics#Other Federations of Arab Republics. The topic appears to be notable, e.g. The Washington Post, but probably not as an individual article, and the current set of sources are mostly offline and/or non-English, and the current editors have left in place in the current version what is very likely a WP:COPYVIO, which even has numerical references apparently from the original source retained: which provided for an "organic union" [7] or a complete merger of the two states. [5] [2] ... and thus become the core of a pan-Arab union . [9] ... effectively meant that the project failed. [10] [11], implying that no serious copyediting of the article has been done yet. The merge would best need someone in addition to EpicAdventurer to also have access to the existing sources, which appear to be mostly offline and/or non-English, or else to online English WP:RS such as The Washington Post (reliable in this context for factual type statements). Boud (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC) (clarify Boud (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC))[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Libya and Syria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battles of Ilidža

edit
Battles of Ilidža (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another non-notable minor action of the Bosnian War created by one of the editors who have been very busy in this space recently. The comprehensive two volume history of the war, Balkan Battlegrounds https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=jodpAAAAMAAJ&pg=GBS.PA346&hl=en_AU states only that street battles commenced on 22 April, and then with reference to this suburb of Sarajevo, "Over the next few days, Serb forces occupied all of Ilidza (at the northwestern end of the airport runway)". This isn't significant coverage, and doesn't even indicate there was fighting, let alone a major battle. The article body (less background, which is cited to a dead link I haven't tried to resurrect as yet to verify) is completely unsourced. Lacks SIGCOV and should be deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh conquest of the Punjab

edit
Sikh conquest of the Punjab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly a pseudo-historical article created by a blocked-sock, that should not have been in the mainspace to begin with. Fails WP:MILNG, nothing significant to be found related this event. Garudam Talk! 00:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom. Pure nonsense. The entire article is based on one source alone.
Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emirate of Banu Talis

edit
Emirate of Banu Talis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:GNG: no English-language sources seem to mention this tribe or emirate at all, much less any indication of significance. At least some of the cited sources do not appear reliable, such as this webpage with no clear scholarly credentials, or the vague citations to an online transcription of Ibn Khaldun ([3]), a primary source. Much of the article is also poorly cited and may include WP:OR. If there's some alternate spelling of the name that yields accessible and reliable sources, you can mention it here; I've tried to search for a few other alternatives and still found nothing. R Prazeres (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jhala Manna

edit
Jhala Manna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jhala Man Singh and recreated under a different title with sufficient differences that G4 speedy deletion was declined.

However, the recreated version still does not show that the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:NBIO.

No evidence of WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources is found in a WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article previously at AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 in Philippine television

edit
2025 in Philippine television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Too soon for the article. also non-cited content and empty tables. ––kemel49(connect)(contri) 12:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to retain this because the year 2025 is approaching. Thank you Glenn23-408649 (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
we have the draft: Draft:2025 in Philippine television existed that is pending as of now. the draft article will be moved back to the main article once the 2025 approaches by mid-late december. Ayamano2021 (talk) 11:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It’s part midnight on 7 December in Manila, and it’s only 24 days until 2025. Use common sense, folks. Unless China invades, everything planned for next year will happen. Bearian (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the fence. Is Year in Philippine television really a good encyclopedic topic? I am looking at 2023 in Philippine television, which has been maintained, nicely formatted and referenced by very dedicated people. But does an encyclopedia need all that information or does it violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE? Is there a need for a "Notable deaths in television" (which includes "Kokoi Baldo (b. 1979), reggae singer" and "Gregorio Bacit Jr., (b. 1975), cameraman") when deaths should all be located in the centralized page Year in the Philippines? etc. Geschichte (talk) 06:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Geschichte: IMO, Year in Philippine television can be a good and/or bad encyclopedic topic according to WP:FANCRUFT. While the lists featured locally-produced original Filipino shows and programs, all the yearly articles of Philippine television had multiple additions of movie programming blocks (television airing of films/movies that were first released in cinemas/theaters) and acquired programs/series (like foreign dramas and animations from other countries), as well as a list of reruns of TV shows. These yearly articles of Philippine television can violate WP:NOTTVGUIDE, MOS:TVINTL, WP:LISTN and other rules for promoting these film/movie blocks and foreign/acquired programs on the list of television shows. Gino March (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree with what is said in Bearian's and Howard the Duck's !votes. -Mushy Yank. 21:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but also requesting that the article should be focused on Philippine television programs/shows/series with original programming only. No more movie blocks, no more foreign shows from other countries, no more re-runs/replays of previously-aired programs. Gino March (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conventional weapon

edit
Conventional weapon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:DICDEF and WP:GNG. Perhaps it could be redirected to and explained in weapon? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Despite the sheer number of keep !votes, their arguments are not so clearly based on policy or guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A basic google books and scholar search shows WP:SIGCOV. It's a widely used term with legal implications both domestically and internationally. I can't imagine any serious WP:BEFORE was done, because I am seeing some obvious avenues for article development in google scholar and google books as it relates to international law and armaments agreements in relation to conventional weapons. The possibilities for expanding this are there, and we are not under any time limit to do so.4meter4 (talk) 06:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As User:Doczilla stated, please demonstrate this SIGCOV instead of just claiming it is there. The last 3 Keep !voters said the same thing and this is just repeating the point that has already been called insufficient without any evidence that the AfD was poorly conducted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Google Scholar alone generates over 5000 hits, with journals ranging from Journal of Cold War Studies to Defence Science Journal and a number of scholarly monographs as well. Google Books returns another 19000, although the relevance of some of those is likely lower. Given the role the distinction between conventional and non-conventional weapons (nuclear and chemical in particular) played in arms control discussions and treaties in the 1970s and 1980s (to give just one example) it should be patently obvious this is a significant topic. Intothatdarkness 13:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A widely used term with many hits does not mean it is article worthy. WP:GHITS is relevant here. While "nuclear weapon" is obviously notable, "conventional weapon" encompasses a wide and vague umbrella of weapons that is duplicated by other articles. The arms treaties in which it is used of course can have their own page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per all above. BD2412 T 16:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, another agreement with all of the above. Donner60 (talk) 08:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:DICDEF: unlike a dictionary definition, where you would find discussion of the word's usage and history, this encyclopedic article instead discusses the scope, history, mechanics, and status of the concept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raids inside the Soviet Union during the Soviet–Afghan War

edit
Raids inside the Soviet Union during the Soviet–Afghan War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unwarranted WP:SPLIT of the Soviet–Afghan War, clearly a Pov ridden article and glorification of measly notable Pakistani raids in Soviet Afghan. Garudam Talk! 00:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a Split and these raids aren't "measley notable" in that it involved the forces of four different states infiltrating into the territory of a global superpower. Waleed (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Čapljina

edit
Operation Čapljina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The "Flow of the operation" section of this article, which concerns the actual subject of this article, is unsourced. The comprehensive CIA history of the Balkan conflicts of the 90s, Balkan Battlegrounds mentions this operation only in passing, in fact in a footnote, not even in the body text. Another article of dubious notability created by new accounts that have popped up in the last few months. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Dubious topic, but a quorum would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion of France (1795) order of battle

edit
Invasion of France (1795) order of battle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested merge, with both parties agreeing this unreferenced page isn't helpful as a standalone article. Given the uncontested argument that it serves no encyclopedic purpose, and wouldn't improve Invasion of France (1795), deletion seems the best course. I also note that it was (re)created by a now-banned account. Klbrain (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again before considering a No consensus closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Sing-yung

edit
Wu Sing-yung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seemingly written by someone close to the subject, fails WP:PROF. Remsense ‥ 论 08:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

    Sources

    1. Wang, William 汪威廉 (2023-03-29). "兩棲學人吳興鏞——Father's Gold Secret讀後（汪威廉）" [Polymath scholar Wu Xingyong——After reading Father's Gold Secret (William Wang)]. Ming Pao Monthly (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-12-05. Retrieved 2024-12-05.

      The article notes: "在學生的年代，吳興鏞先生台灣大學畢業後，到美國深造。分別在華大（University of Washington）與霍大（Johns Hopkins University）修得雙博士。近半世紀以來，他既在加州長堤榮民醫院擁有研究室，又到加州大學爾灣校區醫學院任教。對甲狀腺素的研究，成就卓越。他曾發現胎兒的甲狀腺素代謝以硫酸化徑路為主，同時一部分硫酸化甲狀腺素由胎兒轉到母體，成為由他命名的「吳氏複合體」（W-Compound），作為胎兒甲狀腺功能的指標，或可做未來第二代檢查的指標，曾獲美國專利。"

      From Google Translate: "When he was a student, Mr. Wu Xingyong went to the United States for further study after graduating from National Taiwan University. He obtained double doctorates from the University of Washington and Johns Hopkins University respectively. For nearly half a century, he has had a research laboratory at Long Beach Veterans Hospital in California and taught at the School of Medicine at the University of California, Irvine. Research on thyroxine has achieved excellence. He once discovered that fetal thyroxine metabolism is mainly based on the sulfation pathway. At the same time, part of the sulfated thyroxine is transferred from the fetus to the mother, becoming the "W-Compound" named by him, which serves as an indicator of fetal thyroid function. , which may be used as an indicator for future second-generation inspections, and has been patented by the United States."

    2. Yu, Jiye 俞继业; Jiang, Shouwen 江守文 (2016-09-22). Chen, Yan 陈燕 (ed.). "海外赤子吴兴镛首回故里 向宁波市档案馆捐赠历史见证" [Overseas Chinese Wu Xingyong returns to hometown for the first time and donates historical evidence to Ningbo Archives]. 中国宁波网 [China Ningbo Network] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-12-05. Retrieved 2024-12-05.

      The article notes: "吴兴镛，祖籍北仑区戚家山街道青峙村，1939年生于四川，1963年毕业于台湾大学，1972年毕业于美国约翰·霍普金斯大学医学院，获医学博士学位；他从事甲状腺素代谢研究36年，有专书、专利及论文多项，1991年升任美国加州大学欧文(音译)医学院教授至今；他是号称“蒋介石的总账房”、亲历大陆黄金运台重要人物、台湾钢铁界元老吴嵩庆之子，"

      From Google Translate: "Wu Xingyong, whose ancestral home is Qingzhi Village, Qijiashan Street, Beilun District, was born in Sichuan in 1939. He graduated from National Taiwan University in 1963 and from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in 1972 with a doctorate in medicine. He has been engaged in thyroid hormone metabolism research for 36 years and has published many books, patents and papers. In 1991, he was promoted to professor at the University of California, Irvine School of Medicine. He is the son of Wu Songqing, who is known as "Chiang Kai-shek's chief accountant", an important figure who witnessed the transportation of gold from the mainland to Taiwan, and a veteran of Taiwan's steel industry."

    3. Li, Jing 李菁 (2010). "我的父亲与黄金运台之谜" [My father and the mystery of gold transport to Taiwan]. Sanlian Lifeweek (in Chinese). No. 11. Archived from the original on 2024-12-05. Retrieved 2024-12-05.

      The article notes: "一个偶然的机会，美国加州大学尔湾医学院教授吴兴镛开始了这段复杂而艰涩的调查。吴兴镛的父亲吴嵩庆曾担任国民党军财务军需署长15年之久，从表面上看，他的职位并不高，但是这期间所管理的军费在国民党政府总预算中最高曾占2/3以上。此外，在国民党政府最艰难时期（1948～1949），国库大半资金也暂时由他与中央银行共同监管。吴兴镛的调查，让我们得以看清60多年前，一段颇为特殊的历史事件。"

      From Google Translate: "By chance, Wu Xingyong, a professor at the University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, began this complex and difficult investigation. Wu Xingyong's father, Wu Songqing, served as the director of the KMT's military finance and munitions department for 15 years. On the surface, his position was not high, but the military expenses he managed during this period accounted for more than 2/3 of the KMT government's total budget. In addition, during the most difficult period of the KMT government (1948-1949), most of the treasury funds were temporarily supervised by him and the central bank. Wu Xingyong's investigation allows us to see clearly a very special historical event more than 60 years ago."

    4. Yuan, Hang 袁航 (2023-10-31). "当秘密不再是秘密，《黄金密档》多角度解析"运金沉案"" [When secrets are no longer secrets, "Golden Secret Files" analyzes the "Gold Transport Case" from multiple angles] (in Chinese). Shanghai Bank Museum [zh]. Archived from the original on 2024-12-05. Retrieved 2024-12-05 – via NetEase.

      The article notes: "本书作者吴兴镛是“蒋介石的总账房”、联勤总部财务军需署署长吴嵩庆（1901-1991）之子。在父亲逝世多年后，吴兴镛无意间发现其留下的绝密“军费日志”，于是开始了十余年探寻真相的历程，在此期间他发现了惊人的秘密——蒋介石隐藏的军费黄金档案。"

      From Google Translate: "The author of this book, Wu Xingyong, is the son of Wu Songqing (1901-1991), the director of the Finance and Ordnance Department of the Joint Logistics Headquarters and "Chiang Kai-shek's chief accountant". Many years after his father's death, Wu Xingyong accidentally discovered the top-secret "military expenditure diary" left by his father, and began a journey of more than ten years to explore the truth. During this period, he discovered an astonishing secret - Chiang Kai-shek's hidden military expenditure gold archives."

    5. Lin, Honghan 林宏翰 (2023-09-10). Wei, Shu 韋樞 (ed.). "回顧黃金運台歷史 旅美醫師呼籲跨黨派團結" [Looking back on Taiwan's golden history, doctor in the United States call for cross-party unity] (in Chinese). Central News Agency. Archived from the original on 2024-12-05. Retrieved 2024-12-05.

      The article notes: "吳興鏞現年84歲，1963年畢業於國立臺灣大學醫學系，赴美留學之後，先後獲得華盛頓大學的實驗病理學博士、約翰霍普金斯大學醫學博士，在甲狀腺領域具權威地位。"

      From Google Translate: "Wu Xingyong is 84 years old. He graduated from the Department of Medicine at National Taiwan University in 1963. After studying in the United States, he received a doctorate in experimental pathology from the University of Washington and a doctorate in medicine from Johns Hopkins University. He has an authoritative position in the field of thyroid."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Wu Sing-yung (simplified Chinese: 吴兴镛; traditional Chinese: 吳興鏑) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get some input regarding the new source eval?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New source assessment as requested: Yu & Jiang 2016 and Lin 2023 I earlier presented as unelaborated bare links – probably due to being late for work – both of which I characterised as IS RS SIGCOV; Yuan 2023 (n.b.: broken archive link) and Wang 2023 are book reviews with a brief author bio, which I am not sure contribute to NBASIC but I think contribute to NAUTHOR? Li 2010 is RS and borderline SIGCOV, depending on how generously it's interpreted.
No SIGCOV found in gbooks search, just a lot of citations to his gold research, sometimes namedropping in a prose introduction to the claim.
I'm not really a notability specialist (or source reliability assessor, as evidenced by my ignorance of the deprecation of Epoch Times above). I'm not sure if this is a case where we should have an article about the subject's research with a smol bio subheading, or an article about the subject with a subheading on his work. Either would work for me, with page anchor redirect targets as appropriate, but I believe we should have some article here.
Also, as much as I love amphibious scholar as a machine translation of 兩樓學人 in the title of Wang 2023, if it ends up cited in the article I might recommend polymath scholar or (for fun) double doctor. Folly Mox (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability", so I think any independent reliable source that provides nontrivial biographical coverage of the subject contributes to notability. I think there is so much biographical coverage about Wu Sing-yu across all the sources that he easily meets the notability guideline.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is a good resource for determining what the previous consensus on reliability was on frequently discussed sources. Responding to your question above about "medrel", I think it's a reference to WP:MREL, which means a source is "marginally reliable".

Thank you for pointing out a better translation of 兩樓學人. I've fixed that in the reference so that if it is copied to the article in the future, it will be with the accurate translation. Cunard (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll defer to your judgement here on notability guidelines and agree NBASIC is met. I am aware of RSP, but almost never think to check it when looking for sources at AfD, possibly because I don't really edit much in current topics.
There are other infelicities in the machine translations, of course (Taiwan's golden history should be the historical transport of gold to Taiwan for clarity; I think it's a double entendre in the original), but most of it gets the point across without obvious errors. Folly Mox (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving South Korea

edit
List of wars involving South Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Propose redirecting List of wars involving South Korea to List of wars involving Korea#South Korea, just like List of wars involving Korea#North Korea. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wars involving North Korea (nominated by Cortador), which resulted in the same solution on 3 November 2024. NLeeuw (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This outcome (the merger) was most unfortunate. Although Korea has been a divided country since the 1940s, editors seem adamant to treat it as a single country. We don't we give Sudan and South Sudan the same treatment, for good measure? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF Cortador (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mikrobølgeovn has a point, but I think the comparison of Korea with Sudan and South Sudan does not work well. Below I've presented some thoughts on comparing Yemen and Korea, curious what editors think of that. NLeeuw (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment: One of the arguments used by nom of previous AfD was This also has precedent e.g. East and West Germany don't have separate pages for their wars, and neither do North and South Vietnam or North and South Yemen. The first half is true, but not the second: We've got List of wars involving North Yemen, List of wars involving South Yemen, as well as List of wars involving Yemen. However, given the significant amount of WP:OVERLAP between the three, we might consider the North and South lists WP:REDUNDANTFORKs, to be merged into List of wars involving Yemen. (The obvious difference being that North and South Yemen no longer exist, only a united Yemen, at least officially; by contrast, a united Korea no longer exists, but a North and South Korea do, despite claiming the whole peninsula for themselves.) But that would be a good idea for a follow-up if this AfD has been closed as nominated. NLeeuw (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As with the list of wars involving North Korea, declaring historical states on the territory of modern South Korea (like Goryeo) to be predecessors to South Korea specifically is questionable. There's currently no need for a separate article. Cortador (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should have a main one for Korea, with links to separate lists for North Korea and South Korea. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am open to this alternative proposal of three separate lists:
  1. Korea until 1948
  2. North Korea since 1948
  3. South Korea since 1948
@Shazback below seems to be suggesting the same thing.
If we do choose for this alternative, I would recommend including the words until 1948 and since 1948 in the article titles just to make clear to both readers and editors what the scope of each list is, and to prevent creating WP:REDUNDANTFORKs again. Cortador was right that we shouldn't duplicate content, but merging all three lists into one might not be the best solution. Also for readability, navigability, and categorisation purposes, three separate lists would solve several practical problems, including the untenable idea that there is still a unified Korean state as of 2024. NLeeuw (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Very surprised by the outcome of the previous AfD, which I did not see/participate in. I would be surprised to be directed to a page covering wars of multiple states if I was looking for either one.
    My suggestion would for "List of wars involving Korea" to be a disambiguation page with 3 pages listed: "List of wars involving states of the Korean peninsula (pre-1948)"; "List of wars involving North Korea"; "List of wars involving South Korea". Both the latter pages only include post-1948 conflicts, and can have a section at the beginning stating that the state claim succession to pre-1948 states if necessary.
    This follows the most common way people view and analyse the world when considering wars (by state), avoids duplication by clearly separating historical lists where states did not match current territories (e.g., whatever criteria are most relevant for inclusion can be decided, for instance to consider the Ungjin Commandery without needing to worry if either South or North Korea claim it as a predecessor state), while remaining clear link targets that can be found easily. Shazback (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most of these articles list every war that happened at a location, instead of the current nation. List of wars involving the United States doesn't list the wars that happened there between native Americans or others before the nation was officially founded. Dream Focus 18:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps because the United States does not claim succession of those states? Plenty of other articles list them by geography / include predecessor states to the current country (e.g., List of wars involving Poland, List of wars involving Vietnam). Shazback (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a general rule, we do not create lists or categories based on the geographic location where a war or battle took place, as this is usually WP:NONDEFINING. See WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. These lists are about belligerents involved in a conflict, not countries etc. where the conflict took place. Therefore, there are no battles "involving the United States" prior to the American Revolutionary War. NLeeuw (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure I follow / understand fully your comment. Both pages I shared include plenty of elements that occured prior to the current constitution / establishment of the Third Polish Republic or the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Many of these are lineage / predecessor states that had claim over the general area of the current state (not identical borders). Furthermore, a cursory / quick look at both these lists as well as the list of wars involving the United States shows they include cases were the state is not a belligerent per se: Bleeding Kansas in the USA list, the Later Trần rebellion (1407–1414) in the Vietnam list, and the Januszajtis putsch in the Poland list. I'd also note that World War I is listed as a conflict involving Poland, despite Poland not existing at any point during the war as a clear indication geography is considered when compiling these lists. These lists are not pages I like / find very useful exactly because of the points made in the WP: pages you linked. When looking at wars of Country A, my personal expectation is to see only the wars of what is commonly understood to be Country A in current geopolitics (i.e., for North Korea, 1948+, for the USA 1775/6+, for Poland 1918+, for Vietnam 1976+). But that's not how many other people like it, as they expect to see predecessor states' wars included in these lists. Shazback (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment was a reply to both Dream Focus and you. I'm not necessarily disagreeing, just adding some thoughts and pointing to some relevant policies and guidelines. NLeeuw (talk) 11:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As I see it the current list can't stand as it is but not for notability reasons. South Korea did not exist until 1948, so if we are going to have a list with this title, the earliest war should begin in 1948. However, if we are going to include wars extending back in time in that geographic area than that topic is better covered at List of wars involving Korea. So I would support a Keep if the list does not include content before 1948 or a redirect to List of wars involving Korea#South Korea. Best.4meter4 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 10:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the List of wars involving South Korea and Reestablish the List of wars involving North Korea. Those two are the modern countries and disserve their own articles. The List of wars involving Korea article should have the wars that occurred before the 1945 division of Korea. Dash9Z (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 02:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Comment: Several participants of the previous AfD, as well as new participants, have indicated that they are surprised by the previous AfD's outcome, and do not think it serves as a good precedent for this one. That undermines my rationale.
As nom, moreover, I am open to the alternative proposal of three separate lists:
  1. involving Korea until 1948
  2. involving North Korea since 1948
  3. involving South Korea since 1948
This alt proposal appears to enjoy a majority right now. The inclusion of the year 1948 in the title of all three separate lists also appears to enjoy some support, in order to prevent duplication (WP:REDUNDANTFORKs) and WP:OR by implying that North Korea and South Korea have already existed for hundreds of years. Even though the ROK and DPRK do not diplomatically recognise each other, the de facto reality is that Korea ceased to be a unified state in or around 1948, and has split in two, a situation which has been consolidated since the 1953 ceasefire. It is probably best if our lists of wars involving Fooland reflect that, and the year 1948 will serve as the turning point in which the Korea list splits into North Korea and South Korea. NLeeuw (talk) 06:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History Proposed deletions

edit

History categories

edit

for occasional archiving

Proposals

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/History&oldid=1262481138"