Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/History

Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

History

Hellenistic Greece

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

I propose merging to Hellenistic period because it's Non-notable. The article has only two sources which talk about the "Hellenistic age". As far as I know there is no such a thing as "Hellenistic Greece period" SuriMuri (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History and Greece. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep, but... Hmmm - rationale in nom is ridiculous, and wrong. The subject clearly exists and is notable. What does "As far as I know there is no such a thing as "Hellenistic Greece period"" mean? At the same time, it isn't clear how this article differs from the other (which is already waaaay too large). User:SuriMuri is in his first week of editing - it's rather early for this sort of thing. Johnbod (talk) 17:39, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply
If you look a little closer you will see that the article starts with "Hellenistic Greece is the historical period of Ancient Greece following Classical Greece". There is no such a thing as a period named "Hellenistic Greece". There is Greece in the Hellenistic period. You should also address the lack of sources. SuriMuri (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete per nomination. SuriMuri is correct that this content fork is problematic at best. Wikipedia readers would be better served by improving one of these articles about the Hellenistic period, rather than having two flawed ones. Trumpetrep (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Tughuzhuqo Qizbech movement

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

This article duplicates existing content from other pages, mostly from Qizbech Tughuzhuqo and partially from Circassian Revolution, Siege of Lazarevsky, Siege of Velyaminovsky and Battle of Abinsk articles. It has no unique facts or other sources. No such historical movement exists in any academic literature. The page simply takes the biography of Qizbech Tughuzhuqo and existing conflict details, and labels them as a movement. Therefore, this page should be deleted. Liptink0 (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2026 (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/2026 September 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:59, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete per nomination. There are a lot of article like this which essentially are content forks. Trumpetrep (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply

History of banking in Malta

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

The introduction appears to be LLM-generated, while the Timeline is WP:OR. Vgbypw (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, History, Suspected AI-generated articles, and Malta. Shellwood (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply

5 Pfennigs, Type 2 – Small Shield (1915–1922)

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

Doesn't appear to be notable as a separate coin. Neither of the sources used can be used to establish the subject's notability under WP:GNG. I think the info can just be added to the Pfenning article. Vgbypw (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete: Numista is WP:SELFPUBLISHED and not reliable. Britannica does not mention the subject, and coin catalogs typically do not provide the coverage needed to establish notability for a specific coin. Also I believe you meant to link Pfennig in the nomination, although the info might be better to add to German mark (1871) in my opinion. Or perhaps a new list article, but that's not in the scope of the AfD. (List of silver coins of the German Empire exists). Eman7blue42 (talk page | recent edits) 16:21, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Economics, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete: Non-notable coin, only mentioned in Britannica, the rest are short and non-RS anyway. I don't see any sourcing about this particular variation of coin. Oaktree b (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Sean na Sagart

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

Delete - Subject does not seem to be notable. References seem to be to local histories rather than reliable sources. Reference 2 is just the name of a historian and tour guide. Reference 3, the history page of the abbey he is buried at, is a self-published and promotional source that is now illustrated with AI imagery. Nivlac, 1st Viscountess Nivlac (talk) 11:53, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 11:55, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep. While, as noted, the sources in the article were objectively poor (including perhaps what appears to be a spoken statement from a tour guide?), that doesn't mean others aren't available (to support the text and a claim to notability). In my own WP:BEFORE, I found that the subject was: afforded a full chapter in O'Connor's (2013) book about the period/topic, the main topic of a (granted) fictionalised semi-biographical novel (1844), at least one "pamphlet" and a smattering of (granted hyper-local) "news" pieces. While there are possible AtDs (including merging/redirecting to Priest hunter title), personally can't support the deletion proposal. (Not least as it seems to be based on the sources in the article - rather than those that are possibly available....) Guliolopez (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
I did do a BEFORE. I will concede that I didn't come across the book (and don't have access to it regardless) and it could be a perfectly good source. The news articles I lumped into the 'local histories' category as an extension of the abbey's promotional push.

Mea culpa, I didn't mention how much local history coverage exists in addition to the ones referenced. As much as I want to act like a competent Wikipedian I believe my edit count still renders me an extreme novice. Nivlac, 1st Viscountess Nivlac (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep I agree with Guliolopez here. There are some significant sources which came up in my WP:BEFORE as well - the same that he mentions above. The nominator is responding to a content issue, not a notability issue. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Romanian Moderate Party

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

Obvious AI creation. Strange section header capitalisation, information arranged into bullet lists. The most telling sign is the sourcing format, wildly atypical from the author's easily identifiable messy usual style .

Edward Mike005 has long been a productive editor and a clear net positive. But they will be taken to WP:ANI if a second episode of AI usage is repeated. It is a block-worthy offense per WP:LLM. We are being swarmed by AI slop in the website and don't need editors not willing to put in serious effort. That is unless they can refute the allegations at this AfD. As a disclaimer, I haven't noticed the use of AI in any of their previous articles. Super Ψ Dro 22:24, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Hungary, and Romania. Super Ψ Dro 22:24, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
hello!

I appreciate your concern, but I would like to mention that it is not "AI slop". Not at all.

While I use AI to write drafts, the final form of the article is re-edited by me, checked by me, and published by me. No bots or anything else.

The citation style is mine. I don't know that well to add citations that are not from the websites. Regarding this article specifically, the citations are added via the visual editor. The informations from the book of Iudean I mentioned.

I appreciate your concern, but I would like to ask you not to call me 3 hours work (that is the time it took me to write the article, if I hadn't use AI it would probably have taken 3 days) "AI slop". I use AI to write a draft. But the wikilinks, sources, and corrections - because, trust me, AI gets a lot of things wrong - are done by me. I do this to save time, and, I repeat myself - I check all the information to make sure that it doesn't become "slop". I use AI to help me write the articles, but the articles are not written by AI.

Also, I saw the bullet lists, but I decided to keep it because it make it easier for the viewer to read. Edward Mike005 (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Update: I was wrong, they have made use of AI before . May this AfD serve as a warning to the editor. WP:LLM states clearly the use of AI in Wikipedia is allowed only for basic copyediting and translations, both requiring subsequent human reviewing. Super Ψ Dro 22:30, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

read my previous answer.

Also, I do NOT use AI for the citations. The citations are added via the visual editor. Edward Mike005 (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Suspected AI-generated articles. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:56, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Draftify: The editor made an honest attempt at an article, I'd allow this to go to draft space to be corrected and written properly. AFC can be a great tool for newer editors. I think the intention is there, perhaps the execution leaves to be desired, but I'd not "bite the newbie" over this. To be blunt, LLM is a NO GO here, but I hope the editor can learn from their mistakes and will continue to contribute. All are welcome and we need good, hardworking editors in Wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Agreed. I apologise if my initial tone may have been excessively harsh. The editor really is a net positive. But one of the few things I think could ruin the project is the excessive use of AI. Let's keep things here authentic. Super Ψ Dro 22:08, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply

like I said: while AI was used for the draft, the final article is corrected BY ME. I check every sentence, every word, to be factually correct, to be written correctly.

The internal links and wikizations are also made by me. And the sources as well.

I didn't told the AI to write me an article then copy paste here. I used what it wrote as a draft that I expanded, corrected, fixed.

I decided to keep the bullet points because they are easy to be read by an average user. Edward Mike005 (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Hetman of the Zaporozhian Host

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

I propose merging to Hetman of the Zaporizhian Cossacks because we simply do not need two articles covering essentially the same topic. There does not appear to be any substantial distinction between the subjects of the two articles. I am also not sure why this separate article was created in the first place. I therefore propose merging it into the older article. Marcelus (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Poland, and Ukraine. Marcelus (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Oppose. The Hetman of the Zaporozhian Host was an official post as a head of state for the Cossack Hetmanate, which was a sovereign country. The Hetman of the Zaporizhian Cossacks was a military post exclusively, which also existed within the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, in particular. Also, the article Hetman of the Zaporozhian Host provides a detailed list of highly verifiable personalities. On the other hand, the article Hetman of the Zaporizhian Cossacks provides the origin where the other post was created and what role the Hetman of the Zaporizhian Cossacks played in the history of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Those are definitely not one and the same topic. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

@Aleksandr Grigoryev as for now we have at least three articles that describes the position of the Cossack Hetman and list its holders: Hetman of the Zaporozhian Host, Hetman of the Zaporizhian Cossacks and Cossack_Hetmanate#Leadership. In my option is a bit too much. Better to have one detailed article which describes the history of the title, and lists its various users. Marcelus (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply

I agree that there is too much overlap. I'm currently working to distinguish starosta, voivodes, senior officers (starshyna, colonels/polkovnyks) and hetmans of Registered Cossacks, Kish otamans, and actual Hetmans of the Zaporizhian Host since 1648. NLeeuw (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply

PS: I think that the phrase "hetman of the Zaporizhian Cossacks" is mostly meant for people who were elected hetmans by unregistered Zaporizhian Sich Cossacks in southern Ukraine (before 1648), as opposed to appointed by Commonwealth authorities as hetman of the Registered Cossacks in the towns of northern Ukraine (1572 to 1648, officially "Senior of His Royal Grace's Zaporizhian Host"). The confusion appears to be have been made deliberately by Commonwealth authorities at the time: The Commonwealth government officially named the registered Cossacks the Zaporozhian Army to underscore the fact that it considered the actual Zaporozhian Host a legal nonentity. 1. This is why we end up with conflicting definitions of official and non-official hetmans, and overlapping and contradicting lists of hetmans. Strictly speaking, Registered/Town Cossacks from northern Ukraine were not "za porohamy" (beyond the rapids), but before them. Yet in practice, I see virtually all Cossacks in Ukraine described as "Zaporizhian Cossacks", and now I am beginning to understand why... NLeeuw (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Procedural oppose, but agree that better distinction is needed: Hello @Marcelus, what are you proposing, exactly? To delete Hetman of the Zaporozhian Host, or to merge Hetman of the Zaporozhian Host (d:Q16157109) into Hetman of the Zaporizhian Cossacks (d:Q2992566)? While I disagree with deleting either page or simply merging them as they are, I do agree that a better distinction between them is needed. (I was already WP:BOLDly attempting to make that distinction, but apparently not in a way you could concur with. Which is okay; I did expect it might come to a discussion that was about time to be had about overlap between them). As Wikidata shows, these topics are divided into two separate articles in four language editions of Wikipedia: Arabic (but very small), English, Russian, and Ukrainian. We could merge them in English, but I think we should consider why and how the division was made on ruwiki and ukwiki (after all, these are the most important languages involved). Some aspects suggest that they don't have a very clear distinction in scope either, but at the very least that d:Q16157109 is primarily about describing the position of the head of state of the Cossack Hetmanate (1648-1764), and that d:Q2992566 is about listing all who have been the head of state of the Cossack Hetmanate. Unfortunately, the latter has gotten mixed up with other similarly-named positions and lists of office-holders thereof, such as kish otaman, starosta, starshyna, voivodes, and hetmans of the Registered Cossacks. I think we should either give them clear separate sections, or split them off as separate lists (I was already working towards separate sections, with an option of splitting some sections off into stand-alone articles. E.g. Kish otaman#Prominent Kish otamans is a better place for all mentioned under Hetman of the Zaporizhian Cossacks#Kish otamans, because the latter is essentially a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of the former). What do you think? Good day, NLeeuw (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply

@Nederlandse Leeuw As I said in my nomination, we currently have two articles covering essentially the same topic. Other Wikipedias instead tend to have two separate articles: one about the office and role of the Zaporozhian Hetman, and another listing the holders of that office. I think we should follow the same approach, especially since this is also a very common structure on the English Wikipedia. Marcelus (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply

@Marcelus Right, then we agree. The solution is neither to merge, nor to delete, but to better distinguish the two articles. I'm working on it right now. Especially the Hetman of the Zaporizhian Cossacks simply needs more sources and better overall coverage. It appears to suffer from an "anti-Polish" bias that regards the Right-bank Hetmanate as illegitimate, and the Left-bank Hetmanate as the only legitimate Hetmanate. NLeeuw (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply

@Marcelus, I think you did not read my arguments. Maybe I should reiterate. Once upon a time there existed such country known as the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Their military leaders were known as hetmans. Originally there were two posts, a crown hetman and a field hetman. Separately from them in the area beyond the Dnieper rapids, literally Zaporizhia (za porohamy), organized combatants established their self-defense force to repel foreign invaders. Those combatants were known as Cossacks and they called their leader Hetman as well. Unlike the crown hetman and the field hetman, which were appointed officials, the Cossacks' Hetman was an elective official. The Hetman of Zaporizhian Cossack as a post existed before the Khmelnytskyi Uprising. The later established a new sovereign state known as the Cossack Hetmanate. The official title became the Hetman of the Zaporizhian Host, but unofficially it continued to be called as the Hetman of Zaporizhian Cossacks. As of recently, during the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Vyacheslav Chornovil was elected as the Hetman of Zaporizhian Cossacks. (Chornovil, Viacheslav. www.encyclopediaofukraine.com) Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply

That seems to be roughly the same conclusion I reached in my comment above of 19:44, 22 September 2026 (UTC). NLeeuw (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply

@Aleksandr Grigoryev It is somewhat more complicated than that. Originally, in Poland hetman was a title given to any commander of a military expedition or a larger mercenary force. It was only in the early 16th century that it became formalized into two offices, the Grand Hetman and the Field Hetman, who acted as the king’s deputies in military affairs. The title largely ceased to be used in other contexts, although such usage never disappeared entirely. In this form, the title reached Zaporizhia. At first, any commander of Cossack forces could be called a hetman, hence the later legends claiming, for example, that Baida was the first hetman. The privilege establishing the Cossack register likewise refers to Jan Oryszewski as a hetman. Usually, however, the commanders of the Registered Cossacks were called "starszy", and their position was relatively low, as they were subordinate to the starosta of Cherkasy. In fact, the first true Zaporozhian hetman was Bohdan Khmelnytsky. Before him, however, there were countless Cossack "hetmans", meaning simply military commanders. Of course, there is little justification for including among the hetmans various modern-day LARPers such as Vyacheslav Chornovil.Marcelus (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply

@Marcelus, please except my compliments about your knowledge on the subject. I am not trying to be rude, but I do not see you trying to debunk my argument. I guess, you have already made up your mind. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply

@Aleksandr Grigoryev for once, there was no such thing as a formal "Hetman of Zaporizhian Cossack" before Khmelnytskyi Marcelus (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply

@Marcelus, I guess, you are telling me that I am inventing things, aren't you? My knowledge is based on the following sources among many others: (ГЕТЬМАН. history.org.ua), (Гетьман. esu.com.ua), (Гетьманство в Україні: від керівництва військом до державного правління {The rule of Hetman in Ukraine: from the leadership of an army to the state government}. up.mk.ua), (Виборча система у запорозьких козаків {The Zaporizhian Cossacks electoral system}). spadok.org.ua). These sources differentiate both of the terms (Hetman of Zaporizhian Cossacks and Hetman of the Zaporizhian Host) and explain how they different. Petro Sahaidachny was among the most notable hetmans of Zaporizhian Cossacks who at the same time was the Senior (starszy) of the Registered Cossacks. Depending on a political situation, the government of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth either allowed or stripped the Zaporizhian Cossacks from having own hetman. Beside these there are other sources if you got an impression that I am cherry-picking. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply

@Marcelus, number of historians such as Tatiana Tairova-Yakovleva and Yuriy Mytsyk indicated that the post Hetman of Zaporizhian Cossacks existed, but in the official documents of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth it was referred as the Senior (starszy) of His Royal Grace the Zaporizhian Host (ГЕТЬМАН. history.org.ua). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:13, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply

@Aleksandr Grigoryev Separating "Hetman of the Zaporozhian Cossacks" from "Hetman of the Zaporozhian Host" is artificial. As I mentioned, the title hetman was already used for commanders of Cossack forces before 1648, whether for the "starszy" of the Registered Cossacks or for the leader of a particular Cossack expedition. However, the office had no stable form, clearly defined prerogatives, or consistent institutional character. It was only for Khmelnytsky that the office of Hetman of the Zaporozhian Host acquired a permanent and formalized character, combining military command with the political leadership of the semi-autonomous Cossack Hetmanate. Marcelus (talk) 07:17, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Well, I can see both sides of the issue. Hypothetically, we could rename Hetman of the Zaporizhian Cossacks to Hetman of His Royal Grace's Zaporizhian Host, or Hetman of the Registered Cossacks, and limit the scope entirely to Registered Cossacks between 1572 and 1638, plus some historical context (background, legacy), and make Hetman of the Zaporizhian Host all about the Cossack Hetmanate's head of state from 1648 to 1764 (Left Bank) and 1713 (Right Bank). That is the cleanest split with the least WP:OVERLAP we could make.

Unfortunately, that may mean we need to exclude a lot of edge cases that were never Commonwealth-officially "hetmans", but were elected as such by rebel Registered or unregistered Cossacks, named as such in many primary sources (the engraving of Sahaidachny on the right there is a good example of that), and widely treated as such in historiography.

One thing that may be very important to clarify first is whether the Commonwealth authorities ever used the term "hetman" widely, including in Polish-language documents, or whether they always said starshy (starszy). pl:Hetman claims the latter was the case: Określenia „hetman” (ukr. гетьман) w odniesieniu do naczelników wojsk rejestrowych będących na żołdzie Rzeczypospolitej używali także Kozacy[8], choć nie stosowali tej tytulatury w oficjalnej korespondencji z instytucjami Rzeczypospolitej, a jedynie określenie „starszy Jego Królewskiej Mości wojska zaporoskiego”. Then again, it has no problem calling them all "hetmans of the Zaporizhian Cossacks" in pl:Lista hetmanów Kozaków zaporoskich and elsewhere.

At any rate, it was my initial understanding that all senior officers were called starshy / starszy, and that amongst them a hetman was selected (appointed or elected), as the Cossack starshyna in the Sich Rada also did with Kish otamans and the Hetmanate did with the Cossack Rada. But that may be a mistake on my part, extrapolating a later practice back into Commonwealth times where the Commonwealth would just appoint 1 single starszy, who was unofficially also called a hetman. If that is the case, I've got some fixing to do. NLeeuw (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Proposal about Kish otamans: I think the section Hetman of the Zaporizhian Cossacks#Kish otamans should be entirely merged into Kish otaman#List of Kish otaman, where it should be vetted, checked by WP:RS, and compared to uk:Кошовий отаман#Кошові отамани (список), fr:Liste des otamans zaporogues, and ru:Список кошевых атаманов Войска Запорожского. Although the terms "hetman" and "otaman" are sometimes used interchangeably, the kish otaman or koshovy otaman is a rather distinct phenomenon of one-year administration in both peacetime and wartime in the Siches in southern Ukraine, not to be confused with the one-campaign-season-hetman/otaman (Ukrainian: похідний отаман, romanized: pokhidny otaman, lit. 'campaign otaman') in Commonwealth service or as rogue/rebel Cossacks that we see amongst the proto-Registered and Registered Cossacks in Western, Central and Northern Ukraine from 1500 to 1648. There are many such campaign otamans that are misidentified as Kish otamans.

For example, nothing so far convinces me that Ivan Pidkova was a Kish otaman (as ukwiki and ruwiki claim without sources). Everything points to him being a Registered Cossack gone rogue who briefly served as an elected campaign otaman in Moldavia. That's not a Kish otaman in a Sich in southern Ukraine. The only Sich at the time that we know of is the Tomakivka Sich, and there are some historians who question it was even a Sich as known from later times, and there are no positive connections to be made between the Tomakivka Sich and Ivan Pidkova in Moldavia. Perhaps there is simply a confusion between 'Kosh otaman' and "Cossack otaman" (as the Encyclopedia of Ukraine calls him)? That may mean he does belong somewhere in the section "Hetmans of the Registered Cossacks", but not amongst the Kish otamans. Cheers, NLeeuw (talk) 11:36, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply

@Nederlandse Leeuw of couese, Kish atamans doens't belong here. Marcelus (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Good, then I will split that section off already.

For the starostas, it appears to be a rather subjective historiographical debate about which starostas can be retroactively considered "hetmans". Not during their lifetimes, but hundreds of years later. It's questionable whether we should take such debates seriously to begin with, but if so, it has to be substantial debate and not just one book or website retroactively claiming some starosta as "the first hetman of Ukraine / the Cossacks / the Zaporizhians / etc.". NLeeuw (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply

PS: As far as I'm concerned, no more than the three starostas already mentioned (Lanckoroński, Dashkevych and Vyshnevetsky) should be included. I've included some pro and contra arguments for all three and would recommend leaving it at that. Otherwise anyone can claim anything. NLeeuw (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Battle of the Ten Kings

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

The "Battle of the Ten Kings" is an event known almost from a single primary religious text Rigveda, and the article content is built upon interpretations of these hymns. While checking sources I found out no source largely explain the battle in depth. Better to delete or redirect to Mandala 7#The battle of ten kings where the content regarding this mythological battle is already noted. Chronos.Zx (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment: Scholarly consensus, as noted even within the article (2nd & 10th ref), is that the description of the battle is "anything but clear" and that it should not be used as a major source for historical reconstruction. Chronos.Zx (talk) 07:00, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Oppose - I see no Wiki-guideline based reason to delete this article. The article is about a story from a primary religious text; so? The same is true for The Exodus, for example. There is a section which addresses the question of historicity, and also a section which relates it to the Kurukshetra War. And it is a stand-alone article so that the article on Mandala 7 doesn't get excessively long. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:43, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Shellwood (talk) 08:27, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:48, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

It's too important of a topic and deserves its own article such that the Mandala 7 article doesnt get too long. Crneer (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Slaveryinamerica

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

The article does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:WEB. The History.com source is about slavery in the United States and does not discuss Slaveryinamerica.org. The other source, a dead Broadcasting & Cable link, appears to mention the website only briefly in connection with a PBS series. I could not find enough independent coverage of the website to establish notability. Johannes Klarnus-Pettersen (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Websites, and United States of America. Johannes Klarnus-Pettersen (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete I'm not even finding the said website, let alone seeing independent coverage Swirlymarigold (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete: non notable, teaching tool, not a wikipedia article. The reference link is 404, but the external link works. // Timothy :: talk 09:10, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge to Slavery and the Making of America: that is the PBS series associated with this website, per (this functional link to) the aforementioned article in Broadcasting & Cable–which outside that brief mention is about the show, not the website. Even in the best case scenario I see no reason to believe there is enough to justify a separate article for the website. Not entirely opposed to deletion for this not-quite-likely search term either. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:02, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Television-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:03, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Battle of Sovići and Doljani

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

I propose merging to Sovići and Doljani killings because there's very little content about these either way. Created by a now-blocked user, recently it was blanked and redirected there, and then an anonymous user reinstated it. --Joy (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. --Joy (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Croatia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:03, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Selective merge as proposed per WP:CONTENTFORK and WP:PAGEDECIDE. There's no reason for a standalone page here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply

One-at coin

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

I previously nominated this article for speedy deletion on WP:G15 basis, which failed. Why I believe this article was written by an LLM:

Style: "nomenclature corresponds exactly to its mathematical position inside the historical currency matrix", "proved structurally incapable", "clean structure", etc.
Formatting: lists (where humans usually choose subheadings) and bolds (e.g., Heaton Mint and Hamburg Mint).
Sources that have no relation to the paragraph they are put next to. For example, has nothing on "issued by local gambling houses (rong huai)" or on "The traditional hand-stamped manufacturing of bullet money (pod duang) proved structurally incapable of keeping pace." Vgbypw (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, History, Suspected AI-generated articles, and Thailand. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 15:13, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete: I don't find any sources that talk about this, the half-pai either. I only get hits on the phrase... Numismata and wiktionary are not RS. I don't see notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep. It seems the concerns raised are regarding the content added on 21 May. In that case, at worst it should suffice to revert to the prior version from January without need for deleting the article, which is part of a series, the rest of which don't appear to have been flagged. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply
- If notability issues are to be discussed, then this should be a mass merger nomination covering all the pre-decimal Thai coin articles. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete: I decided to look into the sourcing since Oaktree b brought it up. The article's sources are a journal article (is reliable), Numista (a not reliable WP:USERGENERATED website), Wiktionary (certainly not reliable), and Dema Coins, which seems to be a WP:SELFPUBLISHED website or blog by someone named Dema Yurii whose numismatic expertise I cannot find in any independent publications (although it does seem to provide in-depth coverage). I will note that much numismatic research is done by amateurs. I have looked for coverage in reliable sources (in English, I imagine there might be more in Thai), and have found only these:

Brief description in an April 1971 issue of The Numismatist. https://archive.org/details/Numismatist1971April/page/n15/mode/2up
A definition in a 1916 issue of the American Journal of Numismatics. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43594108?seq=19
Entries in The Standard Catalog of World Coins 1900-2000 and A Catalog of Modern World Coins 1850-1964 (I physically own these books)

Ignoring the LLM stuff, I am not sure if it has WP:SIGCOV. Coin articles for currencies in non-English speaking countries are extremely tricky to find sources for. I would like a definitive yes or no if descriptions like the one in the The Numismatist and The Standard Catalog of World Coins count towards establishing notability, as lot of coin and currency articles use them to establish notability for denominations of coins. I will note that the creator of the article User:Nicholas Mah has stated on the talk page that he did not use an LLM to write the article. I agree with Paul_012 that a wider discussion on Thai coinage articles needs to happen, especially on Nicholas Mah's excessive contributions for Thai currency topics (see the state of Thai baht right now).

And another thing, every English source call it an "att" and I have not seen any call it an "at". Eman7blue42 (talk page | recent edits) 02:26, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Charles Knyvett of Hamerton

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

I propose redirecting to Henry VIII (play) on the basis of WP:NOPAGE: - the target article already mentions Knyvett as the original of a minor character. Some of the content + sources in the CK article are worth adding to the target article, to clarify further his relationship to the Duke of Buckingham. The rest of the content is purely genealogical. Ingratis (talk) 06:10, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply

added alt redirect target below.Ingratis (talk) 04:13, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Theatre, History, and England. Ingratis (talk) 06:10, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply

The article's incredibly short, so agreed. Merge. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 08:21, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply

It would have been longer, had I enough sources to use. S1r Gawa1n 2004 (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose This content is pretty tangential to the play, and adding it there would be far deeper background than anything else there..—BrechtBro (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment - I had in mind adding only the fact that CK was Buckingham's first cousin, not the rest of the genealogical content, but there is another possible target at William Knyvett (died 1515), CK's father. I didn't suggest this initially because it is already overfull of genealogy, but it would do: in any event, I don't think that CK merits a standalone article, in the absence of significantly more substantial non-genealogical sources. Ingratis (talk) 04:13, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Battle of Nioaque

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

This skirmish appears not to have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, although the Maestri text does appear to give it coverage, albeit under a different name. It is part of a series of articles on Paraguayan military topics which are poorly sourced, moved to draft, and then moved back unchanged to mainspace. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Brazil, and Paraguay. Shellwood (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete: this is probably the same subject matter as the First Retreat, as I earlier had discussed with Torimem here. Either way, this battle does not meet WP:GNG. Coeusin (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:07, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete probably for lack of extensive coverage. --~2026-50812-63 (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Siege of Mukha

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

I propose merging to Mansur ad-Din of Adal because this article does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT. It cites the works of Pankhurst 1997, Budge and Morié 1904, all short excerpts from larger surveys, which seem to rely on the same medieval source by al-Maqrizi. The Zewde work is only a review of Pankhurst's book, and the second Budge citation is a reprint of the same 1928 work. The Prelude gives an account of the claimed Battle of Yedaya, where according to this version Dawit I is killed, though he actually died on 6 October 1413 (Getatchew 1983, JES 16; Kaplan 2002, Aethiopica 5, pp. 73-74, 87). After searching Google Books, Scholar, JSTOR, no substantial discussion was found in independent reliable sources. "Verifiable" does not mean "notable"; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2nd Battle of Yedaya (deletion decision). The information is duplicated in Mansur ad-Din of Adal, so this page can be merged into it. Kristos ^talk 06:00, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Africa, and Ethiopia. Kristos ^talk 06:00, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. Kierzek (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. --~2026-50812-63 (talk) 00:38, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Battle of Yedaya (1422)

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines or notability guidelines for events. Two sources cover the battle itself (Pankhurst 1997, p. 57; Budge, p. 302), though these are short passages in larger surveys, both based on one medieval source, Kitab al-Ilmam by al-Maqrizi. All other sources are cited for Dawit's date of death, not the battle. The infobox has Dawit I as commander, but he died on 6 October 1413 (Getatchew 1983, JES 16; Kaplan 2002, Aethiopica 5, pp. 73–74, 87), nine years before the alleged battle, so the Ethiopian commander cannot be identified. After searching Google Books, Scholar, JSTOR, no substantial discussion was found in independent reliable sources. "Verifiable" is not synonymous with "notable"; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2nd Battle of Yedaya (deletion result). Delete, or redirect to Mansur ad-Din of Adal. Kristos ^talk 05:42, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Africa, and Ethiopia. Kristos ^talk 05:42, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete. Any verifiable material would be better incorporated into Mansur ad-Din of Adal. Johannes Klarnus-Pettersen (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete for lack of extensive coverage about the battle itself. --~2026-50812-63 (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

List of short-lived states and dependencies

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

This list appears to be a recreation of the previously deleted List of shortest-lived sovereign states, and the reasons for deleting that list haven't changed. This article lacks citations that calls most of these quasi-entities states (a high threshold to meet). From the previous deletion: In many cases it is doubtful whether a sovereign state really was created (e.g., brief rebellions, puppet states, states created purely for the purpose of annexation, states declared but with no evidence that the declaration was acted on). –Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 17:16, 10 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep. I may be biased in this, but I believe that this article should be kept. I understand that the previous article was horrendous, but this is a much more comprehensive article. Better researched, if I do say so myself. But I see the concerns about the lack of valid sources. If needed a column with sources for the start and end dates for the polities. In this definition I am mostly for keeping those countries that were brief rebellions, puppet states or states created purely for the purpose of annexation. User:Pierce spacem (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Adding citations for start/end dates would be an improvement, but—like the previous article—you need reliable sources that confirm that these entities are states if you're including them on a "List of states". Additionally, it seems (from the deletion discussion) that research was not the only issue with the previous article. As they apply here:

WP:LISTN – There is a lack of independent reliable sources discussing "short-lived states" as a group or set.
WP:LISTCRITERIA – The criteria should be supported by reliable sources, and not be original research used to synthesize a list. That is, where does the article get its criteria for a "state" from? Is there any reason why it's different from the criteria found at List of states?

– Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 21:55, 14 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Okay, I see what you are saying. The criteria needs to be reorganized to meet standards, and with that entries will be removed. I will see what I can do, but my schedule is pretty full and I'm doing YSTE, so if there is housekeeping that needs to be done, it may take some time.

Thanks - User:Pierce spacem (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2026 (UTC)reply

For the definition of a state, would the administrative capacity box be ticked by proving that the polity issued currency or had courts? User:Pierce spacem (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

I think a better approach would be sources that call the entity a state in their own voice. Reporting that just says that someone proclaimed a state shouldn't count. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

That's probably the best. User:Pierce spacem (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep I think these sources are good enough for WP:NLIST . Inclusion criteria for lists can be established via editorial judgment, the only thing necessary is that passage of the criteria is backed by reliable sources, and this page has 434 references that back its content. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2026 (UTC)reply
WP:NLIST requires independent reliable sources: Two of your links are blogs (HowStuffWorks, TheDailyGuardian), and one discusses Hungary and Turkey—not short-lived states as a whole (Bengisu). There may be 434 references, but if none actually support the claim being that (i.e., that these entities are "states"), then it hardly matters. – Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 14:55, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Bengisu discusses a subset of short-lived states, which is good enough for NLIST, the paper's title contains "Temporary state creations", so it is on-topic. The last ones are not blogs, but entertainment media, which are good enough because this article is basically about historical trivia. If you think that there is insufficient coverage to demonstrate that some of these entities are states, then this can be discussed and those entities removed, but this is not a reason to delete the list as a whole. Kelob2678 (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply
[], here is a source and list of short-lived states. But, it only covers the 1910s and some of the 20s in Europe. User:Pierce spacem (talk) 10:56, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Yes, sources usually talk about only a subset of short-lived states, but I think that is still good enough for NLIST. Kelob2678 (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:44, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related AfD discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of History-related AfD discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related AfD discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete The inclusion criteria is useless ands need to be majorly tightened and the list substantially cleaned up to just be actual sovereign states. I didn't see the previous deleted list, but this is still horrendous, and I'd call it "unfocused" and synthesis of wildly different concepts rather than "comprehensive". I just removed Capitol Hill Occupied Protest, which in no world had "control over a territory" or "some sort of governance". It was literally just a protest encampment that spanned a couple city blocks for a few weeks, and its inclusion here is honestly embarrassing and degrades its validity. I see a lot of other provisional governments (which are not necessarily a distinct state from predecessors and successors) and separatist movements that were also not actually state entities (as much as they wanted to be), as well as made-up micronations like Republic of Rose Island. Others like Kherson and Zaporozhye are provinces that are occupied/annexed by invading forces, not their own entities, "short-lived" or not. This is way too all over the place to make for a valid encyclopedic list or a specific comparative concept. The sources above have literally no connection to most of the actual contents of the page. Reywas92^Talk 19:45, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply
- Like Limerick Soviet? Come on, that was not a state or dependency. Why is "Croatian People's Government" here when the link is to Rakovica revolt that lasted four days in a few villages and was in no way a state? I'd note that this page heavily mirrors List of historical unrecognized states, which is also problematic but not as bad as this. — Reywas92^Talk 20:18, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  [], here is the former article, it is pretty bad. User:Pierce spacem (talk) 10:33, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Criteria for inclusion can be decided editorially, this is still not a reason to delete. I think for an entry to be included, we should have an RS that calls it a state in its own voice. List of historical unrecognized states is somewhat different in the sense that we need to have sources that additionally say that the state is internationally unrecognized, which leads to a more narrow list, but at the same time, some non-recognized states can de facto exist for many years. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Merge I would merge the article with the List of historical unrecognized states as both are almost identical to each other. MarketFruit (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Vistula Land

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

I propose merging to Congress Poland because they are essentially covering the same thing. Even if you can argue they're technically separate topics the content overlap is nearly total. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley $\lor$ investigateᛅ} 17:49, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Poland, and Russia. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley $\lor$ investigateᛅ} 17:49, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom, per WP:OVERLAP. At the same time, I do not really see how the subjects differ substantially, Vistula Land is just a name applied to Congress Poland by the Russian bureaucracy following the second uprising; and the presence of this article is no more meaningful than a separate article on the Kingdom of Poland as it was officially known earlier. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge, WP:OVERLAP and Wikipedia:COMMONNAME; Congress Poland and the Vistula Land are two names of one entity, regardless of the degree of autonomy. It can be clarified further in this article. Merangs (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment. I created it long ago, and I agree that right now the article doesn't really make a good case for meriting more than a section in the Congress Poland article. Pl wiki article is little better (in fact, it's even a little worse, arguably - shorter and with fewer sources...), I started a discussion about a potential merge at pl:Wikipedia:Kawiarenka/Artykuły#Kraj_Nadwiślański. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:17, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge per WP:OVERLAP. FaviFake (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom due to the overlap. It should be said however that other language wikipedias have separate articles for the territory and the entity's lands. --~2026-50812-63 (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
It depends. The Russian Wikipedia, for example, has only one page. Kelob2678 (talk) 07:16, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

19 wikis overlap, Breton is the only one with entry on VL but not CP, 43 have only entry on CP. Arguably a lot of these 19 have simply content translated from en wiki... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:29, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Samant (Doti)

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

Completely unsourced article, could not find any sources besides Wikipedia forks. BSH🌸 (talk) - (she/her) 19:51, 17 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and History. BSH🌸 (talk) - (she/her) 19:51, 17 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete, Didn't find anything, maybe someone can look deeper into the other names (like Sawant, Saud, etc.). SVcode(Talk) 20:05, 17 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Gelasio di Nicoló

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

Di Nicoló receives significant coverage in Ione or two Italian books on the history of art in Ferrara dating to the period 1840-1900. The only more modern sigcov I can find is in a PhD thesis, which we can't use to establish notability. Per WP:AGEMATTERS, I feel this article fails WP:GNG. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Visual arts, History, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment: The spelling Gelasio di Niccolò is (a little) more common, and spellings with one C seem only to be used in older sources. Ham II (talk) 08:36, 17 September 2026 (UTC)reply

~~Comment~~ Keep I added {{Authority control}}. I can see there is a listing in Benezit, but the Wiki-library has been having issues with that source. I think this is a keep. Both spellings are OK (Nicoló or Niccolò) so I didn't move the article. If someone can access https://www.oxfordartonline.com/benezit/display/10.1093/benz/9780199773787.001.0001/acref-9780199773787-e-00072076 and then cite the Benezit listing I think it raises the subject into solidly notable. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2026 (UTC) Changing to keep. I added an RKD citation. Still can't get to Benezit.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:51, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Tsarist Russia

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

This recently-created behemoth (32,000+ words! c.f. WP:SIZERULE) duplicates the existing articles on Tsardom of Russia and Russian Empire in one article. This seems to be a case of WP:REDUNDANTFORK. A quick look at sourcing shows that the topic of "Tsarist Russia" may be notable as a historiographical concept, but not as a WP:DUP/WP:OVERLAP of existing articles. Possible alternatives to deletion include turning it into a disambiguation page, or draftifying to let the author reformulate it to focus on the historiography. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Royalty and nobility, Asia, Europe, and Russia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep per WP:CONCEPTDAB. Tsarist Russia is often understood as encompassing a distinct period from the turn of the 16th century to the Russian Revolution, and so readers are likely to be searching for a broad overview article instead of two articles, especially where the distinction (for uninformed readers) may not be clear. This article is about the specific state of Russia under the tsarist model from around 1480 (including the latter years of the Grand Duchy of Moscow) to 1917 and how that specific model of governance shaped Russian society, politics, and governance. It's an analysis of the broader trends present throughout that period which is treated as such in both colloquial and academic thought; it is not just a paraphrased combination of the two articles which focus more in depth on their specific periods. Henceforth, it's not a redundant fork, or even a fork at all since it has a different scope.

The Muscovy, Tsardom, and Empire articles can exist as separate daughter articles that analyze late medieval Russia and the foundations of the Tsarist state, post-Ivan the Terrible but pre-Petrine Russia, and post-Petrine, European integrated, westernized Russia up until Kerensky. A similar comparison could be how Prussia exists alongside Ducal Prussia, Kingdom of Prussia, and Free State of Prussia, or Kingdom of France alongside France in the Middle Ages and Early Modern France.

I am open however to splitting out some of parts of the article into separate parts; it's a long article that took me months to write. This should be done by moving some of the ____ in the Russian Empire articles to ____ in Tsarist Russia. This opens up to another reason why I created this, which is that the lack of mother article has caused scopes amongst some of these articles to be limited to the post-Petrine period when they should be better served by a broader analysis of their topic throughout Tsarist Russia. However, that's a content issue that can be resolved via normal processes and shouldn't be brought up at AFD. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 18:06, 15 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep especially if there's an editor willing to do significant work on it. But as admitted in the nomination the sourcing provides conceptual significance and variety. Any overlapping material should be cut down. AadamentAardvark (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Draftify. I share the nom's concerns. For example, the article is currently up for DYk, but why is it more correct to say, as the proposed blurb does, "Tsarist Russia was feared to become 'Genghis Khan with a telegraph'" rather than "the Russian Empire was feared to became..."? I see competing rather than complementing articles. Srnec (talk) 02:56, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment. I agree with the concerns raised above. For example, "Muscovite Russia" refers to the period of Russian history from about 1500 to 1700 (when Moscow was the center) but I do not think it would make sense to create a new country article. We already have tsarist autocracy that covers the tsarist model from 1547 to 1917. It might be best to draftify for now. Mellk (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Draftify per above. The content of this article can and should be covered in other articles that already exist. Regarding comparisons with Prussia and France, we already have articles on other states that existed on the territory of Russia, such as the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire. What this article tries to do is unify Tsardom of Russia and Russian Empire into a single page. This effective merge is also not supported by the sources, as they mostly do not cover the whole 1547-1917 period together. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
as they mostly do not cover the whole 1547-1917 period together

This isn't true? Loads of sources cover the 1547 to 1917 period together (a cursory search brings these up , , , , , ). The Tsardom and Imperial eras are absolutely compared together. Also, the Prussian and Kingdom of France examples are specifically based on iterations of the state coexisting with sub articles (Kingdom of France exists alongside France in the Middle ages and Early modern period, which are the two eras of Royal France). A similar argument could be made with Prussia given that a region called Prussia still exists today. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 23:08, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Surely, some sources cover this time period, but mostly they don't, I just skimmed through the references used in the article. French articles read like splitouts of History of France, not as articles about French states. Kelob2678 (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:27, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete as WP:CFORK, we don't need this (and can't accept duplication on this massive scale). No objection to merging some of the content to the existing articles if it's needed (fills in worthwhile gaps) and reliably cited. Making it a draft just kicks the can down the road, to where it will still be way too big and way too overlapping, on a subject that appears to be a WP:SYNTH conflation of Tsardom of Russia and Russian Empire as noted above, so there is no point talking about draftifying. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
WP:SYNTH refers to the conflation of material not directly stated by multiple sources themselves. The concept of Tsarist Russia and of a Russian state and era ranging from the turn of the 16th century to the revolution is well-established in historiography. It's just a correct and direct summary of existing literature. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 23:15, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Second Republic of China (Taiwan)

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

I propose draftifying because single source doesn't provide legitimacy that the term is valid. scope_creep^Talk 09:58, 13 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and Taiwan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:09, 13 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep. Today, I translated the 中華民國史的分期 article on the Chinese Wikipedia and greatly expanded its content. Therefore, the article's "draftifying" is no longer necessary. ProgramT (talk) 07:20, 15 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment - @ProgramT All of the citation dates look a bit odd, they all say retrieved between 2002 and 2005 and I am fairly sure you didn't time travel to get them. No vote on whether article should stay. BleachPuffin (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 13:31, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Ancestors of Meitei confederacy

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

The article lacks a lead definition, relies heavily on primary, self-published regional sources, and predatory journals Not opposed to a merger into Meitei confederacy or Yek Salai Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:43, 13 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Manipur. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:43, 13 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of History-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:57, 13 September 2026 (UTC)reply

I doubt the article relies heavily on self-published regional sources. From my check, only two sources are regional sources and there are only 3-4 citations of them in the article, and forgive me for that but I will try to manage that. If you are also going to include Khelchandra's Khuman Kangleiron and Kullachandra's Khuman Ningthourol Lambuba, please keep in mind that these are ancient chronicles of Manipur about the Khuman kingdom and it is allowed in Wikipedia under WP:PRIMARY. Please check the sources first and how many times they have been used, heavily or not. • Please tag/mention me to reply back -Victor Ningthemcha :) - talk 08:40, 14 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Hey @Victor Ningthemcha, The issue here is not how many times the weak sources are cited. No reliable source treats ancestors of the Meitei confederacy as a subject at all. A standalone page needs independent, in-depth coverage of the topic itself per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. This page instead stitches separate clan genealogies together from unrelated sources, which is WP:SYNTH. also none of the current sources meet WP:RS. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2026 (UTC)reply

The source Erat Thouram Thounirol Lairik page no.31 includes the info of each clan together in a list, including their ancestors. I used other sources to support this main source. • Please tag/mention me to reply back -Victor Ningthemcha :) - talk 02:46, 17 September 2026 (UTC)reply

How is this any different from Yek Salai and Meitei confederacy @Victor Ningthemcha. A possible merger would be better. 3 articles on literally the same topic is a redundant fork Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:17, 17 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:00, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Transculturation

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

Note: This formal merge proposal was incorrectly opened on the article's talk page. Following the March 2026 RfC, formal merge discussions are now held at AfD rather than the historical Proposed article mergers process (PAM). I've moved the discussion accordingly per WP:TPO.

Moved from Talk:Cultural homogenization § Merge from (or to?) Transculturation

– FaviFake (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Merge to (or from?) Cultural homogenization

Conceptually I don't see the difference (from the leads: "Transculturation... is the phenomenon of merging and converging cultures"; "Cultural homogenization... is the reduction in cultural diversity... the process by which local cultures are transformed or absorbed by a dominant outside culture"). Transculturation mentions homogenization in the the otherwise unreferenced section "Homogenization versus ethnoconvergence" but does not link here, this article does not mention the other concept, sigh. Transculturation has more interwikis, but I prefer the term here, as it is more clear to me. I am not opposed to the merge the other way. GS query for "Cultural homogenization" yields 24k hits vs 37k for "Transculturation", so maybe my personal preference is in the minority, shrug. I will also add that while merging such theoretical articles can be a pain, the "good" news is that much of the transculturation article is unreferenced, and per WP:V such content can be discarded (consider my post here challenging it). Neither article is very long, after discarding 2/3 of the longer trans... article, this is not that much of a hassle. PS. There is also a related concept Acculturation, but right now I am not suggesting a merger. This section in another article implies some scholars disageed on whether transculturation and acculturation are the same or not. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:43, 8 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History and Social science. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2026 (UTC)reply

While the lack of citations is tough to justify, I wouldn't suggest putting it in cultural homogenization as they're two different concepts, to my understanding. Transculturation is the process by which two cultures interact and *both* change or create something new. Some selected citations from the few sections that are actually cited:

"one of the few sections with a citation: 'In reference to Cuba in particular, there exists a mixture between European and African musics as "African slaves left a major imprint on Cuban society, especially in the area of Cuban popular music'"

or later, also cited

"Transculturation encompasses more than transition from one culture to another; it does not consist merely of acquiring another culture (acculturation) or of losing or uprooting a previous culture (deculturation). Rather, it merges these concepts and instead carries the idea of the consequent creation of new cultural phenomena (neoculturation) in which the blending of cultures is understood as producing something entirely new"

While not listed, my understanding is that transculturation is a process that is much more socially varied and decentralized than cultural homogenization, which is more concerned about All Culture Homogenizing. For example: the process of transculturation in say, Mexico or Cuba looks different than that in Hong Kong. see this open-access paper discussing transculturation and re-opening its role in the anthropological canon. I would also note that the sections on Homogenization and Ethnoconvergence, as you brought up, have no citations in them at all.

Personally, I think adding it as a short section in acculturation would be a better solution, something like "comparison with transculturation" with some info from the cited, salvageable parts of this page, since acculturation and transculturation are more theoretically linked than cultural homogenization. Jenskoska (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2026 (UTC)reply

I would agree the lack of citations makes this articles current standing questionable. I would support a merge per your rationale. AadamentAardvark (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Merge selectively as suggested and as reasonable in these circumstances. Bearian (talk) 04:46, 13 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment I think the concepts differ. Cultural homogenization is defined as a manifestation of Cultural globalization. Transculturation can also happen locally and can be discussed without reference to a global culture. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:11, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@Kelob2678 I am not sure if the definition of cultural homogenization limiting it to global scope only is correct. Would need to research it further, but the name does not imply it _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:46, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply
I searched "cultural homogenization" in Google Scholar and 9 out of 10 hits on the first page contained "globalization" or something very similar in the abstract, this is the only exception. Our article also defines "cultural homogenization" as "an aspect of cultural globalization". Kelob2678 (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:58, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Alonso Pérez de León

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

No sources. I can find a brief mention of him in the Texas Historical Society article about his son (who is not even mentioned in the article) but nothing else but genealogy websites, which are unreliable, and a wiki page. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 19:34, 9 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Spain, Mexico, and Texas. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 19:34, 9 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Latin America, and North America. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment I have found this source: General Alonso de León's Expeditions into Texas, 1686-1690. Texas A&M University Press. ISBN 9781623495404., although I cannot access full text, and am unsure whether it refers to him or his son, but if it does, it could show notability. If it is about his son, speedy delete.

PeriodicEditor (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2026 (UTC)reply

The book is about the son, but it may contain information about the father. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment: There's another source in the Spanish Wikipedia:

Juan Bautista, Chapa (1909). Historia de Nuevo León [History of Nuevo León]. Colección de Documentos Históricos o muy raros para la Historia de Mexico. Bouret.. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2026 (UTC)reply

I think that the one source does not confer notability, but if the article survives I can translate existing info from the Spanish article. I fear that the other may exist solely in physical form and I doubt it contains anything about the elder, given the state of the texas historical society source as well as another one I found that only mentioned him in passing. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 00:20, 10 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:37, 17 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment wouldn't a merge to Alonso de León (his son) make the most sense? There are at least a couple of sources, even if not quite enough for a full article. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2026 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply

William George Owen

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

Am unable to find any sources that show notability, and does not appear to meet WP:NBIO PeriodicEditor (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Engineering, United Kingdom, England, and Wales. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2026 (UTC)reply

That was quick. I started off creating this article and some necessary linkages to others where he is already mentioned, meaning to add more text and sources later. They will follow within 24 hours. As to notability, as sources will show, he was the Chief Engineer of the Great Western Railway and is at least as notable as others who held the same post (including his son) already here. D22 (talk) 12:33, 10 September 2026 (UTC)reply

@D22 should article therefore be draftified if it isn't ready for mainspace? BleachPuffin (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Maybe. But ready now as citations added. D22 (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment: I tagged it for needing more citations, and removed the Unref tag, but I think we need more sources for which we can verify, say, a book that has been scanned and placed online. Bearian (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure if a person's notability should necessarily rest on online sources alone, but I have added citations: Roberts has been scanned here <https://archive.org/details/eminentwelshmens01robeuoft/page/390/mode/2up> and Buchanan/Chrimes reproduced here <https://steamindex.com/people/civils2.htm#surno>; the Welsh newspapers referenced can be accessed at <https://newspapers.library.wales>. The Middlesex County Times obituary may only be available behind a paywall. There is also an online lecture at <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23w70H1Ti2s> but that's in Welsh and I haven't cited it. D22 (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2026 (UTC)reply

A quick search on archive.org shows several of the books are available for online loan there - @D22, it'd be worth adding URL args to the refs where that's the case. Adam Sampson (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:04, 17 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 03:47, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep. D22 has de-stubified it, and there's plenty of contemporary and later coverage of him in references. Adam Sampson (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep. As it stands there are several good biographical sources. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2026 (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.

Azizur Rahman Qayed

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

Aside from this obituary, no significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Islam, and Bangladesh. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and History. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep That link is not an obit, as it was published in 2022, while he died in 2008. There is another newspaper piece about him. There are also some hits in Google Scholar . Kelob2678 (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete References are neither notable nor credible (Daily Crime Barta, Daily Matobad). Most of the information is collected from news reports about ordinary conferences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeltaChronicler (talk • contribs) 16:03, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply

References are articles in Dhaka Post and Amar Desh. There are also papers about him/his ideas. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply

The Dhaka Post piece is not an obituary, but shares with some obituaries a eulogistic tone uncharacteristic of reliable sources. Amar Desh is a bit better, although over the top in places, such as, "The Hindu community ... used to give him the status of a god' [Google translation]. The first Google Scholar link is to a conference paper, not something that has been peer reviewed. The author is a previously published professor at a significant Bangladeshi university, but the topic is outside his field of Islamic public relations. The other two Google Scholar links are to the same article on different platforms. It is from a journal put out by a predatory publisher (Society for Science and Education), so is not a reliable source. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Tone is an indication of bias, reliability is independent of it. Conference papers can still be reliable. The third link probably should have been this, but it is also listed as predatory. On the other hand, the authors are employed at the International Islamic University Malaysia and can still be considered experts, whose output is reliable independently of where they publish. Kelob2678 (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Raihanur (talk) 03:57, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Fortified gateway

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

I propose redirecting to Gatehouse because that term is more natural in English, also covering unfortified structures like Layer Marney Tower. The simplest fortified entrances, merely an arch or gap in the defensive circuit, can probably by covered in city gate, medieval fortification and castle inasmuch as they need discussion at all. DougieMcC (talk) 10:51, 5 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, and Military. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 5 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Redirect I think the title may be too vague to redirect simply to gatehouse. Rather, it should probably be redirected to Gate but no opposition on merging the content elsewhere if necessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:54, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If redirected, which is the best target....Gate or Gatehouse?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 14:37, 12 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Merge to Gate. After reviewing the related articles I think the general overview at gate is best for redirecting, as gatehouse is, IMO, a more specific thing that not all fortified gateways qualify as. There do appear to be at least some sourced elements that could profitably be selectively merged. Eluchil404 (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Target disputed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:41, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Support. Gatehouse is the better article and the common term. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:05, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply

John G. Burnett

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

This whole article is a massive violation of WP:NOR. There's zero evidence John Burnett is notable; every single source on Burnett as a person is a primary source. Based on the claims made in this article, it seems possible that the letter attributed to Burnett is notable as a fabrication, but those claims don't hold up either. Of the four sources the article offers, two do not mention it (, ). A volume published by the OK Historical Society does discuss it in depth, as does Larry Vogt's self-published paper on the topic. (In his bio attached to this source, Vogt identifies himself as being affiliated with "Vogt-Dautzenlein Historical Research"; he does not appear to have any scholarly credentials or affiliations.) The rest of the sources here are primary sources or the page creator's own assessments and conclusions, and certainly unsuitable for Wikipedia per WP:NOT. If there were additional reliable sources beyond the OK Hist Society on the Burnett letter, I could see keeping a standalone page on that topic, or I could see a very limited discussion being added on the Trail of Tears page (where this page's creator has added Vogt's self-published work as a source), but solely using reliable sources. However, nothing using this material should be retained given its status as original research and its reliance on self-published material. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and United States of America. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2026 (UTC)reply
As the researcher of the Burnett Letter, I have been essentially blocked from directly adding primary source. I understand that Wikipedia is based on secondary sources. I can direct you to The World History Encyclopedia, online, whose staff has done a peer review and revised their entries related to the Burnett Letter and to soldier escort of the Cherokee on the Trail of Tears. The Trail of Tears Association has also dropped the Burnett Letter from their reading list as proven false. The National Anthropological Archives, of the Smithsonian has removed, or as they wrote to me, soon will, their copy of the Burnett Letter from their website, and has removed it from their 'physical collection. I am not versed on your site and its intricacies, I deal in facts and primary source research. If your site prefers to disregard all this, that is your choice. Someone, perhaps Dclemens1971, appears to be trying to suppress information that has been accepted by other authorities. I just thought your site would benefit from facts. -Larry A. Vogt ~2026-48100-62 (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2026 (UTC)reply
So, the thing is, is that we're a "tertiary source." And because the world is vast and insane, we have settled on elevating only that which is *verifiable* even if it comes at the expense of the *truth*. The truth is something that we, a rabble of uncoordinated lunatics, are unqualified to adjudicate.

I'm sure your research belongs in the world! But until it's filtered through a couple of layers of Authority and Time, we can't host it on this encyclopedia, which collates and summarizes conclusions and claims from the best sources we can find (behind the scenes in-fighting about what those are not withstanding).

Long story short, I want to read some more before casting an official vote, but this is probably what we call original research and don't publish. You should write this up and submit it to a historical society or regional newspaper and get it published/covered there, which enters it into the Public Discussion of Historiography of the Trail of Tears sweepstakes, and then we're getting somewhere. I know it's infuriating to uncover unexamined fraud or hoax, but this is not the venue for exposing it. Ping me if you have further questions etc. and thank you for your work! Cheers, jengod (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Thank you for the thoughtful and thought-provoking response. 'Truth' is relative and facts, in context, are not. Facts can be in error and still be fact. Truth, these days, is consensus. Based upon consensus, John G. Burnett, an unfortunately illiterate soul, managed to pen a letter and sign it in the beautiful, exact penmanship of his grandson and thus create a Primary Source document that thousands (the Consensus 'verification') repeat and declare to be truth. It has already been written up and published in peer reviewed journals by the sources in my endnotes and by the sources I just cited. Other encyclopedias are providing these facts. Sincerely, thank you, jengod, for taking time to respond! ~2026-48100-62 (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:43, 4 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete - everybody should know that we have never published original research. We have never, ever adjudicated the truth: we are not peer reviewed. We have a very specific mission, and if we stray too far from that, our critics, including powerful men in Palm Beach and Boca Chica want to use that flimsy excuse to yank our charitable status, which would cripple us financially. If you don't know any of that, then you need to read a current newspaper, not grandpa's letters. Bearian (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:53, 12 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete original research wholly from primary sources; while a praiseworthy endeavour, this is not something that belongs on Wikipedia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep I'm finding pieces about him in the "literature" of the event. This book has at least 3 pages about him. Some books and articles are promising but I don't have access, e.g. Cherokee women and the trail of tears, No settled law, Coerced migration. A G-Scholar search turns up some promising items (that I can't get to). There are also all of the books listed in the article, with page numbers, and those should surely arrive at GNG. The citations in the article are not correctly formatted and the primary sources are emphasized, but that seems to be a misunderstanding of Wikipedia style. If keep isn't acceptable to most I would suggest to draftify, and suggest that the editor ask for help at the WP:TEAHOUSE. I can help with formatting but don't have enough access to the materials to work on the content. Lamona (talk) 05:25, 16 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Another option that I can think of is to merge this into the Trail of Tears article, possibly in the section on differing accounts and general historicity. Lamona (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Please take another look - I have formatted most of the book and article sources that were combined in unformatted text such that they now show in the reference list. I also completed ones that didn't have publisher names or whatnot. What needs to be done now is to use those sources to flesh out the article, presuming that they provide suitable content. Lamona (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Weak delete. The most detailed source offered above is from a self-publishing company: I see no evidence of reliability. I see fragmentary references to this matter on google scholar that hint at notability for this narrative (rather than the person), but nothing substantive enough. I am open to changing my mind if I see better sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Draftify Based on the article content, he is likely notable. The paper brought up by the nom discusses why the letter is questionable, this indicates that there should be some prior coverage that takes the letter at face value, which would make the article notable. But the only coverage I can find just quotes the letter or even fully reproduces it without providing any critical commentary. For example, I can access only the first of three pages in the book mentioned above, but I see mostly a partial reproduction of the letter. An additional piece of coverage that relies on the creator's paper is from World History Encyclopedia, but its reliability is questionable. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm still on "delete", since the reliable secondary source coverage of Burnett does not appear to meet WP:GNG expectations. (The book suggested by @Lamona is quite clearly self-published, and the journal sources do not provide WP:SIGCOV of Burnett.) Whatever happens, though, none of Vogt's self-published work should be used as a source for this or any other Wikipedia page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply
The article should be about the letter, not the person. The Burnett letter is included in Voices of a People's History of the United States, and the teaching companion to it (co-authored by Zinn) instructs teachers to ask students about the letter. This doesn't make the letter notable, but it just indicates that there can be at least one credible author who wrote a paper that answers that list of questions. Regarding Vogt, any uncritical republication of an unreliable work is itself unreliable. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm leaning delete but draftify has been offered as an ATD and the question is whether that could overcome the OR issues. More input would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:38, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply

History Proposed deletions

History categories

for occasional archiving

Proposals

This page was redesigned at the edge.

A page that knows where it met you.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/History

History

Hellenistic Greece

Tughuzhuqo Qizbech movement

History of banking in Malta

5 Pfennigs, Type 2 – Small Shield (1915–1922)

Sean na Sagart

Romanian Moderate Party

Hetman of the Zaporozhian Host

Battle of the Ten Kings

Slaveryinamerica

Battle of Sovići and Doljani

One-at coin

Charles Knyvett of Hamerton

Battle of Nioaque

Siege of Mukha

Battle of Yedaya (1422)

List of short-lived states and dependencies

Vistula Land

Samant (Doti)

Gelasio di Nicoló

Tsarist Russia

Second Republic of China (Taiwan)

Ancestors of Meitei confederacy

Transculturation

Alonso Pérez de León

William George Owen

Azizur Rahman Qayed

Fortified gateway

John G. Burnett

History Proposed deletions

History categories

Proposals