Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/History

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:

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/History/archive
• WikiProject Deletion sorting/History/archive 2

watch

History

Aegean Macedonia

Aegean Macedonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Hello. I propose merging this article to Macedonia (Greece) because of the overlap between the two. In sources, Greek Macedonia is also referred to as "Aegean Macedonia". There is no need for a standalone article about terminology and most sources do not even discuss terminology. StephenMacky1 (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Geography, Greece, and North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support - the info in that article should be incorporated into Macedonia (Greece). - ~ Trashpanda 🦝^{○○(✨🗑️✨)} 20:51, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Battle of Hagoogane (1920)

Battle of Hagoogane (1920) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I'm nominating this article for deletion because I have been unable to find sufficient substantial coverage of Hagoogane to justify a standalone article. Of the eleven references currently listed, only two appear to discuss Hagoogane directly, and both do so briefly. One refers to the event as the "Hagoogane raid", while another appears to describe it as an avenging raid. An additional source provided on the talk page explicitly describes Hagoogane as a "looting raid". Taken together, the available sources do not appear to provide substantial coverage of Hagoogane as a distinct battle.

There are also several detailed claims in the article, including casualty figures, force strengths, belligerents and parts of the narrative, for which I have been unable to find support in the cited material. Other works have since been mentioned on the talk page, but it has not yet been demonstrated that these provide the substantial coverage needed to establish Hagoogane as a distinct and independently notable event. Some of these works are also not currently cited in the article, and relevant page numbers have not been provided.

I raised these concerns on the talk page before bringing the article to AfD, but the underlying issue remains. The question is not simply whether individual statements can be given additional citations, but whether reliable sources provide enough significant coverage of Hagoogane itself to satisfy WP:GNG as a standalone subject. Based on the sources currently available, I do not believe this has been demonstrated. The difficulties verifying the main points of the article also raise separate concerns under WP:V and potentially WP:OR. For these reasons, I believe deletion is appropriate unless sufficient coverage can be demonstrated.Johannes Klarnus-Pettersen (talk) 03:58, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Somalia. Johannes Klarnus-Pettersen (talk) 03:58, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Ethiopia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:37, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete. I agree, you should also maybe tag whoever made that article. Yubudirsi (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Astrateias graphe

Astrateias graphe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Wholly AI generated, potentially lacks notability TangoWhiskeyDelta (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Law, Military, and Greece. TangoWhiskeyDelta (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Notability does not seem to be a plausible argument here. The subject is clearly notable; the question is whether it is verifiable or generated by AI. I have no idea how anyone can tell if it's AI-generated, except by using AI... but just looking down the source list, I can see that the sources themselves are not "hallucinated"; these are all sources that I know exist, though they're not cited to page, which they should be, and one of the citations is incomplete. And since all of them are 19th-century sources, none of them remain under copyright. So the main question remains whether the article text can be verified by checking them. Currently Internet Archive (IA, not to be confused with AI) is being stubborn and not loading pages... but there's nothing that looks implausible to me yet. A secondary, but minor concern is that these sources are partly related: the original DGRA, which seems to be the main source, was used to compile the "shorter" DGRA, and IMO Harper's probably relied on it as well, though in some areas Harper's is more thorough. There should also be some primary source citations, but I imagine these can be pulled from the cited sources. More recent sources should also be added, though I understand why some editors rely primarily on convenient sources that are easily findable, such as these. All of which can be fixed through ordinary editing. As can any issues with the language itself being potentially AI-generated, since this is a very short article. So as long as I can verify the contents, it'd be a keep. P Aculeius (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: for what it's worth, this has been tagged as potentially AI-generated since May 2025. (No opinion on that or anything else.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Graphical timeline of prehistoric life

Graphical timeline of prehistoric life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose merging to History_of_life#Emergence_of_animals because although this graphical timeline is useful and obviously required effort, it is unclear why it has a dedicated page for itself. The article is unreferenced, and only links to creatures named in the graph. Additionally it is only linked to by passing mentions in other lists or timelines, and would not easily be found by users. I do not want this page's contents deleted, as they are helpful for users, but its existence as a seperate article is questionable and I believe a merge under WP:MERGENOT is fair. XanderK09 (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Archaeology, Biology, and Organisms. XanderK09 (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per nominator's rationale. You should've probably boldly performed the merge yourself, this proposal seems uncontroversial. FaviFake (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete This is a random assortment of genera, selected by no clear criterion, presented in a confusing two-column format. I could see a case for an entire series of cleaner versions of these by, e.g., class, so that an actual overview is created, but this thing on its own is just weird artefact and should not be integarted into another article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:21, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete If this is kept, standalone or merged, it needs a major overhaul or rebuild from scratch. While the surviving phyla are first readily recognizable in fossils from the Cambrian, some fossils from the Edicaran are recognized as animals, and remnant chemical evidence suggests animals were present as far back as the Cryogenian. And there is certainly no need to have Denisovan, Neanderthal, and Homo sapiens all listed in the chart, even accepting them as separate species. I don't see the point of having a number of taxons listed that are too young for their timelines to even show up on the chart. I'm thinking that the chart should start with the Neoproterozoic and include selected phyla, selected classes under each phyla, and selected orders under each class, but no lower taxons. - Donald Albury 17:33, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per noted reasons already written.--Kevmin § 20:28, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Gunhild of Wenden

Gunhild of Wenden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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:Świętosława § Merge

 – FaviFake (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Merge to Świętosława

Gunhild and Świętosława are the same person, actual name unknown. She has a third name in legend, Sigrid the Haughty, but I haven't tagged that for merging. Srnec (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Merge per nominator's rationale. WP:DUP FaviFake (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Royalty and nobility, Denmark, and Poland. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 18:19, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Battle of Ray (1194)

Battle of Ray (1194) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Totally unsourced, previously moved to draft and restored without substantial improvements. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 10:14, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 10:14, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:17, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. This article has no sources. Trumpetrep (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  I’ve added English sources. Previously, the sources were in Persian. It should be better now. YounggRealIceTalha (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to Tughril III#Battle_of_Rey Oakchris1955 (talk) 12:38, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Redirect per Oakchris1955. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

World History Association

World History Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

My BEFORE only shows routine coverage, mostly of someone being appointed vice president/president elect and a few mentions of the awards being handed out. The little I could find on JSTOR and Books is trivial coverage mentioning that it exists and date from the 90s. I don't see GNG and I don't see NCORP. Jerod Lycett (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related AfD discussions. Jerod Lycett (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: this has been tagged as a potential NORG failure since 0221. (No opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:42, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Education, Hawaii, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:42, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. Perhaps the nay-sayers can do a thorough JSTOR search? Here is one of many hits:

  One of the aims of the new association, in line with the Bradley Commission, was to create collaborations for the purpose of bringing together the insights of both college and high school teachers to develop a curriculum that brought world history research into the classroom and to help students make the connections between the past and the world they are now in. This professional collaboration was a result of its era and marks a first effort in professionalizing the study of world history. Just as the history curriculum was being revitalized, the WHA began competing for a say in high school world history curriculum. As a small, diverse mix ofeducators, the organization was only minimally effective across the states and their curriculum; but one area of active partnership occurred with the College Board to establish the new AP world history.

  There's plenty more. Terrible article, notable subject. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  I saw some mentions on JSTOR, but they were all as trivial as that. The most that can be said is they helped work on the original version of AP World History and now host another set of curriculum that a different org created. It doesn't actually say what they did with the AP course neither, their entire contribution could have been giving the Board a few names of members. The World History Association contributed in an unspecified manner to the original AP World History course and objected to its later changes reducing its scope. It currently hosts a third-party world history course and publishes a few journals. That's about all the more I can pull as verifiable. The second sentence can't even utilize independent sources. Organizations have to beat out ROUTINE as NCORP too. So even the trivial coverage that they contributed to the AP course fails to me unless we can find something showing that the contributions were notable, and my search gave nothing. Jerod Lycett (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Battle of Jabal Shada

Battle of Jabal Shada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. There is no WP:SIGCOV in the academic sources, and I searched the Authors of the cited sources and found that none of them have an education in academic History. Searching "Battle of Jabal Shada" gives no results relating to this war and instead gives results relating to spillovers of the current civil war in Yemen or the "Jabal Shada Natural Reserve" in Saudi. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:54, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:22, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to Idrisid–Mutawakillite war and merge anything suitable (although it seems like there's nothing). Scarce coverage in Arabic indicates there can be nothing found in other languages. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• @HerrHeulsuse: I've already pointed out in Talk:Idrisid–Mutawakillite war#Recent additions and in my edit summaries in that article that the authors of the sources cited are self-proclaimed "historians" with 0 academic background. Why should we preserve content that isn't even supported by WP:RS 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:09, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  Any of that coverage indicates it could be searched. That's enough for me HerrHeulsuse (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Nohai

Nohai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I can't find anywhere where Nogai Khan is spelled Nohai (and if it does mean "dog" in Mongolian, why would anybody be named that?), while the second entry in this alleged dab page is a partial match that isn't mentioned in the linked article. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:22, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Disambiguations, Mongolia, and Central Asia. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 12:27, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep in some form. I've added a Romanian footballer Florin Nohai. The article Mongolian_names says "One finds a number of degrading or inauspicious names during the 13–14th centuries such as Sorqaqtani, "Pox girl", or Nohai (~Nokai) "dog", in an attempt to fool bad spirits or disease into thinking it had already afflicted them." to answer "Why would anybody be named that". The article Nogai Khan lists Nohai as an alternative spelling. Whether it's a name page or a dab page it needs to exist. PamD 07:49, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Saint George Tower, Hilandar

Saint George Tower, Hilandar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose merging this article with Albanian Tower, as they seem to be duplicates, if not POV forks. As far as I can see, they are both about the structure in Hilandar Monastery on Mount Athos in Greece, although Albanian Tower's coordinates are incorrect. I have no opinion on which should remain - I picked this one to start the AfD on since it was created a day after Albanian Tower.

Also pinging User:Palatinosunriser, User:Cplakidas, User:Arberian2444, User:Hilandarion, and User:7&6=thirteen since they are the major contributors to these two articles. Iiii I I I (talk) 06:16, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, Religion, Christianity, Greece, and Serbia. Iiii I I I (talk) 06:16, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Totally oppose, it's not the same monastery, per kasta.eu Saint George Tower, Hilandar is one monastery while the "Albanian" Tower is another --Palatinosunriser (talk) 06:24, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  I see, my mistake. Is there a reason Albanian Tower says "also known as ... Saint George Tower"? Are there two places named Saint George Tower at Hilandar Monastery? Iiii I I I (talk) 06:30, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  I checked the article and I see edit warring and removal of sourced content. My conclusion is "Albanian Tower" is an incorrect, fabricated name coined by Albanian nationalists. The towers at Hilandar do not bear ethnic or nation names. The names are about saints or people (George, Sava, Milutin). In reality, this structure is not a tower but a pillar (pirg in Serbian). It is a fact that a person of Albanian origin, John Kastrioti, donated it in 15th century to the Serbian Orthodox monastery. The correct name for this structure is the Saint George Pillar; however, to avoid ambiguity, I recommend renaming Albanian Tower to John's Saint George Pillar. See ref

  • Androudis, Pascal (2000-01-01). "Ερειπωμένος βυζαντινός πύργος στο Άγιον Όρος - Ruined Byzantine tower on Mount Athos". Μακεδονικά (in Greek). 32: 355–363. doi:10.12681/makedonika.176. ISSN 2241-2018.
  • Androudis, Pascal (2010). "Three early shallow-butressed towers of the monastery of Chilandar, on Mount Athos" (PDF). p. 247.
  • Androudis, Pascal (2002). "Ιστορικές και αρχαιολογικές μαρτυρίες για τον «Πύργο του Αλβανού» της Μονής Χελανδαρίου στο Άγιον Όρος - Historical and archaeological evidence for the "Albanian Tower" of the Chelandari Monastery on Mount Athos". Byzantiaka. 22 (1): 217–246.

  Palatinosunriser (talk) 06:45, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Avoid ambiguities - Rename Albanian Tower to John's Saint George Pillar : Per sources the most reasonable option to avoid ambiguities--Palatinosunriser (talk) 07:01, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

List of princely states of British India (alphabetical)

List of princely states of British India (alphabetical) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

List of princely states of British India already exists, so this is WP:DUP as a useless WP:FORK. The ctrl+f function already exists, and a table can be made on that page to arrange it alphabetically. Regardless, these types are not allowed because of WP:NOTDB|

A merge into the main list would be useless, there's nothing useful to merge HerrHeulsuse (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Lists, Asia, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Oman, India, and United Kingdom. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  Delete, clear duplicate. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 15:25, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom... Aqsis Bey (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Not surprisingly I would be opposed to this article being deleted, seeing as I created it in 2010.

I would dispute this page is either a simple duplication, or a "useless fork" of the (by region) page: It was spun off from there in 2010 via the Split process, after a discussion (of sorts), the reason being that page was hopelessly cluttered (viz). So merging them back together would just re-instate the problem. And I would dispute there is "nothing useful to merge"; The information on this page (flag, relative status, period of British rule) is different from the information there (resident/agency, last ruler, where it is now), so it isn’t simply a duplication. Also the (by region) page has over 20 separate tables in it, so it isn’t amenable to being sortable, whereas this page, as a simple alphabetical list, already is. I would also dispute the NOTDB tag; most pages can be seen as "an indiscriminate collection of data" to someone not interested in that subject: As someone interested in the history of India I can see a value in having this information in an accessible form.

The purpose of a list page is for information, navigation and development. The Princely states article says there were 584 of them, while this page has less than 300, all of which, as sovereign states, should have articles somewhere on them, so there is actually a need for expansion here, to make navigation easy and to indicate areas for further development.

Finally I am unclear why having this information on complementary pages in different formats, for ease of access and cross-referencing, (as stated in the original rationale) is automatically a bad thing. Moonraker12 (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I do not dispute that having a list of princely states of British India is something that is useful and should exist on Wikipedia. But it already exist at List of princely states of British India. There, it has more context, each individual entry has more detail, and generally, it is presented in a way that you would expect an encyclopedia to present it. This list on the other hand it more just the thing you'd find in a database HerrHeulsuse (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

United States national motto

United States national motto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose redirecting/merging to In God We Trust because there the In God We Trust article covers all information in this one and there isn't a reason for two articles about the United States national motto. Bennett27 (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Law, Politics, Religion, and United States of America. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 06:30, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose, the U.S. national motto is a stand-alone topic no matter what other article exists. It has its own history aside from the wording, and has existed as a notable topic before the wording was officially agreed to by the nation's Congress. Note that there is no "merge" tag placed on the target article. Randy Kryn (talk)

• Merge: This is a pretty clear case of WP:OVERLAP. Everything covered in this article, is also covered in greater at the target article. Pointless to have a WP:PERMASTUB for this, unless the motto changes (which isn't impossible at the moment, but still). Any pre-Eisenhower information can be summarised in a paragraph at In God We Trust#Origins. @RK is correct that there is no banner on the target article currently. 11WB 💬 20:37, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

First Baptist Church (Portland, Maine)

First Baptist Church (Portland, Maine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This appears to be an article about a congregation that originally established notability because it gathered at a historically notable building, listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1978. The historically notable building has since been demolished and the listing removed from the NRHP. It's a bit of an interesting situation because I could see justification of an article about the NRHP building for historical significance and still keep info about the congregation in passing, but I'm bringing it up for discussion because there isn't much in the NRHP listing besides architecture and searching for sources is difficult because there are a lot of churches that use this name. Sesamehoneytart 05:17, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, Religion, and Maine. Sesamehoneytart 05:17, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Trumpetrep (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:35, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep a survey of information off of Wikipedia strongly suggests that this congregation itself is notable and so was the church building. From newspapers.com: "Fifteen Years After Organization of Portland First Baptist Church In This City Had Its Birth" (Front page, significant article, Portland Sunday Telegram, September 24, 1905). "Is Only Portland Church Which Has Chinese Dept." (Evening Express, December 6, 1924). Portland Public Library, Maine Memory Network, First Baptist Church in Portland, Maine (an institutional history), "History of the Baptists in Maine" published in 1904 and available on archive.org.--User:Namiba 13:10, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep as can be focused on the historically notable former building with the additional references mentioned in this discussion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment I have updated the page to reflect the historically significant building as the subject. Sesamehoneytart 07:31, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I reverted your well-meaning edit because you should not make major edits to an article while it is under discussion.--User:Namiba 14:37, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:EDITAFD, "editors are welcome to continue editing the article during the discussion period, for example to address the points raised during the discussion. If your edits are significant, you can add a note in the discussion." There's a couple of caveats like blanking and redirecting, but I believe my edit reflects consensus so far. Is there a conflicting policy I'm not aware of? Sesamehoneytart 20:13, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

No, I was not aware of that policy. I was commenting from my past experience. Changing the focus of the article feels to me like too much of a change. If you want to use the sources I've provided to add on to the existing article, then I think that is within the scope of the EDITAFD. Removing the photo of the existing building and so on feels like a dramatic change that would cause more confusion. Given what I provided, do you agree that it now passes WP:GNG?--User:Namiba 11:40, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I used the sources you provided when I updated the article yesterday, thank you. This article was originally established based on the notability of the building with the same name as the organization. Since passing into the mainspace, the subject of the article and infobox contents have shifted to feature the organization rather than the building. I quoted this below too, but WP:NRELORG says:

The fact that a religious building is listed on a major historic register such as the ... National Register of Historic Places ... does not necessarily mean that the religious organization that owns or meets in the building is notable.

I think an article about the building is justified, but don't yet have an opinion on the notability of the organization with the same name as the building because I've been unable to access some of the listed sources without paying $75 on newspaper.com. I think these sources have good potential, so if you can provide links or clippings for the 9/24/1905 Portland Sunday Telegram and the 12/6/1924 Evening Express that would really help out. Otherwise, I'll need some time to figure out if Wikipedia has a way to access these archives. I don't think any of the three hyperlinked sources above can be used to establish notability for the /organization/: The Youtube video is a primary source. The other two are focused on the architecture of the building, and both only mention the congregation in the final sentence, mentioning relocation when the building was demolished. Sesamehoneytart 17:27, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you can access newspapers.com and more via https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/. Whether the 200-year old congregation is notable or not (it obviously is based on the sources provided), you should withdraw this AFD. A fairly extensive article on both the building and the congregation can be written, easily passing WP:GNG.--User:Namiba 20:02, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Notability of the building has been established, and related information about its occupants over time is appropriate if relevant, but I think it's important to establish the building as the subject. For instance, at the moment, the infobox should feature an image of the building, and not an image of another building the congregation later moved to since its notability has not been established. I'm not against establishing notability for the organization; however, the news articles suggested above to establish notability of the *organization* do not pass the "reliable" bullet point of WP:GNG. The wikipedia library newspaper archive only has Portland Sunday Telegram and Sunday Press Herald published between 1947-1950. Proquest only goes back to 1995. Unless you can provide a link or some way that these articles can be fact-checked, the 9/24/1905 Portland Sunday Telegram and the 12/6/1924 Evening Express are not currently verifiable. Sesamehoneytart 09:40, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

You should look more closely at the resources in the Wikipedia Library. Newspapers.com is where I found the newspaper articles. Moreover, you should follow WP:BEFORE nominating articles for deletion. You do not seem to have done that very well in this case and others I've noticed.--User:Namiba 15:48, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Notability is not temporary, and the demolition of the former church building doesn't change its notability. It's common practice to cover the history of both a congregation and its building(s) in articles like this, so I don't think refocusing the article or adding sources that discuss both is a problem. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 20:35, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  My concern is that this is currently an article about an organization that is using the historical value of a building that they used to be in to justify notability of the organization. Per WP:NRELORG, "The fact that a religious building is listed on a major historic register such as the National Heritage List for England or the National Register of Historic Places in the U.S. does not necessarily mean that the religious organization that owns or meets in the building is notable." Sesamehoneytart 05:40, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

678 BC

678 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

677 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

676 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

675 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

674 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

673 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

672 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

671 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

670 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

669 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

668 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

667 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

666 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

665 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

664 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

663 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

661 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

660 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

659 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

658 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

657 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

656 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

655 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

654 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

653 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

652 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

651 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

650 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

649 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

648 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

647 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

645 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

644 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

643 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

642 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

641 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

640 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

639 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

638 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

637 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

636 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

634 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

633 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

632 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

631 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

628 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

627 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

626 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

625 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

624 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

622 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

621 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

620 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

616 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

615 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

614 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

613 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

612 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

610 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

609 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

607 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

606 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

605 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

604 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

603 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

602 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

601 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

600 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Merging to 670s BC, etc. due to stubbiness and uncertain dates. Although there are years that are known precisely, the placement of certain events is disputed due to conflicting or unclear information in historical records. For example, the article on Phraortes gives a different date (675 BC) than his listing in the year articles (678 BC), based on a different chronology; other articles, such as Median dynasty, give even more possible chronologies, including ones where Phraortes didn't exist.

Also, some articles are extremely short; for example, 674 BC contains only a single event. There are 11 missing year articles within the date range of this article, likely because no events were placed during those years by the sources used. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:03, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Lists. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:03, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
• Merge all to relevant decade. There are too few events known for specific years in this era to warrant separate pages for each. Reywas92^Talk 23:21, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose merger. There may be only a few events listed here, but they are bound to expand and the pages will have to be separated again. In particular, Chinese events are very granular for this period, and most largely still missing. Walrasiad (talk) 05:28, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Merge all with the decade article you mentioned. An editor from Mars (talk) 06:30, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Merge all to relevant decade – Per WP:Decade merges, all of these are just two sentences and a short list FaviFake (talk) 10:22, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment for the closer, if you decide to close as merge, please use the "merge" option of XFDcloser (with a valid merge target) and not the "custom" option, otherwise the templates on these dozens and dozens of articles will need to be updated manually! FaviFake (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Merge all - agree with nom. Asteramellus (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Merge all - per WP:DECMER Unknown Lifeform | Talk 02:31, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Merge all Not enough content in each of them. Segaton (talk) 03:39, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep for procedural reasons. Again, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of years in philosophy (2nd nomination), we were told that no more nominations would be made on such lists. Bearian (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  We were not told anything, that discussion was simply closed as no consensus with no moratorium or similar restrictions on future nominations. Plus, that nomination was much bigger, the proposal itself confused, and the discussion unorganised. FaviFake (talk) 10:10, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

1790s BC

1790s BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

• 1780s BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 1770s BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 1760s BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 1750s BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 1740s BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 1730s BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 1720s BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 1710s BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 1700s BC (decade) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Merge to 18th century BC. The absolute chronology of the Near East is hotly disputed until c. 1000 BC, and most contents are overlapping lists in the "Significant people" section, which are mostly rulers; in particular, Rim-Sîn I is listed in all decades for several of the proposed Near East chronologies. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:11, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Lists. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:11, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

If successful, it will likely be followed up with a larger AfD till 1000s BC (decade), potentially up to 760s BC. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:25, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Merge all per WP:DECMER. Since the target article nor the sources are long, they can be merged easily per WP:SHORTTEXT. FaviFake (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Merge all to 18th century BC per nom. Redirect after merging useful content. Asteramellus (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Merge Into 18th century BC per WP:OVERLAP. Staticspector (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

30th century BC

30th century BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

29th century BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

28th century BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

27th century BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

26th century BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

25th century BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

24th century BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

23rd century BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

22nd century BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

21st century BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Merge to 3rd millennium BC: Another millennium with most dates uncertain at the century level. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:25, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:25, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep No way possible all the information would fit in that one article. Dream Focus 18:29, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  Some of the articles are shorter than AD 12 was before it was merged. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:31, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  Some but not all. Click the history link for all of them and add up the total size. Dream Focus 19:31, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  As of the last revision before nomination: 30th has 4376 bytes, 29th has 4004, 28th has 1136, 27th has 5626, 26th has 4134, 25th has 5805, 24th has 4880, 23rd has 4187, 22nd has 5074, 21st has 7142. That's 46364 bytes total, compared to 21561 for 3rd millennium BC, but that is still manageable for a year article. You were correct on that last point (AD 12 had 2122 bytes before its AfD), but it is also true that most of the dates are not known precisely enough to be listed on the century level. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:21, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:14, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep all but expand. An editor from Mars (talk) 06:32, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

40th century BC

40th century BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose merging to 4th millennium BC because the articles are quite short, and this far in the past, few events will have been constrained to the century level with archaeological evidence. This also includes:

• 39th century BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 38th century BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 37th century BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 36th century BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 35th century BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 34th century BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 33rd century BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 32nd century BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 31st century BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is the currently earliest millennium with separate articles for centuries. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:46, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:46, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Support proposal to merge, for the above reasons. Hengrwt (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Not all of the articles are "quite short". 32nd century BC for instance is 19,174 bytes. Even with just the others added together, the total would be long to fit in one article. Dream Focus 18:33, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
• Merge all Many of the events in the century articles are estimates or may have occurred over multiple centuries so having individual articles seems to be false precision; the lists of cultures are duplicative, and I don't think a consolidated article would be that long at all, while providing a fuller context in one place. The 32nd century page is only that long because a couple of the citations have very long quotes; the details and discussion about the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar there can be trimmed (only a couple sentences and link are needed for the timeline). Reywas92^Talk 19:59, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  And condensing those quotes to just the statement about when the mythical Kali Yuga began removed a total of 2810 bytes. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:27, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:15, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
• Merge all per Reywas92. WP:SHORTTEXT applies here, they're all simple lists. And byte size is notably unreliable and deprecated as a form of gauging a page's length; for that we use WP:Readable prose size, which is too short for all of these. FaviFake (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  Perhaps, although I wouldn't use the Prosesize tool, either, since almost all the contents are bulleted lists. For 40th BC, I did a test and counted 2075 bytes of text if bulleted lists are included. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:22, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah. FaviFake (talk) 10:41, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

19 BC

19 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose merging to 10s BC because this is yet another series of year articles with scant information. As well as:

• 18 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 17 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 16 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 15 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 14 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 13 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 12 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 11 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 10 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

l plan on continuing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AD 12 by all years pointing to a merge target. Far enough in the past, this should be uncontroversial and can be done unilaterally. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:37, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:37, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
• Merge Since the target article already transcludes the year articles and isn't that long, they can be merged easily. I wonder if the calendar conversion table can be included on a decadal basis. Reywas92^Talk 20:11, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:15, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
• God, could we please stop nominating these? This is the fourth bundled nomination of these cute little articles. I thought we had already established that these kinds of merges should be done boldly. You should read the main essay about this kind of merge: User:Royz-vi Tsibele/Decade Merges created by @Royz-vi Tsibele.
  My first !vote would be to withdraw and perform boldly following the instructions in the essay, and my second vote would be to close this as merge, per the reasons explained at § What makes a year non-notable?. FaviFake (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for mentioning my wikiessay. @LaundryPizza03, I would recommend taking a look at WP:DECMER and performing the merges bodly, per the advice of @FaviFake. Totally understandable if you weren't familiar with the consensus reached earlier this year. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele🧅 23:09, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'm going to list similar merges for BC as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:17, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  What? Why? Could you follow WP:BRD, please? FaviFake (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  @FaviFake I think LaundryPizza03 meant that they would list the years on my wikiessay, not open more AfDs. @LaundryPizza03, really appreciate you doing that! Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele🧅 00:14, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  @FaviFake and Royz-vi Tsibele: You two can help, too. There's approximately 900 years to be merged. I just did 590s BC. After this, it will be clear how near into the past we should upmerge the decade articles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  @LaundryPizza03 Yes of course, I've been meaning to do more work on that. Def a lot of years to get to. I really appreciate you listing these years on the WP:DECMER page. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele🧅 00:18, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  Unfortunately I've been too busy with other BTS PAM stuff. FaviFake (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  Oh that makes sense! Then thank you! FaviFake (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  @FaviFake Responding to your message left on WP:DECMER's edit summary, you are more than welcome to move it to mainspace if you feel that that'd be helpful. I had been advised while writing it that I should keep it in userspace, but since it's needed to be cited in AfDs multiple times now, maybe mainspace would be justified. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele🧅 23:33, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

   Done! FaviFake (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  Can You Merge to 20 BC 21 BC 22 BC 23 BC 24 BC 25 BC 26 BC 27 BC 28 BC 29 BC 30 BC 31 BC 32 BC 33 BC 34 BC 35 BC 36 BC 37 BC 38 BC 39 BC? ~2026-43481-87 (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. We were promised at the listings for Philosophy that efforts to delete such lists would stop there. We can't effect major policy changes like this one weak sauce, disingenuous AfD at a time. I oppose this AfD for due process reasons: this is the incorrect forum for deleting or merging entire sections of English Wikipedia. Bearian (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  We were not told anything, that discussion was simply closed as no consensus with no moratorium or similar restrictions on future nominations. And this clearly isn't a major policy change...

  In the discussion you linked, which isn't really related to this one, in my opinion, the closer said: I see a clear consensus to keep a set index article, but no consensus as to whether it should remain organized by year or in larger chunks. We're just trying to organise this information in larger chunks. If you actually look at the articles, I'd say it's obvious that just a single-paragraph's worth of information shouldn't remain on a standalone article. FaviFake (talk) 10:06, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Federation of the Emirates of South Arabia

Federation of the Emirates of South Arabia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose merging to Federation of South Arabia because the two are the exact same entity but with a name change that happened on 1962. The Federation of the Emirates of South Arabia article has no meaningful content and can be easily integrated into the main Federation of South Arabia article. I think that this should work in the same way we have both the People's Republic of Southern Yemen and People's Democratic Republic of Yemen articles both in the South Yemen article 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:32, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History and Yemen. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:32, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Merge per nom, all coverage that I could find makes it seem like they are the same entity. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Merge. Much like HerrHeulsuse above, I find that all the scholarship treats the 1959–1967 British protectorate in Yemen as one entity (take, for example, Smith (2016)). I found two sources that refer to the polity as being "renamed" – those being Brooke (2017) [Aden Colony, now State, was incorporated into the renamed Federation of South Arabia in 1962.] and Onozawa (2017) [..the federation of rulers of the western protectorate, now renamed the Federation of South Arabia (SAF).] – but neither actually mention what it was called before. If historians care that little about it, then we should follow suit. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 11:11, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• ​​​ Comment. I don't oppose a merge, but there are a few misrepresentations in the nomination and other comments.

"...exact same entity but with a name change..."'

While sources treat the difference as more of an evolution than a rupture, the absence of Aden in the first federation was a crucial difference between the 1959 federation and the 1962 FSA.

"The Federation of the Emirates of South Arabia article has no meaningful content..."

Per WP:CONTN, that's an argument for adding material, not necessarily for a merge.

"all coverage that I could find makes it seem like they are the same entity"; "...I find that all the scholarship treats the 1959–1967 British protectorate in Yemen as one entity."

The current article title seems to be a bit of a Wikipedia creation, but the 1959–62 federation is named and covered extensively as a distinct entity in the sources listed in § References and further reading.

Tom Little in South Arabia; Arena Of Conflict (1968) devotes an entire chapter to the federation ("Arab Amirates of the South", pp. 36–67) and the following chapter ("The Aden Merger", pp. 68–99) is devoted to events in the pre-1962 federation as well. In Aden under British rule, 1839–1967 (1975), R. J. Gavin also calls it "Arab Amirates of the South" and covers aspects of the first federation from the Adeni perspective (pp. 338–45). In Paul Dresch's A History of Modern Yemen (2000), both "1959: Federation of Arab Amirates in Aden's hinterland" and "1963: Federation of South Arabia, uniting Aden and several hinterland states" appear in his "Brief chronology", and he deals with the 1959 federation in passing (as "a Federation of Amirates", pp. 85, 96–97 [send me a talk page message for the text]). —  AjaxSmack  14:59, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• @AjaxSmack I'm guessing sources disagree on this? Since Tarek Y. Ismail's The People's Democratic Republic of Yemen : politics, economics, and society (1986) p. 16: "The nucleus of the Federation was formed by six Western Protectorate territories in 1959; eleven more hinterland states (and Aden) joined the Federation over the next few years, and in 1962 it was formally renamed the Federation of South Arabia." (emphasis mine). Either way, whether it is a rename or the two were separate entities, they all fit in one article 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:13, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think there's much disagreement. It wouldn't call it solely a rename, but the structure and institutions remained largely the same. The 1963 accession of Aden required some changes, which are covered in the sources. I don't oppose a merge; I was just pointing out that sources focused on this time period do separate the pre-Aden and post-Aden polities in their coverage. —  AjaxSmack  15:23, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Since Aden joined after the renaming I don't see how it can be much of an argument for having separate articles. The difference is between the FSA in 1962 and the FSA in 1963, not between before and after the renaming. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 15:32, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Regardless of the difference, I think that there is not enough coverage to justify separate pages for either. Indeed, if there need to be child articles of this article, then it would be better to split based on topic rather than having 2 smaller pages. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• I don't even know where the 1962 date comes from, though it pops up here. The Federation of South Arabia (Accession of Aden) Order 1963 and Little (pp. 98-99) give 18 January 1963 as the date for name of the new federation with its new constitution. These sources have both the name change and the legal change on that date, with Aden's full merger complete by 1 April. But to reiterate, I'm not arguing for having separate articles. —  AjaxSmack  18:32, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Leaning towards a merge. This was a political situation in flux, rather than a neat cleave between two different entities. In such situations it is possible that there are reasons two articles could be created, but they are not evident in the current text or the sources presented. Both articles are stubs/starts, readers would benefit from combining the current text of both. If the article develops and there is a clear development of two topics, not opposed to a later split, but even then it's not guaranteed the 1962 rename would be the place to split. CMD (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Jewish Social Democratic Labour Party in Palestine (Poale Zion)

Jewish Social Democratic Labour Party in Palestine (Poale Zion) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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:Jewish Social Democratic Labour Party in Palestine (Poale Zion) § Merge into Poale Zion (Palestine section)

 – LevantineArchivist (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Merge into Poale Zion

This article describes the Palestine/Ottoman Palestine branch of Poale Zion, rather than a fully independent political party with its own ideology or long‑term organizational continuity.

In most historical writing, Poale Zion activity in Palestine is presented as part of the broader Poale Zion movement, alongside branches in Russia, Poland, Britain, and elsewhere. The sources used here treat the Palestine organization as a territorial branch rather than as a separate party in its own right.

Much of the content—founding in 1906, ideology, leadership, and activity in Ottoman Palestine—is already covered, or would naturally fit, in the existing Palestine‑related sections of Poale Zion. Keeping a separate article risks unnecessary duplication and fragmentation, contrary to the approach outlined in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and WP:CFORK.

Per WP:MERGE, a better solution would be to merge the sourced content into a clearly labeled subsection such as "Palestine / Ottoman Palestine" within Poale Zion, while retaining any unique, reliably sourced details rather than removing them. LevantineArchivist (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose - on the contrary, we need to populate with more articles on the different PZ organizations, there are still several gaps. Treating PZ as a single movement, when it underwent many changes and splits over time. The Poale Zion article is confusing, mixing organizations, time periods and tendencies. --Soman (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I understand the concern about the main Poale Zion article being confusing, but creating a proliferation of permanent, low-context stubs for every territorial branch doesn't solve that-it just spreads the confusion across more pages. If the main article is messy, the encyclopedic solution is to clean up and structure the main page better, rather than creating premature spin-offs that don't yet independently meet the general notability guidelines. Merging this into a dedicated "Palestine" section follows WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and allows readers to understand its context within the broader movement's history without leaving orphaned, underdeveloped articles floating around. LevantineArchivist (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, Politics, Israel, and Palestine. Shellwood (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Merge into Poale Zion as a premature SPINOFF. I would have preferred to merge into a successor; however, the party merged into Achdut HaAvoda, with others continuing as Poale Zion Left, so a merger (and especially the redirect element of it) into the parent makes more sense. gidonb (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Siege of Karachi

Siege of Karachi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A siege never happened to begin it was given on order by Durranis none of the non WP:RAJ sources cited say a siege happend they just describe the transfer of Karachi Dragon22121 (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related AfD discussions. Dragon22121 (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. WP:RAJ refers to an essay about caste. Are you suggesting that all sources written and/or published during the British Raj are unreliable for all topics? Katiedevi (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  it's not only a a raj era source it's memorial of a person hence considered a primary source WP:PRIMARY as well WP:AGE MATTERS as the source i cited is newer and sorry i should have elobarted more on the initial comment.Dragon22121 (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Shellwood (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. The siege did occur. Your entire argument relies on a single ref, which you have cited incorrectly as well. The correct pg is 159. The excerpt itself is unsourced too with no cross-referencing. The author only delved into history post-retirement and has no formal training as a scholar. He studied law. He also holds fringe claims such as belief in the Aryan Invasion theory. The ref can be dismissed per HISTRS. Within the same article, there is a Routledge ref stating the Talpurs seized it, not that it was transferred to them by the Afghans. Another supportive ref. After Nasir Khan's death, his son couldn't retain Karachi or Western Makran, both were lost. Talpurs were continuously waiting for civil war so they could seize it. It was specifically Mir Karam Ali Talpur who occupied Karachi in 1795 after overthrowing Khan of Kalat in the third attempt by Talpurs with an army of 20,000 men. Another RS (Peeters Publishers) stating they conquered it in 1795. There's also Laurent Gayer, who specifically calls it an "annexation" by the Talpurs. All of these are reliable refs, with no mention of the Afghan transfer. The only valid concern in the article is the use of an unvetted text, authored by Naomul and published in 1915, based on his memoirs from the Talpur Era. But this can easily be replaced by the PHS ref which instead uses the 1982 academically vetted edition published by Oxford University Press, with an edit by Murchison & Hamida Khuhro, who has a PhD in South Asian History. The editor of the PHS ref too is Dr. Muhammad Reza Kazimi, an academic with over 40 years of experience in history. That should suffice. In the future, kindly initiate a discussion at the talk page first. Sir Calculus (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  it is page 105 there are only 141 pages in the pdf I have

  I agree with the keep now but unsourced text should be removed now and primary sources should be removed to give the new sources due weight also i would avoid citing him in future thanks. Dragon22121 (talk) 10:16, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  Ah, I see. The PDF appears to be an unofficial reproduced text by Sani Panhwar. Whenever quoting or adding refs in articles/discussions ensure that the actual reliably published text is used instead as to best ensure verifiability by fellow editors as well as to avoid issues.

  As for the unsourced text and primary refs, yes, I agree, you may proceed with the removal. I'll reinstate if a reliable ref exists for the removed text. Sir Calculus (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

References

• Keep per Sir Calculus. Veritasphere (talk) 06:17, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Battle of al-Shihr (1531)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Battle of al-Shihr (1531) (2nd nomination)

Battle of al-Shihr (1531) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The content of the article appears to be a hoax. The only source that can be accessed is by the British historian R.B.Serjeant, who only happened to translate an old arabic chronicle, which is obviously a primary source. Regardless, even in that chronicle there's no mention of a battle:

"On Thursday, 15th of the same month (Djumâdâ I), a grab of the Frank arrived, and, entering the port of al-Shihr, fell in with a number of vessels arrived from Diu. It wanted to seize what was in them, but Safar Salman and a party of Turks put out to sea in its direction. They made towards it, but when it saw them it turned tail."

It is obvious this article falls under WP:OR

Another thing I'd like to point out is that no Portuguese historian ever mentions/mentioned a battle in Al-Shihr in 1531. Saturnino Monteiro, a specialist in Portuguese naval history, whose books mention every single Portuguese naval engagements, does not mention this one. He actually states a battle in Al-Shihr happened, but in 1532, and that it was a Portuguese victory. This is also attested by other Portuguse historians, such as João de Barros (1496-1570), Fernão Lopes de Castanheda (1500-1559) and Gaspar Correia (1496-1563).

But what is most important is that we can conclude there wasn't any battle in Al-Shihr in 1531, as the article claims. It must be deleted. Javext (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 August 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:24, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Yemen. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 04:05, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete - Sources described Mustafa Bey in 1531 going to Diu, India, not al-Shihr. I didn't find any mention of this battle whatsoever from secondary sources. Kristos (talk) 05:40, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Too many factual errors with regards to the subject. Segaton (talk) 06:53, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Merge or Delete – It's evident that there is an abundance of mentions in Turkish/Arab sources compared to Portuguese ones. Regardless of whether this skirmish happened or not, it does not warrant its own article, at least not as it is. In Batalhas e Combates da Marinha Portuguesa (Vol. II), I could only find mentions of Xael (Ash-Shihr) in 1525 and 1532. If the 1532 engagement is notable enough, this article should be merged to serve as context for it. Fróis (talk) 07:02, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Fróis, when you're invited to provide your opinion by the person who started the discussion (and obviously wants support for their position), please transparently disclose the way you have reached this page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:45, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Same for Kristos and possibly Wareno. Inviting recent editors to a deletion discussion is fine if it doesn't happen selectively based on the expected opinion (that would be canvassing). But a little more transparency about Javext having invited the others would have been desirable. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:50, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I still did my own research on this, but yes, I should have been clearer that I was invited to discuss it. Kristos (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I have invited Kristos, Fróis, Kabz15 (the author of the article) and عبدالرحمن4132 Javext (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I was notified of this discussion by Javext, but my opinion is based on my independent check of the sources. I'm participating because I know the subject matter. Fróis (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks all! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete, per the OP. Not backed by any reliable sources, seems to be an affabulation. Wareno (talk) 08:42, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:09, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: while titled as the second nomination, it is the first under the current title–and, it would appear, is actually the third for this topic. The previous nominations were Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Ash-Shihr in August–September 2022 (which was a bundled nomination that ended with "no consensus"), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Ash-Shihr (2nd nomination) a month later (a standalone nomination which ended as "keep"); there were some renamings in the months following those AfDs. No opinion on the article itself. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per the arguments made by @Kabz15 and @Peterkingiron on the previous AFD discussion. The claim that the article is a hoax is not true. The Portuguese clearly made an attack on Ash-Shihr, and there are sources documenting that in the article 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:37, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  If the attack is so true and there are sources documenting it, please, step ahead and send them here. If they aren’t easily accessible I’d also prefer if you quote what’s in them.

  If you’re going to send the source written by the Historian Serjeant, which was the main source of Kabz15, I’d read it carefully, and you will see that a battle in fact did not take place. The author of the article misread it. Javext (talk) 12:33, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: I was able to access the first source used in this article, made by a turkish author. I found no mention of a battle in Ash-Shihr in this date. In fact, the source mentioned is talking about the failed 1541 expedition of Charles V against Algiers. The book also says stuff like “bloody and dishonorable conqueror of Mexico,” which reflect the author’s viewpoint rather than a neutral historical description. Regardless, the only interesting thing I was able to find in this turkish book is that Mustafa Bey and Khoja Zufar arrived in the port of Diu in 1531. But this article says that they arrived in the port of Ash-Shihr in the same date. Clearly, the author of the article intentionally fabricated the story of this battle. It is 100% a hoax. Javext (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen no Portuguese sources attest a battle at Ash-Shihr in 1531, the only Muslim source accessible in English refutes it, Khoja Zufar was also recorded somewhere else at the time and Vasconcellos was only recorded in Ash-Shihr in 1532.

If any tertiary Muslim sources claim a battle took place in 1531 I think we'd need to see if they're backed by any secondary sources at least, because so far everything points towards it being false. Wareno (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Higher Institute of National Defence

Higher Institute of National Defence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Performing the second AfD step on behalf of a temporary account as requested at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion § AFD request: Higher Institute of National Defence. I have no opinion on the actual proposal and won't watch this discussion.

This article has not cited any sources since January 2015. Does this page qualify for an AfD? Thank you. Aona1212 (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

FaviFake (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Cambodia. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:34, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete as it is a poorly sources article with no SIGCOV or GNG. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 11:42, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per above comment, so SIGCOV or GNG met. Haz215 (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete The article has only one source, and it doesn't provide significant coverage of the institute itself. I don't see a reason to keep the article. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Al-Abna'

Al-Abna' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Delete – The article appears to rely on later literary traditions rather than contemporary historical evidence. In particular, the claim that Persian soldiers intermarried with local Arab women is presented as an established historical fact, but I could not find contemporary epigraphic or primary evidence confirming these marriages. If reliable independent sources establishing this distinct historical group cannot be provided, the article may fail Wikipedia's verifiability (WP:V) and notability requirements. Erterian History (talk) 03:32, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Iran, and Yemen. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 August 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:35, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

The statement that the Abna originate from the Sasanian soldiers settling down in Yemen is mentioned in the tertiary source Encyclopedia of Islam, as I just added to the article. See also the "Al-Abna" entry in Encyclopaedia Iranica. Z 18:29, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for adding those tertiary sources. However, my concern is different. The article states that Persian soldiers intermarried with local Arab women as an established historical fact. Could anyone provide contemporary primary evidence (such as South Arabian inscriptions or other contemporary sources) confirming these marriages? If not, this claim appears to rely mainly on later literary traditions and should not be presented as an undisputed fact. Erterian History (talk) 08:20, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I have read your Sources. Erterian History (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I have read the Sources you added, And Both Encyclopaedia Iranica and Encyclopaedia of Islam summarize the traditional historical narrative, but neither provides contemporary Sixth-Century Evidence (Like inscriptions or other Primary Sources)Confirming that persian soldiers intermarried with local Arab Women.

My point is not that tradition is necessarily false, but rather that, in the apparent absence of contemporary evidence, Wikipedia should Avoid presenting these marriages as an established historcial fact.

Instead, the article should attribute this account to later islamic Literary sources, unless contemporary evidence can be produced. Erterian History (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - The article meets WP:GNG. WP:TNT is not a valid way for dealing with issues raised by the op regarding the contents of the article 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:40, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - Article is based on WP:RS, including Clifford Edmund Bosworth, a leading scholar in Islamic and Iranian history. Both Encyclopedia Iranica and Encyclopedia of Islam have entries on this subject. Respectfully, Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not our own personal deductions. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for the clarification.

  I agree that the article should not present a disputed historical tradition as an established fact if the available scholarship does not support that level of certainty.

  However, I do not think the absence of surviving contemporary inscriptions or other primary evidence, by itself, establishes that the claim is unsuitable for Wikipedia.

  The Encyclopaedia of Islam and Encyclopaedia Iranica are reliable scholalry sources that discuss this tradition.

  The lack of contemporary primary evidence does not necessarily make the claim unsuitable for Wikipedia,as long as it is clearly attributed to later sources.

  I am happy also to change the wording so that the article does notpresent the marriages as an established fact, but as a tradition reported in later islamic sources.

  For this reason, I believe the issue can be fixed by improving the wording and sourcing rather than deleting the article.

  Do you agree? Erterian History (talk) 09:38, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  Again, please keep in mind that Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not our own personal deductions. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  I know that.

  But nothing I said about the explanation is incorrect; the article attributes it to later Islamic traditions. If that's not true, then give me a contemporary source? Erterian History (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry, but it doesn't seem you do. You're still basing this on your personal deductions (also, it is not uncommon that later writings are treated as fact, it ultimately depends on what WP:RS says), please see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. HistoryofIran (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  You misunderstood me. I simply said it needs clarification because the article relies on later Islamic sources. What's wrong with what I said? Give me a reason. You're calling it my opinion, but it's a logical question? Erterian History (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  You could simply write within the article that it mentions (Al-abnã in later Islamic traditions, not in contemporary sources or inscriptions.) Please don't try to change the subject; just answer the question.

  Is it illegal to add this text to Wikipedia article? Erterian History (talk) 17:02, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  No, I didn't misunderstand you. Please read the links I provided. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:33, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep - Contemporary sources are not needed with significant subsequent independent, reliable scholarly sources. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Winter battle

Winter battle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fixing an AfD filed by @TheEasyNick: who had the following rationale: Neutral sources like Moiseyev and Zlatkin's book devote literally a few sentences to this battle, which are already covered in the article. The title of this article (the battle), "Winter Battle," is not mentioned in these sources. Therefore, it clearly represents original research. Furthermore, Google Books, Google Scholar, and Russian-language scholarly publication sites like Cyberleninka.ru and Academica.ru contain no articles dedicated to this battle. Even the aforementioned books by Soviet historians do not have a dedicated section or topic. Therefore, this article is completely irrelevant. BangJan1999 18:00, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Kazakhstan. BangJan1999 18:00, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

The title of the article is not original research. In the work by Uskembay and Birlik, it is called a «winter battle». Here is a brief quote: «1732 жылғы қысқы шайқасқа қатысты» [regarding the winter battle of 1732]. Furthermore, Kazakh authors are also neutral. Judging someone solely by their nationality is an - ad hominem. Онеми (talk) 14:08, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Remember that in Russian-language Wikipedia, information from Kazakh sources about any details of the Kazakh-Dzungar battles must be confirmed by neutral sources. If such confirmation is lacking, it is not authoritative. Even though we are on an English-language Wiki, such a decision in Russian-language Wikipedia may be an argument for why the same principle should be applied here. Secondly, the "name" of this battle in the Kazakh source is written with a lowercase letter, not a capital letter. Thus, this name is nothing more than a banal turn of phrase, like "there was a battle in the summer, there was a battle in the evening, etc." Please provide at least one neutral source where the battle is actually referred to as the "Winter Battle," with a capital letter. For now, this name is entirely original research. And this is only a small reason why this article has no right to exist. TheEasyNick (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

No, naming works differently on the English Wikipedia. Briefly, my page complies with the WP:NCE policy: if an event does not have an established "proper name", Wikipedia uses a descriptive title. In such cases, the phrase from the text is entirely applicable. Regarding notability, according to WP:GNG, an event is not required to have a dedicated section. It is sufficient that five authors mention it. As for the Russian Wikipedia, I suggest you re-read the outcome link. Furthermore, all authors are neutral, and the WP:RS policy applies here, which explicitly states that sources are evaluated based on context, not the author's nationality. Онеми (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• I moved the above comments (see previous revision to this one to see which ones in case new ones are added after). FYI, if an AfD is created at the wrong page, it's easier to just move that page and tag the redirect for deletion instead. ASUKITE 00:39, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep - if relevant sources are found confirming a different name, I'd support a move. However, I believe it meets notability through provided scholarly sources, like this and others. Also, for clarity, that policy in Russian Wikipedia does not apply to English Wikipedia. Jishara (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm neutral on its notability, but it certainly needs to be renamed. Completely ambiguous. There have been countless winter battles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:45, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Ramadan Zaskoci

Ramadan Zaskoci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:V and WP:NPOV. The article relies on a YouTube video and local news portals for historical claims. This is page copied from the Albanian Wikipedia via an LLM-generated translation, and uses a promotional and highly biased tone that reads like a story, not an encyclopedic article. FranéRogoz (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Albania, and Kosovo. FranéRogoz (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete with no prejudice against creating another article about the figure - i've stricken my previous vote of Keep considering this is an LLM article that goes beyond LLM translation. However, I do see this biography which seems to be [ https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/43301645-ramadan-zaskoci entirely about him] - I can't access it anywhere but it appears to exist and be solely about him, i mean his name is the book's title. I also see other books and academic articles that I think are about him, but it's hard to tell considering how inaccessible they are through my standard tools. Therefore, I think it's pretty reasonable for someone else to recreate it and i think he'd be a viable subject - it's just that we don't want to keep LLM-created content here. keep per WP:Deletion is not cleanup - the article is of a subject that the number of hits in google scholar would seem to show meets notability. Also, WP:LLMTRANSLATE is permitted if it's been reviewed by a person with skill in both languages. Jishara (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep Secondary sources currently cited in the article prove Zaskoci's notability under WP:GNG. His involvement in the region & Battle of Lume & League of Prizren among many others is cross verified by authoritative academic sources, like the Academy of Sciences Institute of History volume Konferenca kombëtare e studimeve për lidhjen shqiptare të prizrenit 1878–1881 (1979, pg 75, 78) and Me pushkë dhe penë për liri e pavarësi (1978, pg 283, 290). Also his long term revolutionary leadership & status are documented in Latifi, 2025, pg 232. As of WP:Deletion is not cleanup any bad layout doesnt mean we are supposed to delete it, personally, we should just refine it WP:PRESERVE. Magapetro (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

If you actually had these academic sources, why didn't you include them in the article in the first place? Instead, you simply copy-pasted the Albanian Wikipedia page, obviously using an LLM to translate it, while keeping completely unreliable, non-academic sources like a YouTube video and local web portals as the only references for this person. I nominated this article for deletion for very good reasons. Simply being mentioned in a few historical books or papers about regional battles does not automatically justify a standalone biographical article. Unless those academic sources provide significant, in-depth coverage of his actual biography rather than just passing mentions, this heavily promotional, non-neutral, AI generated text fails basic encyclopedia standards. FranéRogoz (talk) 03:00, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I just took a look at the new sources you added to the article. None of these books or papers seem to be available anywhere online or in PDF format, so there is currently no way for anyone to actually verify what is written in them. Without being able to check the text, it is highly likely that this is the same situation as before, where the subject might only be mentioned in passing rather than having actual in-depth biographical coverage. I also notice that you have kept the old YouTube video and local media portals as the main sources for the vast majority of the article. Simply adding a few offline citations to isolated sentences doesn't fix the core issue here. The article still heavily relies on unacceptable sources and maintains that same non-neutral, LLM generated tone throughout the text. FranéRogoz (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I just took a closer look at the academic sources that were added to the article, and to be honest, they don't support a standalone biography at all. I don't see any point or evidence for this article to stay. In Petrit Latifi 2025 book, pages 307 and 308 merely list Zaskoci in a single sentence as a victim of liquidation, alongside several other figures like Ymer Prizreni and Isa Boletini. The 1978 book "Me pushkë dhe penë" (pages 283 and 290) only mentions him in passing as an 18 year old guard who shot a telegraph operator. The situation is identical with the 1979 Academy of Sciences volume, where pages 75 to 78 just bring up his name next to other local leaders during regional clashes. There is absolutely no in-depth biographical coverage in these books that would justify a standalone encyclopedia article. What we actually have here is a few historical footnotes being used as a smokescreen to prop up a highly romanticized text. Just because he is mentioned in a few places in some books only in passing along with other people doesn't automatically give him the right to a standalone article. Almost the entire article is still based on sources like local media portals and a YouTube channel, which simply cannot be used as sources for Wikipedia. So, I still stand by my position that it should be deleted. FranéRogoz (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep I think that the article needs a major rework. It needs to be cleaned up rather than deleted. Although there are reasons for deletion, I believe that more sources could be gathered to help save this article. Shqiptar1999 (talk) 07:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Just a quick update for everyone. The creator of this article, Magapetro, has now been indefinitely blocked for LLM abuse and AI policy violations. What I suspected from the very beginning has turned out to be completely true, this article was indeed written using an LLM. This means the text falls under WP:LLMPRV for presumptive removal of AI content. As I demonstrated in my previous source checks, those offline books were just added to make the article look legitimate and hide a fully AI generated text with a highly biased tone. The article still heavily relies on unreliable YouTube and local portal links. Since the entire page is the work of a blocked LLM contributor and the subject lacks real biographical coverage to meet WP:GNG, I suggest that we delete this article instead of trying to clean it up. FranéRogoz (talk) 06:50, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I've updated my comment in response - see above. I still think he's notable - sources online would seem to be potentially enough, though I can't access most of them. but per LLMPRV my vote has changed. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:29, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete because pervasive LLM use is too hard to clean up; WP:TNT and if sourcing is found, no prejudice to making a new article from scratch. M kuhner (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Kasmira kingdom

Kasmira kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose draftifying because this article has been completely unsourced for years. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 10:11, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of History-related AfD discussions. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 10:11, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of India-related AfD discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:25, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related AfD discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:27, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Why is this one an exception to the rule of thumb that articles more than 90 days old should not be draftified? It's legal at AfD, certainly, but will it accomplish anything beyond what deletion would? M kuhner (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner - Articles more than 90 days old cannot be moved to draft "without consensus". That is why I opened this AfD. If an AfD determines that an article should be moved to draft, it can be moved to draft even if it is older than 90 days. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 13:01, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Oppose - article technically cites the Mahabharata parenthetically, though we'd now want a non-brackets cite style, and secondary sources. The {{multiple issues}} tag was only just added this month, so maybe that's why article's issues have been unaddressed for years? Would imagine draftifying would make it less likely that flagged issues are addressed (no?), so oppose rn, and would oppose deleting as topic seems notable. - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Unless the article can be improved with scholarly sources, there is no reason to retain it anymore. Raymond3023 (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose and Keep along the same lines as Asdfjrjjj about Mahabharata references and the notability of the topic, but also from my own reading of Kashmir-related history scholarly sources — just off the top of my head — the scholarship of Michael Witzel, Ronald Inden, Shonaleeka Kaul etc. is relevant here and can be cited, but probably even more sources exist. I will add some to this article. UnpetitproleX (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:11, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose - clearly notable and technically (according to former rules) cited things - plus, UnpetitproleX has confirmed they will add more sources. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment I’ve converted the Mahabharata references to in-line citations, and added three scholarly sources to buttress the references and to add additional context. I will add more sources as and when I come across them, but for now I believe this should be enough. Regards, UnpetitproleX (talk) 06:16, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Battle of Lumë

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Battle of Lumë
• Articles for deletion/Battle of Lumë (2nd nomination)

Battle of Lumë (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I'm not convinced that this is a real battle. I've done an analysis of the sources below, and none of them call this a "battle." There is agreement that Serbian forces entered the region and killed Albanians, but sources talk about it as part of the greater First Balkan War. When I mention pages in the analysis, those are the only times anything close to the battle is mentioned.

Source analysis

Banac, Ivo (1988) - Does not mention a "Battle of Lumë". On page 295, says "The indiscriminate slaughter in the Lume tribal area of northeastern Albania...".

Bjelajac, Mile (2012) - Does not mention a "Battle of Lumë". On page 146 mentions Serbian detachments for the purposes of "disarming [the] population," and resistance in Lume by the Albanians.

Csaplár-Degovics, Krisztián (2014-01-01) - Does not mention a "Battle of Lumë". On page 2, mentions a resistance by Albanian troops that eventually failed.

Durham, Edith (1914) - Does not mention a "Battle of Lumë". On pages 239 and 274, talks about killings in the Ljuma (Lumë) region. Primary, not suitable for notability.

Elliott, Justin Gregory Hamilton (2017) - Does not mention a "Battle of Lumë". On page 78, mentions "Muslims were offered the alternatives of conversion or death by the Serbs in Luma."

Elsie, Robert (2012) - Can't access. Amazon preview shows short biographies of individuals, unlikely to have coverage of a battle.

Freundlich, Leo (1913) - Does not mention a "Battle of Lumë". Primary source, not suitable for notability. Does talk about killings of Albanians in Lumë region in detail. See article Albania's Golgotha.

Hrabak, Bogumil (1969) - Can't access. Google suggests that the book focuses on 1918 and afterwards, 6 years after Battle took place.

International Commission to Inquire into the Causes and Conduct of the Balkan Wars (1914) - Does not mention a "Battle of Lumë".

Jagodić, Miloš (2013) - Does not mention a "Battle of Lumë". On page 18 mentions Albanian resistance and on page 258 mentions fighting against Serbians in the region.

Levene, Mark (2013) - Does not mention a "Battle of Lumë". On pages 105 to 108, mentions Serbian forces entering Lumë and Albanian resistance.

Qafleshi, Muharrem - Does not mention a "Battle of Lumë". Does have significant coverage of Albanian resistance against Serbian forces.

Ratković, Borislav (1997) - Can't access, not cited in article.

Rushiti, Liman (2003) - Does not mention a "Battle of Lumë". Mentions Serbian killings and Albanian resistance as part of a greater war.

Tucović, Dimitrije (1914) - Can't access. Primary source, not useful for notability.

InfernoHues (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Albania, and Serbia. InfernoHues (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

• Keep. Well it doesn't lack standalone academic coverage or notability because that claim is contradicted by the citation apparatus in mainstream Western scholarship, this specific November 1912 engagement is documented & evaluated by historians like Krisztian Csaplar-Degovics (2014, pg 2, Footnote 10), backed by contemporary Great Power military intelligence files from the Austrian State Archives Österreichisches Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv, Politisches Archiv... Telegrams of Heimroth, Üsküb, 22.11.1912, Nr. 1632. Also, footnotes 5 & 9 verify the specific localized operations via the Imperial War Archives (Kriegsarchiv General Staff Reports, KA MKFF). Contemporary international war archives & diplomatic/military intelligence reporting documenting a distinct regional resistance engagement 100% satisfies the standalone article notability thresholds under WP:NTRIGUE & WP:GNG. As the 2016 afd precedent for this page already concluded, the topic is entirely notable. While the article's prose text can be further expanded & refined under WP:PRESERVE, completely erasing a text validated conflict is entirely unwarranted.

Magapetro (talk) 04:07, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep I don't see valid reason to delete this article. I think you didn't look closely enough at the sources, because they explicitly use terms like "uprising," "battles," and "rebellion," describing everything in detail, which satisfies WP:GNG. If you think the article should be renamed to a more accurate title, I will personally support that move, and I suggest two options: "Luma uprising" or "Battles of Lumë". If the current title is considered inaccurate, the standard Wikipedia procedure under WP:RM and WP:NDESC is simply to move the page to a descriptive title, not to delete a well-documented historical military conflict.

  Sources

  1. The official Serbian military historiography, published by the Military History Institute, dedicates specific chapters to these exact operations, defining them as an uprising and a series of battles. The records detail the engagement of the main forces of the Šumadija Division I in the Luma region, noting that initial forces were insufficient to suppress the uprising, prompting the army commander to quickly intervene with main forces Пошто у почетку ангажоване снаге нису биле довољне да угуше устанак у Љуми...то је, према оцени команданта армије, требало брзо интервенисати и покорити побуњене албанске области. translanting (Since the forces initially deployed were insufficient to suppress the uprising in Luma... according to the army commander's assessment, it was necessary to intervene swiftly and subjugate the rebellious Albanian regions).
  2. The military documents consistently use the terms battles, rebellions, and insurgents, describing operations such as чистећи од албанских устаника пределе источно од Коритника translat (clearing the areas east of Koritnik of Albanian insurgents). The official records further detail how the offensive culminated when Serbian forces reached the Velešnica river, describing it as the epicenter of the албанских побуна (Albanian rebellions). The documents state that pressed by Serbian attacks from the south, east, and north, the local population was forced to surrender their weapons, concluding that Побуна у Љуми и Задримљу била је угушена translation (The rebellion in Luma and Zadrima was suppressed).
  3. Historian Dr. Miloš Jagodić states that battles were fought in Luma "од 15. новембра до 2. децембра, вођене борбе у Љуми" translation (from 15 November to 2 December, battles were fought in Luma).
  4. Modern military historian Dr. Mile Bjelajac documents the revolts in the rear (Ljuma) and subsequent armed clashes, noting that initial forces and reinforcements faced heavy casualties, requiring further battalion-strong reinforcements until on 5 December, resistance in Ljuma was suppressed, but at the price of destroying villages from Feta to Spas, all of which offered armed resistance.
  5. The Albanian historiography perfectly mirrors these military facts. Historian Dr. Liman Rushiti uses the plural albanian word for battles in his research page 163, confirming the massive arrival of reinforcements from the Serbian Third Army and the subsequent retreat of the local Albanian forces after the betejave të përgjakshme (bloody battles).
  6. You can easily find Robert Elsie book online and download it for free as a PDF. I would post the link here, but Wikipedia copyright rules don't allow it. You can easily find it yourself in just a few seconds.

  Since the military history and academic sources mention "battles," "uprising," and "rebellion" in Luma and describe the entire series of events in detail, the best solution is to rename the article, as I already suggested. Deletion is absolutely not an option.FranéRogoz (talk) 06:12, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'd appreciate it if you didn't accuse me of not reading the sources when I spent time going through every source currently in the article. I'll respond to your new ones above later. InfernoHues (talk) 06:22, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  I didn't mean to accuse you at all, I might have just worded it poorly or you misunderstood me. What I meant was that you probably didn't read the sources closely enough. But I totally get it, there are a lot of them and some are in foreign languages. That's exactly why whenever I quote those sources, I always make sure to include both the original text and the English translation, just to make it easier for everyone to follow. FranéRogoz (talk) 13:02, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  Ok I've looked through these and they don't contradict my point in the nomination. I generally agree with Rosguill here. InfernoHues (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Strong keep, definitely a real event that’s described in multiple sources SpeedyHaste (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  No one's said that this wasn't a real event, the claim is that this is not treated as an individual "Battle" by the sources, and is instead part of the larger First Balkan War. InfernoHues (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  If we look at the literature, the sources actually do treat this as a distinct event rather than just a general part of the broader war. For instance, albanian historian Liman Rushiti states that a front was opened there, writing: page 162 Në Lumë, pra, ishte hapur frronti i luftës kundër ushtrisë serbe translation In Luma, therefore, a front was opened against the Serbian army. He also clearly uses the word "battles" to describe the clashes: page 163 pas betejave të përgjakshme te Ura e Vezirit, Kulla e Lumës, Rrafshi i Lumës translation after the bloody battles at the Vizier Bridge, the Tower of Luma, the Plain of Luma. This perfectly matches the Military History Institute, which covers this exact conflict in its own dedicated chapters, calling it Борбе делова Треће армије у области Љуме translation Battles of the parts of the Third Army in the Luma region. Now that we have both Serbian and Albanian sources defining this as an front with actual battles, we definitely have enough evidence for a standalone page. FranéRogoz (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Lean merge - I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of more coverage existing, but based on what has been presented here, I’m not seeing WP:GNG coverage of the topic separate from The First Balkan War. Sources variously refer to lowercase-b battles (and other nouns) in Lumë as part of more in depth coverage of the war (or often slightly more narrowly, Albanian participation in the war). The quotes that FR has provided here are honestly rather damning to their own argument, if they are truly the extent of coverage that exists. We don’t appear to have any reliable sources focusing specifically on the battle as a topic in itself, and the level of coverage in most sources is fleeting. The reader is better served by presenting this information in the broader context of the war that it occurred in rather than cobbling together a narrative of a singular “battle”. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:35, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  Not opposed to a merge, but the current article is in a really bad state source-text integrity wise. InfernoHues (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  InfernoHues why do you think there is a problem with the source-text integrity? The text in the article is written perfectly well and accurately reflects exactly what is stated in the literature used as sources. I don't see any problem with it, nor has anyone complained about the text of the article itself until now. RfC was started exclusively because of a failure to agree on the infobox results, not because of the integrity of the source text. If you feel the current text needs improvements, that is absolutely not a valid rationale for deletion or merging. FranéRogoz (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  Source-text integrity isn't a reason to delete, but it is a reason to support deletion over merging.

  An example of a line not backed up by the source cited: "However, this force grew, and approximately 2,000 Albanian fighters, supported by two slow-firing artillery pieces, deployed in a horseshoe formation, encircling the Serbian positions from the east and west."

  This is just one example, there are others. InfernoHues (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  I just fixed it. I admit it was my mistake, happens to the best of us. I accidentally cited Qafleshi instead of the Military History Institute for that specific part. Since you mentioned there are other examples, please list them and I'll fix them, it's not a problem.

  Again, I see no reason for either merging or deleting the article. For something like that, you must have a very strong rationale and evidence that contradicts the sources in the article. As I already wrote, the Military History Institute explicitly highlights and names these events: Борбе делова Треће армије у области Љуме translation Battles of the parts of the 3rd Army in the Luma region and Ангажовање главних снага Шумадијске дивизије I у области Љуме translation Engagement of the main forces of the Šumadija Division I in the Luma region, detailing the battles, the quelling of the uprising, etc. Then there is also the coverage by Albanian historians. So, there are more than enough sources for the article to remain standalone. FranéRogoz (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  Those short quotes were meant to highlight the specific terminology used by historians, not to show the full scale of the coverage. The actual source material is far from fleeting. For instance, the official publication by the Military History Institute ("Prvi balkanski rat 1912-1913, knjiga prva") dedicates entire sub-chapters to the day by day operations and tactical engagements in the Luma region. This includes sections like "Engagement of the main forces in the Luma region" and "Battles of units of the Third Army in the Luma region".

  These official military sources provide extensive, detailed chronological history about the conflict between the Serbian army and Albanian insurgents. So it's completely clear that this topic easily meets all the criteria for a standalone article under WP:GNG. Dumping all of these specific troop movements into the general First Balkan War article would clutter it. Therefore, there is no valid reason to delete this article. I would completely understand the nomination if there were no military historical or academic sources tracking these events. But with all these sources explicitly detailing the battles, the uprising, the insurgents, and the entire timeline of the conflict, deletion is uncalled for. The article covers a well documented historical event and should definitely be kept. FranéRogoz (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  The Velikirat.rs links are giving me a 504-bad gateway error. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:23, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  The links open perfectly fine for me, though the site does glitch occasionally. The Ministry of Culture has been doing maintenance and changes on the website over the last few days, so the page sometimes fails to load and throws an error, it happened to me a few times too. Just try checking back or refreshing a few times throughout the day. FranéRogoz (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  Ok, I was able to get through to the "Engagement" source, still no luck with the other one. I'm not sure it moves the needle for me much either way: it does provide extensive details of troop movements, but it's still not standalone coverage of the battle, nor does it attempt to canonically name the distinct event, and its delimitation from uprisings and military maneuvers in Has and Dukagjin remains somewhat ambiguous. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:54, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  Got through to the second one as well. I have a similar impression here: it speaks only of engagements Nov. 8-Nov. 17, ending with the "defeat" and "withdrawal" of Serbian forces, and operations in Lume proper appear to be mixed with " battles near Vicaj and on the Ljuma River". The article ends with discussing in multiple paragraphs how "the reasons for the failure of this detachment are numerous" with no further discussion of events following Nov. 18. If all of the sources were like this one, there'd be a strong case for calling the battle an Albanian victory that concluded on the 17th. Which brings us back to the issue that sources do not seem interested in defining a distinct "Battle of Lume", instead describing a range of operations that occurred in and around the region over a period of over a month. Obviously, sometimes such large-scale engagements are identified and named by historians and media, as with The Battle of France, but that doesn't appear to have occurred here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:09, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  I believe a mistake is being made here by focusing strictly on the opening week and completely overlooking the massive Serbian counter-offensive that immediately followed. According to the detailed records from the Military History Institute, the campaign did not end on 17 November, rather, the deployment of the main forces of the Šumadija Division I led to a clear final reality where Побуна у Љуми била је угушена (The rebellion in Luma was suppressed). Dr. Mile Bjelajac explicitly details this chronological timeline, confirming that when initial detachments and reinforcements faced casualties, the Serbian Command sent further battalion-strong reinforcements until finally, on 5 December, resistance in Ljuma was suppressed, but at the price of destroying villages from Feta to Spas, all of which offered armed resistance. Jagodić confirming continuous "battles in Luma" from 15 November through 2 December. Evaluating a multi-week campaign solely by its initial tactical phase and claiming an "Albanian victory" based on a few days of heavy resistance is historically misleading. By that logic, one could erroneously classify the First Serbian Uprising as a "Serbian victory" because the rebels successfully resisted for years, completely ignoring that the Ottoman Empire ultimately crushed the rebellion and restored its control. The Albanian academic Dr. Liman Rushiti covers these exact events in his research and directly confirms what I have been pointing out, explicitly documenting the arrival of heavy Serbian reinforcements and the subsequent forced retreat of local Albanian forces after bloody battles, while Western scholars like Robert Elsie confirm that Serbia ultimately conquered Luma. Therefore, the final strategic outcome determines the infobox. If you believe that the term "Battle" does not fully encompass this month-long series of engagements and operations, then the best course is to rename the article, as I have already suggested. I do not see a third option as a viable possibility here. FranéRogoz (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Merge per Rosguill. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:06, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• Strong keep I don't see a reason why to merge nor delete, just because it doesn't call it a battle does not mean it isn't one. Hilandar (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:05, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, this is an odd duck. The information is valid but, because the article contains the word "battle" it is put up for deletion? Should go without saying, but AfD is not the place for a title dispute, that would be WP:RM. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  I put it up for deletion because this isn't treated as a distinct event in sources, rather just as a part of a larger war; the point about the word "Battle" is just a part of that argument. InfernoHues (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  Because of that, I'm fine with a merge, but I don't think the article is in good enough of a state for that. InfernoHues (talk) 11:14, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  The page was already deemed Wikipedia worthy in the 2016 deletion discussion, and the keep arguments in this discussion seem to uphold that decision. Meets GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:19, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  The 2016 discussion doesn't count for much as the substantive arguments were focused on the applicability of deletion due to a sockpuppet's involvement in creating the page, not so much its claim to notability as a discrete event. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:16, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment – I've already laid out my arguments and evidence above. As I previously said, I don't see deletion or merging as a viable option here because the topic satisfies all the criteria for a standalone article. Randy correctly pointed out, this entire deletion discussion essentially boils down to a simple title dispute. If other editors feel the current title isn't ideal, the right solution is simply to rename it, and I've already put forward a couple of options for that. In fact, I actually moved the page to "Luma operations" a few months ago, but another editor moved it back to the current title.FranéRogoz (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  Please don't make 2 bolded !votes; your first !vote is here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:17, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  My apologies. I thought that since the discussion was relisted, we were supposed to vote again. I have changed it to a comment.

References

Luwian Studies

Luwian Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NORG. No significant independent secondary coverage. Taking this revision as a starting point for review: excluding citations to the organizations own website, publications by the organization's president, publications that are identified in the text as being financially supported by the organization, and publications that predate the establishment of the organization:

• Refs 3, 4, 11, 14, 26 all either don't mention the organization at all or only trivially mention its existence
• Refs 20, 22, and 35 all either don't mention the organization or only mention it in attributing quotes.
• Ref 21 additionally only cites a press release from the organization
• Ref 2 cites a primary source in a commercial register
• The only remotely relevant coverage is the Der Spiegel article, and of the single mention of the organization that isn't quote attribution in there, it is about someone joining the board.

I've looked around the web, and it does not seem like notability can be established. I'll also note that much of the contents of the article are written by a WP:SPA, who has only contributed to pages relating to this organization. Kisseran (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Language, History, and Archaeology. Kisseran (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Seems like a potentially notable group—perhaps it could be treated like a publisher—which requires more sources to establish notability. Currently most of the sources go toward establishing why the field of studies is notable, or what the subjects of individual publications are, both of which could go in an article of this type, although they do not speak about the organization itself. Its mission statement and similar information can be taken from its own media, but do not establish notability. I'm less concerned with whether a single-purpose account contributed most of the material than whether notability can be established by independent sources. Perhaps other editors will have more luck locating discussions of this group in news or academic sources; it's not an area I have enough familiarity with (academic journals, German-language news sources) to feel competent assessing. If notability can't be established, some of this could still be merged into the broader topics of the Luwian Language or people. P Aculeius (talk) 10:40, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

After opening the AFD, I also noticed strong public evidence to suspect that the single-purpose account was also engaging in undisclosed paid editing based on contacts listed from recent press releases like this one, although if this AfD succeeds then I think posting on the COI noticeboard is probably unnecessary. I won't touch on whether the views of the organization are fringe, but any utility of the current article's contents in broader articles would be counteracted by the issues in NPOV and DUE. I acknowledge that neither of these should in principle factor into notability, but one thing that is useful to determining notability is the organization's own extensive catalog of media reports, which I looked through, and none of the coverage seems to contribute notability from a combination of being from generally unreliable sources, being press releases, and all in all being trivial coverage on the organization itself. It's helpful to compare the press coverage with their own archive of press releases (and older ones on the wayback machine that didn't seem to survive a website overhaul). Given the organization's evident interest in publicity (which incidentally seems to extend into Wikipedia), I think it's safe to assume that if notability-conferring coverage isn't found there, then it doesn't exist anywhere. Kisseran (talk) 11:51, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:53, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Palestine–Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic relations

Palestine–Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article appears to lack a policy basis for a standalone page under WP:GNG. As the lead section notes, official diplomatic relations between these two entities do not exist, and there is no record of official communication between them.

The article has remained a stub for over seven years, as the available material relies heavily on WP:SYNTH to connect different historical events. Statements and interactions involving leaders of factions reflect localized political alignments rather than bilateral relations between the two actual nations. These details are better suited for the articles of those specific organizations or individuals. The remaining content consists of flag design influences and routine wartime press statements, which struggle to meet WP:NOTNEWS.

Since there is no formal bilateral relationship to document, maintaining a separate article may be unjustified under WP:NOPAGE. Shifting this content to a redirect or incorporating any valid historical context into the broader regional foreign relations page would be a cleaner approach. Sakiv (talk) 11:38, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Africa, Algeria, Morocco, Middle East, and Palestine. Sakiv (talk) 11:38, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related AfD discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:52, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep, I seriously doubt that the nominator did even a brief WP:BEFORE. Google Scholar shows extensive coverage. For example, I found all these things on just the first page of results Self-determination Denied and ContestedPalestine and Western Sahara |, Variations on Sovereignty: Contestations and Transformations from around the ... - Google Books, No Alternative to Despair? Sahrawis, Palestinians and the International Law of Nationalism by Omar Yousef Shehabi :: SSRN, Refugee Camps in the Palestinian and Sahrawi National Liberation Movements: A Comparative Perspective | Journal of Palestine Studies | University of California Press, Saharan Zion: state evasion and state-making in modern Jewish and Sahrawi history: Journal of Israeli History: Vol 37, No 2, Don't Let History Repeat Itself: What the Western Sahara Conflict Can Learn from the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Notes 8 Cardozo International & Comparative Law Review 2025.

Google Books also shows some good stuff, but you need to mine the other garbage that is there. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 09:55, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Both countries are very much interconnected in struggles for self-determination, as written in the article. It could be very much expanded though. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 12:08, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  Regardless of any similarities, this just describes two parallel situations, not a documented relationship between the countries themselves. SupermarketCake (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment – To clarify the policy basis of the nomination, the sources provided above are comparative academic analyses of the two distinct conflicts rather than documentation of direct, state-to-state bilateral relations. Sakiv (talk) 12:26, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

*:Keep Both countries are very much part of interconnected struggles for self determination. Look at the article for Abkhazia-South Ossetia relations. They are both unrecognized countries as well. So keep this article as it is. YDMCANDA (talk) 06:37, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Editor is not extended-confirmed. Also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Abkhazia and South Ossetia do have official governmental interaction. This is not the case here.--Sakiv (talk) 11:21, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've EC-protected the AfD per WP:CT/PIA.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:15, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per HerrHeulsuse FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:37, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Echoing @Sakiv's point, the lede itself notes that official relations don't exist, which seems to be the key issue here. Other SADR-relations articles document recognition and diplomatic ties; this one doesn't have those events to work with.

I also considered two different merge targets (Foreign relations of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and Foreign relations of Palestine), but those are also structured around documented, recognized relationships and neither has a section that could hold this current article's content (before even considering the WP:SYNTH issue).

On the sources mentioned above, I agree with @Sakiv's comment that these are comparative analyses rather than documentation of relations. This article requires evidence of a relationship, not just evidence that authors have compared the two. SupermarketCake (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete "I seriously doubt that" HerrHeulsuse even looked at the titles of the sources they have linked, else they would realise that they are comparing the two territories' indeterminate political status, not their mutual diplomatic relations. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:46, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Seeing a lot synthesis and not much in the way of significant coverage in reliable sources. Yilloslime (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

History categories

for occasional archiving