Edge Rewrite
translate Source code View original
Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/History

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and neither does removing an AfD from this page remove it from the main page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. 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:deletion sorting|History|sig=~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to History. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


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

History

[edit]

Albanian–Epirote War (1399–1400)

[edit]


Albanian–Epirote War (1399–1400) (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 don't think this is notable enough for a standalone article under WP:GNG. I went through the sources currently cited in the article. The only cited source that directly discusses the 1399–1400 conflict in any detail is Spiro Nika Gjirokastra Despotate and John Zenevisi. It discusses Esau de' Buondelmonti's campaign, his defeat and capture by John Zenevisi, and his subsequent ransom, but does not treat this as a separate war under the name "Albanian–Epirote War". Oliver Jens Schmitt is a broad overview of the Balkans, while the Historical and architectural documentation of buildings Gjirokaster and the University of Johannesburg UJ Research Documentation & Archival Content do not provide significant independent coverage of a distinct war of this name. I also searched for "Albanian–Epirote War (1399–1400)" and obvious variants in English and Albanian, but could not find independent academic or historical sources treating it as a separate war.

I think merging this article into John Zenevisi is the best option, while preserving the relevant information there. FranéRogoz (talk) 11:00, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Battle of the Al Hira Canal (633)

[edit]


Battle of the Al Hira Canal (633) (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)

Nominating Battle of the Al Hira Canal (633) for merge into Battle of Hira.

Reason:

  • overlap: campaign, commanders, belligerents, location, year of event all the same, and battle at canal seems to be an initial confrontation prior to the assault on Al-Hira by its own description, satisfying WP:OVERLAP.
  • context: article starts amidst the campaign of Khalid ibn Walid in Mesopotamia and lacks context as to what Al-Hira was or when during this campaign took place chronologically or why, much which is provided at Battle of Hira. Thus, content of merge source arguably gains important context as per WP:PAGEDECIDE if merged to Battle of Hira, weakly supporting WP:MERGECON.
  • improves target: information about an action at the canal prior to the onset of the main battle at Hira arguably improves understanding of the events of the merge target, per WP:MERGECON.
  • not notable: search of google scholar, google books, and two of JSTOR 12 turned up hardly any results which could be conceived of as referring specifically to this event using this nomenclature, with the only possible matches seeming to be copied text found across books over 100 years of age (hence, WP:AGEMATTERS might apply to them, as they may reflect historiographically out-of-date framings), see 123. Thus, subject almost certainly fails WP:SIGCOV, though I am open to other evidence.
  • simple battle summary: summary of action is extremely brief and vague, possibly reflecting poor documentation of the event; please note that articles regularly span multi-day battles when not enough can be said about the individual events of one day (and it is in fact rare that enough can be said about an individual day in a battle!).

Comment: Searches for "al-Hira canal" and "Hira canal" hardly provided any results, showing that the location at which this battle took place might not even be recognized "place" in academia. It seems canals there are part of a broader network in Southern Mesopotamia, but I'm struggling to find much indicating they are seen to be uniquely notable. This might escalate the article to WP:OR.

Comment: This suggested merge is written in good faith that the article I am nominated to merge is even valid, because I did not feel like conducting a source review to verify this. However, its author has had two articles deleted as of 3 October 2026 for LLM use (Battle of Damascus (750), Battle of Tall al-Hammam); source article's references should be verified before any merge.

Summary: article Battle of the Al Hira Canal (633) should be merged with Battle of Hira due to its insufficient individual notability and the mutual benefit enjoyed by both topics of a merge.

HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply

i won't argue, I've seen the unnecessity of keeping it as a seperate page although it's a prelude, merge it. Iwantashawarma (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Support. Reasons given by nom check out, and the article qualifies for many reasons to merge. FaviFake (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Eric (Swedish king 800)

[edit]


Eric (Swedish king 800) (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 Eric Anundsson because I believe these two figures are the same person. The information in the two articles seem to discuss the same person. (I do not speak swedish however, and I know Eric/Erik is far from an obscure name there, so I will fully acquiest to anyone with more firsthand knowledge of mythic swedish history) LincolnMagnus (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Oppose merge. English sources suggest these are different people, and that many kings were named Erik. Ping me if better sources or Swedish speakers willing to translate are found. SenshiSun (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Rana Kapur

[edit]


Rana Kapur (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)

One-sentence article about a person who lived in the early 11 century. Only two sources, one of which is a Census from 1991 relating to Kapurthala, not the subject. No SIGCOV found to establish notability. ScottyNolan (talk) 07:52, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

you may keep the article, or merge it with the page Kapurthala. i can share three more reliable sources except the one already provided. i agree that census source may not be reliable. the other three sources are:
1:The Sikh Reference Book By Harajindara Siṅgha Dilagīra · 1997. written by a historian.
2: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Punjab_District_Gazetteers_Sangrur/ThduAAAAMAAJ?hl=en p-21
3: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Punjab/U44BAAAAMAAJ?hl=en p-176
talk
DavidSchop DavidSchop (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I also found https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.211064/page/n467/mode/2up, where Lepel Griffin talks about him and the veracity of the Ahluwalia's claim to descend from him for a couple pages
Additionally, https://archive.org/details/dli.ministry.08585/page/20/mode/2up has a brief bit on him, though not as much as Griffin's whole tangent tbh. B.P. Koirala (talk) 06:10, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Global surveillance disclosures (1970–2013)

[edit]


Global surveillance disclosures (1970–2013) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is WP:SYNTH. There is not one source describing this as a coherent concept. There are a bunch of different surveillance programs like ECHELON, Trailblazer, Room 641A. Especially the latter is not a global project, but specifically for traffic that is routed through AT&T networks. Any information about specific surveillance programs can be covered in their respective articles. PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Kharijite Rebellions (684–693)

[edit]


Kharijite Rebellions (684–693) (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)

Very poor fork of Najda ibn Amir al-Hanafi, made by a user that has a history of creating numerous articles that are also either just forks, non-notable or LLM and were all deleted. Ahmed.Mhdv (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete per nomination.HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete or Split: to Najda ibn Amir al-Hanafi and Najdat. Article namespace "Khajarite Rebellion (687–693)" is useful and arguably a good WP:REDIRECT to Najdat, or "Najdat" to it, depending on which term better satisfies WP:COMMONNAME[1]. However, article itself is not sufficient in content to merit its distinct status, especially when its content seems well-covered by the other two. Considerable content from Najda ibn Amir al-Hanafi might also be worth moving to Najdat.
Note: Contrary to the claims of the nominator, only four of @Iwantahawarma's articles have been deleted as of this post, two of which were removed for alleged LLM use (Battle of Damascus (750), Battle of Tall al-Hammam), one for violating a WP:SANCTIONS (Siege of Kalinjar (1545)), one by nomination (Battle of Shopian (1814)) for poor citation and non-notability. A general review of contributions is merited, but until such a review is completed, it is wrong to say that all of the user's article contributions were forks or LLMs when we do not yet know.
[1]: Yes, "Najdat" technically refers to a follower of Najda and not explicitly to the revolt he led from 687–693; however, given the term does not appear to be otherwise used, they are possible to associate as topic headings. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Pioneer Women in Wisconsin

[edit]


Pioneer Women in Wisconsin (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)

WP:NOTESSAY: Unencyclopedic homework-like essay with generic information not specific to Wisconsin. Probably too generic to even merge if we have a general article on pioneer women Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Lezgic campaign on Kakheti (1553-1555)

[edit]


Lezgic campaign on Kakheti (1553-1555) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article appears to be non-verifiable or original research. Source 1 contains only a single brief mention of a 1553 campaign against Kakheti, lacking any details on the causes, events, or results, making the article's content unsupported. Source 2 has no relation to the campaign at all, only referencing the 1555 Peace of Amasya. Gergos10 (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply

  • Support The page is kinda sloppy anyways. If it was a major event I'm sure it'd have much more reliable sources and in-depth infos
Ch3rk.essk0 (talk) 08:01, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Democracy Way

[edit]


Democracy Way (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 seems like an interesting enough topic. However, it has lacked sourcing for years at this point, and its extensive german language page has not been used to expand up the english page at all. Without the sourcing, I feel like the page should be deleted, unless someone is willing to do the work to provide any sourced information about this trail. LincolnMagnus (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Travel and tourism, Transportation, and Germany. LincolnMagnus (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Comment: If the books listed in the German article provide significant coverage it looks as if there's material on which to write an article. There also appear to be some online sources. I'll see if any are accessible via Google translate or a German speaker wanders in here. Star Mississippi 21:51, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Speedy keep per SK3 - no actual policy-based reason for deletion has been given by the nominator. "Nobody's working on it" is not a policy-based reason to delete an article. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:05, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    My nomination was over the lack of sourcing to support the information, but I may have stumbled into that type of bad nomination here. If this nom does constitutes this sort of bad argument, then keeping the article is warranted. LincolnMagnus (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Dratify It should stay but first needs to be significantly improved PlainJane91 (talk) 06:17, 25 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Dratify: I agree with PlainJane91. Farhanansari1994 (talk) 04:24, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Keep The article was created in 2011 and is too old to draftify. The books in the German article are about this route, based on the titles, see also this review. There is also online coverage that discusses the route briefly Kelob2678 (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    The books in the Historischer Überblick are not about the route; they were written before the route existed. I don't read the German article as claiming that they are about the route only that they are about the places or events connected to the route. The other sources in the literature section are the travel guide and an article in a local newspaper.
    The other sources you mention are about the route or the travel guide so they are relevant to the discussion. Rolluik (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    I thought that the history of the route starts from the 1848 revolutions. Travel guides are acceptable sources for content like this. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    Travel guides are acceptable but this one is "scientifically based travel guide created in joint work by the participants" so it isn't independent. The route exists since 7 September 2007 to bring people/tourists to these places that where relevant in the 1848 revolutions. Rolluik (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    The government officially established this, and historians wrote a work. Surely, they were prompted by the government, but how does this make them non-independent? By this logic, most academic work is non-independent because it is funded by third parties and many academics write about what is fashionable. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Draftify to work on it. No article is too old to draftify. — Iadmc♫talk  16:19, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    WP:NOTBACKDOOR, which is a part of the deletion policy, says, "Incubation must not be used as a "backdoor to deletion". Because abandoned drafts are deleted after six months, moving articles to draft space should generally be done only for newly created articles (typically as part of new page review) or as the result of a deletion discussion. Older articles—as a rule of thumb those older than 90 days—should not be draftified without prior consensus at AfD." To me, it is clear that this page will be abandoned and deleted if draftified. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see no valid argument for draftification here. If the 15 year old article is about a notable subject, improvement can and should be made in mainspace. If the subject isn't notable, moving it to draftspace is just a delay tactic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:36, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Delete Routes should still meet WP:GNG. We have the websites of the municipalities taking part or the travel guide that are not independent. Local coverage also exists. The book review in Die Zeit and the mention in the bpb is not enough for me. Neither is the article in the Frankfurter Rundschau (local coverage, It is currently the best source.). The books in the German article provide no coverage of the route (they were written before the route existed). There are also at least 2 other routes of Democracy. The places are notable, the route is not (yet?). Rolluik (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Engineered constructs says:

    Road networks: International road networks (such as the International E-road network), Interstate, national, state and provincial highways are typically notable. Topic notability for county roads, regional roads (such as Ireland's regional roads), local roads, streets and motorway service areas may vary, and may be notable if they satisfy the WP:GNG criteria, the criteria of another subject-specific notability guideline, or other criteria within this notability guideline.

    Sources

    1. The sources found by Kelob2678 (talk · contribs).
    2. Burgmaier, Ralf (2007-08-25). "Eine Straßenstation der Demokratie" [A "Democracy Way" Station]. Badische Zeitung (in German). Archived from the original on 2024-06-17. Retrieved 2026-10-05.

      A full-text copy of the paywalled article can be found on archive.today.

      The article notes: "Am 7. September 2007 findet auf dem Hambacher Schloss, das durch das historisch bedeutsame Hambacher Fest von 1832 eine der Pilgerstätten der schwarz-rot-goldenen Demokratiegeschichte ist, eine Zukunftskonferenz statt. ... Die Idee der "Straße der Demokratie" hat eine längere Vorgeschichte. Ursprünglich war sie im Rastatter Rathaus entwickelt worden. Zuletzt hatten die heutigen Promotoren aber das Problem, dass der Rastatter Oberbürgermeister das Projekt zwar an sich gezogen, aber aus unerfindlichen Gründen nicht weiter betrieben hatte. Vorstöße, es wieder flott zu bekommen, fruchteten nicht. Schließlich haben die Städte Offenburg und Karlsruhe die Initiative an sich gezogen. Die Rastatt ist damit aus dem Kreis der Teilnehmerstädte ausgeschieden."

      From Google Translate: "On September 7, 2007, a "future conference" will be held at Hambach Castle—a site of pilgrimage for the history of German democracy (symbolized by the black, red, and gold flag) due to the historically significant Hambach Festival of 1832. ... The "Road of Democracy" concept has a long backstory. It was originally developed at Rastatt City Hall. However, the current promoters eventually faced a problem: the Mayor of Rastatt had taken charge of the project but, for reasons unknown, failed to advance it. Attempts to revive the initiative proved fruitless. Ultimately, the cities of Offenburg and Karlsruhe took the lead themselves, resulting in Rastatt dropping out of the group of participating cities."

    3. "Karlsruhe präsentiert Flyer zur "Straße der Demokratie"" [Karlsruhe presents flyer for "Democracy Way"]. ka-news [de] (in German). 2009-05-24. Retrieved 2026-10-05.

      The article notes: "Der Weg zur Freiheit dauerte wesentlich länger als 60 Jahre. Wer den gesamten Weg nachvollziehen will, begibt sich jetzt auf die Reise entlang der Straße der Demokratie, entdeckt herausragende Persönlichkeiten und großartige Schauplätze, hört spannende Geschichten und revolutionäre Lieder, lernt etwas über uns und unsere Demokratie. Die Straße der Demokratie ist eine 2007 unter Federführung der Städte Offenburg und Karlsruhe ins Leben gerufene Marketing-Kooperation der Städte und Schauplätze der Revolution von 1848/49. Ziel ist, zum einen die Erinnerung an die spannende Demokratiegeschichte in Deutschland wach zu halten, zum anderen die „Straße der Demokratie“ als kulturtouristische Route weiterzuentwickeln, Reiseangebote zu konzipieren sowie neue Partner zu gewinnen. Fachlich begleitet wird die Projektentwicklung von der Landeszentrale für politische Bildung Baden-Württemberg."

      From Google Translate: "The path to freedom took considerably longer than 60 years. Those wishing to trace this entire journey can now travel along the "Road of Democracy," discovering outstanding figures and significant historical sites, hearing captivating stories and revolutionary songs, and learning about us and our democracy. Launched in 2007 under the leadership of the cities of Offenburg and Karlsruhe, the "Road of Democracy" is a collaborative marketing initiative involving the cities and sites associated with the 1848/49 revolution. Its goals are twofold: to keep the memory of Germany’s compelling history of democracy alive, and to further develop the route as a cultural tourism attraction by designing travel packages and recruiting new partners. The project’s development receives expert guidance from the Baden-Württemberg State Agency for Civic Education."

    4. Park, Michael, ed. (2018). Demokratiegeschichte [History of Democracy] (PDF) (in German). Berlin: Gegen Vergessen – Für Demokratie. ISBN 978-3-00-058507-4. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2023-06-25. Retrieved 2026-10-05.

      The article notes: "Der deutsche Südwesten zeichnet sich durch vielfältige und weit zurückreichende freiheitliche und demokratische Traditionen aus, insbesondere in der Zeit von der Französischen Revolution bis in die Gegenwart. Um dieses spannende kulturhistorische Erbe in der Öffentlichkeit bekannter zu machen, haben sich auf Initiative der Städte Karlsruhe und Offenburg eine ganze Reihe von Städten und Institutionen zusammengeschlossen, die historisch mit der Freiheitsbewegung verbunden sind. Ihr länderübergreifendes Projekt ist die Straße der Demokratie. So ist es nun möglich, auf dieser Straße der Demokratie, die bislang von Lörrach im Süden bis Frankfurt am Main im Norden verläuft, die gemeinsamen freiheitlichdemokratischen Traditionen kennen zu lernen. In den beteiligten Städten erzählen Museen, Plätze, historische Gebäude oder andere Erinnerungsorte, die eng mit der Freiheitsbewegung verbunden sind, von den demokratischen Ideen unserer Vorfahren und den oft mühsamen Wegen, sie durchzusetzen."

      From Google Translate: "Germany’s southwest is distinguished by diverse and long-standing traditions of liberty and democracy, particularly from the era of the French Revolution to the present day. To raise public awareness of this fascinating cultural and historical heritage, a number of cities and institutions with historical ties to the freedom movement have joined forces—at the initiative of the cities of Karlsruhe and Offenburg—to create the “Route of Democracy.” This route, which currently stretches from Lörrach in the south to Frankfurt am Main in the north, offers an opportunity to discover these shared traditions of liberty and democracy. In the participating cities, museums, public squares, historic buildings, and other sites of remembrance closely linked to the freedom movement tell the story of our forebears’ democratic ideals and the often arduous paths taken to realize them."

    5. Moser, Simon. "Erinnerungskultur: Freiheitstag und Straße der Demokratie" [Culture of Remembrance: Freedom Day and Democracy Way] (PDF) (in German). Landesverein Badische Heimat [de]. doi:10.57962/regionalia-16457. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2026-04-23. Retrieved 2026-10-05.

      The article is released under Creative Commons-Lizenz - CC BY - 4.0 International. The article notes: "Im Südwesten gibt es freilich noch em1ge Städte mehr, deren Geschichte auf das engste mit den Anfängen deutscher Demokratiegeschichte und der Freiheitsbewegung verbunden ist. Sie haben sich vor sechs Jahren unter der Federführung Karlsruhes und Offenburgs zum Netzwerk »Straße der Demokratie« zusammengeschlossen. Von Lörrach über Offenburg, Rastatt, Karlsruhe, Philippsburg und Mannheim, bis nach Frankfurt oder Stuttgart über Sinsheim, Neustadt mit dem Hambacher Schloss bis nach Homburg/ Zweibrücken (vertreten durch die SiebenpfeifferStiftung). Sie alle pflegen das demokratische Erbe auf ihre eigene Weise. Nicht alle Städte der Gründergruppe sind mehr dabei, andere sind hinzu gekommen und bemühen sich nun gemeinsam im Verbund, die Demokratie und ihre Errungenschaften zu stärken. Zusammen mit Gedenkstätten, Museen und Bildungseinrichtungen sollen die Themen »Freiheitsbewegung«, »Demokratie«, »Bürgerrechte« und Pflege dieses besonderen historischen Erbes in Deutschland bekannt gemacht werden."

      From Google Translate: "There are, of course, several other cities in the Southwest whose history is inextricably linked to the origins of German democracy and the freedom movement. Six years ago, under the leadership of Karlsruhe and Offenburg, they joined forces to form the "Road of Democracy" (*Straße der Demokratie*) network. The route extends from Lörrach via Offenburg, Rastatt, Karlsruhe, Philippsburg, and Mannheim to Frankfurt or Stuttgart—and via Sinsheim and Neustadt (home to Hambach Castle) as far as Homburg/Zweibrücken (represented by the Siebenpfeiffer Foundation). Each of them cultivates this democratic heritage in its own way. While not all the original founding cities remain part of the group, others have since joined, and together they strive to strengthen democracy and its achievements. In collaboration with memorial sites, museums, and educational institutions, they aim to raise awareness across Germany regarding the freedom movement, democracy, civil rights, and the preservation of this unique historical legacy."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Democracy Way (German: Straße der Demokratie) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 05:33, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Tughuzhuqo Qizbech movement

[edit]


Tughuzhuqo Qizbech movement (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 duplicates existing content from other pages, mostly from Qizbech Tughuzhuqo and partially from Circassian Revolution, Siege of Lazarevsky, Siege of Velyaminovsky and Battle of Abinsk articles. It has no unique facts or other sources. No such historical movement exists in any academic literature. The page simply takes the biography of Qizbech Tughuzhuqo and existing conflict details, and labels them as a movement. Therefore, this page should be deleted. Liptink0 (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shocksingularity (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

History of banking in Malta

[edit]


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

The page was intentionally created as a timeline of banking in Malta.
The brief introduction introduces the subject and provides context for the timeline, directing readers to the main article on history of banking and to a scholarly source covering the wider history of banking.
All entries in the timeline were compiled from published material on the history of banking in Malta and cross-referenced against relevant sources. The individual historical facts are also referenced to their sources.
Therefore, there should be specific identification of the entries considered to constitute original research. XonMalti (talk) 10:34, 26 September 2026 (UTC)reply
LLM-generated content isn't allowed even if it is used to create a brief introduction.
The timeline section constitutes OR because it was compiled by the author from primary sources. The problem is that it is the author who chooses which facts to include and which to omit. Vgbypw (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2026 (UTC)reply
If there is an issue with the introduction, it can be rewritten. The fundamental issue seems to be the timeline itself. The timeline is based on an academic paper by John Consiglio (https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/88410 which is considered to be the first article on the subject) and a book by Uwe Jens Rudolf (https://dokumen.pub/historical-dictionary-of-malta-153811917x-9781538119174.html). Presenting historical events in a basic chronological list should not be considered as primary research. The "research" was linking the list to all other Wikipedia pages on Malta banks and adding additional references to the events to justify their inclusion in the timeline. I don't agree that the contents of this page is original research. The discussion should rather focus on ways to improve it XonMalti (talk) 05:57, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Did you use AI to write the page? Kelob2678 (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Introduction:
In the past I received feedback that some sentences did not use a formal or objective tone as per Wikipedia guidelines. So I did run the introduction through AI tools to set a more academic tone. The end result is a mix of my own writing enhanced with AI suggestions. I feel the end result still reflected the source article as well as introducing the subject. However, so far there has been no constructive feedback on how to improve the introduction.
Timeline:
The chronological entries were extracted manually, noting down the key dates whilst reading the sources mentioned above. The timeline was collated over a year and a half whilst drafting another page. Once published, the feedback received was to offload certain sections to subsidiary pages; hence, this Wikipedia page.
Conclusion
The bulk of the page text was not written using AI. XonMalti (talk) 05:46, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Please don't use LLM for responses. See WP:AITALK. – The Grid (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
This doesn't read like an LLM response to me. Pangram and GPTZero both label this as human-written. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
They admitted to using LLM in the text. AI detection isn't 100% perfect. (who separates their response into three subheadings?) – The Grid (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
They omitted a colon after "Conclusion", did not use Markdown, and directly admitted AI use (LLMs usually try to be evasive). Kelob2678 (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Information Info - Note on soft closure: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion or merging depending on the nomination, at the end of its 7-day listing.
Logs: 2026-09 ✗ deleted
--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Some of the articles have been rewritten and I believe all concerns have been addressed or clarified XonMalti (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CactusWriter (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
The introduction was amended so the AI issue should have been addressed.
Happy to see that topic is considered notable and the timeline is adequately referenced.
So are there any remaining issues in the current page version? XonMalti (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Romanian Moderate Party

[edit]


Romanian Moderate Party (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)

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

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

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Hungary, and Romania. Super Ψ Dro 22:24, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    hello!
    I appreciate your concern, but I would like to mention that it is not "AI slop". Not at all.
    While I use AI to write drafts, the final form of the article is re-edited by me, checked by me, and published by me. No bots or anything else.
    The citation style is mine. I don't know that well to add citations that are not from the websites. Regarding this article specifically, the citations are added via the visual editor. The informations from the book of Iudean I mentioned.
    I appreciate your concern, but I would like to ask you not to call me 3 hours work (that is the time it took me to write the article, if I hadn't use AI it would probably have taken 3 days) "AI slop". I use AI to write a draft. But the wikilinks, sources, and corrections - because, trust me, AI gets a lot of things wrong - are done by me. I do this to save time, and, I repeat myself - I check all the information to make sure that it doesn't become "slop". I use AI to help me write the articles, but the articles are not written by AI.
    Also, I saw the bullet lists, but I decided to keep it because it make it easier for the viewer to read. Edward Mike005 (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Update: I was wrong, they have made use of AI before . May this AfD serve as a warning to the editor. WP:LLM states clearly the use of AI in Wikipedia is allowed only for basic copyediting and translations, both requiring subsequent human reviewing. Super Ψ Dro 22:30, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
read my previous answer.
Also, I do NOT use AI for the citations. The citations are added via the visual editor. Edward Mike005 (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Agreed. I apologise if my initial tone may have been excessively harsh. The editor really is a net positive. But one of the few things I think could ruin the project is the excessive use of AI. Let's keep things here authentic. Super Ψ Dro 22:08, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
like I said: while AI was used for the draft, the final article is corrected BY ME. I check every sentence, every word, to be factually correct, to be written correctly.
The internal links and wikizations are also made by me. And the sources as well.
I didn't told the AI to write me an article then copy paste here. I used what it wrote as a draft that I expanded, corrected, fixed.
I decided to keep the bullet points because they are easy to be read by an average user. Edward Mike005 (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@Edward Mike005: Please note that using AI to write first drafts isn't actually permitted, per WP:NOLLM (which is quite a strict policy, but it's the policy that the Wikipedia community has agreed on). Next time it would be better to write the article in your own words from scratch using the sources as a basis. You can use AI to help you in your research but not to generate actual wording and content. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Delete as per nom. Please don't drafity it, as it wiki observes strict guidelines against the use of LLM. While the subject of the article itself is notable, it should be rewritten. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Delete or Draftify:

start from scratch. Specifically lacks diversity of sources, which is a byproduct of LLM use. Bearian (talk) 02:02, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Hetman of the Zaporozhian Host

[edit]


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

Oppose. The Hetman of the Zaporozhian Host was an official post as a head of state for the Cossack Hetmanate, which was a sovereign country. The Hetman of the Zaporizhian Cossacks was a military post exclusively, which also existed within the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, in particular. Also, the article Hetman of the Zaporozhian Host provides a detailed list of highly verifiable personalities. On the other hand, the article Hetman of the Zaporizhian Cossacks provides the origin where the other post was created and what role the Hetman of the Zaporizhian Cossacks played in the history of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Those are definitely not one and the same topic. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@Aleksandr Grigoryev as for now we have at least three articles that describes the position of the Cossack Hetman and list its holders: Hetman of the Zaporozhian Host, Hetman of the Zaporizhian Cossacks and Cossack_Hetmanate#Leadership. In my option is a bit too much. Better to have one detailed article which describes the history of the title, and lists its various users. Marcelus (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
I agree that there is too much overlap. I'm currently working to distinguish starosta, voivodes, senior officers (starshyna, colonels/polkovnyks) and hetmans of Registered Cossacks, Kish otamans, and actual Hetmans of the Zaporizhian Host since 1648. NLeeuw (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
PS: I think that the phrase "hetman of the Zaporizhian Cossacks" is mostly meant for people who were elected hetmans by unregistered Zaporizhian Sich Cossacks in southern Ukraine (before 1648), as opposed to appointed by Commonwealth authorities as hetman of the Registered Cossacks in the towns of northern Ukraine (1572 to 1648, officially "Senior of His Royal Grace's Zaporizhian Host"). The confusion appears to be have been made deliberately by Commonwealth authorities at the time: The Commonwealth government officially named the registered Cossacks the Zaporozhian Army to underscore the fact that it considered the actual Zaporozhian Host a legal nonentity. 1. This is why we end up with conflicting definitions of official and non-official hetmans, and overlapping and contradicting lists of hetmans. Strictly speaking, Registered/Town Cossacks from northern Ukraine were not "za porohamy" (beyond the rapids), but before them. Yet in practice, I see virtually all Cossacks in Ukraine described as "Zaporizhian Cossacks", and now I am beginning to understand why... NLeeuw (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Procedural oppose, but agree that better distinction is needed: Hello @Marcelus, what are you proposing, exactly? To delete Hetman of the Zaporozhian Host, or to merge Hetman of the Zaporozhian Host (d:Q16157109) into Hetman of the Zaporizhian Cossacks (d:Q2992566)? While I disagree with deleting either page or simply merging them as they are, I do agree that a better distinction between them is needed. (I was already WP:BOLDly attempting to make that distinction, but apparently not in a way you could concur with. Which is okay; I did expect it might come to a discussion that was about time to be had about overlap between them). As Wikidata shows, these topics are divided into two separate articles in four language editions of Wikipedia: Arabic (but very small), English, Russian, and Ukrainian. We could merge them in English, but I think we should consider why and how the division was made on ruwiki and ukwiki (after all, these are the most important languages involved). Some aspects suggest that they don't have a very clear distinction in scope either, but at the very least that d:Q16157109 is primarily about describing the position of the head of state of the Cossack Hetmanate (1648-1764), and that d:Q2992566 is about listing all who have been the head of state of the Cossack Hetmanate. Unfortunately, the latter has gotten mixed up with other similarly-named positions and lists of office-holders thereof, such as kish otaman, starosta, starshyna, voivodes, and hetmans of the Registered Cossacks. I think we should either give them clear separate sections, or split them off as separate lists (I was already working towards separate sections, with an option of splitting some sections off into stand-alone articles. E.g. Kish otaman#Prominent Kish otamans is a better place for all mentioned under Hetman of the Zaporizhian Cossacks#Kish otamans, because the latter is essentially a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of the former). What do you think? Good day, NLeeuw (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@Nederlandse Leeuw As I said in my nomination, we currently have two articles covering essentially the same topic. Other Wikipedias instead tend to have two separate articles: one about the office and role of the Zaporozhian Hetman, and another listing the holders of that office. I think we should follow the same approach, especially since this is also a very common structure on the English Wikipedia. Marcelus (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@Marcelus Right, then we agree. The solution is neither to merge, nor to delete, but to better distinguish the two articles. I'm working on it right now. Especially the Hetman of the Zaporizhian Cossacks simply needs more sources and better overall coverage. It appears to suffer from an "anti-Polish" bias that regards the Right-bank Hetmanate as illegitimate, and the Left-bank Hetmanate as the only legitimate Hetmanate. NLeeuw (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@Marcelus, I think you did not read my arguments. Maybe I should reiterate. Once upon a time there existed such country known as the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Their military leaders were known as hetmans. Originally there were two posts, a crown hetman and a field hetman. Separately from them in the area beyond the Dnieper rapids, literally Zaporizhia (za porohamy), organized combatants established their self-defense force to repel foreign invaders. Those combatants were known as Cossacks and they called their leader Hetman as well. Unlike the crown hetman and the field hetman, which were appointed officials, the Cossacks' Hetman was an elective official. The Hetman of Zaporizhian Cossack as a post existed before the Khmelnytskyi Uprising. The later established a new sovereign state known as the Cossack Hetmanate. The official title became the Hetman of the Zaporizhian Host, but unofficially it continued to be called as the Hetman of Zaporizhian Cossacks. As of recently, during the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Vyacheslav Chornovil was elected as the Hetman of Zaporizhian Cossacks. (Chornovil, Viacheslav. www.encyclopediaofukraine.com) Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
That seems to be roughly the same conclusion I reached in my comment above of 19:44, 22 September 2026 (UTC). NLeeuw (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@Aleksandr Grigoryev It is somewhat more complicated than that. Originally, in Poland hetman was a title given to any commander of a military expedition or a larger mercenary force. It was only in the early 16th century that it became formalized into two offices, the Grand Hetman and the Field Hetman, who acted as the king’s deputies in military affairs. The title largely ceased to be used in other contexts, although such usage never disappeared entirely. In this form, the title reached Zaporizhia. At first, any commander of Cossack forces could be called a hetman, hence the later legends claiming, for example, that Baida was the first hetman. The privilege establishing the Cossack register likewise refers to Jan Oryszewski as a hetman. Usually, however, the commanders of the Registered Cossacks were called "starszy", and their position was relatively low, as they were subordinate to the starosta of Cherkasy. In fact, the first true Zaporozhian hetman was Bohdan Khmelnytsky. Before him, however, there were countless Cossack "hetmans", meaning simply military commanders. Of course, there is little justification for including among the hetmans various modern-day LARPers such as Vyacheslav Chornovil.Marcelus (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@Marcelus, please except my compliments about your knowledge on the subject. I am not trying to be rude, but I do not see you trying to debunk my argument. I guess, you have already made up your mind. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@Aleksandr Grigoryev for once, there was no such thing as a formal "Hetman of Zaporizhian Cossack" before Khmelnytskyi Marcelus (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Hetman of His Royal Grace the Zaporizhian Host, Petro Sahaidachny (engraving) (Archived copy)
@Marcelus, I guess, you are telling me that I am inventing things, aren't you? My knowledge is based on the following sources among many others: (ГЕТЬМАН. history.org.ua), (Гетьман. esu.com.ua), (Гетьманство в Україні: від керівництва військом до державного правління {The rule of Hetman in Ukraine: from the leadership of an army to the state government}. up.mk.ua), (Виборча система у запорозьких козаків {The Zaporizhian Cossacks electoral system}). spadok.org.ua). These sources differentiate both of the terms (Hetman of Zaporizhian Cossacks and Hetman of the Zaporizhian Host) and explain how they different. Petro Sahaidachny was among the most notable hetmans of Zaporizhian Cossacks who at the same time was the Senior (starszy) of the Registered Cossacks. Depending on a political situation, the government of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth either allowed or stripped the Zaporizhian Cossacks from having own hetman. Beside these there are other sources if you got an impression that I am cherry-picking. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@Marcelus, number of historians such as Tatiana Tairova-Yakovleva and Yuriy Mytsyk indicated that the post Hetman of Zaporizhian Cossacks existed, but in the official documents of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth it was referred as the Senior (starszy) of His Royal Grace the Zaporizhian Host (ГЕТЬМАН. history.org.ua). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:13, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@Aleksandr Grigoryev Separating "Hetman of the Zaporozhian Cossacks" from "Hetman of the Zaporozhian Host" is artificial. As I mentioned, the title hetman was already used for commanders of Cossack forces before 1648, whether for the "starszy" of the Registered Cossacks or for the leader of a particular Cossack expedition. However, the office had no stable form, clearly defined prerogatives, or consistent institutional character. It was only for Khmelnytsky that the office of Hetman of the Zaporozhian Host acquired a permanent and formalized character, combining military command with the political leadership of the semi-autonomous Cossack Hetmanate. Marcelus (talk) 07:17, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Alt proposal:
Step 1: Rename Hetman of the Zaporizhian Cossacks to Hetman of the Registered Cossacks (compare Category:Seniors of Registered Cossacks and uk:Українські гетьмани і кошові отамани#Старші реєстровців), and limit the scope entirely to Registered Cossacks between 1572 and 1638, plus some historical context (background, legacy).
Step 2: Manually move the section Hetman of the Zaporizhian Cossacks#Hetmans of the Cossack Hetmanate into the article Hetman of the Zaporizhian Host, and make that article about the Cossack Hetmanate's head of state from 1648 to 1764 (Left Bank) and 1713 (Right Bank). (This would match pl:Lista hetmanów w okresie Hetmanatu and uk:Гетьман Війська Запорозького#Перелік посадових осіб).
  • Rationale: This is the cleanest split with the least WP:OVERLAP we could make. My proposed title Hetman of the Registered Cossacks is driven by pragmatism. Although we could agree that the full formal title in Polish may be rendered in English as "Starszy/Starshy/Senior/Hetman of His Royal Grace's Zaporizhian Host", which would be WP:PRECISE, this would probably not solve the ongoing confusion with the post-1648 Hetmanate head of state's title (which caused the current WP:OVERLAP between the two articles), and it would not be as WP:CONCISE as Hetman of the Registered Cossacks. Moreover, I see the latter phrase used in many historiographic sources such as the Encyclopedia of Ukraine and the Encyclopedia of History of Ukraine. It is probably the WP:COMMONNAME if we acknowledge that "Hetman of the Zaporizhian (Zaporozhian) Cossacks" is just too ambiguous as an article title. Per WP:TITLECON, for the same reason that we have Registered Cossacks and not His Royal Grace's Zaporizhian Host as article title, we should opt for Hetman of the Registered Cossacks.
  • Sidenote: It was my initial understanding that all senior officers were called starshy / starszy ("seniors"), and that amongst them a hetman was selected (appointed or elected) as primus inter pares. That is how the Cossack starshyny in the Sich Rada elected a Kish otaman from amongst their own group, and how the Cossack Rada of the Cossack Hetmanate selected the Hetman of the Zaporizhian Host from amongst the Cossack starshyny from 1648 onwards. But that may be a mistake on my part, extrapolating a later practice back into Commonwealth times, when the Commonwealth would just appoint 1 single starszy, who was unofficially also called a hetman. The Commonwealth authorities seem to have rarely or never used the term "hetman" in Polish-language official documents, where they always said starshy (starszy). pl:Hetman claims this was the case: Określenia „hetman” (ukr. гетьман) w odniesieniu do naczelników wojsk rejestrowych będących na żołdzie Rzeczypospolitej używali także Kozacy[8], choć nie stosowali tej tytulatury w oficjalnej korespondencji z instytucjami Rzeczypospolitej, a jedynie określenie „starszy Jego Królewskiej Mości wojska zaporoskiego”. Then again, plwiki has no problem calling them all "hetmans of the Zaporizhian Cossacks" in pl:Lista hetmanów Kozaków zaporoskich and elsewhere. Either way, if that is the case, I've got some fixing to do. It means that Category:Seniors of Registered Cossacks, Hetman of the Zaporizhian Cossacks#Officers of the Registered Cossacks, and Hetman of the Zaporizhian Cossacks#Hetmans of the Registered Cossacks are all different names for exactly the same position. One could argue we may need to exclude a lot of edge cases that were never Commonwealth-officially "hetmans", but were elected as such by rebel Registered Cossacks, named as such in many primary sources (the engraving of Sahaidachny on the right there is a good example of that), and widely treated as such in historiography. In the entire section "Cossack leaders (until 1648)" we are already being quite inclusive. Only hetmans elected by unregistered Cossacks would seem out of scope for this article, but I suspect many of those were actually either Kish otamans (see below), or just campaign otamans for 1 single campaigning season. I think it is mainly a matter of providing WP:RS for each claim, and removing unsourced claims (I've already done some of that). NLeeuw (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@Aleksandr Grigoryev @Marcelus What do you think of this Alt proposal? Based on our policies and guidelines, I think it is the best solution in this situation: we make a clear distinction between the two articles, with differences in scope, and hopefully prevent future confusion and overlap. Good day, NLeeuw (talk) 12:15, 25 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@Nederlandse Leeuw:, no, please. The alt proposal is even worse. If you must merge it, please, do it as Marcelus proposed. The article "Hetman of the Zaporizhian Host" was created by me as a branch of the Hetman of the Zaporizhian Cossacks. I guess we can put some footnotes, maybe, in the section. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:27, 26 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Why is my proposal "worse"? I have invoked several relevant policies and guidelines backing my proposal. You are not giving any reasons why you disagree with it, except that "you created it". Well thanks for doing that years ago, but that does not mean WP:OWNERSHIP. Please try to base your arguments on our policies and guidelines, so that we may reach a consensus. Thank you. NLeeuw (talk) 02:57, 26 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Re-reading the comments above and below, I think there is not much difference between your position, my position and Marcelus' position. We all agree that the hetmanship of Registered Cossacks existed between 1572 and 1638, and that the Hetmanate hetmanship emerged in 1648. We just need a way of clearly distinguishing them. Marcelus called the 1572–1638 office "starszy" of the Registered Cossacks, which is correct, although both Polish, Ukrainian and English historiography all commonly use the term "hetman" rather than "starszy" (except in passing). You mention either Hetman of the Zaporizhian Cossacks or Hetman of His Royal Grace's Zaporizhian Host, but both of those cause too much confusion with the post-1648 office. This very discussion is evidence of that confusion. Therefore, Hetman of the Registered Cossacks is the best solution to prevent future confusion, but to call the office "hetman" rather than "starszy". I've suggested further ways to balance both articles and clarify their scopes. NLeeuw (talk) 08:59, 26 September 2026 (UTC)reply
For example, nothing so far convinces me that Ivan Pidkova was a Kish otaman (as ukwiki and ruwiki claim without sources). Everything points to him being a Registered Cossack gone rogue who briefly served as an elected campaign otaman in Moldavia. That's not a Kish otaman in a Sich in southern Ukraine. The only Sich at the time that we know of is the Tomakivka Sich, and there are some historians who question it was even a Sich as known from later times, and there are no positive connections to be made between the Tomakivka Sich and Ivan Pidkova in Moldavia. Perhaps there is simply a confusion between 'Kosh otaman' and "Cossack otaman" (as the Encyclopedia of Ukraine calls him)? That may mean he does belong somewhere in the section "Hetmans of the Registered Cossacks", but not amongst the Kish otamans. Cheers, NLeeuw (talk) 11:36, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@Nederlandse Leeuw of couese, Kish atamans doens't belong here. Marcelus (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Edit:  Done. Good, then I will split that section off already.
For the starostas, it appears to be a rather subjective historiographical debate about which starostas can be retroactively considered "hetmans". Not during their lifetimes, but hundreds of years later. It's questionable whether we should take such debates seriously to begin with, but if so, it has to be substantial debate and not just one book or website retroactively claiming some starosta as "the first hetman of Ukraine / the Cossacks / the Zaporizhians / etc.". NLeeuw (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
PS: As far as I'm concerned, no more than the three starostas already mentioned (Lanckoroński, Dashkevych and Vyshnevetsky) should be included. I've included some pro and contra arguments for all three and would recommend leaving it at that. Otherwise anyone can claim anything. NLeeuw (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Comment I prefer to follow the ukwiki approach and rework this page to be about various Cossack leaders, hetmans or not. But if consensus is against that, then it is better to merge, because I do not think the content in Registered Cossacks is extensive enough to justify a split (an alt proposal above). Kelob2678 (talk) 07:52, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 16:24, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Tsarist Russia

[edit]


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

Keep per WP:CONCEPTDAB. Tsarist Russia is often understood as encompassing a distinct period from the turn of the 16th century to the Russian Revolution, and so readers are likely to be searching for a broad overview article instead of two articles, especially where the distinction (for uninformed readers) may not be clear. This article is about the specific state of Russia under the tsarist model from around 1480 (including the latter years of the Grand Duchy of Moscow) to 1917 and how that specific model of governance shaped Russian society, politics, and governance. It's an analysis of the broader trends present throughout that period which is treated as such in both colloquial and academic thought; it is not just a paraphrased combination of the two articles which focus more in depth on their specific periods. Henceforth, it's not a redundant fork, or even a fork at all since it has a different scope.
The Muscovy, Tsardom, and Empire articles can exist as separate daughter articles that analyze late medieval Russia and the foundations of the Tsarist state, post-Ivan the Terrible but pre-Petrine Russia, and post-Petrine, European integrated, westernized Russia up until Kerensky. A similar comparison could be how Prussia exists alongside Ducal Prussia, Kingdom of Prussia, and Free State of Prussia, or Kingdom of France alongside France in the Middle Ages and Early Modern France.
I am open however to splitting out some of parts of the article into separate parts; it's a long article that took me months to write. This should be done by moving some of the ____ in the Russian Empire articles to ____ in Tsarist Russia. This opens up to another reason why I created this, which is that the lack of mother article has caused scopes amongst some of these articles to be limited to the post-Petrine period when they should be better served by a broader analysis of their topic throughout Tsarist Russia. However, that's a content issue that can be resolved via normal processes and shouldn't be brought up at AFD. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 18:06, 15 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep especially if there's an editor willing to do significant work on it. But as admitted in the nomination the sourcing provides conceptual significance and variety. Any overlapping material should be cut down. AadamentAardvark (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Draftify. I share the nom's concerns. For example, the article is currently up for DYk, but why is it more correct to say, as the proposed blurb does, "Tsarist Russia was feared to become 'Genghis Khan with a telegraph'" rather than "the Russian Empire was feared to became..."? I see competing rather than complementing articles. Srnec (talk) 02:56, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment. I agree with the concerns raised above. For example, "Muscovite Russia" refers to the period of Russian history from about 1500 to 1700 (when Moscow was the center) but I do not think it would make sense to create a new country article. We already have tsarist autocracy that covers the tsarist model from 1547 to 1917. It might be best to draftify for now. Mellk (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Draftify per above. The content of this article can and should be covered in other articles that already exist. Regarding comparisons with Prussia and France, we already have articles on other states that existed on the territory of Russia, such as the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire. What this article tries to do is unify Tsardom of Russia and Russian Empire into a single page. This effective merge is also not supported by the sources, as they mostly do not cover the whole 1547-1917 period together. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply

    as they mostly do not cover the whole 1547-1917 period together

    This isn't true? Loads of sources cover the 1547 to 1917 period together (a cursory search brings these up , , , , , ). The Tsardom and Imperial eras are absolutely compared together. Also, the Prussian and Kingdom of France examples are specifically based on iterations of the state coexisting with sub articles (Kingdom of France exists alongside France in the Middle ages and Early modern period, which are the two eras of Royal France). A similar argument could be made with Prussia given that a region called Prussia still exists today. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 23:08, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    Surely, some sources cover this time period, but mostly they don't, I just skimmed through the references used in the article. French articles read like splitouts of History of France, not as articles about French states. Kelob2678 (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:27, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Delete as WP:CFORK, we don't need this (and can't accept duplication on this massive scale). No objection to merging some of the content to the existing articles if it's needed (fills in worthwhile gaps) and reliably cited. Making it a draft just kicks the can down the road, to where it will still be way too big and way too overlapping, on a subject that appears to be a WP:SYNTH conflation of Tsardom of Russia and Russian Empire as noted above, so there is no point talking about draftifying. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    WP:SYNTH refers to the conflation of material not directly stated by multiple sources themselves. The concept of Tsarist Russia and of a Russian state and era ranging from the turn of the 16th century to the revolution is well-established in historiography. It's just a correct and direct summary of existing literature. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 23:15, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Strong keep per WP:CONCEPTDAB and User:Knightoftheswords281's reasoning. Tsarist Russia is a distinct concept which relates to a period extending from the 16th century to 1917, which is not encompassed by other articles on the various periods of Russian history. It is analogous to Ancien régime. User:Chiswick Chap's claim that this reflects WP:SYNTH is simply not correct. There are libraries of sources which make direct reference to this concept. Endymion.12 (talk) 12:30, 25 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    We already have tsarist autocracy. Ancien régime is also not a country article. Mellk (talk) 12:38, 25 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    Tsarist autocracy is a different concept, referring to a system of government. Tsarist Russia need not be a 'country article'. Endymion.12 (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    The author of the article has already stated that it is supposed to be about Russia under the tsarist model. Also, for example, Riasanovsky is cited under terminology, even though he never identified "Tsarist Russia" as a distinct period of Russian history (he identified "Kievan", "Appanage", "Muscovite", "Imperial", and "Soviet Russia").
    This seems to be the only source cited that explicitly refers to "Tsarist Russia" as a period of Russian history from 1547 to 1917. It also refers to Soviet Russia as a period of Russian history from 1917 to 1991. Does it make sense create a new article? There are plenty of other terms e.g. "Old Russia", "pre-Petrine Russia", "pre-revolutionary Russia", and so on. Mellk (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    Keep per the reasoning offered by others here. This hones in on a particular period of the Russian Tsardom, and the nominator's assertion that "Tsarist Russia" may be notable as a historiographical concept, but not as a WP:DUP/WP:OVERLAP of existing articles doesn't really make much sense, since the former contradicts the logic of the latter.
    CSGinger14 (talk) 09:10, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Draftify or Delete It's an interesting idea, but the page right now doesn't really work as a broad concept page. It combines two or so discrete eras of Russian history/government into one hazy notion and doesn't properly abbreviate the sections enough. I don't doubt that there are sources that describe both 1503 Russia (or whatever) and 1903 Russia as "Tsarist Russia", but they're not the same entity. It would be like a page that just combined the Russian Republic + the Russian SFSR as "Communist Russia" or the various French republics as "Republican France". There's probably a version of this that's much shorter and better uses WP:SUMMARY style (and reserves space for the many hatnotes/wikilinks), but this version now doesn't meet the mark. It also makes it more confusing to the lay-reader what's what and when and what the proper terms are. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 04:26, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even "keep" !voters acknowledge this article has problems of overlapping content. Is anyone willing to WP:HEY the article to generate a consensus for keep? Alternatively, do the overlapping content problems outweigh the purported notability of this subject as a distinct topic?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Second Republic of China (Taiwan)

[edit]


Second Republic of China (Taiwan) (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 single source doesn't provide legitimacy that the term is valid. scope_creepTalk 09:58, 13 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 13:31, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 16:55, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Soft Keep - My comment above about the article looking a bit odd still stands, but given there have been no votes since then and it has been relisted I thought I would vote. This article was written more than 90 days ago and therefore shouldn't be draftified per WP:DRAFTNO and therefore my default position must be to keep. I cannot understand any of the sources but trust that these are suitable to support the article if they are used on a different language Wikipedia. Should anyone think that they are not suitable to provide evidence of notability, please ping me with details and I may reconsider vote.
BleachPuffin (talk) 12:10, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep per the above. Unfortunately I don't read Chinese, so will have to defer to WP:AGF Draftify per Kelob's rationale. Looking over it again half the article seems to be a primary analysis of the sources, rather than a summary of their contents. Once again, though, I don't read Chinese, so will have to defer to WP:AGF
CSGinger14 (talk) 09:30, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Draftify To me the article reads like OR. The sourcing is mostly primary. For example, the section on uses of the term relies on people who used it, and not on academics who analyzed the usage independently. The first sentence in the section reads, In fact, after Lee Teng-hui proposed the concept of "Second Republic of China" in Taiwan, many scholars successively began to adopt this concept to explain Taiwan's current political system (this is uncited because it originated from the editor who wrote the Chinese page). Kelob2678 (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply

History Proposed deletions

[edit]

History categories

[edit]

for occasional archiving

Proposals

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/History&oldid=1378602069"