Gpedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/History

Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Gpedia: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.
Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to History.
Further information
For further information see Gpedia'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

Lucius Vibullius Rufus (son-in-law of Herodes Atticus)

Lucius Vibullius Rufus (son-in-law of Herodes Atticus) (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 · NYT · WP Library)

WP:INVALIDBIO, nothing is really known about this person specifically, and the article is just a restatement of the family tree. Already mentioned in relatives' articles with no loss of information. Prod removed without explanation. Avilich (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete having a bunch of relatives who were notable does not make one notable. Gpedia is not a generalogical dictionary where we have articles just to make the relations between other notable people clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Matthew White (historian)

Matthew White (historian) (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NPROF, WP:NAUTHOR, or any other SNG, as far as I can see. This author has written one book, which was reviewed [1] [2], but a single reviewed book isn't enough by itself to establish notability of the author (perhaps of the book, but not the author, and the book already has an article, The Great Big Book of Horrible Things). Levivich 18:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Levivich 18:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Levivich 18:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Merge to the article on the book, since the book is notable and has an article. White is not indepdently notable so we should not have a seperate article on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. This page contains no information that cannot be found in the article about his book. What is more important, there is absolutely no reason to expect that some additional sources and facts about this person can be found: he is known only as an author of his book, and there is absolutely no reason to expect that some sources will be discovered that provide information about his biography, personal live, occupation etc.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete: not independently notable of the book, the article on which already exists and where the author info is already present, so there's nothing to merge. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Snowball delete - per nom. --Nug (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not pass WP:GNG. This article has insignificant coverage; it can be merged with the article on the book itself.Juggyevil (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Peshawar (1758)

Battle of Peshawar (1758) (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 · NYT · WP Library)

There seems to be some doubt about many of the sources, others do not seem to even mention this battle. Does it in fact have more than one line in any of these sources, was this a major battle? Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hell many of them seem to just list it as one of a number of cities captured, so was there even battle?Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Redirect/Merge' to Maratha conquest of North-west India by using a source like this one. Extorc (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
    It seems no source says a battle occurred there, so I am unsure this would be a used search term. This looks made up by the article creator. What seems to have happened is the city was captured, but that could mean anything. So if there was a merge/redirect it would also have to have name change.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
    In agreement as well. Change the title to Capture of Peshawar (1758), delete the page and direct the title to another page suitable for it. MehmoodS (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
    The more and more arguments I see for keep the more and more this looks utterly made up, so no I do not think a redirect (now) is a good idea as I doubt it would be used.Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep - Nominator has removed 4 sources, while only one source was the disputed one. I have reinstated 3 sources back. This battle is an important battle, which shows the maximum extent of the Maratha Empire in the north. One source [1] clearly mentions there was an attack, though nominator claims there was no battle. I could not access other book sources quoted as they are not available on google books preview. Crashed greek (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    Of the sources that were removed, only one seemed to be about this one "battle" and it seems to not be an RS. The rest just refer to the capture of the city, not a battle. None were more than a line, no in-depth coverage from which we could create an article. Note your source here does not say it was attacked, it says it was captured.Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    It clearly says attacked, the exact quote "The Marathas attacked soon after and, with some help from the Sikhs, managed to capture Attock, Peshawar, and Multan between April and May 1758." is clearly mentioned in the ref. Peshawar was a big city, so your claim that it was occupied by Marathas as it was abandoned is wrong. Also another source [2] clearly mentions that it was stationed by Afghan Emperor's son Taimur Sultan and Jahan Khan were at Peshawar. Crashed greek (talk) 10:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    Also you have wrongly tagged a source of 2005 book source, which was published before wikipedia article was created, while the reliability issue was with another book. So I have removed the tag, and put back the disputed source book too but with the tag you you have inserted. Crashed greek (talk) 10:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
So (and let me get this straight, they attacked 3 cities all at once and fought one battle between them that lasted a month? No they are not, they are talking about a campighn where 3 cities were captured, that does not mean there was a battle there (read wp:or). In fact this whole article looks like, ORSlatersteven (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
The source above says Emperor's son and Jahan Khan had retreated to Peshawar, after seige of Sirhindh in March and Lahore was captured in April. And Peshawar also was overrun by Marathas in May. I was able to verify one more source now using google search, [3][1] I have added the exact quotes with page numbers now. Crashed greek (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - Also nominator is now trying to move the article to Capture of Peshwawar (1758), after nominating here for deletion. He is trying multiple things with the same article to see which one works. Crashed greek (talk) 10:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    No, I said that as there does not appear to have been a battle (and no source says there was one) even as a redirect we would have to use what people would be looking for, which is the capture of the city.Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    The one source clearly said it as battle has been called as disputed using a wikipedia essay. Essays are not wikipedia policies. You have sided with that claim without any justifications. Other sources mention Peshawar fort as attacked, overrun. That is not the same as captured as you claim. Crashed greek (talk) 11:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    As I recall the source did not say it was a battle they just gave the date it had been captured. Would you care to provide a quote from an RS that says there was a battle THERE? Using the word Battle or similar termSlatersteven (talk) 12:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    Attacked and overrun is similar term to a battle. Northwest Froniter is the region for which Peshwawar fort is the capital. Sources are clear Crashed greek (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    Another source [4] uses words "defeated and captured", which means a battle. Crashed greek (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    Battle is used in the sense of war or combat which takes place between two armies in a battlefield due to conflict. Whereas Attack is violent or aggressive act that cause harm to the other. So from the sources, the battle actually took place at a different city/town/location, likely Sirhind, where Afghans were defeated and as a result, Timur Shah and Jahan Khan fled to Peshawar. But after finding out that the army of Maratha and the Sikhs is in hot pursuit, they vacated and fled from Peshawar, and thus the fort of Peshawar was attacked and captured. There was no battle in/at Peshawar nor does the attack define it as a battle. If there was a Battle, any sources would clearly state it. It was simply capture. MehmoodS (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    They can also mean in a war or campaign. That is why it is OR to say this was a battle. You are using wp:synthesis to draw conclusions not stated EXPLICITLY in the sources.Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete I am the one who tagged the article for WP:PROD a few months back and discussed on talk page as well. There is not a single reliable source that mentions any battle taking place at peshawar. Even redirect to Capture of Peshawar is not helpful because, there is hardly any source which says Peshawar was captured. Most of the historians that mention Maratha invasion of Punjab do not even mention Peshawar except some hyper nationalists authors. Even if we accept dubious claim of capturing Peshawar (not battle), there is no need for a separate article whose authenticity is in question and best can be merged with Maratha conquest of North-west India. The user crshed greek who commented above for keeping the article tried multiple times engaging me in an edit war to keep such dubious source which is listed in WP:PUS. After exhaustion, I let go of the matter. Anyway, I strongly suggest for deletion of the page or least merging it with Maratha conquest page. Hiensrt (talk) 06:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    Multiple shources say that Peshawar was recaptured by afghan emperor and maratha empire suffering casualties there before proceeding to the famous battle of Panipat. That means it was indeed captured by marathas. Also sources say that maratha empire had garrisoned their troops in Peshawar fort. At least one foreign author has cleaely told that peshawar was captured, whichihave quoted here. So no need to bring nationalism, islamism, communism etc here. You have gone offline and this new user MehmoodS has surfaced. You have voted as delete here, but he has refrained from voting here. Crashed greek (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    Actually he did say merge, he has just not bolded it. Also, if it is was recaptured, that would be irrelevant as it does not seem to be the battle you are referring to, which its original capture (again we go back to a kind of WP:SYNTHESIS) even if A battle was fought there at some point it does not mean it was this one. And again capture and battle are not synonymous, many cities surrender without a fight.Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Beisan (634)

Battle of Beisan (634) (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 · NYT · WP Library)

The 'Battle of Beisan' or rather 'Baysan' is the same as the Battle of Fahl. There are multiple, and often conflicting, accounts of the events of the Muslim conquest of the Levant, however the accountes related by main primary source, al-Tabari, are pretty clear:



There are a few other accounts, but these are generally briefer. The two accounts above make clear one thing: the battle which this article deals with is the one and the same as the Battle of Fahl: from the location, to the marshes, to the name of the Byzantine commander, his attempt to catch the Muslims by surprise, and the supposed 80,000 Byzantines killed (a completely unrealistic number typical of the accounts of the Muslim conquest).

To be clear, this is how a modern scholar, Fred Donner, reconstructs the events:

Furthermore, why deletion and not merging into Battle of Fahl? The present article relies heavily on non-WP:RS: its main source is a blog by Raghib as-Sirjani who is a urologist and amateur historian affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Given that he repeats verbatim and uncritically the primary sources, he is clearly not a credible source. The present article is a mess of information drawn from different traditions, and a merger with the Battle of Fahl article would only transfer this uncritical assemblage of content there. Constantine 08:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello there, by considering for while of why should be split into different article, it is because the mention of different battle than Fihl:


furthermore, Khalid Yahya Blankinship in History of Tabari vol 11 add:


so was Yohanan Friedmann in Vol 12 of History of Tabari who mention the separate battle either in page 170-173 and 183 about the mustering of Shurahbil forces to face Byzantine army outside Beisan. that is why im advocating the different article regarding the battle, since if we merge with Fahl, it is practically containing two different battles in one page.

regardless, if we want to resolve by merge and revamping the article, then i suggest the article name should also be changed too. perhaps Battle of Fahl-Baisan..Ahendra (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ahendra: I hope you realise that it is not Blankinship or Friedman who 'mention' anything, but that these two scholars are merely editors of parts of al-Tabari's history? Al-Tabari himself says clearly that these are different traditions narrated to him. It is precisely therefore that we rely on modern scholars, and not our own interpretation of primary sources, for such matters. And the modern scholars reconstruct events so that there is a single battle, which has different names: as al-Tabari's source notes, 'The Arabs named that campaign Fihl, Dhat al-Radaghah, and Baysan'. Constantine 14:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Mithridates (soldier)

Mithridates (soldier) (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 · NYT · WP Library)

WP:BIO1E Extremely minor figure in the writing of Plutarch. Current version is essentially a plot summary of parts of Plutarch's Life of Artaxerxes. There's not really any significant coverage of this individual in the academic literature as far as I can see. The death penalty that they were supposedly subjected to, Scaphism seems notable and is a possible redirect target. Any content of this article can easily be covered elsewhere. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep: Before a certain point in history (and 401 BC is certainly before that point), anyone known to us can be reasonably treated as notable; the records are so sparse it's a bit absurd to try make gradients. (The subject seems to have the level of scholarly mention I'd expect of minor-but-known ancient figures, both included and not in the article.) That doesn't necessarily answer whether we should have a stand-alone article, which is closer to the nominator's contention, so it's worth responding to that too. Mithridates is the first known case of (supposed) scaphism, and it's reasonable to have a stand-alone article discussing the specific context of this case; readers could reasonably desire to know more than would be due to include in the scaphism article itself about a single individual. There's also the open question of whether scaphism actually existed, and merging further Mithridates-related content to that article would risk unbalancing its perspective even more in favour of that of its historical accuracy (as it stands the article is already severely imbalanced), while simply redirecting -- or the damnably realistic outcome of a merge that eventually gets turned into a de facto redirect by such content being removed as undue -- would leave the interested reader with no place to find detail they might reasonably want to read. The article could use some work (some of the quotes can be turned into properly contextualized own-words text), but this is a normal-editing matter. Vaticidalprophet 04:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Before a certain point in history (and 401 BC is certainly before that point), anyone known to us can be reasonably treated as notable is certainly an "interesting" interpretation of the notability guidelines. There are plenty of individuals recorded in cuneiform transactions and the like that I would not consider notable. The detail surrounding the deaths of Cyrus are better covered at Cyrus the Younger or the battle article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. The argument that everyone whose name is known from classical antiquity possesses some notability is venerable, but unnecessary here—the fact that this Mithridates is mentioned in other articles, about Cyrus, Artaxerxes, scaphism, etc. makes that line of argument redundant. However, it may be difficult to cover the topic adequately over the course of multiple articles; in each of these he would naturally be mentioned only in passing, or for one aspect of this article. If someone tried to fold all of this into any of them—although I think perhaps the quotations are excessive, and that they could be trimmed and/or summarized to better effect—the chances are that the material would be significantly edited down because of undue weight in what is, admittedly, a minor episode. Nonetheless, we have a soldier who ostensibly killed a king, or at least the claimant to the throne, and thereby changed the course of a war. That makes him notable, and the fact that he later boasted of his exploit and was put to death in what may be the first historical or literary example of a particularly gruesome method of punishment is also notable. This collection of facts doesn't really belong in any one other article, except perhaps as a passing mention, and this topic deserves a bit more than that. It may be too long as is, but that can be fixed, leaving a respectable short article. P Aculeius (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. Surely this –>> "According to Plutarch's Life of Artaxerxes, a young Persian soldier named Mithridates unknowingly struck Cyrus the Younger during the Battle of Cunaxa... Mithridates boasted of killing Cyrus in the court, and Parysatis had him executed by scaphism" <<– in the article of Cyrus the Younger (and similar notices elsewhere) is already enough. Topic doesn't merit a standalone article (the definition of 'notability') due to lack of coverage in secondary sources (WP:NBASIC). And who knows if Plutarch's account can even be taken at face value. Avilich (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Whether Plutarch's account is accurate is not the point: figures from legend or mythology are still notable irrespective of their historicity, and Plutarch is generally regarded as a reliable source, even though he reported stories and traditions as well as provable fact—and he admitted as much, just as modern historians mention widely-known anecdotes: they're an indication of how people regarded historical persons and events, whether or not the anecdotes themselves can be proven. The question of secondary sources is relevant, but I found some (including some recent ones) with a simple Google search for "Mithridates, slayer of Cyrus" (perhaps not the best formulation, but the fact that it worked means that the sources demanded exist, and that "Before" was not followed). Notability is a given: he's the killer (or assassin, even unwittingly) of a king, whose deed changed the course of a civil war. Not to mention the first known victim of an infamous form of execution. The only reason for not having an article would be if there's not enough material, but the fact that a thorough discussion of this fellow, even pared down from the article's present state, would be unduly long in an article about Cyrus or Artaxerxes, means that a stand-alone article is justified. P Aculeius (talk) 05:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
It would not be unduly long because that sentence contains all that is known about him. "Notability" (not has nothing to do with someone being a killer or associated with someone important: it's just Gpedia's term for a topic having received enough coverage that it requires an article for the information not to be unduly long elsewhere. This is not the case here. A standalone article simply adds nothing, and is just an unnecessary content fork, though those large quotes may give the opposite impression. Avilich (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The notion that the assassin of a king lacks notability because "notability cannot be inherited" contorts Gpedia's notability guidelines beyond recognition. By this argument, none of the twentieth century's famous assassins merit inclusion—all of them were nobodies who came to public attention solely because of a single act, achieving nothing particularly noteworthy before or after it. You may well argue that "other facts are known about them", but that is a separate argument, and has nothing to do with notability. And the claim that "that sentence contains all that is known about him" is demonstrably false. The passages quoted, however excessive, include a number of details about his motivations, conduct, and personality, just as they do about the motives and character of the man who ordered his gruesome execution. But most of these details would likely be excluded from any articles about Artaxerxes or Cyrus, since Mithridates is not the subject of those articles, and in them a brief summary would be expected—much as we would not expect all of the facts about Lee Harvey Oswald to appear in the article about John F. Kennedy, or even the article about Kennedy's assassination (which is actually considerably shorter), or all of the details about Gavrilo Princip to appear under Franz Ferdinand or his assassination. A lack of notability cannot reasonably be argued in this case—the sole question is whether there would be sufficient content to justify a stand-alone article once the current contents are edited down to a reasonable length; and this can be determined from the fact that the various details that are properly be included here would be excessive in articles about other persons or topics that could discuss Mithridates, while even the main facts would have to be dispersed amongst multiple other articles. P Aculeius (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
A lack of notability cannot reasonably be argued in this case—the sole question is whether there would be sufficient content to justify a stand-alone article once the current contents are edited down to a reasonable length In Gpedia, those are the same thing. And besides, after removing those gigantic quotes, all that remains can be summed up in one or two sentences in Cyrus the Younger's article with no loss of information. If you don't think that, then we'll have to agree to disagree. Avilich (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Notability has nothing to do with the length of an article; many notable persons have very short articles, or none at all. And it would be utterly inappropriate to "remove" the quotations without summarizing or paraphrasing the relevant passages, which would leave a great deal more than your one-sentence summary. What we have here is an article where the original editors identified the relevant facts, but failed to extract them from the original source, or provide additional context from secondary sources. That means that we have an article in need of improvement—not deletion. P Aculeius (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I said nothing of the length of the article specifically, just pointing out how WP:SIGCOV works. There's no evidence so far that the sources which the editors "failed" to find actually exist. Avilich (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
You said that the two things I mentioned (lack of notability, sufficient content to justify a stand-alone article) were "the same thing". There are many notable persons about whom not much is known. And I clearly indicated that I found additional sources with a simple Google search, which you could have replicated just by typing in the same search terms (which I said were probably sub-optimal). But it's not my job to pile up evidence in order to save the article—I'm merely pointing out that the nomination is premised on the claim that there are no academic sources, when the most cursory of searches would have found some. This nomination fails to demonstrate lack of notability or lack of sources, so the discussion should be closed as "keep". Any editor is free to improve the article by reworking and/or editing down the quotations—bearing in mind that the subject is historically significant, and that there is more to say about him than would justifiably be merged into other articles; the "improvement" should not be done with the goal of reducing the article to one or two sentences in order to renominate it for deletion. Just because the quotations are overly-long doesn't mean that there shouldn't be any; just because some of the details don't seem important to the course of history doesn't mean they shouldn't be mentioned. Gpedia is an encyclopedia, not just a collection of highlights with all of the details squeezed out. P Aculeius (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment At a minimum this article has way too much coatracking about things not directly related to the subject, and way too many and too long quotes directly from sources. If it is kept, we need to rework it to focus on the subject and to not look like it belongs in Wikisource.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is quite a lot of discussion on Mithridates in Carsten Binder, Plutarchs Vita des Artaxerxes, de Gruyter, 2008 (ISBN 9783110202694). However Binder does say that nothing more can be said of Mithridates than what Plutarch tells. He mostly deals with the sources of Plutarch for the story and a literary analysis of its use within the narrative. I don't think Gpedia should reproduce that kind of in-depth analysis of a text and therefore think the article has to be deleted, or possibly redirected to Cyrus the Younger#Expedition against Artaxerxes II (401 BC). There may be more room to talk about the story in an article Life of Artaxerxes. I have Binder's book in pdf if someone wants to create this article (but it's in German). T8612 (talk) 10:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak keep/merge to scaphism. This seems to me to be right on the borderline of being worth keeping – but I think that a lot of discussion of notability in this AfD so far is utterly unrelated to what our guidelines actually say. WP:GNG sets out as a standard for notability "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and I think this is the standard we should be considering the article by.
P.Aculeius' assertion that assassins of world leaders must be notable in general because otherwise we wouldn't be able to have a page on e.g. Lee Harvey Oswald seems to me to be clearly wrong – Lee Harvey Oswald meets GNG through being the subject of several books. If Mithridates had likewise been the subject of several books, he would be unquestionably notable. (And, uh, Mithridates wasn't an assassin, and he didn't kill a world leader; he was the soldier who happened to be credited with the death of a claimant to the throne!)
Not what I said. I said that the argument that "notability can't be inherited" can't be used to claim that "assassins aren't notable, because their notability is derived from their relationship to their victims". It's true that there are lots of reliable sources about 20th century assassins—because they're recent, whereas Plutarch may be the only source for Mithridates, simply because the death of Artaxerxes occurred more than two thousand years ago. But few if any of these persons did anything notable before or after killing someone famous; they are notable solely due to one act, but cannot be described as non-notable because "notability cannot be inherited". I'm not going to quibble about the loose description of Mithridates as an "assassin", which was never relevant to any point I made, but arguably two people claiming to be king, each one leading their own army against the other, could reasonably be described as "leaders"—in fact it sounds like Artaxerxes was on the verge of winning the war and becoming the undisputed king, when Mithridates happened to kill him. But whether you call him a "world leader" also isn't really important. My argument for notability is that he's the pivotal figure in ending the war (at least according to Plutarch), and sufficient details are known about him to justify an article—details that would not be adequately covered in any of the other articles that would naturally mention him. The fact that several modern writers discuss Mithridates—even if not in great detail—both strengthens the argument for keeping the article, and demonstrates that one of the premises for this nomination was incorrect. P Aculeius (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I also am highly suspicious of the argument that "once you get far enough back in history, anyone who we know the name of should be considered notable". If all we know about a figure is their name, and there is no discussion of them in reliable sources, then just blindly making an article which says "X was a figure in Greek history, mentioned on inscription Y" when nothing further can be said about them is pretty much pointless.
On the other hand, the fact that an ancient figure only appears in one ancient source does not mean that they are inherently not notable – Neaira (hetaira) is an example of a figure who exists in only one ancient source and yet has been the subject of a book-length biography by a modern scholar, and thus I would argue is notable. In the case of Mithridates, the fact that (per T8612 - I don't have access) Carsten Binder discusses the case in depth in his commentary on the life of Artaxerxes, plus the discussion by Bruce Lincoln in From Artaxerxes to Abu Ghraib makes me think that there is just about enough commentary in reliable sources to pass the notability barrier. I wouldn't object to a merge to scaphism given that all of the coverage seems to be about his execution, however. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Your source doesn't seem to offer any actual commentary on Mithridates though, just of Plutarch's portrayal of his torture in the context of "imperial violence". He even just quotes the entire thing and takes Plutarch's account at face value (offering, thus, as little additional commentary as possible) while making his point. Your source may be usable on scaphism, though. As for Binder, his analysis of Mithridates himself appears to be limited to (Google translation, p. 208) "nothing additional can be said about the Mithridates mentioned by Plutarch in addition to the information handed down here after Ctesias: He is said to have participated in the killing of Cyrus the Younger in the battle of Kunaxa may have been involved and later executed by Artaxerxes II at the instigation of the Parysatis" – which seems to confirm that the subject fails GNG. The rest of what Binder says concerns spelling, etymology (pp. 207–8), passing mentions, and, as T8612 said, a "literary analysis" of the story within the narrative, none of which is really relevant to Mithridates himself. So I still think that a brief notice in the article Cyrus the Younger (and others) is already enough, and that this should not be a standalone page. Avilich (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, as I said I think it's at best a marginal keep, and I could definitely be persuaded that merging to scaphism is the way forward. That said, I think that literary analysis of the story of Mithridates in Plutarch's narrative absolutely could fit into an article on Mithridates – just as, say, an analysis of the place of Aspasia in Old Comedy and fourth-century philosophy fits into an article on Aspasia. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Action of 16 January 1916

AfDs for this article:
Action of 16 January 1916 (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 · NYT · WP Library)

1. This is a skirmish within an engagement. Neither primary nor secondary sources consider this material enough to be a battle in its own right. 2. This is written by an indefinitely suspended user with a history of adding essays to wikipedia. 3. It lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet WP:GNG. The firefight between a German cruiser and a British cargo vessel on January 16, 1916 is not described as a battle in its own right by reliable sources. It would be better to delete the page and ensure any sourced details are recorded instead in the article about the SMS Möwe 4. Given that this "battle" is not documented elsewhere, it is a new battle as theorised by the creator's original research. This battle honor is not recognized as such by the Kriegsmarine. His creations have the prefix "Action of" and a suffix of the date in British English format, to emulate the manner/format in which certain battle honors of the Royal Navy were recorded from 1847 onwards. Keith H99 (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages, for the same reasons. These articles contain lots of maybes and probablys. They have a reading list at the foot of the page. They do not have inline citations. These engagements are lacking in significance.

Action of 13 May 1944 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Action of 10 November 1944 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Action of 5 July 1942 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Any sourced content should be recorded within the articles for U-1224, USS Flounder & USS Growler. Keith H99 (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages, for the same reasons. These articles contain lots of maybes and probablys. They have a reading list at the foot of the page. They do not have inline citations. These engagements are lacking in significance.

Action of 6 October 1944 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Action of 23 April 1945 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Any sourced content should be recorded within the articles for U-168 & USS Besugo. Penultimate addition. Keith H99 (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Above items now listed in separate nomination, as requested.
Articles for deletion/Action of 23 April 1945
Thanks Keith H99 (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages, for the same reasons.

Action of 12 October 1950 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What is particularly interesting is that the talk page acknowledges that there is no scholarly source for this engagement.
Talk:Action of 12 October 1950
I deduce it lacks significance. Final edit Keith H99 (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Rename to Sinking of SS Clan Mactavish. This is a reasonable article: I expect there are Reliable sources, even if not cited in-line. Commerce raiding during WWI was severe enough to worry the British government, so that merging this inot a list article might be appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I see the sinking of the vessel is recorded in a chronological list as the eighth of fifteen ships sunk or captured on the first raiding voyage of SMS Möwe. Keith H99 (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
The last part of the article is about USS Pirate. I have cut this, and pasted it into the USS Pirate article.
One of the few citations in the article, which references the loss of two minesweepers, has been added to the Operation Wonsan article, as it was lacking an inline citation for the loss of the two minesweepers.08:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus following separation of other articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Alois and Josephine Kreiner

Alois and Josephine Kreiner (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 · NYT · WP Library)

PRODded on the grounds that I was unable to find coverage of their work, and Spinningspark challenged the PROD so we're here for discussion. I looked at the sourcing available and present in the German article, but it's extremely limited in terms of reliable sourcing. The books, which are no doubt reliable, are passing mentions, but the web sites which are longer form have questionable editorial oversight, with the obvious exception of Yad Vashem. Their being declared Righteous by Yad Vashem doesn't appear significant either. Happy to be proven wrong as I think all of those who rescued others during the Holocaust should be remembered, but I'm not sure notability is here on this one. Star Mississippi 15:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Draftify the article is in an unacceptable state so should not be in the mainspace right now; however, if there are editors dedicated to improving it, there should be a draft for them. – DarkGlow • 18:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Survivors' Insurance (Industry, etc.) Convention, 1933 (shelved)

Survivors' Insurance (Industry, etc.) Convention, 1933 (shelved) (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 · NYT · WP Library)

De-prodded after expiry because apparently it was prodded before, but I did not see a previous prod at the time. No sourcing found. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 01:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 01:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete nothing to show why it's a notable treaty, although it looks like it was never implemented, so why have an article? Oaktree b (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • delete No claim to notability, and the ratifications show hardly anyone cared. Needs some degree of third party analysis at least. Mangoe (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect to List of International Labour Organization Conventions. ILO seems to have been set up by the League of Nations and to have produced a series of International Conventions, of which his is one. The infobox provides links to two more, which have equally little information. All should be similarly merged or redirected, where there is no substantive article. My target is a list article covering all of these. I take it that shelved conventions are ones that have been superseded by something more recent. They will have been important in their time and hence notable. Notability is not temporary. I am saying merge, because it looks as if there is a link to a website which gives the convention's text. This link needs to be added to the list, along with the statement that it is shelved. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Invalidity, Old-Age and Survivors' Benefits Convention, 1967, but without the "shelved" part, and similarly all the other "shelved" conventions listed there that were apparently later integrated into the 1967 convention. Possibly merge if anything can be sourced. Sandstein 22:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete. As far as I can tell, nobody who has ever edited this article included an explanation of what this convention declared or what it means for it to have been shelved. The text includes a quotation, "Having decided upon the adoption of certain proposals with regard to compulsory widows' and orphans' insurance,..." which is an incomplete sentence and doesn't give any indication of which proposals were adopted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Theoclia (sister of Alexander Severus)

Theoclia (sister of Alexander Severus) (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 · NYT · WP Library)

This article covers a supposed sister of emperor Severus Alexander. But I've done some digging and it seems to me that the article might be confused.

It seems to me that Theoclia (if she was real) and her possible marriage to Verus is thought to have been proposed during Severus reign 3, not when he was a young boy as he would have been in 218 when Marcianus daughter was killed. This work treats the two women as separate people, while this one argues that Theoclia is entirely made up. There is also the fact that Marcianus might have been Severus step-father, not father, so a daughter (if she was indeed married in 218) was probably too old to have been Julia Avita Mamaea's daughter, thus this woman may only have been Severus step-sister. I believe this article should be deleted and the link redirected to Julia Avita Mamaea#Family ★Trekker (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Support merge to Julia Avita Mamaea#Family, as, even if she existed, she probably isn't notable enough for her own article. If the merge is performed, then it will be important to ensure that the new text at Julia Avita Mamaea#Family is free of WP:OR / WP:SYNTH (I say this even though I'm pretty convinced that the argument about Theoclia's existence that you present here is correct). Furius (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete This was written by an editor who liked to mass-create articles on non-notable but high-profile people, with only the slightest regard for WP:Verifiability (example). This article simply repeats what the Historia Augusta says without question, while adding some genealogical trivia to flesh it out. The former is unverifiable (unreliable primary source), the latter is already found elsewhere, so there's nothing even to merge (not even worth a redirect). It's all OR, SYNTH, or trivia. That Birley citation mentions in passing an unnamed sister who was supposedly murdered in 218, but you don't need a merger to use that source and mention the fact elsewhere, and there is nothing else of value here. Avilich (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete At best should be a curious footnote in the dynasty article of a possible relative mentioned by a not necessarily reliable primary source, for reasons mentioned above. SpartaN (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Merge to her mother. For ancient history, primary sources are all we have. Whether we believe the sources is a matter of historical interpretation. Merging leaves a redirect, which means that what little we do know on the lady remains available. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
This isn't a case of notability where the infomation can be simply transferred elsewhere, this is a case of the content being unverifiable or put together through original research, which means it's not merge material, as you have been told several times. Avilich (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete/Redirect Anything sourced to the Historia Augusta is likely to be garbage, if there are no other sources covering them then it should be deleted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete/Redirect -Agreed, needs more than one source to establish what is going here, for this person who possibly didn't exist. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:V and WP:OR concerns with merging. Agricolae (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Al-Kadid)

Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Al-Kadid) (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 · NYT · WP Library)

As per this discussion, TheAafi recommended taking this to AfD. Basically, I was unable to find enough material in secondary sources to sustain an article. Relevant material has already been added to Ghalib ibn Abd Allah al-Laythi, so there is nothing to merge. VR talk 01:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. 94rain Talk 02:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. 94rain Talk 02:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect this and all such short articles to List of expeditions of Muhammad to where they belong the best. The list article however needs various improvements. ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep -- This is very much not my subject. I suspect that this concerns something where we know little beyond what is in ancient sources; if so we cannot get more. Redirecting is destructive, since it removes from WP what little we do know; it would be necessary to add a further column to the target article giving details, which would upset what is intentionally a list article. Some one who knows the sources should be able to sort out such of the missing citations as are solvable. One of the problems is the use of a battlebox, which requires information with a precision that ancient sources do not give. The article cites several secondary sources. That there is conflict between them is the result of historians making inferences, beyond what is known. It is legitimate for the article to set out this conflict. IN the absence of further primary sources, any attempt by a WP-editor to resolve the conflict would itself be illicit original research. As this is a Muslim subject the primary sources will be in Arabic. What does the Arabic WP say on the subject? I do not know Arabic, and anyway as a Christian I do not edit articles about Islam. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Peterkingiron the Arabic WP article doesn't look good. It has only one source and that is a link to wikisource that appears to be from Sirat al-Halbiya. I couldn't find much about this book to know if it is reliable (or even the date it was published). However, its page on wikisource says the book "combines what is true and what is denied". That doesn't sound like reliable to me.VR talk 22:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 02:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 02:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

History Proposed deletions

History categories

for occasional archiving

Proposals

  1. ^ a b Barua, Pradeep (2005). The state at war in South Asia. University of Nebraska Press. p. 55. ISBN 9780803213449. The Marathas attacked soon after and, with some help from the Sikhs, managed to capture Attock, Peshawar, and Multan between April and May 1758.
  2. ^ War, Culture and Society in Early Modern South Asia, 1740-1849
  3. ^ Mehta, Jaswant Lal (2005). Advanced Study in the History of Modern India 1707-1813. New Dawn Press, Incorporated. p. 256. ISBN 9781932705546. "The province of Multan and northwest frontier were also overrun by Marathas and the forts of Peshawar and Attock were garrisoned by their troops"
  4. ^ Conflict and Conquest in the Islamic World: A Historical Encyclopedia [2 Volumes] By Alexander Mikaberidze https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Conflict_and_Conquest_in_the_Islamic_Wor/jBBYD2J2oE4C?hl=en&gbpv=1 Page 43 "The Marathas, assisted by Sikhs, defeated the Afghans and captured Attock, Peshwar and Multan in the spring of 1758.
<div style="font-size: x-small;">The article is a derivative under the <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License</a>. A link to the original article can be found <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Deletion_sorting%2FHistory">here</a> and attribution parties <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/History&amp;action=history">here</a>. By using this site, you agree to the <a href="https://www.gpedia.com/terms-of-use.php">Terms of Use</a>. Gpedia Ⓡ is a registered trademark of the Cyberajah Pty Ltd.</div>