Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Social science|~~~~}} 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 Social science. 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

This list includes sublists of deletion debates on articles related to language and history.

See also: Science-related deletions and Medicine-related deletions.

Social science

edit

Mega Society

edit
AfDs for this article:
Mega Society (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)

Not a notable society, it does not meet WP:NORG. It has been through 5 previous deletion discussions - deleted 3 times, no consensus once and kept once (in 2008). There are multiple sources on the page that I have carefully reviewed (I have collapsed the source analysis as it is long). The TL;DR is that some of its members are notable (and have pages): particularly Marilyn vos Savant. However, all other mentions in the sources are limited to the society's entry qualification which is supposedly 1 in a million IQ range (but is not, in fact). Many sources repeat that claim - some more critically than others - but no secondary sources go beyond this and tell us what this society does, what its outputs are, what its remit or purpose is, etc. It is essentially a club with a difficult entry requirement that does nothing notable. The founder, Ronald K. Hoeflin has a page (and also a string of other non notable societies to his name). Redirect there would be one possible AfD outcome.

Source Analysis
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
      The society's own web page, and in addition, their journal, Noesis, are clearly primary sources and also lack independence for the same reason. It is clear that any historian who wanted to write a history (a secondary source) about this society would find a gold mine in the pages of Noesis. However we cannot use that for a tertiary encyclopaedic article. We must wait for the historians first.    
  • Ellen Graham (1992-04-09). "For Minds of Mega, The Mensa Test Is a Real No-Brainer -- Rival IQ Societies Bicker Over Scores and Styles; Cindy Brady's Velocity". The Wall Street Journal.
   Cannot see any indication it is not independent   I have given it a yes on the assumption that the copies available [1] are what was published, but I have not been able to find the original yet to verify this.   This one goes a little further than most articles, but it is really about what Mega Society is not. It verifies its claims, and then subjects them to some scrutiny. The Mega Test, he says, measures "doggedness and reference skills." But again, there is really no ORGDEPTH here. It is all about who is allowed to join and nothing about what the society does. Nothing about outputs or impact or anything that would normally make a society notable. All we really see is it is notable for using a home made test to allegedly find the super intelligent (and doesn't really). That is all.    
  Small concerns about the similarity between articles (see below) but not enough to doubt the independence of this excellent source.     The first and lst of these have essentially the same text about the society despite being different authors. It would look like plagiarism, except that what is included is rather limited. Basically it is that the society claims to represent the 99.9999th percentile. The first one also mentions Langdon. Beyond the entry requirement, there is nothing about what the society is or does, nor history, nor activity. There is no in depth description of the society. It is basically just "pass this test, join this exclusive society". The first article adds "Critics question whether IQ tests measure intelligence accurately" but there is nothing more critical or in depth than this. None of these meet WP:ORGDEPTHn and you cannot create a page about an organisation based entirely upon its entry requirements.    
    The work is reliable although this uncritical reporting does not do them credit. Nevertheless they get a pass for reliability in general.   No ORGDEPTH. The Omni test was written by Ronald Hoeflin, founder of the Mega Society, a high-I.Q. club that makes Mensa look like preschool. Mensa membership is open to I.Q.s above 133 -- the smartest 2 percent of the American population. The Mega entrance requirement is an I.Q. of 176 or above, the 99.999th percentile, or one in a million people. Uncritical, errant, but certainly nothing from which an article can be written.   Secondary for the Mega Society although it is a news article with some primary information.  
      The only information about the society is that it has 16 members and entry is through the mega test. The remainder of the information is about Maxim and Langdon (running an unlisenced IQ test).   News report. Primary for the news reporting and there is no analysis.  
  vos Savant was writing on behalf of teh society, of which she was a member. Omni collaborated with the society and published their quiz. This is therefore clearly not independent.   I presume vos Savant would be reliable about the society.   6 pages on the society, although a large chunk is just data. However this would be more the kind of thing you could write an article about, if it were independent and secondary.   vos Savant is providing the societies lines in this article. That is a primary source.  
      The article is about Ronald Hoeflin and the Mega Society gets one passing mention as one of his many societies.    
    It's a gossip column. But at least it states its sources.   Passing mention. Still, Kevin Langdon, editor of the Mega Society Web site (the Mega Society is to Mensa what Ruth Bader Ginsburg is to Harriet Miers), while acknowledging the limitations of psychometric testing, offers a candidate for the honor [of 2nd most intelligent American]: Bob Dylan.    
    The article contains a small error. Vos Savant's 228 IQ was measured in childhood and is not her IQ now. It was measured at a time where it was actually a quotient divisible by age. Children with very high IQ scores see those scores regress towards the mean (whilst still remaining above average) as they get older. However this does not detract from the overall reliability of the newspaper.   Dr. Frank Luger is a member and membership was 30 at that time. That is all. Nothing about the society. Certainly not WP:ORGDEPTH. No inherited notability even if Luger were notable, but he has no Wikipedia page, so apparently is not.   It is news reporting about the membership. WP:PRIMARYNEWS although that is moot for this purpose as it fails on SIGCOV.  
  Information in Noesis makes it clear that Mega Society approached the Guinness Book of Records over the listing. Thus it is not independent.     Talks about Vos Savant as most intelligent person. Mentions that she and 2 others are members of this society. No information about the society.   Depends what you use it for. It is primary for the record, secondary for other uses.  
  • Castles, Elaine E. (6 June 2012). Inventing Intelligence. ABC-CLIO. p. 22. ISBN 978-1-4408-0338-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. And what is that makes Marilyn vos Savant so uniquely qualified to answer such questions? There is only one reason: she is listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as having the highest IQ ever recorded. Never mind that this record is based on a nonstandardized test put out by an obscure group known as Mega, supposedly the world's most selective organization of geniuses. Ignore the fact that test scores at the extreme ends of any distribution are notoriously unreliable.
       All we have is information about vos Savant, with this passing mention: Never mind that this record is based on a nonstandardized test put out by an obscure group known as Mega, supposedly the world's most selective organization of geniuses. Ignore the fact that test scores at the extreme ends of any distribution are notoriously unreliable.    
  • Roger D. Carlson (1991). Daniel J. Keyser; Richard C. Sweetland (eds.). Test Critiques (Volume VIII ed.). PRO-ED. pp. 431–435. ISBN 0-89079-254-2.
       This is looking at the Mega Test itself. It is a thorough look at the test (summing up by calling it number pulverisation) but it has no coverage of the eponymous society.    
  • Hunt, Earl (2011). Human Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 8. ISBN 978-0-521-70781-7.
       Does not mention the society at all   N/A - no mention  
  • Perleth, Christoph; Schatz, Tanja; Mönks, Franz J. (2000). "Early Identification of High Ability". In Heller, Kurt A.; Mönks, Franz J.; Sternberg, Robert J.; et al. (eds.). International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent (2nd ed.). Amsterdam: Pergamon. p. 301. ISBN 978-0-08-043796-5. norm tables that provide you with such extreme values are constructed on the basis of random extrapolation and smoothing but not on the basis of empirical data of representative samples.
     The source is reliable even though the one sentence mention contains an error.   Single sentence on page 113. All it says is entry requirement is a 176 IQ (one in a million). That is all. And that turns out to be wrong.    
  • Urbina, Susana (2011). "Chapter 2: Tests of Intelligence". In Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 20–38. ISBN 9780521739115. [Curve-fitting] is just one of the reasons to be suspicious of reported IQ scores much higher than 160
       Does not mention the society at all   N/A - no mention  

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. An old organization, well-known within the high-IQ society community, and a real curiosity from the point of view of the history of psychometrics in America. A number of its members were notable -- some even notorious -- in their own right: Rosner, vos Savant, Langan, Raniere... I understand that Paddles the cat is better covered by secondary sources, but I prefer an encyclopedia that has more than well-attested trivialities to offer. Let us preserve knowledge, however niche, let us not sacrifice this article. K-trivial (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The high-IQ world has only a few notable societies. Each of those listed on Ronald K. Hoeflin's page is both notable and active. I am unsure of the impetus behind the constant recommendations to delete valuable information on such a topic. UnitsReceived (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC) — UnitsReceived (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    ...few notable societies. Each of those listed on Ronald K. Hoeflin's page is both notable and active How should I interpret that claim in the context of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prometheus Society (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top One Percent Society and One-in-a-Thousand Society and Epimetheus Society? Only the Omega Society article hasn't been deleted yet, because it has yet to be written. Polygnotus (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you are not a member of any of these societies or others, such as MENSA or the Triple Nine Society. The Epimetheus Society, Prometheus Society, and Mega Society are widely known to the vast majority of members of these organizations. Multiple external sources discuss each of them, and given that non-members do not have access to the actual content, forums, discussions, or events taking place daily, it is impossible for non-members to know how active each society truly is. UnitsReceived (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You misunderstood what I wrote. You claimed that each of the societies listed on that article were notable. I showed that 4/6 articles were deleted for lack of notability, and one has not been written yet. Polygnotus (talk) 02:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not an argument for the article to be kept. If what you're saying is true, it's not verifiable, which means that, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it is wholly irrelevant. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 02:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and WP:SALT to Ronald K. Hoeflin. Seconding all of the points made by Polygnotus, Jjazz, and Sirfurboy. Throughout this article's long history very little constructive editing has occurred, and a non-insignificant amount of work has been put in to keep a few IP editors' contribs either NPOV, as well as the removal of a level of citation overkill that makes it extremely hard to claim good-faith contributions. I have also seen these editors then insert links to the page on many articles related to human intelligence generally, as well as some straight up incoherent additions of it. It is remarkable how most of the IPs/new users that have decided this article's survival is absolutely critical not only write in a similar tone (ie. thinly veiled condescension despite inability to engage with basic standards for contributing to articles constructively) but also similar tactics (ie. severe citation overkill, then an invocation of a good-faith defense when questioned on the irrelevance of their additions). I genuinely do not know what motivates a claim such as the above, that EVERY society noted on Hoeflin's page is notable and active. I have seen little to demonstrate that Mega Society was ever really "active" as a notable organisation given its member count and skeptical tone of the coverage it received (specifically in regard to the test itself, the only qualifier for membership) a few decades ago. It seems rather obvious to both Hoeflin and contemporaneous sources that the test itself provides dubious efficacy and has an standardized nature. IQ tests as a whole are still not direct proxies for intelligence, I don't see why an IQ test that didn't try to conform to the format of its peers, rejected any form of standardisation and outside feedback, which was used as an admission tool for a group of members that hardly cracked the double digits, is the foundation of an article that is of use to any reader. Transgenderoriole (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and WP:SALT to Ronald K. Hoeflin per points already raised. The society is mentioned in reliable sources, but the references aren't really about the society. Hoeflin is maybe notable, as are other reported members, but the society itself is not. CAVincent (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The three most well-established and oldest 4-sigma-plus IQ societies, despite being mentioned in reliable sources, are not considered notable? To each his own. UnitsReceived (talk) 04:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An account created for the purpose of commenting on this AfD is not considered credible? To each his own. CAVincent (talk) 05:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Issues in social nudity

edit
Issues in social nudity (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 hardly addresses issues, and is apparent from the get go with the introductory paragraph rehashing info that can be found in many other articles on nudism such as Nudity, Naturism, and Nude recreation, etc.. The article on Nudity especially has multiple sections dedicated to issues, in regards to its legality, cultural acceptance, and child development. The terminology section is totally unnecessary for an article about the issues related to a concept as it does not address any terms related to issues, only the history of naturist related terms themselves. Diversity in nudist clubs is not relevant to its issues unless those issues are stated, discussed, and sourced, which they are not, and would be more appropriate on articles covering specific cultural attitudes towards nudity as shown in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudity#Cultural_differences. The other issues and legality sections are short and can be moved elsewhere, other articles about nudity and naturism have subsections covering particular countries where these tidbits may be more relevant. Micahtchi (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Micahtchi (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Anything useful and not redundant here can be merged with one of the existing articles mentioned.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 05:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I poked around Talk:Naturism and apparently Issues in social nudity was intentionally spun off from Naturism in as part of an effort to reduce the size of that article. I don't think that has any bearing on whether or not to keep this article, but any editor wanting to move content from this article back to Naturism should be aware of the issues there. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw this before- what I got from it at the time (in the 2000s, so a while ago) was this person made a whole bunch of nudity related articles (that were too specific or unnecessary and were deleted or merged into articles like naturism and nudity, and seemed to get into a lot of fights about them too...). I think the reason it exists was because of old beefs and (in my opinion) an apparent desire to be first when it comes to writing these articles. I got this mainly from the original author's talk page. Micahtchi (talk) 07:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article has been PROD'd before so is not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Discussion as to whether and how the article can be improved, or whether an earlier split should be reverted, or whether parts of the article should be merged elsewhere, are appropriate for talk page discussion and not AFD. The article has at least some appropriate, not duplicated, referenced content so deletion at this stage is not appropriate. Thincat (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social science Proposed deletions

edit

Language

edit

Mind your Ps and Qs

edit
Mind your Ps and Qs (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)

dictionary definition of an English phrase with speculation about its etymology, cited to primary sources. wikt:mind one's ps and qs accomplishes what this is trying to do much better. and rightly so, for Wikipedia is not a dictionary. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 15:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All singing, all dancing

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

Fails GNG, lacks significant coverage. The article consists of a dictionary definition already better covered at wikt:all singing, all dancing, along with some trivia about shows on which the phrase has been mentioned. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 17:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The quick and the dead

edit
The quick and the dead (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 consists of a dictionary definition, an etymology, and some mentions of its usage, pretty much all of which is original research. If there's any indication that this even counts as a standard phrase, it would do better as a Wiktionary entry. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 14:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the piss

edit
AfDs for this article:
Taking the piss (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)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. An entry at Wiktionary already exists. A previous AfD nomination with the same rationale closed as keep, but the arguments presented for keep there seem to be of the "I like it" variety. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 10:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Whilst not a dictionary I believe this article has value beyond providing a definition for the phrase, including basic etymology and cultural significance across multiple countries. Current refs aren't exhaustive but provide a decent foundation to why this may meet notability standards.Triplefour (talk) 12:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep that article does look like an encyclopedic entry about the phrase as opposed to a dictionary definition. SportingFlyer T·C 18:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the frying pan into the fire

edit
AfDs for this article:
Out of the frying pan into the fire (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:NOTDICT. The article was deleted twice before, in 2006 and 2008 respectively, over the same concerns. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 11:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf in sheep's clothing

edit
Wolf in sheep's clothing (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)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article consists of etymology better fitting for Wiktionary, loosely thrown together trivia about literature inspired by the phrase, and uses of the phrase to describe the phenomenon of zoological mimicry, which already has its article. None of it is encyclopaedic, all of it can be (and is) better mentioned elsewhere. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 11:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree WP isn't a dictionary but this article has some encyclopedic value. Alexeyevitch(talk) 12:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has encyclopedic value as it's a popular idiomatic expression and this is evident in the average number of article views per month at around eight thousand. It only needs working on to remodel it within the scope of its title. Mekomo (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is a consideration of a large body of literary fables inspired by the original figure of speech. Where I would agree is that the title is unfortunately titled, making the article appear to be focussed on the figure of speech. It might function better if it were rewritten under a composite title like, for example, The wolf in disguise. Sweetpool50 (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article is expressly about the phrase, and is titled correctly for that. A separate article on the literary trope might be viable, but this is not that article. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 14:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • okay, I see going back into the history, it was created as an article on the fable. The current pretty much says that the original is incorrect, and the fables aren't by Aesop, but are based on the phrase, not the other way around. The edits have also substantially altered the scope of the article. Would it make sense to change it again to be about the fables, or should a new article be created about the trope (a broader topic)? TryKid [dubious – discuss] 14:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article has encyclopedic value as a widely recognized idiom with significant cultural, historical, and literary relevance. It originates from biblical and fable traditions, and this phrase has transcended its initial context to become a universal metaphor for deception and hidden malevolence. I suggest including more about the cultural and societal implications of this phrase. However, minor issues can be resolved without deleting the entire article. DocZach (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • wikt:wolf in sheep's clothing already records where it originates from; dictionaries also record etymological information. It's use (not origin!) in fable traditions is also akin to myriad art and literature that are often based on this or that phrase, collecting all that on one page on the phrase is essentially trivia. People often use phrases as metaphors, yes, that's what they are for. Collecting a bunch of sources *using* a phrase, without any *mentioning* it, or describing it in more detail than a dictionary definition is not enough for an encyclopaedia. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 14:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the sources seem to be enough to pass WP:GNG. I would also argue that the article is encyclopedic, since as an idiom it warrants more coverage than a mere dictionary entry can provide.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a major topic. It meets GNG the usual way, with multiple, independent, reliable sources. The zoology sources alone demonstrate its notability, but the article goes into much more depth than that on its literary side. It far exceeds a dictionary definition, to put it mildly. Nom argues in this thread that the article is (only) about the phrase, but that is not so: it is about the uses made of the phrase, an encyclopedic subject. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a WP:DICDEF. Meets WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of online language tutoring platforms

edit
List of online language tutoring platforms (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)

Does not appear to meet WP:NLIST. The one cited source discussing a group is about language learning apps in general, not "language tutoring platforms" specifically. – Joe (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dobbert

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

Delete - article has been unsourced since its inception. The sketchy source that I found earlier in November turns out to be cribbed from Marble (toy) anyway. My WP:BEFORE found no other mention of the word dobbert to mean a marble. So I do not think that this is sufficiently notable. N.B. https://archive.org/details/glossaryoflancas00nodauoft/page/106/mode/2up has dobber as does https://dsl.ac.uk/entry/snd/dabber_n2, but not dobbert. SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MotaWord

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

No indication of notability per WP:NCORP. All sources found are press releases or clearly unreliable, and additional searching on the topic found nothing that shows clear notability. CutlassCiera 00:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global Language Monitor

edit
AfDs for this article:
Global Language Monitor (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)

"Company" identifies no product or marketable service, notes no clients, as of October 2024 has no recent web or social media presence, url is for sale. Sources are dead and unrecoverable. It does however seem to have been a prolific producer of press releases and had garnered some publicity. Just no evidence it has ever existed as a real company. Doprendek (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. I share the nominator's skepticism about the company's status as a company. However, claims attributed to this company have been reported frequently in the media. This in turn has triggered numerous debunkings in the linguistics blogosphere, as well as posts complaining more generally about the company's tendency towards misinformation. This isn't quite the gold standard of SIGCOV, but it's in the ballpark. Additionally, I think there's an IAR argument to be made in favour of keeping, namely that the article (if well-maintained) could help journalists vet their sources. Botterweg (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it is a defunct website that Language Log didn't like 15 years ago. Is there any more to be said? Older versions of this article have excessively-long wordlists from their website added by promotional editing, but nothing interesting about the company. Just because it is cited more than twice doesn't mean it meets GNG. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not going to support keeping this just because non-US sources mistakenly believed it to be something it was not; but I acknowledge that if there are enough of those sources there will not be consensus to delete. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a promotional book written by the company's CEO, so it's not an independent source. Botterweg (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you combine it with the other sources, it helps give context. The first two in my first comment are fine. Oaktree b (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The choices here are between the derision of American linguists (some of whom I know to have bona fides) and the praise of folks publishing in "European Publisher", where the remainder of that site has some dubious grammar and has all of the hallmarks of a non-serious enterprise. For example, on the EP web site one of the subjects they claim to publish in is Education, but when you click on Education you are told there are no publications. Various other links also open blank pages. The claim is that EP is based in the UK - all of the editors, staff, and any authors I saw are Russian. Sorry to bang on about this, but I'm guessing "predatory publication." Lamona (talk) 06:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded articles

edit


History

edit

Battle of Rogovë

edit
Battle of Rogovë (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)

Is WP:NOT, does not meet the criteria for a wikipedia article as it is not in-depth and neither are the sources Peja mapping (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion of France (1795) order of battle

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

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

List of wars involving the Mughal Empire

edit
List of wars involving the Mughal Empire (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)

Perhaps I dont understand whats need of this redirect it seems as POV Fork and should simply merged with List of Battles involving Mughal Empire and that article should see some improvement.I certainly see that by this we are simply giving someone a peak level of confusion. Edasf«Talk» 13:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I couldn't find a List of Battles involving Mughal Empire article. There's a List of battles between Mughals and Sikhs, but it doesn't cover many of the wars stated in the article. IdanST (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IdanST List of battles involving the Mughal Empire Edasf«Talk» 15:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're right.
However, I see the article was changed to contain only wars redirects, with a 'See also' redirect to List of battles involving the Mughal Empire. As such, both articles fulfill different roles now, and because of that I remain on 'Keep'. IdanST (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IdanST It was done recently so, my problem is over. Edasf«Talk» 03:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The two article deal with quite different subjects, and the content forking in the article was of recent nature, now previous version restored. Sutyarashi (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sutyarashi I don't know what one gets from such a disambiguation page but ol fine. Edasf«Talk» 17:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Sing-yung

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

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

Siege of Bahrain (1811)

edit
Siege of Bahrain (1811) (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 amongst many poorly sourced and unverifiable articles by this editor. Doesn't seem notable. HistoryofIran (talk) 03:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Tabriz (1757)

edit
Battle of Tabriz (1757) (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)

"There Mohammad Hassan Khan occupied Tabriz". That is literally all this article says about this "battle". The cited source doesn't say anything more than that ("First Tabrīz fell then,). Doesn't seem notable. HistoryofIran (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ilkhanate campaign to Bithynia

edit
Ilkhanate campaign to Bithynia (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 of many questionable articles by this editor. Couldn't find anything about this so called event - doesn't seem notable. This is the only part of the article that only talks about this event; "This Ilkhanid army succeeded in recapturing several Ottoman-held castles and towns in the region and dealt a blow to Osman I's forces" HistoryofIran (talk) 04:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving South Korea

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

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

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

List of molecules by year of discovery

edit
List of molecules by year of discovery (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 highly inaccurate and misleading as of right now. It is also rather impossible to make a list of molecules by year of discovery, even if it were to be constrained to the 19th century. The contents of the theories of molecules, discovery of aromaticity, etc. is much better described elsewhere. Perhaps should at least be merged into History of molecular theory. Pygos (talk) 11:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a very hard list to handle. The current list contains a very strange and random selection of molecules. Given the millions of known molecules (Chemspider contains 100,000,000 ) our list needs to be selective. We could make it a navigational list of wiki-notable molecules, but we have a truly enormous number of articles on individual molecules, and most readers will be searching by criteria other than year-of-discovery, so it would be a pretty unhelpful list. We could more usefully make it a curated list of molecules whose discovery was a historical stepping-stone, such as benzene. But to do that, we need a proper discussion of the inclusion-criteria before we make the list. So for the moment, delete the list, but if anyone wants a list, start a discussion somewhere about how to do it. I would have no objection to converting my keep to a blank-and-discuss if such things exist. I don't think we're allowed to draftify as the current list is too old. Elemimele (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Is the creator of this list seriously suggesting that Umeclidinium bromide is the only significant molecule discovered in the 21s century? More generally "a very strange and random selection of molecules" sums it up. Athel cb (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete There were already users who agreed via prod, prod2, and the creator's redirection that that is an unworkable list. So it's rather absurd that an RFD with three delete votes resulted in this being restored instead just to waste time rediscussing the obvious. Reywas92Talk 16:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Almost infinitely expandable list, and anyway, important milestones in the history of chemistry can be better organized than just a database-dump of molecules ordered by year of discovery. That's just trivia. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive in Podrinje (1993)

edit
Offensive in Podrinje (1993) (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)

After removing unreliable local news portals etc, we are left with citations to two pages of the CIA history. I checked them, and all three of the citations failed verification, the only apparent reference to this fighting being a paragraph fragment as follows: "The VRS Drina Corps attacked again late in May and crushed Muslim forces in the salient , driving them back some 15 kilometers to the Praca River and eliminating the threat to Visegrad . Follow - on attacks from Cajnice in the southeast toward Gorazde itself , however , gained little ground . " on page 185. This isn't significant coverage, and therefore doesn't meet WP:N. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, to be clear i didnt put this sources but i think that this offensive is in one official book, i will try to find and add content in it, if its bad or not proper, then delete the whole thing (just please dont bring opera singer admins to blocc me like in smolucca) Wynnsanity (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like someone didn't go to geography classes. Podrinje means "on the river Drina" or "next to the Drina" and thus includes the entire region. at the same time, I checked your claims and of course they are fake, if you had entered and edited the pages without bad intentions, you would have seen that on page 186 it is written "The Bosnian Serbs had nevertheless achieved most of their 1993 objectives in the Drina valley and This time Muslim bravery alone was not enough to prevail against the stronger, better organized and better led Serb troops. The text is badly written and the sources are in the wrong place, but I won't say anything because I understand everything about you and I don't want to be blocked because I love Wikipedia. If you would be kind enough to allow me to only summarize the entire Balkan Battlegrounds article here as I did before, I would appreciate it, thank you Sir Wynnsanity (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you keep adding material to articles that is clearly not supported by the sources, then you are clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia. I’m not sure what it is you think you are doing, but it is extremely unhelpful to the encyclopaedia. Please stop doing it, either through this account, meat puppets or IPs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
??? 1) I only use this account, the fact that other users are not satisfied with you is your problem 2.) I wrote a text that only appears in Balkan Battl. 3.) you have no arguments and never had any 2A00:10:9910:4C01:193C:197E:5B6B:E8CC (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They say, from an IP. With regards especially to your last point, please remember not to make personal attacks. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terence O'Reilly

edit
Terence O'Reilly (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 does not demonstrate a notable character. And the editor User:LINCOLN2024 who moved it to the main space has been blocked for WP:SOCK, where he has a string of articles moved to the main space without being checked. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 09:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 15:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign relations of the Magadhan Empire

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

A mess of WP:SYNTH connecting disparate incidents across centuries. The subject topic itself ("Foreign relations of the Magadhan Empire") has received no significant coverage in reliable sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep has proper sources backing everything up.
JingJongPascal (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edasf«Talk» 15:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Not covered as a distinct topic in sources. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

List of terrorist incidents in North Macedonia

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

The whole article is originally researched and violates MOS:TERRORIST. The sources are not conclusive about whether any of these events can be designated as "terrorist". StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is no originally research here nor MOS:TERRORIST violation. In fact, there are no resources in this article and barely any explanation besides "North Macedonia is a landlocked country in Southeast Europe. It shares land borders with Kosovo to the northwest, Serbia to the north, Bulgaria to the east, Greece to the south, and Albania to the west. Below is an incomplete list of terrorist incidents that occurred in North Macedonia" and a list of Wikipedia topics of attacks and conflicts. IdanST (talk) 10:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the originally researched part. There are no reliable sources that classify these incidents as "terrorist". StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All sources are listed in their respective Wikipedia articles, and from an initial review and checking some, they appear to be reliable. IdanST (talk) 10:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited those articles. Articles themselves are not considered reliable. List articles are also subject to WP:V, so citing sources is required on such articles too.
Even if we go by the articles, we'll see that on its respective article, the 2001 insurgency is not classified as a terrorist incident. Neither are the Vejce massacre, Kondovo crisis and the 2014 government attack (unresolved case), nor have I encountered sources who classify them as such. The attack at Gošince has been classified as such by the government but the case is unresolved. The Smilkovci Lake killings have also been classified as such by the government and some experts (before the convictions), and there were also terrorism convictions. The Kumanovo clashes have also been classified as such by the government and there were terrorism convictions. All three occurred when there were ethnic tensions and a political crisis, so their status is controversial. StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it's WP:V violation. I've added RS to all listed attacks. However, I don't know how 2001 insurgency in Macedonia is related to this list. IdanST (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename - at least three of these incidents were carried out by or claimed by the National Liberation Army. I think it's useful to group them and show how the situation has evolved or progressed over time and how other instances of ethnic-driven violence have occurred but it might be helpful to be specific in the claims of the list. Other countries (Saudi Arabia, the Philippines, etc.) have much long lists but are not always linked to an article. There are many ways to rework this but I think it's worth keeping around. Kazamzam (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any title(s) in mind? My view has not changed so far but a name change can be considered. StephenMacky1 (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dečan operation

edit
Dečan operation (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 entire section on the operation itself is unsourced, and it has 0 information on the actual operation, only explaining the lay-out of the operation and that the KLA were entrenched. The sources only mention the casualties and are not in-depth. The article is also not writen from a neutral prespective with it refering to the KLA as "terrorists" and using serbian letters for Albanian names like Hashim Thaçi. This article is WP:NOT Peja mapping (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

1820 Missouri lieutenant gubernatorial election

edit
1820 Missouri lieutenant gubernatorial election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I fail to see how this election is notable enough to warrant its own page. Like anything, elections aren't automatically or inherently notable merely because they happened (WP:NRV). I can't find any coverage on the election besides that D-R candidate Ashley became Lt. Governor, and that's it. There isn't any information on how many votes he received or why the election was unopposed. Basically everything here can be found on Ashley's page and the Lieutenant Governor of Missouri page. Also, the only source used in the article is OurCampaigns (marked as unreliable on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial_sources), which in my experience frequently provides incorrect information, including fabricating details and candidates. Wowzers122 (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they suffer from the same problem. For example on how OurCampaings is a bad source see this version of the 1845 governor election in Virginia and this version of the 1848 governor election in Virginia where the article, using OurCampaigns, says the candidate won unopposed with a single person casting a ballot. When you look at those pages now, with reliable sources, you can see that's not the case.

1824 Missouri lieutenant gubernatorial election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1828 Missouri lieutenant gubernatorial election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1840 Missouri lieutenant gubernatorial election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (also marked with a may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline template)
1844 Missouri lieutenant gubernatorial election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1848 Missouri lieutenant gubernatorial election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1852 Missouri lieutenant gubernatorial election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1856 Missouri lieutenant gubernatorial election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1864 Missouri lieutenant gubernatorial election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1868 Missouri lieutenant gubernatorial election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1870 Missouri lieutenant gubernatorial election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Keep all. The nominator has clearly not followed WP:BEFORE; or if they did not competently. In less than two minutes I found this on the 1820 election: [10] which shows that 1. It was not an uncontested election 2. There were three candidates on the ballot, one of whom (Nathaniel Cook) had a vote count just slightly lower then William H. Ashley. It was a close election. The current article is just wrong and full of factual errors. A major office at the state level falls under WP:NPOL and reasonably elections for politicians who meet WP:NPOL are all notable/encyclopedic because that office is deemed encyclopedic. Also this should be a procedural close because WP:SIGCOV on these elections is going to be different for each one, and this a procedurally a bad bundled nomination that would be overturned easily at WP:DELETIONREVIEW for bad process. 4meter4 (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All as repetitious electioncruft. I tried to fight against these kinds of articles in the past to little success, so I am a little bit biased against these types. WP:NPOL is not about elections, but politicians. -1ctinus📝🗨 02:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Could editors arguing for a Merge supply target articles for each of the listed articles under discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of last survivors of historical events

edit
List of last survivors of historical events (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 list is a good example of what Wikipedia is not about. Per WP:NLIST, a list should only exist "if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." While there are a few sources of dubious quality that list general groups of last survivors together, these seem to rely on the existence of this Wikipedia list, as many include Eliza Moore, a once erroneous entry on this list. When her name was removed here, she stopped being referenced in these near Wikipedia mirrors.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Given the woefully broad inclusion criterion of this list, this list is. Wikipedia is not a repository of loosely associated topics. This list is, as it contains entries as broad as the last living player from the 1950 World Cup to the last living Currier and Ives staff member. WP:CROSSCAT also applies. Per WP:LSC, "as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of lists should be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence." schetm (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The idea of last survivors discussed as a group is mentioned in reliable sources (see below) that don't seem to be mirrors of this page. We have many articles on people who are solely known as a last survivor (such as Ivan Martynushkin, Sun Yaoting), and this article is a meaningful grouping that is reported on in RS, even though the scope is indeed too broad. If the list is cut down only to notable people and has a higher bar for significance of the event (sinking of the Titanic instead of the 1911 Indianapolis 500), it merits inclusion.
https://www.amazon.com/Last-Leaf-Historys-Last-Known-Survivors/dp/161614162X
https://irl.umsl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1408&context=thesis
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Last_Survivors_of_Historical_Events.html?id=9Nc4QQAACAAJ&source=kp_book_description
https://www.aarp.org/politics-society/history/info-07-2010/last_leaf_photos_of_history_last_survivors.html
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Last_Leaf.html?id=TeXlURw0-w8C&source=kp_book_description PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well, first: three of your links are the same book and/or a review of the book. Next, the second source is a bachelor's thesis (hardly a reliable source). Last, The Last Survivors of Historical Events, Movies, Disasters, and More is a trivia collection intended as a coffee table book (it says right there in the description.) Put simply, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. wound theology◈ 07:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of last survivors is regularly reported on, showing that it is a topic of general interest. The Last Leaf writes about them as a group, and few months there is a new obituary about "the last survivor of X". Examples:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/05/19/viola-fletcher-tulsa-race-massacre-survivor/
https://www.npr.org/2024/04/03/1242430911/lou-conter-uss-arizona-pearl-harbor
https://english.elpais.com/culture/2022-11-07/the-manhattan-projects-last-survivor.html
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/dec/19/zora-neale-hurston-study-of-last-survivor-of-us-slave-trade-to-be-published
I think this shows RS see this concept as notable, as they put it in the headline for such people. There is, no doubt, a problem with this article; but that is its cruftiness in including every random event with non-notable people. If we stiffen the criteria for inclusion, this article has a place in the encyclopedia. Also, as @4meter4 wrote, there are many examples of last survivor narratives from RS and in academic writing (such as for the slave trade and Holocaust events), showing that this is a noteworthy topic. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:NLIST per PlotinusEnjoyer. Like it or not, humans have a fascination with "last survivors"; even to the point that there is curriculum built around the concept across multiple unrelated events. The Last Leaf is clearly a solid book treating this as a discussed group. Interestingly enough this list became the subject of a piece published by the AV Club. Theres also lots of these sort of lists floating around the internet which (while not great sources for our purposes) show a general interest in this as a unifying concept, like [11], [12], [13]. Being the last survivor is also reported on routinely, so sourcing this list isn't an issue. We as humans record these things, which is why this list has so many WP:RS materials. There are also historical research publications that talk about last survivor narratives broadly which I think bolsters the concept of this being discussed as a group or set. One example is the excerpt: from a journal in google scholar Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a bit of a tangent, but I would not use Medium as evidence here. It's not a WP:Reliable source (see WP:MEDIUM), but more than that it has been known to plagiarize Wikipedia, so it becomes kind of circular to say that it demonstrates that there is interest in a topic. TompaDompa (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think I already pointed out that it wasn't usable for our purposes as WP:RS in my original statement. The Medium (website) platform itself has a distribution on social media that is unlike wikipedia, and it selects content based on what they think its users will be interested in. That was really my point (it wasn't a sourcing based argument to include it). Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I know you weren't suggesting to cite it (not great sources for our purposes), but my point is that since they sometimes rip off Wikipedia, their decision to have an article on a topic can reflect the existence of such an article on Wikipedia more than a general interest in the topic. I know that they have plagiarized low-traffic Wikipedia content before. TompaDompa (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if you've actually read the links you've provided here. The "curriculum" has nothing to do with last survivors of historical events but is related to a documentary about the survivors of genocides in Darfur, the Congo, Rwanda, and so on -- something very different from being the last surviving member of an Alaskan board meeting and the sort of thing tabulated on this page. The "journal in Google Scholar" similarly has nothing to do with last survivors of historical events, but talks about the literary trope of being a "last survivor" of a nation or race or species (I Am Legend is cited as an example in the paper.) Other than The Last Leaf, nothing you've provided here is a solid source; furthermore, evidence that people show a general interest in a topic does not mean we should have an article on said topic. Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia.
    The simple fact of the matter here is this list is far too broad to be of any use and the major examples that are note worthy are given elsewhere. wound theology◈ 01:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wound theology You don't need to WP:BLUDGEON the process.4meter4 (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As it happens, one of my great-grandfathers was the last known survivor of the Indian Mutiny, and his unmarried daughter was the last known person to receive a pension from the Honorable East India Company. Does that make either of them notable? Of course not. It just means that they lived to great ages (99 in his case, 80 in hers). Athel cb (talk) 09:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In a different context I'd vote to keep but seeing how it's hopeless to set standards here, I don't think the page can be salvaged. @PlotinusEnjoyer just deleted the entry for the Immortal Seven but Charles Rangel is still here. News flash: a group of men behind the Glorius Revolution are more of a historical event than a loosely grouped of politicians. Killuminator (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should set standards that people agree on. I will stop deleting until editors can agree on that. I was just trying to save the page; as I agree the majority of the entries on the list have no place here, but the article should still exist. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Colombia–Nicaragua relations

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

Unnecessary split of Colombia–Nicaragua relations. In fact, I'm not familiar with any other timeline article on foreign relations. This page covers some incidents not mentioned on the parent article, yes, but there's no reason it couldn't be covered there instead — the parent article is not very long and would absolutely benefit from more context. — Kawnhr (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change my Delete vote to Merge, makes more sense — Maile (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no compelling reason to delete. No problem with the article cannot be resolved with improvements. As for the existence of these types of articles, here are some international relations timeline articles: Timeline of Hungary–European Union relations, Timeline of Japan–United States relations Mason7512 (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as participants are divided between Keep and Merge outcomes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Smoluća

edit
AfDs for this article:
Siege of Smoluća (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 siege, its relief and the evacuation of the population is covered in a short paragraph in the comprehensive two-volume US history of these wars, Balkan Battlegrounds. It doesn't include much of what is in the current paragraph headed Order of battle, and when summarised would amount to a few sentences at best. A Google Books search adds very little in terms of possible reliable sources, none of which constitute significant coverage. I could trim it down to just what the source does say, but the editor responsible has done this before, and therefore this is a classic WP:TNT candidate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that this was a minor action in the overall fighting for the Posavina region from March 1992 to January 1993, and might be mentioned in a larger article on those operations. But it is definitely not notable on its own. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find enough significant coverage to justify keeping the article. Coverage may exist, but if it exists it is probably buried in obscure books. Noah 💬 20:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
prolonged back-and-forth with a user who is now blocked as a CU-confirmed sock.
Hello, i can add sources to this article if you let me. It will take a little bit of time because i am finding sources for another article Wynnsanity (talk) 09:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion you are not right. This is a sige and if we have siege of žepa and another smaller cities we should have for this also. Its not the minor action because a lot of civis were saved and both sides took heavy casulties. There are also not so much books about this war in english because nobody cares to be honest about balkans. I agree that is bad if we have only 1 english and 10 serb sources on english wiki but the other articles for other side also have just some tabloid blogs and they are not deleted or even marked as "bad sources", is it a coincidence? I would not say so
All the best Wynnsanity (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All you need is significant coverage in reliable sources. They don't have to be in English. telegraf.rs isn't a reliable source, neither are blogs, fora, local town news portals with no real editorial oversight, or fanboi websites. Most of the articles being created about the Balkan wars of the 90s at the moment are incredibly poorly sourced. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree that telegraph is not good source. Can you give me a day or two to find better? I think that they are very badly sources because people from that area dont write or talk about it much, its "taboo". Thanks Wynnsanity (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peacemaker, i will undo your text edit today if its okay for you because it will be a lot easier for me to work on this article if i have first version not this one, i will also add content and relevant sources to it right after. I hope you understand and dont mind. Best Wynnsanity (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need, I was caught up with other things and neglected this article. As peace maker said, it does not need its own article since this was a part of a wider Bosnian TO campaign in Lukavac. I might also add that when I first made this article, I was very inexperienced and didn’t know anything about copyright. Orhov (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i made changes and fixed the problem that peacemaker suggested, if you are the editor its up to you, best Wynnsanity (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the article should be retained if more is added, like a prelude or aftermath, that is if it is backed up by reliable material. If not, then that is fine with me. Orhov (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to include that, thanks Wynnsanity (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The citations that have been added, like "Fooian & Foo 2002, p. XXX" are not verifiable as they don't provide the title of the book, or publisher etc. No-one can look at it and then check if it is reliable and accurately reflects what is is supposed to be supporting. Unless the full citations are added, we cannot be assured that significant coverage exists in reliable sources, and therefore the article should be deleted. Also, the removal of the material about the Serbs evacuating and withdrawing due to ARBiH pressure and the town being occupied by them is directly relevant to the subject, and deletion of it could be considered censorship to only indicate one side's version of the engagement. I strongly suggest you re-instate it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but this is totally absurd. First of all, in Bosnia people are all Bosnians(muslim, orthodox and catholic) and you cant look at them "black and white" like you do and in every article saying "Bosnians never did anything", "Bosnian atrocities i dont think so" etc. When we few people(editors) who are benevolently editing wikipedia will be deprived of your non-existent criteria where you always want more and more and more and then delete our works and add stars to your main page for contributions, cringe. This is not "one side" POV because here in the article they only explain what happend during the siege and shelling wich is fair and totally honest and you cant as wiki admin look to this topic like that one side never did anything bad and want a milion sources to be "assured", thats not serious. And when one neutral editor "Fanboi" as you called him posted yesterday all that you have asked for(siege, civis..) you have ofcourse ignored and continued with your agenda. Article was in bad shape until we make it be a lot better with our good faith edits, i personally have a big collection about this topics and this is not Naoleonic War to have thousand best sources. I will undo my edits because i dont know how to add and you will have another sources from other editors wich are also not your taste but every article with "Sanjak NEWS, BLOGSPOT" is okay and "reliable" to you because one side is always the victim and we are all "Fanboi", says who? Bill Clinton? Pretty sad to be honest. Wynnsanity (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what are you on about exactly? I have never done anything of the sort. I have rarely edited articles about the Yugoslav Wars of the 90s because I was there for some of it, but the sudden flurry of poorly sourced articles about obscure events drew my attention. Have you even read the reliable source policy? The verifiability policy? These are fundamental to what we do, as is WP:NPOV. All en WP expects is for these many newly created articles on the Yugoslav Wars to be notable in their own right and reliably sourced. If that is too much for you, then perhaps en WP is not for you. If you tell me what the titles are of the books you provided short citations (authors and year of publication, but nothing else) for, I can check them for reliability and that they actually support what you say they do. If they are reliable and do what you say, then perhaps the article will meet WP:N. I know it can be frustrating when other editors question your work, but that is what we do here. It isn't a blog or forum. In any case, take a chill pill, good grief... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did a Google search for Borojević and it quickly identified him as a self-published author of aviation books (in the main), and results also indicate he served in the JNA then VRS during the Bosnian War and continued to serve in the VRS afterwards. So, for starters, he's not a historian; secondly, he's self-published; and he's closely affiliated with the VRS given he served in the VRS and the VRS were involved in this engagement. The perception (if not actuality) of a conflict of interest and a likely axe to grind is pretty obvious. I cannot see how his book can be considered reliable, and it certainly can't be used to demonstrate the notability of an article. I will now remove the citations to Borojević from the article. If you believe the book is reliable, feel free to ask for a community opinion at WP:RSN. I have also posted this to Wynnsanity's talk page. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You tell me to take pills to calm down, knowing that I'm right in everything I said, but it doesn't matter, I'm used to it here. This is isnt blogforum but is also not your forum to whatever you want. I apologize because I did not write in English how to get to the book, so it turned out that I was manipulating, which is not the case. I think the editor wrote according to that book, I didn't know it was self-proclaimed because it seemed official to me Wynnsanity (talk) 09:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s be really clear here. Nothing I am saying is MY “policy”. Everything I have observed reflects English Wikipedia policy. Now we have more “references” without a title or publisher. What are the titles of the books please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that is impossible to talk with you. You can sell that story to someone else, not me. I don't want to waste my time on insignificant things when anyone with a wrong woldview of can destroy my hard and good work. I'm done with this so delete and do whatever you want. goodbye 2A00:10:990A:F501:40F6:9E0D:C07D:A148 (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for this kind of contentious and contested topic I’d expect sources of the highest quality. Failing that I don’t think we should take anything on trust. There’s too much POV-driven Balkan rubbish on this site anyway. Mccapra (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article has already been to AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option. Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I have now removed all the material that is not supported by the two main sources (separate chapters in the same book), both of have barely a paragraph or less on this siege, and some concluding material from the CIA history of the Balkan conflicts. I have removed material supposedly supported by the bare citations with no long citation, as I can't conduct verification. I have also cleaned up the infobox to remove material not supported by the sources. The image has been removed, as it is obviously just a screen shot from a video on youtube or whatever, and is therefore a blatant copyright violation. Other than some minor additional detail from the CIA history, this is the sum total of what is in the verified sources. Please do not restore unsupported material, I will just delete it. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peacemaker67, are you still in favour of deleting the article? -- asilvering (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m just working through the additional sources, so not sure yet. My view is that the main body (not background) needs to have more than one good source that gives this siege significant coverage, in order for it to meet WP:N. Once I’ve checked everything, I’ll review my nomination and see if I reckon it should still be deleted. Thanks for following up. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the edited down version by Peacemaker as it passes WP:SIGCOV and removes the WP:OR. If there are future problems after this AFD, I suggest a topic ban be imposed on Red Spino and Wynnsanity and some kind of Protection added to the page. I hope the closing admin will continue to monitor the page and pursue that course of action if there are recurring problems.4meter4 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Normally we only relist a debate twice, but I am making an exception here due to the filibustering of the first week of debate by a user now confiormed to be a sockpuppet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History Proposed deletions

edit

History categories

edit

for occasional archiving

Proposals

edit
  1. ^ Lorimer, Gordon (1915). Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf. Vol I. Historical. Government of Bombay. p. 843.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Social_science&oldid=1259320671"