Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science

Points of interest related to Social science on Wikipedia: Category – Deletions – Stubs

Points of interest related to Sociology on Wikipedia: Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

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:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science/archive

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

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

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

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

Fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY as a non-notable WP:NEO. Does not appear to have caught on past its initial coinage and reporting. ~ A412 ^talk! 15:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Social science and Internet. ~ A412 ^talk! 15:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yuu Matsuura (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)

Article gives no indication that the subject passes WP:NACADEMIC. According to Google Scholar, the subject has a total of 18 citations [1]. Astaire (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Sexuality and gender, Social science, and Japan. Astaire (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: They have published this book "Guide to Aro/Ace" (in japanese) but I don't have any details on it being a significant book. The article appears to be mostly translated from the Japanese article of the same name but without attribution so that should be fixed as well. Moritoriko (talk) 06:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I am the translator of this article. I translated it from the Japanese Wikipedia, and I apologize for omitting attribution to the original sources in the translation. I decided to translate the article because the subject has published a sole-authored academic book, received an award from Japan’s largest sociological association, had their research translated and introduced in other languages, and appears to be active outside academia as well. For these reasons, I believed the article was worth translating. While I acknowledge that some parts may currently lack sufficient information, I believe it would be more constructive to improve the article by adding reliable sources rather than deleting it.--QJmisaki (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  the subject has published a sole-authored academic book This is not relevant to NACADEMIC #1, unless the book has had a "significant impact".

  received an award from Japan’s largest sociological association Receiving the 23rd Japan Sociological Society Encouraging Award (Article Category) - basically an emerging scholar award - seems like a respectable achievement, but not "highly prestigious" as required by NACADEMIC #2.

  had their research translated and introduced in other languages Having research translated is not by itself evidence of significant impact.

  appears to be active outside academia as well You are welcome to produce sources to help meet WP:GNG, because I still don't see the case for NACADEMIC. Astaire (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It’s true that, based on the information available online, there may not be sufficient evidence that the subject meets the WP:NACADEMIC criteria. However, as I understand it, not meeting WP:NACADEMIC does not automatically require deletion. In particular, it is important to consider that minority groups in non-Western contexts are often underrepresented on Wikipedia (WP:GLOBALIZE). Even if the article does not fully meet WP:NACADEMIC, the information presented may still suggest a certain level of notability. QJmisaki (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• For reference, An Introduction to Asexuality and Aromanticism is the first academic book on the topic in Japanese. Additionally, many Japanese academic publications, particularly books, are not indexed by Google Scholar, so citation counts there may not accurately reflect the significance of Japanese-language sources.--QJmisaki (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  An Introduction to Asexuality and Aromanticism is the first academic book on the topic in Japanese Do you have a secondary source that says this? Being the first academic book on X in language Y is not by itself evidence of significant impact in a field. Has the book been widely reviewed by academics and the media, has it been cited and interpreted by other scholars, etc.? Since it just came out this year - I'm guessing no. Astaire (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Based on what I was able to find online, there is one review of the book written by an academic, which appears to be a reprint of a review originally published in a journal. However, it does not state that this is the first academic book in Japanese on Aro/Ace topics. While I do not have detailed information, it seems the book was also featured on two radio programs (https://www.joqr.co.jp/qr/article/150765/ and https://www.tbsradio.jp/articles/93833/), both broadcast by legally licensed stations in Japan. Additionally, I found that the book is listed as a reference in a university syllabus, this is just for reference. QJmisaki (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment while I'm neutral about this, try searching the Japanese name into google using above. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per nom. The vast majority of sources appear to be retroactive to the subject itself, lacking third-party sources. Svartner (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Push from the Bush (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)

Interesting topic but doesn’t appear to satisfy WP:GN or WP:NBOOK. ~ BlueTurtles | talk 11:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Australia. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I found this mention in a 1978 edition of The Canberra Times, but it's not quite SIGCOV in my view. I also found this mention in The Australian Library Journal and a few sentences about the journal in this issue of Labour History, but again neither are quite SIGCOV. I thought the discussion in this book looked promising, but like most of what I found, the relevant chapter turned out to be written by one of the journal's editors. It looks like The Push from the Bush was part of a larger project encompassing several journals and volumes called Australians: A Historical Library that was launched to mark the bicentennial, and that wider project is definitely notable, but we don't have an article about it that we could merge/redirect this to. I'll keep looking for additional sources, but at this point my !vote would be delete. MCE89 (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Great stuff finding those sources. ~ BlueTurtles | talk 06:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A cursory look suggests that this subject is notable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Any specific sources you found? I would be very happy if this article were kept, so please do share what you found in your search. More than willing to change to keep if there are sources I missed. MCE89 (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scannata (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)

Unsourced, WP:NOTDICT, etc. This was originally obfuscated spam for a record company but the creator removed the spammy part after I applied G11. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Italy. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per not dictionary. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 21:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Agree with nom. It is just like any other word - not notable enough to have an article. Asteramellus (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

-ington (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)

Move to Wiktionary - dicdef with list. Compare wikt:-ton#Derived terms --Altenmann >talk 00:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Wiktionary per nom.

ApexParagon (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Wiktionary — Maile (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Lists, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about Redirect to List of generic forms in place names in the British Isles? —Tamfang (talk) 06:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea (you mean "merge/redirect", right?), but the list must be moved to wiktionary anyway. --Altenmann >talk 06:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not merge; I see little point in retaining the list of examples. —Tamfang (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The top of the page has good referenced encyclopedic text to merge. --Altenmann >talk 00:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Languages (YouTube) (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 YouTube channel does not meet the inclusion criteria. After reviewing the cited sources, it is clear that there is a lack of significant, independent, and reliable coverage necessary to establish notability. The first two sources are interviews with the subject, which are inherently not independent and cannot be used to demonstrate notability. The third source, published by the University of Münster (uni-muenster), also fails the independence test, as the host of the YouTube channel appears to be an alumna of the same university. The fifth source cited in the article does not mention the YouTube channel at all. Junbeesh (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Germany. Junbeesh (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I fixed a broken link which was the reason why the fifth source was being claimed as irrelevant. In addition, the idea that writing about an alumna is a conflict of interest seems spurious to me. This seems like the same idea as arguing that academic journals are default biased by focusing on a specific topic; the topic here is just "alumni/ae of the University of Münster" instead of something like "education". Mcavoybickford (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate you fixing the broken link. That said, the source is just a directory/listicle that briefly mentions Easy German among other channels. It is only a few lines with no real depth and would not count as significant coverage by Wikipedia standards for establishing the subject's notability.

And yes, the uni-muenster article does not seem to be independent. It is full of quotes from the subject and there's even a disclaimer at the top stating This text is taken from the alumni|sponsor magazine of the university newspaper 'wissen|leben,' summer semester 2022 issue. That magazine features stories submitted by their own alumni. Anyone who attended the university can send in their story to be featured.

Wikipedia expects significant coverage to be both substantial and independent of the subject, which isn't the case here. Junbeesh (talk) 07:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep: A thesis [2] and some discussion in a journal [3], with the other sources in the article we should be able to build a basic/stub article. Oaktree b (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Catalan-language paper here [4]. Oaktree b (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  These alone do not establish notability, though they may contribute toward it. The primary requirement is that the subject must have received sufficient, significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are both reliable and independent of the subject. Junbeesh (talk) 07:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I think the journal article and Catalan paper are two significant independent reliable sources, as is The Local [5]. With the other borderline sources I think there's just about enough to push this into notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Irish place names in other countries (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)

All but one entry is uncited. This fails WP:NLIST; we really need to crack down on these old, uncited naming-related lists. E_F⁵ 13:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, list is based on an arbitrary, non-defining and trivial characteristic. Speaking to the OP's concern about a lack of citations, place name origins are often historically disputed, obscure, based on misunderstandings or poor Anglicization (e.g., Canadian, Texas), or even arbitrary (e.g., numerous American communities renamed by the U.S. Postal Service to avoid duplication). And what if the community is named after a person, geographical feature, or other community with a name similar to an Irish place? All of these factors may cast doubt on whether some entries are legitimately "Irish". Carguychris (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOPAGE and WP:NLIST. Raymond3023 (talk) 11:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There do appear to be sources for Irish place names in various countries, for example Irish Place Names in Australia [6] and "Australia's Irish Place Names" in The Australasian Journal of Irish Studies [; Dictionary of Southern African Place Names [7] which identifies those that are named after places in Ireland; The Master Book of Irish Placenames has an appendix of Irish place names in America [8]; Irish Place-names in America was published in 1963 [9]; "Gaelic Surnominal Place-Names in Ireland and Their Reflection in Argentina" in Studi irlandesi : a Journal of Irish Studies (2021); The Origin and Meaning of Place Names in Canada [10] notes places in Canada named for places in Ireland - etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• • I think the list of interesting and Rebecca has decent sources that could be added, but it needs major clean-up if kept. It's pretty crappy right now: most of the place articles don't actually verify that they're named after the Irish places; Longford, Victoria, Shannon, Alabama and Moorefield, Ohio are just a few found in a quick scan that are not and should be removed.
  Reywas92^Talk 14:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reywas92, then add WP:TNT to my nom statement. This is too decrepit to be saved. — E_F⁵ 14:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Bangor is another that has no business being in this list: it's Welsh, not Irish. More generally, I'd go for delete, for the reasons others have given, but I don't feel strongly about it. Athel cb (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think Bangor is just Welsh, there is Bangor, County Down. But whether any Bangors in the list are named for the Irish place is unclear. A number of Bangors do mention the Welsh Bangor in their articles and those should be removed. A place like Bangor, California should be also be removed as its article says it is named for Bangor, Maine. Declangi (talk) 05:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft keep with the condition of citations and extra context being added (as per WP:NOTLIST). Also I would recommend turning each list into 3 columns so the page is easier to navigate. Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, RebeccaGreen has done very good work in finding sources. The list could be initially pruned by delisting entries such as those I mentioned above for Bangor. Having a placename in common with one in Ireland is not sufficient, a list entry should demonstrably be named directly for a place in Ireland. Declangi (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bajgora offensive (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)

Declined G3. This appears to be original research. I can't find a mention of a "Bajgora offensive" anywhere. The author of this article claims that two of the sources mention a "Bajgora offensive", but I can't find those mentions via translation, and certainly not an offensive that occurred from 10 July 1998 to 12 January 1999. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Antonio Alvarez (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 · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. He fought in wars involving the Dominican Republic, but did not seem to have had much impact. Not to be confused with Juan Antonio Álvarez de Arenales. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Dominican Republic. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:BIO. He was an officer in wars involving the Dominican Republic, but hardly a "national hero". I couldn't find anything more than passing mentions. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Dominican Republic. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tuz Khurmatu hospital clash (2015) (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 the sources is duplicated, that means 3 sources support the article, and the 4th source quite literally does not state what is said. This article is not notable enough. Setergh (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Iraq. Setergh (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is supported by multiple reliable sources, including Human Rights Watch, Iraq Body Count, and ReliefWeb, all of which cover the Tuz Khurmatu hospital clash. The fact that one source is listed twice doesn’t change the reliability of the information. This event is significant and has been reported by independent sources. Deleting the article over this issue is not justified. DataNomad (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2/4 of your citations should be on this page, and 2 is too little. Furthermore, this is an incredibly insignificant clash which could easily be included somewhere else. Setergh (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It doesn't appear to meet WP:NEVENT guidelines for sustained or in-depth coverage in multiple sources. I don't see why this is notable. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note tag placed for more than a years. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 10:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Even the pt.wiki article lacks reliable sources, the "Aventuras na História" website is much more a curiosity website than an academic source. Lacks in-depth documentation. Svartner (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This seems to be a legendary battle, one in which 11 to 12 soldiers beat an entire 8,000. However, all the sources seem to be in Kurdish, or if not, by pro-Kurdish sites. This is concerning, as for such a supposedly shocking and major victory, there is not a single source that's not pro-Kurdish speaking about anything relating to this (at least not in English). If I had to guess, this might be some sort of legend made up between Kurds for nationalist reasons. Any thoughts on this? Setergh (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Iraq. Setergh (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the user has been caught on reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/kurdistan/comments/1j8qah3/comment/mi0nzdg/). It's quite clear that the user might not be working in Wikipedia's interests, as per https://www.reddit.com/r/kurdistan/comments/1g9hn3g/can_somebody_give_me_names_of_battles_between_the/ where they seem to be wanting Kurdish victories for some sort of "edit". This also happened during the Iran–Iraq War, which is an incredibly well documented event, therefore I'm unsure why there would be no mention of this battle. Setergh (talk) 09:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – This is a historical battle, not legendary. I intend to expand the article and add appropriate sourcing to support its notability.  Zemen  (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. - The battle happened during Iran Iraq War, If this engagement were real and notable, It would be almost certainly be mentioned in reliable sources covering the war in detail. Additionally the Article lacks of reliable sources. R3YBOl (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@R3YBOl Are you aware that many incidents and genocides involving Kurds remain undocumented and largely unknown to writers and historians? This video features Najmadin Shukr himself speaking about the battle. Why do you think he has articles across multiple languages of Wikipedia? It's largely because of this battle. What writer or historian would easily uncover a battle that took place in a remote, desolate village. especially during a time when larger conflicts, like the Iran-Iraq war, were dominating attention.  Zemen  (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A youtube video of the person supposedly involved in the battle mentioning it is still not a reliable source. The argument of the Iran-Iraq War dominating attention and therefore meaning this battle gets none is absurd, especially when there is not a single source I could find that wasn't affiliated with the Kurds (at least not a reliable one) about such an insane victory. If this battle was known to be real, at least a few people would briefly mention the battle, but this seems to have never happened. Setergh (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The video is from facebook, not yt. It features Najmadin, the commander in the battle. I know it is not a reliable source, and I'm still working on finding a credible version or a copy from a trusted place, or atleast find a source. but for now, I support deletion.  Zemen  (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Najmadin Shukr Rauf where the conflict is mentioned. We can’t have encyclopedia articles based on vague, unscholarly and highly partisan eulogies. Mccapra (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mccapra The battle is already mentioned in the page of Najmadin Shukr Rauf, Yet still cited by unreliable sources. R3YBOl (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well I agree there aren’t enough reliable independent sources to support a standalone article about the battle. That’s a different thing to saying the encyclopedia should not make any mention of the battle at all because we can’t even be sure it happened. Mccapra (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Radwan 1828 (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)

Only one source that doesn't look RS (a site named yazidis.info that doesn't even exist anymore) and also very POV language ("because if they would not have won the whole Yazidi Population would have been destroyd" [sic]) and unsourced claims that could be controversial ("Before the Battle eyewitnesses said that the Kurds attacked the Yazidis many times there taking them as Sex Slaves and killing them") Laura240406 (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not seeing anything to back this up in the search links. I tried taking "1828" off and seeing what it found but it's nothing relevant. If this topic is real, "Battle of Radwan" is not its correct name. Draft was rejected 4 times at AfC but unilaterally promoted to an article anyway. Given that the article says little, can prove even less, is strongly POV and is borderline incoherent with copious grammatical errors, I think this can be disposed of without any fear of losing anything of value. Even if there is a topic here, it would be far better to start from scratch working from some actual sources not a defunct blog that doesn't really say much or even point to anywhere else to find out more. I'd oppose returning it to draft as there is no sign of even the germ of a valid article here. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Reviewed this at AfC like a week ago, it was almost entirely LLM generated with only that Yazidi source. Given that nothing else to support this has come up since I'm not convinced that this even really happened. Even then, if this did in fact happen, it certainly does not fulfill WP:GNG if the only thing supporting its existence is that sort-of blog. I'm also strongly opposing draftifying as it is just wasting everyone's time for the original creator to move it back despite repeated declines. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 22:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Definitely not WP:NPOV and only source appears WP:QUESTIONABLE. Also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ezidishingali. cyberdog958^Talk 23:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Support per nom. Kajmer05 (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: WP:G5, I am certain the creator is a sock of MHD1234567890 (talk · contribs) See SPI. Aintabli (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  CU results from the SPI, notes that the accounts are technically unrelated, but just a week or so ago, Doritoboritoa121 (talk · contribs) drafted this same article on their userpage citing the same sources. I'm unsure if this is a case of WP:MEATPUPPETRY, but this is extremely suspicious. Aintabli (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only one source, not coming up online... various type edits needed... Tolozen (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nomination this article does not meet WP:RS, the sources are unreliable and biased (also only one of the sources are available) DataNomad (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion and Massacre of Kurds in Anatolia 1914 (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)

Appears to be a WP:POVFORK about the Armenian genocide. Only uses a single source and has placed heavy WP:UNDUEWEIGHT in favor of the Ottomans in its essay like structure. Was declined multiple times through the AfC process but was moved to the mainspace by the page creator anyways so coming to AfD instead of draftifying. cyberdog958^Talk 20:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Events, History, Military, and Turkey. cyberdog958^Talk 20:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete under g5 as pretty explicitly involvingPolitics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia per Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan. Creator not extended confirmed. Nothing salvageable in the text.Their deaths were not merely the result of passive victimhood...self-inflicted suffering — a direct consequence of political short-sightedness, opportunistic violence, and tribal ambition} Wow. That's not NPOV. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 20:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Delete not enough sources (an estimated 600,000 Kurds., well, source?), and undue weight. Also agree with GLL for arbitration reasons. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 21:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:TNT virtually nothing in this article is accurate. (t · c) buidhe 22:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Polemic and POV. No way to know how much of it is correct. Seems like the Draft was rejected at AfC twice. Also the weird fragment"(O’Ballance, 1996)" makes me wonder whether this was copied from somewhere else although the Copyvio detector doesn't think so. No point in returning it to draft. If there is a topic here then it would be better to find some Reliable Sources and start from scratch using those. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @DanielRigal: There are similar citations with the same name in the book that the article cites as a source, but I couldn’t find any direct copying from the available preview of the text in Google Books. cyberdog958^Talk 23:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Support per nom. Kajmer05 (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: see also the deletion discussion of Battle of Radwan 1828 (written by the same user as this one) Laura240406 (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: WP:G5, I am certain the creator is a sock of MHD1234567890 (talk · contribs) See SPI. Aintabli (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom fighter (Bangladesh) (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)

Literally violates NPOV, most countries have some individuals who are deemed as freedom fighters yet you won't find such a page about freedom fighters for any other country, if you search, you will not find it. The article's information is already found in the page of Mukti Bahini, this article is not needed. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Asia and Bangladesh. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Shellwood (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It has been suggested by another editor that this article be merged into Mukti Bahini and there is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Mukti Bahini. So, this discussion page can be deleted. Somajyoti ✉ 12:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That discussion page hasn't updated since 23nd April last time i checked, plus the discussion can be "closed", not "deleted", Alright? plus you did not give a proper argument so Delete. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Plus the title is wrong, its supposed to be Freedom Fighter (Bangladesh), not Freedom fighter (Bangladesh). BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Put strikethrough on nominator bolded vote. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Mukti Bahini. Ahammed Saad (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Mukti Bahini Mehedi Abedin 12:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marguerite de Baugé (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)

Nomination: Notability questioned. Very little information in article besides that she owned a castle and married someone else who may be notable.ash (talk) 10:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on Piperi (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)

None of the current sources even mention Piperi. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Shellwood (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Serbia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Likely a minor conflict. Agletarang (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article appears to be a likely hoax or satirical fabrication. It lacks reliable sources and has no verifiable evidence that the organization ever existed. The cited references are weak, misleading, or irrelevant. This topic does not meet notability guidelines.

This article presents SPONGE as a real political pressure group, but the claim is unsupported by reliable sources and appears to be an instance of misinformation. The only verifiable mentions of “SPONGE” refer to its use as a racist acronym or gag — not an actual organization. The 1978 Lewiston Evening Journal article documents a high school prank, not group activity. The 1999 commentary by Earl Ofari Hutchinson refers to an alleged use of the term within a police department, but offers no evidence of an actual group. The only historical book cited mentions SPONGE briefly, without treating it as real or notable.

In effect, the Wikipedia article is the fourth appearance of SPONGE, not documenting a group, but continuing the pattern of SPONGE being used as a recurring racist gag. There is no substantiated continuity, structure, or notability. Instead, this article appears to be a case of citogenesis or hoax propagation. It does not meet the standards of verifiability or notability and should be deleted. InvisibleUser909 (talk) 06:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE and SALT per nom as a repeated (racist) hoax. No doubt someone finds this funny, but there is no place for such things on Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE and SALT sources even state it is fictitious. Delete per others reasoning Czarking0 (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE and SALT sources don't support claims. SPONGE was a racist inside joke. Article clearly a hoax. Dracophyllum 23:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - @InvisibleUser909, Chiswick Chap, Czarking0, and Dracophyllum: Could we pump the brakes on the claims of this being a hoax and exhortations to protect the page from recreation? A previous AFD resulted in the article being kept, based on the book source (which does not treat the group as "fictitious") [11], this book review which suggests the group is covered in detail in one of its subjects, and contemporary mentions in the magazine Jet [12][13]. Additionally, there are several contemporary articles about the group in the New York Times (ex. [14][15][16]) and a Google Books search reveals even more potential sources. I'm not certain any of that means the article should be kept, as a slang dictionary refers to the group as "more notional than real" and one of the NYT articles above states that the group "has no office or headquarters, no constitution or charter, no officers or recognized leaders, no regular meetings, no staff and no agreement on what constitutes membership," but it at least deserves a more detailed discussion than what has taken place so far. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 19:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  SPONGE was definitely a racist in-joke, per:

  • Its name had long been an in- side joke among neighborhood whites and played off their belief that blacks were “sponging” off the government at their expense. – The Ungonverable City

  Evidence for SPONGE as an organisation comes mostly from a small (<100) group of white (mostly Italian-American) youths who adopted the name. They got in the News when they: "battled members of CORE (Congress of Racial Equality) who were protesting the lack of opportunities for blacks at the World’s Fair."

  A group of youths who took a racist in-joke as a name, had no real structure; only a "leader," is not notable. Per one of the news articles:

  • Sponge the "organization" that jeered at Mayor Lindsay in East New York Thursday night and later staged an antiNegro demonstration that provoked a reply in gunshots, beer and soda bottles really is not an organization at all."

  It is even clear that each action is from the same group? The name was spread through many different circles and communities. SPONGE at most deserves a few sentences in an article on Integration or racism in the period in question. Dracophyllum 22:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A group of youths who took a racist in-joke as a name, had no real structure; only a "leader," is not notable. That has nothing to do with any notability criteria. Notability will depend on whether there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources or not. MarioGom (talk) 07:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete + Salt - per above. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not salt and weak keep: Folks, just search the term in Google Books, Google Scholar, etc. There is a lot of coverage about the topic in reliable sources. I'm fine with deciding that the current article could deserve WP:TNT, but I'm really against salting here, since it's conceivable that someone would write a good article about it. MarioGom (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is more or less where I'm at too; it doesn't make any sense to salt the page, which is obviously not a hoax, and even TNTing it seems like an overreaction when the issues with it could be solved by rewriting it or possibly merging it with an appropriate target (I couldn't find a page on the riots the group participated in, but East New York#Economic downturn is one option). Right now my bold vote is Keep per WP:NEXIST. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 18:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tercio of Idiáquez (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)

Practically everything that has been written to expand the article in order to prevent it from being deleted is false (other than the Thirty Years' War section). The previous user who withdrew their AfD nomination did not fact check any of the sources or information added. The article has been expanded incorrectly and mostly falsified (though it's likely, or at least I'd like to think, that it wasn't done on purpose and the editor who expanded the article just wanted to help improve it). If you wish to help improve the article, please use proper sources which correlate with the information written. Bubba6t3411 (talk) 05:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Kemah (1515) (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:GNG I can’t find the necessary sources to verify and establish the subject’s notability. The sources cited in the article do not mention the siege.Iranian112 (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Kemah, Erzincan#History: The siege is mentioned in all 4 sources; however, almost all are passing mentions. At best, here, we learn the defending commander's name. Most sources I could find through a quick search were also passing mentions. Maybe this source is not a passing mention, but it merely concerns the route Selim took to reach Kemah. Aintabli (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The sources refer to conquest, not siege. Iranian112 (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not correct; at least two of the four sources cited explicitly refer to a siege: "kuşatma", "muhasara" Plenty of sources not cited here refer to it as a siege: [17][18][19] "Conquest" and sieges are not mutually exclusive concepts. Regardless, my vote is not to keep. Aintabli (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Merge into Kemah, Erzincan#History: Changing my vote to merge as the siege is surprisingly not mentioned by the town's Wikipedia article. I suggest discarding the municipality and governor's websites and keeping TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi when merging. Aintabli (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Ninh Bình (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)

Fundamentally based on 19th-century French colonial primary sources with no verification from independent or Vietnamese historical accounts. A thorough search finds no mention of the “Capture of Ninh Binh” in Vietnamese historiography or modern reliable sources. The article therefore relies entirely on colonial-era narratives, which are highly prone to bias, exaggeration, and imperialist framing, one look at the article and you’ll understand. Per WP:V, WP:HISTRS, and WP:NPOV historical topics must be supported by reputable, secondary sources and not solely colonial accounts. Without independent corroboration, this article promotes a one-sided, questionable version of history that does not meet Wikipedia’s sourcing or notability standards. Therefore, deletion is the appropriate course. More detailed historical issues are explained further on the article’s Talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by OutsidersInsight (talk • contribs) 12:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC) .[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Vietnam, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is fully sourced. No issue with French colonial sources. Colonial-era narratives are reliable sources. The sources used are not primary, and independent corroboration is not required for WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It relies almost entirely on French colonial-era sources from the 1870s–1880s (Romanet du Caillaud, Charton, d’Estampes, Société académique indochinoise). Only two modern sources (Phạm 1985 and Short 2014) are cited, and neither independently corroborates the extraordinary claim (7 men capturing 1,700 soldiers). Per WP:HISTRS and WP:RS, such extraordinary historical claims require strong independent confirmation, which is missing here. Article currently gives a misleading sense of undisputed fact. OutsidersInsight (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox version history (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:NOTCHANGELOG; almost no links to secondary sources. Information about releases which actually got coverage in secondary sources should be moved to the main Firefox article.

Also it's just a burden in general to maintain such constantly updated abominations, and that's exactly because they're constantly updated. MinervaNeue (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, that sort of run-along-after-the-fact cataloguing is pretty much a textbook version of what Wikipedia is not. There is no point our doing an organisation's job for it, nor is the matter of any encyclopedic interest. The existing Firefox article is quite sufficient as a home for any reliable secondary-sourced material about the tool. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Do it yourself then. Icaneditalot42 (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up someone else's trash isn't and shouldn't be my responsibility. MinervaNeue (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: While I have no opinion on this article/list, I did want to point out that it mostly only covers post-2011 versions, as everything before that was split into a Firefox early version history in 2019. That one obviously does not need as frequent updates as a list that is intended to contain more current information, but some of the other "not a change log" issues may apply, so a discussion for that article may also be warranted (not necessarily bundled into this one; in any event, I have no opinion on that one either). (The existence of the other page briefly came up in this article's second nomination—the first nomination predated its creation—but so far as I can tell it has never been nominated for deletion in any form itself.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Unlike the article I nominated, the one you mentioned doesn't need to be updated constantly, so I think it's fine. Though it written in prose and covering only major releases (and I'm sure there are secondary sources for all major releases of Firefox before 5.0) would be better than using tables and listing every single hotfix in them, because that would comply with WP:NOTCHANGELOG. MinervaNeue (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well if we deleted this that one would make no sense, so surely we would have to delete it too. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It can be rewritten to be a rules-compliat version history article in a reasonable amount of time, unlike the one we're currently discussing. Therefore I don't see any point in deleting it. MinervaNeue (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Why would we have an "early" version history without a version history article? PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "i don't hate the other trash so it could stay, get rid of this thing I like"

  Wonder if this came from jealousy that Firefox article got chronological history instead of cluttered mess that is Chrome history Hyoroemon2 (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Firefox early version history isn't "trash". MinervaNeue (talk) 11:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

" almost no links to secondary sources"

Release date is a fact.

Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue Hyoroemon2 (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about verifiaibility at all. If there are almost no links to secondary sources, the article is not notable. That doesn't mean it's not verifiable. MinervaNeue (talk) 11:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop bludgeoning please. Also, your wants make no sense. why keep the article about web browsers that are barely usable anymore and no one is likely to need to care about while the more recent versions need to be deleted? Icaneditalot42 (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTCHANGELOG. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I use this article often and would miss it. It is a nice source for retro computing and having the information what changed when. 2003:F1:CF01:1F00:8C22:46F0:894D:D5D9 (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usefulness isn't an argument for keeping an article. MinervaNeue (talk) 11:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that is the case, then the template chart in the Template:Timeline Mozilla Firefox is getting squeezed and crunched up with each new year until there's no room for it. I would suggest trying to remove the template altogether. Angeldeb82 (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A sidenote to nominator to please stop bludgeoning the discussion unless there's a flaw in their argument with respect to the policies and guidelines. Relisting for clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 20:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is significant coverage of various updates of firefox and many secondary sources are cited in the article. Yes this article deserves a cleanup, but I think merging information about updates to teh main firefox article doesn't make much sense as that article is already quite long and new information there would make for an obvious candidate for WP:SPLIT due to size. Keeping a separate article about firefox updates makes sense. Per WP:PRESERVE it would be preferable to improve the existing article. There are clearly more secondary sources available about updates.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delet Pretty explicit violation of WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Nearly all of the article is just imported from the primary source https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/releases/, and I fail to see why Wikipedia should list these routine changes this way. The Release compatibility section is also at Firefox#Platform availability. If someone wants to trim this 90% so that significant updates covered in independent sources are presented in a readable, encyclopedic manner, that may be appropriate, but this page, Firefox early version history, Firefox 3.5, Firefox 3.6, etc. are not really appropriate for the project, just to log every "Regular security and stability update." Reywas92^Talk 03:46, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Honesty we should get rid of the Firefox 1.5/2.0/3.0/3.5/3.6 articles, there not very useful. Icaneditalot42 (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – It's not merely a bunch of logs, there's enough encyclopedic content to maintain browser history. I guess its a question of WP:COMMONSENSE. Svartner (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Push from the Bush (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)

Interesting topic but doesn’t appear to satisfy WP:GN or WP:NBOOK. ~ BlueTurtles | talk 11:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Australia. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I found this mention in a 1978 edition of The Canberra Times, but it's not quite SIGCOV in my view. I also found this mention in The Australian Library Journal and a few sentences about the journal in this issue of Labour History, but again neither are quite SIGCOV. I thought the discussion in this book looked promising, but like most of what I found, the relevant chapter turned out to be written by one of the journal's editors. It looks like The Push from the Bush was part of a larger project encompassing several journals and volumes called Australians: A Historical Library that was launched to mark the bicentennial, and that wider project is definitely notable, but we don't have an article about it that we could merge/redirect this to. I'll keep looking for additional sources, but at this point my !vote would be delete. MCE89 (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Great stuff finding those sources. ~ BlueTurtles | talk 06:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A cursory look suggests that this subject is notable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Any specific sources you found? I would be very happy if this article were kept, so please do share what you found in your search. More than willing to change to keep if there are sources I missed. MCE89 (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Morgan ap Pasgen (via WP:PROD on 31 March 2025)