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

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

Purge page cache

watch

Ancient settlements of the Liri Valley (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:TNT: this article is likely entirely AI-generated, and cites fictitious sources, see here I'm mostly concerned about volume here - if it was a start-class length article on a notable topic with a dozen potentially verifiable claims, I'd think it might be worth salvaging, but there's just too much, and deleting the page rather than blanking and redirecting means all the slop isn't sitting there in the page history for someone to rediscover. happy to withdraw if people make improvements to the article and there's consensus that all the problems have been addressed, but in my experience if we let it sit in the expectation that someone *could* fix it in the future it will probably just stay the way it is Psychastes (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete: I'll repost here what I said in a conversation on the topic on the WP:CGR talk page:

The article still "smells" a bit AI to me -- it has a few features that ChatGPT etc really like, such as bullet-pointed lists with bolded first words, tables, and fluffy, vaguely promotional language:

• These projects exemplify current methodological approaches in Mediterranean archaeology and continue to yield new insights into the development of ancient settlements in relation to their environmental and cultural contexts.
• These settlements collectively demonstrate how frontier regions between different cultural spheres developed during periods of political transformation, making them relevant comparative material for understanding similar processes throughout the ancient Mediterranean world.
• These settlements, which include important Volscian centers later incorporated into Roman territory, offer archaeologists and historians an exceptional case study of pre-Roman indigenous development, Roman colonization strategies, and the process of cultural integration in ancient Italy

I'm uneasy about this one. On one level, the topic's clearly notable and has plenty written about it (even if it doesn't necessarily have to be a stand-alone article), there's a lot of information in the article, and on a casual scan nothing sticks out as glaringly wrong. On the other hand, the article does have evident deficiencies (particularly layout, as well as the tone issues alluded to above) and, most seriously, uncited material. Given that there's a suspicion of AI use, I can see a case for WP:TNT -- since, as Psychastes notes above, that concern requires (at minimum) the verification of every single thing in a reliable source.

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Archaeology, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. For example, Citations 5 and 6 don't match what's online. Bearian (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Algerian War (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 notable, only one source supports the claim of a war between 1677 and 1682. The "War" section is WP:OR as it not only fails to mention an actual war, but also describes English losses between 1674 and 1681. Kolno (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)Kolno[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Algeria, and England. Shellwood (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In summary:

• The first source, Matar (2009), claims that "Consul Martin of England reported in 1677 that the Algerian dey was averse to declaring war." This clearly does not support the claim that a war occurred and should therefore be removed.
• The second source, Murray (1873), does mention wars beginning in 1660 and again in 1677, concluding in 1682 when peace was made. However, it also states that "five or six thousand English slaves were brought into Algiers, and about 350 vessels captured" between 1674 and 1681. While this source backs the claim of a war, it still lacks notability, and the English losses it describes do not match the supposed wartime period.
• The third source, Allen (1664), mentions a peace treaty between the two, but it neither mentions that it was to conclude a war, nor does it say that it was signed in 1682. Moreover, the book was published 18 years before the supposed end of the war.
• The fourth source, Hamersly (1880), details naval expeditions and skirmishes in 1661, 1664, and 1666/67, followed by a "humiliating treaty" in 1682 which "recognized the state of slavery of British subjects". There is no explicit mention of a war, and the treaty is shown as a diplomatic submission rather than a peace treaty concluding a war.

Unless more in-depth research is done, the article currently falls in WP:OR and lacks notability. Kolno (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I know a bit about the history here, but on the scope and the scale of the article. There were a lot of pirate captains in the area, with lots of different interests from different parties. I would say there is more than enough on the web to create a viable article. Maybe check out, [1], [2], [3]. There are lots of published books on the subject, saying it's not notable is nonsense. Govvy (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I only have access to the first source you’ve provided, which cites Stein (2015) [4]. Stein briefly mentions the context and its impact on the British, but the conflict itself is only mentioned in passing: "ultimately cost the English hundreds of captured ships and thousands of enslaved mariners, weighing heavily both on English trade and on a straitened royal treasury".

  An article covering every Anglo-Algerian conflict is definitely notable, but I am not convinced this specific war is notable enough on its own. It might be, but the page creator certainly did not present it well. A large portion of the content falls under WP:OR, and not to mention that the page was created by a sockpuppeter. Kolno (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bruneian–Igan War (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 Prod without improvement. Other than the single reference listed, searches turned up zero in-depth coverage of this event. Searches in A History of Brunei by Graham Saunders did not even see a mention of it. Similarly, nothing was mentioned in Brunei - History, Islam, Society and Contemporary Issues. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Brunei. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Problem is, sources about this war in specifically is rare Syazwi Irfan (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vilnius conflict (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 20-year "mainly diplomatic" territorial dispute doesn't rate a standalone article. This is covered in other articles, mainly Vilnius Region#Vilnius dispute, as well as 1938 Polish ultimatum to Lithuania. Some details could be merged into the former. The misleading infobox makes it seem like this was a war, which it wasn't. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lithuania, and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 10:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A very cursory search of just the article title showed at least two journal articles about this dispute ([5][6]). Certainly seems like a significant event: a number of sources providing passing coverage credit this conflict with killing any meaningful pan-Baltic alliance ([7][8]). Curbon7 (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• A 20-year quarrel isn't an "event". I'm not disputing that there was a meaningful dispute. There was a decades-long struggle for control of Vilnius, but IMO it should be (and is already) covered in the Vilnius Region article. There is no need for two articles covering the same ground. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maratha invasion of Deccan (1739) (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 didn't happen any conflict by such a name in 1739. This is WP:OR. The historical invasion timeline is 1739-40 and battle happened in 1740, even that doesn't have such a title it's known as Battle of Aurangabad or Battle of Godavri (1740) [9] [10]. No source used here mentions of such a battle with such a name. The author has used WP:SYN throughout. Additionally, the sources used for the battle result and treaty section are not considered reliable (WP:RS). One of the sources [11] used for mentioning the result (Nizam's victory) opposes itself on Pg 28 and 109 questioning it's reliability. The other one used for displaying result [12] is not even a historian but a civil servant. The article's body is not written from a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) as evident in body lead and aftermath section with some sources given more priority. That sources are unreliable too as addressed before. So, the article does not pass WP:GNG currently and needs to be deleted. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 21:09, 8 May 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 May 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Telangana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete event exist, but no need for a seperate article nor passes GNGHionsa (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Unnecessary to have an article about that. Azuredivay (talk) 09:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul H Elovitz (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)

Doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. An article referenced entirely by Elovitz's own publications. Did reach associate professor level at Temple University; a long publication history, but Scopus shows limited impact (H-index=3), although that seems to be missing his pre-1996 work. Klbrain (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Connecticut. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Psychology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I could only find 2 academic reviews of a book that he co-edited: [13] [14] which is not enough for WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR. However, he was the founder and editor in chief of Clio's Psyche which could contribute to WP:NPROF#8 but I dont know how "well established" that journal is. --hroest 21:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That journal is open access and publishes three to four issues per year; it's not listed by Journal Citation Reports so doesn't have an impact factor - that doesn't count as a well-established journal in my view. Klbrain (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Thurii (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)

Found while browsing Wikipedia:Database reports/Forgotten articles. Cannot find any books or sources that mention this supposed battle that predate the creation of this article in 2007. The only "citations" this article has are incomplete citations which just say a book title and nothing else. No authors, no year of publishing, no ISBN, nothing. And the "source" titles are extremely vague, like "History of Rome" or "Antiquity".

(Note: I know there were actual battles between Tarantos and ancient Rome for control of the area, but I cannot find evidence that "Battle of Thurii" was one of those battles, or that there was any "naval battle" for the region.) ApexParagon (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Greece, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The editor who created this stub seems to have been inactive on Wikipedia since 2013, but nothing on his/her talk page suggests that it was created as a hoax (I was looking for warnings of various sorts). Given that the part about Thurii is only a single sentence, while the rest concerns Rome's conflict with Tarentum, I wonder if perhaps the editor was confused about the sequence of events—perhaps including the dates. My first thought was to check the history of the cities in the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, and see if it mentioned something similar to a battle at this time. Under "Tarentum", at p. 1097, if you scroll down the first column there's a description of Rome and Tarentum coming into conflict over Thurii, though this is supposed to have occurred in 302 BC, while the Tarentines didn't call in Pyrrhus until 281, when the Romans declared war on Tarentum.

This sounds like what the article creator had in mind, but unless the description is in error—which is possible, though it's hard to see "302" as a typo for "282" under "Tarentum"—the editor might have been confused by a less precise description such as the corresponding passage under "Thurii", top of the first column on p. 1193. I believe both are citing Appian's Samnite Wars, though additional sources are cited in "Tarentum" that might also shed light on this. I agree that the existing citations for this article are not very helpful, but thankfully knowing what sources describe the conflicts may help sort out whether there's enough here to salvage (at the very least, it can probably be merged under Thurii, Tarentum, and Pyrrhus, which would technically not be a deletion).

I expect Broughton can also be cited. I did not resort to PW, because wading through pages of densely-annotated German that I have to translate by retyping passages that I think are relevant on Google can be quite time-consuming! Not sure where else I would look besides the Greek and Roman authors cited in the DGRG, but perhaps someone else has some ideas on that. In any case, I think we can conclude that the article is not a hoax, but it might not be focused on its purported subject—Thurii—and might be better off mentioned in other articles than as a stand-alone one. P Aculeius (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fourteen Days' War (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. Supposed to be historical fact but can't verify it as no page numbers. No indication of significance. Unable to verify it in gbooks, refseek, internet archive. Fails WP:GNG. scope_creep^Talk 08:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat agree with the deletion. The event however do exist but the source for it is very lacking and the original article mostly just anti communist fantasy. I've edited it to make it more neutral but still, proper academic source such as university research is hard to find. Dauzlee (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dauzlee: That is the core of it. Normally I wouldnt' sent such an article to Afd. In fact I don't think I've done that before and probably wont do it again. I spent close 4 hours back and forward while I was working in the garden on Sunday and couldn't find a thing on it of worth. I must have looked at it about 8 times and couldnt determine if it was valid or not. I don't think it was a war, more like a massacre or an action but either way I could verify it. I searched for an alternate name perhaps from the opposing side and couldn't find anything there either. scope_creep^Talk 04:07, 7 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]

It doesnt necessarily mention "bajgora offensive" thats the name i put since the sources call it an offensive in the bajgora region.If the issue is the name I understand im willing to change the name to whatever fits.It wasnt 1 offensive which lasted that long but a chain of Yugoslav offensives towards KLA held villages in the region of Shala e Bajgores.Many events of the Kosovo War arent that well documented and therefore dont have exact titles but Wiki editors give ones that fit well.Like with the Incident in Lez,Battle of Glanasela,and the Llapusha-Drenica front pages.But these events happened and arent hoaxes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Dijon Ethem Kurti (talk • contribs) 08:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr Dijon Ethem Kurti: Wikipedia articles are supposed to summarize the secondary literature, not to synthesize the literature to develop new ideas. This article asserts that there is something called the "Bajgora offensive" that occurred from 10 July 1998 to 12 January 1999. That means that there should be sources in the secondary literature that describe such an offensive with those dates. Since those don't appear to exist, neither should this article. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It mentions chains of offensives between those dates.The first being on the 10th of July in Mazhiq then ending in January 12th in Bare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Dijon Ethem Kurti (talk • contribs) 17:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr Dijon Ethem Kurti: Please remember to sign your posts using ~~~~. You can't decide that those two dates are significant and dub it an "offensive". As others have already explained to you regarding your edits, that is original research. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does look like original research and synthesis of material; combining different events and self-titling it. I think there's also the issue of whether just because something happened, if it's worthy of an article (WP:EVENT). Unfortunately, there is a strong pattern in the Balkans area at the moment of editors creating poor or POV articles about "battles", "ambushes", "offensives" etc. mainly in order to show a "victory" point for their side, and I think that there needs to be stronger admin intervention on this. --Griboski (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article creator has essentially conceded above that this article is WP:OR, and even ignoring that, passing mentions in sources documenting longer conflicts don't pass WP:GNG. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't believe this is an intentional hoax or an article created in bath faith, but I believe it's a case of WP:OR. There's no coverage of the alleged offensive as a cohesive operation in reliable secondary sources (or any sources, really, including in Albanian). The whole article appears to be an original synthesis of multiple engagements grouped under a self-assigned title, as stated above. Dr Dijon Ethem Kurti, do you understand how this is original research? Mooonswimmer 07:48, 8 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]

• Delete Does not meets WP:GNG. Pasados (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The whole article depends on a single source. CharlesWain (talk) 05:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If he were a National Hero, it would not be hard for him to meet WP:SIGCOV or to at least get info from more than one source. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In addition to the source already in the article, there is a paragraph (9 lines) about him in "Soldados de la Independencia, Generales de la Restauración1." Edición Conmemorativa 150 años del triunfo de la Guerra Restauradora, 1865-2015 84.190 (2015), p 56 [15], and his name appears in many other histories, with publication dates from 1900 to 2004, of which I can only see snippet views in Google Books. The article needs editing (and a Talk page). RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:42, 10 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]
• Comment One source [16] says that she founded the charterhouse of Poletins-en-Bresse (which this article states that she was buried at). It seems likely that a woman who bought a castle and founded a charterhouse in the 13th century would have something written about her. I'll see what I can find. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Biographies in books from the 1600s and 1700s [17], [18], showing notability several hundred years after hear death. Many hits in the BNF Gallica as well [19] Oaktree b (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to Humbert V de Beaujeu. The sources above just repeat the same few facts about her genealogy and dowry (and founding a monastery), which are certainly worth including in her husband's article, however. Ingratis (talk) 08:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC) see below[reply]
• Keep I have added sources and info, and I believe that she meets WP:BASIC at least. As Oaktree b has noted, she is included in histories published many centuries after her death. There is information that she was buried in the choir of the church of the Charterhouse of Poletins, which has been described as "one of the most sacred parts of the church and a very prestigious place for burials" [20]. If we had an article about the Charterhouse of Poleteins, that might be a suitable target for a merge or redirect, but I do not think it would be suitable to merge to her husband's article. He was busy going on crusades and visiting Constantinople, and being governor of Languedoc), whereas she was active in the Ain département. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, she had her own seal [21]. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, based on additions by Rebecca Green which show that she M de B did more than being genealogical. Ingratis (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP: HEY. Another rescue by RebeccaGreen. Bearian (talk)

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") [22], this book review which suggests the group is covered in detail in one of its subjects, and contemporary mentions in the magazine Jet [23][24]. Additionally, there are several contemporary articles about the group in the New York Times (ex. [25][26][27]) 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]

• Weak keep, needs work seems somewhat notable, with coverage in secondary sources such as [28], [29]. Got contemporary news coverage as well, [30], [31]. I do think it might make sense to redirect/merge somewhere else, but I don't think that outright deletion makes sense, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need further discussion after consensus has trended from "get rid of it totally" to potentially salvageable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is notable and salvageable. Obviously not a hoax. It's short and bad but so are many articles and it's not so bad as to be TNT worthy. There are tons of sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:52, 7 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Military units of battalion size or larger are generally considered to be notable. The answer is editing and improvement, not deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 6 May 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: [32][33][34] "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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, silviaASH (inquire within) 13:06, 5 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:43, 5 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]

  Registering a delete, unfortunately. I couldn't find any additional sources and haven't received a response to my question below. I can't find anything that could give a pass of WP:GNG and don't see a suitable extant merge/redirect target. MCE89 (talk) 17:01, 5 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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