Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Events

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Events. 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|Events|~~~~}} 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 Events. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


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

Events

2026 Midtown Manhattan fire


2026 Midtown Manhattan fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS. ~ A412 talk! 06:04, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Battle of Amritsar (1738)


Battle of Amritsar (1738) (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. All encyclopedic content is covered in the articles about the leaders of various factions. Most content is background: content about the supposed subject is minimal. No evidence that the battle itself meets WP:GNG: there are two sentences at most in the sources, and in the reliable sources they are presented as matters of popular belief, not as fact. No evidence that sources anywhere refer to it as the "battle of Amritsar"; this is referred to as an ambush and counter-ambush of a handful of soldiers. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Battle of Sodhra and Badra


Battle of Sodhra and Badra (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. All encyclopedic content is covered in the articles about the commanders. No evidence that the battle itself meets WP:GNG; only fragmented sentences in the cited sources. Considerable evidence of original research. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete. Performed a BEOFRE at Google Books, Wikipedia Library and Archives. Found nothing at all. --SatnaamIN (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

1998 Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts election


1998 Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This really does not seem to merit an article; imo its worth a redirect, altho whethr the office or the sucessful cadidate is the best target is moot. TheLongTone (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I see no reason to delete this. Sure, it's a seemingly "random" election in Texas politics, but Wikipedia is meant to be the place to find election results like this, which unfortunately are becoming harder and harder to find as many old internet sites with such results do not work anymore. 1998 was a particularly meaningful election because it is when Republicans took over the state. Perhaps this is not a topic something the petitioner for deletion cares about, but not caring about a topic does not give someone permission to delete it, especially because making this article took me a lot of time and effort. Wikipedia is more valuable with articles like this. Plz do not delete them. That would be a shame. Trajan1 (talk)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Texas. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:38, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Procedural keep the content in the article lacks the merge target 1998 Texas elections. I would keep it as a standalone until the more notable topic has a page for merge and redirect. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Battle of Attock (1787)


Battle of Attock (1787) (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. As with other creations by this user, the cited sources do not substantively cover this battle, and as such it appears to fail WP:GNG. The content is not borne out by the cited sources, and their presence counts for nothing. The content about the "battle" makes it clear there wasn't a battle, merely a standoff. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete. The meat of this article is 3 sentences long. That's pretty thin gruel. Trumpetrep (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. This and this book says about a different Battle of Attock that happened in 1813. But nothing about the subject battle. --SatnaamIN (talk) 04:04, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

2026 Minecraft source code leak


2026 Minecraft source code leak (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:TOOSOON to tell if this is a bigger event that needs a separate article. As it stands now, there's no reason why it shouldn't be covered as a blurb or paragraph at Minecraft instead. GSK (talk • edits) 16:48, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

NOTICE: I am currently working on the same article on my user page, just this time as a draft, so I solve my mistakes. - SimpleObjects-9ei (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
I don't mean to discourage you, but I'm not really sure what you expect to accomplish seeing the way this discussion has been going, as I don't foresee the draft being accepted because of the reasons outlined above by other editors. However, this is still a good practice to get into; you should probably be making new articles as drafts to begin with instead of creating in mainspace unless the subject has significant reliable coverage. GSK (talk • edits) 21:36, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete as there's nothing here to merit a redirect. Alansohn (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Redirect as there's not enough content here. SenshiSun (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Stellarcon

AfDs for this article:
Stellarcon (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 totally unsourced since creation in 2006, two decades ago! Topic is a convention that fails notability. The only independent sources turned up on wp:BEFORE were wp:passing mentions and a routine short news announcement of the convention being held in a particular place. Most of the information in the article is unverifiable even from the sources that I was able to find. There is just not enough here to satisfy notability or a standalone article. A previous deletion discussion from 15 years ago resulted in keep primarily because the nominator had mass nominated several conventions without making a good case in policy, and did not resolve the underlying notability problem of this article. Lenny Marks (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Did you look into the sources found on the last AfD, including 'Amazing stories: Volumes 52-53 Isaac Asimov's science fiction magazine: Volume 14, Issues 4-6 (if it is good enough for Asimov it is good enough for me) Screenwriter's & Playwright's Market have a nice write up on it as well"? SenshiSun (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Isaac Asimov's science fiction magazine: Volume 14, Issues 4-6 by which they presumably mean 1 note in a SF Con Calendar in issue 5 only (I can't see any mention in the other two)
  • Screenwriter's & Playwright's Market, they don't specify which version (and I can't find easy access online) but from the previews I can find it doesn't look like its the sort of work that gives nice write up[s] on the things it includes. Its mainly a catalogue dealing with things like contact-information, addresses, etc. Perhaps the version they were looking at was different.
  • Amazing stories: Volumes 52-53, Again no idea which volume/issue they are referring to. The only issue from vol. 52-53 on IA doesn't include it. Based on the other sources they provided I'd be willing to bet that whatever it was wasn't WP:SIGCOV.
Despite lack of access, from what I can see, these seem to have been pasted in from a search with no regard for there contents and whether it met WP:SIGCOV. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 09:26, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for the detailed research. I had looked into Asimov but hadn't found the other stuff, and given the OP's reasoning that "if it is good enough for Asimov it is good enough," I wasn't inspired with confidence. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Abbasid expeditions to East Africa


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

Very misleading as it is widely considered by scholars to be a legendary account rather than a historical event. User:Replayerr (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

My problem with the article is that it presents a completely mythical legendary event as a historical event.
The Kitab al-Zanj (read here) narrates events in the 8th/9th century
1. The Kitab al-Zanj as well as the Pate and Lamu chronicles mention Abbasid military expeditions to Kilwa Mogadishu, Barawa and Marka on the Banadir coast in the early 9th century. The Kitab al-Zanj and the Lamu/Pate chronicles seem to have been written in the late 19th to early 20th century. In the case of the Kitab al-Zanj, the earliest known copies can be traced to the early 20th century and are associated with a clerk at Malindi, who appears to have acted as its sole distributor. He owned two of the three earliest known copies (1912 and 1916) and the third one (1923) was found in the hands of the Qadi of Kismayo whose identity is not known. (Source, p. 638) "The legend of Ham. Its account of Swahili origins places the Kitab al-Zanuj most logically in a genre of more recent East African chronicles that contain, aside from their Arabicism, other dubious elements. The best known of these are the "Lamu Chronicle" of Shaibu Faraji bin Hamid al-Bakari and the many versions of the "Pate Chronicle," the longest of which have originated with Muhammad ibn Fumo Omari al-Nabhani. Both were set down at the turn of the century. A striking example of this occurred at Pate, where a member of the Nabahani family, the ancestry of which was Omani of the Ibadhi sect, altered his genealogy to show that his original forebears were Hadrami Sunnis. Kitab al-Zanuj, the Lamu and Pate chronicles ignore Shiraz and the Persian Gulf and give like accounts of the Syrian immigrants sent by Khalif Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan. The Pate chronicle had come under severe attack as an extremely unreliable source. It contains an account of Pate origin much too early to agree with archeological evidence, spurious lists of reigning sultans, exaggerated antiquity of the the Nabhahi family, etc.."
2.The Kitab Futuh al-Buldan, written by Ahmad al-Baladhuri (d. 892 CE), provides a near-contemporary account of Abbasid conquests in the 9th century, the author makes no mention of any military campaigns in East Africa, nor of the events described in the Kitab al-Zanj.
3. Here is a small summary of the first chapters of the Kitab al-Zanj so I can help you guys visualize how mythical this book is :
The Oromo were Arabs from the Banu Qays Aylan, they had fled Arabia because of Abraha al-Najashi al-Habashi and then settled to a place called Juba, the writer dates these events back to the year of the elephant, the book claims that the Oromo migrations took place shortly after in the 7th century CE, this myth reappears in other Swahili documents of the time. (Source) After a short narration of the curse of Ham, it goes on to say that a pre-Islamic Himyarite king had campaigned in Iraq destroying the city of al-Hira and building Samarkand in its place, according to the author, this king lived during the time of Moses. After the military campaign in Iraq, the Himyarites then left for the East African coast and established Mogadishu, Bossaso, Kilwa, and Pate. It goes on to say that the Arabs dispersed, divided into groups, and settled along the coast between Mogadishu and Mombasa, as well as between Marka and Barawa. When they [the Arabs] eventually reached the Juba region, the Zanj fled before them, and the Arabs referred to them as Kashur, meaning those who fled. (This has no meaning in Arabic, it is an Oromo word, Source) People from Syria then came and settled in Pate, while other Iraqi immigrants settled in Lamu. It then lists several Swahili towns and attempts to trace an Arab etymology and origin for them. For example, it claims that Yumbu in Kenya was Arab because people from Yum in Yemen came and established it, I could not find any settlement by this name in Yemen. The text continues by stating that the Arabs would come to the Swahili coast to wage war, arriving from Suakin and Berbera and attacking Mogadishu and its surrounding areas. It mentions a conflict between the Oromos and the Amhara in 661 CE and goes on say that during the time of Umar ibn al-Khattab, all Arabs became Muslim except the Banu Qays Aylan Oromos, who became Christian due to living among the Amhara. After the Arab Oromo became aware of the Islamization of the other Arabs, they spoke of the early generations and past deeds of the Arabs. When the Amhara heard this, they were angered by the remarks and expelled the Oromos from their country, the Oromos then migrated to the Juba region. The Oromos had agreed to never to convert to Islam, and their hostility toward the Amhara grew to the point that they would kill any Amhara they encountered. The writer adds that this enmity persisted without reconciliation up to his own time. The book continues with further legendary narratives of a similar kind too long to summarize here until it narrates the Ummayad and Abbasid military expeditions to Africa.
4. The Pate chronicle details conquests of what seems to be an earlier Arab dynasty of the city, in it, the Arab Sultan conquers most if not all of the Swahili coast except Zanzibar, capturing Mogadishu in the 15th century, which appears highly unlikely as the Portuguese commented on its heavy fortifications and strong garrison in the 16th century refusing to assault it. (Check Jeronimo Osorio. Histoire de Portugal contenant les entreprises, nauigations & gestes memorables des Portugallois, (translated and published in french by Abel L'Angelier, 1587), p. 152.) Stephane Pradines casts doubt on the reliability of these events. (S. Pradines. Fortifications et urbanisation en Afrique orientale (2004), p. 48. “We have doubts about the conquest of Mogadishu, which was impregnable during the time of the Portuguese.”)
5. There are three overlooked details in these texts that I think could help us pinpoint when they were composed and in what context.
First, the 15th century Sultan of Pate conquers Kismayo, a city that did not exist until the 19th century. Secondly, the Sultan is said to have conquered the entire East African coast, with the curious exception of Zanzibar, likely reflecting the fact that Pate, Lamu, and the Kenyan coast were under Zanzibari rule when the chronicle was composed in the 19th century. The third is the use of the word “Kashur” in the Kitab al-Zanj, likely indicating the author was a native Swahili speaker just like the other authors of the Pate and Lamu chronicles.
These chronicles clearly attempt to trace the Swahili people to distant Arabian origins. Genetic studies and historiography have consistently shown that the Swahilis are primarily of mixed Persian and Bantu descent. DNA analysis of 80 individuals from 6 medieval and early modern Swahili coastal towns (1250–1800 CE) reveals that the Swahili population was formed through a long-term mixture of primarily African and Asian ancestors. African ancestry was overwhelmingly contributed by Bantu females, while Asian ancestry came almost entirely from Persian males, see Esther Brielle, Jeffrey Fleisher, Stephanie Wynne-Jones. The Entwined African and Asian Genetic Roots of the Medieval Peoples of the Swahili Coast, Nature Vol. 615.
6. Written in the late 19th century, during the period of Omani and Zanzibari Arab rule, works such as the Kitab al-Zanj reflect a clear deliberate effort by Swahilis to fabricate Arab ancestry, reshaping genealogies and their identity to enhance social prestige. Two copies end with the death of a Sultan of Zanzibar, the oldest ends with the death of Sultan Barghash bin Said (d. 1888) and another ends with the death of Sultan Hamud bin Mohammed (d. 1902) (Source: Ritchie & von Sicard. An Azanian Trio: Three East African Arabic Historical Documents (2020), pp. 62-115)
7. The Himyarite pre-Islamic foundation myth is also found among the Banadiri people of Somalia, oral tradition and private manuscripts kept by citizens of Mogadishu claim that a pre-Islamic Himyarite Sultan ruled the city (Source: Ahmed Dualeh Jama. The origins and development of Mogadishu AD 1000 to 1850 (1996), p. 35)
A common East African origin myth used to assert Arabness often through South Arabian origins during a period of Omani Arab influence.
8. According to Neville Chittick, these accounts in the Book of the Zanj must be given up as mythical (Source: H. Neville Chittick, "The East Coast, Madagascar and the Indian Ocean", in J. D. Fage and R. Oliver (eds.), The Cambridge History of Africa, Volume 3: From c.1050 to c. 1600 (Cambridge University Press, 1977), pp. 183–231, at 194–195 and 198.)
9. As for the Omanis in East Africa during the earliest days of Islam, they were simple pirates, sailors, or even slave-traders, I'm not sure if that is the one narrated by al-Jahiz but there is a famous story about Omani sailors coming to East African and meeting the local king of the Zanj, and when he welcomes them they capture him and sell him to slavery in the Middle East, he manages to escape and come back to Bilad al zanj but they capture him again and he frees himself again and when they come back he forgives them, something along those lines, anyone familiar with the topic will know what I'm talking about but I believe S. Pradines has mentioned it in his book on mosques in Africa. Yubudirsi (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Please avoid posting WP:WALLSOFTEXT, it is way too much no matter what point you are trying to make. None of what you mention is relevant to whether the article should be deleted or not. AfD is concerned with notability, not historicity or cleanup. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛ 15:46, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep and edit the article to reflect that sources view it as a legendary event. Why delete it? What is the WP:DEL-REASON? What I'm seeing here is a bunch of sources to support the idea that this is a notable subject, but that there are issues with the article about it. What should be done there is editing the article to improve it rather than outright deleting it. ―Maltazarian (talkinvestigate) 17:04, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think this information warrants itself to be a separate article where it presents itself as a historic event that has taken place but a mere legendary account. It should be merged and included in the Kitab al-Zanj article. Replayerr (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
    Comment: @Replayerr: When you nominate an article for deletion, it's going to be assumed that you're doing so because you think it should be deleted, unless you clearly specify some other possible outcome (e.g. "Redirect"); so, your nomination is considered a de-facto "Delete" WP:!VOTE, and you don't need to !vote "Delete" second time. In fact, doing so might be seen as an attempt at !voting twice in the same discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
  • If anything these legendary events should just be added on other pages, there is already a Kitab al-Zunuj page but I can make a Pate chronicles page, as for al Jahiz it can be put under other pages such as East African slave trade or other Swahili/Omani history related pages. It is absolutely misleading to give these mythical events an article presenting them as if they were real events, especially the historical infobox, "Abbasid victory" was truly the cherry on the cake. Yubudirsi (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
    We have Pate Chronicle. —Srnec (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
@Yubudirsi: I cannot speak on the content, but the "Infobox military conflict" has been used for fictional conflicts elsewhere, too, simply as a convenient format for that type of information. Compare Battle of the Pelennor Fields, Battle of Asakai. Daranios (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Well these are clearly fictional topics, no one will mistake Lord of the Rings for an actual historical event.. Yubudirsi (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Fair enough, but the template itself does not state it's a historical event. I've now added in text that it's a legendary event. Daranios (talk) 11:04, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
I have no objection to removing the infobox. Srnec (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Mythology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:16, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nothing that cannot be fixed by normal editing. In fact, the large comment by Yubudirsi in support of deletion only proves that the topic is notable enough for an article. Deletion is not a quick fix. Srnec (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
    I think it should be merged rather than having it's own independent page. ~2026-15750-57 (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag (or fix). Agreeing with Srnec, it seems to me that there is enough discussion in secondary sources to support an article. Doubts of the veracity of the account are already addressed in the article, only the way this is presented may be skewed. So a WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem. Daranios (talk) 11:00, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
...or merge. There is enough material for a stand-alone article, and this may be a bit much for the Kitab al-Zunuj article, but I am not into the details to be able to say if this would benefit more from additional context there. Daranios (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
  • It is skewed, "may be" isn't enough to attest that this was a legendary/mythical event and that Kitab al-Zanj has been scrutinised. It should be merged into the Kitab al-Zanj article. Replayerr (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
    @Replayerr: Ok, but then why not WP:JUSTFIXIT? I've done a first step by putting the criticism of historicity into the lede, so that readers will know that right away. Daranios (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
    I would prefer the article to be merged with Kitab Al-Zanj where the legendary account can be included there. There’s a literal info box that portrays it as a historical event. Replayerr (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. [I believe Yubudirsi’s extensive input shows why it should be deleted and/or merged with كتاب الزنج (Kitab al-Zanj) as it is mainly a mythological and legend-based account.] Johannes Klarnus-Pettersen (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
@Johannes Klarnus-Pettersen: The fact that it is a mythological or legend-based account as such does not prevent us from having an article on it. We have plenty of articles on fictional and mythological elements on Wikipedia. With which I don't mean to say that there might not be other reasons for this not having its own article. Daranios (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. Since this content is derived from Book of the Zanj, it should be housed there rather than in an independent article. Trumpetrep (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
@Trumpetrep: If you believe content on our topic here should be better housed at the Book of the Zanj article, then why not merge the content rather than deleting it, as suggested by WP:ATD-M? The content currently present at Book of the Zanj hardly touches on our topic here. Daranios (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
I'm unclear on how that's a different path from the one I suggested. It strikes me as six of one, half a dozen of another. Beyond what I've already stated, I have no opinion. Trumpetrep (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
@Trumpetrep and Ughaz: If the result of this discussion would be "Delete", then the content of the article would be deleted, period. Nothing would be added to the Book of the Zanj article except if someone took entirely new initiative to add something, but without the benefit of having what's here as a basis. On the other hand, if the result were "Merge", then the content of this article would be preserved with a note advocating for the merge until someone is using it to actually add put this topic into the merge target. Daranios (talk) 11:04, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
I will add the contents to the new article it is being moved to. I have moved content like this on multiple occasions. Replayerr (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Why not make the Abbasid and Ummayad tales a sub-heading on that article and the Pate article ? Yubudirsi (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
That would be fine with me. Daranios (talk) 11:04, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
So which is it, Pate or Zanj? A merge is a bad idea. Srnec (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Anything related to the Pate chronicles will be merged into that article and anything related to Zanj will be moved there also. Replayerr (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
I don’t think it’s a bad idea nor do many in this article. I understand outright removal of the content is in bad taste which is why I currently propose for this article to be deleted and for the relevant content to be moved. Replayerr (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
I understand outright removal of the content is in bad taste. You should not have proposed it for deletion then. That is what deletion is for. If you believe in preserving the text, you should have gone about this another way. Srnec (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think the article should be deleted and put under Book of the Zanj.
Ughaz (talk) 08:23, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Ughaz has never edited Wikipedia before. Srnec (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Is that relevant to what we are discussing? Ughaz (talk) 08:29, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
It is if it's canvassing. Srnec (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep I have to admit I am quite confused because I cannot identify any deletion rationale in either the nomination or the arguments supportive of deletion. It is clearly a notable topic as demonstrated by the currently solid state of sourcing in the article; its historicity has absolutely nothing to do with that. In spite of my pretty strong mergist bias, I also do not see how merging and redirecting to Book of the Zanj would make sense here, as it is only one of the topics the books covers, and it clearly benefits from being discussed on its own as it allows to contrast other sources with its coverage. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛ 15:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete myth and propaganda advanced as historical fact. Tamsier (talk) 08:46, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
    How is that in any way a reason to delete an article instead of just editing it? Besides, while there might have been confusion at the time of the nomination, this is not even remotely true anymore at the time of your vote. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛ 10:02, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
    Sorry, but propaganda, pseudo history or original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. Even the article itself supports my position that it is a myth, and not accepted by any credible scholar. And the Book of the Zanj (a repulsive term in itself) was a racist agenda advanced by Arabs against the Black Easter Africans they were enslaving and viewed as "slaves" and non-human. This is not even a myth, but a propaganda to advance Arab supremacy over the Black East and South East Africans they were enslaving (and still continue to enslave) for over a thousand years since Arab Islam. Indeed, Muhammad himself traded in Black slaves as evident in the hadiths - and from Muhammad himself. And the hadiths and quran contain anti-Black verses which we would view today as problematic. Without delving deeper so not to clutter this discussion, I think some historical context is relevant here. Not only that, this is not even supported by any credible scholar worth their price in gold, as evident in the article itself, and we should desist from using this Wikipedia project to advance propaganda/supremacy of any sort, no matter where it is coming from. Tamsier (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep - there is enough discussion in secondary sources to merit a standalone article. I do not think it would be WP:DUE to merge and include the content in Kitab al-Zunuj. If there is dispute about the clarity of the text as it pertains to legendary / not legendary, that can be solved by normal editing and discussion on the talk page. Likewise the suitability or otherwise of including an {{Infobox military conflict}}. I would probably be minded not to include one - not everything needs an infobox! Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:43, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Galdan Boshugtu Khan's expeditions against the Kazakh Khanate (1681–1684)


Galdan Boshugtu Khan's expeditions against the Kazakh Khanate (1681–1684) (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)

As noted on the article talkpage and this ANI discussion, there is no available sourcing explicitly supporting the idea that this series of skirmishes was a discrete part of the Kazakh-Dzungar Wars, to which I suggest a merge. Pinging above-mentioned users @CoffeeCrumbs and Онеми:. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:08, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Support: Although stated as conquest of cities by Haines R. Spencer and series of expeditions by Vasily Barthold and Bai Cuiqin, I agree for the merge to Dzungar Khanate (for the internal imrpovement of the Dzungar Khanate) and the Kazakh–Dzungar Wars, IsHorse, the Khan of the Universe and Ungulates (Please don't click this) 10:16, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Galdan Boshugtu Khan page too. IsHorse, the Khan of the Universe and Ungulates (Please don't click this) 10:21, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment Striking sock. Servite et contribuere (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:10, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI