Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/History

Mishar Yurt

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

There was no such "semi-autonomous principality". A sloppy translation from Tatar: Tatar: Мишәр йорты, romanized: Mishar yorty means simply "Territory of Mishar Tatars" ("yurt", literallly "house" has many meanings; in may even mean "clan") and even in these scarce sources nothing is spoken about any kind of polity. --Altenmann >talk 02:01, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Geography, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:33, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

World War II combatives

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

Seems like a great deal of WP:OR, not backed up by sources and written in an essay-like manner. I'm surprised the article has endured for 23 years. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:47, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:47, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete. There's barely an attempt to follow Wikipedia policies here. Additionally, the article purports to be about all of WWII combat techniques, yet deals with only a tiny patch of them in four short paragraphs. Its only citation is to an obituary. This is deadly stuff. Trumpetrep (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Principality of Lars

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

This page is not notable. It is true that the "Principality of Lars" existed however it is not a notable feudal state like Kabardia or Tarki Shamkhalate is. It didn't exist as a state after the death of Sultan Larsinsky, anything that will be added to this page can be discussed in Sultan Larsinsky's page, which wont happen because his article is much longer than this one. the so called "Principality of Lars" is not a notable feudal entity, the 'principality' didn't have any princes before Sultan Larsinsky and no one after him too, it simply is not notable thus I think this page should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ch3rk.essk0 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 July 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:44, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Georgia (country), and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Selangor Sultanate

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

I propose redirecting to Sultan of Selangor because they are roughly the same topic. This article is mostly unsourced (most of the sources that are here are primary, and 3 of 4 links don't work for me). The long-standing redirect is better than an unsourced article. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 10:12, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Islam, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:25, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
Redirect per nom. Mccapra (talk) 11:10, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
Redirect as already decided at RM. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Redirect the title of the page should be decided at RM, and this page just serves as WP:DUP HerrHeulsuse (talk) 07:36, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Pigeon Hill Raid

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

I propose merging to Fenian raids because there isnt enough content for its article Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Ireland and Canada. Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
Support This looks like a good candidate for a merge. Sources appear reliable but there's just not much here. Simonm223 (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events and History. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:54, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
Merge per WP:SHORTTEXT. FaviFake (talk) 08:25, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
Keep: sources exist to expand the article. There is a chapter on it here and it receives treatment here. There is information about subsequent legal fallout here. Doubtless more information can be found in sources covering broader periods. Taghdtaighde (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Anna Batori

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable; doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:PROF (h-index of 5). AfC draft was moved to mainspace by author. Some parts read AI-generated. A WP:BEFORE didn't turn up anything WP:GNG-worthy. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 08:32, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, History, Social science, Suspected AI-generated articles, and Hungary. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 08:32, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:42, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete — no evidence of notability per WP:PROF. — Biruitorul ^Talk 10:35, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
~~Delete~~. Draftify. I have found a total of four reviews of her books: 1, 2, 3 and Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries; Jul2024, Vol. 61 Issue 11, p1151-1151, 1/4p. 3 reviews of 1 book and 1 review of 1 book isn't sufficient for WP:NAUTHOR. HRShami (talk) 10:59, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Based on the reviews David Eppstein has found I have changed my vote to Draftify. While she is clearly notable, there are large swathes of unreferenced text in the article and the OP has also raised concerns about AI-generated content in the article. HRShami (talk) 05:58, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep. Beyond the reviews listed above by HRShami, I found three more, two of another book: . I think this is enough for WP:AUTHOR, and provides plenty of in-depth independent sourcing about her work for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
Keep as per the reviews of her works in academic reliable sources identified in this discussion that together show a pass of WP:NAUTHOR so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

1821 Franklin County, Massachusetts tornado

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

Note: This formal merge proposal was incorrectly opened on the article's talk page. Following the March 2026 RfC, formal merge discussions are now held at AfD rather than the historical Proposed article mergers process (PAM). I've moved the discussion accordingly per WP:TPO.

Moved from Talk:1821 Franklin County, Massachusetts tornado § Merge into September 1821 New England tornado outbreak?

– FaviFake (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge into September 1821 New England tornado outbreak?

Neither article is very long, and they fit well. This could easily be a subsection of the larger article.i ChagrinEr (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge per WP:OVERLAP. FaviFake (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Massachusetts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:47, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge is fine. It would be cool if someone could write a section for the NH tornado but I know that’s a big ask. NomzEditingWikis (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

History of City Loop services

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

I propose deleting the History of City Loop services article because this article doesn't feel like it's an encyclopaedic article and there is already enough History in the main City Loop article. I also feel like some contents are original research? What are your thoughts? PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 10:51, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose: The article in terms of history is seperate from the main City Loop article. The City Loop article explains the wider history of the loop consisting of planning and construction while this article is regarding services history and therefore different. LachlanTansey (talk) 11:33, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

The article is also sufficent per WP:NOTABILITY with plenty of topics and sources for City Loop services alone. LachlanTansey (talk) 11:39, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep This is an offshoot of the article on the City Loop, which is itself notable. If anything, the alternative option is to merge its contents back into that article. But I note the nominator doesn't seem to have carried out a search for sig cov sources, and it doesn't feel encyclopedic is not a reason to nominate. This isn't a forum for discussion. Discussion should have been started on the talk page and if anything, the article should have been templated for original research or tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmemaigret (talk • contribs) 12:49, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Weak keep - understand the points re. notability. But this article does, I feel, need substantial c/e'ing for OR as mentioned and unsourced material. It doesn't even tell me what country this is in until I click the City loop link...!

Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 13:43, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge with City Loop. This should be shortened considerably and merged with that page, because this topic can be adequately explained there and does not need its own article. Steelkamp (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
On top of notability, this article also meets the criteria of WP:PROOF in terms of the changes to service mentioned in the article being sufficiently sourced. LachlanTansey (talk) 05:48, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

*:Oppose: The contents of this article are fine on their own as in its own separate article again, as per WP:NOTABILITY. Merging this with the main City Loop article would only needlessly overcomplicate that article with more information then is needed. The City Loop article is about the planning and construction history of the tunnels, not the service history like this article. LachlanTansey (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm voting for merge due to WP:PAGEDECIDE. Steelkamp (talk) 04:54, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@LachlanTansey: Please strikethrough or remove your oppose. It is a duplicate oppose. Steelkamp (talk) 05:07, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
I didnt see this at first, my bad I will strikethrough. LachlanTansey (talk) 05:35, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of History-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:04, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

As for User:PEPSI697's claim of present OR, I won't outright say that there is none. What I will say is that when creating the article I made sure that everything important, such as changes to service then is mentioned in the article was sourced either from news outlets or directly from era appropriate timetables. LachlanTansey (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

The main City Loop article as present only has minimal information regarding service history. It only mentions that the Caulfield Loop was made to run anti-clockwise in 2021 without detailing on what that actually looked like in terms of the lines using the Caulfield Loop themselves. LachlanTansey (talk) 03:34, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

"The main City Loop article as present only has minimal information regarding service history." And that's what I want to change by merging this. So that the City Loop article is complete, rather than just going over its planning and construction. Steelkamp (talk) 04:55, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Thats why they should be separate, The City Loop article is fine including planning and construction. Including service history would only make that article just too long. LachlanTansey (talk) 05:04, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

That article is not particularly long as it is, and neither is this one. Steelkamp (talk) 05:06, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I disagree, I feel it is long but not too long. The length of this article also would only add to that. LachlanTansey (talk) 05:08, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Sahrawi insurgency

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

Single-sentence article. There doesn't appear to be a need for a separate article at this time (WP:NOPAGE) as all required context is covered in its parent article, Western Sahara conflict. It seems that when this article was originally created, it plagiarized from external sources, and was then left undeveloped. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 04:47, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Africa, Morocco, and Spain. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 04:47, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge tp Western Sahara conflict. Per nomination. Khalitate (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of History-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to WP:BLAR these sorts of articles Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:27, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Ancient Filipino diet and health

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

This is not an article about its intended topic. It appears to be a fork of Cuisine of pre-colonial Philippines, but with no additional topical information. It includes a long discussion of contemporary ethnic group diets with no attempt at connecting them to an "ancient Filipino" diet (the article risks making it sound like "Ethnolinguistic groups" are "Ancient Filipinos." You can see how that can easily be construed as offensive from Chieharumachi on the talk page), contemporary Filipino health and dietary issues, and a discussion of archaeological methodology with no connection to the topic. Two sources are on paleofeces but don't mention the Philippines and the remainder of the sources are about the contemporary Philippines.

Mentions of corn/maize and tobacco are obviously nonsense, and one commenter on the talk page noted that historical sources disagree with the article's claim of the prevalence of rice and geese. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 21:18, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, History, and Philippines. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 21:18, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete. The source for tartar as a scientific tool is Fox News. This doesn't even attempt to look like a real article. It's a bizarre list that makes very little effort to connect its contents to the ostensible subject of the article. 21:23, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Trumpetrep (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:15, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Brading Day

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

This article about a local holiday has been unsourced since it was created in 2007. The page creator also added the holiday to Brading without a source. The article claims that Brading Day has been celebrated since 1285 but I was unable to find reliable sources for this. The Brading Community Archive website mentions that the town was granted a weekly market and four day faire in 1285 but not a “Brading Day”. This 2025 travel guide mentions Brading Day but it seems poor quality and might even be based on the Wikipedia page. I’ve found enough genuine mentions of the holiday on social media to think that this isn’t a hoax, but it doesn’t seem notable either. Edward056686 (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History and United Kingdom. Edward056686 (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:05, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of England-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:16, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I had a look at the British Newspaper Archive, and there are no mentions of it there. Tacyarg (talk) 04:50, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge to Brading. Since you can prove Brading Day is real via social media, we can pull some primary sources and use <ref group="‡"></ref> tags with the {{Primary sources references section}}. And then we merge, because Brading Day as it is right now fails WP:GNG by a mile. Brynn Who Likes Editing (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

- I don't know if I can find enough information to merge onto the Brading page. Edward056686 (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
  Speedy delete under G11 Page was created by "Bradingday", delete as promotional. MakaylaHippo1998 (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Tanuševci operation

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

Redundant content fork of both 2001 insurgency in Macedonia and Battle of Tanuševci. I'd say it could be merged or redirected into the latter, since the main article already mentions it. There is not enough content, nor sources, to justify a separate article. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Kosovo and Events. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:48, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I reckon we combine Tanuševci operation and Battle of Tanuševci into 1 article if that’s fine with you? ~2026-39380-11 (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Fine by me. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

1964 Detention of Indonesian vessel

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

Propose to Delete. During the Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation, both Indonesia and Malaysia detained many ships/boats. This appears to be one of many such incidents, and I don't see what makes this one notable enough for a standalone article. The ship is not even identified by name, and the article appears to be based on only a single source. My BEFORE was unable to find any other source of this specific incident. Ckfasdf (talk) 07:39, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Indonesia, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge into Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation. While I agree that this minor incident doesn't satisfy WP:GNG for a standalone article, it may be a useful data point for the broader conflict. MissBVCC (talk) 10:16, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I still propose deletion because there is no mention of the ship/boat detention in the target article. Hence, there is nothing to merge. Ckfasdf (talk) 05:53, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Human-hunting

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

I propose merging to Blood sport per WP:MERGESHORT, due to the fact that this is simply a list of examples. A section can be made about blood sport involving humans, including gladiator combat and hunting for humans. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:02, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Crime, History, and Popular culture. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:02, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Support merge due to article size. SenshiSun (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Support per WP:SHORTTEXT. FaviFake (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge. Human-hunting is a list, but it's a very short one, and the topic (hopefully) limits the possible length of the list. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge per nom. Khalitate (talk) 08:34, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose, this does not mesh well at all with the contents of that page. There's very little in common in terms of scope. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

"Human-hunting" as a specific term appears to overlap almost entirely with blood sport. While there may be other types of acts that could be described as hunting humans, there are already more apt terms for those, such as "bounty hunting" or "genocide". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:32, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Blood sport is not strict to humans and not all human hunting is "sport". PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

No one ever said bloodsport has to be strictly human, it would go in a section of the bloodsport article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:27, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes... but as I said, in addition, not all human hunting is "sport". There's nothing to merge, anyway, the list of examples isn't encyclopedic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:17, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

If you think it should be deleted instead, you are allowed to say that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:27, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose merge per PARAKANYAA. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
Comment. Possibly useful source: https://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/games_and_sports . --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:49, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Government of the Republic of Serbian Krajina

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

I propose redirecting to Republic of Serbian Krajina, which already includes the gist of this information.
This list article was ostensibly created on 29 December 2025, but includes references to archived dead links marked accessdate=20 February 2012. The creating account is now indefinitely blocked for some other abuse.
Other highlights - or should I say lowlights - include the fact that the 2012 reference is to a self-published document by the unrecognized entity on Scribd; references to works by someone called Mile Dakić who might be a war-time politician from the same unrecognized entity; an interview with Peter Semneby, an OSCE mission lead saying the government-in-exile is "absurd".
We previously redirected something very similar to this, cf. Talk:List of Presidents of the Republic of Serbian Krajina.
The whole concept is also dubious, because these tables are WP:OR-inducing, and we've already seen a lot of nonsense with other politician lists related to Croatia (like this). We should not add more such tables for unrecognized wartime self-proclaimed states, at least not without citing them to reliable sources, like historians describing the topic directly and in detail. --Joy (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Croatia, and Serbia. --Joy (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:06, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:59, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete If the sources are weak and the overlap is basically a circle, I am fine with straight deletion honestly. No sense beating around the bush in this situation. ← Metallurgist (talk) 07:45, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Center for Cultural Judaism

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

This article was published in 2010 by an author who later disclosed a conflict of interest. Until 2023, from what I can gather from the edit history, the article was unreferenced and appears it may have been created for purposes of promotion. I have not found any significant coverage in independent sources to establish notability. USnoozieULoozie (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Religion, and Judaism. USnoozieULoozie (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep. While the nominator's concerns regarding the article's historical conflict of interest (WP:COI) and lack of sources are totally valid, a deletion should evaluate the subject's notability, not only the current state of the page . The Center for Cultural Judaism passes WP:ORG and WP:GNG. It has received independent coverage in reliable sources (The Forward) chronicling its philanthropic partnerships and its nationwide administration of the grants across universities like Tulane and Lehigh. The article however needs to be rewritten to strip away the promotional tone. MissBVCC (talk) 08:38, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 02:47, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Partnerships and grant administration seem more like WP:CORPTRIV than notability. Can you point out 2-3 sources that talk about the Center in more than this sort of routine way? M kuhner (talk) 05:50, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Melee

AfDs for this article:

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

The article states that a melee is "hand-to-hand fighting among several people". There is an extremely heavy WP:OVERLAP between this article and hand-to-hand combat, and it should be merged there per that and WP:MERGESHORT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:23, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Language, History, and Military. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:23, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
Merge per WP:SHORTTEXT and per WP:OVERLAP. Why didn't you boldly perform the merge yourself?? FaviFake (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
I was the one who nominated it for deletion last time, so it would have been too controversial to boldly merge. This is an WP:ATD I think would be better received than outright removal. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:46, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
That was the right call, Zxcvbnm. Geschichte (talk) 03:55, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
Merge per nom. HundredVisionsAndRevisions (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge per WP:OVERLAP. MissBVCC (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

This article has fluctuated wildly over its history. It is currently a hollowed out husk. But the term is not synonymous with hand-to-hand combat. I would rather redirect to tournament (medieval). Srnec (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
Oppose merge - I don't believe the term is synonymous with hand-to-hand combat by any means and therefore I don't find it close enough to fit OVERLAP. I'd be open to hearing alternate suggestions for articles to merge to, tho. Jishara (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
Keep per Jishara. A stub is perfectly acceptable, but if you can identify a better target, ping me. Bearian (talk) 09:57, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Tournament_(medieval)#Melee. Oppose merge to hand-to-hand combat. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that terms don't have to be synonymous to justify merging, per WP:MERGEREASON. The only question before us is where readers would benefit most from seeing this content.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:44, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

MErge to Tournament_(medieval)#Melee as WP:DICDEF. The outcome defends on which target we merge this term to. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:26, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
Note @AirshipJungleman29: @LaundryPizza03: The historical and current scope of the article is clearly NOT about the medieval melee tournament, but about a hand-to-hand fight. Thus, I believe the tournament would not be an appropriate target, and the disagreement threatens to derail what should otherwise be agreement that this should be merged somewhere. If people believe that the medieval tournament is the primary topic, you can feel free to nominate the redirect for RfD afterwards, which could result in the redirect being moved to Melee (hand-to-hand combat) or the like. However, I urge you to support the currently proposed merge instead and raise the concerns about the proper primary topic in RfD rather than here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:07, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
WP:NOTBURO. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
NOTBURO does not mean that all elements of rules should be jettisoned completely because rules are bad. It specifically refers to policies and guidelines being misused, and I do not believe my suggestion to decide what is primary topic later is misusing them. It's clearly a more contentious debate than the idea that this page should be merged at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:57, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
Keep Melee is the activity, hand to hand combat is somewhat different and a more academic thing. Hand to hand combat occurs in a melee. Looking on scholar, there are uses of it. And Wiktionary itself has seven definitions. Merge is definitely out, but I could see dabifying it, however I suspect there may be enough sourcing for this even if it not currently presented. ← Metallurgist (talk) 08:21, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Early Third Century Crisis

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

WP:SYNTH, not a thing. No books or scholar matches for "Early Third Century Crisis". ~ A412 ^talk! 07:22, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of History-related AfD discussions. ~ A412 ^talk! 07:22, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
Hey there why is my article being nominated for deletion I just need an explanation, please and thank you. Palaiologos1453 (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
The "Early Third Century Crisis" does not appear to be a topic that has been discussed by reliable published sources, and thus your article appears to be original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. ~ A412 ^talk! 07:09, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Asia and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:02, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete - everybody knows that we have never published original research. Bearian (talk) 08:47, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete This could almost be a disambiguation page but its current form is clearly original research. Edward056686 (talk) 05:24, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete OR/SYNTH, and dubious to boot. Characterising the whole Severan dynasty as part of an Eurasia-wide crisis is a stretch, and calling the period around 200 AD a "societal collapse" is a massive exaggeration (to say the least – at least the Roman Empire basically peaked at this time, reaching its largest geographical extent by 211). Just as a heads-up, there's also a category Category:Early Third Century Crisis with the same problems, and whose use is even more unclear. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Pyrmont and Glebe railway tunnels

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

I propose merging these articles into Rozelle–Darling Harbour Goods Line, I have raised this proposal on behalf of Zin92 as they originally posted a message on that article's talk page proposing this merge. The merit I see in this proposal is that these features were all a part of this former railway service so it makes for easier navigation for readers to find all of this topics in one article. It also satisfies criteria such as WP:MERGECON and WP:OVERLAP. Qwerty123M (talk) 07:55, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Travel and tourism, Engineering, Transportation, and Australia. Qwerty123M (talk) 07:55, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:03, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
Strongly oppose on the basis of WP:PAGEDECIDE, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:SCOPE:

The Rozelle–Darling Harbour Goods Line (RDHGL) is an historical goods railway line, some of which has been converted to

pedestrian use as The Goods Line (TGL),
other parts that now comprise part of the Inner West Light Rail (IWLR), and
a fair chunk of it, closed / redeveloped / converted to parklands / roads.

Firstly, the Pyrmont and Glebe railway tunnels are two railway tunnels, substantially built into Sydney sandstone and faced with bricks, that:

were part of the RDHGL and
now in current use for the IWLR.

The proposed merger will:

delete an article about a railway asset in current use and merge it with an article that describes an historical railway line. Most readers will not be drawn to an historical railway line, hence WP:PAGEDECIDE.
delete an article about a heritage-listed structure, NOTABLE due to its inclusion on the New South Wales State Heritage Register.
delete an article about a piece of infrastructure that is focused on a structure, and merge it into an article that is much broader and covers a broader geographic area, use of technology, time period, and varied use. Hence WP:SCOPE is too broad and the tunnels will get lost in this longer article.

Secondly, the Glebe and Wentworth Park railway viaducts are two brick arched railway viaducts, that:

were part of the RDHGL and
now in current use for the IWLR.

The proposed merger will:

delete an article about a railway asset in current use and merge it with an article that describes an historical railway line. Most readers will not be drawn to an historical railway line, hence WP:PAGEDECIDE.
delete an article about a heritage-listed structure, NOTABLE due to its inclusion on the New South Wales State Heritage Register. It is further noted that one of the viaducts is "…the 28-span Jubilee Park Viaduct… significant as the longest section of brick arch viaduct…" on the NSW rail system.
delete an article about a piece of infrastructure that is focused on a structure, and merge it into an article that is much broader and covers a broader geographic area, use of technology, time period, and varied use. Hence WP:SCOPE is too broad and the viaducts will get lost in this longer article.
delete an article where the physical presence of both viaducts – sightlines, length, accessibility, technology, architecture, history, etc. – is such that they are both significant and NOTABLE landmarks within the local, regional, and state landscape.

Rangasyd (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Battle of Toshamaidan Pass

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

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, WP:NEVENT, WP:V, and WP:NOR. The cited sources do not establish a standalone “Battle of Toshamaidan Pass”. Gupta describes Mazhar Ali’s artillery column being blocked in a narrow defile, with about 500 men killed and wounded on both sides, followed by rumours, plundering, and harassment and he does not present this as a named independent battle, nor as the article’s infobox claim of 500 Sikh deaths and a clear Durrani victory. Lafont does not support the Durrani-victory framing either, since he says Ram Dayal’s division defeated the Afghans in more than one battle. Nayyar, Parmu, and Bhagata Singh’s History of the Sikh Misals do not appear to provide little coverage of the alleged battle, and some do not mention it at all.

This is a source-text mismatch, not just weak sourcing. WP:V requires the cited sources to directly support the material as presented, and WP:NOR bars creating a separate battle article by synthesizing scattered campaign details. The sources may support a brief note about an artillery-column skirmish or harassment during the Battle of Kashmir (1814), but they do not provide WP:SIGCOV of a distinct battle with independent notability therefore it should be Deleted. Heraklios 23:38, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Pakistan, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. Heraklios 23:38, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:17, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
~~Keep~~(now supporting merge) I had reported the creator, however I have to disagree with the nomination because the battle has gained significant coverage in reliable sources. Sources such as "History of the Sikhs: The Sikh Lion of Lahore, Maharaja Ranjit Singh, 1799-1839" by Hari Ram Gupta, Kashmir: An Historical Introduction, Journal Perspectives on Guru Granth Sahib, Volume 9, Who's who in the History of Punjab, 1800-1849 and more have dedicated multiple pages to the battle. THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 14:44, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
this is all in Battle of Kashmir (1814) that was part of expedition. RangersRus (talk) 11:19, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I checked your references and again none of them are WP:GNG they do not even elaborate the battle or give any information about it. Heraklios 13:10, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Then you are falsifying the sources. They have dedicated multiple pages to the battle. THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 07:01, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
I am not falsifying anything. My point is that mentioning Tosh Maidan Pass is not the same as providing coverage of a distinct battle. For example, Kashmir: An Historical Introduction mentions the pass, but it treats Tosh Maidan as a route rather than elaborating on the battle. If the sources only mention the pass or the Battle of Kashmir (1814), then they do not necessarily establish detailed coverage of this battle as a separate topic. Heraklios 11:19, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Battle_of_Kashmir_(1814)#Expedition or Delete. No sources call it a standalone battle. It was part of the expedition that has already been mentioned in the redirect page I suggested. Sources are very clear, The Maharaja advanced to Mandi, and then made his way to the Toshamaidan Pass on 18 July. On 29 July, Ruhullah Khan attacked him. On 30 July he assaulted the Sikhs with greater vigour. Heavy rains also caused them great annoyance.On 5 August, 1814, Ranjit Singh entered the village Sandha. Climbing up farther he found a stream in flood through which his guns and stores could not be passed. Hence, the flow of water channel had to be diverted. At the mouth of Toshamaidan Muhammad Azim Khan had firmly entrenched to oppose the Maharaja. Ranjit Singh reconnoited the position and considered the attack too hazardous. It is clear that the so called battle never happened at the location of the title but on the way in different places/villages, which is all part of expedition and already mentioned in the redirect page. This can't be a standalone article. The creator is also reported to be likely a sockpuppet. If proven, the page should be deleted as G5. RangersRus (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep - Meets WP:GNG per sources provided by ZDRX. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:51, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment. Battle of Toshamaidan Pass is a duplicate of an already existing page Battle_of_Kashmir_(1814)#Expedition. The creator also worded incorrect information. Creator wrote whole article by using Gupta source.
- Creator writes, Mazhar Ali, who oversaw the Topkhana artillery division, was directed to move his guns through the Toshamaidan Pass.

But the source says Mazhar Ali, superintendent of Topkhana, was ordered to send his artillery to Toshamaidan Pass.

- Creator writes, The ensuing clash proved costly, killing 500 Sikhs.

But the source says In the fight about 500 men were killed and wounded on both sides. All sources call it an expedition and no mention with any specific title Battle of Toshamaidan Pass. Battle_of_Kashmir_(1814) already exists and is much well written and no need to have two pages when they are literally on the same expedition. RangersRus (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Merge Relevant information with Battle_of_Kashmir_(1814)#Expedition after googling is appears that this battle was part of the larger Battle of Kashmir--maybre make this battle it's own section? Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A deeper source analysis would be useful - in particular, are the sources brought by THEZDRX all independent of one another, or are the later ones basically repackaged Hari Ram Gupta?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

the sources brought by THEZDRX are just snippets from Google book search on "Tosh Maidan" and "1814". They do not give any coverage on any such battle called "Battle of Toshamaidan Pass". Even the Gupta source only calls it a Kashmir expedition which already exists Battle_of_Kashmir_(1814). The creator has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Page can be deleted per G5. RangersRus (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Deeper source analysis. Below is a source-by-source review of the works cited for this article. I have linked the sources where I could find an accessible online copy; the unlinked works are ones I could not locate online. The issue is whether these sources provide independent significant coverage of a standalone “Battle of Toshamaidan Pass”, rather than only discussing the wider 1814 Kashmir campaign.

Hari Ram Gupta, History of the Sikhs: The Sikh Lion of Lahore, pp. 125–126. Gupta is the main source for the underlying incident. He says Mazhar Ali was ordered to send artillery to Toshamaidan Pass, where Ruhullah Khan blocked his passage in a narrow mountain defile. Gupta then says that about 500 men were killed and wounded on both sides, followed by rumours, plundering, harassment, shortage of supplies, rain, and the Sikh retreat. This provides some coverage of an incident during the wider Kashmir expedition, but it is not significant coverage of a separately named “Battle of Toshamaidan Pass”. It also does not support the article's casualty framing, since Gupta does not say 500 Sikhs were killed; he says about 500 men were killed and wounded on both sides. Therefore, Gupta supports at most a brief subsection in the campaign article, not an independent battle article.

Jean Marie Lafont, Maharaja Ranjit Singh, p. 31. Lafont gives only a short overview of the 1814 Kashmir campaign. He says one division under the Maharaja marched by Poonch, while Ram Dayal passed through Bahramgala and defeated the Afghans in more than one battle. Lafont does not mention a “Battle of Toshamaidan Pass”, does not discuss the alleged battle as a separate event, and does not support the article's Durrani-victory framing. This is campaign-level coverage, not WP:SIGCOV for the article topic.

G. S. Nayyar, The Panjab Past and Present, vol. 24, pp. 31–32. Nayyar discusses the 1814 Kashmir campaign, including Ram Dayal's advance to Behram Gala, fighting with Azim Khan, and fighting at Shopian. It does not mention Toshamaidan/Tosha Maidan or a separate battle there. This source therefore gives no coverage of the article topic itself. It may support the wider campaign article, but not a standalone “Battle of Toshamaidan Pass”.

R. K. Parmu, A History of Sikh Rule in Kashmir, 1819–1846, pp. 93–94. Parmu mentions the Rajouri-Thanna and Punch-Tosamaidan routes, Ranjit Singh's division of the army, the dangerous Punch route, opposition, shortage of provisions, and campaign difficulties. This is useful background for the route and the expedition, but it treats Tosamaidan as part of the campaign movement. It does not identify or discuss a separately named “Battle of Toshamaidan Pass”. This is not significant coverage of the article topic; it is route/campaign context.

Bhagata Singh, A History of the Sikh Misals, p. 130. This source discusses the 1814 Kashmir campaign, Behram Gala, fighting with Azim Khan, fighting at Shopian, and Ram Dayal's role. It does not mention Toshamaidan/Tosha Maidan or a battle there. This gives no coverage of the article topic and cannot establish notability for a standalone article.

James P. Ferguson, Kashmir: An Historical Introduction, p. 101. Ferguson gives only a passing mention, stating that Ranjit Singh's army, retreating from Tosh Maidan, was defeated at Lohara during the failed attempt to invade Kashmir. This mentions Tosh Maidan only as part of the retreat route/context. It does not discuss a separate battle at Toshamaidan Pass and is not significant coverage under WP:SIGCOV.

Journal Perspectives on Guru Granth Sahib, pp. 67–68. This is the closest source to mentioning fighting at Tosha-Maidan. It says Azam Khan opened a strong offensive against the main Sikh army at Tosha-Maidan, after which the Sikh army, suffering from lack of provisions, rain, sickness, and desertion, retreated in disorder. However, this is still brief campaign-level coverage. It does not provide detailed independent treatment of a standalone “Battle of Toshamaidan Pass”, and the same material is already better placed within the wider 1814 Kashmir campaign.

Conclusion. The cited works do not provide independent significant coverage of a standalone “Battle of Toshamaidan Pass”. Gupta is the only source giving detailed incident-level material, but even Gupta frames it as part of the wider expedition and does not support the article's title, casualty claim, or result framing. Lafont, Nayyar, Parmu, Bhagata Singh, Ferguson, and the GNDU journal either do not mention Toshamaidan, mention it only as a route/pass, or discuss the broader 1814 Kashmir campaign. The material therefore belongs, at most, in Battle of Kashmir (1814)#Expedition. A standalone article fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, and the current framing raises WP:V and WP:NOR concerns because the cited sources do not directly support the article's presentation. Heraklios 20:43, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
@Asilvering The source analysis sadly i could not access Who's who in the History of Punjab, 1800-1849. Heraklios 22:59, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep meets GNG. At least 3/4 sources provided above have significant coverage about the baytle. NavjotSR (talk) 05:08, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ (changed to Merge, see later comment). There are numerous sources that give sufficient coverage about the topic such as those listed by ZDRX. Noorullah (talk) 06:19, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete: per RangersRus. Also, I would like to note that the creator of the page has been blocked from creating pages indefinitely. As it was also noted by the admin who blocked them "there are a number of issues with the new articles you've been creating. It does not appear that these historical battles are appropriately sourced to pass our notability requirements, namely, WP:NEVENT". R3YBOl (🌲) 11:25, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete per Heraklios' follow-up comment. I don't understand how anyone could !vote keep after that - are you saying Heraklios is incorrect? If so, how? In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
Mainly because the sources who do not attribute any skirmishing/conflict in the retreat (or at Toshmaidan) are used to detail other parts of the campaign. Appropriate context given where it is due as shown in the article, those who aren't used for the battles context or not giving sufficient context are in the background elaborating on the campaign itself such as how the order of troops were divided and when the campaign began.

-

Gupta is the most elaborative here in respective context for there being a battle.

-

To nitpick from some of Heraklios comment regarding Gupta... "since Gupta does not say 500 Sikhs were killed; he says about 500 men were killed and wounded on both sides.", ...So 500 Sikhs were killed? I think you just meant here that the unknown for the Afghan side should also be 500, which I concur with.

-

However this brings the question on if Gupta alone is substantive enough to be almost standalone here or with the inclusion of the Guru Granth Sahib's source to warrant a standalone article? Probably not. So I support a Merge to the Battle of Kashmir (1814) instead, mainly Gupta and other accounts recording of such a possible battle and elaborating that (x) account says so and so occurred during the retreat. Noorullah (talk) 04:27, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
Selective merge to Battle of Kashmir (1814)#Expedition per Heraklios, as an WP:ATD. A standalone page is clearly not warranted but total deletion is not supported by policy either. Katzrockso (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
@Katzrockso, what are you suggesting ought to be merged there that is not already present? In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
Upon rereading, I can see the overwhelming similarity. A redirect is probably better as I don't think there's really anything to merge. Katzrockso (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Battle of Kashmir (1814) per WP:ATD/R. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
- ZDRX which sources have dedicated multiple pages to this battle? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
Merge to Battle of Kashmir (1814)#Expedition. While this one has certainly more coverge than other battles, merging is still a fair option. Shankargb (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
@Shankargb, what are you suggesting ought to be merged there that is not already present? In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For editors advising to merge this article into Battle of Kashmir (1814), what content specifically needs to be merged? There is, so far, a consensus against keeping a standalone article. Battle of Kashmir has consensus as a merge or redirect target. It's unclear from editors arguing to merge, why they propose merging over redirecting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

there is nothing to merge. Incident as part of the expedition is already mentioned in Battle of Kashmir (1814). Redirect to Battle of Kashmir (1814) or delete is the appropriate option here. RangersRus (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Field slaves in the United States

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

Since most slaves in the U.S. were used as field hands, this article is just a fork of Slavery in the United States and Treatment of slaves in the United States. Given the poor quality of content and sources (three PBS documentaries in a field that is covered by a lot of academic research), merging is no option. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History and United States of America. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
Question. So what are you suggesting should happen to the redirect Field slaveField slave and the articles linking there? Thincat (talk) 09:48, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
Change the target to slavery. The current target is nonsensical because there were a lot of field slaves outside of the U.S. Rsk6400 (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
Agreed. ~2026-35934-38 (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge with Treatment of slaves in the United States. It’s more specific to the topic at hand than Slavery in the United States and so it’ll work better with the prose. ~2026-35934-38 (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I think that this article needs improving with more citations ~2026-37064-10 (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge with Slavery in the United States I have concerns on the grounds of WP:V and WP:GNG. This article on its own in terms of sources is pretty thin and would do better with more context and sourcing surrounding it. AadamentAardvark (talk) 11:02, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete or redirect to Slavery in the United States per WP:TNT. This article is just a poor treatment of a topic that is covered in depth in various other places. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:24, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:59, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 06:35, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a clear consensus that the article should not be kept and likely be merged instead, but to where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 18:45, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to slavery in the United States as that is the most clearly related term. Some editors discuss merging content. The content doesn't seem worth merging though. For example, the article mentions enslaved people being given "one outfit annually", but this isn't quite correct and it's lacking nuance. A plantation doing well might give the enslaved workers more than one outfit a year, especially in terms of having work clothing and church clothing. However, slave owners would also sometimes have people work nearly naked in rags, so some places created formal requirements to annually provide clothing. Also "outfit" does not give the nuance that the enslaved people were receiving mainly coarse osnaburg and negro cloth made into really simple clothing. Nor does it cover the practice of enslaved people themselves using the indigo grown on the plantations for blue dye, sumac berries for red/pink/orange dyes, and certain bark for brown dyes. It also doesn't mention sumptuary laws that forbade enslaved people from wearing nicer cloth, nor the tignon law that forced enslaved women to cover their hair. It also doesn't mention work put in by enslaved people to adorn their clothing with shells or feathers, or more generally connections to African traditions. I just don't see much to salvage. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:21, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to slavery in the United States per Rjjiii. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
I agree that redirecting to Slavery in the United States is the best solution. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/History

History

Mishar Yurt

World War II combatives

Principality of Lars

Selangor Sultanate

Pigeon Hill Raid

Anna Batori

1821 Franklin County, Massachusetts tornado

History of City Loop services

Sahrawi insurgency

Ancient Filipino diet and health

Brading Day

Tanuševci operation

1964 Detention of Indonesian vessel

Human-hunting

Government of the Republic of Serbian Krajina

Center for Cultural Judaism

Melee

Early Third Century Crisis

Pyrmont and Glebe railway tunnels

Battle of Toshamaidan Pass

Field slaves in the United States

History Proposed deletions

History categories

Proposals

Related Articles