Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Social science|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Social science. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


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

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

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

Social science

Global Tapestry of Alternatives


Global Tapestry of Alternatives (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 transparently AI-generated article (although not eligible for G15 speedy deletion) on a topic with no apparent notability, thus failing WP:GNG and WP:NOLLM. The article itself is full of social activism jargon and the sources are all affiliated with the organisation. There is nothing salvageable here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 08:01, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Tyler Myroniuk


Tyler Myroniuk (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)

Assistant professor with no indication of meeting WP:NPROF. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep per WP:NPROF#C1: 619 citations, h-index 16, 48 peer-reviewed publications, top-field venues, and Associate Editor of Demographic Research since 2022. NewTommy100 (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2026 (UTC) — NewTommy100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
A GScholar h-index of 16 does not seem particularly high relative to the field, e.g. 3/4 of his co-authors in this paper have higher h-indices. The other factors are insufficient for a pass under WP:NPROF#C1. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
I am not arguing that h-index 16 alone is dispositive, the case is cumulative. The coauthor comparison is not a valid field baseline, since a selected coauthor set is inherently skewed by seniority and collaboration networks. Here we have 619 citations, h-index 16, 48 peer-reviewed publications, publications in selective demography/sociology/public-health venues, and Associate Editor service at Demographic Research. That is enough evidence of scholarly impact to rebut “no indication” and favor improvement over deletion. NewTommy100 (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. Double-digit citation counts are not enough for WP:PROF#C1 and merely being a member of an editorial board (rather than editor-in-chief) is not enough for #C8. Assistant professors are usually not notable by our standards; the rare exceptions are people on such a rapidly advancing trajectory that it is already clear they are stars of the field and their rank merely hasn't had time to catch up. In this case, though, he is 11 years out of a Ph.D. and still an assistant; this does not look problematic but it is not the star track that we would need for someone of this rank. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:14, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. Research standing nowhere near notable. Athel cb (talk) 10:27, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Easy call. Not notable by academic standards and does not meet GNG criteria. Go4thProsper (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Harikumar Pallathadka


Harikumar Pallathadka (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:GNG and WP:BASIC. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing beyond what's already cited, no in-depth independent profiles, no significant scholarly coverage, nothing that would establish notability. The existing sourcing is almost entirely WP:ROUTINE news mentions of individual RTI filings rather than significant coverage of the subject himself, and refs 3 and 4 are the same Hindustan Times article double-cited. Claims of "hundreds of patents" and "hundreds of research papers" are sourced to a generic IP Australia disclaimer page and a dead link labeled "Unknown," failing WP:V and WP:NACADEMIC. The article is also saturated with WP:PEACOCK language ("eminent," "prominent," "expert") flagged by the promotional-tone banner, raising WP:AUTOBIO / WP:UPE concerns, and WP:TNT would apply even if a notable core could be salvaged. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - the extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. There is a lack of significant coverage. Patents, even hundreds, are no longer a claim of notability, because many patents are used for tax and other accounting purposes. Bearian (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Social science Proposed deletions


Language

Magiana language


Magiana language (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)

Magiana was a language recorded as existing in two 18th century sources describing the region of Moxos in modern day Bolivia. One of these sources does not give significant coverage, the other gives a brief wordlist which could be considered WP:SIGCOV. In my view these sources must be considered WP:PRIMARY and so cannot confer notability. The only modern source which discusses it is Glottolog here, which limits itself to stating it is Arawakian and noting it is extinct and naming the sources mentioned above. This too is arguably not WP:SIGCOV.

Some users have argued in the past that natural languages do not have to pass WP:GNG, which I queried in this discussion at the notability noticeboard. The discussion suggested that this was not the case. I have linked this AfD at that page. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:43, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

As noted when you brought this up before, 1989 is in the 20th century, not the 18th. This is exactly what you would expect for a modern account of a long-extinct language: republication and discussion of the original data. A latter examination of a primary source is, by definition, a secondary source. — kwami (talk) 07:53, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
The text you are referring to is "Moxos: Descripciones exactas e historia fiel de los indios, animales y plantas de la provincia de Moxos en el virreinato del Perú por Lázaro de Ribera, 1786-1794" (Exact descriptions and faithful history of the Indians (sic), animals and plants of the province of Moxos in the Viceroyalty of Peru by Lázaro de Ribera, 1786-1794) a collection of writings by Lázaro de Ribera dating to the 18th century and published in a modern edition in 1989 by Palau and Saiz. It would appear to have been first published in 1794, according to Glottolog. Republishing or even editing an 18th century text does not make it a modern text, and this remains a primary source.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:11, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Bolivia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:22, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge into Arawakan languages. Not enough sources exist to expand this article beyond a perma-stub. I would call it note worthy, but not WP:Notable. Should be mentioned, but doesn’t rate a stand alone article. Blueboar (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
A merge would be fine by me.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge into Arawakan languages is by far the best decision. Yes, the information is worth having; no, there isn't enough of it to support and independent article. Athel cb (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
This is true, but not relevant to the outcome of this discussion.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Origin of Oga

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

I have just closed the first AFD as procedural close as the debate was irretrievably tainted by sockpuppetry and apparent brigading. On that basis we need to restart from scratch on a protected page. As this is an administrative action I remain neutral. Noting that I have blocked the nominator of the previous discussion as a sock. Spartaz Humbug! 08:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I have just collapsed a AI generated comment at this page's talk page. PhantomVorteX (Talk) 13:47, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, or speedy delete per WP:G15 as LLM slop, which is pretty obvious just reading the article. I find it ironic that the points made on this discussion's talk page were also LLM generated, but the points 2 and 3 are reasonable arguments to delete. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, likely AI generated, which anyone can confirm just by reading. PhantomVorteX (Talk) 08:29, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete: WP:NOTDICTIONARY, likely LLM generated due to all the weird bolding going on. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 19:59, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

BTW (Acronym)


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

This is a dictionary definition. The sources are: a blog from an English learning service, a definition of a different topic, a dictionary, and an LLM-generated source. ~ A412 talk! 22:46, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

This article should be kept. I believe this subject has encyclopedic merit because as it explains the history and cultural signifigance of the term. I am currently working on replacing the blog and AI sources with trusted sources. Louis Bara Jr (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Wikipedian12512 (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Whether the sources are upgraded or not, there's just not much here. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Toast of Fate ♡ talk to me! 10:12, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
I just want to point out that Louis created the article and is a major contributor to it. Toast of Fate ♡ talk to me! 10:15, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Leonardo Gómez Torrego


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

The subject frequently publishes on Spanish linguistics and is sometimes quoted on that topic, but I can't find any sources which discuss him in detail that would satisfy WP:GNG while also being independent of his various initiatives and positions. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:34, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Language, and Spain. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:37, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
    I'm leaning keep on this one: we have at least one review already cited in the article, and WP:NAUTHOR is passed if there are multiple reviews of his body of work. I haven't done a check, but with so many published books I'd be surprised if it's not met. There's also potentially a WP:ANYBIO pass under The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor with the award of the Commander's Cross of the Order of Alfonso X the Wise, but I don't know enough about the Spanish honours system to know how big a deal this level of award is (it's the tier below the cross with plaque, which according to the article is limited to 750 people and allows the use of an honorific title, so would be an easy pass). UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:41, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
I don't see the review justification. Surely a review confers notability on a book not an author? NAUTHOR requires their works to have won significant critical attention, which in my view is more than the multiple reviews you need for WP:NBOOK. The award question is always difficult, WP:NACADEMIC gives The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level, which is helpfully ambiguous. The list of recipients on both the English and Spanish wikipedia have got a lot of red or black names, in as much as that matters.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:22, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
A review is an independently published in-depth source about what the author has done. Most Wikipedia notability criteria are based on exactly that: independently published in-depth sources about their subjects. We need more than one review for WP:AUTHOR, and more than one reviewed book (because of BIO1E) but this is very much in line with WP:GNG-based notability. WP:NACADEMIC is another thing entirely and is a better fit for academics in STEM fields (where journal papers, citations, and society fellowships are more common) than in book-writing fields in the humanities. Your mention of WP:NBOOK is well off topic: that's for books, not for their authors. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:33, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. UndercoverClassicist is referring to this book review which is cited on the article now. It's available at ResearchGate and gives one paragraph of opinion on the author, with the rest dedicated to the book. UC seemed to be using the criteria for WP:NBOOK, where multiple reviews (in the sense of opinion-based book reviews) can establish notability. Obviously, as you say, WP:NAUTHOR are the subject specific criteria that should apply. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
Having said that, WP:ACADEMIC is clearly also applicable in the humanities, and so cases based on it here can be considered. As Gomez Torrego is both an author and an academic, if he passes either guideline's requirements he is probably notable. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:32, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep While he doesn't hold one of the de numero seats in the Royal Spanish Academy, he is apparently the "Corresponding Member for Madrid", which appears according to this article to be a quite substantial recognition. Jahaza (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:55, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Coláiste na nGael


Coláiste na nGael (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)

Non-notable org offering night classes. As noted in original "speedy" request (and indeed subsequent decline), there is no indication that the org has been covered in indepedent/reliable/verifiable sources to the extent that WP:NORG/WP:SIGCOV is demonstrated. A WP:BEFORE search only returns things like this directory entry, the org's facebook page, interviews like this (which don't contribute to notability) and the org's own dead/hijacked/cybersquat website). The claims to notability in the text (awards?) do not survive analysis - as the awards appear to be associated with an individual and rather than the org. While the original content (with clear SPA/COI/NOTPROMO overtones) was "split" from a more generic title (also since merged/redirected following AfD), I see no justification in merging/redirecting "back" to this or another title. As an WP:ATD/R. Other ATDs (like draftifying) also don't seem appropriate. Guliolopez (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Organizations, and United Kingdom. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:24, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related AfD discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: this has been tagged as a potential NORG failure since February 2012–the month the article was created. (A 14-year span between such a tag and a deletion discussion would probably be far less likely for an article created in 2026.) No opinion at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:16, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep: per WP:GNG. Here are more sources:
    • SIGCOV as one of the subjects of this article written by somebody from a different org in Britain
    • similar
    • a campaign by the org is the subject of this short article: , similar:
    • some coverage of participation in an umbrella group:
    • This interview shows it was still active as of 2022
    • It seems they have/had a newsletter called Scéal
    • minor references:
    • other interviews: (25:00-37:20)
    Taghdtaighde (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
    Comment. Hi @Taghdtaighde. The guideline you reference, WP:GNG, expects "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The majority of those webpages are either not independent, not significant coverage or otherwise not contributory to notability. A blogpost which mentions the existence of a membership newsletter isn't SIGCOV. The fleeting mention in the Irish Times article is a trivial/passing mention. The "letter to the editor" of the Irish Times (by a member of the public which simply names the org) doesn't contribute to notability at all. The interview with one member of the org does not contribute to notability. Many of those beo.ie webpages, as you even note yourself, are "minor references" (where the org's name is simply mentioned fleetingly in the context of something else; While these may confirm that the org exists/existed, evidence of existence isn't the same as sources establishing notability). Guliolopez (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
    Comment: Hi Guliolopez, the later sources I list above were just provided for content that can be added to the article, I should have been explicit that I don't claim all the above cover the subject significantly. In contrast, the first 2 contain several paragraphs each on the subject and as far as I can see they are independent and reliable.
    • So we have 2 sources () that do address the topic "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" i.e. WP:SIGCOV.
    • The next 2 links are not in the same category but I argue are still "more than a trivial mention": The Irish Post article has about 50 words directly on the org mixed with quotes and context. The Irish Times article is also not major but does describe a campaign of theirs that saw TDs get involved and in response to them and others a Westminster MP promise to raise it in parliament.
    I haven't tried to verify the Iris na Gaeilge, Irish World or Irish Post pieces currently referenced in the article. Taghdtaighde (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
    Comment Hi. I'm not going to bludgeon this, but:
    • "2 sources [is] WP:SIGCOV". Those two sources don't represent significant coverage. Especially when both are from the same website. And neither deals with the subject as a primary topic. (For example, the sections of the beo.ie piece by Tony Birtill, which deal with the subject, scarcely account for half of the source. And, at that, are mostly made up of quotes from people involved; "we this" and "we that").
    • "I haven't tried to verify the Iris na Gaeilge, Irish World or Irish Post pieces currently referenced in the article". I have. Iris na Gaeilge is the subject org's own publication. It's archives are here. It is not independent and doesn't contribute to notability at all. The Irish Post source is impossible to verify (as it is not dated or labelled in any way - and never has been). The Irish World source appears to date from January 2012. I cannot find anything on the archived version of its website from that period. Nothing.
    It does not help that these incomplete and non-independent sources were added by someone who clearly has a connection to the org. This kind of sourcing (non-independent, incomplete and unverifiable sources) and this kind of editing practice (clear COI/PROMO) would not be accepted by the community today. As noted, by Wcquidditch, this type of title wouldn't be left "stand" in 2026. And, frankly, doesn't retrospectively either. Guliolopez (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
    Comment: I fully agree that the article as it is should not stand, but I would prefer to fix the problems. WP:SIGCOV looks clear that the subject does not have to be the main topic of the source material, just given "more than a trivial mention" in it. The article if stripped down to the facts presented in the reliable sources would be short but not uninformative.
    I disagree with some of that assessment but also concede that notability is on shakier ground than in some other cases, resting mostly on modest coverage from 3 publications, so I'll leave it at this.
    Your response certainly doesn't come across as bludgeoning – I appreciate you engaging with my points as an attempt to share information and reach common ground. Good faith engagement with each other's perspectives is a big part of what makes Wikipedia feel worth contributing to. Taghdtaighde (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
    Comment. With thanks for those inputs, I think we'll have to agree to disagree - as we clearly have different interpretations of what consititutes "significant coverage" under WP:GNG. (As while, yes, those two webpages each contain "more than a trivial mention" of the subject, I don't see that two pages on the same website represent SIGCOV. And certainly not when both consist largely of Q&A/quotes from people associated with the org - IE: not entirely independent coverage). If an editor, clearly associated with the org, hadn't initially created a WP:COATRACK to contain quasi-promotional text associated with the org, then it is highly unlikely that this title would have been created (not based on significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - as it doesn't really exist). Guliolopez (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge This article originated as a split from Irish language outside Ireland. Should it be merged back there? Iveagh Gardens (talk) 06:26, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment. The Irish_language_outside_Ireland#Irish_language_in_contemporary_Britain section is practically the only place - anywhere on the project - that the subject org is mentioned. While, technically, the title could be redirected there, I'm not sure there is much to merge (as, as above, the sources are far from ideal). Personally don't support a merge/redirect. Guliolopez (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
I'm not strongly convinced it needs to be merged back in there, so consider my proposal of Merge closer to a suggestion for consideration than my position on this discussion. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:22, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, since the already-present sources seem to be mostly independent of the subject, and several at least are reliable enough to use here. But many of them need to be completed as to being full citations. The additional sources identified above should also be integrated, and doing so may provide for a better article textually, too, since it's likely those sources say additional things about the subject.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:03, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
    Comment. RE: "many of them need to be completed as to being full citations". As noted, I have already attempted this. It doesn't seem to be possible. Of the four pre-existing sources, only the "thisistotalessex.co.uk" sources appears to be complete enough to verify. And it's scarcely a passing mention. The others don't appear to be 'completable'.
    Even ignoring that it is the org's own newsletter and therefore not contributory to notability, let's take the Iris na Gaeilge source. It is given as issue 4, May 2001, page 18 of the newsletter. Trying to find/verify this source, on the org's archive of its newsletters, I note that the:
    • only version dated to 2001 is issue 1 (not issue 4) and has no page 18 (just 11 pages). And the only mention of the subject org, on page 9, is simply a listing for a "weekend of Irish Classes in an attractive rural location" on "October 13th/14th 2001".
    • only version labelled as issue 4 is dated to 2003 (not 2001) and has no page numbers. Looking through every single archived article within issue #4, we find only two mentions of the subject org. An obituary (of a person who "attended Oideas Gael a few times and a weekend or two with Coláiste na nGael in England and the Netherlands") and a profile (of a person who "attends, as often as possible, the study weekends of Coláiste na nGael organised by Christy Evans [..and..] is exploring the possibility of asking Coláiste na nGael to hold one of its study weekends in Coventry this Summer"). Both passing mentions.
    As noted above, the other incomplete sources (an entirely undated/untitled piece in The Irish Post and a untitled/unclear submission from January to The Irish World) don't seem to be redeemable. If they were (after the exhaustive efforts I'd made to find them) I wouldn't have opened this AfD discussion. As noted in WP:NEXIST, the author's unspecified claims about the existence of sources is not, in itself, contributory to notability. The pre-existing sources don't appear to "exist". Certainly, after significant effort, I can't find them anywhere. And, frankly, I don't see how vague and incomplete (seemingly non-existent?) sources can be used to support a claim to notability. Guliolopez (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
    Comment: my !vote to keep is mostly based on 4 articles that give the subject modest coverage but "more than a trivial mention": 2 from Beo! by different writers , plus 1 from the Irish Times and 1 from the Irish Post (for fleeting references and interviews see above).
    I have improved the Irish World citation based on where it was introduced but haven't gone to the archive to verify it. I have just now mentioned the faulty citations to the user who first included them but as they are inactive I expect nothing to come of that (also to the user who transposed them).
    If consensus goes against keep, Iveagh Gardens' suggestion to merge with Irish language outside Ireland would be an acceptable AtD, but since the relevant section there is clearly long enough to deserve its own article (and books have been written about the subject), I think a better AtD would be to reinstate and merge with the original Irish language in Britain article (probably renamed with "Great Britain" to avoid the argument that sank it before) and transfer some of the content from both to there. Taghdtaighde (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
    Comment. With every due respect, the text added/supported by those sources is far from convincing in terms of notability? All we seem to have been able to say is that, as of 2014, the org (a language school) was teaching "25 children around England" and its services (according to them?) were "in demand". And that, as of 2022, the language school still existed (which we only know because its founder commented on something decided in Brussels?) Per WP:NSCHOOL, schools (including commercial language schools - even ones involved in advocacy and promotion) are not inherently notable. A language school with 25 pupils? That, seemingly, still existed in 2022? This isn't noteworthy stuff. It just isn't. And we're scraping the barrels to get even this... Guliolopez (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

List of Khmu animal common names


List of Khmu animal common names (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)

Textbook WP:NOTDICTIONARY vio. Just a wordlist of words in another language with virtually no encyclopedic value. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Softcatalà


Softcatalà (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 seem to pass WP:NCORP. The page currently only has two sources (one of them is trivial, the other is permanently dead). Did a search for more sources and checked the references on Catalan Wikipedia and didn't find any in-depth coverage. Input from Catalan-speaking editors would be appreciated. 🍅 fx (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Keep. provide WP:SIGCOV of the organization.
is a paper that analyzes the software. Enough hits in 1998 edition of Journal of Catalan Studies (across multiple pages) to warrant bringing up WP:NEXIST. Article just needs to meet WP:NGO (which leads back to the WP:GNG), not WP:NCORP, but should be rewritten about the product rather than the organization (but this is not a deletion rationale as Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. Katzrockso (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 03:21, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:36, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Obama is a schmuck


Previous AfDs for this article:
Obama is a schmuck (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)

1. A previous attempt at an article on the same subject has already been discussed on AfD, and the outcome was delete, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama chmo! (2nd nomination). 2. This is a very poor translation from the Russian Wikipedia, probably just a copy-paste from Google Translate, and shouldn't be allowed in the main namespace. Moscow Connection (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Noting that the last AfD was in 2016, and many of the article's sources were written after 2016. No opinion beyond that at this time. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:49, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Moscow Connection hello. I've improved the translation. Feel free to improve the article yourself, instead of nominating it for deletion immediately. Concerning the previus AfD (2016), now the academic research cited in the article has appeared, so I don't see any reason to delete it. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 09:28, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    Read this:
    This is a "raw or lightly edited" machine translation and should have been speedily deleted. And your membership in the extendedconfirmed group should be revoked. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:40, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    Even the article's title is dubious. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:44, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    I'm sorry but I don't have time to work on this article. It took you one second to push the "Publish" button. In my opinion, this article is not worth saving. Hopefully another ten years will pass and someone will do a better job.
    (I see now that you used the Wikipedia Content Translation Tool.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    You can always ensure you combine your habit of moving over content from the Russian Wikipedia with ensuring it meets the standards on the English Wikipedia, it shouldn't be up to others to clean up messes that you import from another Wikipedia project. TylerBurden (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
More information offtopic discusion of a Wikipedian ...
Close
  • Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. Plenty of refs, both scholarly analysis and respected media, such as Deutsche Welle, Meduza (russian opposition), The Washington Post. I do not see particular blunders in the text. --Altenmann >talk 15:52, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    "I do not see particular blunders."
    – 1. There were blunders, you have corrected some of them yourself.
    2. Moreover, the article is still very heavy and hard to read. Even if grammatically correct. After all, it's a word-by-word translation of the pseudoscientific nonsense found in the Russian Wikipedia article.
    (Yes, I know that scientific papers sound grandiloquent like this, like the Russian article, and often border on silly, but I nevertheless got a few giggles out of it. You can really see how Russian wikipedians wanted to make their article sound "serious" in order to prove notability.)
    3. By the way, the Russian article was deleted back in 2016 as well (in May). And it was recreated only in 2021. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:30, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
    1. Yes, I corrected some blunders. This is what Wikipeians do, right?
    2. "Pseudoscientific nonsense" - well, all sociology is speudoscience in my opinion, yet it somehow gets published. I do adee that the section "Linguistic analysis" is to be severely trimmed, although it does contain valid points. --Altenmann >talk 17:44, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
    P.S. I severely trimmed the "Analysis" section and now IMHO it makes much sense. --Altenmann >talk 18:15, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
    3. This was in 2016. In 2021 we see more sources and sustained interest. --Altenmann >talk 17:51, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
    "I severely trimmed the "Analysis" section and now IMHO it makes much sense."
    – Yes, thanks, the section looks much better now. (I am not a linguist, or a sociologist, and couldn't adequately assess it. Especially that sentence that you removed completely.) And you corrected some English in other parts, too.
    Now I don't really want this article deleted. Initially it looked like an unreadable mess to me. (There are still places where I question the choice of words, but okay... I still didn't read it in its entirety, I must say.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2026 (UTC) —Edited at 23:02. I've decided to strike out my statement. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
    Actually, still unreadable and confusing/misleading. See . The Russian Wikipedia article means "thanks to", but words it in a very formal, very vague manner. And it is just the very beginning, the first sentence of the first section. (I must note that we can't even read the source. We can just AGF of the Russian editors who maybe actually saw it.)
    IMO, such articles are better deleted than left. Cause they have to be re-written from scratch anyway. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:59, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
    The second sentence of that section (the "History" one) is also confusing, it seems unconnected to the first one. I opened the Russian article and I, yes, understand what they wanted to say. But the English translation lacks cohesion, the first two sentences of the section don't seem connected. The third sentence is also unclear and is broken English ("researchers suggest may have coming"). And what in the world is a "spoken version of a phrase"?
    Maybe Drmies can look at this. This article needs a hero who will read it. I've just started and it gives me nausea already. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
    I looked at it but don't see anything for me to do. I'm not going to go copyedit something when I can't read the sources--all too often copyediting in Wikipedia also means checking with the sources. Drmies (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
    article's title is dubious - why is that? see The Guardian, The Moscow Times, German Institute for Defence and Strategic Studies, the Slate. --Altenmann >talk 16:04, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    Sustaned interest is demonstrated for the subject: foreign media are cited from 2020, i.e. 6 years post-event. In Russian media the term is mentioned e.g., in 2025--Altenmann >talk 16:26, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Please don't make us look silly: see WP:NABOBS. Bearian (talk) 13:53, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
    Actually, the article makes Russians look silly, not us. This phenomenon in Russia reminds me the Soviet cliche about Wester press "В бессильной злобе..." ("With an impotent rage..."), which is to be directed in opposite direction. --Altenmann >talk 17:48, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
  • I must say I was skeptical about the article not adhering to NPOV standards, but I've read the Russian Wikipedia discussions and it is so obvious that the Russian article was conceived as a retaliation for similar articles mocking Russian and pro-Russian politicians. Cause by 2021 when the Russian Wikipedia article was (re-)created there had been many forced memes mocking Russians and Viktor Yanukovych (see this) etc., and those memes had Wikipedia articles that had been kept on AfD.
    On the other hand, we have "Let's Go Brandon" in 19 languages.
    P.S. The Russian Wikipedia has another article mocking Obama, titled "Obamka". How hasn't it been deleted, I don't know. It may just be that no one stumbled on it. It has less that 10 views per day on average. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete The sources are all Russian, which is allowed yes, but its not conducive to good article writing and verification. Its also not really clear what stands out in this to make it notable outside of Russia, if even there. ← Metallurgist (talk) 05:22, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
    Not all Russian: The Times, 6 July 2015., The Washington Post, 4 January 2016., The Journal of American Folklore. Also, there are no rules that restrict notability by country: there are plenty of topics Americans are blissfully unaware of. I can readily find German, Polish, Lithusnia, Estonian subjects no one heard in anglosphere. --Altenmann >talk 06:26, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
    Pretty much all of that is in passing and a general overview of Russian criticism or opposition of Obama, which is much more likely to be notable. See also Public image of Barack Obama. Even looking at the navbox, where it was inserted, it doesnt really fit with the other topics. And yes, but this is English Wikipedia, and while allowed, there is a diminished notability of other language sources in my view. ← Metallurgist (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
    I could agree that Englisch sources are not comprehensive, but WP:GNG does not restrict its criteria to anglocentrist ones. --Altenmann >talk 10:47, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. I want to thank Altenmann for their active participation in improving the quality of the translation and for providing strong arguments in favor of keeping this article. I already stated my position earlier — unlike the old 2016 version of the article, it now has a scholarly basis as well as coverage in the international press. We already have the article Putin khuylo!, which is essentially equivalent in meaning to Obama is a schmuck (both are derisory slogans); the only difference is that in the first case the insult is directed at the Russian president, and in the second, at the American president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexeyKhrulev (talk • contribs) 15:43, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:09, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per Altenmann. We don't have to have sourcing from the Anglosphere for a topic to be notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Prodded articles

Redirects for Discussion

History

Sadiq al-Damlouji


Sadiq al-Damlouji (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)

Most of these sources are database entries with no sigcov and Google does not show additional hits. Some of the other sources are places where he is cited but this is not done to a level that meets WP:NAUTHOR and they do not seem to be a notable historical figure of themself. I also note there is no foreign language article Czarking0 (talk) 01:30, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

There is a “foreign language article” (in Arabic) here. Sinjarist (talk) 08:29, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep Because it's in Arabic Wikipedia to it is Clear Article
Dasani053 (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Armenian archers


Armenian archers (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 is very generic and mostly unreferenced text that smells of AI, but I'm bringing it to AfD because I'm not an ancient/milhist specialist. If I didn't suspect it was AI-generated I might suggest incorporation into Military history of Armenia. Incidentally, I think this is the first time I've spotted WP:AIATTR on a historical topic. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 07:37, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Suspected AI-generated articles, and Armenia. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 07:39, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Yes, agreed, the text is generic to the point of being uninformative, something that typically happens when a LLM is asked to write something about a subject it doesn't know much about. I am not sure there is value in uninformative articles written by humans, but the whiff of LLM is alarming, and greatly undermines my confidence in the article. Nocturnal781, are you using LLMs to write your contributions to Wikipedia? Elemimele (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

100th birthday of David Attenborough


100th birthday of David Attenborough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose merging because the topic is not notable enough to have an entire article. It would fit much better as a section in the David Attenborough article. Yes, the birthday garnered much public attention and praise (as it should), but many other famous people who celebrated their 100th birthday don't have an article about it. User4926 (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure it's a notability thing. As the article is now, I agree that the text could be incorporated into the main article. The question is, is there more that could be added. It seems like a suitable split given the size of the main article Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:31, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Merge Perhaps the concert/broadcast warrants its own article, but his 100th birthday alone does not. There is no encyclopaedic value in an article that says "man turns 100 in 2026". MB2437 14:39, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Agree Moonyta123 (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Merge, per User4926. —Cote d'Azur (talk)
Merge He is a favorite of mine but he is not the first person to have a milestone birthday. I can think of many others but note that for example we don't have 100th birthday of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, etc. I don't think such articles would be encyclopedic but pages focusing on specific events are totally fine. For instance, I think David Attenborough's 100 Years on Planet Earth could benefit from some expansion. Keivan.fTalk 17:07, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge. This article is only four paragraphs long, with the content of one of those paragraphs being substantially repeated within itself and also within the main David Attenborough article. It should be easy enough to merge the content. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Really absurd to think this needed a separate article, don't do that. Reywas92Talk 21:32, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
I was about to this myself, but you beat me to it haha. Merge because I do believe there is a small amount of info here that needs to be moved. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 00:44, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge. Article is very small and information can be easily contained in David Attenborough. OMGer2 (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge to David Attenborough, the butterflies-paragraph still isn't on that page. This event isn't significant enough for its own page, per WP:NEVENT (unlikely to have significant lasting effects [and whatever there is can be merged] and a lot of coverage is routine). jolielover♥talk 08:24, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge – Maybe David Attenborough's 100 Years on Planet Earth article needs a bit of enhancement first (adding the King's tribute and Prince William's speech for example) the subject will still not appear to warrant a standalone article separate from David Attenborough. Even per Wikipedia's preference for consolidation when a topic lacks sufficient independent notability for a separate page. I think merging would preserve useful information without unnecessary article fragmentation. Mhndm7mud (talk) 09:31, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Battle of Stuttgart


Battle of Stuttgart (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)

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Düsseldorf and Battle of Dortmund, there was not actually a "Battle of Stuttgart" so I'm not sure why this article was created. Reywas92Talk 15:21, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete. This article only ever mentions the bombing of Stuttgart. Trumpetrep (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Battle of Dortmund


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

This article is wholly WP:SYNTH and just reframing information that is already covered in the Ruhr Pocket article, which is the name that the larger conflict is actually known as. The "Battle of Dortmund" is not something that is referred to by historians. For example, there are no meaningful results for "Battle of Dortmund" on Google Books.

Specifically looking at the Battle of Dortmund#Ground Assault section, there are 4 sources at the end of the single paragraph:

  • #1: 1 page of MacDonald's book, which I don't have access to.
  • #2: 1 mention of "crossing the Dortmund-Ems Canal"
  • #3: 1 mention of Dortmund (saying it was captured)
  • #4: Source is literally called "The Battle of Ruhr Pocket" and covers that battle, with mentions of Dortmund in that context.

A similar article by the same author has been brought to AfD for the same reason: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Düsseldorf Chao Garden 🌱 (hi) 00:54, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Banknote of Fort Michilmackinac


Banknote of Fort Michilmackinac (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 has no sources, and I personally cannot find any good ones on Google, Google Scholar, etc. Wikipedian12512(alt) (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't really expect anyone to respond to this, and I cannot find anyone to notify (the creator of this page has been blocked as a sockpuppet.) Wikipedian12512(alt) (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete. I did find it being mentioned in an older edition of a Krause catalog on the IA here, but I cannot find any other sources, at least online. Sources for articles about currencies and coins and such are sometimes hard to find online or don't exist at all online. For this article about a specific banknote issued once with only one source just mentioning its existence without going in-depth, I would argue it fails to meet WP:SIGCOV. Eman7blue42 (talk page | recent edits) 15:28, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Siege of Kandahar (1622)


Siege of Kandahar (1622) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose merging to Mughal–Safavid war (1622–1623) because none of the sources in this article refer specifically to the "Siege of Kandahar" so while the events seem notable and verifiable, lack of WP:SIGCOV calling them by this name indicate WP:OR and failure to meet WP:GNG. Orange sticker (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Vedic science


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

I propose merging to History of science and technology on the Indian subcontinent#Early kingdoms. Vedic science is currently a stub and the information that could be included in it is already well captured by History of science and technology on the Indian subcontinent#Early kingdoms. 'Science' could mean a number of different things, for example, astronomy, mathematics and medicine. The 'Early kingdoms' section captures this, and there are already separate comprehensive articles on topics such as Indian mathematics and Ayurveda. I am nominating this merger per WP:MERGETEXT and WP:OVERLAP because the content overlaps with the 'Early kingdoms' section and the article is currently one sentence.

The citations used to support this article are about the correlation between pseudoscience in India and Hindu nationalist movements. Such correlation could be the topic of its own article but this article is not that.

If there is an interest in ensuring that different scientific models related to the Veda can be found in one place then perhaps a category called 'Vedic science' could be made. In any case, I don't think this article is needed. Katiedevi (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete. There is nothing to this page. Trumpetrep (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment @Katiedevi Do you mean redirect this to History of science and technology on the Indian subcontinent#Early kingdoms? Because seems there is nothing to merge as mentioned by Reywas92. Asteramellus (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
    I proposed merging the page just to preserve the term 'Vedic science' in the only sentence in the article.
    Vedic science isn't a theological term, but it is a term that gets used by some scholars and journalists.
    An alternate proposal could just be to delete the page and add 'Vedic Science' as a redirect as you've suggested. Katiedevi (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep - Vedic science is an invented pseudoscientific discipline and not same as science from the vedic period. The nomination is fundamentally confused and conflates the history of science with a modern and invented body ofpseudoscientific discipline, thus this muddled merge proposal, and as per nominator's own admission that "correlation between pseudoscience in India and Hindu nationalist movements. Such correlation could be the topic of its own article" evidently supports the notability of this topic, this article can he further developed on the basis of these sources. Zalaraz (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
    What you missed out in quoting my nomination was the subsequent phrase 'but this article is not that'.
    If you would like an article on the correlation of Hindu nationalist movements and 'Vedic science', sure. But 'Vedic science' would be an inappropriate title for an article of that nature. I do not think there are enough sources here for even this kind of article to be notable but this is besides the point for this AfD discussion.
    I resist your accusation that this is a 'muddled' proposal. Unsurprisingly, sources that do mention the term 'Vedic science' mention it as an 'ancient tradition'.
    I am partial to improving articles but in this case I cannot find any reliable sources that elucidate 'Vedic science' as a modern concept that is entirely removed from the History of science in India. Katiedevi (talk) 04:14, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per Hyperbolick. Article should be improved. We should be describing the Vedic science concept as pseudoscientific and highly relevant to Hindutva pseudohistory. Koshuri (あ!) 08:07, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
    On what grounds?
    To suggest that every piece of academic or journalistic writing that uses the term 'Vedic science' is contributing to a Hindutva pseudohistory is a bold claim and would require a lot of rigorous proof to back it up. Is that what you're suggesting or am I missing the point of your suggesting to keep? Katiedevi (talk) 04:18, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
    It looks like you are merely confirming that the article really needs to stand on its own. Koshuri (あ!) 08:14, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with Hyperbolick, Zalaraz and Koshuri Sultan. Srnec (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Ukrainian liberation movement (1920–1950)


Ukrainian liberation movement (1920–1950) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is at best WP:REDUNDANT and potentially a WP:POVFORK of Ukrainian nationalism, the article where the history of the Ukrainian nationalist 'liberation movement' is covered in far greater detail and with more scrutiny from other editors. One such problematic claim is that Ukrainian nationalism started with Dmytro Dontsov-- this is verifiably false and there's no mention of the UNDO. Chronicling the different factions within the 20th century movement would be interesting (especially given that Lypynsky isn't even mentioned at Ukrainian nationalism), however this could be covered in an article section. Joko2468 (talk) 09:09, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

See Far-right politics in Ukraine#1920s to 1930s on Dontsov, this is how Alexander Motyl frames the course of events. Joko2468 (talk) 09:12, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Well, I created the article for Ukraine's Cultural Diplomacy Month 2026. It was a suggested article. It did say that we had to check notability in our home wikipedia before creating the article. Well, I thought it was notable and it is. Well, I can improve the article if you allow me to and not delete it. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 10:04, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Additionally, I never wrote Ukrainian nationalism started with Dmytro Dontsov. I wrote it developed under the influence of Dontsov. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 10:05, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Well, i should have written ideas and not ukrainian nationalism itself. Sorry. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 10:07, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
No worries at all, I've previously discovered two POV forks on the topic so that was a bit jumpy on my part. Joko2468 (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Hey guys, Do you mind if you could help me to improve the article. Well, I'd really appreciate it. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for responding but the subject of the article appears to me to be redundant-- this is covered at Ukrainian nationalism. I'd happily work with you to add or amend content to that article. Joko2468 (talk) 10:54, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Thank you. Well, I am a bit busy because I just completed Class 12. I did get my dream college but, have to do a lot of procedures. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 09:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
@Joko2468 Can you explain why the topic is redundant. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
@Joko2468 Hello, I read the whole article, and I could only find like a little information that is there in both the right-wing article and in my article. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 10:41, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
What right-wing article are you referring to? I don't see how the scope of this article is different from that of the Ukrainian nationalist ideology and movement, it's merely under a more POV title-- that's what I meant by 'redundant'. I should have suggested a merge as well, there's some valuable content here to include. I think it's unnecessary to have an additional less-scrutinised article more decidedly within the scope of competing Ukrainian memory narratives. Specifically with the scope, I'm concerned about this at Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (I wrote this content): Gomza characterises the historiography as being divided between two polarized narratives that he terms the "invective" and the "heroic". According to Gomza, the 'invective' narrative presents the OUN as a chauvinist organization "willingly committing the most egregious crimes" while the 'heroic' narrative presents the OUN as a patriotic organization fighting to liberate the subjugated Ukrainian people.
I should say for the record that I rewrote the Interwar period in the West section after commencing this process. On reflection I exercised poor judgement should have waited until this closed but I wanted to continue on from my rewrite of the WWI period which had been neglected. Joko2468 (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Happy to defer to other editors, perhaps I'm making much of nothing. Joko2468 (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
My article clearly says about the liberation movement from 1920 to 1950. The other article is about Ukrainian nationalism. Well, I am improving it. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Well Lypynsky is mentioned in Ukrainian monarchism. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 09:39, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
The Hetman movement. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 09:39, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
I have added info about the UNDO TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 09:47, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Lean keep: This seems to me a substantial enough topic on its own not to just be a section in a much longer article. I don’t understand the objection to its existence. Of course it has room for improvement but I see no reason to delete. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:34, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
    Thank you. I am planning to improve the article as this article is one of my GA projects. But, as I said earlier, I am a bit busy. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 07:21, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:27, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Wartime repression of Surrealism in Japan


Wartime repression of Surrealism in Japan (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)

Seems to be an unnecessary WP:CFORK of Surrealism in Japan where the context is explained. Much of this page appears to depend on two pages in a 2024 exhibition catalogue. JMWt (talk) 15:12, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. Trumpetrep (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep (article creator). I have rewritten and expanded the article after the nomination, including after the first delete comment. It now focuses on wartime policing and censorship of Surrealist activity, with material on arrests, confiscations, group renaming, self-restraint, and regional cases. I think this gives it a clearer scope apart from the broader movement-history article at Surrealism in Japan. I also broadened the sourcing beyond the 2024 catalogue. The article now uses the 1990 Nagoya City Art Museum catalogue, the J. Paul Getty Museum catalogue Japan's Modern Divide, Stojković's monograph, The International Encyclopedia of Surrealism, and Surrealism Beyond Borders, an exhibition catalogue from the Metropolitan Museum of Art and Tate Modern. The 2024 catalogue itself is also from a three-museum exhibition project involving The Museum of Kyoto, Itabashi Art Museum, and Mie Prefectural Art Museum. With the added chronology and case table, I think the original concerns about scope and sourcing have been addressed. --Fontana2026 (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
Update from creator. I have made further edits in response to the nomination concerns. The article now includes pre-1941 publishing pressure and police monitoring. It also covers later wartime adaptation by art groups, pressure on exhibitions, and regional cases outside Tokyo. I added further museum sources and a national newspaper source, including material from the Itabashi Art Museum, the Nagoya City Art Museum annual report, and Mainichi Shimbun. The sourcing no longer rests mainly on the 2024 catalogue. I have also clarified the page structure around wartime policing, censorship, and legal and institutional pressures. The broader history of the Surrealist movement in Japan remains at Surrealism in Japan. Fontana2026 (talk) 11:51, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per improvements and cites added after the nomination. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:01, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs some more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:13, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Battle of Toychubek


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

This article is not supported in any way by the sources provided. The 'battle of Toychubek', or even the location of Toychubek, is not referenced in Soucek, Morrison, Becker, or Vandervort. The Kuropatkin source does not seem to exist, but a similarly named one 'The Conquest of Turkmenistan' does, which does not refer to the event either. 'Almaty Burns with Blue Flame' does reference a battle occurring, but it is a review of a pseudo-historical book posted on a blog, and cannot be considered reliable. Looking outside of the provided sources, I could not find reference to this battle in reliable histories such as Morrison's 'Conquest of Central Asia', or Levi's 'Rise and Fall of Kokand'. CitrusHemlock 14:25, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

If no sources cannot be found then I am fine with it being deleted. TJ Kreen (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
I must ask, if you are fine with deleting the article and recognize that sources for it do not exist, why did you create this article, and why did you use sources that do not substantiate the claims made in it? CitrusHemlock 20:34, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussed here: , . The dates and the results are all over the place, though. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Lithuanian raison d'état


Lithuanian raison d'état (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)

Bizarre article. The very title of the article already raises doubts. It is taken from a rather incidental article, where it appears literally only once, in a very specific context: It should be acknowledged that Janusz Radziwiłł was guided by the Lithuanian raison d’état, and he wanted above all to save the Grand Duchy of Lithuania from the Moscow occupation in connection with the lost war and the lack of prospects for help from the Polish Crown (p. 185). There is no mention here that Lithuania’s raison d’état consisted strictly in maintaining separation from Poland, but rather in preserving the state as such. Reducing such a broad concept as “raison d’état” solely to Lithuania’s relations with Poland and to separatism is highly reductive and resembles WP:OR. Moreover, this is yet another article on Polish–Lithuanian relations, Polonization, and the Lithuanian national revival. There really is no need for another one. Marcelus (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Lithuania, and Poland. Marcelus (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
    • Delete: The article lacks independent notability as “Lithuanian raison d’état” is not a widely recognized or clearly defined concept in reliable sources.
    Marshal of Italy talk 14:20, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
    • @Giovanni Messe: (Marshal of Italy): here is a good summarizing quote from a Polish academic author Tomasz Ambroziak source: "Another question which should be broached is the mutual relationship of the terms “Lithuanian separatism” and “Lithuanian particularism”. In historiography, those terms were used interchangeably for a very long time" (Zapiski Historyczne, tome LXXIX, 2014, p. 92 / 626, see: this source online). So the topics and terms "Lithuanian separatism", "Lithuanian particularism" have a very long usage in historiography, academic sources and in the article they are included as alternative names, however we could discuss the renaming of this article. -- Pofka (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep: As per explanation given by Pofka, however I still think the name should be changed Viva a renaming discussion Marshal of Italy talk 03:55, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
    • Keep : The article should be kept, because the Lithuanian raison d'état is repeatedly used as a term in academic articles, especially when it comes to Polish-Lithuanian relations. The article is about the concept touched upon when Lithuanian raison d'état/Lithuanian separatism/Lithuanian particularism is discussed (as is clear to the reader when they read the lede). All of these concepts reappear in many academic articles; ergo, they deserve an article, and neither of these three was specifically addressed in any pre-existing article, unlike what Marcelus is saying.--+JMJ+ (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
    • Comment : Marcelus, your reasoning sounds more like an objection to the title which should be addressed via WP:RM not AFD. Renata•3 18:23, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
    • @Renata3: the title of the article could really be discussed, however I think the term "raison d’état" is accurate to describe Lithuanian separatism, particularism. Nevertheless, the article definitely should be kept because the topic of the article Lithuanian separatism, particularism is highly notable and analyzed in many sources (using these terms), while the article prose is already well written and referenced not only with sources from Lithuania but also from Poland (e.g. Zbigniew Wójcik's The Separatist Tendencies in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the 17th century). This article can definitely be further expanded and improved in the future based on many available reliable sources. -- Pofka (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
    @Renata3 it's not only about the title itself, but also content of the article which is simply a WP:FORK of the Polish-Lithuanian Union with the a focus on Lithuanian particularism. What's more not a single source describe it as a separate phenomenon that existed for centuries, so it's very close to WP:OR. Marcelus (talk) 08:42, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
    • Keep because Lithuanian separatism, Lithuanian particularism is notable enough to have a dedicated article and is common in sources. Ed1974LT (talk) 07:12, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

For clarification: the article’s title is obviously terrible, but my objections are not limited to that alone. The article has broader terminological problems, for example particularism and separatism are not the same thing (Ambroziak 2014 discusses the differences between these concepts at length). Secondly, it constitutes WP:OR. None of the cited sources presents the topic in this way, that is, as "Lithuanian particularism" being a coherent phenomenon stretching from the Middle Ages to the 20th century (a classic case of WP:SYNTH).

The article conflates different periods, contexts, and social groups, reducing them to a very simplistic dichotomy: Poland and the Poles supposedly wanted to absorb the union, while Lithuania and the Lithuanians resisted this, persistently over centuries. This is an extreme oversimplification unsupported by sources. Moreover, it lacks the broader context that would be necessary in an article with a wider scope (for example Polish–Lithuanian Union, Polish–Lithuanian relations, History of Lithuania, etc.).

It is also worth noting that only three of the cited sources actually discuss “Lithuanian particularism” as such, and even then only within very specific contexts. Ambroziak 2014 does so in relation to the reigns of Sigismund III and Władysław IV, while Ziober 2019 and Wójcik 1994 refer to the 17th century, a period that is not addressed in the article at all. None of these works describes it as a phenomenon spanning centuries. Furthermore, the article lacks the polyphony present in the sources. For instance, Ambroziak 2014 notes that although Lithuanian sejmiks did at times demand that offices be held by citizens of the Grand Duchy, such demands were actually rare. During the 60-year reigns of Sigismund III and Władysław IV, this type of protest appeared only once (sic!) in the instructions of the Pińsk sejmik.

The issue of particularism is important and interesting and should indeed be covered on Wikipedia, but within articles of a more limited scope (for example Lithuanian particularism in the period of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth) or as a subsection within broader articles. Marcelus (talk) 08:57, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Draftify. The name certainly should be changed. Whether the topic merits WP:TNT due to WP:OR, or just a {{NPOV}} and {{OR}}, I am unsure, as this would require in-depth study of sources, in three languages, sigh. I am leaning towards draftification, and them recreating one or more articles based on parts of this based on your analysis.
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:54, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

King of Wales

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

I propose merging to Prince of Wales because the title is only accorded to two figures in the whole of Welsh history, as a forerunner to that of Prince of Wales. See Insley, Charles (2000). "From Rex Wallie to Princeps Wallie: Charters and State Formation in Thirteenth Century Wales". In Maddicott, John; Palliser, David (eds.). The Medieval State: Essays Presented to James Campbell. Bloomsbury. p. 192. ISBN 978-0-8264-4349-6. Tipcake (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Support per nom Dgp4004 (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Bad choice of target. Welsh princes redirects to List of rulers in Wales. Merging isn't necessary in any case. Srnec (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
    The nomination was targeting Prince of Wales, not Welsh princes. These are different pages. SenshiSun (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
    I know. Prince of Wales is a title traditionally given to the male heir apparent to the English, and later, the British throne. Why would burying the topic of this article there be a good idea? It might make sense if there really were a page on Welsh princes or rulership in medieval Wales, but there isn't. That title is just a redirect and that is the kind of prince of Wales we're interested in when we talk of two figures in the whole of Welsh history. That was my point. Srnec (talk) 02:13, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
    The argument in the paper I cited is that ‘princeps Wallie’ was a development from the title of ‘Rex Wallie’ and was supposed to actually supersede it as all manner of petty ruler in Wales called themselves Rex, but princeps was unique and was thought to be superior to Rex because of this. Tipcake (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
    Did you review the previous deletion discussion? The consensus that emerged there was that what we really needed was a Titles in medieval Wales page, since there is an interesting subject around why Wales had princes and not kings. I agree with Srnec that Prince of Wales is the wrong target, as we have long established that that page is primarily about the sons of the English monarch. List of rulers in Wales is a list article, so something of an Easter Egg as a target. But no one has written the Titles in medieval Wales page, so it remains unavailable as a merge target. This page could be moved and repurposed, but unless we want to have another go at deleting it or discuss alternative targets, I think AfD is the wrong venue (albeit it is now the correct venue for merge discussions). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:21, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
    Wales did have kings, though. You find brenin in Welsh-language poetry for 13th century figures, including lesser descendants of Rhys ap Gruffudd, to say nothing of the use of rex in 12th century Latin sources, even from England, to describe Welsh rulers. The only ‘princes’ in Wales in contemporary sources are Rhys ap Gruffudd, Llywelyn ab Iorwerth, Dafydd ap Llywelyn, Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, and Dafydd ap Gruffudd, who all appear to have adopted the title to distinguish themselves from the plurality of reges in Wales; furthermore, all of these but Llywelyn ab Iorwerth called themselves ‘princeps Wallie’. ‘King of Wales’ is a predecessor to ‘Prince of Wales’, as outlined in the paper above. I don’t think a ‘titles of medieval Wales’ page would be very helpful because there’s many dozens of titles in the bardic poetry which don’t really mean much different from one another. The only ones you find in Latin sources are princeps, rex, dominus, and baron; or their Welsh translations. Tipcake (talk) 12:00, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
    There were kings of Welsh kingdoms for a while, yes. But these, it seems, were ridiculed for their small territories, and Turvey, for instance, notes how chroniclers applied the Latin diminutive form as a kind of mockery. Not rex but regulus. Increasingly only the greatest of them were called king, and then only on their death. Even, Gruffudd ap Llywelyn, the only man with a real claim to be King of Wales, was only referred to in such a way on his death. Turvey is probably right about why the rulers took the name princeps instead of rex, but he is not unchallenged. There is more to say there, especially an argument (I forget who made it first) that princeps was chosen because it might hark back to Roman usage. In any case, I do not oppose the suggestion below of a merge or redirect to Gruffudd ap Llywelyn#Ruler of all Wales (1055–1063) with disambiguation to Owain Gwynedd. Only Gruffudd ap Llywelyn was ever king of the polity of Wales. If someone were searching this specific title, that is who they most probably wish to read about. I do think the page about Welsh titles would be useful and sustained by the available histories. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
    Madog ap Maredudd and Dafydd ab Owain Gwynedd referred to themselves as reges too in charters, and Maredudd ap Gruffudd is a brenin in the Brut y Tywysogion. Only the latter is posthumous. Turvey did not create the line of argument claiming that princeps was supposed to be more important than rex, that would be J. Beverley Smith, elaborated upon by Charles Insley, then repeated by Turvey. I cannot say that I have ever read any opposition to the idea...
    English chroniclers also use rex to refer to 12th century Welsh lords, not only regulus; see J. Beverley Smith, 'Treftadaeth Deheubarth', in Yr Arglwydd Rhys, p. 34. If Turvey says regulus is 'mockery' I fear that might be a bit of a stretch on his part... Tipcake (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
    Increasingly only the greatest of them... The word "increasingly" clearly acknowledges the lack of universality. I also didn't say Turvey orginated that line. I know I read it in J. Beverley Smith, but I am not sure that was where it originated. What Turvey actually says is:

    This accords well with the view that Rhys and his fellow rulers, at the behest of Henry II, set aside all pretensions to regal status in return for confirmation of their landholdings. It seems that during the twelfth century the native chroniclers were tending increasingly to acclaim only their greatest rulers brenin or rex and then only as an epithet of greatness to be dispensed at death as a mark of respect and for past deeds should they warrant titular distinction. By the thirteenth century this practice had ceased completely

    • Turvey, R. (2002) The Welsh Princes: The Native Rulers of Wales 1063-1283 Routledge.
    Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
    He says "this practice had ceased completely and the title of king is henceforth only to be found in the texts of the Welsh laws, or at least in those copies that have survived." Hmm... I'm afraid he's flat-out wrong there. Brenin is used still pretty commonly in 13th-century bardic poetry, as I've said. And furthermore in my copy of his book, this statement has no citations to support it. In any case, this is getting pretty far removed from the original topic, which is about "King of Wales", which he's not speaking about in that instance. The papers I referenced by J. Beverley Smith and Insley are the important documents here. Tipcake (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge to Prince of Wales. That moves a problematic title out of the way, but doesn't take the reader to information they are likely to be seeking. As above, I'd support a rename and repurposing as per the last discussion. I might support a merge to another target, but cannot think what we have that would be appropriate. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:09, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge; the topics are sufficiently distinct that a merge would only confuse readers. If notability was really a concern, then a better target would be Gruffudd ap Llywelyn#Ruler of all Wales (1055–1063), where disambiguation could be added to mention the tenuous claim of Owain Gwynedd. Klbrain (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Support merge to Prince of Wales. "King of Wales" is an article about a hypothetical title that - approximately - never existed in reality. A suitable merge to Prince of Wales would leave the information intact without making unhistorical claims. I agree with Tipcake that "Titles in mediaeval Wales" would be a deeply problematic article of limited use. (Though if anyone wants to write one, it's not impossible, go ahead.) Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Battle of Drniš


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

The body of this article, the "The battle" section, is basically a copy-paste of the only para in "Balkan Battlegrounds" that covers this fighting. This is hardly "significant coverage in reliable sources" per WP:SIGCOV. Surely we aren't going to have an article for every bit of fighting that merits only one para in BB? This should be a small para in the campaign article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:04, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Battle of the Scarpe


Battle of the Scarpe (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)

Mal-formatted DAB page, of which there are just two distinct articles: Battle of the Scarpe (1918) and three battles described at Battle of Arras (1917). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:20, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, S5A-0043🚎(Talk) 11:41, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
Move to Battle of the Scarpe (disambiguation), fix it, and then move Battle of the Scarpe (1918) to Battle of the Scarpe as WP:PTOPIC. Perhaps ought to be at WP:RM. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 05:32, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Holocaust memory in pro-Palestinian activism


Holocaust memory in pro-Palestinian activism (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:Original research and argumentative essay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:34, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7 Can you elaborate? I see quite a few citations to scholarly sources. While I agree there are quite a few WP:OR bits (e.g., making a claim above a movement, then citing only some individuals who hold it rather than an RS describing the movement) there does seem to be a core of reliably sources describing things from the outside. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:24, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete sources need to be presented showing that this phenomenon is being discussed in a systematic and named way. A compilation of news stories about something happening separately is the definition of synthesis. Jahaza (talk) 04:11, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep; the article, as-written, is very bad, but sources 4 and 5 (Mandel and KrollZeldin) seem to indicate secondary, in-depth scholarly discussion of the topic. Removing the litany of "survivor X said this. Survivor Y said this" OR can be done by normal editing; WP:TNT doesn't require deletion first. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete; per my response to WhatamIdoing below, the Kroll-Zeldin source does not appear to mention Holocaust memory. Only one in-depth source fails WP:GNG, and so I revise my !vote to support deletion. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:15, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. While I do not have access to either sources 4 or 5, the page numbers referenced span just 2 pages each. This to me is an indicator of a lack of in-depth scholarly analysis, and at most, I presume (although again I do not have access to either source) that the sources may have mentioned the concept in passing. This to me seems like WP:SYNTH because the very concept "Holocaust memory in pro-Palestinian activism" is not mentioned in any reliable source I could find. This seems to be taking lots of disparate instances and putting them together, the definition of SYNTH. Cherrytxrt 📧 21:18, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
  • I can provide transcripts of the relevant passages, which are valid. However, they make it clear that a WP:FRINGE viewpoint is being described and that few holocaust survivors were what the article called "radical left activists" (that Mandel calls "communists"), but the scope of this articles is solely about them. Anti-vaccine activism, for example, does not attempt to portray a fringe belief as a mainstream one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:17, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. This raises major OR and SYNTH concerns. It largely puts anecdotal information together and spreads it out enormously. The limited mention this has in relevant literature can be covered elsewhere under NOPAGE. gidonb (talk) 12:46, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am in agreement with EducatedRedneck, and do not see any reason for deletion. OR and SYNTH is referenced but not explained. I checked the page and the sources and they are all about the topic. Ismeiri (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep Not convinced a delete is warranted here. SYNTH is about editors making new connections between unrelated facts, not how reliable sources cover a subject. The recent title change made sure the sourcing matches the topic now, and the sourcing is enough to warrant its own article. Any issues with writing style should be addressed through regular editing. Genabab (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've gone ahead and removed the bulk of the blatant SYNTH from the article. I'm sure there's more I missed, but this should present a better view of what the article could look like. I'm noting this to keep the context for the above discussion. The old version at the time of the nomination can be found here. The version as-of my latest edit can be found here. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:28, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep. I have seen this phenomenon on e.g. AlterNet and in The Holocaust and the Nakba: A New Grammar of Trauma and History, so I am unconvinced that this topic is a new idea without encyclopedic value. — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 09:20, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete. This new article was created after an editor watched a YouTube video and wanted to see that video’s viewpoint displayed more prominently in Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holocaust_memory_in_pro-Palestinian_activism&oldid=1332329558. He succeeded; the page is now the top Google hit for "intellectual roots of terrorism". We do not have a page on Holocaust Memory in Zionism, although the memory of the Holocaust had quite a lot to do with 1948. Nor do we have articles on Pan-Arabism in pro-Palestinian activism or Antisemitism in pro-Palestinian activism. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
The nom asked me to look at this, and I think it's complicated. Bottom line up front is that I suggest a merge to the under-developed Jewish pro-Palestinian activism as a practical matter, and alternatively that we keep this but expand its remit to be a bit broader. Mostly I think that WP:PRESERVE applies (i.e., Wikipedia should have some information about the phenomenon of the Holocaust being invoked against Israel's destruction in Gaza), but that doesn't necessarily need to happen in such a narrowly focused article. Here are some sources that I think might be helpful for developing an article that discusses how different understandings of the Holocaust produces different responses to the Palestinian situation:
  • Wermenbol, Grace (2021-05-27). A Tale of Two Narratives: The Holocaust, the Nakba, and the Israeli-Palestinian Battle of Memories. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-84028-6.
  • Gutman, Yifat (2021-04-30). Memory Activism: Reimagining the Past for the Future in Israel-Palestine. Vanderbilt University Press. ISBN 978-0-8265-0391-6.
  • Bashir, Bashir; Goldberg, Amos (2019). The Holocaust and the Nakba: A New Grammar of Trauma and History. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-18297-3.
  • Khoury, Nadim (23 April 2019). "Postnational memory: Narrating the Holocaust and the Nakba". Philosophy & Social Criticism. 43 (1). doi:10.1177/0191453719839448.
  • Segal, Raz; Daniele, Luigi (2026-01-02). "Gaza as Twilight of Israel Exceptionalism: Holocaust and Genocide Studies from Unprecedented Crisis to Unprecedented Change". Journal of Genocide Research. 28 (1): 69–78. doi:10.1080/14623528.2024.2325804. ISSN 1462-3528.
  • Klein, Shira (2026-01-02). "The Growing Rift between Holocaust Scholars over Israel/Palestine". Journal of Genocide Research. 28 (1): 179–199. doi:10.1080/14623528.2024.2448061. ISSN 1462-3528.
When looking for sources, I used keywords such as holocaust nakba and holocaust palestinian and then scanned the results. Although "Holocaust memory" is a term of the art, I thought it sufficiently unusual that it missed sources that address the subject of how the Holocaust is invoked against the Israeli state and in favor of the Palestinians. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep - I proposed the recent title change to resolve any WP:OR or WP:SYNTH issues, and there was some problematic content leftover that I'm glad to see User:EducatedRedneck has taken care of. The article clearly satisfies notability guidelines and can be expanded further as noted by other editors. Tashmetu (talk) 10:43, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Move to Holocaust memory in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This article in previous iterations was an absolute disaster and I then advocated its deletion. It still has problems but, unlike when the previous merge proposal happened (when I opposed the merge), a much higher proportion of the content is actual encyclopedic material, rather than dubious statements sourced largely to opinion pieces and advocacy groups.
There are still things here that don't fit in the scope, but that would fit in the scope proposed in this comment - the material on Holocaust memory in Israeli policy for example. A reasonable treatment of the role Holocaust memory plays in the conflict would be served by this move. Centering the frame exclusively on pro-Palestinian activism is an unfortunate legacy of the flaws of the original article. Samuelshraga (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be consensus that there might be something but also that that something might not be this or could be something similar but different. That definitely feels like we need more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:24, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep - I am still convinced that the article name change and the work that has been performed before, during, and following the move process has resolved the issues with the article. We've removed OR and NPOV violations; there are plenty more sources for us to use. Disagreeing with the content does not mean it's not notable or deletable. I stand by my previous !vote and/or comments on this article and we should keep and improve it, not delete. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Or merge to existing articles on the subject. WP:SYNTH heavy, and doesn't appear to be strongly sourced for this specific subject, rather than being a more over-arching subject that this article has spun-off from. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete as having a non-neutral title/scope that is insufficiently justified by sources. Noting that the so-called Holocaust memory referenced in the article's first sentence is not even its own article, rather a redirect to The Holocaust#Remembrance and historiography. Other options are plausible, such as a merge to Jewish pro-Palestinian activism or The Holocaust and the Nakba. A move to other titles could also be viable, such as Samuelshraga's suggestion. I prefer delete because this article is still poorly written and overly anecdotal; best to start over and add well-sourced content to more encyclopedic articles that treat this important topic broadly. NicheSports (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obviously a thing. If the title needs changing change the title. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
    "Obviously a thing" isn't the standard for what makes a subject pass WP:GNG. Macktheknifeau (talk) 06:51, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see any OR issues here. Considering that the sourcing is extensive and the content is presented in a balanced manner, there's no reason for removal. Holocaust memory plays a significant role in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, meaning that it's commonly referenced and analysed in pro-Palestinian discourse, which is contested by the other side. The material doesn't belong in the Holocaust and Nakba, as it's not about a comparative analysis between the two events. There isn't even a single use of "Nakba" in this page. It also doesn't belong in the Jewish pro-Palestine activism one as most of it is not about Jews but activists and scholars generally including Palestinians. Zalaraz (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep there is enough sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG. Per WhatamIdoing, WP:PRESERVE is applicable here. The WP:HEY process has already resulted in meaningful improvements; several additional RS cited during this discussion have already been added to the article, so further expansion is possible. WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a reasonable argument for deletion. I would also note that concerns regarding neutrality and WP:SYNTH have been invoked without specific examples being identified, either in the discussion itself or in the nomination. If there are instances of synthesis, they should be identified and addressed through normal editorial processes. Perhaps the title would benefit from a minor adjustment, specifically changing "in" to "and". But that might be outside of the scope of this discussion. Paprikaiser (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
    @Paprikaiser Per my comment above, I removed a lot of the most egregious synth. Prior to that, it was harder I think to pin down parts that were NOT synth rather than point out parts which were. For what it's worth, I expect that's why the discussion hasn't been about specific instances of synth. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

History Proposed deletions

History categories

for occasional archiving

Proposals

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI