Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/History

Flagon and Trencher (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 wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, only mentions and brief descriptions (for example, on ProQuest). toweli (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, History, Organizations, and United States of America. toweli (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Found some pieces that document the activity of the organization. Take a look [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. Piscili (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not Notable to remain as an Article, It should be redirected. Untamed1910 (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Not Notable, No Reliable Sources Exists, it needs to be redirected Untamed1910 (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Shellwood (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominators should not make bolded "votes" like this, your desire to see the article gone is already made clear by the fact that you started the AFD.★Trekker (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Untamed1910, as stated, your nomination statement is considered your "vote", you don't get to make a second. If you want to change your nomination statement, go ahead strike the portion you no longer are arguing for and add this statement. Just a comment, to change an article to a Redirect, you didn't need to bring it to AFD and you also haven't specified a Redirect target article. So, this opinion is likely to go nowhere. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Reliable sources DO exist about this event, see: [9][10][11][12]

Javext (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article could use some improvement, but appears notable. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Certainly appears to be notable; and it looks too detailed to be merged into the war of which it was a part. There should probably be more citations to both ancient and modern sources, but that can be addressed through ordinary editing. P Aculeius (talk) 13:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1979 Bangladesh-Indian skirmishes (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)

No significant casualties, no WP:LASTING coverage. Wikipedia discourages articles based on WP:NOTNEWS and this is nothing more than that. Nxcrypto Message 14:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Bangladesh, and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - article seems well sourced, and several sources are in the late 2010s, some 40 years after the conflict itself, making a nonsense of the “no lasting coverage” claim… it’s… difficult not to see this as politically based spamming since the last couple of nominations on Indian-Bangladeshi border skirmishes from this same editor are just cut and paste, and they have nominated other similar articles last week too… I’ll assume good faith though, and just say that I disagree that the article meets the criteria for deletion based on the merits. Absurdum4242 (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is a notable incident, Lasting effect? It did have some. Nxcrypto, I noticed that you are copying the same message in similar AfD Discussions, Without even checking the page and It's content and aftermath a lot. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (Message)
• True The 1979 clash is very notable and it does not violate Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Nxcrypto for some reason is copying and pasting the same message in multiple AfD Discussions, And some people will not check the page and just want to delete it, So they will say "It does not establish WP:GNG and WP:Lasting", Even when, It is clearly notable event with coverage many years later. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (Message)
• Citations - The page has several citations including from books and newspapers, some require subscription or have limited information but I think the page meets with General Notability Guidelines. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (Talk with BangladeshiEditorInSylhet)

Şarkı (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)

Hard to search for sources as I am not a native speaker and the word means “song”. Seems unlikely to be notable but instead of deleting could perhaps be merged? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If sources are located discussing the specific song form, then a merge could be sensible. As is, however, I think either a redirect to fasıl or the definition on Wiktionary (via {{wiktred}}) would make the most sense. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Although it is a stub, the article is about a specific musical form, which is notable on its own. [13] A potential merge would be an editorial dicussion, not an AfD discussion.

TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The current article is little more than a dictionary definition and it is not very encyclopedic. As a type of song, this article could be expanded into something similar to ballad or aria, but knowledgeable editors will have to do a lot of work. "Unencyclopedic" and "needs expansion" are not good criteria for a vote so I am merely commenting here, but I recommend that someone gather the forces at Project Cleanup, Article Rescue Squadron, and/or Project Turkey. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Navigation on Essequibo and adjacent Rivers (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 lead section and only references one source. There are no inline citations and the majority of the article is unsourced. The prose is also unprofessional and unencylopedic. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 11:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Companies, and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This an entry about a historical organization that meets NORG. The entry is based on a book and article that are in the bibliography and on contemporaneous sources. I have added an intro and moved the sections around a bit. It was written by some of the standards at Nlwiki. AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The article does need a rename. gidonb (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That doesn't explain why there are no inline citations. Certainly doesn't look like this article has broad coverage either. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 18:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a book and a book chapter. Both certainly independent of the subject, RS, SIGCOV, and right on topic. Response is in defiance of AFDISNOTCLEANUP and NEXIST. Per WP:NEXIST: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. The bold is in the source so we will not miss it. gidonb (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a book chapter nor a book itself, where is your proof for that? If someone wrote a book about the subject it might be logical that this has the same title and also that I refer to it. If I write about the English EIC it might be logical that EIC is inside the title isn't it? Your remarks really make no sense at all. Johan Francke (talk) 05:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The name is inside the title. As I said, a book and a book chapter that are also in the bibliography list. gidonb (talk) 08:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reference to four works and also the archival source is given. A lead section already has been added Johan Francke (talk) 05:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many nominations fail AFDISNOTCLEANUP and SOFIXIT. gidonb (talk) 08:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The same article is published in a Dutch version, and there no single comment was given. It has also been published in another encyclopedic wiki site. Johan Francke (talk) 10:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Not really seeing it. Inclined to suggest SK1 if nom doesn't come up with a more intelligible reason. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verkine Karakashian (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:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Theatre, Armenia, Greece, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No refs. If any coverage of this person ever surfaces, it would take exactly 10 minutes to write a better article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There is a book reference in the article. I would suggest to keep the article, unless someone actually provided an assessment of its coverage. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoyfulTentmaker That is not a valid policy based keep vote. WP:SIGCOV requires multiple sources with independent significant coverage, which we generally interpret at AFD is a minimum of three sources. One book source, no matter how in-depth does not meet our notability guidelines.4meter4 (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I kindly disagree, a single book may indicate existence of more sources. Even without references, deletion nominators are expected to do a good faith WP:BEFORE: to check Google, Google Books, Google Scholar, and Wikipedia Library if possible. AfD is not a place to urge people to fix unreferenced articles. Nomination must come only after there are good indicators that the subject is not notable, regardless of the state of the article; as stated in WP:NEXIST. Sorry for repeating these in multiple nominations of yours, but there are not enough people watching these nominations about niche topics like this one, and I honestly believe it will be a loss for the encyclopedia if these are prematurely deleted. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CeeGee I think you created the article, pinging just in case you were not notified. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need other sources, suggesting that they exist isn't helpful Oaktree b (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoyfulTentmaker You seem to be misinterpreting policy language. WP:SIGCOV requires multiple sources as a non-negotiable criteria for all wikipedia articles. It's a must and its policy. Period. WP:NEXIST requires people voting to keep articles to produce multiple sources at the time of making a keep argument at an AFD. Asserting there are sources through guesswork is not following NEXIST; nor is arguing for keep based on a book you personally have not seen. Providing sources with url links or the names, publication dates, and pages of specific sources that you personally have looked at is following NEXIST. As for me, I looked at several standard opera reference works, including a Russian language music encyclopedia and found nothing on this person. My attempt at BEFORE may not be perfect but please WP:AGF. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you re-read WP:SIGCOV because it doesn't say what you think it does. The immediate subsection doesn't mention the number of sources but a bit further it says "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Multiple sources are not a "must" and the requirement is not "policy" (our notability documents relate to guidance rather than policy). Thincat (talk) 10:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Well, this source mentions this person [14], but that's all I can find. I don't think we have enough sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Oaktree b Just a note: during the period she was active, The Ottoman Empire used the Arabic writing system. So search is not trivial. Even modern sources include various different spellings of her name. Trying the modern Turkish spelling Verkine Karakaşyan, I can easily find at least one journal paper. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, I can only see a short segment from the Google Books preview, but the book you linked might have a significant coverage (there are three search hits in separate places of the book). Here is the the second one, page 67: "... Verkine Karakashian read his poem “Freedom” and moved the audience so deeply that the ceremony was repeated for several nights in a row. After this incident, gradually more young girls showed the courage to go onstage and break the ...". Seems there is more before and after this passage, and this itself probably has a citation in the book; so if anyone has access to this book it would be really helpful if you could check. Separately, I added two more sources to the article and found the ISBN number of the book, referenced by CeeGee, who created the article. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The Armenian wiki has some links, but I'm not in a position to say if they're RS or not. Oaktree b (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly not notable Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 17:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The sourcing is improved, now we have 6 references (one thanks to @Oaktree b's Armenian Wikipedia pointer), and hopefully notability concerns are now reduced. Also, I'm curious about the opinions @Basak and @Buidhe, who are experienced editors with contributions related to Ottoman Armenians on the English or the Turkish Wikipedia. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Covered by several additional Turkish sources [15][16] Additional Armenian sources [17][18] The main ref in the Armenian article is the Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia. Whether there were citations at the time of the nomination is irrelevant to AfD. Aintabli (talk) 03:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I see that new relevant sources were added since the beginning of this discussion, therefore to me it is clear that the article should be kept. Of course, it’s possible to add more sources and improve the article. For example here, it’is possible to learn what were the important roles she played in her years at Güllü Agop Company and in Benliyan Operet Company: Women in Ottoman theater life — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basak (talk • contribs) 06:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC) --Basak (talk) 06:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Hemshin (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)

Fail to see how this is notable. Whole article is probably WP:SYNTH. Creator of this article conveniently added no pages for the citations, and when I looked into one of two of them (can't access the other, though it is likely the same case), I found no mention about this event [19]. I'm not surprised, since they also misused citations at Han–Xiongnu War (215 BC–200 BC) [20] [21] HistoryofIran (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per HistoryofIran, I read the references cited in the article, and could find absolutely no mention of either this battle, or of Hemshin itself. I had a good search and couldn’t find any other sources on it either - not a single mention of Hemshin / Hemşin anywhere for the early 1830s, battle or otherwise. Absurdum4242 (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:SYNTH. Cannot find any mention of this either. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Jammu (1808) (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)

KM Panikkar is the only reliable source presented here. Autar Singh Sandhu is not a reliable source as there is only one book that can be traced to him which was written in 1935; there are zero mentions of his educational credentials, bibliography, or reviews of scholarly work available, and he was deprecated by an admin in the RSN-[22]. The link to GULAB SINGH (1792-1857) is broken. Panikkar does make some mention of this battle (in page 15 and 16), but the information is not sufficient enough to warrant an article.

Note: Two Sikh nationalist sockmasters have been undermining my AFDs, one is the Truthfindervert, the second is an unrelenting sockmaster who has been stalking me for 3 years now-HaughtonBrit. His two most recent sockpuppets, Alvin1783 and Festivalfalcon873 were sabotaging my AFDs and making multiple votes in AFDs to retain articles which aggrandized their religion. Even after their blocks, HaughtonBrit has been continuing his campaign against me-here he deleted my PROD; 2 admins have said that this was clearly HaughtonBrit block evading-[23] and [24]. Even after that, he didn't stop and made an illegitimate vote in my AFD-[25]. Please be weary of any suspicious new/burner accounts or proxies who vote here as they are almost certainly going to be HaughtonBrit. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, and Jammu and Kashmir. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gąsawa massacre (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 article only describes the motives for the massacre and nothing more, the course of the crime is also lacking, in addition, most things (sources) in the article have a trivial mention of the subject in one sentence, which is incompatible with WP:SIGCOV Polski Piast from Poland (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I could not find here this footnote Labuda, Gerard (1995). The death of Leszek the White (1227). Historical Annals. 61: 7-33. Gerard Labuda describing the views of Józef Uminski. If somewhere you Marek still has about this study then it's cool, but if not, well, we have problems. I hope that we will be able to keep the article after all. Polski Piast from Poland (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, History, and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge with Leszek the White There do not seem to be adequate sources for an article. It's already covered in Leszek the White#Assassination. Maybe only one or two sources refer to it as a massacre, since massacres usually result in more than one death. TFD (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are adequate sources - six of them with one or two specifically dedicated to this event. Whether or not it should be under “massacre” or something else is a naming question, not a reason for deletion. Volunteer Marek 16:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also probably a good idea to read the talk page first before !voting [26] or the relevant DYK discussion. Naming issue was discussed. More than one person was killed though most sources focus on the most important one - the Duke. Volunteer Marek 17:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep One would think that the assassination/murder of the ruler of Poland would be notable. YMMV I guess. There’s six reliable source in the article with one or two of them specifically dedicated to this event. This is also a very well known event in Polish historiography. The text in Leszek the White article is different (and frankly with worse sourcing). This article was featured at DYK and no one had a problem with either notability or any other issues then. Now it’s getting nominated for deletion by some brand new account with just a few edits who for some unknown reason calls me out by name. Yup. Volunteer Marek 16:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and possibly rename. The term (in Polish) seems to have been coined in Semkowicz, W. "Zbrodnia gąsawska." Ateneum 43 (1886): 328-348., who wrote a dedicated article about it in pl:Ateneum (czasopismo), so it is a reliable, if dated, piece of SIGCOV. Since then this has been mentioned here or there, although I don't think it got much more coverage under that name, but the assassination/death of Leszek Biały did, under more generic names. See for example another, a bit more modern, article about this: Umiński, Józef. "Śmierć Leszka Białego." Nasza Przeszłość 2 (1947): 3-36 and more modern, but I think not digitized, Labuda, Gerard. "Śmierć Leszka Białego (1227)." Roczniki Historyczne 61 (1995): 7-36. Here's an article from a modern Polish history magazine (Histmag). So this is a notable event, but the name might be better as Assassination of Leszek the White or Death of Leszek the White. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yer-sub (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)

Although there are some sources such as http://www.ejst.tuiasi.ro/Files/64/14_Yerzhanova%20et%20al.pdf I am not sure there are enough to show notability for a stand-alone article. As an alternative to deletion maybe merge into Tengriism? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Religion, Central Asia, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge : per nom.--Gabriel (……?) 11:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Tengriism is a Redirect, not an appropriate Merge target page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh you right. Gabriel (……?) 05:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gabriel601 I don’t know the subject so you should say whether merging to Tengrism is suitable as I don’t really know merge or delete which is better? Chidgk1 (talk) 05:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Tengrism - the current stub has one external link, which is tantamount to original research. This is not exclusionary of either a merger or later Re-creation. Dicta: This religion or belief system is quite ancient, and is linguistically interesting, because it might point to a larger language family in Asia. Bearian (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lakana (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)

Lakana presents this term as representing a specific type of watercraft (an outrigger canoe) with a specific type of rig (the "downwind" mastless rig that is supported between two sprits). This specific type of craft does exist – it is shown in the photo illustrating the article. However, in Malagasy, as far as I can determine, the word "Lakana" is any type of canoe, with or without outriggers, with or without a sailing rig, and certainly not confined to just one type of sailing rig. This is clear from the reference in the article
Hornell, James (1920). "67. The Common Origin of the Outrigger Canoes of Madagascar and East Africa". Man. 20: 134–139. doi:10.2307/2839454. Retrieved 5 September 2024.
which has a translation provided by a colonial administrator confirming that "lakana" is not a specific type of canoe, but a canoe (or boat) in general. Hornell is still seen as a useful authority on the ethnography of sailing craft in the areas in which he worked. If the word applied to a particular hull and rig combination, he would have picked up on this.

I have asked for help on the Wikiproject Madagascar[27] with no result. Therefore, I think we have to conclude that these concerns about the article are correct. If "lakana" is a much broader term than the article suggests, if we do not the name of the type of craft that the article describes (I can find no source that makes this clear), then the only option is to delete the article as unsupported by sources.

In passing, it is worth saying that I have come to the conclusion that though the subject of traditional sailing craft in Madagascar would make a very interesting (to me) article on Wikipedia, there simply are not sufficient sources to do the subject justice. This is after some considerable searching. (It would be great to be proved wrong in this.) ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 13:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this is the second AfD nomination for Lakana, but the first related to a company not a type of boat. TSventon (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, History, Transportation, and Africa. Skynxnex (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. In terms of:

• Scope. To my read, the article doesn't state (at least not directly as interpreted by the nominator) that the article "presents this term as representing a specific type of watercraft (an outrigger canoe [of Madagascar]) with a specific type of rig". Rather it states (as would appear to be supported by Hornell (1920; p.138) and Richardson (1887; p.345)) that the Lakana is (yes) a specific type of watercraft. Being an outrigger canoe. That is "dug out". Rather than "built". IE: A "specific type of watercraft (a dugout outrigger canoe [of Madagascar])". Which is supported by Richardson in particular. Yes, the article mentions different types of rigging. But I don't read it as stating that the rigging type is part of the definition/classification. If that is unclear, I would suggest that we clarify or change the text. Rather than delete the article.
• Sources. To my mind, there are sufficient sources (including the two above) to support some text about the subject. Being a type of dugout outrigger traditionally used in Madagascar. Even if just as a sub-set / sub-section of the Pirogue article. Which appears to cover the "generic" class of small dugout canoe. Globally. With a redirect left behind. To a subsection on the Madagascan type.
• Suggested action. If the issues with the title are scope (including clarity of the text) or sources (reflecting them), I'm not sure that outright deletion is the right way to go. Deletion isn't cleanup. At the very least, a merge/redirect seems like the way to go. To Pirogue. Leaving out any "questionable" or potentially confusing text.

My 2x cents at any rate. Guliolopez (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment.

• Translation: The key issue is whether Lakana is a term for "outrigger canoes which are based on a dugout hull" or if it applies to "any dugout canoe". The two sources discussed above seem to give the definition of an unqualified "dugout canoe". At present the article is solely about the outrigger version. To assist in decision-making on the meaning, see this video[28] with the caption "Miandry ny lakana miampita" which google translates as "The boat is waiting to cross". We can see there is no outrigger. (Whilst OR is not allowed for article content, there is no prohibition on using it to help understand a subject.) The boat in the video is very different from the seagoing outrigger canoes.
• What makes this more difficult is the knowledge that the Vezo make use of outrigger canoes with a distinctive common spritsail rig (as defined by Edwin Doran [29], pg 40, fig 21, drawing B) that is not described, in Madagascar, by Hornell or anyone else. (Hornell describes this rig in the neighbouring Comoro Islands[30]) A Vezo boat is the one illustrating the Pirogue article – but there is no RS that identifies the rig type. And, of course, Commons has no obligation for its descriptions of pictures to be supported by an RS. This might contribute to the impetus for deletion in this editor's mind (as proposer), as there is a very common class of Madagascan dugout outrigger canoe that is totally undescribed in RSs, so making the subject incomplete. (See youtube[31] for these Vezo craft under sail, which is something that most believe Hornell never saw). All I have to back this thought up is some private correspondence with a researcher on Austronesian rigs – so essentially WP:OR.
• If I understand User:Guliolopez correctly, their suggestion would mean a complete rewrite of the article to fit the sources and then merge it into Pirogue. That would fit with the intent behind the proposal: that we do not really have enough sourced material for an article on the Lakana on its own. Have I got this correct? ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Hi ThoughtIdRetired. RE: "suggestion would mean a complete rewrite of the article to fit the sources and then merge it into Pirogue". Effectively, yes, I think that's probably the most appropriate outcome. Retain the title. As a redirect. And summarise and merge the content/text (about the Lakana being a form of Pirogue/dugout traditionally associated with Madagascar) into the Pirogue article. Guliolopez (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. (Note: prior to the AfD nomination, I had suggested to the nominator that they put this up for deletion.) My take on the current sources etc. is that none of them indicate that the lakana is anything other than the Malagasy for a canoe. My interpretation of each source etc. below:
  • "The lateen rig allows a lakana to sail closer to the wind, so giving some windward performance.[1]”
    • My interpretation: Doesn't indicate that the lakana is something different.
  • "The boat is often referred to by the general French term "pirogue", which can include boats with no outriggers.[2]"
    • My interpretation: “general French term” suggests there's nothing special about the lakana.
  • “The technology was adapted in neighboring East Africa, like the Tanzanian ngalawa and the Fulani laana.[3][4]”
    • My interpretation: Can't access these sources, but the Wikipedia wording suggests that there are similar craft elsewhere - i.e. there's nothing peculiar to Madagascar about these.
  • “some locals prefer the Hazomalany wood (Hazomalania voyronii of the family of Hernandiaceae).[5]”
    • My interpretation: Doesn't indicate that the lakana is something different.
  • Hornell, James (September 1920). “The Common Origin of the Outrigger Canoes of Madagascar and East Africa”
    • My interpretation: Only indicates that “lakana” is simply the Malagasy for “canoe”.
  • Richardson, J (December 1887). “The Affinities Of Malagasy With The Melanesian Languages”
    • My interpretation: Only indicates that “lakana” is simply the Malagasy for “canoe”.
  • “An Austronesian square-sail is more common (e.g. in Ambaro Bay).[a]”
    • My interpretation: Doesn't indicate that the lakana is something different.

--A bit iffy (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does not qualify for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as there is very little material in this article that can be merged into Pirogue. On going through this in detail, there are perhaps three sentences to add to Pirogue from this article. (The tree species used for the sailing versions, the "lakana" is the Malagasy for pirogue, and that this word applies to dug out canoes, with or without outriggers and with various rigs. We cannot say more as the sailing rigs are incompletely described by sources.) Lakana would just remain as a redirect. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stiking your duplicate vote. Your nomination statement is your Delete vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okjeo 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)

Okjeo (Okchŏ) was a polity described in the Dongyi section of the Chinese Records of the Three Kingdoms. They surely spoke some language, but not one word of it is recorded. The only information about the language is the statement in the above chapter that "the language is much the same as Goguryeo but with small differences here and there". That is not enough for an article, and is already included in the Puyŏ languages article, which is about four languages mentioned in that Chinese source.

All the references in the article are either paraphrases of that statement or are actually about the Goguryeo language, for which some (controversial) evidence does exist. Kanguole 22:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Although I cannot say if the article should be removed or kept due to my biases with my edits on the article, I just want to say that I don't believe deletion should be an option and at most, make it a redirect to the Puyŏ languages as you say the information is included in the article itself. Spino-Soar-Us (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Puyŏ languages. seefooddiet (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, History, and Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I am satisfied with the sources and structure of the page and think it could be retained as a detailed article. Opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think the amount of references is acceptable for the scope of this topic. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British army in the Eureka Rebellion (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)

Unnecessary content fork. Content could easily be merged into Eureka Rebellion and List of Eureka Stockade defenders. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• keep not at all a WP:CFORK. I see almost no overlaps. And we don't merge large articles into huger ones. --Altenmann >talk 17:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just wanted to note that 860 words of readable prose is hardly a large article. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnecessary WP:CFORK and one of many excessive bloated pages about this minor event. Mztourist (talk) 04:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete clearly a CFORK, I don't even see any content that would be worth keeping in a merge. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is pretty extensive so I'd prefer a bit more confirmation that deletion is the right call here over any possible WP:ATD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]