This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related toSocial science. It is one of manydeletion lists coordinated byWikiProject 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 atWP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page atWP: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:
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 theedit 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.
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.
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed bya 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'sdeletion policy andWP: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:
Seems like astroturfing to me. Clear neutrality issues in the writing, and the vast majority of sources are either directly self-published by the organization or otherwise written by people tied to it (Carter Dillard, Policy Director and Board Member of the Fair Start Movement; Esther Afolaranmi, co-executive director at the Fair Start Movement). There are a few cursory mentions in news articles, but not enough to establish notability. I have checked on Google, Google Books, and Google Scholar, and the results don't seem much better there.Spookyaki (talk)18:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: toYombe. These are two different languages of the same name which can easily be confused, and there are also two people group of the same name. Both languages and people group of the same name are not related to each other. At very least, redirect to the said page. I am the creator of the AfD disambiguation page.Tumbuka Arch (talk)17:02, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see. It was confusing the way it was laid out as typically a primary topic gets linked at the top of the dab page. The alternative you just suggested seems like a good choice.4meter4 (talk)18:02, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4, @IvanScrooge98, please explain to me as you would to a five-year old. This is because there are actually two different languages that share the name “Yombe language”. They are not the same, neither do they have the same history, and at least one of them is not part of Kongo language at all. At the moment, “Yombe language” redirects to “Kongo language”, but that redirect is only correct for one usage of the name. As for the otherr language, it is completely inaccurate. If we move this page to the base title, we would end up sending readers to the wrong language. That’s exactly why the disambiguation page was created, to separate two unrelated languages that happen to use the same name. Instead of deleting it or moving it, it’s better to keep the disambiguation page so that both topics are properly directed. So currently, I am leaning towards "keep". -Tumbuka Arch (talk)16:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, if we conclude that there is no defined primary topic, we move the dab page toYombe language and fix the automatic links. It’s an alternative. The only thing that is certain is that when there are only two topics involved the situation shouldn’t stay the way it currently is. ~IvanScrooge98 (talk)17:14, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, when you created the dab page, the first thing you should have done was to link to the it fromKongo language, which you didn’t. That also made it almost completely useless. But in general, if between two topics one is primary, there is no need for a dab page because a simple link from a note at the primary article – like the one I added to Kongo language – suffices. ~IvanScrooge98 (talk)17:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And just to note, the current target really is one of the two entries at the current dab page, just piped. Also, redirecting as suggested would make no sense for a "(disambiguation)" titled page like this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)05:29, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the concept of "Modern Chinese characters" is not well-defined in the article, and not independently notable. the article duplicates coverage of articles likeChinese characters and the "main articles" linked throughout.ltbdl (talk)15:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep This is the third AfD nomination, and the keep arguments in the first two still apply.[N]ot well-defined isWP:NOTCLEANUP, andnot independently notable is overcome by the dozens of sources in the article, particularly the Chinese language sources. —BillHPike(talk,contribs)16:33, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article defined "modern Chinese characters" as "the Chinese characters used in modern languages, including Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese"; supported by specific and more detailed contents in the following sections. What are the reasons for the declaration that the topic is not well defined here?Ctxz2323 (talk)07:39, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
modern languages is vague at best. chinese characters have essentially not changed since the creation of regular script, circa 230, so "modern" is meaningless. if "modern" meansSimplified Chinese characters orshinjitai, there already are articles on those.
Modern Chinese characters include both modern simplified and traditional characters, which have been standardized in both forms and sounds (as introduced in the article and the spin-off articles). That means the situation is not the same as circa 230.Ctxz2323 (talk)14:04, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is: the subject of "Modern Chinese character" is not equal to "Simplified Chinese characters", "shinjitai" or the "regular script, circa 230", as you mentioned; and is entitled for its own wiki article. By the way, contents covered inChinese character sets does not means it can not appear in another place for another purpose.Ctxz2323 (talk)11:59, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the subject of "Modern Chinese character" is not equal to "Simplified Chinese characters", "shinjitai" or the "regular script, circa 230"
a university textbook entitled "Modern Chinese language" authored by a top Chinese language department and published by a top academic publisher in China?Ctxz2323 (talk)14:29, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You might have forgot that at the beginning of this discussion section, I answered your question in this way:
"The article defined "modern Chinese characters" as "the Chinese characters used in modern languages, including Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese"; ...".
I wonder why you still said "you still haven't defined the subject of "Modern Chinese characters".".
Just go through the long list of "Works cited" at the end of the article and you will find them (you are good at Chinese language and Chinese linguistics, I supposed.)Ctxz2323 (talk)12:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok, thanks. however, i do not want to buy books for the sole purpose of verifying the notability of this subject. are you able to quote these sources?ltbdl (talk)14:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources have titles like 現代漢字學 (Modern Chinese Characters Studies) and 现代汉字学纲要 (Outline of scholarship on Modern Chinese Characters). I've only had the chance to review some of the cited sources, they are clearly sufficient to passWP:GNG. With respect toi do not want to buy books, the burden of assessing paper-only sources rests on the editor seeking deletion, perWP:PAPERONLY. —BillHPike(talk,contribs)15:53, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 文字 (characters) in 现代汉语 (Modern Chinese language) are "modern" Chinese characters. Remember the whole textbook is entitled "现代汉语 [Modern Chinese language]". And this chapter is on "Modern Chinese character".Ctxz2323 (talk)12:12, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 文字 (characters) in 现代汉语 (Modern Chinese language) are "modern" Chinese characters.
again, you're stretching the meaning of the quote. if the topic was independently notable, it wouldn't need to duplicate coverage of other articles.ltbdl (talk)07:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But you asked for quotes from reliable sources to serve as evidence for the definition, and the existence of the subject. Am I right? Ctxz2323 (talk)07:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PAPERONLYIf an editor seeking deletion believes the creator placed fictitious references in the article to make a hoax seem legitimate, the burden of proof is on the one seeking deletion.. I can vouch for the legitimacy of the cited sources; several are in my bookshelf at home, alongside a book (ISBN9787802416703) fromCtxz2323. —BillHPike(talk,contribs)16:46, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And at least three textbooks on modern Chinese characters and cited in the article are on my bookshelf:
Su, Peicheng 苏培成 (1994). 现代汉字学纲要 [Essentials of Modern Chinese Characters] (in Chinese). Beijing:Peking University Press. ISBN 7-301-02597-1.
Su, Peicheng 苏培成 (2001). 现代汉字学纲要 [Essentials of Modern Chinese Characters] (in Chinese). (2nd ed.) Beijing:Peking University Press. ISBN 7-301-02597-1.
Su, Peicheng 苏培成 (2014). 现代汉字学纲要 [Essentials of Modern Chinese Characters] (in Chinese) (3rd ed.). Beijing: 商务印书馆 (Commercial Press). ISBN 978-7-100-10440-1.
Yang, Runlu 杨润陆 (2008). 现代汉字学 [Modern Chinese Characters] (in Chinese). Beijing:Beijing Normal University Press. ISBN 978-7-303-09437-0.
Yin, Jiming 殷寄明; Wang, Rudong 汪如东 (2007). 现代汉语文字学 [Modern Chinese Writing] (in Chinese). Shanghai:Fudan University Press. ISBN 978-7-309-05525-2.
Li, Dasui 李大遂 (2013). 简明实用汉字学 [Concise and Practical Chinese Characters] (in Chinese) (3rd ed.). Beijing:Peking University Press. ISBN 978-7-301-21958-4.
And recently I bought another one:
Lu, Zhongfa 陆忠发 （2023). 新版当代汉字学 （A New Edition of Contemporary Chinese Character Studies）(in Chinese). Hangzhou:Zhejiang University Press. ISBN 978-7-308-20575-7.
Another editor has joined the discussion in the following section, starting with: "Here are some open-access English language scholarly publications on modern Chindes Characters. I believe these sources along are sufficient to meet WP:GNG, even if we credit Ltbdl concerns about other sources. ..." Thanks for the contribution. But I cannot find a [reply] link at the end. I will read the references recommended and put them intoModern Chinese characters as appropriate.
Here are some open-access English language scholarly publications on modern Chindes Characters. I believe these sources along are sufficient to meetWP:GNG, even if we creditLtbdl concerns about other sources.
This question is already answered at the beginning of the secondkeep section. Selected texts copy between wiki articles is allowed so long as acknowledgement is given, am I right? However, if you have found any long-range text duplicate, please tell me its locations in the two articles. And I will eliminate it. Thank you!Ctxz2323 (talk)09:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is poorly sourced, only single distinct source exist, and I wasn't able to find more actual sources. Two inscriptions cannot be considered a separate language for at least linguistic reasons. Instead, maybe we should create anEastern Celtic article which will combine all views on the entire topic, likethis?From Alba, Celtoi, (talk)08:16, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While the topic here would be notable if it clearly existed, this article seems heavily based on original research and relies on primary sources originating from a long-dead language. Based on what I can see, I can't even be 100% certain this is clearly a unique language or has been described as such. If someone has evidence to the contrary on this, I'll change my vote.aaronneallucas (talk)01:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought that it would be better to make the "Eastern Celtic" article specifically mentioning the inscriptions these as a separate heading. In this case we can include both what is known about Eastern Celtic in common and information about inscriptions from Noricum.From Alba, Celtoi, (talk)04:32, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This organization does not appear to be notable. All of the current sourcing is to the EAB itself, and a books and news search finds nothing but passing mentions, certainly nothing close to the in-depth coverage required byWP:ORGCRIT. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)03:58, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per theWP:GNG andWP:NGO. The organization has a national scope (covers all of Britain) and has significant coverage in independent reliable sources.
See[1],[2]. The second source points to "Forster’s (1982) sociological study of the Esperanto movement in Britain ", which refers to the book "The Esperanto Movement: Contributions to the Sociology of Language" by Peter G. Forster. This is a book-length study of the Esperanto Movement, which according to the second source includes information such as statistical surveys.
Comment I haven't looked at the other ones, but the Guardian article is definitely a passing mention. The only thing the article tells you about the association is that they used to have expensive headquarters and that they have a phone number in Stoke-on-Trent.Aŭstriano (talk)12:04, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oxford Mail article about fampus Esperanto poet Marjorie Boulton, member of EAB, from 2017:
Where does it say either that the HQ is expensive or even mention the phone number? The EAB is mentioned in the first para setting the scene. The article mentions the former location (the 'Tudor House' is a college building nearby that used to be rented for classes), the name of an official and former administrator, a reported increase in the beginners' courses being offered, general information about the language's structure, details of the former HQ, and its future on the internet via various apps, in particular Duolingo, and a few individual testimonies. I call that more than a passing mention.~2025-34840-33 (talk)14:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking about the same article? I am talking about this one:[7]. "But whereas the Esperanto Association of Britain once enjoyed expensive headquarters in Holland Park, London, today its website directs you to a number in Stoke-on-Trent where the association's representative is away on holiday". This is the first mention of the association, halfway through the article.Aŭstriano (talk)17:04, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I referred to the Guardian article of 2017. Evidently you referred to the one of 2005. So, I would say that the article of 2017 is more than a passing mention.~2025-35058-81 (talk)10:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's 6 fairly critical pages on the history of BEA and EAB in Andrew Large'sThe Artificial Language Movement (1985). Both are covered in this article, and searching for BEA's name seems to find more early references. (Indeed, it's not immediately obvious to me whether they are actually two different organisations or just two different translations of the Esperanto name...)Adam Sampson (talk)12:51, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is a non-notable publication of a non-notable organization. There already is a mention at the above suggested redirect target (if it survives AFD), and anything more would be prettyWP:UNDUE. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)04:04, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I provided more than sufficient sourcing to establish the notability of the organization, a redirect is proper because it directs the reader precisely to where information about this content exists. There is no reason to delete when a valid redirect target that covers the exact same topic exists - a redirect would be recreated in the long-run anyways.Katzrockso (talk)11:04, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever this article might have once been, it's been rendered a useless slop puddle by LLM-crazed editors. Essentially the entire article is duplicative ofLanguage acquisition,Language education, andMultilingualism, plus likely a couple of others in the "see also" list at the bottom, and those articles at least don't have "In summary..." at the end of every section. Get rid of the duplicated content and you have aWP:DICTDEF.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk)12:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: LLM, delete. We can't/shouldn't verify each and every citation given to even see if it's true or not, that is a waste of the editor's time here. No inline citations either, which doesn't help. Easiest is to delete.Oaktree b (talk)15:31, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a longstanding article since 2004; the very beginning of the encyclopedia. We have years of article history since before LLM editing was even a thing. Simplest thing to do is revert the article to the time from before any LLM content was added. What we shouldn't do is delete the lengthy history of contributors over the past 21 years in an article that is clearly on a notable topic.WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, and LLM cleanup shouldn't be done through deletion in articles that have lengthy editing histories prior to LLM editing. That would set a very bad precedent.4meter4 (talk)16:08, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to restore several sections that were marred by LLM editing, but unfortunately this article has not been in a very good state since before 2022. --Reconrabbit18:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. As an ATD, we could restore the article to what it was before LLMs turned it into slop, but I'm not sure how practical that would be. We'd need way better sourcing, and I haven't done any research on this so I can't say whether or not it would work, but it may be good to look into.Gommeh📖🎮20:48, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, utter trainwreck of an article without any clear topic. Consider this unsourced gem from it:
"Although significant differences between the definitions of second language and foreign language may be hard to find as the two terms are often taken as synonyms, research has been carried out to shed light on the differentiating traits of the two. The distinction between acronyms TESL (Teaching of English as a Second Language) and TEFL (Teaching of English as a Foreign Language) shows the attention different researchers have paid to the concepts of foreign language and second language. "
Your yourself state that this is unreferenced. Here is a quote fromRS:
Foreign language learning and teaching refer to the teaching or learning of a nonnative language outside of the environment where it is commonly spoken. A distinction is often made between ‘foreign’ and ‘second’ language learning. A second language implies that the learner resides in an environment where the acquired language is spoken. In the area of research, the term second language acquisition (SLA) is a general term that embraces foreign language learning and investigates the human capacity to learn languages other than the first language once it has been acquired.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The LLM-generated content appears to have been dealt with, but is there is a viable topic here, or is it duplicative by definition? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Vanamonde93 (talk)19:51, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not copyvio, as the text in the article existed since 2011[8] and the preprint was published in 2014. So it is the latter that plagiarized the former.Kelob2678 (talk)09:24, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:N has two arms. A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meetsWP:GNG or a relevant SNG, BUTonly if it is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. This article is aWP:DICDEF. What is it about? It can't be about languages in general, because it would be fork of all the language articles we have. It is specifically about a concept of a language that is foreign. But the only thing that makes a language foreign is that it is a language spoken by foreigners. There is no encyclopaedic subject there. It is all dictionary definition, and what we have in the article meanders into the subject of other pages, because there is no tightly defined subject here.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)19:48, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is literally no reason to hold on to this article. As @Deacon Vorbis pointed out the absurdity of the unsourced portions, I noticed this fact included in the articlewith a citation:
An article fromThe Atlantic claims that only 1 percent of the adults within the US population consider themselves proficient in speaking a foreign language. This is in stark contrast to many other countries, where the percentage is much higher.
The article inThe Atlantic makes no such claim whatsoever as to the percentage of Americans proficient in a foreign language, and I find it absurd to think that just 1% of Americans know a foreign language.aaronneallucas (talk)06:08, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article hasn't reachedgood article status, and even if it had that isn't an argument that would stop it from deletion anyway. Plenty of GA's have been sent to AfD in the past. If you meant that we shouldn't delete the article because you like it, that would be anWP:ILIKEIT argument. What is it that you like about the article specifically?Gommeh📖🎮17:09, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources can be considered reliable when it comes to the Russian language and culture. I tried searching for any reliable sources in both English and Russian, but none support the definition of “Vranyo” given in the article.
Most of the sources used in the article are political opinion pieces written by journalists, where the concept of “Vranyo” is mentioned in passing to support a larger point [1,2,3,4,8,9,10].
Out of the sources where that isn’t the case, [5] is indeed written by a Professor of Russian and Slavonic Studies. However, it is still an opinion piece, and very remotely supports the definition of “Vranyo” given by the article. It also uses “one wag on Reddit” as one of its sources, raising questions regarding the academic quality of the piece.
For sources [6,7], the article gives a quote of a Russian-American professor of history, but nothing in the sources indicates that the given quote has any relation to the concept of “Vranyo”.
[11] is a book on workplace practices, also mentioning “Vranyo” in passing to support a larger point. The author is a Professor of Sociology with nothing to suggest he’d be an authoritative source on Russian language and culture.
As one of the editors in the old talk suggested, it does seem to be the case that the concept of “Vranyo”, as used by the article, is a concept that a small group of English-speaking journalists have decided to label using the Russian loanword "Vranyo", completely detached from the actual word “Vranyo” in the Russian language.
In this regard, it is quite interesting, but requires more original research. If the original contributor would like to completely rewrite the article, I am not against incubating the article, but as it currently stands, I would suggestDELETE
I don't think we needWP:OR. Wikipedia is based onWP:RS, and the article is sourced. The article has over eleven references, all of them including the word/concept, including experts and scholars, Russians and non-Russians, but it doesn't seem to matter since this article appears to have struck some kind of nerve.
This is the English Wikipedia, so if “Vranyo” here has a different connotation than it does in the general Russian language or on the Russian Wikipedia, that's fine. If you want a more Russian POV, you could provide reliable sources for that rather than suggesting that the entire article be deleted, given that whether some people like it or not, this definition of “Vranyo” does exist and it would be silly of a neutral encyclopedia to delete it perWP:NPOV. I'm not against adding some good Russian sources if they can be found, if simply having "in Russian, the literal translation is x" would make you feel better.TylerBurden (talk)22:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable sources (WP:RS). Yes, Galeotti is an expert, but an expert in Russian crime and security. He is not a reliable source on Russian language and culture, and his opinions do not represent the mainstream academic view. With all the sources being not unlike this one, the article currently puts undue emphasis on aWP:FRINGE theory held by a minority.
Now, the article is not completely hopeless, and could be rewritten in a draft space so it is up to the standarts of Wikipedia, but I would argue there is not enough quality research on the topic yet.Deliberate Baobab (talk)07:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't only about the Russian language, it's about the term in English, because we're on the English Wikipedia. If it's a fringe view, then go ahead and provide some sources debunking the term and concept, because surely someone would be calling it out when high profile sources cover it.TylerBurden (talk)19:03, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps due to how niche this is, I wasn't able to find any authoritative sources discussing the topic at all, whether supporting the view of the article, or opposing it. But I'll try searching again.
All in all, I believe I made my argument on the non-reliability of the sources, so I'll let more experienced editors weigh in from here on.
On an unrelated note, in your experience, do interested editors usually come upon AfD discussion such as this one on their own, given time, or would something like a post on a Wikipedia noticeboard by neccessary here to get more opinions?Deliberate Baobab (talk)07:18, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So there's all the sources cited on the article (over a dozen at this point) actually supporting and discussing the term and you can't find a single one debunking them or the concept itself, I don't buy the excuse of it being "niche", because if it was, there wouldn't be this amount of sources covering the topic. It seems the actualWP:FRINGE view here might be the one that this is some imaginary thing invented by western journalists.
Draftify ordelete per nom - over half the references used in the article mention vranyo never or only have passing mentions.Jalapeño(utg)17:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already checked them before submitting this !vote. Source 7 doesn't mention it. Sources 10 and 8 are duplicates, sources 1, 2, and 3 are paywalled, source 11 only mentions it twice and doesn't delve further into it. There is also nothing showing vranyo is a Russian concept in particular, rather than just a concept that happens to be part of Russian culture. For me, the sources don't show that vranyo merits its own article just yet.Jalapeño(utg)11:26, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. As the article stands now, the sources failWP:SIGCOV, but reliable sources can be found. If I search for "vranyo" in quotation marks, a search on Google Scholar yields 106 results, a search on EBSCO yields 95 results, and a search on JSTOR yields 19 results.Z. Patterson (talk)22:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't have time to go into much more detail right now, but the sourcing as it stands seems plenty sufficient to demonstrate notability already. Multiple sources discuss the topic in significant depth and even allude to further academic study. This is discussed not just as aWP:DICDEF, but as the concept behind the word, as a part of Russian culture. Here'sone from 1962 that appears to go into great depth, although it's paywalled beyond the first page, unfortunately. The current sourcing is certainly passable, and appears quite improvable. This doesn't even need draftification, which tends to be reserved for things that are just really nowhere close yet. And for what it's worth, I consider myself a pretty staunch deletionist, but this one looks fine. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)17:43, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have yet to come across a non-political source that discusses vranyo. The article you mentioned was published in the "Problems of Communism" journal (can't find if it's peer-reviewed), and is available at[9] under the 1962 folder, issue 2. As is the case with all the sources on the topic, I highly doubt the academical quality and reliability of this source.WP:RS
On the second page, what the author claims to be a "great prerevolutionary statement" on "vranyo" is actually a humorous short story published in a collection called "Humorous Stories".
The source also doesn't support the claim made in the Wikipedia article. As the Wiki article currently stands:
"[Vranyo is] a lie being told despite it not being expected to be believed, but the person being told the lie goes along with it anyway". While the most concrete definition of vranyo in the source is:
"Thus an accusation of indulging invranyo is likely to be merely affectionate and adds up to little more than a charge of possessing a lively imagination".
Most of the other sources directly contrast "lozh" and "vranyo", while the source:
"[It should be a] reminder that [lozh and vranyo] are at least juxtaposed if not overlapping concepts, and that one could be too pernickety in trying to draw a firm line between them".Deliberate Baobab (talk)18:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is discussed not just as aWP:DICDEF - but it is indeed explained through a dictionary-like definition of the word in most of the sources. I.e. they say: this is what the word means in Russian, as if it were defined in a dictionary. The distinction between the dictionary definition and the word as a reference to the concept "behind the word", "as a part of Russian culture" isn't drawn anywhere (I don't think these two could be sharply distinguished anyway). —Phazd (talk|contribs)01:38, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's definitely no such concept in Russian culture that's distinct from the global concept oflie, and its usage in English language looks like a political neologism that doesn't seem to be notable per comments above.Finstergeist (talk)19:15, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thank @Deliberate Baobab for opening this discussion. I'd note that the user does not appear to be a single-purpose account because they simply have no serious editing history to speak of. Lacking an editing history shouldn't mean that the user shouldn't open an AfD discussion.
Deliberate Baobab has already covered the key problems and I'd elaborate on them (partly restating some of my points from the talk page). I apologise for the extensiveness of the reply.
The fundamental problem is that the stated meaning of the word does not appear to exist in practice. The meaning is provided by people who are almost without exception not academically relevant in the study of Russian language, culture and society (so I'd expect linguists, sociologists, etc. being the sources, and not only e.g. journalists and military experts), solely in opinion pieces (sometimes with obvious political motivation), and the meaning does not correspond to what actually can be found in Russian sources. No Russian dictionary (I can provide probably a dozen examples) supports the rather extravagant meaning provided by the article. According to the extensiveOxford Russian Dictionary it's translated simply as 'lies' or 'nonsense', labelled as "informal". Have generations of linguists really missed this supposedly prominent meaning that (according to the current sources) the majority of Russian population is familiar with? Checking a variety of Russian news pieces and other texts online does not result in any usage examples where the meaning provided by the article is particularly needed or appropriate for understanding it - even the examples presented in Bermel's article seem to work fine by translating vranyo as 'bullshit' or with the terms provided by Oxford Russian Dict. Russian scholarly articles on the word make no mention of it either (more on that below). And purely personally - if anyone can provide at least a few examples of Russians writing/communicating in Russian unambiguously operating with this meaning, I'll be more than ready to take back much if not all of my criticism of the article. The following criticism that I provide, however, seems to align with my strong impression that the term doesn't have the stated meaning.
The oldest currently used source for the meaning is D. Shipler's article from the Cold War period. The procedure used for obtaining the "definition" disregarded normal linguistic procedure - it is based on one single speaker's (quite possibly hyperbolic) interpretation of the word, rather than on analysis of actual usage. I assume that a Wikipedia article about a word and its semantics should follow principles of scientific linguistics (seeLinguistic description#Methods), i.e. Wikipedia should be consistent with itself, and not discard the principles in specific articles simply due to the inadequacy of the available sources. The other sources are not any more academically reliable:
Murray's source of the definition is "one of my colleagues". (Murray is "an educator specializing in the treatment of trauma".)
Horowitz's main example is from a fictional novel (note that the character who accepts the vranyo behaves in socially unusual ways:The Idiot).
Gorokhova's source is her kindergarten "aunt Polya". This together with Shipler's description and perhaps Dostoyevsky's text (see below) is the strongest available source that at least some Russians do actively use the provided definition - though not necessarily that they really use the term in accordance with the definition they provide. Unprofessional native speakers' judgments of their language is by default not scientific, it is frequently classified asfolk linguistics. Gorokhova can probably be regarded as a primary source.
Bermel's key source is literally a single reddit comment. And that's by far the most reliable and competently written source, the only one whose author has relevant academic background, and the only one that rises above being purely an opinion piece and directly showing (what are supposed to be) examples of usage of the term.
The reference to V. Medish has no value at all and isn't verifiable. It is sourced to Rachlin which does not provide any further information about Medish's statement, where it is sourced from, where Medish published his studies on vranyo, it's not even evident that Medish's quote is from his scholarly work (it doesn't sound like it) or that it's explicitly about vranyo (as noticed by Deliberate Baobab).
Horowitz refers to Dostoyevsky's 1873 essay. However, most of the essay itself operates with "vranyo" simply as lying, and doesn't necessarily entail both parties being aware of the lie. That element is mentioned only once in the text, in the context of people lying in public to impress others: "Разумеется, из них мало кто верит один другому, но расстаются они почти всегда один другим совершенно довольные и друг другу даже несколько благодарные." (The Russian text is available here.) I am not of the opinion that this is sufficient to count Dostoyevsky as using the article's definition of vranyo.
Since the meaning does not exist, or at the very least the sources aren't directly or indirectly based on studying it, every other source can spin up some new spicy detail about it, creating contradictions and an overall incoherent picture of the topic. The more sources are added, the less sense it all makes. The current WP article already contains one major contradiction:
"The concept of vranyo dates back to the Soviet period."
"Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky, perplexed by the universality ofvranyo, suggested in his essaySomething about Lying (1873)"
If we took the other sources seriously and systematically, and not selectively, we'd easily create an even more contradictory article. Adding to the above inconsistency regarding how old the concept is, according to Rachlin Russians "have cultivated [it] for centuries as an art form", which seems to push back the origin of the term even further into the past.
Who uses vranyo? According to Bermel, typically the Russian government. According to Murray and Gorokhova, Russians in general (but not the younger generations, according to the latter). Bermel expands its meaning to US politics, specifically Trump. According to Shulman, however, in workplaces it is a universal phenomenon.
Why do Russians lie? Because they're being oppressed (Galeotti), out of contempt (Bermel), because they're ashamed of themselves (Dostoyevsky/Horowitz), or "just to keep in shape" (Medish/Rachlin).
Rachlin says Potiomkin villages were vranyo. Schillinger says Potiomkin villages were pokazukha.
It seems just about anything can be ascribed to vranyo. What sort of an article would we end up with if all these unrelated and more or less contradictory statements were accepted into it?
Now I'd also address some of TylerBurden's responses to the criticism:
TylerBurden is asking for sources that debunk the concept. The problem is that the concept really isn't all that well-covered or well-established, particularly not in publications where it might receive scrutiny by relevant experts. The sources are all mostly journalistic and even essayistic pieces that are very unlikely to receive systematic attention by e.g. a Russian language professor.
"This isn't only about the Russian language, it's about the term in English, because we're on the English Wikipedia."
Any Wikipedia can be about any term in any language. The article in fact mostly isn't about the term in English but in Russian - a few sources do ascribe vranyo to US politics as well but that claim is not reflected in the article, and there's one source talking about it in the context of workplaces without apparent cultural/national affiliation (it is unclear if other scholarship on workplace sociology uses the same term, or if it's the referenced author who introduced it into the context). As the basis and the bulk of the article is about the Russian concept, one expects sources with expertise in Russian culture and language, which are lacking.
"The article has over eleven references, all of them including the word/concept, including experts and scholars, Russians and non-Russians"
Actually just one scholar with truly relevant academic background (Bermel), and two Russians who both live and publish in the west. For an article that deals with an entire culture, including saying that the culture heavily promotes lying, even lying just for fun, I think we need something a bit more academically reliable.
How do Russian sources treat vranyo? As I said above, dictionaries say absolutely nothing in support of this idea, which can be taken to represent the consensus of literally generations of linguists. But we can also consider more specific and extensive scholarly works on lying in Russia, which sometimes do use the term vranyo, but never with the specific meaning found in the article, never as if it were a technical term. It is consistently a mere synonym or near-synonym to lozh'. I'd particularly note these two texts:
"Для дальнейшего рассмотрения поставленного вопроса следует особо подчеркнуть, что грань между словами «враньё» и «ложь» в разговорной и письменной речи практически неразличимо." = For the further study of the question it is necessary to stress that the difference between the words "vran'jo" and "lož'" in colloquial and written word is practically nonexistent. (p. 24)
On the basis of textual examples, the article establishes several semantic/conceptual differences between lozh and vranyo, as seen on the table on p. 5. E.g. lozh is marked by presence and vranyo by absence of usefulness for the liar, lozh is associated with a higher stylistic register and vranyo with lower, lozh is more typical for men and vranyo for women, etc. None of the differences has anything to do with the other party's (un)awareness of the lie, which is the key element of Wikipedia's vranyo. The article also includes an extensive paraphrase of A.D. Shmelev on p. 3 showing a slightly different view of the lozh-vranyo differences, though the paraphrase is somewhat confusing and circular. Nonetheless, in the extensive paragraph there is again not one mention of both parties' awareness of the lie.
While the two articles do not entirely line up with their interpretation (in part due to the different goals and methodologies), both are based on study of Russian language material and previous scholarship, and in sharp contradiction with the numerous sources by non-linguists currently referred to - many of them explain vranyo by contrasting it to lozh, but with completely different conclusions. It is also likely that further inquiry into Russian scholarship on lying would again result in absence of the usage of the term vranyo with the given meaning, and/or absence of the term altogether.
Finally, after one last search, it appears to me that the term was introduced into English by Donald Hingley in his articles (already discussed above) and his 1979 bookThe Russian Mind.One reviewer of the book, Gleb Struve, explicitly says:
"Hingley is wrong, however, in drawing a sharp distinction between the verbs врать (to fib), from which the verbal noun вранье is derived, and лгать (to tell lies) with its corresponding noun ложь (lie). The two are, in fact, interchangeable, and that is how Dostoevskij uses them."
To finish off: obviously, I'm for deleting the article. Perhaps the article can be kept, but in that case it should be edited in a way that clearly contextualises the claims that come from non-scientific observation and opinion pieces, as well as include the Russian sources that don't neatly follow the presented (re)definition of the term. Actually writing out e.g. "Vranyo is defined as [definition], according to D. Shipler's Russian friend, Murray's colleague, Gorokhova's kindergarten caretaker, and a reddit comment", as well as mentioning the contradictions found in the sources and not glossing them over, would likely result in a silly and confusing article - but that really would just fairly reflect the sources. An another alternative is looking for further sources such as the ones I provided above and refocusing the article onto lying in Russia and Russian culture in general; vranyo as currently presented may merit a brief mention in that context, as one of the descriptions of lying in Russian culture, although clearly with almost no presence in actual academic discourse. I do not think the proposed draftifying of the article can be satisfied because it doesn't seem substantially better academic sources can be found, aside from perhaps Hingley's works. The mentions I found on JSTOR appeared no more well-researched than what is already available (maybe a more careful look would find something better, I haven't checked them all in detail), and Medish who's referred to by Rachlin looks like a dead end.
Keep. The sourcing appears to passWP:SIGCOV, and appears to be published in reliable publications and by reliable authors. I'm not seeing a valid reason under policy to delete this. The delete arguments essentially boil down toWP:IDONTLIKEIT opinions which frankly is an attempt to censor content. That's a no go perWP:NOTCENSORED.4meter4 (talk)03:36, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A source analysis table would be helpful. For those suggesting the concept is indistinguishable from something we already have an article about, would a merge/redirect be appropriate here? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Owen×☎13:38, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure whether a source analysis table would be helpful. The main topic of contention seems to be the reliability of the sources used.
Proponents of deletion argue that most of the sources are opinionistic essays and would probably not be subject to the usual fact-checking procedures that you would expect from their otherwise trustworthy publishers. Furthermore, even though the authors of the sources are journalists who work on Russia-adjacent topics (mainly Russian domestic and foreign politics), that doesn't make them reliable when it comes to the area of the article (that being Russian culture/linguistics). The short statements provided by actual experts in the field either only remotely support the claims made in the article or fully contradict them. A breakdown of the sources from this perspective can be found in my original nomination, and in Phazd's detailed comment above.
The opponents of deletion say that the sources come from respectable newspapers, and the authors are journalists who write on topics related to Russia, thus, making them reliable enough to speak about the usage of "vranyo".
To answer the question about merge/redirect, the claim being made is that the meaning of "vranyo" is barely distinguishable from the simple English noun "lie". Now that you mention it, the Wiki articleLie does have a sentence on "vranyo". But the definition there lacks a citation, and is different than in our article.Deliberate Baobab (talk)10:56, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are evidently enough sources for an article on the subject, given that it has been specifically pointed out as a Russian cultural phenomenon. The alleged concerns can be addressed by for example fleshing the article out with either counterpoints to these sources that are being labelled ″political″ by the dissenters (as long as they meetWP:RS standards) or other changes, I fail to see what is productive about deleting a topic that evidently has coverage within reliable sources, and some of the arguments made here for deleting are really leaning intoWP:IDONTLIKEIT territory.— Precedingunsigned comment added byTylerBurden (talk •contribs)18:38, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also seriously doubt that the concept of vranyo only exists in Russia. None of the sources show this form of lying is specifically Russian (which would be Russophobic to blindly assume it is).Jalapeño(utg)09:40, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PerWP:NOTGENEALOGY. This is a huge list of non-notable people who lived in a particular geographic area. I removed some of the "famous descendants", because they were not supported by the source cited. I'm wondering what possible use this would be to a reader of Wikipedia.Magnolia677 (talk)22:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Still not sure why I'm supposed to care even if I'm one of the 1% of Americans/Canadians descended from them, this is just a list of names and birthdates, one of the most pointless articles I've ever seen. Everyone is descended from somebody, most of whom are recorded in censuses and other documents. Worthwhile prose summary can go atPort-Royal (Acadia). — Reywas92Talk15:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those areWP:PRIMARY ancient histories (one of from the 5th century and one from the 11th century) and aren't usable in the sense that they require trained historians to properly interpret them, and for that reason we can't and shouldn't build an article around them. We need usablecontemporary sources forWP:SIGCOV. If she's a notable historical figure there should be 20th century and 21st century coverage inWP:SECONDARY sources. In general this whole series of Ancient Chinese nobility articles appears to be built entirely on ancient primary documents. In my opinion, if this is all we have, it is a fundamental verifiability problem and it is still a clear delete.4meter4 (talk)21:29, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced. Article makes no encyclopedic claim of importance and currently fails speedy deletion criterionWP:A1 andWP:A7. . Interlinked to no articles other than an index. Discussed in no other articles.To justify an article we actually need to make an encyclopedic claim, verify the material with sources, and hopefully take the time to mention this topic somewhere in another article other than a navigational page. Otherwise there is no point to this page. This one actually needs editing to get around the speedy delete content issue so please don't just vote keep based on finding sources. We actually need encyclopedia context added to the content of the article or this page should be deleted.4meter4 (talk)18:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
May failWP:GNG. This one is odd. The Catalan article linked to our page is aboutDoğubayazıt. But we already have a different article on Doğubayazit. This article is unsourced, and I can't verify the content. I am wondering, given the Catalan page, if there is confusion here of some sort such as an overlapping topic with Doğubayazit? (perhaps the modern city is on the same location with Dariunq?) Without any sources it is difficult to know what to do here. Also, if this is verified is this worth keeping, or is it better covered atList of regions of ancient Armenia perWP:NOPAGE? Best.4meter4 (talk)05:14, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned here[10], as part of Gogowit/Gogovit disteict. I found this that transliterates it as[11] 'Dariwnk'
Another version of this text has the footnote40 Smbat's son was also buried there, below 144. Dariwnk' is variously spelled in Armenian: Darewnk', Daroynk', and Darawnk' on 145; see Hewsen, ASX2U. It had earlier been an Arsacid stronghold, not a possession of the Bagratids; EH 459. Gogovit is a common spelling for Kogovit. Tomb: tapan, perhaps 'coffin'. The word is used of Noah's ark.Katzrockso (talk)23:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From the article on the Turkish city;Before the Ottoman Empire the site was referred to by its Armenian name Daruynk (written as Դարույնք in Armenian). Other sources also spell it as Daroynk[12]. This is the article on the Armenian wikiam:Բայազետ, which also gives the same information on the previous name, but gives another intermediary name.
Orphaned page with no sources purporting to describe the history of a city with circa 30,000 people. Search for sources did not reveal any coverage as a distinct topic. Article itself does not appear to suggest that the city is historically significant.Dieknon (talk)17:59, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the page has been unreferenced for many years and makes claims that I can't see how toWP:V. It is possible that this information exists in non-English and offline sources but for a page to be retained these sources need to be cited. Maybe someone else in time would do a better job if these sources exist.JMWt (talk)23:05, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what exactly? The text is unsourced, a merge would introduce the unsourced material to another page. The problem wouldn't be resolved.JMWt (talk)05:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources on the page. Simple search, I am only able to find Cherupuzha as a town or hill station but nothing on the history in a secondary independent reliable sources to help make complete verification on all that is said on this page. FailsWP:GNG.RangersRus (talk)13:27, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was listed in this 1839 book as being a part ofBavaria[13] with population 9,700. Not sure what kind of polity it was at that point in time.
Some of the sources are very confusing, because they seem to suggest that it's a branch of theHouse of Castell, rather than a geographic location (e.g.[14]).
It is a confusing tangle, and the sourcing isn't great... Hence why I said I couldn't verify our presentation. It doesn't help that the German wikipedia doesn't currently cover this either (not that it is always accurate).4meter4 (talk)17:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article should not be deleted for lack of asserted importance because it meetsWP:NACADEMIC. Sardesai's work as a historian and spreading awareness of Goa's history is well recognised by the Goa government, who has invited him on multiple advisory boards for government projects and educational institutions. Further, the sources mentioned do discuss him, see[15] in particular.SerChevalerie (talk)10:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think these do cover the same topic - the one at AfD is sort of a list of administrative districts by era, the one claiming it's a fork explains how the government worked.SportingFlyerT·C22:38, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... The titles seem to be about the same topic. Should they really be separate pages? I would think we would at least need to have more clearly separated article titles. Of course it doesn't help that both articles have significant sourcing issues. If they were actually built fromWP:RS the topics would probably be more clearly defined. As it is we have two largely unreferenced articles which may beWP:OR.4meter4 (talk)22:56, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems pretty clearly to beWP:OR to me. Donald Trump is not a historian and is not offering any particularly new or notable thesis on the Civil War. He is however, a man who has had a very long public career which has included various comments on the Civil War which we have cobbled together with random Civil War trivia to make an article here. A long section of the article is even about Andrew Jackson, who Trump admires, but who was also dead for 15 years by the time the Civil War started. I think you could easily make an article aboutDonald Trump and hamburgers on the same lines as this article or really about Trump and anything.Gazingo (talk)00:26, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not seeing anything remotely OR about this. We have an entire swath of established articles about president x and y. This follows in the footsteps of that series format and of the established sources which show that somewhere on the order of one-third of Trump's supporters believe in theLost Cause of the Confederacy. Furthermore, the visual touchstone of theJanuary 6 United States Capitol attack was the use of the Confederate battle flag as a symbol of theMAGA movement. "During the January 6 United States Capitol attack, several rioters carried Confederate battle flags. This was the first time in U.S. history where the Confederate flag entered the Capitol building in an act of insurrection."Viriditas (talk)00:49, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly are you quoting? None of this is mentioned in the article. Donald Trump and his supporters are two different entities and the article is notTrump supporters and the American Civil War. There are indeed lots of President X and Y articles but Trump in particular has articles about almost everything he's ever offered an opinion on.Gazingo (talk)01:31, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of Trump and the American Civil War has been the subject of scholars for almost a decade.[16][17][18] It is highly significant in American history and is the subject of major research.[19] You're right that it doesn't deserve a single article, it deserves several. "Perhaps Trump's most egregious lack of US historical knowledge related to the Civil War and the issue of slavery that caused it. This was not a dead issue at the time of Trump's presidency. As conflicts over Confederate war memorials, Confederate names on US military bases and protests over the memory of confederate generals attest, the Civil War mattered to Americans in the early 21st century."[20]Viriditas (talk)02:01, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not sure why this article is needed, people say things about historical events. Trump says things about a variety of subjects, most of which are not notable. X opinion on Y is generally not suitable for a wiki article unless X is a subject-matter expert, or unless they have some "alternative theory". I'm not sure this article is either of those things.Oaktree b (talk)01:18, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.WP:TRUMPCRUFT - This is a waste of Wikipedia. Quite possibly, every US president, and all other elected US officials, have had thoughts about any aspect of American history, or even foreign history. So what?— Maile (talk)02:52, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TRUMPCRAFT by a historic ignoramus who has no idea why the war was fought (maybe he thinks it was for possession of the Revolutionary War airports?).Clarityfiend (talk)03:02, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unconvinced that this article needs to exist. Currently the article draws entirely from one source which is a rather shallow one that does not represent the topic in enough detail to justify the contents of the page. This is most obvious in the fact that the source used does not in fact provide the correct name of the body, which was RS/158 (cf All things Uncertain, by Phyllis Stewart Brown).The reason I am not suggesting a rename and expansion is that as the subject is a small part of the Guide International Service, which in itself is currently only covered as a sub-section ofGirl Guides rather than as an independent article, this subject is not notable enough for its own article.Catrionpalooza (talk)01:24, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that there is a strong case for a redirect. Yes, that page has the content, but the issue remains that the term "World Association Training" is a rather generic descriptive term taken from a secondary source and not one that seems to have been used at the time. The only non-wikipedia references online to the term in this context are from websites that directly lift from this articleCatrionpalooza (talk)15:09, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a fictitious battle. The only source on theRai dynasty is the Chachnama and this battle is not mentioned. Furthermore, there is pretty much nothing online from reliable sources about this supposed conflict.Ixudi (talk)15:10, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is poorly sourced, only single distinct source exist, and I wasn't able to find more actual sources. Two inscriptions cannot be considered a separate language for at least linguistic reasons. Instead, maybe we should create anEastern Celtic article which will combine all views on the entire topic, likethis?From Alba, Celtoi, (talk)08:16, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While the topic here would be notable if it clearly existed, this article seems heavily based on original research and relies on primary sources originating from a long-dead language. Based on what I can see, I can't even be 100% certain this is clearly a unique language or has been described as such. If someone has evidence to the contrary on this, I'll change my vote.aaronneallucas (talk)01:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought that it would be better to make the "Eastern Celtic" article specifically mentioning the inscriptions these as a separate heading. In this case we can include both what is known about Eastern Celtic in common and information about inscriptions from Noricum.From Alba, Celtoi, (talk)04:32, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if this article were draftified, actually. I think it has potential, although I do not have much knowledge on art. I think ideally this article would be rewritten into a description/definition of artistic revolutions and include a timeline of artistic revolutions. —Awesomecat /✉ /✎ /00:14, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yeah just seems like fundamentally an essay rather than an encyclopedic topic. Since there's nothing to do here encyclopedically that's lead to 25 years of unproductive edits, mostly people adding various lengthy POV sections that eventually get removed. --Here2rewrite (talk)02:05, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article been sitting for days without any sources, and there's been no attempt to add any. Previously draftified, but the creator moved it back to mainspace without changing anything.aesurias (talk)05:42, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect toHouse of Valois for now. Wecould have an article if it is sourced. Weshouldn't have an article with no sources. We can redirect this until someone decides to build the article with sources.4meter4 (talk)17:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The Bushranger I understand that article length alone isn’t a deletion criterion but my concern isn’t with its being short that much but with notability and depth of sourcing perWP:GNG. The cited works(Taylor 2013, Lo 2012, Anderson 2014, Hà & Phạm 1972) only briefly mention the battle in passing as part of wider histories, rather than providing significant, independent coverage. I haven’t found any reliable secondary sources that discuss the battle in detail.
Keep. PassesWP:GNG. The sourcing is sufficient to prove notability. Some articles will remain small, and that is fine. Not everything needs to be more than a stub/start article.4meter4 (talk)18:24, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no reliable sources, in English or Japanese, that provide significant coverage of this event, and what little Ican find leads me to believe it was a fairly minor castle. There are noEnglish orJapanese articles (got the Japanese title fromthis disambiguation page) for the castle itself. I suggest perhaps merging it toShimazu clan (the clan that operated it) orKagoshima (in the history section), though there may not be enough sourcing to do even that. ···日本穣 ·投稿 ·Talk to Nihonjoe ·Join WP Japan!19:34, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep- though seeing mentions of the castle's name here and there in casual searches but have yet to see more SIGCOV sources, this is the closest I found isthis, the references from the source may be used as possible lead.Lorraine Crane (talk)14:51, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see thanks for the feedback, may reconsider in this case, hmm do we have a wikipedia article that distinguishes these castles with similar name? like say in the form of a disambiguation page?Lorraine Crane (talk)17:06, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned that this may be a hoax article. I don't speak Korean, but none of the four forms of his name (Hangul, Hanja, RR, MR) came up with anything seemingly relevant in my searches (there were a few possible matches on Google Scholar for the Hanja name, but I couldn't be sure it was definitely about this person with just machine translation). It's absolutely possible that all sources for this person's existence are offline, but I have no way to check that.Suntooooth, it/he (talk |contribs)02:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He appears to have been a real person, these sources are justKorean wikis/Encylopedias so they're not like the most ideal but they do suffice. I do think the figure is very obscure though hence why theres almost nothing on him, his most noteworthy things really are just being Prime Minister (but no records of what he did survive) and being an ancestor of his much more famous descendent.Sunnyediting99 (talk)04:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Korean wiki links to a website that seems to reference a paper source from 1992, but I have no idea if that's a RS. I don't find anything, but wouldn't know where to look other than Gbooks or Gscholar, which don't turn up much. I don't have enough info to !vote at this time.Oaktree b (talk)15:52, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relist. Still no ! votes. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Fade258 (talk)13:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect toYŏn Kaesomun, his famous grandson, both sources provided above discuss him in this context. To have an article on a historical person, it is not enough to verify their existence, we need to have at least something substantial, sourced to RS, to add to the article. Here, we have nothing, not even his birth/death years.Kelob2678 (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2025 (UTC) The article states that he held a position akin to a Prime Minister, so one could argue he passesWP:NPOL. I would then say that we haveWP:NOPAGE.Kelob2678 (talk)21:13, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, I agree that this would be a good course of action. If more sources are found later, the redirect can always be made back into a full article.Suntooooth, it/he (talk |contribs)20:27, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Note: I've just nominated that article for deletion as well. SeeWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esperanto Association of Britain. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)04:04, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]