Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Deletion sorting/History

2471: 2899: 1605:. I tagged the article for all the reasons mentioned in the talk page, but there definitely are more problems in terms of source adequateness and verifiability, as well as balance of viewpoints presented. To be clear, the topic, if carefully redefined, has merit. E.g. something on the 'Early Muslim naval campaigns in the Mediterranean', if we consider the early Muslim world as fairly homogeneous during the first centuries of its existence, or the Muslim-Christian naval wars along the lines of Ekkehard Eickhoff's 6377:. There might be some potential for a longer article here, but as of right now there are basically no reliable sources about this film online, other than the fact it exists, and frankly it seems unlikely more will surface as this film is over 20 years old and was not exactly a major production. The article would just be a permanent stub if it was kept, so I believe a merge is the right thing for it. It can always be remade as its own article if more ever does come about. 6223:

Museum and the Anne Frank House has info about it and various ways to watch it on their website, so I'd assume it's also archived there as well. This would point towards it being notable, but there's also not a lot of info so a list page could be good as well. The main thing that makes it stand out is that when it released, it had the only footage that had been shot of Anne. I've cleaned the article up so it looks a bit better and less like a stub.

349: 5328: 3593:. 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. 5451:

information in the body for example seem to directly relate to the capture of Badami. There’s no mention of any of that in regards to Deodhars book. So again, there’s barely any information about the CAPTURE(not siege) of Badami in the sources provided. Most of this article employs original research and synth. Even the title is OR, there was no battle. Majority of the information here is falsified.

31: 6203:: The article describes this as a TV film, but it looks like it premiered at a film festival and was (presumably) later screened on TV. Unless there's coverage that explicitly states that this was made for TV and happened to premiere elsewhere first, we should probably treat this under NFILM. Which it looks like everyone is doing, but I wanted to voice that here just in case. 1613:, but it cannot be a catch-all for cherry-picked Muslim naval activity that happened between Muhammad and the Ottomans; it should also not be one-sided, taking only the perspective of the Muslims, or treat only the 'conquests' in detail and gloss over the losses in quick order. Furthermore, much if not all of the topic is actually covered in other articles such as 5260: 5351:“Consequent upon the capture of Badami, the strong fort of Bhadur Band capitulated to the Marathas and Haripant proceeded to capture copal, another fort about four miles distant.” There’s only one line that mentions this battle in Deodhars book, and there are no other details other than “it was captured”. This tells me that this event lacks 112: 843:. 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. 735:

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

3748:. 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 2963:- I did a little research and found some citations to support at least the article partially. It still needs more work. Also some historians have said the War of Vesosis and Tanausis mentioned in the article may not have happened and could be fantasy or transcription error, so i have indicated it as such. 2046:

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.

3325:". 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. 5550:

it actually doesn’t seem unreliable based on what I’ve read, so this source is fine but where is the siege of Badami mentioned? I can’t find the quote in the page numbers cited. It seems that this was likely mistakenly added in. So we can’t use this source for information it doesn’t even have. Now as

5450:

Edit: I’m beginning to think that WP:SYNTH and WP:OR is at play here. How did the user who wrote this article get all this information from one line in Deodhars book? I don’t see how he got the numbers in the info box, nor how he managed to fill an entire article based on a throwaway line. Non of the

5414:

Govind is WP:RAJ. His book was written in 1946. Which makes it outdated. Deodhar makes a small mention of Badami being captured but doesn’t mention a siege or any other details beyond that. As I’ve mentioned before, this event lacks notability, and I already pointed out many of the issues within this

4943:

it would cost 200 billion dollars, but why would the government spend on this when they need the money for the war and have so much cheap methane? Also why divert scarce labour from the war effort? Also according to the talk page the numbers are wrong. However I don’t know Russian language or history

4487:

Ok… I understand your personal view on the matter but again I don’t think that is enough to justify deleting an article that cites multiple RS and passed Knowledge (XXG) curation standards fairly quickly. Why not try and address concerns on the talk page instead of immediately attempting to delete an

3380:

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

3217:

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

1675:

only, even if they are centuries apart, but not their context, not the intervening events, etc. It is as WP:OR and unbalanced as having an article on 'Indian victories' with events from remote antiquity to modern times. No historian adopts such a categorization or groups these events together in this

5504:

I can see why you’d assume that it only applies to caste related topics but that’s not the case. This has been discussed many times in the past especially on RSN, but typically, all sources that fall under the raj era are not seen as reliable. While the essay written by sitush focuses on caste, most

4645:

1) there are items here that are not on either of the lists covering Yugoslavia and the Bosnian War. Should they be added to those lists? (I note that in some cases the lists have used different names, so it's hard to tell what is and isn't missing, if anything.) 2) What does this list provide that

3401:

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

1468:

This is a compilation of wars that are mostly unrelated other than that they were waged by Muslim rulers/states. There is no one "Muslim conquest of Mediterranean islands". It neither describes anything that is unique to itself nor properly covers a broader history that reoccurs among sources as a

1243:

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

3183:

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

5563:

it seems to me that out of all these sources, only one of them mentions anything about Badami. Not that there was a siege mind you. Deodhar makes a passing mention of the town being captured and that’s it. There is no other details. So again, why is this a separate article? After checking all the

4732:

There have already been several responses to that, which was the original AFD request. Again, there are several other ethnic group related massacre articles already present and established, and although there is some material which is the same as other articles for obvious reasons, there is still

3376:

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

3228:

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 Knowledge (XXG), there simply are not sufficient sources to do the subject justice. This is after some considerable

3224:

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

2045:

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

734:

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

672:: to check Google, Google Books, Google Scholar, and Knowledge (XXG) 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 4457:

As for your second point, I mean you could argue any duplicate / identical information across articles is copied? This list focuses solely on Bosniaks, so I believe it deserves its own article, as did the curation page. Nevertheless, that does not warrant for deletion an article that cites 25 RS

1579:

per nom. The topic of the article seems too broad and without a well-defined scope. It's a collection of various, many of them unrelated, wars waged by various muslim rulers all over the Mediterranean throughout the centuries. Modern scholarship doesn't really treat all these events in a unified

6222:

It looks like it was produced by a TV station, so that's where the TV aspect comes in. I'm kind of torn on this. On one hand, it does look like the film is routinely included in various exhibits on Anne Frank and the Holocaust. A copy is also held in the collections of the US Holocaust Memorial

4733:

much new and unique content listed here. Moreover, as I and another user pointed out, this concern doesn’t seem to warrant the immediate deletion of an entire article that cites a multitude of RS. Why not address the concerns on the talk page first instead of going right for a deletion attempt?

4668:

etc did not extensively cover the full scale and list of massacres and atrocities, mainly against Bosniaks, that they can and should. I feel that this article adds a greater degree of detail and context to that. 2) See my previous answer, and not only quality and detail, but in terms of sheer

5441:

Not convinced that this needs its own article. Only reliable source here is from Deodhar and it’s one line about it being captured, with no other extra details or information(see context above). In fact it doesn’t even mention a siege, only that the town was captured. This article lacks

5347:

The book written by Govind is outdated per WP:RAJ(1946). Couldn’t find much info about Deodhar other than the links you’ve showed. I guess he’s okay based on what I’m reading, but if that’s the only reliable source that mentions this, then I’m not sure it requires its own separate

1716:

as implied. The rationale for deletion, however, is weak. Deletion is not an end-around when you don't have the time or wherewithal to improve an article yourself. This is a borderline TNT case to me. The dates in the infobox are not far off the dates of the already cited

5979:

without prejudice, as an improper SPINOFF. While there is no problem with the notability of this film, i.e. the intro is mistaken, the write up is short and entirely missing at the parent level. We need to fix that first before a detailed (!) article will be justified.

5529:

It’s an essay written by one of the most prolific writers of Indian historical topics on Knowledge (XXG). Sitush is a content expert. And this is something that has generally been accepted by the community. Raj era sources are typically almost always viable for

1258:. 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- 5317:

Although Venkatesh Rangan mentions Y. N. Deodhar as a historian, I've no idea that why does it matter that Venkatesh Rangan is a historian or not because Venkatesh Rangan's book isn't even used anywhere in the article that's totally irrelevant in the AfD

5446:. Govinds book appears to fall under WP:RAJ which makes it an unsuitable addition for any article. The other sources don’t appear to be reliable either per noorullah. One throwaway line/passing mention of this event doesn’t warrant a separate article. 676:. 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. 3444:". 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 1867:

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

4717:

Well, the point of this AfD is about redundancy: "For the most part, we don't list these based on ethnic affiliation. Essentially this is just copied from already existing articles". So it seems like a "keep" !vote needs to respond to to that.

841:"... 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 ..." 5287:

Y.N Deodhar is not cited as having a PHD in history, he's not even on google scholars, which is what you pointed out for me by saying "your search results doesn't mention the name", yes, that's the point, he's not a scholar cited on google

1437: 4004: 763:" 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. 4908: 1588:". Another issue that was pointed out by an editor is the fact that the content might potentially be one-sided, as the article was translated from the Arab wikipedia and uses mostly Arab-language, and many of poor quality, sources. 4472:

Yet there's no list for Albanians, Croats, Serbs, Macedonians, Greeks, Bulgarians, Russians, Ukrainians, and so on. My view is that we shouldn't be going down that road when most of them are already listed by conflict or country.

3328:

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

3184:

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

1656:

this is an informative and well sourced article documenting an established and recognised occurrence in history. I don't see how it's original research to group together events that historians themselves typically group together.

1394: 4306: 815:

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

5781: 3769:

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

838:

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:

5822: 3336:

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

795: 4338: 5125: 3961: 1836: 1212: 492: 5559:

There is no page number cited so I can’t even find where it mentions Badami. Furthermore I can’t find any info about the authors credentials, but even if he was reliable, where has he written about the the siege of

1005: 3704: 4865: 3405:

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

1040:. 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 202: 5533:

Furthermore, the point of the essay was to let the readers know that RAJ era sources are unreliable and outdated. So even if this isn’t a policy(which is irrelevant, this issue was discussed multiple times),

2645: 2347: 2160: 1999:

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.

6090:. The ProQuest links above are capsule reviews (a single paragraph, at most). So even if we had 100 of them, there would not be enough content to substantiate a standalone article. I.e., it's missing the " 3149: 4382: 4263: 152: 5738: 5523:

Anything that was written during the raj era is outdated and thus not RS. Sitush can clarify this further for you if you’d like to ask him, as he’s already discussed this detail many times in the past.

1725:

and the works of Luca Zavagno. There is a valid topic here, but the article is terribly unfocused. I'd be satisifed with moving it to draftspace to see if anyone can/wants to fix it before TNTing it.

2741: 2410: 6098:. These are periodicals that review materials indiscriminately to advise librarians on what content to acquire. Everything that these capsule reviews say can be summarized within a short blurb in 548: 4795:. I have not much else to add besides what I and others on the oppose side have already definitively stated. Please see my above points for opposing and feel free to ask me any further questions 1431: 1367: 1362: 3314: 1371: 3998: 1308: 5479: 5469: 3106: 3053: 4902: 1354: 5082: 4770:

It is not clear that there is any policy-based reason for deletion being advanced here; "we don't do X" is not such a reason. Editors should try to identify such a reason if there is one.

1169: 355: 195: 1247:. 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. 654:

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.

3934: 3929: 3495:

My interpretation: Can't access these sources, but the Knowledge (XXG) wording suggests that there are similar craft elsewhere - i.e. there's nothing peculiar to Madagascar about these.

5491:, Also WP:RAJ isn't a policies or guidelines of Knowledge (XXG), it's only an Essay. And All of the sources pass WP:RS, Can you explain that how according to you they aren't reliable? 4300: 3275: 1919: 5775: 3938: 3267: 1245: 6439:

technically inherited, the fact that the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and Anne Frank House should factor in to some degree. I would be okay with a merge as proposed above as well.

2381:

However as it was tagged uncited a decade ago it might be false it which case it should be deleted. I am not really competent to judge whether the possible sources I found such as

2228: 449: 6151:. Shorter reviews carry more weight if there's a lot of them, and there seems to be a decent amount here. A non-terrible article could be made from this if anyone wished to try. 4838: 4833: 4665: 3921: 5884: 5844: 5538:

still exists. We are looking for high quality sources on wikipedia, not outdated work from the raj era. And as I’ve clarified, Govinds work has already been picked apart by RSN.

5512: 1793: 4842: 3473:

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:

5876: 5119: 1830: 1206: 962: 188: 486: 242:. 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: 5954:

2 of 3 of the above sources appear sufficiently in-depth to count--the Stateboro Herald being the exception. No objection to an editorial discussion about merging this into

5232: 4944:- perhaps it has some historical notability or there are better sources in Russian than the above link which was just translated from (presumably unreliable) “local media”? 4075: 5296:

Deodhar, already unreliable as aforementioned, his book provides little insight. The two other sources you cited, are already responded towards, Govind is not a historian.

999: 5392: 5269: 4825: 3417:. 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? 5200: 4374: 4071: 3817: 2737: 2705: 2224: 1542: 1300: 1079: 4236: 4231: 3698: 5173:

Sanish Nandakumar is not a historian, and has a B.S in economics, they are in no way scholarship, especially only having made one book. - No results on google scholar:

3661: 1498: 1304: 560: 556: 147: 5711: 5706: 4240: 254:

to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the

5224: 4977: 3279: 2701: 2414: 2232: 1959: 1951: 1522: 1510: 1506: 1292: 1083: 1071: 568: 564: 168: 1671:

The events are factual, but the choice of scope is very much WP:OR as being both too broad geographically and chronologically and too narrow in examining the Muslim

265:

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.

5715: 4378: 4366: 3825: 2729: 2639: 1947: 1890:. 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. 1518: 1514: 1502: 1494: 552: 58: 4940: 4223: 2341: 2154: 5872: 5564:

sources, I realized this article is far more problematic than initially anticipated. The text doesn’t even correspond with what’s written in the sources cited.

3143: 220: 142: 132: 5698: 2820:- I found some mentions in Google books, but they refer to Tanausis as "King of Goths" not Queen. Nothing else comes up in Google. I think this page is a prank. 1585: 1358: 164: 5517:“The sources I have seen suggest that it was first published in 1928, which makes it a bit dated, I have no opinion on the accuracy of the source though. “ 5310:

Move on from Google Scholars. I'm not gonna talk about Y. N. Deodhar again because I've already provided an source which literally calls Y. N. Deodhar an “

66: 6414:

it's more of a Start Class article now it's been expanded. It already has reliable sources references such as Deseret News and the reviews. May well pass

2602: 74: 5055: 5050: 3333:

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.

1142: 1137: 2304: 2117: 1452: 5059: 3925: 1146: 668:

I kindly disagree, a single book may indicate existence of more sources. Even without references, deletion nominators are expected to do a good faith

5868: 5355:, which means it doesn’t warrant its own article if it’s based on one line from a book. The other sources don’t seem reliable or fall under WP:RAJ. 5220: 4969: 4362: 4063: 3813: 3263: 3048: 2725: 2697: 2402: 2216: 1943: 1486: 1419: 1288: 1067: 544: 271: 224: 176: 137: 119: 17: 5292: 4505:

oppose the request. The fact that the theme is present in other articles doesn't warrant the deletion of an article. OP also called for deletion of

1350: 1342: 4019: 5042: 1129: 422: 417: 3986: 624:: There is a book reference in the article. I would suggest to keep the article, unless someone actually provided an assessment of its coverage. 258:

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.

4923: 4829: 1766: 1761: 426: 6492: 4890: 295: 3391:, pg 40, fig 21, drawing B) that is not described, in Madagascar, by Hornell or anyone else. (Hornell describes this rig in the neighbouring 1888:

Labuda, Gerard (1995). The death of Leszek the White (1227). Historical Annals. 61: 7-33. Gerard Labuda describing the views of Józef Uminski

1770: 935: 930: 5487:

doesn't apply to Govind Sakharam Sardesai's Book because it only applies to caste related stuff. Hence Govind Sakharam Sardesai's Book is a

4321: 299: 5796: 4661: 4342: 3917: 3909: 939: 409: 4288: 1413: 5763: 4443: 3860:: I am satisfied with the sources and structure of the page and think it could be retained as a detailed article. Opposed to deletion. - 1753: 1271:. Please be weary of any suspicious new/burner accounts or proxies who vote here as they are almost certainly going to be HaughtonBrit. 765:

Multiple sources are not a "must" and the requirement is not "policy" (our notability documents relate to guidance rather than policy).

757:

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

5928: 3980: 3634: 3629: 922: 4703:

I mean possibly, but why do that when we could just leave this already existing much more detailed and complete list up and running?

1409: 337: 239: 235: 6370: 6099: 6037: 5976: 5905: 5702: 4945: 4821: 4813: 4451: 4403: 4337:

For the most part, we don't list these based on ethnic affiliation. Essentially this is just copied from already existing articles:

4040: 3846: 3638: 2762: 1563: 1329: 1104: 589: 5140: 4884: 3321:) that the Lakana is (yes) a specific type of watercraft. Being an outrigger canoe. That is "dug out". Rather than "built". IE: A " 1851: 1227: 2475: 507: 5107: 4509:. Well... As an other user suggested, one could simply discuss this in the talk page instead of hastily attempting to delete it. 3976: 1818: 1194: 5520:“I see to recall being informed that prior discussions has found any source published under the Raj was automatically not an RS” 2482:

entry, but looking at the multitude of sources, there are quite a few of them that dive deeper than its mere etymology, such as

1459: 1020: 474: 54: 4941:

https://www.renewable.news/innovation-technology/russia-wants-to-build-the-worlds-most-powerful-tidal-power-plant-in-kamchatka/

4282: 3621: 6435:

while its not much more than a stub article, it does appear to meet notability from reliable sources. And while notability is

5757: 4880: 2838:. We may need to restore it to the King version and check the citations in Google books.Changing my vote to COMMENT for now. 987: 5955: 5932: 5174: 4447: 3719: 2902: 2538: 2023:. Naming issue was discussed. More than one person was killed though most sources focus on the most important one - the Duke. 1276: 4026: 2195:

I am not sure there are enough to show notability for a stand-alone article. As an alternative to deletion maybe merge into

291: 3686: 605:. No refs. If any coverage of this person ever surfaces, it would take exactly 10 minutes to write a better article. -- 4506: 4278: 4219: 4211: 3744: 6169: 6121: 6000: 5753: 5620: 5586: 5535: 5169: 5001: 4930: 4759: 4159: 3882: 3554: 6497: 5694: 5686: 5675: 4227: 4200: 2575: 2570: 1698: 1255: 898: 848: 829: 699: 681: 629: 3309:

Scope. To my read, the article doesn't state (at least not directly as interpreted by the nominator) that the article "

3029: 2660: 2519: 730:

requires multiple sources as a non-negotiable criteria for all wikipedia articles. It's a must and its policy. Period.

340:

for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

333: 6351: 5742: 5182: 5101: 5086: 5046: 4869: 4267: 3965: 3665: 3110: 3000: 2881: 2606: 2579: 2362: 2308: 2277: 2272: 2175: 2121: 2090: 2085: 2020: 1812: 1797: 1425: 1398: 1188: 1173: 1133: 966: 453: 5391:

giving significant coverage of this Siege even if we don't consider YN Deodhar the other two i.e Sen, Sailendra Nath

4328: 3164: 2627: 1044: 468: 5803: 2329: 2142: 5569: 5456: 5420: 5360: 3598: 3422: 3413:

correctly, their suggestion would mean a complete rewrite of the article to fit the sources and then merge it into

3234: 3131: 3079: 3074: 2281: 2094: 1469:

common theme. This article pretty much synthesizes some sort of a narrative and pushes a vague grouping of events.

981: 5508:

And btw, Govind was already picked apart in RSN for the same reasons I mentioned(WP:RAJ), it’s an outdated source.

3992: 3484:"The boat is often referred to by the general French term "pirogue", which can include boats with no outriggers." 3311:

presents this term as representing a specific type of watercraft (an outrigger canoe ) with a specific type of rig

1985:. Maybe only one or two sources refer to it as a massacre, since massacres usually result in more than one death. 1251: 6324: 6280: 6230: 6210: 6078: 5097: 4596: 3083: 2562: 1990: 1808: 1272: 1184: 3680: 464: 5331: 4896: 2968: 2843: 2825: 2713: 2685: 2264: 2077: 413: 5256:

Y.N. Deodhar is a M.A. and also a PHD in history which is mentioned in the source used in the article itself.

5165: 977: 6400: 6382: 5818: 5671: 5405: 5147: 4556:

I don't agree, we know this statement will not lead to the deletion of X articles. Maintaining my argument.

4196: 4118: 4048: 3779: 3066: 1858: 1757: 1694: 1234: 1055: 894: 844: 825: 723: 695: 677: 643: 625: 310: 6455: 6427: 6404: 6386: 6361: 6331: 6312: 6287: 6264: 6237: 6217: 6191: 6160: 6141: 6110: 6082: 6049: 6024: 5989: 5967: 5946: 5910: 5860: 5836: 5826: 5679: 5662: 5641: 5609: 5573: 5499: 5460: 5443: 5424: 5409: 5364: 5352: 5342: 5305: 5282: 5241: 5212: 5192: 5021: 4989: 4961: 4804: 4785: 4742: 4727: 4712: 4698: 4678: 4660:

1) Well, one of the main reasons I created this page was because I felt that the existing articles such as

4655: 4631: 4614: 4600: 4579: 4565: 4551: 4518: 4497: 4482: 4467: 4432: 4420: 4408: 4354: 4294: 4204: 4183: 4148: 4125: 4108: 4087: 4055: 3900: 3871: 3851: 3804: 3783: 3763: 3676: 3602: 3577: 3545: 3508:

Hornell, James (September 1920). “The Common Origin of the Outrigger Canoes of Madagascar and East Africa”

3457: 3426: 3359: 3291: 3256: 3238: 3012: 2991: 2972: 2945: 2929: 2915: 2893: 2884:

by the same author, also vandalised on the 12th. I see I have edited that article and that it has sources.

2875: 2847: 2829: 2811: 2785: 2767: 2717: 2689: 2544: 2499: 2479: 2460: 2446: 2426: 2394: 2244: 2208: 2058: 2035: 2011: 1994: 1968: 1935: 1911: 1899: 1880: 1734: 1702: 1683: 1666: 1646: 1632: 1597: 1568: 1534: 1478: 1334: 1280: 1109: 1059: 902: 883: 871: 852: 833: 806: 774: 748: 717: 703: 685: 663: 633: 614: 594: 536: 514: 6357: 6040:

would indeed be a good choice here, since the page itself is a little skimpy as to standalone notability.

5769: 5266: 5038: 5030: 4627: 4561: 4514: 3492:“The technology was adapted in neighboring East Africa, like the Tanzanian ngalawa and the Fulani laana.” 2621: 1895: 1876: 1662: 1125: 1117: 926: 70: 3471:(Note: prior to the AfD nomination, I had suggested to the nominator that they put this up for deletion.) 3442:

suggestion would mean a complete rewrite of the article to fit the sources and then merge it into Pirogue

2323: 2136: 1622: 1027: 6423: 5924: 5900: 5565: 5545: 5452: 5416: 5356: 5301: 5257: 5208: 5188: 4398: 3841: 3800: 3594: 3437: 3418: 3230: 3125: 2926: 2912: 2890: 2757: 2515: 2483: 2382: 1558: 1324: 1099: 584: 6374: 5958:, but I do not believe the sourcing is so bad that a forced merge or redirect from AfD is appropriate. 5840: 1915: 1658: 83: 3726: 6318: 6301:, sorry to press you but in close calls, it helps to know where, after their analysis, editors land. 6298: 6274: 6250: 6224: 6204: 6156: 6074: 5936: 5852: 4800: 4738: 4708: 4674: 4646:

the others do not? It looks to me like this is a chosen subset of those - why is this subset needed?

4610: 4592: 4575: 4493: 4463: 4428: 3861: 3755:

All the references in the article are either paraphrases of that statement or are actually about the

3541: 3453: 3355: 3247:

this is the second AfD nomination for Lakana, but the first related to a company not a type of boat.

2781: 2617: 2049: 2026: 2002: 1986: 1927: 1614: 4605:

What do you mean “not notable”? And why is that reason to delete an article that cites multiple RS?

2319: 2132: 6450: 5929:

https://www.deseret.com/2014/4/7/20538955/explore-the-world-of-anne-frank-no-need-to-go-to-holland/

5789: 5492: 5384: 5335: 5275: 5133: 4916: 4314: 4144: 4104: 4083: 4012: 3896: 3712: 3625: 3389: 3157: 3121: 2964: 2839: 2821: 2709: 2681: 2653: 2355: 2168: 1844: 1680: 1643: 1629: 1445: 1220: 1013: 880: 867: 802: 713: 500: 405: 397: 6391:

Now that the article has been expanded and improved I would like to say my opinion has changed to

6091: 5161: 5113: 3476:"The lateen rig allows a lakana to sail closer to the wind, so giving some windward performance.” 3402:

outrigger canoe that is totally undescribed in RSs, so making the subject incomplete. (See youtube

3318: 1869: 1824: 1200: 754: 731: 727: 673: 669: 647: 524: 6396: 6378: 6016: 5963: 5401: 4946:

https://h2ce.ru/en/projects/detail/hydrogen-power-cluster-based-on-penzhinskaya-tidal-power-plant

4939:

Perhaps this made a little sense many years ago but I cannot see how it is notable. According to

4478: 4350: 4175: 3775: 3760: 3287: 3252: 2986: 2940: 2806: 2495: 2192: 1530: 1474: 1051: 610: 480: 42: 6415: 5814: 5513:

Knowledge (XXG):Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 291#Reliability of Govind Sakharam Sardesai

5168:, they are not a historian and are thus an unreliable source. Google scholar wields no results; 4136: 4097: 3500:“some locals prefer the Hazomalany wood (Hazomalania voyronii of the family of Hernandiaceae).” 3388:

make use of outrigger canoes with a distinctive common spritsail rig (as defined by Edwin Doran

2856:

was the change, and that editor's other edits all look highly suspect. IP vandalism, I suspect.

2667: 1749: 1741: 1037: 2906:

Clearly notable. But this chemo still has me weak so I hope others can do the sourcing. Thanks

2487: 2369: 2182: 993: 6185: 5658: 4985: 4957: 4623: 4557: 4510: 3792: 3771: 3756: 3749: 3171: 2508:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

2456: 2422: 2390: 2240: 2204: 1891: 1872: 918: 910: 770: 744: 659: 532: 3024:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

2514:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

6419: 6045: 5985: 5889: 5297: 5204: 5184: 4723: 4694: 4651: 4387: 4036: 3830: 3796: 3692: 3200: 2921: 2907: 2885: 2796: 2746: 1982: 1593: 1547: 1313: 1088: 821: 573: 320: 50: 6095: 5484: 3487:

My interpretation: “general French term” suggests there's nothing special about the lakana.

2677: 862:: The Armenian wiki has some links, but I'm not in a position to say if they're RS or not. 736: 160: 6152: 5941: 5848: 5604: 4796: 4734: 4704: 4670: 4642: 4606: 4571: 4546: 4489: 4459: 4424: 3866: 3572: 3537: 3516:

Richardson, J (December 1887). “The Affinities Of Malagasy With The Melanesian Languages”

3449: 3410: 3351: 3025: 3008: 2777: 2442: 1923: 1730: 5488: 5388: 5322: 5157: 1621:. A pity for the immense translation effort that went into it, but IMO this is a case of 4952:

and many other sources are pre-war when the economics and politics were very different.

6440: 6104: 5632: 5236: 4776: 4140: 4101: 4079: 3892: 3617: 3609: 3392: 2866: 1963: 1677: 1626: 1581: 863: 812: 798: 709: 281: 46: 5472: 5395: 5272: 4195:

clearly a CFORK, I don't even see any content that would be worth keeping in a merge.

2633: 302:

etc.) related to History. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except

238:. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at 6486: 6354: 6010: 5959: 4474: 4346: 4169: 3283: 3248: 2981: 2935: 2801: 2566: 2532: 2491: 2335: 2148: 1526: 1470: 606: 6269:

I'm pretty firmly in the middle with this one. I suppose if pressed I'd argue for a

6253:, I don't want to put words in your mouth but are you making an argument to "Keep"? 5554: 4442:

What do you mean we don’t list these based on ethnic affiliation for the most part?

3137: 5654: 5526:“Also WP:RAJ isn't a policies or guidelines of Knowledge (XXG), it's only an Essay” 4981: 4953: 3519:

My interpretation: Only indicates that “lakana” is simply the Malagasy for “canoe”.

3511:

My interpretation: Only indicates that “lakana” is simply the Malagasy for “canoe”.

2470:: It's currently sourced, and there are a lot of other sources discussing the term 2452: 2418: 2386: 2268: 2236: 2200: 2081: 1712:. The article has all the problems mentioned, although I'm not sure they are quite 1618: 1254:, the second is an unrelenting sockmaster who has been stalking me for 3 years now- 766: 740: 655: 528: 5732: 5076: 4859: 4257: 4100:. I see almost no overlaps. And we don't merge large articles into huger ones. -- 3955: 3655: 3100: 2596: 2298: 2111: 1787: 1388: 1163: 956: 443: 4949: 3395: 1981:

There do not seem to be adequate sources for an article. It's already covered in

1250:

Note: Two Sikh nationalist sockmasters have been undermining my AFDs, one is the

6041: 5981: 4719: 4690: 4647: 3070: 1723:

Change and Resilience: The Occupation of Mediterranean Islands in Late Antiquity

1617:(which also has its problems, but at least has a more clearly defined scope) or 1589: 691: 5468:

The Capture/Siege of Badami is given significant coverage in these two sources

4113:

Just wanted to note that 860 words of readable prose is hardly a large article.

2776:: Looks like sufficient sources have been added since to establish notability. 2017: 6066: 6058: 6057:: In addition to the sources already in the article, there are reviews in the 5601: 4540: 3569: 3403: 3004: 2438: 1726: 6102:. The other news sources above similarly do not describe the topic in depth. 6070: 6062: 5544:

well I should clarify what I actually meant. look at this source for example

5262:. Also your search results doesn't even mentions the name of "Y. N. Deodhar". 3378: 3189:"67. The Common Origin of the Outrigger Canoes of Madagascar and East Africa" 694:

I think you created the article, pinging just in case you were not notified.

5817:. No detailed coverage in authoritative references, no reviews, no awards.-- 5597:

A source assessment by one of our more experienced editors would be helpful.

5178:

This page is poorly created with a spam link of sources in each paragraph.

2857: 2196: 5813:

The film does not appear to be significant by the rules of Knowledge (XXG)

3589:, as there is very little material in this article that can be merged into 3527:

My interpretation: Doesn't indicate that the lakana is something different.

3503:

My interpretation: Doesn't indicate that the lakana is something different.

3479:

My interpretation: Doesn't indicate that the lakana is something different.

215:

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to

1609:

or the multifaceted Muslim experience of the Mediterranean as in Picard's

1268:. Even after that, he didn't stop and made an illegitimate vote in my AFD- 6303: 6255: 6132: 5291:

And I'm sorry but "Venkatesh Rangan" is not a historian, he's an author.

5012: 3752:

article, which is about four languages mentioned in that Chinese source.

2558: 2550: 5923:(Indiana University Press, 2012) has coverage about the film. See also: 4421:

https://weekly.hatnote.com/archive/en/20240913/weeklypedia_20240913.html

4339:

List of mass executions and massacres in Yugoslavia during World War II

3590: 3445: 3414: 3398: 3342: 3330: 2260: 2252: 2073: 2065: 37: 4570:

Agreed. That logic seems rather flawed, no offense to the above user.

1262:; 2 admins have said that this was clearly HaughtonBrit block evading- 5925:

https://www.statesboroherald.com/life/anne-frank-a-history-for-today/

5546:

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.69209/page/n56/mode/1up

4423:), the article subjectively seems interesting & valuable to me). 3180: 3062: 3039: 2383:

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.31826/jlr-2016-133-409/html

2016:

Also probably a good idea to read the talk page first before !voting

797:, but that's all I can find. I don't think we have enough sourcing. 3377:

version. To assist in decision-making on the meaning, see this video

3204: 352:

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

5505:

of the same issues mentioned there apply to all raj era historians.

5397:(page no 178-179) clearly gives significant coverage to the event. 5274:(page no 178-179) clearly gives significant coverage to the event. 3524:“An Austronesian square-sail is more common (e.g. in Ambaro Bay).” 111: 5653:

per Someguywhosbored. Full of unverifiable and unreliable claims.

3735: 3188: 2478:. The most relevant question would be whether this is virtually a 5541:“Can you explain that how according to you they aren't reliable” 4139:

and one of many excessive bloated pages about this minor event.

3385: 708:

We need other sources, suggesting that they exist isn't helpful

234:

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at

3345:. Leaving out any "questionable" or potentially confusing text. 3020:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

5259:

and Another source calls Y. N. Deodhar an “veteran historian”

4035:

Unnecessary content fork. Content could easily be merged into

3774:

as you say the information is included in the article itself.

2193:

http://www.ejst.tuiasi.ro/Files/64/14_Yerzhanova%20et%20al.pdf

25: 6172: