Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Maikop

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Maikop

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Likely an unedited machine translation. No significant coverage in reliable sources - the existing citations are all primary sources, helping to explain the army-size exaggerations. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Russia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the document of the Russian military historical archive is not specified correctly, and cannot be verified through the archive, the article really needs to be deleted for lack of sources Dushnilkin (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or draftify. Very bad (poorly formatted/hard to verify) references (they seem WP:PRIMARY, likely 19th century, and some have vague descriptions such as "Prime Ministry Ottoman Archives"), no interwiki. My BEFORE only gives hits for 1942 battle of such name, so while I am not saying it is a WP:HOAX it is so poorly referenced as to raise major red flags (think also Zhemao hoaxes). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no WP:RS in article or anywhere else, so topic (if it even exists) is not notable; and the possibility of a WP:HOAX or an AI experiment is significant in this case. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with what was said above. I also believe that the sources found here are primary and would not contribute towards notability even if they were to verify the content. Aintabli (talk) 09:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.