Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/5th Nasr Division

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 keep. Consensus is that WP:MILUNIT #2 is met, and very importantly WP:V is met. There is no "weak keep" close, so this will have to do. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5th Nasr Division[edit]

[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)

Has been DEPRODed without any sources present. WP:BEFORE gave me some mentions with operations of the islamic Guard. Suggest redirect/merge into Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or delete. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just nothing there in the way of coverage. I assume that it exists but without any coverage who knows? Mztourist (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the source cited regarding the commander mentions the 5th Nasr Division, merge - would be our first entry for an IGRC division. Otherwise delete. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MILUNIT #2. Certainly appears to exist. How can divisions not be notable? -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because the opening wording to MILUNIT states "presumption of notability for a military unit or formation depends wholly on the existence of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." and that is completely lacking here. Mztourist (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware, but I still can't believe that a division is not considered to be notable. Common sense issue. WP:IAR and all that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is what matters, nothing else. Mztourist (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep Sourcing is one part of the guideline for notability--and the entire notbility guidelien and all itssubrules is just a gudieline, and many attempts to make it policy have all failed. That means that the criteria in it are only guides to what is notable in the sense of being worth covering in the encyclopedia . (The actual policy is NOT INDISCRIMINATE). Coving mulitary units down to this level is far from. indiscriminate. So it meets the policy. For areas and aspects with difciult to find ocverage such as this, we can reasonable use a bvery broad interpretation of applicable guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 06:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that keeping a completely unsourced page is ok? We don't even know for sure that this unit isn't a hoax. Mztourist (talk) 08:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's not a hoax. It's listed as one of the units that fought in Operation Beit ol-Moqaddas, the First Battle of al-Faw and the Battle of Mehran (1986). Foreign Policy says Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf once commanded the unit.[1] The American Enterprise Institute provides a few details as well, including Qalibaf's replacement, Esmail Qaani.[2] Radio Free Europe mentions an operation mounted by its 1st Brigade.[3] Clarityfiend (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:MILUNIT no. 2. It's a real division-level formation. Appears to have been engaged in serious actions (e.g., an entire brigade was reported destroyed in action in 1987 in the southern Majnun oil field during the Iran-Iraq war). It's also known as the "Ansar Corps" or "Sepah-e Nasr Corps" according to this book, which discusses its role in exfiltrating Bin Laden's fighters from Afghanistan. Searching for articles in Farsi I see (at least based on machine translation) this, and particularly this article which seems to be all about them, this one too. The above highlight why standards like WP:MILUNIT are important, since formations of division-size and above are the size of reasonably-sized towns and very likely to have received significant coverage somewhere. FOARP (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete WP:MILUNIT only says units of this size are likely, but not certain, to be suitable for inclusion based on the availability of reliable secondary sources. There's no guarantee about the size of the purported unit, either (just because it calls itself a division doesn't mean it has 20,000 personnel). I'd rather see more RS. Intothat darkness 21:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Intothatdarkness - most of the sources are in Farsi, but I see a large number from what appear to be WP:NEWSORGs. 1 2 3 4. Using machine translation it is clear that the unit existed, that it had battalions and brigades beneath it, that it was commanded by officers of Brigadier rank or above, and that it suffered significant casualties in the Iran-Iraq war. PS- for the avoidance of doubt, even if we discount WP:MILUNIT as a (highly useful) essay, the sources presented also make this a basic WP:GNG pass as they constitute multiple instances of WP:SIGCOV in WP:NEWSORG sources. FOARP (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per FOARP. Vaticidalprophet 20:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep on the basis that there is some coverage in sources. The idea being spouted above that we don't need sources to demonstrate notability is utterly stupid. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2021 (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.