Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Military history
WikiProject
Main project page + talk
News & open tasks
Academy
Core work areas
Assessment
Main page
 → A-Class FAQ
 → B-Class FAQ
 → A-Class review requests
 → Assessment requests
 → Current statistics
 → Review alert box
Contests
Main page
 → Contest entries
 → Scoring log archive
 → Scoreboard archive
Coordination
Main page + talk
 → Handbook
 → Bugle newsroom talk
 → ACM eligibility tracking
 → Discussion alert box
Incubator
Main page
 → Current groups and initiatives
Special projects
Majestic Titan talk
Member affairs
Membership
Full list talk
 → Active / Inactive
 → Userboxes
Awards
Main page talk
 →A-Class medals
 →A-Class crosses
 → WikiChevrons w/ Oak Leaves
Resources
Guidelines
Content
Notability
Style
Templates
Infoboxes
 → Command structure doc · talk
 → Firearm cartridge doc · talk
 → Military award doc · talk
 → Military conflict doc · talk
 → Military installation doc · talk
 → Military memorial doc · talk
 → Military person doc · talk
 → Military unit doc · talk
 → National military doc · talk
 → Military operation doc · talk
 → Service record doc · talk
 → Militant organization doc · talk
 → Weapon doc · talk
Navigation boxes doc · talk
 → Campaignboxes doc · talk
Project banner doc · talk
Announcement & task box
 → Discussion alert box
 → Review alert box
Template design style doc · talk
Showcase
Featured articles 1347
Featured lists 149
Featured topics 32
Featured pictures 473
Featured sounds 69
Featured portals 5
A-Class articles 683
A-Class lists 40
Good articles 5,400
Automated lists
Article alerts
Most popular articles
New articles
Nominations for deletion
Task forces
General topics
Fortifications
Intelligence
Maritime warfare
Military aviation
Military culture, traditions, and heraldry
Military biography
Military historiography
Military land vehicles
Military logistics and medicine
Military memorials and cemeteries
Military science, technology, and theory
National militaries
War films
Weaponry
Nations and regions
African military history
Asian military history
Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history
Balkan military history
Baltic states military history
British military history
Canadian military history
Chinese military history
Dutch military history
European military history
French military history
German military history
Indian military history
Italian military history
Japanese military history
Korean military history
Middle Eastern military history
Nordic military history
North American military history
Ottoman military history
Polish military history
Roman and Byzantine military history
Russian, Soviet and CIS military history
South American military history
South Asian military history
Southeast Asian military history
Spanish military history
United States military history
Periods and conflicts
Classical warfare
Medieval warfare
Early Muslim military history
Crusades
Early Modern warfare
Wars of the Three Kingdoms
American Revolutionary War
Napoleonic era
American Civil War
World War I
World War II
Cold War
Post-Cold War
Related projects
Blades
Espionage
Firearms
Pritzker Military Museum & Library
Piracy
Ships
edit · changes
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Military. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject 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 at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP: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:
  1. 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 the edit 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.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Military|~~~~}} 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.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Military.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP: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:
Purge page cache watch

Military and combat[edit]

88 (Arracan) Battery Royal Artillery[edit]

88 (Arracan) Battery Royal Artillery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article contains no references to prove notability and is about a company-sized unit PercyPigUK (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Syafi'i[edit]

Abdullah Syafi'i (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article (blogspot) and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  04:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. WP:GNG is met. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article (WP:NPOSSIBLE). Clicking on the Find sources: news and books links above shows that sustained coverage of Abdullah Syafi'i exists across many independent reliable sources. I have checked some of the non-English news sources using Google translate. Collectively they add up to significant coverage. The sustained coverage is also an indicator of notability (WP:SUSTAINED).-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Command information newspaper[edit]

Command information newspaper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This really exists (type of internal publication within the US military), but it is questionable if it is notable. While various reliable sources mention it in passing (while discussing something said in some particular issue of one of these), I can't find any significant coverage of the concept in itself. Wikipedia is not a repository of all the internal minutiae of how the US military (or any other military in the world) works. PROD contested by User:Kvng SomethingForDeletion (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mala Tokmachka[edit]

Battle of Mala Tokmachka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another Russian invasion of Ukraine content fork. This one is quite particular in the sense that it is made up. There was no fighting in Mala Tokmachka during the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. Ukraine launched this operation to liberate areas south of the line of contact and reach the Azov Sea. Mala Tokmachka was north of the line of contact.

What this article does is group a series of engagements that took place in one of the four fronts of the counteroffensive (the one towards Vasylivka, the Robotyne one in this case, the one towards Berdiansk and the Bakhmut one) under one supposed title. This article is original research. No sources talk of a "Battle of Mala Tokmachka". Splitting content from 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive is also not justified. The aforementioned Robotyne front in which these engagements took place was in fact the one that saw the heaviest fighting during the counteroffensive, specially during the latest stages. Super Ψ Dro 18:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mala Tokmachka is one of many towns that saw heavy fighting although not enough to deserve it's own article. Jebiguess (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but please let me explain why rather than just a short comment
1. Multiple sources talk about a battle around Mala Tokmachka as well as armor and personnel losses from the engagement.
2. This battle was the reason as to why Ukrainian commanders switched tactics during the counteroffensive.
3. Like I said earlier, articles should only be deleted if they have no notability whatsoever. For example, if only a few sources mention the article's topic.
4. Multiple offensives throughout history and that have articles on wikipedia have battles that took place in them.
5. Content is NOT being split from the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive article. The purpose of this article is to specifically go over what happened at Mala Tokmachka and how the result of this battle led to Ukrainian commanders changing their tactics. Ukrainian Wikipedia has already done this for other battles during the counteroffensive. Salfanto (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. 675 (The Rifles) Squadron AAC[edit]

No. 675 (The Rifles) Squadron AAC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient references to prove notability. It is a small, company-sized unit. PercyPigUK (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prizren Front[edit]

Prizren Front (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redundant copy of already existing articles: Battle of Vërrin, Battle of Paštrik, and Prizren incident (1999). The entire article is about these events and content was directly copy-pasted directly from each of those articles.

There's also some original research going on, as various events during the Kosovo war (presumably occurring in the district of Prizren) are lumped together and termed "Prizren Front", rather than reliable sources actually using that term and discussing the events as part of a specific theater. Griboski (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn’t delete this article, we should let other editors to use to add on to this article. The Battle of Vërrin, Battle of Paštrik, Prizren incident (1999) should be used as a start to the article. Shqiptar1999 (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Cape São Vicente (1676)[edit]

Battle of Cape São Vicente (1676) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Real (unlike some of the author's other articles) but very minor battle. It's just three lines in the source (wrong page btw, it's actually 149) that were hallucinated by an LLM into becoming an article. – Hilst [talk] 00:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward J. Crawford[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Edward J. Crawford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page was first deleted in 2019 and despite being a WP:REFBOMB this new incarnation shows no additional evidence of notability under GNG or NBIO. Coverage is in school publications; WP:TRADES publications like local business journals and magazines (and without feature-length coverage that would permit the use of trade pubs to establish notability); self-published sources; or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs in longer lists of people. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Killi Luqman (2017)[edit]

Battle of Killi Luqman (2017) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG as well WP:NEVENT - not WP:LASTING —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Albanians killed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine[edit]

List of Albanians killed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails NLIST. Two item list, topic has not been discussed as a group by reliable sources. Neither of the two items is notable, article serves no purpose per CLN.  // Timothy :: talk  14:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The content should be moved to Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War if notable, the article could be made a redirect to there if not notable. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

São José Incident of 1674[edit]

São José Incident of 1674 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AI hallucination. WP:BEFORE check brings up no sources, and the only source in the article does not mention this incident at all. It instead briefly talks about an unnamed ship being seized in the north of Africa and their passengers being sold as slaves, which bears no resemblance to this article's subject. – Hilst [talk] 12:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Africa, and Portugal. – Hilst [talk] 12:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G3 as a hoax and sanction the creator. Mccapra (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note that the user has created a number of similarly-sourced articles which should be investigated as well. See here for the list. Greenman (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under criterion G3. Blatant hoax. The page creator has created numerous pages with a similar style using the same source and page without adding any other sources.[1] Every article feels written using an LLM. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Salgado, Augusto Alves (2022). Viagens e Operações Navais (1668-1823) (PDF) (in Portuguese). Lisbon: Academia de Marinha. p. 13.

German interventions in the Mexican Revolution[edit]

German interventions in the Mexican Revolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Synthetic. There seems to be insufficient treatment of German interference in the Mexican Revolution as a unified concept, only each incident. 📴 Remsense诉 10:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Cape Verde[edit]

Battle of Cape Verde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable battle. The article is comprised of mostly LLM slop, and extrapolates fake/conflicting info from a real but minor skirmish (mentioned on page 159 of the source listed). – Hilst [talk] 20:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rusking Pimentel[edit]

Rusking Pimentel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As far as I can tell, there's pretty much zero coverage of this person outside of the routine announcements, and NPOL doesn't extend to everybody working in the office of the state level politicans in question. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Greek wars[edit]

Indo-Greek wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is a mess; it consists largely of unattributed copy-pastes from other articles, and purports to present a topic, the 'Indo-Greek wars', that is in reality a sequence of isolated and unrelated conflicts between different polities at different times. Alexander's campaigns take up half the article, but the other conflicts, which took place decades or centuries later, are dealt with far too briefly, and no attempt is made to weave all of this into a coherent narrative (which in itself is evidence this is an artificial topic). THe very name itself is scarcely used anywhere (cf. Gbooks). Constantine ✍ 11:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Problematic editor who created a number of very poorly written articles. Qcne (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On its face, it appears to both duplicate other article content and be an inappropriate synthesis. And, on the offchance it is notable and just not written about in English language sources, WP:TNT GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' - Not in line with Wikipedia's standards and policies.Sameeerrr (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine Yellow Kitchen Photo[edit]

Ukraine Yellow Kitchen Photo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doubtful lasting significance. Bedivere (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination, cant find any mention of either the photo or the photographer after February 2023. F.Alexsandr (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CFAV Haro[edit]

CFAV Haro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article says absolutely nothing about the subject besides identifying its namesake. There is no reason for this article to exist separately from Naval Large Tugboat. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CFAV Barkerville[edit]

CFAV Barkerville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article says absolutely nothing about the subject besides its name. There is no reason for this article to exist separately from Naval Large Tugboat. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mangal[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Battle of Mangal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Extreme reliance on WP:RAJ sources, no reliable/good secondary sources. Noorullah (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Michni[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Battle of Michni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zero sources/references at all. Noorullah (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brewing alcohol in Colditz[edit]

Brewing alcohol in Colditz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't see why this would be forked. The prose is bad, and this could easily be cut down and mentioned in Olflag IV-C Oflag IV-C, which it is. —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 19:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify about the timeline, I did not notice that the original creator had edited the article one minute before I added the {{Story}} tag as there was an edit conflict I didn't see. I also did not notice that they had edited it after I placed that tag when I nominated it here. —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 19:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fyodor Chernozubov[edit]

Fyodor Chernozubov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources and I have been unable to find any. Also does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 02:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grigori Chernozubov[edit]

Grigori Chernozubov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly fails notability guidelines, no significant coverage. No reason for this article. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 00:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The page on Russian Wikipedia seems to be more in-depth and has more sources. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 10:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is still no notability, and one "brief" biography isn't really enough to build an entire article.
Kingsmasher678 (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. He has a plaque dedicated to him, and streets namead after him, should be expanded with transation from Russian version F.Alexsandr (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to speak the language, I will be happy to withdraw the request if you can bring it up to snuff.
Kingsmasher678 (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1959 Mangal Uprising[edit]

1959 Mangal Uprising (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

First fails notability. Secondly seems like the user moved the article from Draft to Main space without proper review. Third Not ready for Main space yet. Wikibear47 (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Well, I think it should not be deleted, instead it should be moved into draft space and then more sources should be added. And o think it pases the notability test as it was the first Pakistan backed rebellion in Afghanistan (I know it isn't addressed in the article but several sources state this) Waleed (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it does pass notability than could be moved back to draft space. It does need a lot of work. Wikibear47 (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it needs a lot of work to do, so I think it should first be moved to draft, then I'll sort it out although it isn't my article but I will try to establish notability by citing more sources Waleed (talk) 04:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Henry Mason Smith[edit]

Edwin Henry Mason Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Delete or Redirect to Edwin Smith (rower). TheSwamphen (talk) 08:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sabra mosque airstrike[edit]

Sabra mosque airstrike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Atrociously sourced article. The only sources are Hamas's military wing and the PA's state-run news agency, with the other citations simply regurgitating these reports. No WP:SUSTAINED coverage in multiple independent WP:RS to establish WP:GNG. Also fails WP:PAGEDECIDE justifying its own article. If the only sources of information for an article were the IDF and the Israeli Ministry of Communications, we would rightly AfD that article as well. Longhornsg (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6th North Carolina Infantry Regiment[edit]

6th North Carolina Infantry Regiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and NORG. No sources found meeting WP:SIRS, nothing addressing the subject directly and indepth. Article does not indicate any engagements in which the unit was notable.

  • Source eval table:
Comments Source
Blog post/timeline, fails WP:RS, does not have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indpeth *https://civilwarintheeast.com/confederate-regiments/north-carolina/6th-north-carolina-infantry-regiment/
Enthusiast website, fails WP:RS *https://www.carolana.com/NC/Civil_War/6th_nc_volunteers_regiment.html
Troop register, fails WP:IS, SIGCOV. Government troop registers do not show notability *https://www.carolana.com/NC/Civil_War/Register_of_North_Carolina_Troops_1861.pdf
Fails WP:IS, WP:RS, Memories written down in 1901 source states, "WRITTEN BY MEMBERS OF THE RESPECTIVE COMMANDS." *https://www.carolana.com/NC/Civil_War/Histories_of_the_Several_Regiments_and_Battalions_from_NC_in_the_Great_War_Volume_I_Walter_Clark_1901.pdf
Troop register, fails WP:IS, SIGCOV. Government troop registers do not show notability Register of North Carolina Troops, 1861, by John Spelman page 13.
Duplicate of above ref Capt. Lawson Harrill on April 9, 1901, page 786-808 in the "History of the Several Regiments and Battalions from North Carolina in the Great War-'65-Volume 1.
Ping me if IS RS with SIGCOV are found.  // Timothy :: talk  17:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You might find more sources if you search the 16th North Carolina, which is apparently what this regiment was reorganized as in June 1861. The 16th doesn't seem to have a Wikipedia article, which is interesting given its combat history (Antietam, Gettysburg, Fredericksburg, and others). It might be worth rewriting the article for the 16th North Carolina, noting its origins as the 6th Volunteers. Intothatdarkness 00:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply:This sounds like a good solution. If @PaulusHectorMair: feels this is a good solution and wants to pursue it, I will support drafting as "16th North Carolina Infantry Regiment" or another appropriate title. The author is new, I'm not sure they know this discussion is taking place, PaulusHectorMair if you could reply here with your thoughts, even if it is just to let us know you are aware of the discussion.  // Timothy :: talk  00:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TimothyBlue, Intothatdarkness, and PaulusHectorMair: - Let's hold up a minute on this. There's a conflation going on here - the "6th North Carolina Volunteers" was the unit that became 16th Regiment per this but there's also a separate 6th North Carolina Infantry Regiment. Per this brief NPS listing it had quite a bit of fighting, and the State of North Carolina published an entire book on this 6th Infantry. Hog Farm Talk 01:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply So if I'm following this right:
    • This article (as currently written) is about the unit that was reorganized into the 16th North Carolina Infantry Regiment. Its currently named "6th North Carolina Infantry Regiment" but it was actually the "6th North Carolina Volunteers"
    • There is another unit "6th North Carolina Infantry Regiment" that is unconnected to the current article or the 16th North Carolina Infantry Regiment.
    Let me know if I've got something wrong.  // Timothy :: talk  01:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hog Farm, I thought about pinging you, but didn't want to run into the whole canvassing thing with AfD. The ACW isn't one of my major fields, especially Confederate units, so I just did a basic search. I wondered about the Volunteer/Infantry thing, but I've seen it used interchangeably with other units. I of course defer to your expertise. Intothatdarkness 12:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello. I am indeed aware of this discussion and have been checking it every few hours or so. I would be open to pursuing an article on the 16th, as this was my original goal. I should have realized sooner that the two regiments were different, and frankly I am questioning my competence for such a silly mistake. PaulusHectorMair (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Making silly mistakes is part of the job... :)  // Timothy :: talk  01:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maratha–Nizam wars[edit]

Maratha–Nizam wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article clearly fails WP:GNG & full of WP:SYNTH mess and WP:OR. Maratha–Nizam wars? More like every war against Marathas (as it is mixed up by Anglo-Maratha wars and French conflicts with Marathas) and there's no source for the timeline of this event (1720-1819), clearly fabricated by the author of the page. Neither I found any source explicitly referring to it as Maratha–Nizam wars nor did I find sources for its fictional timeline of 1720-1819. Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!!
I have noticed that there is a discussion happening about the articles on the Maratha-Nizam wars. I am eager to participate and cast my vote for the article. After thoroughly reviewing the content, I have concluded that it comprehensively covers all the necessary information, supported by reliable sources in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines.I think that all the paragraphs in the article accurately depict the context and are verifiable according to Wikipedia guidelines WP:VERIFY.
Here is one source that mentioned it as maratha nizam wars:
•Britannica:[1]
•Britanicca(for further details):[2]
  • I think britannica is a better and clearly citing source for the article.It's verifiability and reliability can be checked at ->
•[3]

Timeline isn't mentioned in the heading of article but it is mentioned in the infobox.If there are any doubts some some sources are definitely needed for a better understanding about the timeline with the citation.But if article is undergoing deletion because of it's heading than the Britannca is one of the sources that cites it as 'Maratha -Nizam War' not as 'Anglo-Maratha War'.[4]

  • Suggestion:It is recommended that the editors and administrators involved in this matter thoroughly examine all sources and make decisions from a neutral Favourable Renaming the article to 'Maratha-Nizam War' instead of 'Maratha-Nizam Wars' would be appropriate as the Britannica source also refers to it in the singular form, given that the article primarily covers individual battles rather than overarching conflicts.
Thanks!! Kemilliogolgi (talk) 10:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean, but the source you shared doesn't cover the Maratha-Nizam war in its body instead it spun around the Anglo-Maratha wars. If you'll search "Maratha-Nizam war" under Britannica's sort searching then you won't find any article on Maratha Nizam war through filter searching under Britannica again I don't know how you concluded that it covers this topic while we don't find a single article on it. We know that Britannica is WP:RS but as I said it doesn't even cover this topic so kindly provide sources for Maratha-Nizam war 1720-1819.
Timeline isn't mentioned in the heading of article but it is mentioned in the infobox, that's the issue we don't find this particular timeline in any source. The author too is clearly aware of this therefore they didn't cite any source for this timeline. It's clearly a mix of several hostilities between Nizam, Marathas, Anglos and French and represented as "Maratha Nizam war". Based Kashmiri (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The nominator clearly lacks an understanding of what WP:GNG entails, and I strongly suspect that this action is against me as the author because I nominated their articles for AFD. Please specify the section on the talk page where the sources were synthesized. Neither the Anglo-Maratha wars nor the French-Maratha conflicts are included; technically, it's feasible to add them since the article's scope covers conflicts between two parties: the Nizam and the Marathas, regardless of whether they were supported by the British East India Company, the French, or any other entities. I am listing the sources that explicitly state "Maratha-Nizam War(s)".
  1. [5]
  2. [6]
  3. [7]
  4. [8]
  5. [9]
  6. [10]
  7. [11]

822 results in JSTOR [12] almost 3,000 results in ProQuest[13]. and we have several other sources that do not explicitly mention "Maratha-Nizam wars" but provide detailed descriptions of the entire conflicts (a lot in the article itself). I will await the nominator to post the synthesized part on the talk page. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, not a platform for someone to boast their ego.--Imperial[AFCND] 16:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator clearly lacks an understanding of what, then why don't you show us a single source covering this event as Maratha-Nizam war (1720-1819)?
Neither the Anglo-Maratha wars nor the French-Maratha conflicts are included; technically, it's feasible to add them since the article's scope covers conflicts between two parties be sure. Is it conflicts or wars? It's clearly noticeable from the artificial timeline of this event (1720-1819) that it's heavily synthesized.
the Nizam and the Marathas, regardless of whether they were supported by the British East India Company, the French, or any other entities. I am listing the sources that explicitly state "Maratha-Nizam War Now that is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH you're mixing Anglo Maratha wars and French conflicts with Marathas just to get a fictional timeline so it can be "Nizam victory", Now I'd say it's also WP:POVFORK and please WP:DONTHOAX. Now let us look at the sources provided by you. The first two sources are identical.
  • [14] only gives insights of Maratha-Nizam war of 1751-52 but there's no Maratha nizam war 1720-1819 as currently the timeline decided by the author.
  • The third one [15] only talks about Maratha-Nizam hostilities of 1785-1787 again there's no mention of Maratha-Nizam war 1720-1819.
  • Fourth source [16] is not accessible so it'd be helpful if you provide a quotation for the Maratha-Nizam war 1720-1819.
  • Coming to the 5th source [17] again not accessible so provide a quotation for Maratha-Nizam war 1720-1819
  • Next [18] only found a topic of "Maratha-Nizam relations" I wonder if this led you to the conclusion of Martha-Nizam war 1720-1819.
  • At last, [19] this also can't be accessed so provide a quotation for Maratha-Nizam war 1720-1819.
Now coming to filter/sort keyword searching through JSTOR and ProQuest. Anyone can see that, It gives NO result for even the "Maratha-Nizam War" as a whole forget including timeline, all we see is individual results for Maratha and Nizam. So that's how you concluded that it has almost 3800 results (from both JSTOR and ProQuest)?
You have yourself yelled that we have several other sources that do not explicitly mention "Maratha-Nizam wars" but provide detailed descriptions of the entire conflicts hence proved it contains synthesis. And above too the sources provided by you don't give insights of Maratha-Nizam war 1720-1819.Based Kashmiri (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ImperialAficionado Indeed Wikipedia is a collaborative project therefore we have to make sure that an article shouldn't exist in mainspace as long as it doesn't pass general notability, and contains synthesis, original research and POVFORK. And No one is being egoistic here. Why do you think so?Based Kashmiri (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Based Kashmiri, you're just increasing the volume of discussion with no improvement. You still haven't provided the synthesised part in the talk page, failed to prove it's not notable (waiting for others to make thier comments). There is a thing called WP:UCS. The "Maratha–Nizam wars" basically ends with the fall of the Marathas, as their conflicts lasted till then. The article body covers the contributions of the Nizam for the fall of the Marathas. Cheers. Imperial[AFCND] 07:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I literally showed how the sources provided by you (most of them don't even cover "Maratha-Nizam war" but cover some relations and hostilities). We just need a single source for the specific Maratha-Nizam war 1720-1819 and I'll pull off the prod with myself. Maratha–Nizam wars" basically ends with the fall of the Marathas, as their conflicts lasted till then. At least provide a source to back your statements, this is WP:OR and no WP:UCS doesn't give you waivers for extending the timeline on your own. We're still waiting for you to provide sources for your defined Maratha-Nizam war (1720-1819).Based Kashmiri (talk) 10:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominators arguments are nowhere found in the article. I don't understand how this doesn't pass WP:GNG. Suggesting the nominator to keep personal bias away, as it seems to be the problem here.--DeepstoneV (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Nominators arguments are nowhere found in the article. I don't understand how this doesn't pass WP:GNG." You also didn't understand that a screenshot from YouTube video is not a reliable source (at Gupta empire talk page), I already replied how this article is fully based on WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, POVFORK and it doesn't passes general notability. Feel free to reply to my response below. Based Kashmiri (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear, you're taking everything personally. What was the reason to drag another discussion here? Please don't continue this thread, or use other talk pages. Imperial[AFCND] 07:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ImperialAficionado it'd be better if you give this advice to DeepstoneV as at first they accused me of having Personal bias. Based Kashmiri (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article appears to amalgamate various wars without citing any reliable sources that acknowledge such a conflict by this name. The timeline presented (1720-1819) seems implausible, and the outcome is equally questionable. Even if the Nizam’s actions in Anglo-Maratha Wars contributed to the Maratha downfall, that could be the subject of a separate article. It’s not appropriate to include it in a comprehensive conflict spanning over a century. This inclusion could distort the narrative and lead to misinformation. A MUST DELETE ONE! --Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 08:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, we might also have to delete Ahom-Mughal conflicts, Roman–Persian Wars, Roman–Parthian Wars....etc. Imperial[AFCND] 08:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And probably Ghaznavid campaigns too! Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ImperialAficionado kindly refrain from pushing WP:OTHERCONTENT you should go through WP:AADP. I'd not extend it because of WP:OTHERCONTENT but since you already gone off topic so I'd respond to it.
    In Roman–Persian Wars and Roman–Parthian Wars the dates and timeline of the wars are already cited in the lead but that's not the case in Maratha–Nizam wars you have not cited any source in the lead or even in the article body to support your preferred timeline of 1720-1819 neither you're providing sources here for this timeline.
    Similarly we can't do the same with Hundred Years' War and Seven Years' War because its timeline is affixed by scholars. Based Kashmiri (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There was no prolonged war but the wars that happened time to time with each of them taking years of years. The article is misleading also because it was the British Empire who caused elimination of Maratha Empire, not Hyderabad State. Ratnahastin (talk) 11:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete, As per above comment Rawn3012 (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't find any source for this war either which is almost a hundred year timeline conflict. WP:LOTSOFGHITS and WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE proves nothing (Considering that no such protracted war ever happened in South-Asia). The above Keeps are more like WP:BUTITEXISTS and WP:EDPN.

Recommended: I'd suggest WP:SPLIT for a particular war/conflict/hostility (of course, only ones which are notable). --Jonharojjashi (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bannu[edit]

Battle of Bannu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The battle is not historically accurate and the page is littered with various passages which are not correctly cited and the references cited are inaccurate, and the page itself requires deletion.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Gandgarh[edit]

Battle of Gandgarh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The battle is not historically accurate and the sources are unreliable and relies heavily on WP:Raj sources. The page requires deletion.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Hoshiarpur (1711)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Battle of Hoshiarpur (1711) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The battle is not historically accurate and when and where the battle took place does not appear in any historical work, printed, or in manuscript and thus it is required for the deletion of this page

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Thanks for repairing this nomination by User:Festivalfalcon873 (who didn't leave their signature). I think we need to hear from more editors on this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kashmir (1814)[edit]

Battle of Kashmir (1814) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page is littered with unreliable sources and relies heavily on WP:Raj sources to promote ethnic heroism and the events do not indicate a victory for the Afghans. This page requires deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Festivalfalcon873 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Three of the sources are WP:RAJ which can be removed as they are only passing by sources attributed by other secondary sources. Not sure what you're referring to as unreliable sources here, would be nice for you to identify, because historians like Hari Ram Gupta are more then WP:RS. Also pages 124-126 clearly show the expedition was a failure and an Afghan victory: [20]. Noorullah (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further adding from the source: "It took Ranjit Singh four years to overcome his defeat and disgrace suffered in the Kashmir expedition of 1814."[21] (page 128) Noorullah (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:
Only the sources from WP:RAJ mention any defeat occurring and are clearly required for the final result of this article but do not pass the standards of Wikipedia. Historians that you noted such as Hari Ram Gupta are specific on page 125 that , “Aghar Khan joined Ruhullah Khan. They spread the rumour that the Sikh army had been defeated.” There was no battle against Wazir Fateh Khan mentioned as noted in this article nor any defeat in battle against Wazir Fateh Khan. The article itself is littered with errors as it mentions this is the third campaign or invasion of Ranjit Singh. This is incorrect as there was no campaign in 1812 as noted by Hari Ram Gupta and in 1813 the campaign was a joint collaboration with Wazir Fateh Khan where the former was to give a tribute.
Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The expedition ended in failure, Hari Ram Gupta made this clear on page 126 [22] when he clearly identifies it as a Sikh defeat. The WP:RAJ sources can be removed as I said because they are only passing references while attributed by other secondary sources (such as Hari Ram Gupta). Also the article is being cleaned up, and thus can stay per WP:HEY. Noorullah (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The initial issue of the outcome of this so called battle is not being referenced correctly is still present & or the outcome is using  WP:RAJ source which doesn’t meet requirements of Wikipedia. Two WP:RAJsources are still there in the article in order to present a victory which are not reliable. Therefore it is factually incorrect to say it is passing by reference. The expedition ended in failure, but Gupta makes it clear that any battle taking place was just a rumor on pg 125 that , “Aghar Khan joined Ruhullah Khan. They spread the rumour that the Sikh army had been defeated”in book History Of The Sikhs Vol. V The Sikh Lion of Lahore and does not mention any battle taking place. The author G.S Chhabra you referenced on pg 115 does not mention any direct defeat or battle by Azim Khan either , neither has it been referenced that the losses were heavy. Any mention of any battle taking place in the article is unreliable , Captain Amrinder is not a historian but a politician is thus not a Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
So to point out that the article has significantly improved is inaccurate as the initial concern is not fixed and no improvements have been done to fix it. Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no WP:RAJ sources on the page as per your most recent comment. Gupta clearly states Ranjit Singh was defeated as mentioned above. Noorullah (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Hasan Abdal (1813)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Battle of Hasan Abdal (1813) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page is littered with unreliable sources to promote ethnic heroism and its statements are not fully cited and there is no contemporary proof of the occurrence of this battle and the page requires deletion.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I'd like more review of sources and whether or not this small "battle" was, in fact, notable. Nominator, who didn't sign their statement, was User:Festivalfalcon873
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles in Croatia[edit]

List of battles in Croatia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:UNSOURCED. Follow-up to List of battles in Belgium (deleted recently). NLeeuw (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Croatia. NLeeuw (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly passes WP:NLIST, the lack of sourcing is not an issue considering it's a verifiable list article. SportingFlyer T·C 22:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of battles by geographic location. Unsourced page. ToadetteEdit! 08:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That article is also almost completely WP:UNSOURCED, so that won't solve the issues. I may nominate that list as well, sooner or later, but I decided to begin with the spin-offs first. NLeeuw (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Battles involving Croatia and its five sub-categories cover this. A list article is more useful than categories, since columns can be made, listing the year and additional information to be easier to sort. Dream Focus 08:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's different: battles involving Croatia ≠ battles in Croatia. We do not categorise battles by location per WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN.
    If we want a list of battles involving Croatia, analogous to Category:Battles involving Croatia and analogous to List of wars involving Croatia, we can. But then this whole article needs to be Renamed, Rescoped, rigorously Purged of inapplicable battles, and Re-populated with applicable battles which actually involved the Republic of Croatia (and any commonly recognised historical predecessors), including battles outside of Croatian territory involving the Croatian military.
    That is so much fuss - because it's an entirely different scope - that we better WP:TNT this and start over, based on the actual contents of Category:Battles involving Croatia (and recycling some sources from its articles), and not the WP:UNSOURCED current contents of this article. NLeeuw (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. I struct out my vote. I wasn't aware of the rule against grouping things by location. Dream Focus 13:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also only found it a few days ago, to be honest. I've been working on this category tree for some time, currently proposing to merge, rename or delete a couple of them at WP:CFD, should you be interested (see 4 May 2024). NLeeuw (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This was my accept at AfC. I dismissed the previous challenge of 'unsourced' that led to it being draftified, as that didn't apply to a list, however I was unaware of WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN so in hindsight, I would not have accepted it. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't aware of it either until recently. At Talk:List of battles by geographic location#Splitting Proposal, I've just outlined some CfD and AfD jurisprudence on accepting or deleting categories or lists/articles on battles by location. Long story short: CfD categorically (pun intended) rejects them, AfD often accepts them, but for different reasons and under certain conditions. The two project spaces are thus at odds. NLeeuw (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see no consensus here yet. I'll just mention that similar articles nominated at AFD involving different countries have closed as "Delete".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles in Algeria[edit]

List of battles in Algeria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:UNSOURCED. Follow-up to List of battles in Belgium (deleted recently). NLeeuw (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet[edit]

Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poor attempt of the author to keep Pala Tibetan War from AFD. Same content with different title. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala Tibetan War.Imperial[AFCND] 14:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Devapāla came into conflict with Tibet, there is nothing impossible in this because Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-srong-lda-btsan and his son Mu-teg-btsan-po subdued India and forced Raja Dharma- pala to submit. Devapāla also may have come to clash with them and defeated them.[1]
  • Devapāla might have come into conflict with Tibet; there is nothing impossible in this because Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-Srong-Ida-Btsan and his son Mu-teg-Btsan-po subdued India and forced Dharma- pāla to submit. Devapāla also may have clashed with them and defeated them[2]
Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop listing down this big {{tq}} here. It was already a mess at the earlier discussion. Comment down if you've any possible arguments that could potentially save the article. I am pretty sure you haven't read what WP: NOTABILITY, and this reflects everywhere in the AFD. Long paragraphs are not the factor that determines whether it passes GNG or not. And I can see you've duplicated the text twice here. Imperial[AFCND] 19:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This event is notable and has received significant coverage in Reliable Sources (WP:RS) and it passes WP:GNG & WP:SIGCOV and this isn't WP:OR since reliable sources mention the event as Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet.
Also what do you mean by "And I can see you've duplicated the text twice here."?? I gave you two reliable sources which mentions the event in a similar way. Based Kashmiri (talk) 04:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Based Kashmiri, what you've done is exposed plagiarism. They mention the event in a similar way because one source plagiarized the other, not because this is a conventional way to write about this. -- asilvering (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per the WP:DEL-REASON guideline, there is no reason to delete this article and I have provided multiple reliable sources about this event here in the replies below. Based Kashmiri (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is obviously a recreation of the previously deleted article. It does have a better title, in that it is no longer claiming there was a "Pala Tibetan War", but this is the same issue. We can write about this hypothetical conflict (one of the sources you list above even says "might have"!) on Devapala (Pala dynasty). If eventually we find sources to justify a separate article, we can spin out out from Devapala (Pala dynasty). But we did not find those sources in the last AfD, so I doubt we will find them here either. While I'm looking at that article, I note that we also have the sentences There is nothing impossible as the Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-srong-lda-btsan and his son Mu-teg-btsan-po subdued India and forced Dharmapāla to submit. Therefore, Devapāla must have also clashed with and defeated the Tibetan kings. Not only does this not follow the sources (our article says "must have", while neither source says so), it is obviously plagiarism. -- asilvering (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a recreation of the previously deleted article, also this article doesn't have any issues like that article, if you think there is any issue in this article then list them down.
    The previous article had issues with the "Dharmapāla's Conflict with Tibetans" section and the "Conflict with Nepal" section, which is excluded from this article. This article focuses on the conflict between Devapala and Tibet, with reliable sources mentioning the event as "Devapala's Conflict with Tibet." The main problem with the previous article was the uncited title, but this article provides reliable sources to support its claim.Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean "it literally contains the exact same words as the previous article". If that were the case, it could just be nominated for speedy deletion. I mean "it is in effect the same article with the same problems", which is true. At least one of the two reliable sources you brought up above appears to be plagiarized, so not only is this not two separate sources with in-depth coverage, it's only one source with very brief coverage. This can easily be written about on Devapala (Pala dynasty) if necessary. (But I'd advise against plagiarising a plagiarised source to do so.) -- asilvering (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This article cannot be deleted for the reasons you've provided, as per the Wikipedia deletion policy WP:DEL-REASON.
    Additionally, here are some additional reliable sources about this event:
    Based Kashmiri (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These sources do not support your case. -- asilvering (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then explain how? Also you still haven't given any reasons to delete this article from as per the Wikipedia's deletion policy WP:DEL-REASON. Based Kashmiri (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per asilvering and Imperial Okmrman (talk) 04:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They do not have any valid reason to delete the article, Please provide a valid reason from WP:DEL-REASON.Based Kashmiri (talk) 08:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Okmrman And I just checked your User contributions and noticed you have voted for deletion for every single AFD you had discovered EVERY MINUTE, without even reading anything.Based Kashmiri (talk) 08:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both @Asilvering and @ImperialAficionado haven't provided any valid reason to delete this article from WP:DEL-REASON, how can you agree with them? Based Kashmiri (talk) 08:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devapāla's Campaigns against Pratiharas[edit]

Devapāla's Campaigns against Pratiharas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A copy of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala invasion of Kannauj. Same content, fails WP:GNG, poorly found in reliable sources. Part of Tripartite struggle, can be added to it. Imperial[AFCND] 14:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No results for "Devapāla's Campaigns against Pratiharas" in Google scholar, JSTOR [23], and literally zero result from Google keyword searching. Hardly found few sources (including what present in the article), that barely mentioned no more than two or three lines about the so called "Campaign". And passes GNG? See WP:SIGCOV. Imperial[AFCND] 15:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is very notable and has been given significant coverage in reliable sources therefore it passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.
  • The Gurjara lords against whom Devapāla fought must have been the Pratīhāra rulers. It is possible that Nagabhața II tried to assert his power after the death of Dharmapāla and if, as some scholars believe, he transferred his capital to Kanauj, he must have achieved some success. But Devapāla soon re-established the Pala supremacy, and it was possibly after his (Devapāla's) successful campaign against the Pratihāras that he advanced to the Hūņa and Kamboja princi- palities. Nāgabhața's son, Ramabhadra, probably also had his kingdom invaded by Devapāla. The next Pratihāra king Bhoja also, in spite of his initial success, suffered reverses at the hands of Devapāla, and could not restore the fortunes of his family so long as the Pala emperor was alive. Thus Devapāla successfully fought with three generations of Pratihāra rulers, and maintained the Pala supremacy in Northern India.[3][4]
Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It is notable because I said so." Industrial Insect (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore WP:RS which has significant coverage about the topic of the article and just say "It is notable because I said so.", wow.
The article is notable for several reasons. First, it has significant coverage from WP:RS. Second, It passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. I hope this helps clarify why the article meets the notability criteria. Based Kashmiri (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article appears to be successfully meet the criteria set forth in Wikipedia's Notability guidelines and the issues raised in the nomination do not appear to be evident within the article itself.
Khotanese26 (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plunder of Murshidabad (1742)[edit]

Plunder of Murshidabad (1742) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: NOTABILITY. The event is a part of the Maratha invasions of Bengal, and the prelude of First Battle of Katwa. Not much coverage in WP:RS, except some scattered lines. Not enough coverage in reliable sources for an article; and "Plunder of Murshidabad" is WP:OR as such an event is not named by any Historians. Imperial[AFCND] 09:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. The nawabi had since 1740 been ruled by a Turkish adventurer, Alivardi Khan, who had, from the abundant treasury at Murshidabad, sent two crores of rupees to Delhi to secure his nomination as nawab. The British found him ready to sustain the conditions in which business flourished, but he was no match for the Marathas, who swept into Bengal in April 1742 and plundered Murshidabad. Their outfliers caused panic in Calcutta where the Company began to dig the Maratha ditch to keep them out. For the next seven years the golden province of Bengal was afflicted by roving armies, until Alivardi Khan bought off the Marathas by paying chauth of 12 lakhs of rupees a year. The merchants of Calcutta trembled, but one merchant in Bengal saw only advantage in the weakness of formerly powerful Mughal princes in the face of Maratha attack.
3. <ref>{{Cite book |last=Cavaliero |first=Roderick |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BxKJDwAAQBAJ&newbks=0&hl=en |title=Strangers in the Land: The Rise and Decline of the British Indian Empire |date=2002-06-28 |publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing |isbn=978-0-85771-707-8 |language=en}}</ref>
4. There are already articles on Wikipedia which are based on the place name where the event took place and this doesn't violate WP:OR. Akshunwar (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yonatan Steinberg[edit]

Yonatan Steinberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a WP:BLP1E instance. There appears to little to no meaningful coverage of this individual as a subject before or after the one event involved, and all of the coverage on the en-wiki page is essentially obituary material and coverage. Based on this material as it is, as an encyclopedic entry the page devolves more towards WP:RESUME or WP:NOTMEMORIAL than anything else, with the material also largely coming from government and military obituaries, not independent RS. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:delete: this is one of about a dozen articles that seem to be violating WP:NOTMEMORIAL and linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_7. i've nominated those that i can, but many of them are additionally marked extended protected, which seems like an abuse of the designation in an effort to protect the pages from (rightful) editing and deletion. 814jjs (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC) not EC FortunateSons (talk) 09:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The last comment may not have been encyclopedic, but I will reply anyway. These other articles may or may not be notable, but they should be considered on their own merits. If they are at the wrong protection level then I suggest raising this at WP:RPP. PatGallacher (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NOTMEMORIAL says "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet" [[{WP:GNG]]. This does not apply here. There are multiple secondary independent RS (Walla, Times of Israel) that provide coverage of the subject. Longhornsg (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Neither of the keep !votes really address the BLP1E argument advanced by the nominator. Relisting for further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bahawalnagar incident[edit]

Bahawalnagar incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Should be either merged or deleted. Event doesn't require its own article. Wikibear47 (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd argue it's pretty significant Claire 26 (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Lahore (1800)[edit]

Siege of Lahore (1800) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similarly one of these pages again that fail WP:HISTRS, some are also primary sources. Noorullah (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second Sikh Invasion of Rohilkhand[edit]

Second Sikh Invasion of Rohilkhand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreliable sources per WP:HISTRS, many primary sources as well. Noorullah (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are only 2 primary sources mentioned, and the authors I cited are historians who aswell proved the event that happened the deletion is unnessecary. Alvin1783 (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded Keep argument here so Soft Deletion is not appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Goindval[edit]

Battle of Goindval (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another one of these poorly sourced pages that fail WP:HISTRS, many primary sources that could also categorize under WP:RAJ. Noorullah (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Primary sources that were earlier indicated have been removed and the work is not mirroring others, the article looks decent and is sourced well and has been cleaned up nicely and can stay as per WP:HEY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Festivalfalcon873 (talk • contribs) 2024-05-11 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please add your signature to any comments in an AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment by Festivalfalcon873 , thank you , I will do this from now on. Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-- The article is still littered with plenty of old sources that are not WP:RS. There is nothing "cleaned up" besides the removal of one primary source which does not account for all the other sources that mentioned above, are poor in quality. [24] Noorullah (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not use a single WP:RAJ source and contains mostly scholarly sources, now coming to your assessment of reliability. Your nominations are not dependent upon constructive criticism or from a neutral standpoint. You did not identify upon which sources you think are unreliable, the sources that are being used are more then WP:RS such as Hari Ram Gupta, however your criticism or nominations do not come from neutral standpoint.  For ex: if a source fits your narrative it becomes reliable, if a source does not fit your narrative then it’s deemed unreliable. This article should stay as per WP:HEY as the sources currently being used such as Hari Ram Gupta , Ganda Singh are universally approved scholars.
—Festivalfalcon873 Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article was using WP:RAJ sources until you REMOVED them, not sure why you are presenting it as if they weren't here in the first place. [25]
Hari Ram Gupta is a reliable source, but he does not mention it as a "Sikh victory", nor mentions anything about looting, or how many prisoners were relieved as shown here. [26]
Moving on to other sources... You cite Mehta, yet on page 302, there's no mention of such a battle at all? Why are you citing from books that don't mention such a thing? [27]
Gopal Singh is a primary source, and is not scholarly at all. The rest of the sources are unreliable that fail WP:HISTRS, many of the individuals not being historians either. Noorullah (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention, reliable sources don't even call this the "Battle of Goindval" as Southasian showed above, there's no instance of this being a battle. Noorullah (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-- First, the issue of being Wikipedia:RAJbeing present is fixed, as this has been removed. This should not be any issue as pointed out initially.
- Second, Hari Ram Gupta mentions clearly on pg 168, “At the ferry of Goindwal on the Beas the Sikhs are said to have relieved the invader of a number of captives, who were afterwards sent to their homes” citing sources such as Shamshir Khalsa pg105 ,( https://archive.org/details/HistoryOfTheSikhsVol.IiEvolutionOfSikhConfederacies1707-69/page/n184/mode/1up) this source, as you pointed out is a WP:RS. During this battle, the objective (releasing captives) was complete & thus a victory. Similarly in the book Ahmad Shah Durrani (1959) by Singh Ganda ,pg 264, “No sooner did the Shah enter the Panjab than the Sikhs, as usual, began to harry him during his march. Under the command of Sardar Jassa Singh Ahluwalia, they surprised the Afghans at the ferry of Goindwal, on the right bank of the Beas, and succeeded in releasing from their clutches as many as two thousand and two hundred women captives, who were restored by them to their homes.” (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.503016/page/n292/mode/1up) Similarly this source is also citing from same Shamshir Khalsa pg105 , mentioning the numbers and quoting of the Sikhs succeeding (victory) in completing their objective. Both are scholarly sources which are citing factual evidence.
- Third, you made a mistake that Mehta did not cite this occurrence. Mehta both showed this occurrence and spoke of Sikhs making their attack and succeeding in their objective of releasing captives. Now let me show you, from Advanced Study in the History of Modern India 1707-1813 page 302, “They made a surprise attack on the Afghan camp in strength at the ferry of Goindwal on the Beas and secured the liberation of a large number of the Maratha captives, who were being held by the Afghans as enslaved labourers for the carriage of their baggage to Afghanistan; they were subsequently sent to their homes in the south with suitable provisions.” Here is the clear factual description of the battle or occurrence which is being written but you deny for your own personal viewpoints. You pointed out further that it does not talk about looting , now going back to Advanced Study in the History of Modern India 1707-1813 pg302 by Mehta it perfectly describes the looting occurred, “ Nevertheless, they pounced upon the staggerers and carried away their booty and the baggage along with their horses all the same”. (https://books.google.com/books?id=d1wUgKKzawoC&pg=PA302&lpg=PA302&dq=%22Nevertheless,+they+pounced+upon+the+staggerers+and+carried+away+their+booty+and+the+baggage+along+with+their+horses+all+the+same%22&source=bl&ots=HOSZf38kUl&sig=ACfU3U080Q5ItKoniFa0n5ysIrLIUaEKyg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi72fXMwImGAxWJIDQIHb0pDLIQ6AF6BAgUEAI#v=onepage&q&f=false) Therefore your statement on both things your pointed is factually incorrect.
- Fourth, again you made a mistake. Dr. Gopal Singh is a scholarly source and as noted here (https://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Gopal_Singh) whose work has been lauded by other scholars and literary figures including Nobel laureate Pearl Buck , who is onpar in credibility to that of J.S Grewal and Hari Gupta which are more then WP:RS.
-Even prominent historians & scholars such as Ganda Singh agree in the book Jassa Singh Auliwalia on pg 106 that this battle attack which occurred on Goindwal was successful , “Therefore, S. Jassa Singh drew his sword and taking a few selected Singhs with him reiched Goindwal and attacked the Durranis when they were crossing the river ; even before they could imagine what had happened, he freed the bonded women. He gave them pocket expenses and sent them to their respective places. This sympathy and bravery made S. Jassa Singh famous in the length and breadth of the entire country, and his valour and selfless service became a household word, and he became famous as a Liberator of bonded women.” ( https://apnaorg.com/books/english/sardar-jassa-singh-ahluwalia/sardar-jassa-singh-ahluwalia.pdf). Therefore the credibility of this event should be accepted by the reviewer of this discussion.
- If there are further issues or concerns that need to be fixed , such as unreliable sources or issues in the article, then it is the job of the nominator to point them out and identify them and describe them. However, to generalize something because you don’t agree with it based mostly on personal reasons, such as not personally agreeing with an author, then is not suitable for the platform on Wikipedia. Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but please follow WP:KEEPCONCISE. See Wikipedia:Wall of text. I'm not going to read that but here's instead the main point I'm driving. The title of this page is completely WP:OR, no sources mention it as a "battle of Goinvdal".Noorullah (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, notable reliable historians such as Mehta, Hari Ram Gupta and Ganda Singh and Saggu have noted this place , Goindwal, was where the occurrence of the attack took place. Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 06:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Urozhaine[edit]

Battle of Urozhaine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is getting excessive. Yet another content fork article of a non-battle in this war. Uncountable such articles have been deleted already, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Tokmak, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Chuhuiv, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Dvorichna, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Krasnohorivka, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Russian offensive, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Orlivka. Measures should be taken against users continously recreating content forks and lacking the capacity of discerning if a topic is notable or not.

Fighting at Urozhaine is not notable nor relevant enough for having an article of its own. It can be covered in any other article such as Southern Ukraine campaign or Urozhaine. There was already fighting in the village last year and it was covered at 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. The content of this article is already pretty ridiculous, it is said "Little is known for the battle itself" so I don't know why do we have an article for it ("as it just started"; see WP:DEADLINE). This battle over a small settlement is very unlikely to become notable in the future, and if it does the time for having an article will be then and not now. Also a source from 25 April 2024 is given to confirm territorial changes of the battle that supposedly started on 1 May. Super Ψ Dro 12:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't really matter. The article is clearly not notable, so it should be deleted. I don't get the "WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST" thing, I have just shown that this topic area is prone to repeated creation of non-notable content. Super Ψ Dro 07:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support deletion of this article per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The term "Battle of Urozhaine" does not exist in reliable sources. The ISW-CTP citations here say nothing of a "battle of" or "battle for" the location and only make passing mentions of combat in the region. The NYT citation here does not mention Urozhaine either. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 04:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Better sourcing is needed rather than an article deletion Salfanto (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Salfanto has a huge record of creating problematic articles. Evidence is their talk page full of notices [28]. I am fairly convinced Salfanto does not have a good grasp of what notability is and they are voting to keep because deleting articles = bad. Super Ψ Dro 18:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I am trying to say is that editors should put more effort into improving articles rather than nominating to delete them all the time. Articles should only be deleted if they have no notability whatsoever. For example, if only a few sources mention the article's topic. Salfanto (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battles of Inje and Qalaburun[edit]

Battles of Inje and Qalaburun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of many poorly created articles translated from the Azeri Wikipedia (for more details, see [29]).

Nothing comes up when searching "Battles of Inje and Qalaburun", which makes me fail to see how it meets the notable criteria. And the most cited sources here (5 out of 6 citations) is by a genocide denier [30] Jamil Hasanli, who is also closely connected to the Aliyev-ruled Azerbaijani government, notorious for its historical negationism/revisionism [31] [32] [33] and anti-Iranian sentiments [34], which is not really ideal for an article about the history of Iran. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carrier Air Group SIX[edit]

Carrier Air Group SIX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this formation meets the GNG. Of the currently-cited sources, 2, 3, and 5 are self-published, not independent, and not reliable (except for direct quotes from Navy documents in source 3). Source 1 [35] seems to list only establishment and disestablishment dates (not sigcov), which is more than I expected from a source supposedly covering "1910-1920" – it seems the citing editor made a typo, the citation should read "1910-2010". Source 4 [36] doesn't seem to mention this unit at all. In sum, there are 0 sources that count toward the GNG, and I couldn't find anything in a before search. Toadspike (talk) 10:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This can also be redirected to List of United States Navy aircraft wings. Toadspike (talk) 10:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject is notable. WP:BEFORE seems to have overlooked Moroson, Lundstrom, Hammel, and books on the Battle of the Eastern Solomons or the Battle of Philippine Sea. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am willing to withdraw this nomination if you can properly cite those books in the article. With that information alone, it is very hard to know what books you are talking about. For example, I don't know how to find a book by "Moroson", and could not find one with such a name on either battle you mentioned. Toadspike (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carrier Air Group TEN[edit]

Carrier Air Group TEN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage in reliable sources. Citation 1, while reliable, contains nothing more than the dates during which this formation existed [37]. Citations 2-4 seem to be self-published blogs and thus not reliable. Citation 5 seems to be about a different unit entirely, and citation 6 is a dead link that isn't in the Internet Archive. While I don't doubt that this unit existed, there is no evidence that it deserves a standalone article. Toadspike (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This formation has an entry at List of United States Navy aircraft wings. I would support that page as a redirect target. Toadspike (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Carrier Air Wing Ten. All of the other WW2 era (with the exception of the Enterprise Air Group page) have their history in the pages of the Air Wings that succeeded them after that 1940s. Tdhla1 (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Carrier Air Wing Ten is not the same formation though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Hawkeye7 here, this is a different formation. Toadspike (talk) 08:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Rutter[edit]

Luke Rutter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on a British man killed fighting in Syria. Seems completely non notable, was only reported in the news because he died. A sad event, but not one that makes him notable. No sustained coverage of him since this either, all sources seem to be directly after his death/repatriation in 2017. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:48, 9 May 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.

Bajirao's Konkan Campaign[edit]

Bajirao's Konkan Campaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is entirely based on original research and the synthesis of multiple events involving various states. It discusses military conflicts labeled as "Bajirao's Konkan Campaign," incorporating entities such as the Siddis, Nizam of Hyderabad, the British East India Company, and the Portuguese Empire. However, no reliable sources consider all these entities as belligerent allies against the Marathas during Bajirao I's campaign. The creator has conflated conflicts involving Bajirao with those of other kingdoms/states/entities and inserted "Maratha victory" in the infobox, despite the differing outcomes recorded in historical records. It's unclear what the author intended, but the content of the article largely duplicates information already present in numerous parent articles. This attempt seems to glorify an entity through the use of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, combining unrelated conflicts. Imperial[AFCND] 16:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or draft I have spent days in it so please I would request the closer to draft this page if not keep, I have added reliable sources covering this campaign, if there are possible OR and SYNTH then I'd fix it.
Mnbnjghiryurr (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment:If articles of this kind fall within the scope, we could also maintain an article titled Alexander the Great's Punjab Campaign, alongside Indian campaign of Alexander the Great and Battle of Hydaspes. Ironically, this would involve including both the Achaemenid Empire and the Pauravas in a single infobox!! That would afford everyone an opportunity to express their creativity, but this isn't the appropriate venue for it.--Imperial[AFCND] 16:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gauda–Gupta War[edit]

Gauda–Gupta War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If the article focuses solely on the conflicts between the Gauda kingdom and the Guptas, it lacks WP:RS and historians do not consider these mutual campaigns as a single state of war, known as the "Gauda—Gupta War(s)". If we include the mutual conflicts between the Guptas and Gaudas in the article's scope, it becomes a result of original research and the synthesis of multiple conflicts. The conflicts involving Ishanavarman, Jivitagupta I, and Gopachandra are mentioned, but figures such as Kumaragupta III, Dharmaditya, and Samacharadeva are not addressed in the War section, but in the infobox. Upon reviewing the sources, authors are uncertain about the statements, with a weak consensus. In essence, the article combines non-notable military conflicts, cited by low-quality sources, involving different kingdoms—the Maukhari dynasty and the Later Gupta dynasty—against the Gauda kingdom, and labels it as the "Gauda—Gupta War". It adds minor conflicts to create the impression of significance, which is not justified. The article fails to meet GNG and contains original research. There are significant issues to address, AFD is limiting the discourse. Imperial[AFCND] 13:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep @ImperialAficionado There's no synthesis and OR, every cited source comes to the conclusion that Maukharis and later Guptas fought against Gaudas on behalf of the Gupta emperor.
  • It's quite likely that the war of Ishanavarman against the Gaudas whom he had forced to take shelter on the sea shore and the victory of Jivitagupta I over the enemies who stood on the sea-shore, refer to the expeditions launched by the Maukharis and the Later Guptas, separately or jointly, against the kings of Bengal discussed above who had declared their independence of the empire and had assumed the imperial title. Probably, the Maukhari and the Later Gupta rulers undertook these campaigns in the name of the Gupta emperor who was their nominal overlord, though their success increased their own power, and not of the emperor. From Goyal (1967).
  • The people of Gauda (W. Bengal) also achieved prominence, and a Maukhari chief claims to have defeated them. The Later Guptas also fought against some enemies who lived on the sea-shore. The reference in both cases may be to the kings of Bengal mentioned above, and the military campaigns of the Maukharis and the Later Guptas might have been undertaken, jointly or severally, on behalf of the Gupta emperor, their nominal overlord. Majumdar (1970).
Quoting these two should be enough. The other sources are right there, you should have thoroughly verified it before proposing AFD for this article. According to nom it's cited with low quality sources seriously? As far as I know the works of S.R. Goyal, R.C. Majumdar, K.K Dasgupta, H.K Barpujari and others are qualitatively reliable. If nom has any doubt for the cited sources then they should verify those at RSN.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonharojjashi (talk • contribs)
@Jonharojjashi, cited with low quality sources is referring my earlier statement in the proposal authors are uncertain about the statements, with a weak consensus, take the time to read the whole proposal reason. The weakness of the statements from the sources are evident from the above quotes, presented by yourself above. It's quite likely that...Probably, the Maukhari and the Later Gupta rulers un... from Goyal and The reference in both cases may be to the kings of Bengal mentioned above...and the Later Guptas might have been undertaken, jointly or from Majumdar. Keeping this weak statements aside, surprisingly I couldn't find any latest records about the event(s).--Imperial[AFCND] 17:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the issue then the article body should reflect the sources whether they have "weak consensus" or not. And that is what I have done in The War section. From what I have seen, many articles are made after being based on even less consensus, like Sasanian–Kushan Wars, you should also see my question regarding this at the help desk [38], and here the sources do say "possibly" so I can do the same in Infobox and article body (basically I'm reflecting what the sources say). Again I don't get what the problem is, just because sources hold weak consensus thus they are of low quality? And you didn't answer where does it contains synthesis and OR. Looks like you didn't even read the article and verify it with the cited sources and stuck to the possilikely words. -- Jonharojjashi (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear. That's why I said AFD is limiting the discourse, I need a bigger space to expose the whole mess within the article. And no need to drag Sasanian–Kushan Wars here. Take that to the respective talk section if you have any problem with it. Imperial[AFCND] 17:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No that should not be a reason, AFD is what exactly for highlighting all the cons of the article, there's no limiting discourse. Just say you can't show where this article contains synthesis, OR and weak sources. You're free to expose any drawbacks of this page. There's no need to be in the grey area. I'd assume that you're either procrastinating or failing to prove your points.
I'm not dragging Sasanian–Kushan Wars here instead, I cleared your doubts regarding "weak consensus" through it. Don't just throw away it by saying no need to drag.
For other voters: Note that there's an AFD discussion going on their own page [39] and also note that the nom hasn't clearly provided anything to show this article holds any OR, synthesis and weak sources. Jonharojjashi (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Huliaipole[edit]

Battle of Huliaipole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No named event of this name in sources. Events not independently notable to warrant a stand alone article (GNG/NOTNEWS). The brief incursion into Huliaipole is already sufficiently covered at Southern Ukraine campaign. Ongoing shelling is sufficiently covered at Huliaipole. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: As the principal author of the article, I would be remiss not to comment that I've put a lot of work into this and would be devastated to see it all thrown in the trash container. I'm not opposed to less notable events being cut down (previous edits have already been made by others to this effect) but I would ask that if this moves towards deletion, that relevant information be merged into relevant articles. Not voting either way right now, just asking that participants take this into consideration. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Super Dromaeosaurus, RadioactiveBoulevardier, Jebiguess, and HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: Pinging previous talk page participants. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion - The article is well-sourced and extensive, and the sources showcase that there is more than enough for an article (Thus I strongly disaagree with Cinderella's statement that the "Events [are] not independently notable"). However, I think concerns about the article name are valid in relation to the article content. Thus, I propopse that insteads of deleting the article, we should rename it to Huliaipole during the Russian invasion of Ukraine or History of Huliaipole (2022–2024) to save the valuable work done for the article, while clarifying that this is the history of a certain city during a war instead of a single battle. Applodion (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename into Huliaipole during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There is significant coverage of this town during the war and the battles for it, but I don't think any individual battle for the city or it's outskirts is notable for its own article. I also think that describing the city's role as one continuous battle is disingenuous; renaming the article to the the history of the town during the war and the role it played as one of the major cities on the southern front more than establishes notability while keeping the bulk of the information. Jebiguess (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion. Deletion seems unnecessary, but I think changing the article’s name would be fine. Professor Penguino (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There exists no named "Battle of Huliaipole" in reliable sources, as Cinderella157 has mentioned, and I agree with Jebiguess that portraying these events as a battle is "disingenuous"; there appears to be strong consensus that, at least, the current title should not be retained.
The real debate lies in what to do with the content of the page, as the notability of the events has been called into question. Let us analyze the content of this article. One could probably divide most of it into two categories: (1) bombardment of the city of Huliaipole and (2) combat on the front line in some villages south of the city. Honestly speaking, much of the latter probably does not belong here - there is excessive undue mention of places a significant distance from the city, such as Novodarivka, Mala Tokmachka, and Velyka Novosilka.
With respect to the former category: the city lies close to a front line that has been largely stable for two years, so it is understandably a regular target of artillery bombardment. We do not have similar articles for other such frequently attacked places, nor should we be expected to – at a certain point, the 50th instance of "Russian forces shelled Huliaipole" is simply not notable enough for inclusion – this content should be dramatically condensed. Consider, for example, the sections for March 2024 and April 2024, and then read WP:NOTEVERYTHING. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge useful content without redirect per SaintPaulOfTarsus. Agree with nom that the article is yet another non-battle. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An analysis of the sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page has over 300 references. Could you clarify what should be analyzed, and what the purpose of the analysis would be? SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article typically needs two or three solid sources providing significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. Analyzing such two or three refs among those 300 will likely go a long way towards establishing notability. Owen× ☎ 22:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Owenx: The problem of this article is not really one of notability or significant coverage of the "Battle of Huliaipole" itself – We cannot establish notability for an event has been conceptualized and given a name by Wikipedia editors alone, and does not exist anywhere else. Nearly all participants in this discussion, by my count, are of the mind that the current title is not ideal because this page is essentially a patchwork of nearly every article that happens to mention Huliapole in any war-related context. Take, for example:

On 5 November, Ivan Fedorov gave an interview with Ukrinform, in which he claimed that detained residents of Melitopol were being used by the Russian military to dig trenches around Huliaipole.

from this source:

How many residents of the Melitopol district are in captivity? Daily statistics change. More than a hundred Someone is already in a pre-trial detention center in Moscow, someone is digging trenches near Huliaipole. They are looking for partisans, but cannot find them.

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 07:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For the record, I was never happy about the title, I raised issues with it years ago and even before it was created. This article was effectively a content fork from the article on the city, as coverage of how the war affected the city quickly came to overrun the rest of the article. The title simply stuck out of inertia, as I was the only person that stayed around to update the article in the long term, and my attempts to gain consensus on a move or merge went nowhere. I'd still support either of these options, as proposed above. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The title is irrelevant for AfD. The closing admin will likely ignore !votes that are based solely on the inappropriateness of the title. The only question before us in this AfD is: could the events described in the body of the article meet our notability guidelines (e.g., WP:NEVENT), based on existing sources, and is this notability independent of that of more general events, such as those described in Southern Ukraine campaign? If, and only if, the answer to both questions is Yes, the article will be kept, and discussion may then commence about giving it a better title. At this point, the title should be seen as a placeholder. Debating it here is a distraction. Owen× ☎ 10:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is pertinent from Grnrchst's comment is that this is an inappropriate content fork and therefore not independently notable. The metric of how many sources are cited does not of itself establish notability. Almost all of these are WP:NEWSORG and none are peer reviewed (that I can see). Those I do not class as NEWSORG are think tanks, predominantly ISW that makes regular summary updates of events and are only a short step away from being a NEWSORG in spirit. Most of these sources make only the briefest passing mentions of Huliaipole. I sampled three citations (100 Ukrainska Pravda 4 July 2023, 200 Ukrainska Pravda 23 December 2023 and 300 France24 22 May 2023). They each make a single mention of Huliaipole:

  • [Russian forces] ... deployed artillery to attack more than 30 settlements, including Levadne, Olhivske, Malynivka, Huliaipole, Bilohirya (Zaporizhzhia Oblast); Zmiivka, Lvove, Tokarivka, Antonivka, Veletenske, Stanislav (Kherson Oblast) and the city of Kherson.
  • Around 20 civilian settlements came under Russian artillery and mortar fire, including Poltavka, Huliaipole, Charivne, Mala Tokmachka and Robotyne (Zaporizhzhia Oblast).
  • The team [of Ukrainian volunteers] has been setting up a shelter in Huliaipole, a devastated town in the Zaporizhzhia region.

Collectively, these sources are an indiscriminate collection of routine reporting that lack depth and produce no evidence of lasting independent notability. They do not establish WP:NEVENT. There is some relevance to the article on Huliaipole and the southern Ukraine campaign but that which is noteworthy from such reporting has already been effectively summarised in those articles. This is not a named event there is no reasonable rationale to maintain the article as a place-holder. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goražde Incident[edit]

Goražde Incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed draftification, so we are at AfD. WP:NOTNEWS applies even though this is historical news. No real context. There may be a valid target to redirect and merge to. In the absence of that I suggest draftify pending further work. Not ready for mainspace 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Breen (human rights activist)[edit]

Michael Breen (human rights activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD for individual who fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. WP:BEFORE search does not turn up significant coverage. Existing article is a WP:REFBOMB of sources that fail to demonstrate notability. Sources 1/23, 6, 7/9/11, 15 and 25 are non-independent press releases or official bios, 2, 3 and 19 are trivial mentions in long lists; 4, 10, 14, 21 and 28 32 are passing mentions in coverage of other topics, 5 and 8, 27, 33 and 34 are WP:INTERVIEWS and thus primary sources; 13, 16, 17, 20, 22, 26, 29, 30 and 31 are self-authored material by the subject. 24 does not mention the subject. Only 12 might qualify as SIGCOV, but we need multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Americans killed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine[edit]

List of Americans killed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mainly due to lack of notability, WP:NOTNEWS, and the obvious bias issue in having this list. In addition the list contained original research listing the Telegram channel 'TrackANaziMerc' as a source since February. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting topic.... would have never searched for it on my own. There seems to be substantial sourcing for this if it wants to be improved no? Moxy🍁 20:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are the only two sources I could find that treat the topic as a group: [40] (paywalled so can't review) and [41], and this latter source isn't very in depth about it. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been able to read the Washington Post link thanks to a gift I was sent: I don't believe the Washington Post is dealing with solely Americans having been killed in the war, but rather the idea and reasons behind Americans serving overseas in Ukraine - the Washington Post article is more suited for foreign fighters in the Russo-Ukrainian War rather than this list. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, I got a proposal to change the topic to "List of Americans killed in the Russo-Ukrainian War" , which @EkoGraf, the creator of the list, doesn't oppose to it, maybe we could change the topic first before we nominate to delete?
PoisonHK Sapiens dominabitur astris 14:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The title/period isn't the issue with the list. Also speedy keep cannot apply here. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, also article is incomplete and need expantion. If the title is changed to List of Americans killed in the Russo-Ukrainian War we should include American killed during the War in Donbas 2014-2021.Mr.User200 (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it pass notability and WP:RS with sources as The Guardian, Politico and Yahoo News. Shadow4dark (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But do they deal with the topic as a group like this? Routine news coverage doesn't establish notability of the topic as a list. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Replace "Routine news" with better sources, it pass clearly notability. Shadow4dark (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What? Traumnovelle (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as article creator, notability established as mentioned by RS, also agree to article expansion to include those from the Donbas War. EkoGraf (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Regarding lack of notability, NOTNEWS, and bias, I disagree with all three. I think it's pretty notable and informative for Americans and others to known how many died in a war they heavily funded. NOTNEWS I think is exempt in a list. To achieve completeness a list often must exhaust news coverage. And bias, I agree and disagree, but don't believe it's a problem. Making a list of Americans killed only shows coverage bias, similar to how there are so many pages and information about alleged Russian war crimes and negative stuff about Russia but very few covering the other side, Ukraine. That's mostly because most editors show more interest in writing about negative Russian things and because most sources that cover the alleged Ukrainian crimes are suppressed in Wikipedia. In such cases, I think the better solution is simply to also write about the other side, not remove the favored side. Thus, a list of other foreign nationals killed would also be important. Btw, doesn't such global list exist? If it does, then the American-only list should be merged in it and not stick out.
Regarding the alleged WP:OR, I haven't checked. If there are problems, then they should be solved, but I don't think deleting the page just because of it is ideal. I'm not following this thread, so ping me if you want a reply. Alexis Coutinho (talk) [ping me] 21:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's the exact same routine coverage of non-American foreign civilians/soldiers killed in Ukraine during the current Russo-Ukraine war.
The only similar article I could find was list of deaths during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which includes people with Wikipedia articles, for the few that don't have one they appear to be important politicians or military officials. @Alexiscoutinho Traumnovelle (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
👍. Regarding the other list being of people with articles, I think it would be unfair to omit people without articles or military career (here). 🤔 Alexis Coutinho (talk) [ping me] 15:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it's to have a US specific list about a war being fought in Eastern Europe by two European countries. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others, particularly Alexis Coutinho. Needs some improvement but shouldn't be deleted Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep The article serves a historical purpose Salfanto (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All Keep votes above sum up to ILIKEIT, ITSUSEFUL, and THEREMUSTBESOURCES. None give an actual policy-based reason to keep. Per nominator, there is no coverage of this topic as a group, only individual instances. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will also say that there are several other lists for other countries that should likely also be deleted unless good sources are found for those countries. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. The fact this is simply a list, not an in-depth article, also hobbles this entry.TH1980 (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails NLIST, sources do not show there is WP:SIRS discussing this as a group. List contains only non-notable entries (one exception), serves no purpose per WP:CLN. Keep votes above are ILIKEIT and provide no sources showing this had been discussed as a group or guidelines showing why the should be kept.  // Timothy :: talk  19:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It seems like there is a lack of policy-based reasons on both sides of this discussion. ITSUSEFUL isn't a strong defense but neither is the proposition of bias because we don't have articles on soldiers who have been killed from other countries. There are always other articles that have yet to be written.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This is like the lists of 9/11 victims that pop up every so often in AfD; most of these people aren't otherwise notable. Looking at the list even 10 yrs from now, most still won't be notable. NOTMEMORIAL applies. To be blunt, many people pass away in tragedies like this event and as in 9/11, most aren't notable 10 or 20 yrs later; having a list of xyz that passed away doesn't serve any purpose other than as a memorial. The only individuals looking at Brendon Bowersox as an example in 20 yrs are likely to be family members or perhaps a very small group of historians. To the broader public, he would simply be another individual that passed away, who's name you can switch with any other from the list and it wouldn't make any difference for notability. Not to belittle any of these individuals or their contributions, but not everyone that passes away in a conflict needs a wikipedia article or even to be listed in a long list of otherwise non-notable people. Oaktree b (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honorary Chaplain to the King[edit]

Honorary Chaplain to the King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is fundamentally flawed. The position of Honorary Chaplain to the King is a military appointment, for serving regular and reserve chaplains in the British and some Commonwealth armed forces. However much of the text refers to Chaplains to the King, who are members of the Ecclesiastical Household of the Royal Household, and are civilians, usually senior parish priests. I do not believe that the article can be repaired. As an alternative to deletion it would have to be wholly rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncox001 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC); listed on the log at 21:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The nominator's contention is incorrect - Honorary Chaplain to the King is NOT a military appointment. In recent times a number of HCs have been appointed from the forces but many are also appointed who have no link to the forces. All are absolutely part of the ecclesiastical household. As such, the assertion that the article "cannot be repaired" is flawed. It should be improved, perhaps by starting here (p304) which details the creation of the position in 1881.----Pontificalibus 06:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As lacking significant in-depth coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Also per WP:TNT: if someone believes this topic is notable, create a new article that's not a mess like this and with sufficient sources. AusLondonder (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep TNT is not necessary for a small stub such as this, any corrections can be made in situ. Has reliable sources book coverage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here, the discussion is ongoing and would benefit from editors knowledgeable about this subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep An interesting and informative article about a position not necessarily written about often, nor well-known outside the UK. This would be even better with expansion. — Maile (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ajmer[edit]

Battle of Ajmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no such a battle named "Battle of Ajmer" in any of the WP:RS nor any Historians named a battle as "Battle of Ajmer" between Mher tribe and Ghurids. The article body talks about a conflict between Mher tribe and Ghurids, whereas the infobox describes Rajputs as the belligerents. Neither from the source of R. C Majumdar, nor from Romila Thapar, I could even find a scattered line about this event. The actual event per cited is the prelude of Battle of Kasahrada (1197). The current content could be added into this parent article (edit: it is already present the background section). Fails WP:GNG, and not found any RS calling the event by the name of "Battle of Ajmer". Imperial[AFCND] 05:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Geography, and India. Imperial[AFCND] 05:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify or Very Weak Keep. The sources from Majumdar and Thapar, like ImperialAficionado I too could not verify or find on this Battle and would have opted for delete but the source from Dr Ashoka Srivastav from Department of history at University of Gorakhpur had me hanging from where the page got its attribution from. There is need for improvement on this page and some more detail that is missing or wrong about the battle, siege, and the belligerents. From Srivastav Belligerents were Mhers, many Hindu Rajas, Raja of Nagor, Raja of Nahrwala. It does not say Rajputs. More sources will help too. RangersRus (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 10:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is rapidly filling up with made-up Indian battles. Mccapra (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

29 Armoured Engineer Squadron[edit]

29 Armoured Engineer Squadron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In my opinion, the article is not notable. Similiar units almost certainly would not have an article. Only one reference is listed and it is not independent of the topic of the article.. PercyPigUK (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom. PercyPigUK (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was going to vote to redirect this to the parent unit, but I'm really not sure what that unit actually is. It most recently seems to have been part of 35 Engineer Regiment but our article doesn't record that as currently being the case. Anyone know what the most suitable redirect is? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Royal Engineers might be the most suitable option. PercyPigUK (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, two suggested redirect target articles, are either appropriate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 no consensus‎. There seems to be some agreement that there's unnecessary duplication between the various articles listing equipment, but no consensus as to which should be the primary article for this list, with at least three different pages proposed here. Discussion on a selective merger should continue on the respective article Talk pages. Owen× ☎ 11:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Polish military aircraft[edit]

List of Polish military aircraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list is unnecessary duplicate of Polish Air Force#Aircraft, List of equipment of the Polish Land Forces#Aircraft and Polish Navy#Aircraft. I don't see any good reason to such duplication, given that duplication is generally discouraged in Wikipedia as duplicate articles is difficult to maintain, and also outlined in WP:DUPLICATE.

Aside of duplication issue. It seems the duplicate article is created to trying to work around the consensus to not put aircraft image into the inventory table which was recently informed to creator of this duplicate article. Ckfasdf (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: If the list is only duplicate to either Polish Air Force#Aircraft and List of equipment of the Polish Land Forces#Aircraft, then I would suggest to merge/redirect to one of them per WP:MERGEREASON. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note (2): the article is now also duplicate with to Polish Navy#Aircraft, so the lead sentence is revised to reflect this duplicate. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note (3): also tried WP:A10, but was blocked. lead sentence is rewrited to remove duplicate arguments. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics:

Military, Transportation, Lists, and Poland. Skynxnex (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: If this should be deleted, then be consistent and recommend the deletion of:
Because individual lists exist for each branch, and then another summary exists. The problem of the list in the other pages is that it lacks details, and people don't want additional details there. At least here, there is more clarity.
If the images are a problem, then it should be a problem with
Fabrice Ram (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information, if it was really a duplicate then it may be on my next to do list. Afeterall, I do have history to remove duplicate table Air Force inventory table in the past, such as Yemeni Air Force, Gabon Air Force, Indonesian Air Force, and more. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focusre: This article is duplicate of Polish Air Force#Aircraft and Polish Land Forces#Aircraft and Wikipedia in general is against duplication articles. Regarding images on table, we have a consensus to not put aircraft image into the inventory table, and intentionally ignoring the consensus may be considered as disruptive editing. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You link to a discussion had in 2015, with 4 wanting to get rid of images like this, and 1 wanting to keep it. So 5 people decided something in a two week discussion most never noticed, 9 years ago. I think a new discussion is warranted with greater participation, and not just about aircraft, but list of tanks, ships, and whatnot. Dream Focus 08:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that consensus can change per WP:CCC. However, until new consensus reached, it doesn't means we can disregard existing consensus. Ckfasdf (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The presence or absence of photos is irrelevant re AfD. @Ckfasdf: put the "disruptive editing" cudgel away.  // Timothy :: talk  15:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zakaria1978: If we look up Russian Aerospace Forces, Russian Naval Aviation and Russian Ground Forces, we'll notice that none of them include aircraft inventory tables. Instead, all Russian military aircraft are listed in the article titled List of active Russian military aircraft, hence no duplication issue or not WP:REDUNDANTFORK. However, this differs from the approach taken in Polish military articles, where each branch has its own aircraft inventory table: Polish Air Force#Aircraft, Polish Land Forces#Aircraft and Polish Navy#Aircraft. These tables are duplicate information found in the List of Polish military aircraft. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Content is well sourced, I can't see merging with parents due to size, community consensus accepts these military equipment lists generally meet notability requirements. I do think the duplicate lists in the individual branch articles should be removed and replaced with a hat pointing to the appropriate spot in this list, eg: rm Polish Air Force#Aircraft and replace with hatnote to List of Polish military aircraft#Polish air force.  // Timothy :: talk  07:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TimothyBlue: The existing parent articles (such as Polish Air Force, Polish Land Forces, and Polish Navy) already contain lists of military equipment. According to WP:SIZE, a WP:SPINOFF is warranted only if there are concerns about article size. However, the parent articles size are not excessively large, ranging from only 250-350kB. Therefore, there appears to be no necessity for a WP:SPLITLIST at this time. Ckfasdf (talk) 07:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything is not black and white, there are plenty of gray areas where an issue is either up to editorial discretion or community consensus. In this case their is a community consensus that these lists (Lists of military equipment) are generally notable, useful for readers, and having the information in one place is easier to keep updated. I see no reason to have this information split into multiple articles. The editors in this thread seem to agree.  // Timothy :: talk  15:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While it's true that not everything is black and white, plenty of gray, and there are even times when rules can be ignored per WP:IAR, there must be a compelling reason to justify such exceptions, like bypassing WP:SIZE guidelines. While the List by itself is generally notable, the issue at hand involves potential duplication. If we look up other Air Forces pages, it's evident that out of 147 Air Force articles, 128 integrate the inventory table into the air forces article itself, while only 17 opt for separate presentation, including as a List. This indicates that the most common or preferred approach to displaying aircraft inventory table to readers is within the air force article itself. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Transclusion can be a solution if keeping material current is a concern. See List of active United States Air Force aircraft. Schierbecker (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is a very well phrased rationale; issues have been identified, alternatives have been considered, and deletion has been requested in accordance with our policies and guidelines. The only reason to keep would be to merge it properly by removing the texts from the 3 source pages and removing the images as demanded by Convention. NLeeuw (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here yet. The nominator might have more success with a compelling Merger proposal rather than a strong demand to delete an article that other editors find appropriate. But without providing a new perspective, this discussion is verging on bludgeoning.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend: As I mentioned on the lead, if the list is only duplicate to either Polish Air Force#Aircraft, List of equipment of the Polish Land Forces#Aircraft, or Polish Navy#Aircraft, then I would suggest to merge/redirect to one of them per WP:MERGEREASON. But, they are three different list belong to different branch of armed forces. And 128 of 147 Air Force articles integrate the inventory table into the air forces article itself, which indicates the most common or preferred approach to displaying aircraft inventory table. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:52, 10 May 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.

146th Air Support Operations Squadron[edit]

146th Air Support Operations Squadron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It exists but there is limited coverage (article currently unreferenced, with some possible sources which could be added). I couldn't see that it meets WP:ORG / WP:GNG in its own right, or a suitable merge target. Boleyn (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Hawkeye7, though this page does need some cleanup Claire 26 (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to review sources presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • A Redirect to 137th Special Operations Wing is cheap and keeps the entire page history intact. We don't conclude keep on an article which has no reliable independent sourcing, no matter how many bolded keep assertions are made. I assert redirect to the parent unit's page until direct detailing in multiple and diverse reliable sources is presented and inserted. BusterD (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Major unit with plenty of sources. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Major unit? Eight aircraft? What sources do you have that this is a major unit. Assertions are not proof. At the risk of being accused of !voting twice, there are zero sources applied to the page, and none of the links provided by worthy Hawkeye7 meet independence of the subject. Even a wp:sportsperson requires at least a single source which directly details. Here we have none, nothing, nada. This discussion cannot be closed as keep without sourcing which meets RS. BusterD (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources do not have to be applied to the page; it is sufficient that they exist. I have supplied a short list of web sites (eg [47]) referencing the subject and the claim that they are not wikipedia:Independent sources is the only assertion without proof here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the presented sources meets independence because (as you are fully aware), each is an official US military source. "Official United States Air Force Website" on the bottom of each of these af.mil sources makes them connected. ok.ng.mil is another connected source. afspecialwarfare.com is a third. www.dvidshub.net actually says it's a US Department of Defense website. The burden is on those asserting keep who must demonstrate such sources exist, User:Hawkeye7. I'm only asking for IRS; that's policy. I don't dispute the unit is verified; I merely hold to standards of inclusion to which the community has agreed. BusterD (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A "major unit" in British military terminology (I'm British) is a designation for a battalion-sized unit commanded by a lieutenant-colonel. In other words, one covered by WP:MILUNIT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that definition; I'm often woefully underinformed, which why I try to rely on policy, guideline, and inline citation. I was confused (by what I thought of your use of a superlative). Every editor in this discussion is a more accomplished content creator than I am, but nobody has actually applied these connected sources to the pagespace. For my part I'm only on this page as a passing editor looking to close a triple relist; during my reading I developed an opinion. I wasn't going to supervote but I also wasn't going along when I disagreed in principle. I'm not going to force this issue further. BusterD (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Military Proposed deletions[edit]

The following articles have been tagged for proposed deletion:

Current PRODs[edit]

Military-related Images and media for Deletion[edit]

The following military-related IfD's are currently open for discussion:

  • None at present

Military-related Miscellany for deletion[edit]

The following military-related MfD's are currently open for discussion:

Military-related Templates for Deletion[edit]

The following military-related TfD's are currently open for discussion:

None at present

Military-related Categories for Discussion[edit]

The following military-related CfD's are currently open for discussion:

Military-related Redirects for Deletion[edit]

The following military-related RfD's are currently open for discussion:

Military-related Possibly Unfree Files[edit]

  • None at present

Military-related Speedy Deletion[edit]

The following military-related Speedy Deletions are currently open:

None at present

Military-related Deletion Review[edit]

The following military-related Deletion reviews are currently open for discussion:

None at present

Military-related Requests for Undeletion[edit]

None at present

Military-related material at other deletion processes[edit]

None at present

Military related deletions on Commons[edit]

None at present

  1. ^ Sinha, Bindeshwari Prasad (1974). Comprehensive History Of Bihar Vol.1; Pt.2.
  2. ^ Diwakar, R. R. (1958). Bihar through the ages.
  3. ^ Majumdar, R. C. (2009). History and Culture of the Indian People, Volume 04, The Age Of Imperial Kanauj. Public Resource. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. pp. 50–51.
  4. ^ Others, Muzaffar H. Syed & (2022-02-20). History of Indian Nation : Ancient India. K.K. Publications. p. 287.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Military&oldid=1223967552"