Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military

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. 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.
3. Please indicate the title of the article in the edit summary, it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary.

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.

Relevant archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military/archive.

Purge page cache

Watch this page

Military and combat

Churchill's advocacy of chemical strike against German cities

Churchill's advocacy of chemical strike against German cities (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Churchill's advocacy of chemical strike against German cities" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Seems overly specific and redundant to other articles on Churchill. The title's just way too specific, for one. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• An excellent example of why Churchill employed people to say "no" to him, but as TPH says, unusually specific for an article. Best approach is probably to add a short note to United Kingdom and weapons of mass destruction (along with the 1940 proposals to use gas against an invasion?) and redirect there. Shimgray | talk | 21:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Or possibly summarise and redirect to Poison gas#World War II? Regardless of which parent article is chosen I don't think it's suitable for a standalone article (per nom). EyeSerene^talk 21:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - information can if desied be added to the link suggested by EyeSerene, but the title here is, IMHO, an extremely unlikely search term. (In addition, the contribution history of the article's creator suggests it was created as part of a non-neutral POV campaign.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right about the title being an unlikely search term. Probably no need to redirect, a deletion would be more logical. I've struck part of my previous comment. EyeSerene^talk 09:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. This was one of Churchill's many 'bright ideas' that were quickly hosed down by the military and have little lasting notability. I agree that summary details should be included in the United Kingdom and weapons of mass destruction article, but this doesn't justify a stand alone article. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Info definitely should be merged somewhere though. Silverseren^C 15:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Merge (mildly favor) or Salvage The suggested transclusion to the United Kingdom and weapons of mass destruction fatally and erroneously conflates official UK policy and implementation as described in that article with the advocacy of one person, admittedly a person of great importance. The crux of the issue here is Churchill. If the article is to be merged I suggest it could logically be merged to Churchill. Fair balance would include any summary of the citations assessments of the degree to which this advocacy was tenuous and exploratory. It would potentially make reference to all of Churchill's "interactions" with poison gas, such as Iraq, and "the Beaches" of 1940. If the article is to be salvaged (mildly disfavor) that same broadened focus might allow for a title such as "Poison gas advocacy of Winston Churchill."
• Merge — I would strongly suggest merging to Chemical warfare#World War II, with a passing mention at Strategic bombing during World War II. The former article covers a range of policy questions and forays by various powers, but does not presently include this Churchill material or Churchill's blunt warning about retaliating against German chemical warfare in 1942, see here. Collectively, this material is almost certainly notable enough for a stand-alone article or two: Chemical warfare policy in World War II or UK chemical weapons policy, breaking out of Chemical warfare and United Kingdom and weapons of mass destruction, but let's leave such expansions for another day.--Carwil (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Perumbadage Shantha Saliya Ramya Udayadeera

Perumbadage Shantha Saliya Ramya Udayadeera (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Perumbadage Shantha Saliya Ramya Udayadeera" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Not notable, the person just served in the army and was not an athlete but an official. An athletics official who served in the military does not warrant notability. It doesn't help that the article is an orphan as well. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 01:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Very sad, but I think the subject would be better served by improving the 2008 Weliveriya bombing article. No evidence of independent notablility.  Tigerboy1966  02:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete No independent notable fails WP:GNG Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2008 Weliveriya bombing. Not independently notable, but has a little bit of coverage in reliable sources so I believe he is a plausible search term. Jenks24 (talk) 12:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect as proposed by Jenks24. Searches indicate that the individual is not individually notable per WP:GNG or WP:BIO or WP:SOLDIER. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Battle of the Euphrates

Battle of the Euphrates (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Battle of the Euphrates" – news · books · scholar · free images)

The subject of this article appears to be non-notable – i.e., there is no indication that it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources – which is not surprising in light of the fact that it is about one of the thousands of IED attack on U.S. forces that took place during the Iraq War.

I conducted multiple searches for online sources but found not one mention of this 'battle'. I also could not locate the source indicated in the article (no ISBN, no page number), though there are two books titled War Heroes: Voices from Iraq (ISBN 978-0545090261) and Battle Heroes: Voices from Afghanistan (ISBN 978-0545206426). The page title itself may be a valid redirect to an article about one of several battles of the Euphrates throughout history (which may or may not notable), but a proper target article does not exist yet:

• "battle of the Euphrates" is used here to refer to a 12th-century battle and here to a 15th-century battle.
• "battle of the Euphrates Valley" is used here and here to refer to an engagement during the Gulf War, and this source refers to a "Battle of the Euphrates";
• "Battle of the Euphrates River" is used here to refer to the years-long campaign to wrest the Euphrates River from insurgent control.

I am also nominating Battle of Al-Fallujah, March 2004, which is about another IED attack and suffers from virtually the same shortcomings. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete I found news refs for the Battle of the Euphrates Valley in Operation Desert Storm, but nothing on this engagement. I would have thought a battle would have to involve more troops than this, but there is no hard and fast definition.  Tigerboy1966  02:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete; support the AfD's reasonings. AfD appears to be well researched. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete both per nomination. There's no evidence that either of these minor engagements is notable. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete both articles per WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 11:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails to meet our notability standards.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

List of surviving veterans of World War I

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of surviving veterans of World War I

Articles for deletion/List of surviving veterans of World War I (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/List of surviving veterans of World War I (3rd nomination)

List of surviving veterans of World War I (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "List of surviving veterans of World War I" – news · books · scholar · free images)

The last one died today. The only "entry" is someone who wasn't a World War I veteran. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Due to Florence Green death, and the non related WWI person Józef Kowalski (Polish-Soviet War, WWII)
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 05:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete, now that the last surviving veteran has died. We don't need a list saying "there are no surviving veterans of World War I". We don't have an article about List of surviving veterans of the Napoleonic Wars either. JIP | Talk 06:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• CommentPut your hat or hand over your heart and bow your head, to mark the passing of an era, in which 65 million brave folk were alive, who participated in the "war to end all wars." Edison (talk) 06:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment We should have an article listing centenarian veterans instead, i.e., an article of those vetarans who lived to the age of 100. The old URL should redirect to this new article. 80.213.84.187 (talk) 07:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment won't be possible since there were a ton of veterans (likely over 10,000) who lived passed the age of 100 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep For now. There is already discussion on the articles talk page as to the future of the article. Possibilities inlcude changing the nature of the article (which would include renaming), or redirecting. No need, or point, in deleting. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep: One would have thought that the nom might have noticed that the discussion as to the fate of the article on its talk page is less than 24 hours old right now, working through whether to merge to another article, redirect or some other fate. AfD is, at this stage, redundant. Ravenswing 08:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep There is an ongoing discussion on the Talk page about what to do with the articel.Mithrandir1967 (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep pending decision by the interested parties on the article talk page. Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep and close, based on discussion on article's talkpage. Lugnuts (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• This is deserving of a Redirect to Last veterans. When the times come, pages like these ought to redirect to a page that lists the veterans who have lived the longest after wars / battles / events / etc. --Let Us Update Wikipedia: Dusty Articles 21:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep or Rename to "List of last surviving veterans of World War I," to list perhaps the last 10 veterans, the last veterans from each nation (such as merging that particular article), etc. — AMK152 ^{(t • c)} 22:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep until Jozef Kowalski dies than delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Beyond any other consideration, a redirect (such as is the trend on the talk page discussion) preserves the edit history of this valuable resource. Deletion does not. Ravenswing 22:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Maybe we should re-name this page but I think that redirecting it before Kowalski dies is not the right thing to do (after all he has been on this page for around 5 Years or so) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: until Mr. Kowalski passes on; it's a slap in the face to delete it before this. If he was good enough to be listed on the page for the past five years, he's good enough to keep the page alive until his passing. Barring that, it should be kept at least until the talk page process has run its course, and a determination has been made as to its future.Tom Barrister 22:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: not only that but when World War I-era Veterans Die their entry becomes listed on the deaths page, what will happen with Kowalski's entry if we delete this page (since he should become a part of the deaths page when he does die, especially since he is the last World War I-era Veteran). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - Cite Kowalski's enlistment date or I'm removing it. Marcus Qwertyus 23:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of last surviving World War I veterans by country as I suggested on the talk page. The first paragraph of the page has already been merged into that article, if the page is deleted then it would be difficult to properly attribute that content in accordance with our licence. Though I don't mind Kowalski being on the list alongside veterans it does seem pointless to have a list of veterans of WWI with no WWI veterans on it and he is already on List of last surviving veterans of military insurgencies and wars. Hut 8.5 00:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: I think that if we have a Re-Direct then we should keep Kowalski's entry on the Main Page if only for the fact that it is preserved there in it's regular block format alowing for an easy move over to the List of World War I Veterans who died in 2009-12 page when he does die. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 02:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Since we have had World War I era veterans on this list, what about redirecting this to a list containing the oldest living veterans? — AMK152 ^{(t • c)} 02:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Might be hard to put together — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment As someone who has followed this page for maybe 5 or 6 years or more and has occasionally contributed bits of information ... I support keeping it in place until Jozef Kowalski passes. There has always been a format: verified, era and unverified. As far as I remember Jozef Kowalski has been on the list from a long time back when there were 50 or more people listed. I may be wrong however. Being consistent with the entire history of this page which has be a compilation of efforts of many people over the years ... I tend to think that leaving it as is until it concludes naturally makes the most sense.
• Comment Follow-up ... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_surviving_veterans_of_World_War_I&oldid=109555236 shows Jozef Kowalski as listed from at least 5 years ago. I see someone has adjusted the page to a new format that lists Jozef Kowalski as the only remaining participant in a conflict relevant to WW 1. This seems ok to me.125.139.20.45 (talk) 04:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Mic (South Korea)
• Redirect to List of last surviving World War I veterans by country per above. Yeah Kowalski's been on the list a long time, but he still doesn't entirely seem to fit and he is in the article on the Polish–Soviet War and on Last European veterans by war. So if it's just him it seems like the purpose of this list, as a list, is over. Although I should add it was a fascinating list while it lasted and fond farewell to it as well as its people.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Redirect, but to List of veterans of World War I who died in 2009–12. On reflection I think that's closer to what this list actually was than the "by nation" list. If need be that list can be renamed to "died in 2009-13 or 14 or 22 or whatever.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Then why was he on here in the first place — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. I say we delete it when Kowalski dies, but not until then. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to "List of last surviving veterans of World War I," per AFK152. Just one word extra is required. It would still be valuable as a list of the final group of survivors in the last decade. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 20:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I had the corresponding Dutch article renamed to nl:Laatste veteranen van de Eerste Wereldoorlog (Last veterans of the First World War). Maybe this is a good name for this article. That article also lists the last surviving veterans per armed forces unit and theatre. Maybe this is an idea for this article as well. Just list the last group which lived in the past few years. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 22:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: information is adequately covered in "List of last surviving World War I veterans by country" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hominka (talk • contribs) 04:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of last surviving World War I veterans by country If someone comes looking for a list of surviving veterans (not knowing there are none), ending up at the other pages (which explicitly states that fact) seems a logical location. Redirects are cheap - there is no reason to not have this as a redirect, as it seems a valid search term. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of last surviving World War I veterans by country - Reasoning and logic for this action are sound. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Alter. Change the name to "Last veterans of the First World War", and use the French version of the article as a model. Aridd (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I actually like the Italian model better it is more extensive plus they preserve Kowalski's entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Alter Do not delete, then I cannot access previous versions of the page, say if I wanted to see what veterans were still living in 2005. Simply call it "Last surviving veterans of WWI" 1779Days (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Jet fighter generations

Jet fighter generations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Jet fighter generations" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Declined PROD. Prod Reason was " Unreferenced article that exists as a "List" to the individually referenced generation articles". One reference was inserted that claims the "commonality" of this classification, but as the article admits itself, "The terminology is ... unofficial. There is no central registry of features that qualify for each generation" Hasteur (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete like a boomerang it keeps coming back. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• • This article has existed before? I created it ab initio, not knowing that it had been around before. I suggest that the fact that multiple people have independently created this article shows that there is a strong need / desire for such an article. TJIC (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - This is more or less a directory page for massively-sourced articles on several of these "generations." It makes no sense at all to me to knock down the front end index differentiating these pieces. If those articles stand, then this piece should stand as a "list" of those pieces. I seriously doubt any of those would fail at AfD, ergo, this should remain. Ignore All Rules, use common sense to improve the encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Carrite, there's plenty of other ways to link the generations together (Templates, "See Also"s, Category:Generations of jet fighter). Lists are still supposed to be cited. Hasteur (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - I read several of the individual 'generations' articles and found each one lacking in context, because there was no indication of what had happened before each generation. A quick overview of the generations is quite helpful to me and others. TJIC (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - comes across to me as OR - None of the body's paragraphs are cited, and there is a lot of ambiguity. This doesn't strike me as an encyclopedic peice. Kyteto (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep; this appears to be a list article to the other "generations" pages, that are themselves referenced. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunantly, I have to disagree that the claims are referenced in the other generation articles. For instance, the title First generation (1942-1950): the dedicated article for this generation doesn't ever TRY to make this timeframe, it doesn't feature there. It has been plucked out of thin air from no apparent source, and most certainly is NOT referenced either here or in the sub-article. It is arbitrary self-assumed leaps like this that I'm identifying as Original Research and entirely subjective (I could put together a decent arguement for making the latter boundry for First Gen aircraft to be as late as 1955, the 1950 deadline is arbitrary, uncited, and no attempt to justify or explain that position has been given) - I can't accept that the information article is adequitely cited, even by proxy. Kyteto (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

And the fact that there are references in another article is irrelevant; Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Every article must be itself referenced. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me respectfully disagree. List articles need not be independently referenced. The governing guideline here is WP:SALAT, which is rather broad. As the generations articles for aircraft are all related, a list of those generations articles appears to be logical. For example there is a list of M series vehicles.

We can disagree regarding whether each fighter generation article is notable, however as they presently stand, it appears (to me anyway) that a centralized list to those articles is appropriate. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

...I'm not sure whether list articles not needing to be independently referenced or the stupendously lax notability "requirements" for books (one-third of a column in one specialist magazine reprinting a review = notable!) is more shocking. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - frankly the whole "generations" thing should be ditched; the whole thing is very much a neological marketing construct that the manufacturers use to "one-up" each other and extended retroactively in order to make it look legitimate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Syria civil war

Syria civil war (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Syria civil war" – news · books · scholar · free images)

The page is an unnecessary fork of 2011–2012 Syrian uprising containing mostly redundant information. It is also unclear whether the title is verifiably supported by reliable sources or may be a case of original research. The creator and primary editor of the page did not seek consensus for the fork on Talk:2011–2012 Syrian uprising before creating it. As this article is largely redundant and any attempt to separate fighting in Syria from protests in Syria or security actions in Syria cannot be definitively supported by the body of sources at this time, I believe the article must be deleted and any information not found on the page from which the fork derives should be merged. Kudzu1 (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Totally Oppose and absolute Keep First: we need this page because there is an absolute lack of central page about military operations in Syria. Second, this is different from the Uprising page, who don't cover the events covered by this page. Third: we have a military infobox, we need a military page. Fourth: The main objection to the move of the Uprising page to Civil War was that the protests were part of the uprising and the armed events of the civil war. Fifth : All is sources and used in sub articles. If the user Kuzdu1, known for his pro syrian opposition roots wants, he can open a move or merge discussion, but delete is compltely out of reality --ChronicalUsual (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

  Don't really care to get into any personal mudslinging, but my personal feelings about this issue aren't material here. You've been dinged for WP:POV editing on the Syria topic far more than I have, so please don't go there. I've got nothing personal against you, just don't see how this page is necessary when the uprising page covers violence and clashes even in its introductory section. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep the conflict is rapidly descending into a full out war. The uprising != civil war, and each article would reflect that. I think a fork is in order. Yazan (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

  If reliable sources made a distinction between the "civil war" many claim and the uprising, I would agree with you. But they don't. Do you ever see separate casualty tolls listed for the "civil war" than from the uprising? Or separate players said to be involved with each, even? It's an arbitrary distinction at this point, and I think the very use of the "civil war" name on this website without at least a working consensus of sources, which we had when we moved 2011 Libyan uprising to 2011 Libyan civil war last year, is POV and OR. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

  Kudzu, I've suggested that much in the move discussion on the Syrian uprising page. Many sources are speaking now of a civil war, and it doesn't make sense to rename the uprising page into civil war. 1) because it covers a long period where the conflict was certainly not a civil war. 2) the article is already too long. 3) an forked article on the civil war would have a background section on the uprising, and I think that's more than enough.Yazan (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

  My primary concerns are that I don't see anywhere near a consensus among reliable sources that this is a full-blown civil war yet (and personal opinions aren't material without verifiability on this website), and I don't see anywhere that marks a division between the uprising and the "war". There has been fighting since the start of the uprising, according to the Syrian government's claims. According to the claims of the opposition and independent media, fighting has been verifiably ongoing since at least last summer. Escalation has been gradual. Any start date we use for the "war" is going to be completely arbitrary, and right now there's nothing really but the personal opinions of some editors saying it is a civil war, while in the meantime, our reliable sources aren't convinced. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep The proposed page seems fine to me. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia without paper limits. This phase deserves its own page in notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.219.245.248 (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

  — 200.219.245.248 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep Not convinced by reasons given : verifiable and reliable are met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeyBilout (talk • contribs) 16:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

  — HeyBilout (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep The Syrian Opposition is no longer fighting for democratic concessions or compromises, but the removal of Al-Assad and his Ba'athist regime and is using the FSA as a military arm to acheive that goal. In turn the Syrian government has used military forces in an attempt to remain in power. I believe this is a civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.184.165.20 (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

  Huh...who knew a deletion discussion could be so engrossing as to get an IP user who had never contributed before to comment on it and a new user to sign up just to comment on it? Glad to see our community expanding in such unexpected ways... -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

  It is remarkable. It shouldn't matter though: AfD should be more akin to a trial in which opposing views are heard and a decision rendered based on evidence and policy rather than an ill-monitored vote. If only closing administrators would remember that... Carrite (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Merge to 2011–2012 Syrian uprising. I don't care what the end article is called, one of these titles can redirect to the other, but this is an obvious fork and it needs to be fixed. Carrite (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. The number of deaths and the renewed fighting in several sections of the country justify the page. --Aginsijib (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• MergeDelete with 2011–2012 Syrian uprising. This is the same article as the Syrian uprising page. Once the media starts calling the Syrian Uprising a civil war the article will be renamed. This article is being used to bypass the discussion that is going on that page. The Syrian uprising and the Syrian civil war are obviously the same thing. --Guest2625 (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect to 2011–2012 Syrian uprising per Syrian civil war, merging anything useful (if there's something). We don't have separate articles for 2011 Libyan uprising and 2011 Libyan civil war. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• KeepMerge into one article and rename Syrian civil war. This conflict has been described as "on the verge of becoming a civil war," or similar expressions, by many reliable news sources in the last month : National Public Radio (US) Jan 12, The Hindu, India. Feb 6, ABC Newcastle (Australia) Feb 1. The "Free Syrian Army" claims 1,000 to 25,000 soldiers per Al Jazeera ,Jan 10. Other news sources in recent days(CNN newsblog, US, Feb 6) go ahead and state "It is already a civil war." Arab News (Saudi Arabia) Feb 1) said "Now it's a civil war in which the regime has the heavy weapons but the Sunni Arabs have the numbers." National Turk (Turkey)Feb 6, 2012 said "As Turkish government states that Turkey won’t turn back Syrian refugees, who flees the civil war in the country, many Turks believe that a flood of Arab refugees is tha last thing Turkey needs right now." The Moscow Times, Feb 2 called it "Syria's year-old civil war". Jerusalem Post Feb 6 said "Israel’s leaders probably believe that Syria is out of the game now with the escalation of the internal civil war there..." Today's Zaman , Feb 1, quoted a Lebanese political leader as "believing that Syria is already in a state of civil war.." "Market Watch (British commentators) from The Wall Street Journal Feb 6 said "I've seen a lot of commentators overnight starting to use the words 'civil war' in Syria.." The American Prospect, Jan 15 said "..by most standards, the conflict in Syria has been a civil war for quite awhile.." News sources are not unanimous in calling it a extant civil war, as opposed to mass hit and run attacks by defectors, or an incipient civil war, or that the country is "pretty close" to a civil war. Edison (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

  So, what, we're going to have two separate articles just because there's a split opinion on whether the uprising has reached the point of being a civil war or not? I'm fine with debating the name of the original article, but that's not a due basis for a fork. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

  Comment Libyan civil war starts "The Libyan civil war (also referred to as the Libyan Revolution[42] and the Libyan Uprising[43]), was an armed conflict in the North African state of Libya..." That seems a good example, so I'm changing (above) from "Keep" separate articles to "Merge and rename," since it is difficult to pinpoint a day when the fighting changed from an "uprising and incipient civil war" to an actual "civil war." Edison (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: The creation of this article is a childish action by ChronicalUsual. He failed to get consensus for a renaming of 2011–2012 Syrian uprising to Syrian civil war, so now he has come up with this fork to get his way regardless. I do not need to explain that this type of content fork is contrary to Wikipedia policy as per WP:POVFORK. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment POVfork is creating different pages with different points of views instead of one neutral page. This isn't POV fork. Both pages cover mainly different domains. With your speech, creating any sub page would be POV fork. This is not what is happening, your reasons are ,in conclusion, empty. This page is a welcomed specialization and has already a lot of new contents which are not in the firt page, and it is going to be expanded. By the way,the personnal problem between you and the creator of the page does not belong here.--Aginsijib (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll need to re-read WP:POVFORK because according to it a POV fork can, apart from a different page with a different point of view, also be another article on the same subject. The guideline even mentions specifically: The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article. The article currently under discussion fits that definition perfectly: it was created to dodge consensus and is under a title that clearly should redirect to the existing article about the exact same subject: 2011–2012 Syrian uprising. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Your logic is flawed. This page is not the other page under another name. The content is different. It is a specialization, a sub page.--Aginsijib (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It includes a few more recent clashes, but it's not really new content, it doesn't describe a separate event, and it's almost completely redundant. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I checked the main page, and nearly all the battles described in this new page are not even discussed in the main page. False road. It is a sub page.--Aginsijib (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Then add them. That page is for the internal conflict in Syria; if it's not comprehensive, then make the changes there. But any distinction between the uprising, which has been increasingly violent since at least last summer, and the "civil war" is entirely artificial. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Are RS calling this a civil war? I've seen headlines today like ' fears of civil war after peace plan is vetoed ' - by , usual suspects, reprehensible Russia/ChinaSayerslle (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Obvious fork from 2011–2012 Syrian uprising Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• I want to say Delete as a kind of fork (we often use "fork" to denote "POV" but that does not seem proven to me). At any rate, the content is mostly redundant to the uprising article, which, if needs be in the next weeks or months, can always be renamed--I'm going to go with Merge content and redirect, saving the name, so to speak. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete (or Merge) - the article was forked without any discussion, which is obligatory as currently editors argue whether it is a civil war, an uprising or something else.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete I think that we still need to wait a little while before such a page is created, also there is still no consenus for the article. Even though it is rapidly descending into a civil war, it still hasn't "crossed the border".Goltak (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep or merge don't care realy. EkoGraf (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• merge. This is part of the larger period of uprising. I can imagine that once the dust settles, spinouts could be desired, and this may in the future be an acceptable spinout. I could also imagine that the phase in the conflict becomes the leading part of the uprising, and the article on the subject would be moved to this title. At any rate, it is much better to keep everything at the same place, and let at least some months pass before deciding on a definitive title for this subject, and the editorial choice on how to spin out. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Rename or Merge: Not sure if we should call it civil war since not even the media is using such term. I think it should be renamed something else. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Totally Oppose and absolute Keep:Going on and instead needs cleanup --SpyroSpeedruns (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Note that the above editor has been blocked as a sockpuppet of the article creator. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you serious? That's the funniest thing I have read on Wikipedia in a while. Poor guy probably just copied the formula I used to vote and now he is blocked for that. Thanks for the good laugh though.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Clean up and Keep Article itself needs to be cleanup, however there is notability and we have substantian amount of sources which calls current situation in Syria as such. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The name dispute doesn't justify a fork. The current situation in Syria is already covered by an article, of which this article is an obvious POV fork. We can continue to debate the name for the main article as events dictate, but this article is just superfluous and adds to the confusion rather than enhancing Wikipedia's body of knowledge. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

delete as a neologism, its just speculative. such an affirmation cant be made so quickly while the conflict is turning into a "civil war" (as per media calls). not quite a war yet and not near where libya was. WP should be an ENCYCLOPAEDIA not a social media outlet to make editorial calls.

Or at the very least keep it as a redirect to the uprising which is more npov and credible. dont want it to be [[WP:RECENTISM]Lihaas (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You gave some arguments for a rename debate, not for a delete. No reason to delete the page like this talk suggests.--Aginsijib (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

ChronicalUsual's refusal to accept the outcome of a renaming discussion is the whole reason this article exists in the first place. Renaming is not the solution, it is the cause. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The content is different and can't be added with visibility into the other page. --Aginsijib (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you can furbish us with a list of exactly what content on this page isn't on the other page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore "with visibility" indicates his clear pov (As are others especially for this event) and pushing an agenda. WP is NOT SOCIAL MEDIA!Lihaas (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is user friendly. When a page becomes too heavy to read well or become too confused, it is split in sub-pages. --Aginsijib (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

And that's fine. I know what a subpage is because I've created more subpages myself for Arab Spring content than any other editor on English-language Wikipedia except for maybe User:Bahraini Activist. This isn't a subpage. This is a second page for the same event that an editor created because he was mad that he didn't get his way in a renaming discussion. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete (or Merge(or Redirect)) per Greyshark09. Consensus was not reached before this page was created.--Found5dollar (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Raphaël Onana

Raphaël Onana (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Raphaël Onana" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Contents is a translation of a French book, meaning that it's probably copyrighted. Furthermore, it is written by an involved person. See the author's comments on my talk page. Also, I'm not sure of notability. Jhschreurs (talk) 08:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

External links

• [1] The book of Raphaël Onana in french.User talk:Warinhari

No copyrighted ! Check it ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warinhari (talk • contribs) 09:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you look in the picture of Raphaël Onana ? In reality he's got a lot of awards ! This article is being considered for deletion ????? I don't agree because it is not a children's story! Check it to the [2] ! contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warinhari (talk • contribs) 09:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you know a lot of heroes of Free French Forces ? To develop the Wikipedia in english, there's very very few cameroonians heroes ! Raphaël Onana is a perfect example ! If you delete the page of Raphaël Onana, I could believe a racist problem ! I don't see the reason to delete this nice page with the scarcity of Cameroonians Blacks heroes of world war II ! This character is not invented, it's a true story. So why to delete ? It's stupid. User talk:Warinhari —Preceding undated comment added 11:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC).

(Find sources: "Raphaël Onana" – news · books · scholar · free images)

• [3] The real story of Raphaël Onana in french.
• [4] The awards of Raphaël Onana. Contact them.
• Raphaël Onana is the father of ten children Aggripine, Casimir, Etienne, Françoise, Jeanne, Lazare-Ékongo, Marie-Solange, Nathalie, Patrice and Zobo-Ostomac, they said me the story.
• Contact the association "Unions fraternelles des anciens combattants d'expression Française".

PLEASE DON'T DELETE !!!! IT IS NOT A DANGEROUS PAGE BUT A MEMORY PAGE !!!!.............. User talk:Warinhari

• Undecided. Content suggests that the subject should be notable, but there are valid concerns.

1. if the article is really a direct translation of the book used as its source, this is a copyright violation. The book *is* under copyright, whatever Warinhari says about it (although as a relative of its author we must consider the possibility he has a license to use its content). Assuming there is no license, the writing here must be original.

2. The book is an autobiography, and is therefore not an ideal source, as we require information from secondary sources in most cases (the book is a primary source). Warinhari, do you have any other books, newspaper articles, or other published sources you can use as sources for the article? JulesH (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• The brand of the book of Raphaël Onana "Un homme blindé à Bir-Hakeim" is....you can see this page : [5] but there 's no english page for you ! Sorry !

His co-author, Patrice Etoundi-M'Balla [6], is a actually a journalist chronicles "Le Jour"[7] For example to Marcel Pagnol, he write HIS autobiography TOO same Raphaël Onana !!! If you delete the Raphaël Onana page, you must delete the Marcel Pagnol page or the Richard Wright (author) page, or others autobiographies !! No, no, no !??

In Cameroon, it is not a rich country... So the african writers with his more 3 or 10 books, is very very rare ! I think wikipedia should be less categorical about African writers who have do the World War II. A little respect for our heroes would be good !! Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warinhari (talk • contribs) 21:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Warinhari

• Delete; a quick search does not find sufficient reliable sources that would support notability via WP:BIO. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'M VERY ANGRY ! You are the draws ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warinhari (talk • contribs) 16:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:AVOIDYOU & WP:EQ

My reason for deletion has to do with the fact that I am unable to find significant references in third party reliable sources to indicate the subject of this article is notable per WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Perhaps this article can be userfyied if you believe that it can be resurrected one day. There is no shame in it, I had to do it myself with an article that had significant coverage from multiple reliable sources once.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Highly decorated, but unclear how many of these awards are for gallantry and how many for distinguished service, as most French military decorations can be awarded for either. If they were all for gallantry then I'd say keep, if for distinguisnhed service then probably delete, as many long-service NCOs have decorations for distinguished service. The fact he's Cameroonian is irrelevant unless he was the most highly-decorated Cameroonian soldier in French service, in which case he is notable. Whatever we decide, it's an appallingly-written article and needs a serious copyedit. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The Battle of Bir Hakeim finished in the 11th June 1942. So Raphaël has sacrificed his leg to win the battle, and you want to delete his page because he did not do much ? Would you like I cut your leg same Raphaël ? Raphaël was not a french before 1951 but a Cameroonian ! it happened things ! Raphaël is highly decorated, yes, you can call the Palais de la Légion d'Honneur or [8] to check ! User talk:Warinhari —Preceding undated comment added 16:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC).

You need to calm down Warinhari. This is an encyclopaedia, not a memorial. Not every soldier who's been wounded or decorated is notable in encyclopaedic terms. We need to establish whether this man was significant enough to have an article on Wikipedia, not whether he was a worthy individual, which he clearly was. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I know how Charles De Gaulle was an Anglophobia, but it is not the reason to delete the page of Raphaël Onana who is a writer for one book like per example Richard Wright. You lack respect of MY grandfather because he's a vulgar Black African ? Raphaël is a important character only in Cameroon ! And In Cameroon, at Bamenda and at Buea, they speak and write english like you ! So the camerounian who use english in the north-west can read the Raphaël Onana page ! I could not calm down ! User talk:Warinhari —Preceding undated comment added 17:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC).

Ah, the racist card. You cannot accuse people of racism because they oppose the inclusion of an article on an African person. Africans have no more or less right to have articles about them than anyone else. The other editors who have posted comments here are being objective, not racist. You, however, are being subjective. He's your grandfather, so you think he's worthy of an article. Others have questioned that assumption. This isn't on racist grounds, but on the same grounds of notability applied to any other article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

And so what ? User talk:Warinhari —Preceding undated comment added 20:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC).

How we, as an editing community, determine if someone is notable is clearly spelled out in WP:GNG, and in this case WP:BIO is relevant. The criteria have to be meet by looking at references from reliable sources. No where within GNG or BIO is the race, ethnicity, or where the subject was born (or originated) a factor in determining notability.

If there are third party reliable sources, in any language, that can be provided to support that the subject of the article is notable per GNG, BIO, or WP:SOLDIER please let us know. Otherwise the article will be deleted from the mainspace, and if it the wish of the primary editor, it can be userfied.

If an editor is related to the subject of this article, there maybe conflict of interest issues that need to be looked into.

Additionally please see WP:EQ again, and remember to remain civil. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, although if what is in the article is correct, the subject of this article maybe notable per WP:SOLDIER, I cannot find a third party source verifying the awarding of the Legion of Honor to the subject. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand... You want sources , you have enough sources ! You've got 5 ! I think you can find sources mainly in this [9] , the brand book of Raphaël Onana.

(Find sources: "Raphaël Onana" – news · books · scholar · free images)

• [10] The real story of Raphaël Onana in french.
• [11] The awards of Raphaël Onana. Contact them.
• Raphaël Onana is the father of ten children Aggripine, Casimir, Etienne, Françoise, Jeanne, Lazare-Ékongo, Marie-Solange, Nathalie, Patrice and Zobo-Ostomac, they said me the story.
• Contact the association "Unions fraternelles des anciens combattants d'expression Française".
• [12]

I can not insulted you, but I've scolded you... Because I know you're wrong ! Raphaël Onana was famous only in Cameroon therefore he's a important person between the world war II at 1996 FOR the Cameroon and not for to you and persons who speak English. User talk:Warinhari

What language I speak has no relevance to this discussion. One last time, and you have already been warned before, please stop attacking those who disagree with your opinion of your family member's notability.

Thanks for the links. The first link, a book coauthored by the subject of the article in question is not sufficient to meet notability requirements set forth in WP:AUTHOR. The second link does not appear to have an easily find-able listing of the subject of the article; furthermore, there have been past discussions of what awardings of the Legion of Honor create notability per WP:SOLDIER given its wide range of rewarding criteria. As for your third link it is to a publishing company; again, the subject of the article just because they are published doesn't automatically make one notable. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No, we do not have five sources. We have one, an autobiography. That is not enough to establish notability, since self-authored sources are not generally regarded as reliable. He won the Légion d'honneur. Nobody is disputing that, but so did many, many thousands of other people. The Légion d'honneur by itself is not sufficient to establish notability, any more than decorations like the MBE or Military Cross would be in Britain. The fact his children told you his story is irrelevant: we only accept actual published sources as proof of notability (and not, as already stated, self-authored works or works published by those with a vested interest). He was a veteran. So what? So are many millions of others. And he was "famous in Cameroon". With the best will in the world, we only have your word for that, and no actual proof. None of these things are sufficient to establish notability. Your claim for his notability seems to come down to the fact that he was a decorated veteran and you say he's notable. This is not, I'm afraid, sufficient evidence. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The article by Raphael Onana is interesting to read, is not it? Please take care of you uninteresting articles also. I ask simply you to keep my article everything as it does not disturb the public.User talk:Warinhari —Preceding undated comment added 16:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC).

See -> * [13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warinhari (talk • contribs) 16:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I have NOT invented in this article, I simply wrote all the facts noted in the Yellow Book of Raphael Onana.
I have not made ​​a cut and pasted from the book to wikipedia, I have summarized my way.

User talk:Warinhari —Preceding undated comment added 16:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC). Warinhari (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see why you keep linking us to the webpage on the same book. We know it exists. We know he existed. Neither of these facts add up to proof of notability for this article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Neither of these facts add up to proof of notability for this article ??? You're not right. And the testimony of the deported Jews during world war II ??? Neither of These facts add up to proof of notability for this article too? The jews were simple civilians ! Raphaël Onana is a witness of the war, too! He's the only Cameroonian to express! Warinhari —Preceding undated comment added 20:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC).

His book is a straightforward testimony of the war, go read it yourself from start to finish! Warinhari (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC) You'll add that I took out the anti-Semite card? Warinhari (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Navy Mutual Aid Association

Navy Mutual Aid Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Navy Mutual Aid Association" – news · books · scholar · free images)

This article has had three years in which to improve, and it still has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources. Contested PROD.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Weak delete, without prejudice if someone comes up with sources. I'm on the fence here, on the one hand, this is a 130 year old organization that has a very credible claim for significance with more than 100,000 members/customers. On the other hand, I did quite a bit of research yesterday wanting to address the PROD, and couldn't find anything of substance to address the PROD reason. Sure, several articles on Navy Times, but they are more like "don't forget to register" type of things. Then several other press releases on other sites, and a few business profiles, Forbes, Businessweek, etc. I was surprised that the various "official" biographies of Richard W. Mies do not mention his role in this organization, suggesting a lack of importance. I would have to agree with the nominator that as it looks, this article cannot meet WP:V based on reliable, third-party sources. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 04:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

This Richard W. Mies bio mentions it. (about 3/5 down page, search (space)Mies). Dru of Id (talk) 12:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. A longstanding well-known aspect of US military culture. This organization, and its counterpart the Army and Air Force Mutual Aid Association, are legitimately historical organizations. GNews has 100+ hits going back to 1887, GBooks shows about 3,000 hits. There are a lot of paywalls in the way, but one could start with this succinct explanation of the association's roots and purpose, from a 1921 issue of the United States Naval Medical Bulletin.[14] (On the other hand, I do think that both articles could stand some winnowing: we don't need the list of all the different policies they sell.)--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Your arguments appear to be along the lines of WP:NOBLE and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Storng keep the obvious source is http://www dot navymutual dot org which can't be put into hte article because the wiki complains spuriously about spam for some reason.Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

While verifiable, that source is not independent of the subject.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Keep Scale and long history indicate clear ability to meet wp:notability. Based on scale and long history, failure to have an article on this in wikipedia would be a gap/shortcoming. North8000 (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Notable by Google Books in many books: Search books. The article was initially crippled when the original author expanded it with several "copyvio" paragraphs, so naturally, it was severely gutted back to a hollow stub, which might have demoralized the early editors to steer clear of re-expanding the text. However, the Navy Mutual Aid Association has been well-known among U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard families for over 50 years now, long after World War II. I spent the hour adding 3 footnote sources to the article. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Erkin Musaev

Erkin Musaev (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Erkin Musaev" – news · books · scholar · free images)

The subject of the article appears to be a non-notable biography. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails to meet the notability guidelines for biographies. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Michael A. Ryan

Michael A. Ryan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Michael A. Ryan" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Doesn't appear to be a military individual of highly notable accomplishments. Article is basically his resume. W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment- Incomplete nomination: article has not been tagged with AfD message. Dru of Id (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Added to article. W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I dunno, it's certainly an impressive Resume. Brigadier General, Bronze Star, and all that. Are there any sources to be had? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Should be noted that it would be uncommon in the U.S. military for someone to reach a general officer rank without being awarded a Bronze Star at some point because of an institutional tendency to align the prestige of awards with rank held during an assignment. Note the Bronze Star may be awarded solely for "meritorious service" in peacetime. The article does not indicate any particularly notable achievements during his career other than reaching the rank of brigadier general. Doesn't appear to have had any commands during wartime and holds no apparent awards for valor in combat. This is why I question the notability of the subject of this article. W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Makes sense to me. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The US Army's official site turns up exactly one photo of him. Not much in the news except minor announcements and offering of condolences.[15][16] Clarityfiend (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom, and per the above. Though the subject is retired, WP:USUAL still applies I think - if he does something notable or some notable operation comes to light, an article might be appropriate. At present, with the lack of available sources and the lack of obviously notable achievements (though with thanks for his service, I imagine), I'd have to recommend delete. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Week Keep, per WP:SOLDIER. I have found several passing mentions of him, but nothing that appears to fall under WP:INDEPTH. That being said, there are as many links to said search to a Dr. Ryan who practices general dentistry.

As for the image comment made by another editor above, I have found several images of him, especially as his roll in the chain of command in V Corps. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. WP:SOLDIER is an essay, not a guideline. And when I said I found only a photo, I meant there were no articles about or by him. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep, General officer, so passes WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - officers with stars on their shoulders are generally notable. The article needs cleanup badly, but that's not what AfD is for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - as per Clarityfiend. --Klemen Kocjancic (talk) 06:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • What? Oh, I forgot to sign my delete vote. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Keep. Flag/general officers considered notable per WP:SOLDIER. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Military Proposed deletions

• None at present

Military-related Images and media for Deletion

The following military-related IfD's are currently open for discussion: None at present

Military-related Miscellany for deletion

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

None at present

Military-related Templates for Deletion

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

None at present

Military-related Categories for Discussion

The following military-related CfD's are currently open for discussion: None at present

Military-related Deletion Review

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

None at present