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. 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.

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 other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Military. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

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:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military/archive
• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military/archive 2

watch

Military and combat

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Conquest of Mandaran

Conquest of Mandaran (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 WP:GNG as there are no reliable sources which provide significant coverage of this event or mentions the event as Conquest of Mandaran. it relies heavily on Non-WP:RS sources. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 09:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military and India.
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Reviewed all the sources before they were removed and all are poor and fail WP:HISTRS like a source where N.K. Sahu is an editor of a book that was contributed by William Wilson Hunter, WP:RAJ and sources by Nitish K. Sengupta who was an IAS officer in 1957 and served as the Revenue Secretary of the Government of India. No source has a paragraph enough to give depth on the Conquest of Mandaran Page fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, concerns that don't raise to the level of HOAX but seriously concerning stuff in regards to notability, NPOV, and wikipuffery that mean this article is not encyclopedic. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 20:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment based on the sources (and their very limited descriptions of this battle), I would like to vote to merge this; but where? There is nothing to be said beyond Under Ruknuddin Barbak Shah, Shah Ismail Ghazi sieged and conquered a fort near Gar Mandaran in 1464, everything else seems to be WP:SYNTH. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 23:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 14:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Kleftopolemos

Kleftopolemos (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)

Poorly written and translated article that contains nothing but a version of guerilla warfare, written from a Greek nationalist POV. There is nothing in here that is specific to the Greek War of Independence and cannot be applied to guerrilla movements more broadly (ambushes, raids, small group tactics, field fortifications), as the article itself sort of admits. Delete and redirect to guerrilla warfare. Constantine ✍ 12:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Greece. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Surely, the first time anyone thought of an ambush was in the 19th century... Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Demetrios1993 (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Polish raid on Kievan Rus' (1136)

Polish raid on Kievan Rus' (1136) (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:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:PRIMARY, WP:GNG, WP:NPOV. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bolesław II the Bold's expedition to Kiev (1076–1077). User:SebbeKg created this article on 18 February 2024, 4 days before he was blocked indefinitely for Adding poorly sourced content, false accusations of vandalism. We still need to clean up the rubbish he added, checking whether there is anything left of value, and throwing away the rest. Bolesław II the Bold's expedition to Kiev (1076–1077) was deleted on 27 May. Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135) was AfD'd previously, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135), resulting in no consensus. But Marcelus did the right thing by removing all informations referenced to primary sources, as obvious OR. I decided to WP:BOLDly turn it into a redirect to Wiślica#History, where I added 1 sentence to summarise the incident based on a source which Piotrus and Marcelus agreed was RS.

As for this article itself, it is clearly written completely from a point of view of later Polish chroniclers who invented lots of details out of their own volition, dramatising and exaggerating stories they had heard or read about. This whole text is basking in emotions of "revenge for Wiślica". Evidently, there was a Volhynian raid on Wiślica in 1135, but I have not been able to find any sort of "Polish" retaliation against "Kievan Rus" in the next year. It is striking that not a single toponym is mentioned in this article, except the vague " Entire communities surrounding the Principality of Volhynia". No standard history work on Kievan Rus' I consulted mentions this event. Not even the Kievan Chronicle, that has quite detailed entries for every year, says anything about 1135, let alone 1136. (There was a raging conflict between the Monomakhovichi of Kiev and the Olgovichi of Chernigov in the north and centre, but no hint of a conflict between Poles and Volhynians on the western edges of the realm). If there really was a frenzied massacre, sparing no Ruthenian soul in Volhynia in 1136, the Kievan Chronicle and modern literature would have talked about it. There is no reason for us Wikipedians to take the fanciful claims of later Polish chronicles at face value, especially from the hands of a now-blocked user with a poor record of using sources on this topic. NLeeuw (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Poland, and Ukraine. NLeeuw (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. First, I'll note that I reverted the de-facto blanking of Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135). There was no consensus to delete the article, so I find what happened since (Marcelus removal of 95% of the article, and then your redirecting it) to be against the outcome of the AfD. Feel free to start a new AfD for it if you desire (although note I've also modernized the article by adding the RS we found, which pretty much states the event might be a fabrication by old chroniclers... - but, IMHO, it is a notable topic).
• Now, regarding the article nominated here. I do agree that the creator of this (these) articles was overly reliant on old primary sources. The article nominated here has only one footnote to a presumed modern source, and poorly formatted at that. I would be fine with this being redirected to the "Ruthenian raid...", if we can find a single non-historical mention of this event in modern RS. Otherwise, well, can't justify keeping this due to problematic sourcing to ~1000 year old chronicles whose authors clearly liked to invent history, not just record it :( I.e. in the current state, afer all I wrote, I guess I am not leaning to weak delete this one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Piotrus Thanks for your input. I responded at length at Talk:Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135)#Historiography for discussion on the 1135 event. It is interesting, but complicated.

  For the 1136 article, did you mean to say "I am *now leaning" instead of I am not leaning? NLeeuw (talk) 08:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Nederlandse Leeuw Yes, I am leaning. Sorry, was writing while taking care of a baby :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear from more editors on this one since the consensus is less than clear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• Neutral. This AfD needs input from a historian who is capable of being neutral. This may well be notable. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 02:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article was PROD'd already so Soft Deletion is not an option. Where are all of our military historians when we need them?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I could tag a few, but this is Eastern European history, so certain people shouldn't be pinged. Perhaps... @Ermenrich and Altenmann: is this something you can say anything about? I just thought of you two because of our recent discussion at Talk:Kievan Rus', where a newbie insisted on adding a battle flag based on his own original research. Not sure if this is a subject you might also be able to shed a light on? If not, then no worries. NLeeuw (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete without prejudice for recreation. No modern sources cited. Also, the style of the article is more of saga rather than of encyclopedic article. - Altenmann >talk 23:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

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 confusion as to whether this was a single battle or two. Perhaps a split or a move is in order, but those are outside the scope of an AfD. Any editor may boldly proceed with such a move or a split, merging relevant content from this page, if applicable. Owen× ☎ 11:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Doljești and Orbic

Battle of Doljești and Orbic (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 could not find any sources to prove that these events took place in the dates mentioned, which would fail WP:NEVENT. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Moldova, and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• @Cocobb8: the Romanian Wikipedia page for this article has source(s) by the looks of it. Are those sources sufficient for notability? (I don't know Romanian so not too sure myself). Cheers. Dan the Animator 00:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@Dantheanimator: perhaps? I'll leave it up to other to check that . Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can anyone check out these sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep but rename as Battle of Orbic. I was able to find sources for Orbic but less so for Doljești. The Romanian page is also only for the Orbic battle whereas the Battle of Doljești redirects to the page for Stefan the Great. Kazamzam (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep it. These are two different battles, both notable, the tendency in current history being to separate them temporally (about 13 years) and geographically (in different counties). There are well-documented sources on both of them, even if the conditions under which the battle of Doljesti was fought are not very clear.

Clearly the article should be renamed, its real subject being the Battle of Orbic.

In short, the two battles are defining for the beginning of the reign of the most important ruler of the Principality of Moldavia, Stephen the Great.Accipiter Gentilis Q. (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was delete‎. There is a clear consensus here to delete among editors who are familiar with Wikipedia's notability rerquirements. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Joshua Michael McConkey

Joshua Michael McConkey (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:BLP of an as yet unelected political candidate, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se -- the notability test at NPOL is winning the election and thereby holding office, while unelected candidates must either (a) have preexisting notability for other reasons independently of their candidacy, or (b) show credible reasons why their candidacy is a special case of much greater significance than most other people's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test. But this demonstrates neither of those things, and is referenced 50 per cent to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and 50 per cent to a tiny blip of coverage in the context of him tangentially winning a tidy but not massive sum of money in the lottery, which is not in and of itself a reason why his candidacy would be special.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat, but nothing here is grounds for an article to already exist now. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and North Carolina. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per Bearcat. I came across this article previously and would have nominated it for deletion but did not then have time to do a proper before. JSFarman (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Medicine, Nebraska, Ohio, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete completely non-notable former congressional candidate. I was about to nominate for deletion when I saw it was already nominated. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 08:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

KEEP additional categories and notoriety, WP:AUTHOR award-winning published author WP:ACTOR credited actor 57.140.28.16 (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

KEEP: Additionally, He is a Colonel and Commander in the United States Air Force. 136.54.185.219 (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment He does not meet the inclusion criteria as either an actor or a writer. He has two (very) minor acting credits (as "Westlake Party-Goer" in Buck Alamo, and an uncredited role as "Launch Room Control Operator" in Transformers: Dark of the Moon). The Independent Press Award is not credible; it is sponsored by an organization (or person) that charges $125 to enter a book in any of 150 categories and sells book reviews. JSFarman (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

KEEP: As do all Book Contests, there are entry fees. The book beat thousands of entries from across the world. The Independent Press Award is credible.

Writers are not automatically notable just for winning just any award that exists — the award itself has to pass notability criteria as an award before it can make its winners notable for winning it, which means the reference for the award win has to be media coverage treating the award win as news, not the award's own self-published website about itself. And actors are not automatically notable just because acting roles have been had — a person gets over notability criteria as an actor by having reliable source coverage about their acting roles shown in media, not just by having an IMDB profile. Bearcat (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:NAUTHOR, and has coverage well below what is needed to pass WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  KEEP: Josh is the 2023 Chadron State College Distinguished Alumni recipient. There are tens of thousands of alumni, and each year they choose 2 distinguished alumni (a male and female). I know there is a lot of bias against the midwest, but a Chadron State College Distinuished Alumni award is notable here in the midwest. He was also inducted into the Alliance Public schools Hall of Fame. He is clearly one of the more famous Americans raised in Western Nebraska. 69.63.112.226 (talk) 02:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: does not meet WP:NPOL before being elected, nothing else to meet WP:GNG. Melcous (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Actually, he didn't even win the primary (he ended up in 5th place), so he will certainly not be elected in November. DanCherek (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was keep‎. There is consensus that the subject is notable and a valid split. Though there are concerns about the style of this article, AfD is not the place to address those. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 23:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Campaigns of Nader Shah

Campaigns of Nader Shah (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 doesn't have any source for its notability. There's no source explicitly mentioning "Naderian Wars" or "Campaigns of Nader Shah" with its fictitious timeline. Clearly it's full of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH mess, It's just impersonating Napoleonic Wars. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 12:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I looked at the equivalent articles on other wikis and most are barely sourced spam but the Italian one is extensively written and has numerous sources. I don’t think the nominator has clearly established that no sources use this term. Mccapra (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  There is indeed no source defining "Naderian Wars" or "Campaigns of Nader Shah" as a whole. At this rate anyone can create articles on the campaigns of any other personalities, but we have to make sure that sources do cover such campaigns or wars instead of covering some battles. Unlike Napoleonic Wars, it doesn't have any source for defining "Naderian Wars". Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 13:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I find it a bit ironic that the nominator themself just recently made an article that is exactly the way they have described this one [1], whose deletion [2] they are opposing. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  It's not ironic when I have myself asked to draftify the article so it can be improved. Could you please go through WP:AADP? Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 13:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  Draftify will not fix a WP:OR and WP:SYNTH mess that shouldn't exist in the first place (also, you initially pushed for a keep very hard, so you're not being completely honest here). If anything, you're the one who needs to go through our guidelines. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  @HistoryofIran Well, at least the sources I have cited do cover Devapala's conflicts with Tibet but that's not the case here. Can you give us a source where "Naderian Wars" is covered notably. And I still don't get why you are bringing other topics to this discussion. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 13:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. A quick search at Scholar finds a multitude of sources. There is no reason whatever to claim that a source is off-topic just because it doesn't have two specific phrases. Just search for "Nader Shah" and lots of sources that describe his campaigns come up. The article is about a historical phenomenon, not about a phrase. The article at present is not well written and needs a lot more inline sourcing, but that is not an AfD issue. Zero^talk 03:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  And at the same time, we don't find a source explicitly covering "Naderian Wars". Hope we are not creating "Campaigns of X" and "Campaigns of Y" just because there are lots of sources on X and Y. The article is full OR and SYNTH at best. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 13:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  You don't seem to understand the role of article titles. There are only a few articles where the title is the subject of the article. Usually the title defines the topic and there is no need for the sources to even mention the words that are in the title provided they address the same topic. Also if the article has OR and SYNTH that's reason to clean it up, not reason to delete it. The role of AfD is to decide if the topic is suitable for an article, not to decide if an article is well written. Zero^talk 14:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  That said I can work on "Campaigns of Khalid ibn al-Walid" or "Campaigns of Bajirao I" if I want? And also in these cases there are many sources dealing with their military career. Moreover I find in the above HistoryofIran's comment contradicting you; Draftify will not fix a WP:OR and WP:SYNTH mess that shouldn't exist in the first place, I guess we need more participation in this discussion. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 12:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  You can work on any topic that meets the guidelines for having an article. Also, HistoryofIran is mistaken about the role of OR and SYNTH at AFD, and has also not provided any evidence of those defects being present. The only relevance would if there was something about the topic that prevented a policy-conformant article, which is obviously not the case. Zero^talk 13:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, I think there has been a misunderstanding here. I was not referring to this article. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Obviously notable topic and fair split from main biographical and region history articles. Sourcing and citations could be improved and infobox trimmed, but those are editing problems, not deletion criteria. Folly Mox (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Just asking. Is it fair to combine all the campaigns and wars of historical figures in one article even if it's not given pass by reliable sources? Doesn't that come under WP:SYNTH? Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 18:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  It is normal to use multiple sources to create articles. It only becomes SYNTH when we use a combination of sources to draw conclusions that are not drawn by any of the sources. Zero^talk 13:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: plenty of sources exist, and I would echo the comments above that grouping together related topics does not necessarily constitute WP:SYNTH: indeed, editors are encouraged to merge and split articles as a way of controlling article length. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Should be on his main article, just the more important content. FreeZoneF (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

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 merge‎ to Ali Khamenei. Merger with additional or alternative targets can be discussed editorially. After discarding clearly canvassed votes and ones not based on P&G, there is a rough consensus to keep the content, but not as a standalone article. Concerns about the merged article size are valid, but are secondary to notability issues. Owen× ☎ 11:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Ayatollah Khamenei's letter to students at U.S. universities

Ayatollah Khamenei's letter to students at U.S. universities (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)

Does not need to be a separate article and not notable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep, but article requires significant improvement.

Coverage that is at least potentially RS (not necessarily complete) which is not currently included in the article:

• Anadolu Ajansi
• Times of Israel
• Jerusalem Post
• Newsweek
• USA Today

FortunateSons (talk) 07:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NOTNEWS Ladsgroup^overleg 09:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep The subjects passes the WP:GNG criteria certainly. Besides the sources listed by FortunateSons there are other reliable sources like Newsweek (another article by Newsweek), the hill, and Fox News. Moreover, the supreme leader is considered notable enough so his letters sparks significant coverage by the sources. Btw, I created the page. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, Education, Iran, Israel, Palestine, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete this does seem to fail WP:NOTNEWS at the moment, needs sustained coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 18:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Khamenei's letter went out on May 30, and you say on May 31 that there is not "sustained coverage"? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  No, I said it needs sustained coverage, and the article's pretty bad. Furthermore, all of the sources found so far are from last month - it certainly hasn't been very SUSTAINED yet... SportingFlyer T·C 22:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think you are not talking about a daily coverage or we need to AFD many articles on that basis, but still one can see fresh sources published on June 2nd, June 3rd, June 4th, and today (June 5th). Mhhossein ^talk 06:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  We don't need daily coverage, no one is suggesting that. None of those are really directly on topic, though. SportingFlyer T·C 05:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  I pity the closer on this, but it's now 8 June and there hasn't been sustained coverage of the event, meaning WP:NOTNEWS still applies. Many of the keep !votes are simply "it's important" without addressing our policies. SportingFlyer T·C 17:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  Can you tell us what "sustained coverage" means to you? Are you suggesting everyday or every week there must be a new news article published on the same topic? I find it unreasonable for you to demand "sustained coverage" just 1 week after the topic comes into existence. WP:EVENTCRITERIA suggest considering things on a "few years" time frame. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  WP:NOTNEWS is about significant coverage, not "sustained" coverage. The topic unambiguously passes WP:GNG as multiple reliable sources cover it. It's very likely that it will have some enduring significance to future coverage of student protests given the sources already used by the article. --PKMNLives (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  Per NOTNEWS, "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." It's been pretty clear since the start that this was just something that happened to be in the news - if this were significant, we should already have seen things published about it beyond the news cycle, which hasn't really happened apart from an op-ed or two. SportingFlyer T·C 06:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  There is also no reason why it can't be mentioned elsewhere. A sentence on his article is fine. SportingFlyer T·C 06:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  The reason is enduring notability. Take the latest source covering the subject just yesterday (June 13rd). --Mhhossein ^talk 07:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes? We don't have articles because they may achieve notability in the future. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Agree, but this topic already passses WP:GNG, thanks to the reliable sources deeply covering it. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Merge to Ayatollah Khamenei. The letter is a work of a notable person, not a notable work. BD2412 T 01:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep, it passes WP:GNG. As more news comes in, it can be improved to pass the enduring notability as well. Ghazaalch (talk) 07:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOTNEWS Hosseinronaghi (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep ofcourse https://search.brave.com/search?q=khamenei+letter+american+student&source=android many sources have written Baratiiman (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  This is not Fawiki [3] Baratiiman (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NOTNEWS This article is not important enough to be on Wikipedia (Encyclopaedia's article). It's more like propaganda. Déjà vu • ✉ 00:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  For those who point to WP:NOTNEWS; The letter was issued on 30 May 2024 with a handful of reliable sources covering it deeply (listed by me and FortunateSons) hence establishing the WP:Notability. Now let's see if NOTNEWS is even applicable here:

  • Original reporting: Easily rebutted. The current article is written based on secondary reliable sources, so there is no original reporting.
  • News reports: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." I wonder how users realized, less than 24 hours [4] after the official publication of the letter, that the subject does not have an "enduring notability"! This is while some sources are published after 48 hours ago [5], let alone those published some hours ago [6].
  • Who's who and Celebrity gossip and diary: Easily rebutted. The current article is not even about an individual.

  WP:GNG is passed and the enduring notability assessment requires more time to pass. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note to the closing admin: Multiple users are coming from Fa wiki with some having their first AFD !vote here. There seems to be an attempt aimed at defecting the consensus building process here. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  Also notice this one please. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• Merge to Ayatollah Khamenei No idea why this is a standalone article, if it's so notable just add it to the existing biography. --TylerBurden (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Such interactions by the head of state of a theocracy to a significant section of Western society is quite rare. As a comment it would be nice to have this in Wikisource if applicable. Borgenland (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• Merge about one sentence into Ayatollah Khamenei, where it is entirely missing, as an unjustified SPINOUT. No objection to delete either, yet merge is the optimum. gidonb (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: Ali Khamenei is already ~10,000 words in prose. According to WP:SIZERULE it is somewhere between "Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed" and "Probably should be divided or trimmed". So merging an article there would not be advisable.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Hence my proposal to merge about one sentence. The fact that an article is long is not a reason to disconnect it from the present. gidonb (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

But the article proposed for deletion is 521 words currently. It makes no sense to bloat an article that (per WP:SIZERULE) must already have WP:SPINOUT articles.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Khamanei's previous such letter (To the Youth in Europe and North America in 2015) turned out to be an enduring article. His current letter has not just been covered in the US and Iran, but also India, Australia, Tanzania, Israel, Turkey etc. Since the letter was only published 3 days ago, coverage at this stage will obviously be only news articles.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. gidonb (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I only cite above to indicate that there is expectation that this article too should have enduring notabilityVR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to Ali Khamenei. The letter is a work of a notable person, not a notable work. The Banner talk 14:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete or Merge. WP:NOTNEWS and also WP:NOPAGE. this article only makes sense of broader contexts and is better covered in the responses section of 2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses or in Ali Khamenei User:Sawerchessread (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Then you may need to observe some of the recent sources [7]. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Merge with To the Youth in Europe and North America and To the Youth in Western Countries, Khamenei's previous "open letters". Other than the summary of the article, little is said beyond that it sparked mixed reactions on social media, a phrase which applies to almost everything. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet and several different Redirect/Merge target articles suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NOTNEWS --AriyaNavid (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: The title's notability is proved by sources pointed by other users. We can have a standalone article. The subject had a sustained coverage although the letter was released less than 2 weeks ago.Ali Ahwazi (talk) 09:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Yes, Wikipedia is not news, but if Khameini's other open letters or Osama Bin Laden's Letter to America are relevant for inclusion, then this should be relevant for inclusion as well, as the Supreme Leader of Iran making an explicit statement of support for the 2024 college encampments, which are obviously notable. The sources in the article are enough to say that there was significant coverage, to the point where original research is unnecessary. -PKMNLives (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Merge to relevant articles, far too soon to have an article. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Given the dozens of reliable sources covering it during a wide time span, too soon or merge does not seem applicable here since the subject passes GNG. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Yet another source covering the topic, attesting the enduring notability. The work is published on 13 June 2024. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was keep‎. A merge can be an alternative to deletion, but an AfD cannot pick it as an alternative to keeping the article. Without a single !vote to delete, including the nom, no action can be taken here. Proposed mergers should take place on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 12:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Manx Aviation and Military Museum

Manx Aviation and Military Museum (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)

Merge Fails to meet WP:GNG. Should be included in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castletown,_Isle_of_Man#Places_of_interest Wikilover3509 (talk) 09:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to Castletown,_Isle_of_Man#Places_of_interest as a viable AtD. Star Mississippi 15:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: I have fixed spacing in the headers that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment, requests for article mergers should not be started at AfDs. A proposed merger nomination should've been the correct way to nominate this article since you are asking for a merge. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep there are some press references [8] [9] [10] and books [11] etc. There's too much content here, with the prospect of adding more, to merit the proposed merge elsewhere where this museum would then overly dominate the other article, in my opinion. Plus it's inclusion in Template:British Aviation Museums seems reasonable and would be less well achieved following a merge. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 18:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  This is an article about a museum run by volunteers, with scope over a self-governing territory, therefore we can assume WP:NONPROFIT applies. With the secondary sourcing both in the article and identified by @UkPaolo, I agree meets notability guidelines. Keep. ResonantDis_tortion 10:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No new comments since last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep This is notable. What's missing here is a lead paragraph to inform us how this got established, and what the museum's focus is. There's several categories of military museums around the world. Improve, don't delete. — Maile (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 02:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Merge to Castletown, Isle of Man#Places of interest as an alternative to deletion. Most sources referring to the article do not talk about the museum in depth, there is a lack of secondary sources as most sources are primary sources, and the linked book does not talk enough about the subject. So all in all, the sources do not justify the subject's notability. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Arguments divided between Merge and Keep, no support for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep More than enough sources listed above to establish notability. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep - A museum is an institution dedicated to preserving culturally significant objects, and I think almost all should be considered notable, even with few and little sources. Mr Vili talk 06:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was keep‎. Malinaccier (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Eric K. Little

Eric K. Little (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 tagged this for speedy deletion as an attack page, which was declined. Nevertheless it is not evident to me that the subject is really notable, and the purpose of the article appears to me to be to memorialise his misconduct. Mccapra (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Mccapra (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Sexual assault in the United States military: Seems to be the logical redirect, there is some coverage [12], but it's more about the scandal than the person here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:GNG. A US Major general removed due to sexism is significant. Mztourist (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  This article was added with the intent that it demonstrates the issues that have come with US military confronting systemic issues that are prevalent within their ranks. Skuzbucket (talk) 07:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to the article creator for this explanation. Please see WP:RGW. We don’t create biographies of living people to highlight broader issues. An article on the broader issue would be absolutely fine, but personalising it isn’t what we’re here for. Mccapra (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Clearly satisfies WP:GNG. Not just an attack page, as he is a general and therefore plenty has been written about him. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep US generals are not inherently notable, and this comes close to notability for a single event, but coverage like this [13] and, to a lesser extent, these [14][15] reinforces that he was likely marginally notable before his firing. The article is far from an attack page and does a good job of maintaining NPOV. Toadspike [Talk] 09:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Prince Ludwig of Wettin

Prince Ludwig of Wettin (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 am not convinced this person exists. Louis Frederick of Saxe-Hildburghausen is listed as his father, but that article says he was childless. He is listed as being made a cardinal but none of the lists of cardinals created between 1741 and 1830 list his name. He is listed as an archbishop of Olomouc but List of Roman Catholic bishops and archbishops of Olomouc does not mention him or have any gaps during his lifetime. The German Wikipedia article that text is apparently copied from is about a different person. I cannot find him mentioned in the online copies of either of the article's references. Various Google / online book searches only turn up text from this article and unrelated princes called Ludwig. Mgp28 (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Royalty and nobility, and Religion. Mgp28 (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as a misreading of sources or a hoax. Mccapra (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, Austria, and Czech Republic. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. No citations. Contradicts other articles that say his supposed father was childless. Probable hoax. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence of notability. And the contradiction with other articles is not really helping. Keivan.f^Talk 13:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Article creator only made 4 mainspace edits. C679 06:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Early Mughal–Sikh wars

Early Mughal–Sikh 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)

No particular source is discussing any "Early Mughal-Sikh wars" thus this article is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Some of the sources are outright unreliable while others are discussing particular battles for which we already have separate articles. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• Either Delete or Redirect to List of battles between Mughals and Sikhs. Template containing "Early Mughal-Sikh wars" have entries with articles about them anyway, which are also listed in List of battles between Mughals and Sikhs. The "Late Mughal-Sikh wars" template, which has a lot more entries in it, doesn't have an article, so why should the early one? Also note: article was stubified in January for apparently POV-pushing, which got rid of basically everything in it. Sadustu Tau (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as per above SKAG123 (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: The article is a clear case of WP:OR. PadFoot2008 17:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Stuart Goodman

Stuart Goodman (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)

Essentially a resume in prose form. He's held some sub-cabinet state government posts and been the Arizona lobbyist for some companies. No notable accomplishments in those positions are listed. List of military service, education, job history. The references are all directory type listings confirming he held those positions but nothing more, except one ~100 word prose article saying his firm was hired to represent Apple. This wouldn't seem to meet the "significant coverage" standard of WP:GNG.

Article was created 10 years ago by an account that never did anything else, and hasn't gotten any content edits or inbound links in a decade. Those are not criteria for deletion, of course, but they do suggest that there's just nothing to add to take this beyond prose resume form into encyclopedia article. Which is what is suggested by the apparent lack of sources with non-routine coverage which could be cited. Here2rewrite (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, no indicia of encyclopedic notability here. BD2412 T 01:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Most of what is claimed in the lead, was during his late 20s-early 30s. He was 23 when he was "Associate Director of Government Affairs for the Arizona Multihousing Association" Most likely titles that were non-notable - and possible volunteer - positions. User:Arizonapolitical never wrote anything else for Wikipedia, but this article. Possibly the same person as the article subject. — Maile (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete No significant coverage (but a bunch of quotes and cursory mentions) in the Arizona Republic. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete No SIGCOV, no independent, secondary, reliable sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Just directories/lists as references. Three of them don't even work anymore. Sadustu Tau (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: per nominator; listed sources are insufficient to demonstrate notability. Waqar💬 09:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete nothing much in terms of notability-lending refs. Reads like a promotional CV. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Yuri Lushchai

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Yuri Lushchai
• Articles for deletion/Yuri Lushchai (2nd nomination)

Yuri Lushchai (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)

While it's not a G4, it does not appear that the issues raised that led to the prior version being deleted have been resolved. Lushchai was a wonderful person and active Wikipedian but does not appear notable as an author. WP:NOTAMEMORIAL unfortunately applies. Star Mississippi 02:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Ukraine. Star Mississippi 02:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, History, Military, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I want just to note that I wasn't the one who moved the article to main space. Though I personally think that he is notable, I would be OK with submitting article later with more sources, which are listed on Russian Wikipedia forum and on Wikinews. BilboBeggins (talk) 06:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

But there is significant coverage of the person. And lack of English language sources is never an argument for deletion.

I would also like to note thst I am XFD closer on ruwiki, and User:Андрей Романенко who moved the article is long-serving administrator on ruwiki. So we might now something about notability rules, right? BilboBeggins (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. Different languages have different rules as far as notability. No one is saying he isn't notable on RU wiki, and non English sources are 100% welcome but may not meet the bar needed for notability as required here. Star Mississippi 13:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

There is his biography in the source listed.

There are also plenty of Russian language sources in his death, but they are not neutral and I would rather not include them in the article. BilboBeggins (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: NOTMEMORIAL. Simply being a Wikipedian is rarely notable, the rest are stories of his passing. Nothing for notability. His life before death was very much non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  His notability is also due to him being a poet and scientist. BilboBeggins (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. To my mind, the key source for this case is the op-ed at Radio Liberty arguing at some length for the special status of Lushchai as a cultural figure. This was not the reason behind keeping the article about this person in ru.wiki, there the closing admin opted for other criteria. Possibly other available sources don't provide so direct and clear reasoning for Lushchai's notability. However, other memorial articles (like this, for instance) also provide significant coverage of his life and are independent of the aforementioned op-ed. All in all I see this person as notable according to WP:BASIC. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Per Andrei Romanenko above. — Maile (talk) 03:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep. There is significant coverage in reliable sources. The article has enough prose, there is biography, death and legacy section. It could have been nominated for RD had it been in the same state back then. BilboBeggins (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

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 redirect‎ to List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

2024 Russia Air Force Tupolev Tu-22M crash

2024 Russia Air Force Tupolev Tu-22M crash (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:EVENTS: no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE or WP:LASTING effects. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Aviation, Russia, and Ukraine. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War. The accident does not have sustained continued coverage with a lack of reliable (secondary) sources and no clear notability established other than the type of aircraft itself. A merge and redirect to List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War would be the preferable solution as the event does not warrant a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to extant entry at List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War. Wikipedia is not a news host, and there is nothing particularly notable or enduring about the coverage of this loss in comparison to the hundreds of others without articles. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

List of battles in medieval India

List of battles in medieval India (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:MILMOS#BATTLESIN WP:UNSOURCED. Follow-up to

• List of battles in Albania
• List of battles in Algeria
• List of battles in Belgium
• List of battles in Croatia. NLeeuw (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. NLeeuw (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Poorly written article with no sources cited and it only has "three battles" in the list. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 05:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. No sources on the page. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete List of wars involving India already has all essential ones. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete has no references which Wikipedia requires. Catfurball (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - poorly defined list with zero references at all. Bearian (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Weak keep but populate This might have been a useful navigation tool, as it could provide brief details, which a category cannot. Being unsourced is not an objection, since the linked articles will (or should) have references. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

List of conflicts in Egypt

List of conflicts in Egypt (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:MILMOS#BATTLESIN WP:UNSOURCED (the few entries that are sourced are highly speculative as to what happened, where, involving whom, and why; the modern Arab Republic of Egypt has very little to do with it). Follow-up to

• List of battles in Albania
• List of battles in Algeria
• List of battles in Belgium
• List of battles in Croatia. NLeeuw (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Egypt. NLeeuw (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Unnecessary index-based article. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - List of wars involving Egypt already has all essential ones. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 06:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete poorly created article. Catfurball (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:FORK of List of wars involving Egypt, as pointed out by Abhishek0831996. Bearian (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was delete‎. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

List of battles in England

List of battles in England (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:MILMOS#BATTLESIN WP:UNSOURCED. Follow-up to

• List of battles in Albania Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Albania
• List of battles in Algeria Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Algeria
• List of battles in Belgium Draftified
• List of battles in Croatia Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Croatia
• List of battles in Afghanistan Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Afghanistan
• List of battles in medieval India Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in medieval India
• List of conflicts in Egypt Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of conflicts in Egypt. NLeeuw (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and England. NLeeuw (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Nederlandse Leeuw, I see no issues with the article, but it should have been merged not deleted. Am i getting this right. I split them because the parent article was very large, yet that lists don't have to be sourced. I would like to merge the content to List of battles by geographic location. I have no idea why my creations are getting reduced; I am current not happy with it. Toadette^Edit! 23:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, why don't you also nominate List of battles by geographic location too? Toadette^Edit! 23:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you're not happy about the fact that I am successively nominating articles for deletion that you just so happen to have created. I rarely look at who created it, only at what the contents are, and how valuable they might be. I've got nothing against you or your work in particular. That said, these split-offs are a cut & paste job that takes less than 5 minutes of effort each. Recycling existing content is a lot easier than writing brand new articles with proper sourcing.

The reason why I am nominating the lists is in this manner is that I am following a step-by-step approach, building broad consensus based on easy precedents before going on to complex cases. Since actively participating in CfD and AfD from 2023, I learnt that that is the most realistic strategy to solving issues, and avoid WP:TRAINWRECKs. The second reason is that List of battles by geographic location had already been AfD'd in 2022, closing as Keep but Split: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles by geographic location. If I still want to get it deleted anyway, then overturning that consensus is going to be difficult. The split-offs provide a good opportunity to show in smaller cases why creating lists of battles by modern countries' geographical borders is not very useful, and difficult to justify when done almost completely WP:UNSOURCED. It seems to be working, as 4 split-off lists have already been deleted, and a consensus has been building that they should be deleted, especially most recently in the Croatia case.

The new round I am going for now is Afghanistan, England, Egypt, and medieval India. You didn't create the latter two articles, so this is nothing personal. If all 4 are deleted as proposed, then perhaps I may nominate List of battles by geographic location next. But we'll see what fellow editors have to say first. Good day. NLeeuw (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• Strong keep -- This is a well-populated list, which provides better detail than is available from a category. It might be useful to purge by moving battles of the Civil War (War of the three kingdoms into a more specific list. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Update: List of battles in Afghanistan, List of battles in medieval India and List of conflicts in Egypt have just been deleted with a lot of participants and almost unanimous support. I wonder why it's so quiet here. NLeeuw (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to Military history of England. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have two suggestions for Merging but with two different target articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• delete per running consensus. Not everything British is notable, and knowing the kings of England and quoting the fights historical will only get you so far. Mangoe (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. The consensuses in the other discussions raise the same issues found here, and given that, I don't see a compelling reason why England should be treated differently. JoelleJay (talk) 02:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per Mangoe & JoelleJay above. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Just like other similar ones. Lorstaking (talk) 09:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Update: Prehistoric Irish battles has been deleted. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prehistoric Irish battles. NLeeuw (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

List of battles in Afghanistan

List of battles in Afghanistan (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:MILMOS#BATTLESIN WP:UNSOURCED. Follow-up to

• List of battles in Albania
• List of battles in Algeria
• List of battles in Belgium
• List of battles in Croatia. NLeeuw (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Afghanistan. NLeeuw (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Poorly written index and duplicates List of wars involving Afghanistan. Accesscrawl (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - yet another WP:FORK, this one of List of wars involving Afghanistan, per comment by Accesscrawl. Bearian (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

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 redirect‎ to Inca Civil War. There is clear consensus against a standalone article, and clear preference for a redirect. Consensus as to the target is less clear, but Inca Civil War has more support than the alternative, and if anyone is not content with this outcome I suggest a talk page discussion followed by an RfD if absolutely necessary. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Mullihambato

Battle of Mullihambato (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 found on the "Battle of Mullihambato" as described here in the vaguest of terms (with plenty of WP:WEASEL words raising red flags here – even the most basic facts are "possibly", "probably", "inconclusive" (in terms of the victor), and "unknown") – and they are totally unverifiable. Spanish version of article also doesn't inspire confidence, as it suggests that this battle is also called the "Battle of Ambato", the "Battle of Chimborazo", or the "Battle of Nagsichi" – and it's doubtful that any source actually links all 4 of them as one and the same. (Newson (1995), Life and Death in Early Colonial Ecuador, mentions a major battle in Ambato, but that doesn't exactly match the description here, either.) Perhaps a new article could be created in the future called "Battle of Ambato" or equivalent, but if so, it would need to be backed by reliable sources. (N.B., a separate article on Battle of Chimborazo already exists in English Wikipedia.) Article as it has stood for 16 years is essentially original research (WP:OR) and should be deleted on those grounds. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Ecuador. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Battle of Chillopampa per Maria Rostworowski de Diez Canseco, History of the Inca Realm, 1999, p. 116:

  "The two armies had their first encounter on the plain of Chillopampa, with Huascar's troops defeating those of Atahualpa. Nevertheless, Atahualpa's generals, reacting quickly, regrouped their scattered troops and, with fresh reinforcements from Quito, were able to recover. According to Cabello de Valboa, this first encounter took place in Mullihambato, near the river, and in a second battle, luck favored Atahualpa's captains. Cieza maintains that only one battle took place. In this fighting...Atoc was taken prisoner and fell victim to the cruelty of Challcochima, who, according to some versions, had a gold-incrusted chica cup made of his skull."

  There is no clear source that says that this battle occurred independently of either Chillopampa or Chimborazo, and through Rostworowski the suggestion is made that Mullihambato is Chillopampa, with the second battle, if it occurred, being Chimborazo. A redirect to the Chillopampa page would allow mention of the possibility of this name to be made there. I do not recommend a merge because the article is uncited and would require a complete rewrite to be useful in any article. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment. @Pickersgill-Cunliffe Interesting find...but then why not simply redirect to Inca Civil War and have some corresponding text there explaining the historians' disagreement? In general I'm wary of the entire set of individual battle pages – it's almost like the Wikipedia "wars/battles" structure is driving a certain type of framing of the Inca Civil War that may not be warranted, given that there is disagreement among historians about which battles even took place to start with, and the depth of information available about a few of the battles is quite thin for many. (Even the broader Inca Civil War article itself tells a different story from what the individual battle pages and template seem to suggest.) As an example, there is yet another framing in Enduring controversies in military history: critical analyses and context (ABC-CLIO, 2017) which explores "Did the Inca Civil War play an important role in the Spanish conquest of the Inca Empire?" which suggests that the main battles occurred in Tumebamba, Ambato, and Quipaipan.

  On Wikipedia now we have the following pages, some of which only cite one source, and present information as though it's uncontested:

  • Inca Civil War
  • Battle of Chillopampa
  • Battle of Mullihambato (subject of current AfD discussion)
  • "Capture of Tumebamba" (soft redirect within the template to main Tumebamba page)
  • Battle of Huanucopampa
  • Battle of Quipaipán

If you go through the sequence of individual battle pages, it feels like a rather breezy creation of a bunch of articles for the sake of building a narrative that fits the template. (Not suggesting we need solve the whole problem here, just pointing out the context.) Cielquiparle (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle: Agree there seems to be some confusion about the civil war, but as you say we'll stick to this article. I think that redirecting to Chillopampa is most appropriate because it appears that we do have historians mostly agreeing that this battle occurred, and that if Mullihambato existed (as the same battle or a different one) it was directly connected to it. People searching for these events are more likely to go to Chillopampa, which isn't actually mentioned in the main article! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to Inca Civil War: I just don't see why this should redirect to another battle, this would confuse readers who are looking for information on Mullihambato and end up on a different battle. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  While I'm not opposed to the redirect instead being Inca Civil War, I would note that the point of my vote is that this battle is considered the same as, if not interconnected with, Chillopampa. I'm not just voting to redirect to a random battle. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

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 action.‎. The minimally-participated discussion here was unanimous to merge with Glossary of German military terms. But without a nomination to delete, AfD is not required. Any editor is welcome to merge as suggested, or to discuss a different editorial approach on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 23:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Adjustierung

Adjustierung (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 seems like this article should be merged into articles about the German and Austrian militaries of various eras, which generally include discussion of uniforms. Just because there is a German word for "military uniform" doesn't mean that word is a distinct topic. We already have military uniform; the military uniforms of German-speaking countries (as opposed to Germany and Austria and Switerland, separately) don't make a natural subtopic of that. -- Beland (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  Also, the words listed could just be added to Glossary of German military terms. -- Beland (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Austria, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Merge terms into Glossary of German military terms as per Beland. Ingratis (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 14:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Md Moin Khan

Md Moin Khan (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)

Bangladeshi military officer fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. No WP:SIGCOV in any WP:SIRS; coverage cited in article (and found in BEFORE search) is WP:TRIVIALMENTION. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Delete I can only find trivial mentions of the subject in English language sources but would like to know whether there is anything available in Bengali before voting. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Searches in Bengali found the same sort of thing as what is available in English - press releases announcing promotions/assignments or mentioning in passing that he inaugurated a golf tournament.[16][17][18] No significant coverage to justify an article. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete No significant coverage. Ontor22 (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per WorldBruce. There is not enough coverage. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Only WP:TRIVIALMENTION and fails GNG-- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 11:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was keep‎. Please discuss renaming of this article on the talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Siege of Barwara (1757)

Siege of Barwara (1757) (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 whole article relies on WP:RAJ and out dated sources (WP:AGE MATTERS) and there is no mention of “Siege of Barwara (1757)” in the sources. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 09:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:RAJ is not a policy or guideline. It is an essay on the quality of sources on the Indian caste system and those written by Britons or Briton diplomats and administrators or under the guidance and review of Briton administrators like Lepel Griffin, Michael MacAuliffe, Sir John Withers McQueen. Indian historians like Sarkar's sources are used because historians today depend on their secondary work. Sarkar is an eminent historian and is perfectly reliable. Source still needs to be reviewed and verified. RangersRus (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Even if WP:RAJ doesn't applies here it is still not a reliable source as per WP:AGE MATTERS and this is the only source used in the article thus it fails WP:GNG too. Mnbnjghiryurr (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock. RangersRus (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

If old sources have become obsolete due to coverage in new sources then AGE matters and it does not apply here. Multiple sources are expected but there is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage. RangersRus (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Just found it at RSN. Hope this helps to evaluate the reliability of Jadunath Sarkar. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 16:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

*Delete, it clearly fails WP:GNG & there is only one sourced used in this article (Fall of the Mughal Empire by Jadunath Sarkar) which is not a reliable source as per WP:AGE MATTERS. Mnbnjghiryurr (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock. RangersRus (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. I had to wait to be able to find the source on the page for verification. Source by Sarkar has enough coverage from page 191 to 193 on the siege. The name of location is Barwada not Barwara (spelling error?). Page passes general notability guidelines. RangersRus (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Nom & it fails WP:GNG Chauthcollector (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep There was indeed a siege of Barwara in 1757, and there are multiple good sources. I see no reason to delete an article about a verified historical event. My impression is that we don't have enough coverage of the global south, not an overabundance that requires aggressive pruning. With that said, the article should probably be renamed, per @RangersRus, unless there are other sources that say "Barwara". Pecopteris (talk) 05:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Elmslie typology

Elmslie typology (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 wasn't able to find significant coverage of the typology in reliable sources. I found several mentions, but they were brief. toweli (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

The typology is potentially important and is often referred to but full publication and critical discussion are hard to find. In fact, this article is one of the fullest detailed explanations easily available, yet is lacking in citations back to RS original publication or critical coverage. Would suggest we need an article on this typology but serious revision is in order to tackle the source issues. Monstrelet (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep A necessary counterpart to the Oakshott system for double-edged blades. I agree that better sourcing is necessary, but I see no need to trim back to only the sourced parts. Most low-rated articles lack full sourcing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep I've done some digging and it seems the entire system can be traced to this website and its owner, James G. Elmslie [19]. The site is no longer live but has been thoroughly archived at IA. One would expect this system to be listed under "Research" [20], but it isn't. As far as I can tell, it was made popular by this YouTube video, whose creator also uploaded diagrams to DeviantArt [21]. The YouTube video makes claims of increasing acceptance by the academic/museum community, so I searched Google Scholar and found several results [22]. Examples include [23][24][25][26] (note that the links 6 and 7 are parts 2 and 3 of one work). These cite the typology itself to two different versions of a book titled "The Sword: Form and thought", one from 2015 with first editor Grotkamp-Schepers and one from 2019 with first editor Deutscher. Links: [27][28]. I am working on verifying this book citation, but based on what I've found so far, this typology is indeed published in academic literature and is notable. Toadspike [Talk] 10:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  I have now checked the 2019 version of the book "The Sword: Form and Thought". Elmslie's work is indeed referenced on pages 169, 173, and 175, cited to "pers. comm.", which a quick search tells me means "Personal Communications" (with the author of the papers in question). I would argue that this shows Elmslie is a subject-matter expert as well, and sources he publishes himself (SPS) can be considered scholarly and reliable. Toadspike [Talk] 11:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  So, there's no significant coverage, just mentions, and yet you're advocating for a keep? The responses so far have been strange, if it were really that significant there wouldn't be any issues finding a lot of discussion of the typology. toweli (talk) 11:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Leaning brief Merge to Classification of swords#Modern systems (section currently non-existent, presumably more than just Elmslie and Oakeshott should be listed): I have added the MA project in as a delsort since there's likely to be an relevant overlap of interest/expertise with HEMA practitioners. It exists, and it's useful to have it bluelinked from articles where it's mentioned (currently Falchion and Messer (sword), if it should so remain). It also has no significant independent coverage, and extremely limited uptake. In cases like this, the details available externally (archived) are there for those who want to dig into them. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Mughal–Kashmir Wars

Mughal–Kashmir 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 literally has no sources or content in it. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 05:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Rather than deleting the page, editors should work on it and improve it. It's an actual war provided with sufficient sources. Lightningblade23 (talk) 10:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep The war is historically accurate. Citations and content can be added and the article can be improved but its deletion wouldn't be in good faith.EditorOnJob (talk) 12:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete or Draftify. Poor, unreliable and unverifiable sources excluding two by Mohibbul Hasan and Majumdar. The complete page is from source by Mohibbul Hasan from page 183 to 186 that has a mention of two wars fought in 1527 won by Kashmir Sultanates and the other in 1528 won by Mughals. Majumdar source is used for mention of Khanua battle that has nothing to do with Mughal-Kashmir wars. None of the other sources have any ascription. The page numbers on source templates for Hasan are wrong. The creator of the page should hold back from primary sources like Chādūrah, Ḥaydar Malik who was an administrator and soldier under Mughal emperor in 17th century, Baharistan-i-shahi, a Persian manuscript written by an anonymous author, presumably in early 17th century, Tarikh-i Firishta written by Muhammad Qasim Ferishta presumably between 16th and 17th century and also Babur-nama. Page is also WP:SYNTH when you read a content written "The Mughals faced the Chaks at Naushahra and, despite early success, were defeated and forced to retreat back to India." No phases of wars are supported by reliable sources. Draftify vote is if the creator can bring on reliable sources to support many phases of wars to consider the page an actual full fledged Mughal-Kashmir Sultanate wars. RangersRus (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Yet another WP:SYNTH like few other recently deleted pages revolving around the same subjects. Azuredivay (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess recent contributions to the article since the deletion nomination says it has no sources and that is no longer true.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per RangersRus. Mccapra (talk) 08:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was delete‎. Given the author's apparent ambivalence to the article being kept or deleted, I am closing this as "delete" despite a relatively light discussion as I think this is non-controversial. Malinaccier (talk) 02:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Bombing of Toncontín International Airport

Bombing of Toncontín International Airport (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)

Unneccessary WP:FORK of Football War, already covered there in a few sentences. Page unlikely to be expanded nor new RS published Mztourist (talk) 05:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

u can delete if u want Wikidude2243 (talk) 06:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

or i i can change text Wikidude2243 (talk) 06:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

i can change the text Wikidude2243 (talk) 06:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, El Salvador, and Honduras. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete and Merge. I agree on having the article deleted, besides the fact that I'm also having it's information merged on the Football War article. (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

You can't both delete and merge an article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was delete‎. "Could be useful" and "historical tidbit" are not policy based arguments Star Mississippi 02:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Sligo Wild Geese

Sligo Wild Geese (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 only source since 2014 is a brief mention and I can find nothing to indicate any notability. A google search (excluding Wikipedia) find only a few hits with just a couple of brief mentions. A newspaper.com search also returns nothing. KylieTastic (talk) 11:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Ireland. KylieTastic (talk) 11:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. A relatively short-lived (local/non-profit/community) organisation that fails WP:CLUB and WP:SIGCOV. (We don't even have sources to establish the basic facts - like when the org were established/established - not to mind anything that establishes notability.) In my own WP:BEFORE, the only news sources I can find include this and this and represent represent the scarcist of trivial passing mentions in (hyper) local news sources (indicating that subject org was not even covered in any great depth in very local news coverage; Not to mind the type of [at least national] coverage that would confirm that the club's activities were "national or international in scale". As would be expected by WP:CLUB.) The only "claim to fame/notability" given in the article, about the org being "notable for many firsts, including their involvement in pioneering north–south co-operation during the beginning of the then fragile Irish peace process" represents flowery editorial and puffery that isn't supported by anything at all...) Guliolopez (talk) 11:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete I was trying to de-orphan and clean this up but the sourcing doesn't seem to be there. --Here2rewrite (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete This isn't the least sourced or most puffed stub I've seen today, or even the second, but it's close enough in spirit (per above) and the first I saw already nominated. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Not a notable group. Spleodrach (talk) 06:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep I think with some research, the article could serve an interesting historical tidbit. --evrik ^(talk) 20:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the recent additions?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Agree with Evrik. It could be useful. I will look for more references. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

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. Similar to the prior discussion in 2012. Malinaccier (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity
• Articles for deletion/List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity (2nd nomination)

List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity (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)

Nothing has substantially improved, and the issue is still that this a list of trivia. Indeed, having looked up Loose Cannons by Graeme Donald, which was cited in the last discussion, I find that its subtitle is "101 Myths, Mishaps, And Misadventures Of Military History". In other words, it is a book of military trivia, and I note that Mental Floss is cited in the article. The whole premise is questionable, particularly in these days of mostly undeclared warfare, and the inclusion criteria don't match the members. Mangoe (talk) 05:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Not encyclopaedic. Lorstaking (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already brought to AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. The article is well-sourced and (IMO) an important enough topic to keep. This isn't a policy rationale, but we built encyclopedias to be useful and I enjoyed reading it, and was sad to see it up for deletion. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per the previous AFD discussion; a renaming of the article (and) a clear definition of scope would still be helpful. But these "ceremonial unofficial peace treaties" do seem to be discussed enough to be in a list article. Walsh90210 (talk) 07:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep as a reasonably well sourced article that asserts its claim to notability even if the topic is a bit silly. This may be a situation where we could delete the article by invoking the rules disfavoring lists, but we shouldn't do it as the article is, as @The Quirky Kitty points out, enjoyable to read and as @Walsh90210 says the category gets enough discussion as a category to satisfy WP:NLIST.
  The deletion rationale is hard to discern from the nomination. However, (a) the objection that the Donald book has trivia in its title doesn't make it a non-reliable source, and (b) the idea that wars are largely undeclared today is a non sequitur and perhaps strengthens the case since it becomes more of a closed-membership list of declarations of war without a corresponding cessation.
  The article suffers from lack of hard inclusion criteria. I'm not convinced that the great Berwick-upon-Tweed vs. Russia war or even Carthage v Rome constitutes an extension of war rather than possible grounds to claim the war was extended, but that could be sorted out later. Oblivy (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

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. ✗plicit 03:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Monastyryshche

Battle of Monastyryshche (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 poorly written article, devoid of reliable sources. In addition, the language is very engaged and one-sided. Marcelus (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Poland, and Ukraine. Marcelus (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

You keep going on and on about the poor article, but you won't even point out examples, and on what grounds are the sources unreliable? Querty1231 (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep as a Stub - these are actual events so what is the point of deleting it? If someone has reliable information to the battle then they can expand it at any time.Olek Novy (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
• Weak keep. References are very poor and I am having trouble finding RS on this, there are some snippet mentions in few academic sources but nothing substantial (well, I am also doing a quick search too, no time for in-depth one - but nom should do it - I see little evidence of WP:BEFORE here). The nom also writes thatthe article is "devoid of reliable sources", but one ref is "Wielcy hetmani Rzeczypospolitej" from 1983 by Jerzy Besala - why is it unreliable? Now, given the crappy writing found in the article, I would not be surprised if that source does not mention this battle - but this needs to be verified first. There are also more reliable positions in bibliography that should be checked. Lastly, why did the nom not nominate this for deletion at pl wiki (where I see a page range is given for Besala, making it more likely this event is mentioned there, and another RS, Leszek Podhorodecki, is cited)? Sorry, Marcelus, but I think you need a WP:TROUT here. Such messes should be tagged and improved, but not deleted. WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  If the article is going to stay, basically 90% of it needs to be removed as unsourced OR. Marcelus (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of the amount of available reliable source material available about this subject would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

88 (Arracan) Battery Royal Artillery

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)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom. PercyPigUK (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge and Redirect to 4th Regiment Royal Artillery. Given its long history I'd be very surprised if there wasn't information out there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Fails general notability. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 08:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd be interested in hearing more viewpoints as those editors advocating Deletion are relatively new or inexperienced. Is there more support for a Merge or Redirection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was keep‎. Please add the sources you found in your participation in this discussion into the article so there is not a return trip to AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Abdullah Syafi'i

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)

• 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)

Note that on 17 May 2024 WC gudang inspirasi redrafted the article using better sources.^[29]-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Subject is notable even though most sources are not in English. Some sources I could find online were Tribunnews here states about how the subject was shot and martyred with his wife. Another here and so on here. This gives a preview that subject passes GNG. -Tumbuka Arch (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Edward J. Crawford

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Edward J. Crawford
• Articles for deletion/Edward J. Crawford (2nd nomination)

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)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Military, Louisiana, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment This article is highly promotional. I began checking the citations and only got through the first section, but a number fail validation or are not reliable sources (e.g. something he himself wrote). As it is, I cannot (yet?) find anything that would make him noteworthy. It will take work to cut the article down to the actual reliable sources, and then to ones that are significantly about him. My gut feeling is that there will not be significant sources, but it will take some time to figure that out. Lamona (talk) 05:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  Your assessment is incorrect. The 3 places you marked the page with [verification failed] were not accurate. 2 of the sources used this article, which you need to find his photo and click on it, and then a long bio will appear which verifies the info. Next you had an issue with source 11 freemannews.tulane.edu/, it partially verified the content, but the source 12, right after verifies everything. As far as being promotional, please feel free to revise it. Most of the article was written by me, but at least one other person has added to it. I am pretty certain that I didn't write anything promotional myself. Lionsonny (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Plenty of coverage exists. Here are the good sources:

Forthworth Inc - This article has significant coverage on him.

Travel Talk - Long article on him and his family

Hawkins Crawford - Article about his wedding and has a bio about him and his wife.

Forthworth Business - A good long paragraph of bio on him

tulane.edu - Article about his Tedx Talk. It is short, but the fact that he did a Ted talk should help with notability.

Book: In the Warlords' Shadow - This book contains a few paragraphs of info on him.

Voyage Dallas: This is an interview, but there is 3 paragraphs of intro about him that is not an interview, hence it should count towards notability.

texas.gov - A long paragraph of bio on him

Peace Corps Connect - Click on his image and you will see a long bio on him.

Based on all the above, significant coverage exists and he meets notability guidelines. Lionsonny (talk) 06:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Lionsonny None of these sources is valid for establishing notability:

• Fort Worth Inc is a WP:TRADES magazine, and only lengthy, in-depth features (not short news items like this one) from trade publications can be used to establish notability.
• The "Travel Talk" article appears to be from a magazine called "University Park Life," which appears to be a real estate promotional product. (See example: https://issuu.com/daveperry-millerrealestate/docs/hea_carla_uplife_for_issuu). Furthermore, the PDF is hosted on the subject's own website! There is no way this can meet the standard of reliable and independent.
• The wedding announcement can be used to verify facts but not to establish notability, since wedding announcements are generally supplied or based on data supplied by the couple and thus not independent.
• Fort Worth Business - same trade publication issue noted above.
• Tulane - source is not independent as it is his alma mater, plus it is a brief mention, not WP:SIGCOV
• The book I cannot view, but if it's only a few paragraphs in a full book, that's unlikely to be considered significant coverage.
• Voyage Dallas is an WP:INTERVIEW and thus a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and ineligible to count toward notability.
• Texas.gov is a WP:PRESSRELEASE and thus a primary source.
• The Peace Corps site is a short official bio, not a long one, but either way not an independent or secondary source.

As I said when nominating, this is a WP:REFBOMB trying to create an illusion of notability through sheer volume of sources, but as I show here, none of them passes the bar of notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• I'm going with Delete - due to lack of independent sources. The book has two nice paragraphs about him, but that is not enough to establish notability. The remainder are mainly local fluff pieces. The TedX talk does not establish notability - there have been hundreds/thousands of them and "TedX" is now a franchise. I find short bios that cannot be determined to be independent and a bunch of name checks. Although there are sources that state facts that are in the article, either they are not independent or are not sufficiently reliable. This person has done some interesting things so if a few reliable sources write significant and independent works about him, he could have a presence here. Lamona (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. based on presented citations above by Lionsonny, this person will meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO. In particular, Forthworth Inc, Forthworth Business, Book: In the Warlords' Shadow, Peace Corps Connect and Voyage Dallas have good amount of coverage on him. Hkkingg (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The references presented by Lionsonny for GNG purposes have been disputed by two editors, and endorsed by another. Relisting for further analysis of these sources by other editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, same comment as Daniel.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete - Seems like every tiny random irrelevant source has been mentioned in this AfD conveniently, so I can resoundingly vote delete based on the lack of good quality coverage that goes deeper than short profiles/announcements. BrigadierG (talk) 08:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per Dclemens1971. Not enough WP:SIGCOV to establish notability, and most sources that don't fall under WP:TRIVIALMENTION are either less-reliable or primary sources. B3251_(talk) 04:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with the source analysis by Dclemens1971. This is an enormous amount of trivia accumulated to synthesize an apparently cited biography of a relatively unknown living person. Right out of one's own scrapbook, perhaps. I generally feel some sympathy for the subject; sometimes it's a bad idea to have article about oneself. But in the case of this subject, I have no particular sympathy, because five years apart, two separate new contributors decided to create largely the same page about the same subject, using many of the same sources. And both of the pages came up for deletion. What a shock it was to discover the last such page creator, TheCarFanatic was blocked for likely covert advertising! This might bear some further examination. BusterD (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: For those who think it's completely risk-free to try create a Wikipedia article about a living someone (perhaps as a business card), these two deletion procedures will be available for anyone to find later when someone inevitably DOES attempt to search for this namespace. Readers of the future may make their own judgements when they see it deleted twice, and no reputation-cleaning firm (including national security agencies) can get the AfDs deleted, so the stain is set, so to speak. BusterD (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  I mean, is it observable that this article was moved to mainspace a few days after its creator's account became autoconfirmed and that since this page creation the account has made only a handful of unrelated edits? But the low quality of the sourcing toward notability standards is what's driving the discussion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was delete‎. While there is not a clear consensus, I think Alpha3031 and BusterD's arguments are more persuasive. If the draft creator would like to work on the article in Draft space and submit it to AFC, contact me or WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Rusking Pimentel

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)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Dominican Republic, and New York. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep : I looked into it and found the following new sources which are independent and have significant coverage: [30], [31], [32]. This a notable subject and fulfills the WP:NPOL as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caddygypsy (talk • contribs) 16:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC) Also, {{page creator}} and all that. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please include a signature with your comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: This article meets WP:GNG as far as I can tell. If the sources are reliable and fully backed up being the host of a notable TV show possibly meets WP:ENT. The NPOL may not be for here. Why not redirect to the show? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  I won't quibble on whether they had a significant role (eswiki article on the show is no help since it only goes up to 2008 and has even fewer references than ours), but ENT specifically says multiple, SafariScribe, and I don't think I've seen anything that claims they were part of any other notable production. I also don't see anything that could really be considered GNG or BASIC-level SIGCOV, anything beyond bare mentions seem to be routine coverage surrounding the announcement, excluded by SBST. No objection to redirect though, I just didn't want to BLAR since I anticipated an objection was not unlikely. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be helpful to get a second opinion on the sources offered in this discussion and if a Redirect target article was identified. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails GNG, ANYBIO, NPOL. I don't see a redirect target. This subject is a run of the mill political operative with no significant coverage which meets directly detailing RS. The sources presented above (subject graduates) don't assert any notability (lots of folks graduated). BusterD (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Not all of graduates get cover stories. Caddygypsy (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  My point precisely. No significant coverage, no notability. BusterD (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was delete‎. There's no support here for draftification. But if you make a request at WP:REFUND they might be willing to restore this article to Draft space. Know that it would need to meet approval by an AFC reviewer, if put directly in main space, it would be subject to CSD G4 speedy deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet

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)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, China, and India. Imperial^[AFCND] 14:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet has no issues like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala Tibetan War as you said.
  This article is Notable and has been given significant coverage by reliable sources.

• 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.
• 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

Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

Do we have evidence that one of these sources plagiarised the other? Cortador (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

References

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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:

  • (1)
  • (2)
  • (3)
  • (4)

  Based Kashmiri (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  These sources do not support your case. -- asilvering (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  The reason for deletion is simple, and it is the most common deletion reason that exists: this does not pass WP:GNG. We need multiple reliable, secondary sources that discuss the topic in depth. -- asilvering (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

:Delete per asilvering and Imperial Okmrman (talk) 04:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock. Owen× ☎ 05:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete , this is simply not notable and has wrongly been re-created as an article with a different name. If this goes on a topic ban would be in order for the editor. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

---

• Note to closer: I think I can improve this article based on the concern raised in this discussion, let me work on this article further. I'd request the closer to please draftify it so I can improve this article. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 04:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete I don't see enough evidence that this needs a standalone article. Even if it does when all history is put together, it's clear the author does not yet have the requisite experience to write that article. It would have to be started from scratch and by a more experienced editor, which can be them in the future, but I think deleting is best for now to put an end to the disruption. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: There's so much WP:Synthesis present in these creations. IMHO the new creation seems to dovetail somewhat with the old page's sources, events, and personalities. But so far, there's a general consensus among other content-area editors this material has no place in pagespace (yet, if at all). The page creator's "gaming" behavior in recreating the same basic pagespace without violating specific prohibitions, seems by itself a behavioral issue, and several times repeated. BusterD (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

Military Proposed deletions

The following articles have been tagged for proposed deletion:

• 25th Bangladesh Infantry Regiment (via WP:PROD on 30 January 2024)
• Mei Chia-shu (via WP:PROD on 28 January 2024)

Current PRODs

• Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Article alerts#PROD

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:

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:

Military-related Redirects for Deletion

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

Military-related Possibly Unfree Files

• None at present

Military-related Speedy Deletion

The following military-related Speedy Deletions are currently open:

None at present

Military-related Deletion Review

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

None at present

Military-related Requests for Undeletion

None at present

Military-related material at other deletion processes

None at present

Military related deletions on Commons

None at present