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

Greek war crimes

Greek war crimes (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 serves no purpose. All sections already exist as articles. Furthermore, it is impossible to confirm the content of the sources. Delete D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:35, 27 July 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 July 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:58, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, i missed it. Thank you very much D.S. Lioness (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if this necessitates a deletion of the article, but it needs a lot of work to bring it up to standards. Insanityclown1 (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

...but you had already proposed for deletion 🤔 D.S. Lioness (talk) 01:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete, A clear case of POV and original research article. It is about the "war crimes of Greece" and half of it narrates events that occured before Greece as a country even existed. It arbitrarily lists some events as massacres of Greece against Turkey, despite not being known as such in historiography, as victims come from both sides. At parts it relies on sources that are either too old, primary, or unreliable nationalist Turkish sites. As the nom said, every notable event that is included in this article already has its own, well written/sourced article. Plus, there is already a list of massacres during the Greco-Turkish war, and also the article of Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction which already covers the same topics, but is more general. I don't think that to single one country out of all that can be warranted. This article seems to follow the example of German war crimes, Turkish war crimes, British war crimes, etc. however the creator forgot that these states have been major world empires that committed recognized genocides with deaths reaching up to millions; None of the events in which Greece participated was even close to having a similar impact, so as to warrant a separate, stand-alone article. Every country on earth has engaged in wars which had victims; if the threshold for creating such article was that low, then every country on earth would have a similar article. Piccco (talk) 22:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I think it's a reasonable point that there are already individual articles for specific massacres, and things done during different wars; I am not sure if it's always the case that a specific article on a nation's war crimes should be devolved to sections of individual articles about wars. More crucially, how far back do we need to go with this? Do we need to include, like, the siege of Melos? That was grotesquely heinous, and obviously an affront to modern international law; the Geneva Convention, Rome Statute, et cetera. Now this is a very old example, but I think there is a point at which we are going too far for the contemporary notion of a "war crime" to be applied in a way that makes any sense, and some of the stuff in this article is from 1770, which seems pretty bizarre to me. jp×g🗯️ 11:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh

Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

One of those seemingly cursed articles, created by a subsequently blocked sock, that becomes an eternal battleground between editors claiming it's historical and those claiming it's legendary. Either way, my review of the English-language sources finds no WP:SIGCOV of this campaign, just brief mentions. I propose to redirect to Chandragupta II#Punjab region where this campaign is already covered at only slightly shorter length. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Afghanistan, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect per nom. Mccapra (talk) 06:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Ronald S. Mangum

Ronald S. Mangum (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 main notability claim here that I see is signing the open letter about Biden's health but his role isn't that large in that event WP:ONEEVENT

Everything else is fairly run-of-the-mill

Then of course there is the admitted CoI editing and page creation. D1551D3N7 (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Military. D1551D3N7 (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Law, Georgia (U.S. state), Illinois, and Vermont. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. We have no evidence of the depth of independent coverage that would be needed for WP:GNG, the scholarly impact or recognition that would be needed for WP:PROF, or the reviews of his books that would be needed for WP:AUTHOR, and my searches failed to turn up anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem

Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem (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)

Lack of RS and notability.

This is a fantasist order that is trying to piggyback off of the original Knights Templar to make it seem like the organization is well known but upon closer inspection all the sources are unreliable or primary sources - from the org itself. Be aware that the page is primarily about the organization supposedly founded in 1962, a lot of the history prior to that on the page can be disregarded and is better covered on other pages.

Websites related to the group are: smotj.org, osmth.org, osmtj.global

The academia.edu papers are published there by "Daniel J Clausen" and don't seem to be peer reviewed or anything. Daniel J Clausen is himself part of the organization of course. D1551D3N7 (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Royalty and nobility. D1551D3N7 (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep. While this needs to be completely rewritten I have run into sigcov of this group several times while looking into related groups - from looking at that, I remember having the feeling this page was highly misleading. Additionally a surface level search pulls up a lot of hits from reliable sources. They might be larpers, but they are notable.

IIRC, they are covered in significant detail in The Order of the Solar Temple: The Temple of Death, with several pages running down their history (they were like three degrees removed from the solar temple so it was context) PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, if it is kept I will rewrite it. I can't promise soon but I plan to make all the articles related to the Order of the Solar Temple Not Terrible and this was one of the organizations in the Neo-templarism larp mileau at the time. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

A rewrite would be appreciated if the page was kept but in it's current state it's entirely self-referential and promotional. By this I mean the content is all about internal schisms and different people having positions in the org and the tenuous links to the orgs before it, theres nothing about the actual activities of the group or why its notable. Perhaps I'm guilty of Wikipedia:Overzealous_deletion but I think the current article is entirely biased and a new draft through the page creation process would be preferable. I think a big reason this page slipped through the cracks is it was created in 2005.

The page Joseph Di Mambro says its a white supremacist group which is a far cry from it's own claims about being a charity. Neo-Templarism is also a page that could be improved D1551D3N7 (talk) 11:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't like pages being deleted if they're notable. I will try to at least get rid of all the self-promo stuff and put something else there in the next few days.

Yeah they are far more unsavory than this page presents. Or at least were.

Neo-Templarism used to be an extremely misleading redirect and now it's a bad start class article. This topic is hard. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Turkish-Georgian War (1921)

Turkish-Georgian War (1921) (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)

Looks made up, couldn't find any WP:RS on this supposed "war". Article was filled with non-WP:RS/WP:VER issues which I have now removed, so there isn't a single actual WP:RS in this article currently. This is not surprising, considering the WP:TENDENTIOUS track record of the creator of this article, see [1] [2] and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BaharatlıCheetos2.0. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Georgia (country), and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I spent some time reviewing this new article and came to the conclusion it was probably nonsense. Mccapra (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Unable to find sources as well. Aintabli (talk) 06:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Not able to track down any supporting material of any merit. This reads like a nationalist screed.Insanityclown1 (talk) 08:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Poorly sourced; all sources seem to be Turkish articles and pages of questionable reliability; some of them are not even verifiable, as the links seem to not work at all. Piccco (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Operation Atilla (Turkish Invasion of Cyprus)

Operation Atilla (Turkish Invasion of Cyprus) (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 should be deleted, as it seems to overlap with Turkish invasion of Cyprus. LR.127 (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Cyprus, and Turkey. LR.127 (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: WP:REDUNDANTFORK Aintabli (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: WP:SPINOFF The article Turkish invasion of Cyprus only provides an overview of the military activities in three short paragraphs, however this article vastly expands on that information. Any overlap is just enough to provide context to this extra detail Farrier-as (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep as a legitimate SPINOFF. Not sure how this could have been nominated or supported. The PRODding without as much as an edit summary was a disgrace. If there is no case whatsoever for deletion, an article should NEVER be considered for PROD! Yet another user moved the article without any debate. Maybe we should limit editing access to this article. gidonb (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Jhain

Battle of Jhain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article clearly fails WP:GNG & full of WP:SYNTH mess and WP:OR. There is not any battle named as the "Battle of Jhain", the name of the battle is fabricated Hashid 09:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep- A battle happened in Jhain during Jalal-ud-Din Khalji. The book 'The History of India' mentions it. Medieval India, Volume 3 also talks about the campaign. Early Chauhān Dynasties also mentions it. Though it was not called as 'Battle of Jhain' by any historian so it could be renamed. Changeworld1984 (talk) 09:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Changeworld1984 Battle of Jhain isn't any official battle, it was a minor conflict during Jalal-ud-Din Khalji's Ranthambore campagin which turned out to be unsuccessful Hashid 13:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• If it’s not called “battle of Jhain” by any historians what are we calling it that for? What do they call it? Mccapra (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Article passes WP:GNG and is well cited with reliable sources. Article suffers less from WP:SYNTH or WP:OR and more from non-encyclopedic writing style, which isn't means for deletion. An example would be "Some sources say ..." John.mark1956 (talk) 03:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Per above Lordseriouspig 07:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Wayne Simmons (commentator)

Wayne Simmons (commentator) (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:BIO1E. Coverage is only around his odd legal case 10 years ago of impersonating a CIA officer and committing fraud. He's just not notable outside of that. Longhornsg (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Military, Terrorism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Weak keep: There's plenty of coverage about him, but nothing past 2016... Still, he was rather "popular" for lack of a better term until he got caught. Semi-notable fraudster, unlike so many others that have articles here. Oaktree b (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  !Weak keep given only because there's also some discussion of his activities in peer-reviewed journals, this was the first one I pulled up [3]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Articles in The New York Times (March 2015), Rolling Stone (January 2016), Time (October 2015), in Australia (October 2015), Canada (October 2015), China, etc. make him a notable fraud. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete doesn't have enough reliable and independent information to prove he's notable, the article fails to meet WP:NBIO. Yakov-kobi (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Worldwide Attack Matrix

Worldwide Attack Matrix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. There was one article with WP:SIGCOV written about the document presented one time to the CIA Director, but its notability is not WP:SUSTAINED. There are a few WP:PASSINGMENTIONS, but nothing speaking to its lasting importance as an important document notable enough for a WP article. Longhornsg (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Military, Terrorism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

S. Brent Morris

S. Brent Morris (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:NAUTHOR. No clear notability. Longhornsg (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Military, Organizations, Mathematics, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable for work on Freemasonry and mathematics. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC).
• Weak keep. I found 11 published reviews of 4 books (one mathematics, three Freemasonry). That would ordinarily be enough for a full keep from me, except that three of the books are edited rather than authored and that doesn't count for as much. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Add later: I also found one more review of an authored work but in a Freemasonry journal (nine of the other reviews are in mainstream publications). Perhaps that counts less? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Notability present per David. Satisfies THREE then and the reviews are mainstream and hence can be kept. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Iași (1653)

Battle of Iași (1653) (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 single publication by an unkoen expert by nonnotable publisher is insufficient for notability of an event, whose description per se is barely two phrases: "they attacked, they retreated" The cited source does not even mention the term "Bate of Iasi".- Altenmann >talk 22:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Moldova, and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Tomasz Ciesielski is a professional historian and the claim that he is not an expert as you claim is total nonsense and stupidity of the submitter of this article I am in favour of keeping the article AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Please provide an evidence that he is a recognized expert. - Altenmann >talk 18:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

you have on the Polish nicely written who he was after all he is even the director of the History of the University of Opole [1], he has various scientific works, and his sources are used by the English wikipedia, the Polish wikipedia and the Ukrainian one, please do not write nonsense next time just check it out. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I see, sorry. Somehow I missed him in Google among numerous other Tomashes Ciesielskis. - Altenmann >talk 18:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

so why do you not retreat the Deletion request? Axisstroke (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Per AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 07:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  We !vote here not per wikipedians, but per Wikipedia rules, which say "multiple reliable sources that cover the subject in detail" Now, which sources discuss "Battle of Iasi (1653)", in your opinion? - Altenmann >talk 16:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete with regret after wading through a bunch of machine-translated sites. I couldn't find any RS in English so I tried searching "Bătălia de la Popricani" for Romanian results as well. The ones that looked best were: [4] (not exactly SIGCOV though); [5] (Vice has no consensus in terms of reliability, and I'm not seeing any sources in the article that we could follow for more info). There might be something in [6] but I think someone fluent in Romanian would be needed to translate. And even assuming it's reliable and there's at least a few pages on the battle, that's two sources at best if we also accept the Vice article. There simply doesn't seem to be enough. StartGrammarTime (talk) 09:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  It doesn't really matter if there is one or two sources what matters is its credibility I know the rules say more than one but if it is credible and recognised in the historical community such as books from Cambridge university then I don't understand removing article one. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Please tell us which books you have in mind which write about Battle of Iași (1653). - Altenmann >talk 18:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Regardless, in Wikipedia there is a clear distinction between "credibility" and "notability". Expert historians with years of research in some time period would probably write somewhere about every Battle of Asshole Pass (Polish: Potyczka na Dupskim przełęczy); that's what experts do and are respected for. But not every skirmish makes its way as a separate entry in encyclopedias. - Altenmann >talk 18:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per lack of sigcov. Yilloslime (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear opinions from more editors. This will probably not take a full week but please offer policy- and source-related arguments instead of "per X" ones.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Draftify/Weak keep: The event is real and not spamy. But, there is no reliable resource that support the event over Internet. But, I think there could be hard copy materials in Libraries and maybe some interested individuals would bring them and include to the article so it is better to give editors chance to edit it. Instant History (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

List of battles involving Sweden

List of battles involving Sweden (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)

Very cluttered, and serves no real purpose, there is a category for battles involving Sweden for a reason. Gvssy (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Gvssy (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: This AfD nominated the talk page, not the article. This has a number of consequences, links not working and so on. Given the amount of scripts and automation around AfDs, is it easier to just close this and open a new one? Ping Gvssy. /Julle (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes of course, it was my mistake, I thought I was nominating the article. Gvssy (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to List of battles by geographic location #Sweden - I disagree with the OP's reasoning, as the page is useful and could be expanded to include useful information, similar to pages like List of battles involving Georgia (country). However, there isn't much to gain by having an entirely separate page devoted to it, as there aren't enough battles to do so, so a redirect is preferable. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 18:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: I have corrected this nomination to reflect that the article was intended nominated, not the talk page. Normally I would not do this, preferring to procedurally close this and equally-procedurally formally nominate the article, but before I or anyone else could do that Politicdude legitimately presented their opinion regarding an alternative to deletion so there is no reason to fracture this discussion (and the article does have an AfD tag waiting, anyway). Apologies if any of this is out-of-process in any way. (No opinion or further comment at this time.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

List of armed conflicts between Bosnia and Serbia

List of armed conflicts between Bosnia and Serbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is on the face of it a violation of our policy on improper synthesis, these were wars fought between vastly different entities across different time periods, political systems, etc. Not every battle of e.g. the Ottoman Empire that had been located in or near Bosnia constitutes a "battle of Bosnia + adversary", because the term "Bosnia" (or indeed adversary, Serbia) is used as if it was a coherent entity at the time, which it typically wasn't, as it was usually an occupation or a vasselage situation of some kind. I don't know if it can be rewritten to be actually fine, and I frankly do not trust the quote-less referencing from the newbie user that I already had to warn about sourcing at User talk:Vedib#Introduction to contentious topics. It was passed through AfC but it shouldn't survive AfD as is. Joy (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia. Joy (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  I should also note that the claims the list captions make are sometimes downright bizarre. Like Ottoman-Bosnian victory and Bosniak population in Podrinje massacred under First Serbian Uprising - this is both casually dismissing elementary facts of the situation, that these conflicts were between the Ottoman Empire and its subjects at the time, definitely not just Bosnia and Serbia as such; and it's making a point of listing massacres in some sort of a grief porn kind of way. It's really below the standard of an encyclopedia. --Joy (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete the article in its current form is extremely problematic; Siege of Belgrade (1521) is not a "conflict between Bosnia and Serbia". The nom's concerns would still apply even if only entries like War of Hum were included. It should not have been accepted at AFC, but I see no need to draftify it now. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete . uf, there are all sorts of apples and oranges in this hodgepodge! (Shouldn't, say, Serbs of Bosnia rebelling against Ottomans be Bosnians fighting Ottomans, etc.?)--౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Conditional keep. If the author of the article can write and source the article with the changes I list below (I welcome critiques and suggestions from the opposers @Joy, @Santasa99):

• Bosnian War. The only point during the war during which an entity formally referred to in English as "Serbia" (shortened form) was in a state of war with an entity formally referred to as "Bosnia" (shortened form) was in April–May 1992 when the Socialist Republic of Serbia, as a constituent of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia or "Yugoslavia" (shortened form) was at war with the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Republika Srpska and Serbian Krajina were sometimes colloquially grouped together with Yugoslavia as "Serbia", but such nomenclature is not standard practice in this encyclopedia. If the author wishes to keep this entry, they are advised to replace "1992–1995" with "1992".
• World War II in Bosnia & Herzegovina. Territorial control initially shifted from the Kingdom of Yugoslavia to the German Reich and Kingdom of Italy, partly transferred to the Independent State of Croatia (shortened form "Croatia"). at no point was the formal English name for either the Yugoslav government-in-exile or the Yugoslav Army in the Homeland "Serbia", although their political administration eventually included an entity referred to as "Serbia", parallel to to the Banovina of Croatia (shortened form "Croatia"). Beginning with 25 Novemeber 1943, the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (shortened form "Bosnia") was in a state of war with an entity that by that time included an entity "Serbia", so the inclusion of the entry is acceptable. If the author wishes to keep this entry, they are advised to replace "1941–1945" with "1943–1945". A more complex note will be required, complete with references, to explain its inclusion to the reader. Complicated by the fact that the Socialist Federation of Yugoslavia also included a "Serbia", meaning "Serbia" was both an enemy and an ally of "Bosnia".
• Second Serbian Uprising. The Bosnia Eyalet (shortened form "Bosnia") was in a state of war with an entity that already considered itself the Principality of Serbia and was referred to in English as "Serbia" (shortened form), so there can be no objection to its inclusion provided you can source this. However, I would advise striking the sometimes problematic contents of the entire Location column as redundant and (in the case of more expansive wars) too expansive. The same applies to the inlcusion of the First Serbian Uprising, but strike Much of the Bosniak population in Podrinje massacred.
• Hadži-Prodan's rebellion. Its inclusion is problematic. Yes, it was a "Serbian" uprising, but so was the uprising of 1882 for the most part. Both uprisings featured armies loyal to "Serbia" by that name (in translation), but demonstrating that practically requires the use of primary sources, so they are more appropriate for a "List of armed conflicts between ... and Serbs" type article (see List of Serbian–Ottoman conflicts) than a "List of armed conflicts between ... and Serbia".

A flag of Koča's Serbia used during the Austro-Turkish War of 1788–1791.

• Austro-Turkish War (1788–1791). It was this conflict that saw the resurgence of "Serbia" as a territorial entity in the first conflict since the death of Jovan Nenad, but it is missing from the list.
• "Uprising in Herzegovina". Involved an army that mostly desired Austrian rule with a more religious than territorial conception of "Serbia", despite the term's use in a broader sense with undefined borders and administrative structure, making it ineligible for this list.
• Strike the "Uprising in Drobnjaci", the Siege of Belgrade and the Hungarian-Serbian War from the list.
• Entries from War of Hum through "Fifth Battle of Srebrenica" needs heavy revision, including additions, merges and clarifications. During this period, both states formally referred to as "Bosnia" and as "Serbia" existed, and conflicts involving both entities in a state of war ought to be included, but only with the appropriate caveats. Part of the issue involves states having rival claims to the title "Serbia"; see List of wars involving Russia for a possible solution.

Ivan (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The problem with all of this is WP:NOR - if no historian would extend the description of e.g. Second Serbian Uprising as an "armed conflict between Bosnia and Serbia", then we can't do that either. By the fact that the term Bosnia isn't even mentioned in that article, it's safe to assume that we're looking at a hard fail here. --Joy (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Vedib if you want a source for the inclusion of the First Serbian Uprising:

• Teinović, Bratislav M. (2020). "Преглед политичког живота у босанском ејалету (1804–1878)" [A review of the political life in the Bosnian eyalet (1804–1878)]. Kultura polisa. 17 (42): 137–154. eISSN 2812-9466. Без сумње, у Босни је почетак рата са Србијом и Црном Гором значио прекретницу у даљим унутрашњим политичким односима. [Without a doubt, in Bosnia the beginning of the war with Serbia and Montenegro marked a turning point in future internal political relations.]

Ivan (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

No, that is not a source for a historian, because that seems to be a political science journal and the first Google hit for Bratislav Teinović is Institut za političke studije. We would absolutely not be serving the average English reader well if we try to serve them this in lieu of actual secondary sources relevant to the topic. --Joy (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The journal describes itself as "a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary journal, which publishes original scientific manuscripts on topics from the humanities and social sciences field". The reviewers that year included historians Darko Gavrilović, Davor Pauković, Nebojša Kuzmanović, Vassilis Petsinis and Wolfgang Rohrbach. The website you cited for Teinović is not his primary affiliation, which is the Muzej Republike Srpske (according to that page and elsewhere). An understandable mistake. He received degrees in history from B.A. in 2001 through Ph.D. in 2019 at the University of Banja Luka. But this is just one of a number of sources stating as much. Ivan (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC) Ivan (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw he's also associated with a museum - but that's not reassuring at all, because some of the worst scholarly citations I've seen have been in works associated with museums as opposed to other kinds of research institutions. The issue here should still be fairly obvious - this person has 75 mentions on Google Scholar, where someone like Sima Ćirković has 1560. I've linked the policy on original research twice already, here's now a link to WP:RS for more information on identifying reliable sources. --Joy (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

If you have a counterclaim from Ćirković, please do provide it, and I will introduce that into the article in parallel. Even then, one would have to cite more than one source to show something is against consensus. Citation counts are a poor metric for determining what is and is not a "RS", especially in a field of study as small as the wartime politics of the Bosnia Eyalet in the early 19th century. Some of the worst scholarly citations I've seen have been in works associated with museums as opposed to other kinds of research institutions. I laugh in agreement, but while Teinović himself is associated with a museum, the work in question was published in a journal published by a university. And some of the best scholarly works I've read have been associated with museums. Especially true for archaeological museums. I wouldn't cite Teinović for 1992 because he was effectively WP:INVOLVED even though his military service did not begin until 1994. But he is one of the few to have defended a doctoral dissertation to encompass the war of 1804–1813.

The worst that could be levied against Teinović is not providing reasoning for what to call the Bosnia Eyalet ("Bosnia") and the new Serbian state ("Serbia"), but the only work I know of offhand that discusses extensively the English terminology for the Serbian state during the First Serbian Uprising is only available in a few libraries currently unavailable to me, so I couldn't quote from it. Although there are many scholarly sources calling Serbia by that name when discussing this time period, as is the case with Bosnia, there are only a few sources discussing the involvement of Bosnia (and especially Sinan Pasha) in the suppression of the uprising. Maybe 10-20 at most. I chose a recent one with a concise statement for quotation purposes, but there are plenty of others you could select to avoid WP:SYNTHESIS.

For an English example that discusses the formal name of Serbia during the revolution with "Karageorge Petrović, supreme commander in Serbia" while also describing "Bosnia" and "Serbia" in conflict:

• Baković, Dušan T. (2006). "A Balkan-Style French Revolution? The 1804 Serbian Uprising in European Perspective". Balcanica: Annual of the Institute for Balkan Studies. 36: 113–128. ISSN 2406-0801. The resounding victory of 12,000 Serbians over the powerful 20,000-strong army of Bosnian beys at the Battle of Mišar in 1806 raised hopes among Serbian peasants in Bosnia that Ottoman rule might be replaced by that of Karageorge's Serbia.

Ivan (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

See the new "First Serbian Uprising" entry for a rough idea of what my version would look like. Ivan (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did you just oppose the underpinning of WP:V? :D The burden of proof that something is out there is on the parties trying to introduce this list article. Y'all have to convince everyone else that this would be the encyclopedia describing something from the real world. If all you have is scattered, vaguely relevant mentions of the topic from vaguely relevant sources, that's just not it. The Bataković 2006 citation likewise does not support the case for this list article - yes, there's a sentence that talks of Bosnian beys, but then it also talks of Ottoman rule and the next sentences talk of Ottoman troops and Muslim violence and Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Muslim forces and it goes on and on. If we cherry-picked any one of these appellations and chose to create a list article based on that, it would be absolute madness. --Joy (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I am communicating that I can rescue the article, because its subject is something from the real world. An entity known as "Bosnia" has been in conflict with an entity known as "Serbia" on 6 occasions since 1788 and on more still before the death of Pavle Bakić. The Tanzimat reforms removed most of the autonomy the pashas of Bosnia had previously enjoyed, so you could make the case for excluding the Serbian–Ottoman Wars (1876–1878). But even the Serbian Despotate in exile enjoyed considerable military autonomy, to say nothing of the Banate of Bosnia. These were entities that could be punished if they did not answer a call to arms, but were so autonomous that they often did not, and often undertook military campaigns on their own, with little to no involvement of the central authority they answered to.

The relevant portion of the Bataković quotation is in Bosnia that Ottoman rule might be replaced by that of Karageorge’s Serbia, but the preceding part shows that at times it was specifically the Bosnia Eyalet that was in conflict with Revolutionary Serbia. I still need to introduce more sources to help delimit the duration of conflict between those specific entities, but I have already shown that parts of the conflict are indeed described by historians as one between Bosnia and Serbia. And that is the norm rather than the exception for those parts of the conflict. So it is not a redundant duplicate of "List of Serbian–Ottoman conflicts", as "List of conflicts between Devonshire and the Upper Palatinate" would be a redundant duplicate of "List of conflicts between England and Germany".

Your opposition is because the term "Bosnia" (or indeed adversary, Serbia) is used as if it was a coherent entity at the time, which it typically wasn't, as it was usually an occupation or a vasselage situation of some kind. My support is because both "Bosnia" and "Serbia" were usually singular, militarily independent entities even when they were vassals. The Banate of Bosnia was on average even more independent than the Banate of Croatia, yet the latter's ban Pavao Šubić was so powerful he became ban of both entities following his conquest of the latter in 1302, entirely of his own initiative and with hardly any input from the King of Hungary.

Ivan (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Funny that, List of conflicts between England and Germany could have a redundant duplicate - if it existed. It probably doesn't exist because it's not a topic area that attracts so much contrived conflict. If this list is just going to be replicating low-quality nationalist axe-griding from the real world - Wikipedia still shouldn't have to include it, and WP:ARBMAC has a very clear rule against furtherance of outside conflicts. --Joy (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I am currently rewriting the article. In a few days, it should be well-sourced. Ivan (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Ivan, I am pretty much totally mentally and physically incapacitated with the heat wave we are experiencing around the Adriatic for the last few days. I barely managing to open my laptop and concentrate, and your proposal requires giving some real thought. But, if you think that you can somehow fix it, and if Joy gets on board, I won't oppose. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I understand, thank you. Ivan (talk) 11:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to Bosnia and Herzegovina–Serbia relations#List of wars. Good last point, @Joy. For the most part, "List of wars involving Entity A" is sufficient, otherwise the possible combinations would produce thousands of stub articles. There are a few exceptions, such as List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Russia. But List of armed conflicts between Bosnia and Serbia is shorter and could be relegated to a section within Bosnia and Herzegovina–Serbia relations. Ivan (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• AFC reviewer comment: I accepted this with the understanding that it would probably get sent straight to AfD, on the grounds that the topic is broadly notable and this kind of more specific editorial decision ought to have some kind of consensus rather than just be the decision of a single AfC reviewer, especially since it's an obvious POV magnet. (Judging from the above, I was right.) If it's deleted, I think it's pretty likely that someone will try to create it again, so if this doesn't end as a merge-and-redirect, it's probably worth salting this one. -- asilvering (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. Judging from the above, I was right. Out of curiosity, what POV do you think I represent? Ivan (talk) 11:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  If you think I was implying that you or anyone else in this discussion was POV-pushing, I apologise for that. What I meant by Judging from the above, I was right. is that the fact that the discussion above is so extensive shows that this is indeed a topic that requires broader consensus than a single AfC reviewer's opinion. -- asilvering (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

References

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to hear from some new editors about how to consider whether: 1) there is improper original research (current consensus is leaning towards yes) and 2) whether or not deletion or something else is the right remedy if there is improper OR.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment: The article has changed drastically between the first discussion and now, and will likely continue to improve for several days. Ivan (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There have been substantial changes to the article since its nomination and removal of content seen as problematic in this discussion. Does this make a difference in participants' assessment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• I still don't think the 19th century uprising against the Ottomans is really describable in list format like this, because these references are insufficient to prove that the scientific consensus is to call this so trivially/casually like that. Either way, whether it's a list of three or two items, it's still a pointless list article, and we don't have sources for the list itself as such. As the title is not really a common search term - I think it's reasonable to assume that the average reader would rather just use search terms like "war Bosnia Serbia" if they wanted to find something like this - we should still get rid of it. Whatever useful content was found in this process can be used to create or improve a paragraph or two in other articles. --Joy (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

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