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

watch

Military and combat

Battle of Karamaryan

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Battle of Karamaryan
• Articles for deletion/Battle of Karamaryan (2nd nomination)

Battle of Karamaryan (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)

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Article previously soft-deleted, however no evidence of improvement. I share the concerns of the previous AfD as well, which stated "Article fails both WP:RELIABILITY and WP:VERIFY."Mdann52 (talk) 07:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mdann52 (talk) 07:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Someone with good Russian might want to have a look into this document (I am assuming the language is Russian). Just to make sure we are not deleting an article about a battle that already happened just because the page creator did not bother to include references. Also have a look to the references at Military History Fandom. Bizarrely the page indicate that the "articles incorporating text from Wikipedia"! anyway the licence is good for Wikipedia but attribution is missing. FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• @FuzzyMagma: Fandom copied the article from us prior to deletion, and it was copied back across from there when the article was recreated. Took me a while to work that one out! Mdann52 (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete and speedy close I've checked the logs of the article and I have found it was initially created by a blocked account who is also a sockpuppet [1]. I have opened a SPI case [2]. Regardless of all of this, the article should be deleted because it was recreated by a non-WP:XC account so it does not comply with the restriction for this topic, WP:GS/AA. Vanezi (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Azerbaijan, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

List of Canadian military victories

List of Canadian military victories (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 ("battle victories by Canadians" could mean anything, before "Canada" even existed as an independent country);
• mostly WP:UNSOURCED (1 source);
• WP:NPOV (only listing "victories" gives a very one-sided, cherry-picked view of history);
• strong WP:OVERLAP with / WP:REDUNDANTFORK (WP:POVFORK, given that only "victories" are listed) of better-sourced and more complete and balanced articles/lists:
  • Military history of Canada
  • List of wars involving Canada: 1003 – present
  • List of Canadian battles during the First World War (Canadian Expeditionary Force): 10 March 1915 – 5–7 November 1918
  • List of Canadian military operations: 1947 – present
  • Canadian peacekeeping#List of UN missions: 1948–present.

Follow-up to the recent deletion of List of conflicts in Canada, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of conflicts in Canada. NLeeuw (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, and Canada. NLeeuw (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Conyo14 and NavjotSR: Courtesy ping to participants in previous discussion for follow-up. Good day. NLeeuw (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Is there a defeats list? Conyo14 (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  LOL not really. There is a List of military disasters, which has been nominated for deletion 4 times, but I think it will not survive the next round.

  Aside from the also very subjectively-looking Military victories against the odds, there are only articles on lists of aerial military victories:

  • List of World War II aces credited with 100 or more victories
  • List of combat victories of United States military aircraft since the Vietnam War
  • List of Iranian aerial victories during the Iran–Iraq war
  • List of Iraqi aerial victories during the Iran–Iraq war
  • List of World War I aces credited with 20 or more victories
  • List of aerial victories of Manfred von Richthofen
  • List of aerial victories of Erwin Böhme
  • List of aerial victories of Carl Menckhoff
  • List of aerial victories of Werner Voss
  • List of aerial victories of Otto Könnecke
  • List of aerial victories of Count Baron Kaiser Werner Pfeldlinger Fingerlickner von Hoeltschweinergmachtner

  Ok not really, I made that last one up. Seriously though, I don't know why WW1 German pilots who managed to shoot down other planes merit a Guinness Book of Record-ish article praising how "cool" they were. Are there any articles about how many front soldiers a French nurse saved from death after treating their wounds? Arguably she deserves more praise from humanity.

  Besides, aerial combat is notorious for overclaiming how many enemy aircraft one has been able to destroy or damage. (E.g. the Russian Ministry of Defence claims to have destroyed the entire Ukrainian Air Force several times over since 24 February 2022. Similarly, the Ghost of Kyiv was probably an exaggerated rumour on the other side). That's because it's very hard to verify, especially through visual confirmation, whether the enemy aircraft has actually been destroyed, as planes move so fast and quickly run out of sight. You might think you hit it, but did you bring it down? Your side usually does not control the alleged crash site, so you can't go there to take some pictures as evidence that you really shot someone down. So most of these lists of "aerial victories" might be full of unverifiable and unfalsifiable claims made only by one side of the conflict. Even if you could verify them, it does give you a very warped perspective of how combat-effective this person or this country was in war X or throughout history, and that is a bit of an WP:NPOV problem. NLeeuw (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  What.... Category:Lists of World War I aerial victories...

  Ok never mind, I need to go to sleep before I go mental hahaha. NLeeuw (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  All that for a simple "no" haha. Victory is very subjective. So, there is more ability to have subjective viewpoints on battles. As a grouping I'm not sure if this would pass WP:LISTN. I'll lean delete. Conyo14 (talk) 02:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  I guess I got carried away by answering your question. NLeeuw (talk) 07:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Victories or defeats don't require a separate page. Dympies (talk) 03:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

List of battles fought in South Dakota

List of battles fought in South Dakota (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.
• Prehistoric Irish battles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prehistoric Irish battles.
• List of battles in England Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in England
• List of conflicts in Canada Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of conflicts in Canada. NLeeuw (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, and South Dakota. NLeeuw (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• Leaning delete. South Dakota didn't become a state until November 2, 1889. According to this list, since statehood, there were two armed conflicts ("battles"): the Wounded Knee Massacre and the Drexel Mission Fight. Topic is also well covered in History of South Dakota. Not seeing a need for a standalone list and not seeing any reliable sources that group these five battles in this particular way. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  Just read WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN which says it all. Just delete. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Not a notable subject. Azuredivay (talk) 09:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Future of the United States Navy

Future of the United States Navy (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)

Literally just an out of date list of ships being built. The comparable articles for other navies are rich with prose. At best should be merged without redirect. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not clear what's actually out of date or if the tag itself is out of date, but that's an editing issue and not a reason for deletion. While prose about the future would be great, the lack therof is also no reason to delete this list. However, I am undecided if this should be merged to List of current ships of the United States Navy#Future ships or kept and renamed to List of future ships of the United States Navy with that section merged here instead. Reywas92^Talk 20:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Category:Military planning shows plenty of lists like this with this naming convention. I don't know why, but there should be a discussion somewhere about this. The items on this list are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, so this is a valid navigational list, far more useful than a category since additional information is listed. Dream Focus 08:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep I would argue that it is not out of date since less than a month ago there has been a big update with new auterized ships added. Otherwise I would also agree it could be renamed to List of future ships of the United States Navy as mentioned by Reywas92. 102Legobrick 12:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC+2)

Shafqat Baloch

Shafqat Baloch (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 subject fails to meet the GNG. I don't see sig/in-depth coverage. While he received a military award, so have thousands of other soldiers, but that doesn't mean we should create biographies for all of them citing ANYBIO. Fwiw- the bio contains WP:OR , contains PROMO, is unsourced and flagged for copyvio as well. Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment: @Saqib, I've readded some info removed over copyright after fixing it which goes into detail on his role in 65 war. Waleed (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Nizam's Carnatic campaigns (1725-27)

Nizam's Carnatic campaigns (1725-27) (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 is solely based on author's own research and is not supported by any reliable source. Even the sources which the author has used in this article contradicts his claims for example author has used New History of Marathas Vol2 by Govind Sakharam Sardesai in his article and that book's Pg 85-90 (here is the link for book) [3], says there were two campaigns one from 1725-26 and second from 1726-27 both led by Bajirao called "Bajirao's 1st Carnatic Expedition" and "Bajirao's 2nd Carnatic Expedition" the author simply combined those two conflicts kept a name as per his choice which violates Wikipedia guidelines. Also result section has a problem; the same source stated above gives a Maratha victory see Pg 85, quoting 1727 April: Karnatik Chiefs submit to Bajirao, so Nizam victory is also inappropriate.Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, India, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - A separate article is not warranted for this much content. Capitals00 (talk) 02:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Delete, as per above-mentioned comments.Rawn3012 (talk) 04:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep Constructive45 (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I see you provided no counter to my comment for which I nominated this article for deletion. I am assuming it's because you simply can't. Also, I see your talk page is full of edit disputes with other users where you are constantly trying to push your narrative. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

G. B. Singh

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/G. B. Singh
• Articles for deletion/G. B. Singh (2nd nomination)

G. B. Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable individual. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Military, Politics, Sikhism, Colorado, and Oklahoma. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. No sources provide him any biographical coverage. CharlesWain (talk) 04:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Only mentioned in passing over 2 non-notable books. Orientls (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

  People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

  • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

  Sources

  1. Fuller, Amy Elisabeth, ed. (2009). "Sing, G.B. 1954–". Contemporary Authors: A Bio-Bibliographical Guide to Current Writers in Fiction, General Nonfiction, Poetry, Journalism, Drama, Motion Pictures, Television, and Other Fields. Vol. 270. Detroit: Gale. pp. 396–398. ISBN 978-0-7876-9528-6. ISSN 0275-7176. Retrieved 2024-06-20 – via Internet Archive.

     The book notes: "Born September 5, 1954, in India, G.B. Singh eventually moved to the United States where he attended the University of Oklahoma. Educated as a periodontist, Singh joined the United States Army Medical Department, launching his career in the military. He gradually rose through the ranks, attaining the position of colonel, unusual in that he is one of few Sikh-American's to ever achieve such a high rank within a branch of the United States armed forces. Sikh-Americans who wear turbans must receive special dispensation if they are to be allowed to hold higher military ranks, and none of them are allowed to be part of units that go into combat. Singh wears his turban proudly along with his military uniform, a trait that has caused considerable talk in this post-9/11 world. While performing his duties, Singh has been stationed all across the country, and has also been stationed in Korea twice. Beyond his work for the Army, Singh is also a student of Indian politics, study- ing that nation's political history and religion, particularly Hinduism, and the life and works of Gandhi."

  2. Reed, Bill (2004-08-24). "Deconstructing Gandhi - Author claims 'Mahatma' guilty of racism, divisiveness". The Gazette. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

     The article notes: "Yet, Col. G.B. Singh isn't obeying the rules. His first book, "Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity," portrays Gandhi as one of the most dangerous leaders of the 20th century. ... The book is the culmination of 20 years of research, as Singh evolved from one of Gandhi's admirers to one of his harshest critics. ... Singh has a kindly face framed by a dense beard and turban. He appears gentle and soft-spoken until he delves into the subject of Gandhi. Then his passion flares. Singh was born in India to a family of Hindus and Sikhs. He was educated in the scriptures, and he was trained in the godlike worship of Mahatma Gandhi. ... Singh became a periodontist and emigrated to the United States in 1976. He joined the Army and rose to the rank of colonel, making him one of the highest-ranking officers in the U.S. military to wear a turban."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow G.B. Singh to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Pinging the only AfD participant from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. B. Singh who has edited in the last three years: David Eppstein (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Related AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandhi Under Cross Examination. Cunard (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per Cunard. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Sources by Cunard only prove that this is a case of WP:BLP1E; person known only for writing misleading attack pieces on Gandhi. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  The books were published and received coverage over a several year period so that isn't "one event". PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see any "reviews" that would make him notable and in any case, it does not change the fact that per WP:BLP1E, we need to assess that "how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources", and this subject fails that. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 08:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BLP1E. Cursory search does not show anything different. Azuredivay (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. We shouldn't push to delete material merely because we disagree with it; the question is whether it is notable. The two related AfDs on two of his books Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandhi Under Cross Examination have turned up possibly as many as six in-depth reliable reviews for the first book and three for the second, well over my threshold for WP:AUTHOR. These are mainstream sources (and point out the fringe and partisan nature of the books) so the requirement of WP:FRINGE for mainstream coverage is met. He may be a partisan conspiracy theorist and he may be incorrect on all points; per FRINGE, that raises a higher bar, that we use mainstream and not fringe sources to cover him, but I think that bar is met. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete- Only 2 sources provided above includes a database of many non-notable authors and a 20 years old random coverage from Colorado's The Gazette, a local daily. None of this establishes WP:GNG, let alone gaining significant coverage from the expert sources of this field. Orientls (talk) 12:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Mewar–Delhi Sultanate Wars

Mewar–Delhi Sultanate Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article is nothing but a complete product of original research. There is not a single WP:RS that treats the conflicts between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate as involving all the Sultanates (Mamluk dynasty, Khalji dynasty, Tughlaq dynasty, and the Lodi dynasty) allied together against Mewar. Ironically, the timeline of the war/conflicts presented in the article is completely fabricated, and no sources support this notion. There was no single war between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate, as these were not unified entities. Mewar was ruled by the Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty, while the Delhi Sultanate was ruled by the aforementioned dynasties. The author synthesized multiple conflicts and combined them into a single article, even claiming a "Mewar victory" without any evidence. The article is completely a product of WP:SYNTH and OR. Imperial^[AFCND] 14:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Pakistan, and India. Imperial^[AFCND] 14:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• comment:Note for the closer: Please analyze the background and contributions of the voters, as meatpuppetry is common among Indian military-history articles. Do not consider the votes of newly created users or common PoV pushers as valid, whether for Delete or Keep. Ironically, I noticed that the author of this article supported the deletion of a similar article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maratha–Nizam wars, yet surprisingly promotes this article by linking to other articles. --Imperial^[AFCND] 14:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  Keep I have named the article "List of Battles between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate" but a user named Flemmish changed it to the current name. I suggest the name of the article to be changed to the previous one, "List of Battles between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate", and this is a list where as your article Maratha-Nizam was a conflict which is entirely different from this one. Both articles can't be compared, use common sense at least Imperial. Also, I did not remove the dynasties (Guhila, Sisodiya, Khalji, etc.) another user named Padfoot2008 removed it so you better have this discussion with him. Also when did I add Mewar victory in the article, if some editor adds it (which nobody did you could see page history), you could simply undo that edit, nominating the article for deletion isn't appropriate. And there are several similar articles in Wikipedia like List of wars involving the Delhi Sultanate so why can't this be? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  I changed the title to Mewar–Delhi Sultanate Wars because all parts of the actual text were portraying it as a series of conflicts and a set topic rather than just a list of conflicts between the states — changing the title back wouldn't fix anything, the problems are, as was said, about the text and treating it as a single conflict rather than whether it is called a "list" or not. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Which line of the article portrays this as a single conflict? It seems you have a problem in understanding English. Better work on it. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not the one with an English problem here — I did say portraying it as a series of conflicts and a set topic — obviously this was not one 300 year war and by the latter saying of "treating it as a single conflict" I mean, as I and Imperial said, that you are treating these wars between non-unified entities as a series of conflicts, and thus one topic rather than just different conflicts between polities which happened to be located in the same region. You can't take multiple wars between any two states and treat it as one topic if sources do not treat it as one. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  It seems to me that you simply don't want to understand what is meant by a list. I m saying that this is a list of wars between Mewar and Delhi Sultanate. When am I saying (when is the article saying) this is a single conflict? And what do you mean by non-unified entities? Clearly you are the one who is having difficulty in understanding English or even your own comments. See what you wrote, the problems are, as was said, about the text and treating it as a single conflict Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 07:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Did you even read Imperial's initial reasoning? Non-unified means, in addition to a lack of centralization, that the "Delhi Sultanate" was not one single country and was ruled by four different dynasties. Quoting Imperial's reasoning, which it seems you can't comprehend, Mewar was ruled by the Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty, while the Delhi Sultanate was ruled by the aforementioned dynasties. The author synthesized multiple conflicts and combined them into a single article, even claiming a "Mewar victory" without any evidence. As I said, you're taking the fact that there were multiple wars between the "Delhi Sultanate" and the "Kingdom of Mewar", both ruled by different dynasties throughout their history, and, as a quote from your writing on the article, claiming that the "Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Wars" were a series of conflicts that happened from the mid 13th to early 16th century with a set victor. I changed the title from a list because by your writing, it wasn't a list; you claimed in the lead, before the page was moved, that there is something called the "Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Wars" which is clearly just a made up name of conflicts between different entities; I was simply adjusting the title to more accurately reflect the outlandish claim your POVish article is trying to make. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  So, You want me to change just first line of the article that is "The Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Wars were a series of conflicts that happened from the mid 13th to early 16th century"? And even if multiple dynasties are involved that does not support the deletion as it is a list. And what is my POV push in the article, all wars are supported by multiple reliable sources (WP:RS). Also, list of wars articles are perfectly suitable for inclusion in Wikipidea. And different dynasties ruling Mewar and Delhi doesn't make any sense for deletion of the article, for example you could see Afghan-Sikh War. If you changed the title for first line of the article you should have consulted me first as I was the author of this article rather than having this discussion now. Besides where did I mention a set victor in the article since the day it was accepted?Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 08:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep: These battles did happen between Mewar and Delhi Sultanate over a long period of time as both vied for control in northern India. What did u mean by this:

There was no single war between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate, as these were not unified entities. Mewar was ruled by the Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty, while the Delhi Sultanate was ruled by the aforementioned dynasties.

How Mewar wasn't a unified entity? Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty are not distinct, Sisodia are a sub-clan of Guhila. Krayon95 (talk) 04:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

There is not a single WP:RS that treated the conflicts between Sisodia+Guhila vs Mamluk+Khalji+Tughlaq+Lodi as a single war. So, a clear synthesis is presented here. And your user talk page history is full of clearing warnings and AFD notices on caste-related issues? Imperial^[AFCND] 05:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@ImperialAficionado Well, indeed, battles took place between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate as they were both powerful entities, particularly Mewar as it was going towards its peak, but as explained by you, there is no source mentioning the war overwall, or, in a better way, an organised millitary standoff. Hence, I would request to rename the article to its older name, which is "List of battles between the Kingdom of Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate," or another name, which is Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Conflicts. Let's have a consensus.

Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment for the Closer : I have addressed all concerns which users Flemmish and Imperial had regarding page name, some sentences of the intro para and the dynasties of the involved belligerents in my recent edits of this page. Please see these links [4], [5], [6], [7]. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Joe Joseph (politician)

Joe Joseph (politician) (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)

Member of a Parish council, whose sole news articles about his recent decision to run in the current election. If he wins, automatically notable, but at this point he is subject to general notability policy, and has no indication of passing Brislian (talk) 04:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Draft per WP:TOOSOON. All the coverage is specifically related to one event WP:BLP1E, if he does get elected he will be notable as you mention, thus drafting is best for now. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Beyond running as a candidate, the individual is not notable. TOOSOON applies. Can be re-created after the election win, if it goes that way. Oaktree b (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Draftify Delete per WP:TOOSOON, and nom. and others above. Sal2100 (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: Changing above !vote from "draftify" to "delete" per the rationale of Antonine below. Sal2100 (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: This is a blatant example of not notable. WP:TOOSOON shouldn't apply here as otherwise you could apply to all the other candidates standing in the general election, but the editorial guidelines are quite clear that only notable people get articles. Simply standing for election in a national contest does not automatically make someone notable, so this should be an automatic deletion as a simple case of not being noteworthy. Antonine (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Fails multiple categories related to BLP articles. Textbook example of not notable and not meriting an individual Wiki article. Go4thProsper (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per previous votes. Unelected candidates are not inherently notable. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Operation Kahuta

Operation Kahuta (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)

Pure fancruft created for POV pushing. All of the sources are nothing but invented claims of Pakistani officials not supported by any third party sources. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Indian, Israeli, American, British and Irish sources are included Waleed (talk) 04:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Cite them here. I don't see any which can establish WP:GNG. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

3,4,5,8,9,10,16,17 are non-Pakistani sources which include the aforementioned sources including Israeli and Indian but also third party sources including the American air university Waleed (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete : article lacks significant coverage from independent and reliable sources. The existing sources are primarily from partisan perspectives, failing to establish the article notability. Nxcrypto Message 05:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  Non beligrent sources are also given as mentioned above Waleed (talk) 07:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the subject but there does appear to be reliable sources covering it e.g. [8] even if it's a fabricated plot it's still arguably notable. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Pakistan, Israel, and India. Owen× ☎ 10:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: I've concerns about articles created by M Waleed, as they often include WP:OR and rely on questionable sources. Despite my advice to use drafts instead of creating articles directly in the main namespace, it appears that my suggestions were not followed- hence this AFD nom. Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete A non-notable one-sided claim does not need a separate article. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Zakaria1978, the existing sources include indian and Israeli sources so how's this one sided Waleed (talk) 05:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to Israel–Pakistan relations. Article on a non-event that is already mentioned at Israel–Pakistan relations. A redirect per CHEAP and ATD is the only correct solution. gidonb (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Devarakonda

Battle of Devarakonda (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)

Couldn't find a single reliable source mentioning a battle called the "Battle of Devarkonda." This makes it clear that the article is fabricated. It was created and modified by socks who were disrupting articles related to Indian military conflicts. The article lacks notability, and no sources cover this conflict in detail or refer to it as the "Battle of Devarkonda." Created by socks/continuous disruptors for self pleasure. Imperial^[AFCND] 09:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and India. Imperial^[AFCND] 09:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• comment- The repeated mentioning of "Muslim" in the lead itself is enough to identify the the target of the creator (ofcourse, the user is blocked).Imperial^[AFCND] 09:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 10:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Being unsourced is a not a reason for deletion because it can be fixed through editing. In this case, however, notability does not appear to be established. C F A 💬 15:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: I don't think this is a hoax. It is briefly mentioned in some pages online, like this blog/article. Regardless, it certainly doesn't meet WP:NMIL with this little coverage. C F A 💬 15:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Clearfrienda We have seen numerous unreliable sources that discuss rewritten and inaccurate history, often contradicting well-established sources. I do not consider those blogs and write-ups to be credible, especially since such biased South Asian blogs are widely available online. The site linked above itself contains praise and many biased writings. Imperial^[AFCND] 16:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. Source by Dr. M.A. Haque, lecturer in history, Regional college of Education, Bhubaneswar, Orissa on page 33 talks about the battle at Devarakonda. Page needs to be fixed with background where Bahamanis sieged Devarakonda. More reliable sources will be helpful. 2 other sources, I was not able to verify. RangersRus (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Weak delete for notability. The first source is a paper book that I cannot access online. The second ref (Subrahmanyam 1957) links back to the article. The third source, a book from 1980, looks legitimate but only mentions the battle on one page (which you can access by entering "Devarakonda" into the search function provided). So we have enough accessible sources to show that the battle took place and a few basics about who fought and who won. I say draftify if even one person volunteers to make improvements. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Second Battle of Robotyne

Second Battle of Robotyne (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)

We do not need a page for every minor battle in this war. The bulk of the paragraph for the battle consisted of Russian Telegram links and ISW sources. The links to the ISW sources were dead, and I couldn't access which date the sources were coming from. The sources reporting the Russian capture of the town and second battle could easily be input into the page for Robotyne itself, as it doesn't have SIGCOV or notability in the sources mentioned to establish the second battle as it's own page.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree, since we never created page for first battle of Robotyne during 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive, but instead have a information in 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive and Robotyne pages so I don't think it will be necessary to create page for second battle of Robotyne either. Hyfdghg (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Tagging @Super Dromaeosaurus, @Alexiscoutinho, @Cinderella157, @RadioactiveBoulevardier, and @RopeTricks as they're all active in pages regarding the invasion of Ukraine. Jebiguess (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Draftify seems the best course of action for now. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I agree it is hardly notable and barely has a tactical or strategic importance. In fact, it's mostly a symbolic victory to undo the Ukrainian counteroffensive. If Russia reaches the trenches further north and levels the front, then we can start talking about some tactical notability. With that being said, I don't mind a draftification. And by the way, what's the deal with the generic dev-isw refs?! Where are the editors getting them from?! Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  According to the user @HappyWith, the ProveIt citation tool has a serious problem with ISW pages; see discussion 1, discussion 2, discussion 3. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, I see. Thanks! Alexis Coutinho (talk) 03:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, it's terrible. I highly recommend someone contact the dev of the ProveIt code and try to get that fixed, because it's caused so many well-meaning editors - including myself several times - to unintentionally add completely useless, broken cites to articles about very important topics. HappyWith (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Agree, we don't need an article for every minor battle. We must weigh coverage against WP:NOTNEWS (routine coverage) when we are mainly confined to NEWSORG sources. Content is best placed at the town's article and potentially in a higher level article. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  In my view, this conflict in particular has revealed the limitations of NEWSORGs wrt fog of war. Hindsight, on the other hand is 20/20. A good example is Battle of Moshchun, which was only created eleven momths later. Follow-on sources can change the picture considerably. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete thank you Jebiguess for starting this AfD and for pinging me. I agree with the topic not being notable. The engagements during the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive in Robotyne were much more notable, being the bulk of the counteroffensive at its later stages, and yet it doesn't have a page (nor should it have one). These engagements are significantly less notable and there isn't much distinguishing them from other Russian-led offensive actions in the frontline during this time other than the symbolic value. By the way, perhaps my sources of information on the war are biased, but as far as I know Robotyne hasn't fallen and has been subject to a back-and-forth, the contents of the article maybe contain original research. The start and end dates most likely do, as usual with these articles on minor engagements.

I personally don't care if the article is draftified but I really don't see it becoming an article ever in the future so we might as well not delay its fate and delete it. Super Ψ Dro 22:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think this is the right course of action to take. Yes, the sources are questionable, but I think the better solution is to find better sources and update information accordingly. And yes, it’s a minor battle tactically, but it’s an important battle symbolically, as the liberation of Robotnye was one of the only gains made during Ukraine’s 2023 counteroffensive. LordOfWalruses (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment expanding on my “draftify” vote…first of all the battle isn’t even over. And while the Russians may see it as merely a psychological thing, at least one Ukrainian source (Bohdan Myroshnykov) has written in strong terms that the defense of Robotyne is key to the defense of Orikhiv, much as Synkivka is key to the defense of Kupiansk. The idea behind draftifying is that drafts are cheap, and even though notability isn’t super likely to emerge from follow-on analyses, some material is likely be useful for related articles. I’ll address others’ points separately. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't oppose draftifying but I'm not certain of a benefit/distinction between that and moving relevant content to Robotyne for example (if not already there). For the benefit of others, retaining it as a draft (for now) does not imply it will become an article, only that it might become an article if good quality sources (rather than routine NEWSORG reporting) indicate long-term notability. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Crien Bolhuis-Schilstra

Crien Bolhuis-Schilstra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I can't find evidence of notability, the only indepth source is this, published by Scouting.nl, i.e. the organisation she worked for (not an independent source). The other sources are primary sources or passing mentions. Fram (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• Merge into section of Vereeniging Nederlandsch Indische Padvinders, removing biographical info, keeping the scouting CV, POW information. The content is notable, even if the author is not notable enough. -Bogger (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, Military, Scouting, Indonesia, and Netherlands. Fram (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep There are sufficient details here to merit keeping the article. --evrik ^(talk) 13:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

That's not a policy based reason to keep or delete articles. Which sources are independent and indepth? Fram (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Well referenced figure, historically notable. –DMartin 02:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Subject is notable and reliably sourced. WC gudang inspirasi (^{Read! Talk!}) 14:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: My vote is obviously to keep it; I wrote the article as I deemed it historically significant and notable. Cflam01 (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

It would be nice if anyone would actually address the nomination, and indicate which sources are (as required) independent of the subject and giving indepth coverage. The only indepth coverage I see is from a Dutch scouting site, so not independent (an organisation writing about aspects of its own history). Fram (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as a clear WP:GNG failure. Without any sources that support notability, it is unclear if and how much content should be moved to Vereeniging Nederlandsch Indische Padvinders (correctly identified as a potential target by Bogger). So a BIG NO to merge. Redirect isn't right either, as Bolhuis-Schilstra was not organically included in the body of the target (only as possible other reading). Hence this should default to delete. Thanks to Fram for nominating. By no means the first time we see excessive Dutch scouting biographies. gidonb (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

BTW, this article is the best I could find, and isn't good enough: "'Mijn leven in Indië', door een oudleerlinge van de Koloniale school." Haagsche Courant. 's-Gravenhage, 11-03-1937. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 16-06-2024, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=MMKB04:000149139:mpeg21:p018 gidonb (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: the keep !votes above are extremely weak and should obviously be dismissed by the closer, while a quick look at the "well referenced" article shows a distinct lack of WP:SIGCOV at all. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete As per AirshipJungleman29's comments directly above.
• Axad12 (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I thank you all for your efforts to maintain and improve Wikipedia. While I understand that concerns regarding WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV are certainly valid in this case, I'd like to make a proposition here that Bolhuis-Schilstra's story may be an important piece of historical information that sheds light on some of the humanitarian efforts during WWII. Her work as a scout leader in helping the sick is a testament to the resilience and compassion of humanity during a time of great turmoil, which I believe should be preserved and made known regardless of current notability and coverage. As for the "excessive Dutch scouting biographies", each of these articles provides unique insights into their contributions and experiences, showcasing the diverse stories and achievements within the scouting movement from WWII which again should be preserved in my opinion. Furthermore, WP:IAR exists to guide us towards maintaining and improving our content on Wikipedia, so in this case, ignoring concerns about notability and coverage would help us preserve and further document this piece of history that provides valuable insights into such an important historical period. While I can't stop you from voting for deletion, I kindly urge the closer to consider these points. Cflam01 (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

While I am not voting on this nomination, I would like to point out that notability is a policy and we generally do not give IAR exemptions to articles when it comes to the notability guidelines. If there is a desire to share her story if Wikipedia is not suitable, alternative outlets exist. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Searched Google books and found nothing. Sources presented in the article doesn't pass WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. This is important story and I think it should be kept. The Scouting movement is very large so many scouting references are independent of the author or the topic. It does need more sources however, Bduke (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:ITSIMPORTANT. gidonb (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. I suspect that there has been canvassing to this page. gidonb (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Heartland Museum of Military Vehicles

Heartland Museum of Military Vehicles (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:NORG; written like an advertisement. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Military, Transportation, and Nebraska. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment if this does somehow survive deletion I am able to get some photos for the article. I haven't looked much into the Museum itself so I can't currently comment on it's notability. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 04:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - This is not written like an advertisement, instead it needs improvement, not deletion. I'm appalled to see this nomiated for deletion. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Note - I spent a little bit of time tonight cleaning up, updating references, adding a new reference to a 2016 article in Recoil (magazine). We need some help from a wordsmith to expand the text. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, I've found some sourcing. Cleanup is possible, not a reason to delete. This is nowhere near TNT level. Star Mississippi 14:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. This page need to be rewritten to not be like an advertisement, but there are some articles online about the museum that make it notable. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 17:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Apart from being written like an advertisement (WP:NORG), this entry fails WP:GNG. Its only sources are its own website. AstridMitch (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2024

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Could be notable, but sourcing is primary in the article. I can only find various travel blogs or listings for them [9], without much coverage at all. Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

All Eyes on Rafah

All Eyes on Rafah (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 is about a social media slogan, with the thumbnail - essentially its main bit - a social media AI generated image which was trending on Instagram on two days. The slogan gained traction as it was used by, among many others, many social media influencers. In accordance to WP:NOTDIARY, as well as WP:RECENT as a whole (because it is a small event belonging to the Rafah offensive), I believe this article should be deleted. A bit about this can be added to the "international reaction" header in the Rafah offensive article, but it should not exist standalone Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep as it had a seismic impact, especially in allowing broader acceptance in having pro-Palestinian views. In the same way the black squares in the BLM movement swept across platforms in 2020, All Eyes of Rafah was a turning point for many in Instagram and beyond, and detailing its impact would be too long for a comfortable read in the Rafah offensive page. This page does just that, and to simplify it wouldn't do justice to the shockwaves they've presented. It may have a minute effect on the grand scheme of things in politics, but it sure swayed the limit of what's deemed acceptable across international communities and societies. Azurevanilla ash (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  Like you said, it has had a minute effect on the grand scheme of things in politics. If it turns out to be more significant in the future, it can be recreated. Not right not. Pharaoh496 (talk) 06:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. We aren't responsible for cataloguing every single viral phenomenon, ever. If this proves to have enough significance to be covered a year or two from now, then maybe we can re-create then. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 00:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT. This topic is discussed in reliable sources but does not meet the additional criteria for a standalone page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep the interest in this topic as a new phenomenon in global conflict media has continued. See for example, a 25 minute TV program aired yesterday, and an AP explainer from last week. If organizations like these can create post-fact focused articles and programs on the topic, it is equally appropriate for Wikipedia. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Like I and other users have mentioned, it violated WP:NOT. A paragraph or even 2 can be included on the main rafah page instead Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. I concur that WP:NOT and WP:NOTNEWS are violated by this article. Garsh (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per NOT, though maybe a few sentences could be salvaged into some other articles. FortunateSons (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete this flavor of the day campaign per NOT and NOTNEWS. gidonb (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  Can you explain how this violates WP:NOTNEWS? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete . Wikipedia is not a directory for every internet slogan. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep People voting delete perhaps have a case for the abstract "slogan", but that's not all this article represents.

The most notable aspect of this phrase is the viral AI-generated image that was shared over 50 million times on Instagram, generating worldwide headlines specifically focused on the image. The AI-generated image and associated online protest clearly meet GNG with massive coverage in every top newspaper. Multiple facets of the AI image are covered in reliable sources that bring it beyond WP:NOTNEWS:

1. Comparisons with Blackout Tuesday and other "online protests". Image has already been held up as an example of performative activism and surely will continue to be referenced as such in the future.
2. Early high-profile AI image. "All Eyes on Rafah" has been shared over 50 million times, making it one of the most seen / most shared AI images of all time right at the cusp of this "AI boom" that's currently happening. This image is going to forever have a place in the history of early Artificial intelligence art.
3. Usage of AI in political/social movements, disinformation, deepfakes, Artificial intelligence in government, etc. This "All Eyes on Rafah" image has already spawned discussion about the ethics of the use of AI images in political movements, and is sure to continue to be referenced as such. Such as yesterday in the Washington Post: Deepfakes and AI-generated images have been around for several years, but as the technology improves and the tools to make them become widely available, they’ve become increasingly common on social media platforms. An AI-generated image of a sprawling refugee camp with the words “All Eyes on Rafah” went viral in late May as a way for people to show their support for Palestinians in Gaza. As major elections take place across the globe, some politicians have tried to use fake images to make their opponents look bad.

The image has cited "enduring notability" in reliable sources, passing the WP:NOTNEWS bar. The image has already prompted re-analysis on the above facets in the weeks since it went viral. PK-WIKI (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Each and every reason which you have given does not make sense for the given page:

• The article, not the picture is being nominated here for deletion. The image may / may not exist on here or on commons - as it is the most notable aspect of the article. It does not warrant an entire article for itself.
• Blackout Tuesday was an event. A phenomenon. It does not compare to a mere hashtag - version of an AI image which lasted for 24 hours on social media - without materialising. Thats exactly why part of this should be added to Rafah or sample AI pages and not have one of its own.

Pharaoh496 (talk) 08:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The article is mainly about the image and associated social media protest. It's perfectly valid to write encyclopedia articles about notable images. The AI image does warrant an entire article for itself, based on its cited coverage in reliable sources.

50 million people posting this image was also an event/phenomenon. It was directly compared to Blackout Tuesday by myriad reliable sources. Any deletion arguments here apply equally to Blackout Tuesday; neither should be deleted. The next significant coverage about the next social media protest in the future will surely mention both.

PK-WIKI (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per NOTNEWS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: per PK-WIKI. The image was specifically covered for being AI-generated, which will have a long-term impact. C F A 💬 14:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Not a valid reason - thats the image you are talking about. That image can exist on commons or whatever. It does not warrant its own article, as per reasons I and other users have given above Pharaoh496 (talk) 08:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  An encyclopedia article can be written about a notable image or photograph. We have thousands of such articles on wikipedia. PK-WIKI (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per the GNG, has generated widespread coverage across a range of sources. For example, these sources are all entirely devoted to covering this event:

1. Associated Press
2. Al-Jazeera
3. NBC News
4. BBC
5. NPR (which calls it the internet's most viral AI-created image ever)
6. Vox
7. Time
8. Washington Post
9. Wired
10. The National (UAE)
11. France 24

Along with articles covering the phrase along with the image such as the NYTimes. No actual case for deletion exists here, this clears the GNG easily. nableezy - 16:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

There was also news of "Where is Kate"? And that article is deleted. You have not said any reason how it supports wikipedia's scope to be here. Pharaoh496 (talk) 11:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia covers notable events, this is one per the sources I just cited. nableezy - 17:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per NOTNEWS. Vegan416 (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  NOTNEWS is about routine news coverage, not full length articles about an event. It simply does not apply here, and no matter how many people parrot the same bogus claim it remains a bogus claim. nableezy - 19:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  This can hardly be described as an event... Vegan416 (talk) 07:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  That is based on nothing. The sources are clearly treating it as noteworthy event and are giving it in depth coverage. nableezy - 17:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  I can find you more reliable sources covering in depth each and every ball game in the NBA or NFL or Premiere League or Champion League in the last 50 years. Yet we do not have wikipedia articles for each and every one of them. Vegan416 (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per Nableezy's list of sources above. Additionally, most slogans don't receive even a fraction of the coverage this one has clearly received, especially through WP:RS. Pretty much reiterating what PK-WIKI stated earlier, but the AI-Generated image in particular has been widely publicized as a key example of performative activism and it's very clear that this entire slogan has met WP:GNG standards at this point. Most votes in favor of deleting the article so far have vaguely referenced WP:NOT and WP:NOTNEWS without making any sort of clarification as to how this article specifically violates such policies. I particularly don't see how this violates NOTNEWS, this is not "offering first-hand news reports on a breaking story" or constituting as a primary source. B3251_(talk) 02:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Having sources does not warrant having an article for an internet phenomenon which did not last for over thirty-six hours.
  • The article is predominantly about an image. The image can exist on commons and information / events can be put in other places.

  Pharaoh496 (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  A political slogan is not an “internet phenomenon which did not last for over thirty-six hours.” Somebody in favor of deleting Blackout Tuesday, which drew many parallels with this, could use the same argument; that does not make it true nor does it warrant deletion for that article or this one. Unless we know where exactly information about this can be merged into, we shouldn’t be vaguely suggesting that it should just be moved somewhere else. B3251_(talk) 16:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Its a pro-palestine slogan, yes. But the reason it gaines coverage is because of the internet phenomenon. No materialistic action/event took place.
  • I have an opinion on where it could be merged - Rafah offensive where it gained traction. In the reactions section.

  Pharaoh496 (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  The event is the 50 million people sharing it. nableezy - 17:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  • 44 million
  • It lasted for thirty-six hours! How is gonna pass any ten year test when it cant pass the ten month test?

  Pharaoh496 (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Currently inclined to keep, but we shall see. Right now, the keepers are making a stronger case and backing it up more so than the deleters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per Nableezy's list, Huldra (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per the exhaustive source list provided by Nableezy. A huge chunk of high quality sources that are explicitly about the image and slogan makes me extremely confused by the voters claiming this somehow fails GNG. How? Similarly, simply saying "This fails WP:NOT", isn't helpful, which part? NOTNEWS specifics "Routine news coverage", which these articles clearly aren't. The coverage here makes this an obvious keep. Parabolist (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  Just to clarify here, those in favor of deleting have not argued against this meeting GNG, but rather primarily NOT and NOTNEWS, albeit quite vaguely. B3251_(talk) 23:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete and move to another article as per WP:NOTNEWS. Also compare with Yes We Can.  Augu  Maugu ♨ 03:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  And right below that is Obama's "Hope" poster, which has it's own article. Parabolist (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Good point. Should be deleted also. No agitprop on Wikipedia. Tkaras1 (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per Nableezy's sources, some of which show significant socio-political commentary.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per the amount of coverage provided by Nableezy. There's enough depth here to justify an article. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Pass WP:GNG, Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: per NOTNEWS and NOTDIARY. Closer to agitprop, actually. Tkaras1 (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: per above. Lionel Cristiano^? 00:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Major news outlets like Al-Jazeera, Time, BBC, and Washington Post have all covered the event. This coverage clearly meets WP:GNG. Waqar💬 20:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per Nableezy's sources User:Sawerchessread (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep as this is viral news that is making an impact worldwide. Ibn Juferi (talk) 11:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Capture of Peshawar (1758)

Capture of Peshawar (1758) (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 this pass GNG?

Its not a battle (even a minor one) and seems to have only the briefest of mentions in sources (one line, at most). Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 13:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had previously closed this as a soft delete, but only just realized that this article was formerly considered at AFD in 2022 under the title "Battle of Peshawar (1758)", see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Peshawar (1758). Thus, it was ineligible for soft deletion. Relisting for further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment pinging User:Mohammad Umar Ali who made the following case that the article does pass the general notability guidelines on my talkpage here. I assume this user wants to add these comments below. Malinaccier (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  
• Keep The editor who nominated it for deletion argued that it did not pass WP:GNG[10] but it actually does pass it. WP:GNG deals with following points mentioned below I have explained how this article passes every point.

1.) "Presumed" It's not an assumption but a fact as per the sources cited in the article (I have mentioned the sources in 4th point). Moreover it does require its own article as it helps to demonstrate the territorial peak of Maratha Confederacy which was in 1758 just after the capture of Peshawar Fort. Also it helps to understand the regional history of Peshawar which you could see as it has been included in History of Peshawar Wiki article.

2.) "Significant coverage" It does have significant coverage not just in one or two WP:RS but almost every WP:RS which deals with Maratha history or Afghan-Maratha wars, etc. Even various news articles including The Times of India have covered this event see this link; [11]

3.) "Reliable" As told before it's supported by multiple WP:RS sources. And as per the the wiki guidelines availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

4.) "Sources" All the below sources are considered reliable WP:RS.

i.) Advanced Study in the History of Modern India 1707-1813 - Jaswant Lal Mehta - Google Books link [12] pg 237 quoting; Thus nature did provide a golden opportunity to the Marathas to establish their sway over whole of Punjab and northwest India, upto Attock and Khyber pass, although the spell of their rule proved very shortlived.

ii.) Pletcher, Kenneth (2010). The History of India link [13] pg 198 quoting; Thus in 1757 Ahmad Shah's son Timur, appointed governor of Punjab, was forced to retreat from Lahore to Peshawar under the force of attacks from Sikhs and Marathas.

iii.) Pradeep Barua,The state at war in South Asia link [14]page 55; quoting: The Marathas attacked soon after and, with some help from the Sikhs, managed to capture Attock, Peshawar, and Multan between April and May 1758.

iv.) The Marathas - Cambridge History of India (Vol. 2, Part 4) : New Cambridge History of India link [15] pg 132 quoting: First, we shall look at the expanding areas controlled by the Marathas, and there were many. Maratha leaders pushed into Rajasthan, the area around Delhi, and on into the Punjab. They attacked Bundelkund and the borders of Uttar Pradesh. Further east, the Marathas attacked Orissa and the borders of Bengal and Bihar.

v.) Moreover, Govind Sardesai, New History of Marathas Vol 2, It has a whole chapter based on this article and conquest of Punjab by Marathas (See the below links)
Above book Pg 400 link [16] quoting; At Lahore, therefore, Raghunath rao and his advisors found the situation easy and favourable. Abdussamad Khan who was a prisoner in Maratha hands, with characteristic double dealing offered to undertake the defence of frontier agasinst Abdali on behalf of the Marathas. From Poona the Peshwa dispatched Abdur Rahman with all haste to Lahore with instructions to Raghunath to make the best use of him in the scheme he was now executing- Raghunathrao, therefore, consigned the trans-Indus regions of Peshawar to these two Muslim agents, Abdur Rahman and Abdussamad Khan, posting them at Peshawar, with a considerable body of troops.

5.) "Independent of the subject" All the sources stated above are independent as it includes both Indian as well as foreign authors. All these sources are considered reliable (WP:RS). Advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not included in the sources (4th point).

So, it clearly does pass WP:GNG for which it was nominated for deletion.
Also, I am not so active on Wikipedia nowadays due to certain reasons so I might not frequently reply to any replies (if any) to my comment here, don't take it as my unwillingness to participate in the discussion, kindly wait for my reply. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Some of those do not even seem to discuss its capture (or even it). Please read wp:v and wp:synthesis Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

*Suggestion I recommend changing this article's name to "Maratha Conquest of Punjab" and in territorial changes it could be mentioned that Attock, Multan, Lahore, Peshawar, etc. ceded to the Maratha Empire/Confederacy. Sources which I mentioned in my 1st comment support it. Then we can expand the article include background, have sub headings like Battle of Sirhind and Battle of Attock, Aftermath (the territories which were gained by Marathas, etc.) That will be more presentable and also address your concerns! Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Also I see you already had a detailed discussion with other editors when you nominated this article for deletion for the 1st time. So why nominating the same article for deletion again, you should have resolved your doubts when you first nominated it for deletion. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

2023 Anantnag encounter

2023 Anantnag encounter (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:NOTNEWS, counterterrorism/counterinsurgency such as this are not uncommon in the long running Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir (part of the broader Kashmir conflict). I am not seeing from the sources how this is notable as a standalone or any lasting significance of it. Gotitbro (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Pakistan, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. Gotitbro (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Terrorism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep I am not disputing what the nominator says, but our threshold for acceptance is not commonality or lasting significance but widespread coverage in reliable sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  With events, lasting significance is very much a factor, which I think this fails. An event can get a lot of reliable coverage at the time, but without lasting significance, it is usually deleted at AfD. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Routine news coverage of Insurgency in Kashmir region are not sufficient basis to warrant this page. No significance of this newsworthy event to qualify for inclusion. RangersRus (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep It was notable at that time and it is notable today as well. The article has to be updated and content about NIA charging the individuals involved in this incident on 16 March 2024 should be included. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 02:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - mostly routine coverage, and it appears the article has copyvio problems (as per my tagging today). Maybe needs a more general page with the history of this and similar insurgency operations? Mdann52 (talk) 05:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: as per Hawkeye7, also article need to clean up! Thank you. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep as per the several opinions above. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  Keep: The subjects seems to have widespread coverage which makes it notable, maybe it needs to be improved but not deleted EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

111 Rocket Regiment

111 Rocket Regiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and created as part of COI campaign (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/832LT/Archive.). Ineligible for G5 due to others contributing. Mdann52 (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mdann52 (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Battalion-sized units are usually notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Many similar articles. Akk7a (talk) 04:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment: the sockpuppet investigation linked is a "misguided newbie" creating user accounts for Indian regiments "in place of draft articles". Dubious that there is COI. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Mrfoogles: it appears slightly more than that... are you aware of the ANI Thread? Mdann52 (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I was not aware of that. It seems like either someone in the Indian Army did actually order soldiers to edit the regiment's Wikipedia articles, or this is some kind of joke, but that's definitely weird. I was not expecting User_talk:PRISH123. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: This [17] is about all there is for the regiment. Not enough to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Should we create a bulk AfD for all these regimental articles as a result of the COI investigation? If they're all of this quality, likely they can all be deleted. Oaktree b (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete or redirect per creation by apparent paid editors and lack of major notability. I can't check for non-English sources, which might be helpful on a more obscure topic like this, but it's not like the article's creator checked the notability policy either when creating it. The unit seems to mostly be notable (from before I deleted the uncited bit) for the use of Grad-P rocket systems (see BM-21_Grad) and being a Rocket Regiment (described at Regiment_of_Artillery_(India), so redirect to one of those, maybe. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Sack of Wiślica

Sack of Wiślica (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

• a follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135) (nominated by User:TimothyBlue; closed as no consensus on 6 April 2024); and
• a formalised continuation of the informal discussion at Talk:Sack of Wiślica#Historiography (2–5 June 2024, with an extensive examination of the sources used, and its complete absence in Kievan Rus' / Ruthenian chronicles where one would expect the 1135 raid and the alleged 1136 counter-raid to be mentioned); and
• a parallel to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish raid on Kievan Rus' (1136) (currently has little participation, but seems to be heading for a weak delete),

I hereby formally propose to either draftify Sack of Wiślica (if any editor is willing to adopt it), or to redirect it to Wiślica#History. (Note: Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135) was renamed to Sack of Wiślica on 3 June 2024‎ by agreement between NLeeuw and Piotrus on the talk page, so this could be regarded as a 2nd nomination of Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135)).

Rationale: WP:NOPAGE; fails WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG for a stand-alone page, and the sources used so far create WP:POV issues as well. It is one of several dubious articles written by now-blocked User:SebbeKg (previously we agreed to delete SebbeKg's article Bolesław II the Bold's expedition to Kiev (1076–1077) on 27 May). Editors seem to agree that the event took place, but nothing for certain can be said about in detail, as all the sources cited are either WP:PRIMARY (Kadłubek, and in the case of Długosz someone who wrote centuries later and added details that are not historically credible), or WP:USERGENERATED & WP:POV (in the case of KWORUM), or WP:SELFPUB (in the case of Dawne Kieleckie). Everyone agrees that the only substantial WP:RS is Benyskiewicz (2020), and that this source alone is not enough.

The disagreement is that User:Piotrus would like to keep a stand-alone page based on RS that are yet to be found, and that someone else should find and add these yet-to-be-found RS (citing WP:BEFORE), whereas User:Marcelus and I think that this event could easily be summarised in 1 to 3 sentences in Wiślica#History by reference to Benyskiewicz (2020), at least for now. Alternately, Marcelus and I think the current article could be draftified for now, but Piotrus has declined my offer to adopt it as a draft, citing having too little time to do it himself, and proposing to add Template:Sources exist to motivate other users to do it instead. However, the template does not allow such usage (see also Wikipedia:But there must be sources!). I have argued that the present situation of keeping the article in the mainspace as is, is not acceptable either, because it evidently is not ready for the mainspace (if it ever merits a stand-alone article at all).

So, if nobody is willing to adopt the draft, Marcelus and I are proposing to redirect Sack of Wiślica to Wiślica#History until an editor (Piotrus or someone else) finds enough material, based on WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS, written with an WP:NPOV, for a stand-alone page, and has written that page. I already created such a redirect WP:BOLDly, which was BOLDly reverted by Piotrus, and that is fine per WP:BRD. But if there is consensus in this AfD to create a redirect, this may not be reverted BOLDly again until the conditions above for a stand-alone page are met.

Other than that I would like to say that I have generally enjoyed cooperating with Piotrus on this topic amicably. But a formal decision seems to be necessary to break the deadlock on the future of this article, and Piotrus has suggested that taking it to AfD a second time might settle the matter, so here I am. Good day to everyone. :) NLeeuw (talk) 06:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Poland, and Ukraine. NLeeuw (talk) 06:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Poland. Owen× ☎ 12:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. As I said on article's talk page, we have one in-depth academic source already, and indications that more sources exist (but are hard to access due to being Polish and not digitized well): "BEFORE search in GBooks in Polish strongly suggests other sources exist. Ex. this book by Gerard Labuda mentions keywords "Wiślicy" "1135" (together) on five distinct pages (but sadly I can only get snippet view for two or three). That book is a bit old (1962), but here for example is a more modern one, from 2006, that mentions those keywords together on 15 (!) pages (seems reliable, published by an academic organization, and the writer is a historian associated with Jan Kochanowski University, no pl wiki article yet). I could look for more sources, but I don't have time & will and I think this shows that we can reasonably assume sources on the sack of Wiślica in 1135 exist and the topic is notable." The article needs to be expanded from those academic seconday sources (it is trye much of what we have is PRIMARY), but WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. The topic seems notable.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and good summary of my position by the nominator Marcelus (talk) 09:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete and/or userfy - we cannot keep indefinitely an article without reliable modern coverage. - Altenmann >talk 23:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Conquest of Hadoti

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

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

Another "Conquest of X" article with 2-3 lines of passing mention: "In the battle that took place at Maholi many Hadas were killed and their families were brought to Mandu. The fort was handed over to Qadam Khan." Clearly it fails SIGCOV, not enough coverage to warrant a standalone article. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 10:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: I found this, which has a whole page dedicated to the subject at page 122. Also search on Google Scholar locates "Sharma, R.K., 1985. MILITARY SYSTEM OF THE KOTA STATE (C-1250 to 1947 AD). Скорина и скориниана, 13, p.65." I can't view the second one so I can't get any comment on how much content is devoted to the subject. TarnishedPath^talk 11:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  @TarnishedPath that is the whole different event around 1436. The whole page except the last para deals with the conquest of Hadoti by Rana Kumbha, It's the only last para of 4 lines which covers relevant content:
  The political situation soon changed, when Mahmud Khilji came to throne in Malwa, He had undertaken several expeditions to bring Hadoti under his sphere of influence. Kumbha adopted a successful policy to give sufficient support to the Hadas against the invasions of the Sultan of Malwa. And that too doesn't describe the outcome. As I said it fails SIGCOV and it's just a meagre part of a different event. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 13:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  You're making an argument for updating the article, not deleting it. TarnishedPath^talk 13:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  No I'm not. What I meant is that the given source is completely unrelated to this event which happened in 1459 not 1436 per above given source. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 15:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Delete, It is clearly a POV article focusing on establishing the dominance of the Malwa Sultanate over the Kingdom of Mewar. The article does not have proper detail of events, and the WP:RS does not have enough mentioning of events like how the seige went and how the fort was conquered. Rawn3012 (talk) 11:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  Please describe how the article fails NPOV. TarnishedPath^talk 14:17, 14 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]} 20:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per MicrobiologyMarcus. Mccapra (talk) 06:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment while I know it is not a proper argument for deletion, I would note there's an SPI that relates to the major contributor of the article, such that I don't know if this article would reach a conservative reading of the threshold of WP:G5 but relates to my concerns above. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 14:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete : This article fails WP:GNG [18]. It has 2-3 lines of coverage from the sources which makes it unsuitable for having a stand-alone article (as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information [19]) Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 11:06, 22 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)
• These are two different battles, both notable. 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.Accipiter Gentilis Q. (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

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 [20] [21] [22] and books [23] 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.

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