Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Military. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Military|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

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

watch

Military and combat

Avar-Kabardian campaign (1618)

Avar-Kabardian campaign (1618) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a (possible, but not assured) WP:HOAX. Most sources are offline and, those that aren't, are broken links. At least two of the sources don't appear to exist at all (or at least in any database like Worldcat, etc.). I approved this via WP:AFC based on a background check that accidentally conflated this campaign with what, on further investigation, was an entirely different event.

The new editor who submitted this also submitted another article related to a battle which I just rejected at AFC, after being unable to confirm that some of the sources even existed, let alone supported the content. Note my comments there [1]. Chetsford (talk) 02:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Update: I have blocked the author of this article. Chetsford (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Wasta Faruq Kanarwey

Wasta Faruq Kanarwey (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)

BLP of a Kurdish veteran, largely unsourced, lacking any clear indication of notability and based on related sources. Kurdish speakers may be able to find better sources. Mccapra (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, and Iraq. Mccapra (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iran, Syria, and Turkey. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Added more lists in hopes of reaching some Kurdish speakers, but the existing sources in the article appear to be dependent hence do not contribute to notability. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Sebiba

AfDs for this article:

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

Battle of Sebiba (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 poorly sourced. The article was deleted last week and recreated by the same editor with some minor cosmetic changes (image in the infobox). M.Bitton (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. M.Bitton (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Tunisia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Operation Martyr Helmet Dêraluk

Operation Martyr Helmet Dêraluk (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 describes what was likely a minor skirmish and says of it “There is no independent confirmation from reliable sources.” Which means we should not have an article on it. Mccapra (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iraq, Tamil Nadu, and Turkey. Mccapra (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete only mentions I could find are in the references and this [2] (Syrian state media - not a WP:RS). All the references say "HPG claims" or "Kurdish forces announce" - none of the information is confirmed (one article just quotes the press statement, other paraphrases), it's all WP:PRIMARY and clearly the press statement cannot be reliable or considered to be from a WP:NPOV. Per WP:PRSOURCE "Press releases cannot be used to support claims of notability and should be used cautiously for other assertions" so it's a delete from me. MolecularPilot 05:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Vrdi

Battle of Vrdi (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 was sourced to a combination of blogs, local news portals with no editorial oversight, and used inflammatory descriptions of the enemy while referring to HVO troops as "heroes". None of them are reliable, so I have deleted them. Without reliable sources, there is no way this article, supposedly about some fighting to defend/capture a village, meets the notability criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --Griboski (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete in agreement with nomination points about the article’s issues. OyMosby (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The Pacific War and Contingent Victory

The Pacific War and Contingent Victory (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)

Irresponsible, misleading and of the nature of personal attack.

This is a very poorly written book review and shows every sign that the author of the Wikipedia article consulted other book reviews and relied on them, rather than reading The Pacific War and Contingent Victory itself.

The section “Premise” is misnamed. In this section, the author attempts to present the thesis of The Pacific War and Contingent Victory through a brief summary of the argument. By calling the section “Premise” the author implies that the book does not contain an argument but is rather a mere assertion or proposition, which is incorrect. The book contains a fully formed argument, complete with premises and conclusion.

In the first sentence, the author writes, “In The Pacific War and Contingent Victory, Myers argues against the dominant belief that the economic and industrial superiority of the United States made Japan's defeat in World War II an inevitability.” This statement is basically correct, but the author fails to mention that the view that Japan’s defeat was inevitable is contested. Jeremy Yellen, for example, in his review of a book chapter by Myers, argues that contemporary Japanese scholars do not hold the inevitability view. See Jeremy A. Yellen, Social Science Japan Journal, Volume 25, Issue 1, Winter 2022, Pages 157–160. The author should unpack what “dominant belief” means in this context. It could mean that immediate postwar historiography and recent writing alike hold inevitable defeat as the predominant view.

The next sentence, “The book proposes an invasion of Australia and Hawaii, or the United States negotiating a peace settlement due to war exhaustion as two scenarios that could have allowed Japan to avoid defeat in the war” is incorrect and reflects neither the book itself nor the review that the author uses as a source. The Pacific War and Contingent Victory never proposes an invasion of Australia. It does not propose “scenarios” at all but rather gives evidence from Japanese sources of Japan’s plan to isolate Australia by invading Fiji, Samoa and New Caledonia, the so-called FS Operation. Japan did made plans to invade the Hawaiian Islands. The Pacific War and Contingent Victory concludes that these plans were rational plans in the context of 1942 Japanese strategic decision-making. It never argues that Japan ought to have adopted one or both plans in order to avoid defeat.

The thesis of The Pacific War and Contingent Victory is thus misstated; the argument of the book is completely neglected.

The Section “Reception” does not address positive and negative criticism of the book in a way that the reader can use to form a judgment about the relative merits or shortcomings of the book. Rather, the author collects various generalized remarks in a haphazard and irresponsible way. In the positive comments, the author does not tell, for example, why the book is useful or worthy of study, or how it is well-researched. The negative comments reflect the worst subjective judgments but are adduced as if they are valid conclusions. Bernstein’s comments really amount to nothing more than personal attacks on the author of The Pacific War and Contingent Victory with such judgments as that the book is “greatly flawed” and the author engages in “wishful thinking” and is “ignorant.” It’s irresponsible to repeat these in a book review where the argument of the book itself is not discussed in detail.

The author writes of Bernstein, “He suggested that the opportunities given by Myers were not realistic, as Japan's failure to occupy either Port Moresby or the Battle of Coral forcibly put them on the defensive. Bernstein went on to suggest that ‘the author fundamentally misunderstands the nature of maritime warfare’, and that he ‘places too much emphasis on armies’, who Bernstein argued have no strategic use without proper aerial and naval support.” Both these criticisms are beside the point. The first one is not grammatical as one cannot occupy a battle. The Pacific War and Contingent Victory does discuss Japan’s failure to occupy Port Moresby and the outcome of the Battle of Coral Sea, but in the context of the FS operation and the end of Japanese expansion. The charge that the author of The Pacific War and Contingent Victory “fundamentally misunderstands the nature of maritime warfare” because he does not believe the inevitability thesis is a non sequitur. Nowhere does the author of The Contingent War and Pacific Victory argue that armies need not have aerial and naval support. The author of the Wikipedia review has chosen an irresponsible review and repeated it with glad abandon.

Finally, the summary of Bob Seal’s review is revealing of the lack of understanding of the thesis of The Pacific War and Contingent Victory by both Seals and the author who here quotes him. Of course, all warfare can be described as contingent. That is exactly the point. The problematic set out by The Pacific War and Contingent Victory is, Why is all warfare considered contingent yet the Pacific War is not?

The book review of The Pacific War and Contingent Victory is irresponsible and poorly written. It contains unwarranted personal attacks. The entire article should be deleted from Wikipedia. Nidrsta (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Articles should not be deleted just because they are poorly written, see Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. Any issues can be settled by editing the article itself. The main reason why an article should be deleted is that it is not notable as defined by Wikipedia. The Wikipedia article is not an original book review. Wikipedia articles should summarize other book reviews, instead of writing an original review, as this would violate Wikipedia:No original research. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• Speedy keep: Criteron #3, "No accurate deletion rationale has been provided". Nomination misunderstands the deletion policy and wrongly claims that the article is an original book review. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep as per WP:Notability (books). To Nidrsta, your claim that "the author of the Wikipedia article consulted other book reviews and relied on them" is especially relevant, because that is exactly the point of Wikipedia as a website. It's not our job to engage in WP:Original research and write our own reviews or argumentation of books we've read. Loafiewa (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The reason for deletion is that the article is irresponsible, misleading and of the nature of personal attack. I do not request deletion "just because" it is poorly written. You may review the reasons and the citation of evidence in support of them. Wikipedia reviews should summarize other reviews, but having read the original book and being familiar with its contents does not constitute original research. It constitutes responsibility in speaking about one's topic. Cherry picking other people's reviews for their emotive power, giving falsehoods about the argument of the book, and passing along ad hominem arguments is grounds for deletion rather than editing, because the entire article is irredeemable as written. Nidrsta (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a connection to this book? If you do, you should disclose it per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Why do you change the subject and refuse to address the topics raised? You're not supposed to ask that, and I take it as a form of harassment. "When investigating COI editing, do not reveal the identity of editors against their wishes. Wikipedia's policy against harassment, and in particular the prohibition against disclosing personal information, takes precedence over this guideline." Nidrsta (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Please note: (a) users with a COI are required to disclose their COI, as per WP:COI, and (b) you haven't actually given a policy compliant reason for the article to be deleted. The entire basis of the nomination is because you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Axad12 (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, History, Military, Japan, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: I slightly re-arranged the nomination statement to have it follow norms. Skynxnex (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Speedy keep. Per above. None of these rationales are valid. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Speedy keep, clearly meets WP:NBOOK. Suggestions for improvement belong on the article's talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. Nomination lacks any merit in terms of policy and OP surely either has an undeclared COI or is simply a WP:POV pusher. E.g. see above where the user incorrectly notes that users should not ask others to declare COI (in which case why is there a standard talk page template for requesting just that?) and further states incorrectly at COIN [3] that they have no need to declare a COI because any potential conflict of interest is between me and Wikipedia. Axad12 (talk) 03:13, 24 October 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 delete‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

List of Israeli massacres in Gaza 2023–2024

List of Israeli massacres in Gaza 2023–2024 (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)

Doesn't appear to be notable based on the usual WP:NLIST standard. I found this but AA is WP:GUNREL; also this video but reliability is questionable.

Definitions of massacre vary, and this particular list seems to use an unusually broad definition. If we were to pare it down to notable events which are commonly known as massacres, it would just become a sublist of List of massacres in the Palestinian territories, which doesn't seem useful since that list isn't particularly long. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, Israel, and Palestine. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fails NLIST, and has significant NPOV and MOS:LABEL issues. BilledMammal (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
• @Stephan rostie: courtesy ping — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete fails NLIST. Andre🚐 00:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and BilledMammal. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose deletion. Though may support renaming. The massacres of entire families in Gaza is indeed standalone notable topic in accordance with WP:NLIST as per tons of reliable sources, Time, Associated Press, LA Times, Amnesty international, Airwars, etc. Perhaps the problem may be a naming problem, as the article calls the “wiping out” of entire family incidents “massacres”, which is what should be discussed, definitely not the existence or notability of the entire list (i.e the incidents of “wiping out” of entire families) in the first place. Thanks for pinging me.

Stephan rostie (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps should be renamed to something like List of mass killings in Gaza (2023-2024). IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. This list is misleading. gidonb (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose deletion and support renaming per Stephan. Topic by itself is notable. A proper RM should be set to decide the name. - Ïvana (talk) 04:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete No agreed criteria for inclusion, so fails NLIST. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 21:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Geoffrey Freire Marreco

Geoffrey Freire Marreco (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 seems like a case of someone 'inheriting' notability from their family. A WP:BEFORE search mostly revealed ancestry.com-type links. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 20:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Ireland, and England. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 20:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The references in the article are either trivial passing mentions (like a single sentence on page 20 of this book - which is substantively about a different biographical subject), directory style entries (as here), unreliable sources (such as thepeerage.com, wikitree.com or findagrave.com), or webpages which do not mention the subject of this article at all (like this). Outside of the article, and per nom, my own WP:BEFORE efforts have only returned a handful of family history (ancestry.com) type entries, mentions in obituaries of family members (like this) and "wedding announcements" type stuff in society pages (as we find here). I can find nothing to suggest that the subject has been the topic of significant and in-depth coverage in reliable/independent sources. As would be expected for a subject of this type. Notability is not inherited. Wikipedia is not a family history site. Guliolopez (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Doesn't meet WP WP:NOTABILITY standards. More suitable for a local history journal. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. The page as written shows that he was an ordinary chap. Bearian (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete No credible claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:00, 25 October 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.

List of wars involving North Korea

List of wars involving North Korea (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 absolutely think that a page about wars involving Korea should exist. However, I don't believe a separate page is necessary. All wars involving pre-1945 Korea as well as North and South Korea are already included on List of wars involving Korea. I believe that is sufficient. This also has precedent e.g. East and West Germany don't have separate pages for their wars, and neither do North and South Vietnam or North and South Yemen.

I also find it a bit odd to include wars involving historical states on the territory of current-day North Korea here, as North Korea isn't a direct successor those states - both North and South Korea succeed the Korean Empire and Korea as a territory under Japanese occupation. When excluding those pre-modern wars, the list shrinks down quite a lot, making this page an unnecessary fork. Cortador (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Adding to this: depending on the outcome of this AfD, I'll nominate List of wars involving South Korea as well. However, this the arguments for and against that will pretty much be the same as the ones here, I didn't want to split the debate, and just nominated this page for now. Cortador (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Lists, and North Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

North Korea is still a country, however. I propose that we kept this article strictly North Korea (and the South Korea one, strictly South Korea). For the Korea one, we can skip the duplicates and instead link to these separate articles. If Korea is ever reunified, I suppose we could consider a merge, but that's for another day :) Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 02:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep (but remove general korea stuff pre-1948 and add a This article is about post-1948 wars fought by North Korea. For wars fought by pre-1948 Korea, see List of wars involving Korea at the top). East/west Germany were not involved in many (any?) conflicts outside of Germany as themselves so a list would be silly but North/South Korea division has persisted to this day and NK has been involved in several significant conflicts as the list shows (also I believe Russia-Ukraine - that should probably be added but I'll leave it to someone more experienced with military articles as I don't think they've technically confirmed it). MolecularPilot 06:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

2024 Afghanistan–Pakistan skirmishes

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/2024 Afghanistan–Pakistan skirmishes
• Articles for deletion/2024 Afghanistan–Pakistan skirmishes (2nd nomination)

2024 Afghanistan–Pakistan skirmishes (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)

Delete or merge whatever else content on this page to Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes. Per below and WP:REDUNDANTFORK.

This is just an un-needed fork for a page we already have. Not only that, but this page has heavy content from other groups such as the BLA, or TTP, which are scopes completely irrelevant to this topic alone. This page is named "2024 Afghanistan-Pakistan Skirmishes", but also only covers the March 2024 border Skirmishes, when there has also been skirmishes last month in September, which is included in the Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes page. Noorullah (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Afghanistan and Pakistan. Noorullah (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Noorullah21, there has already been a concenus on this article that it should remain Waleed (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@M Waleed Firstly, there was sockpuppets involved in the original AFD, go back to it to see blocked accounts. Secondly, I never brought up WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Noorullah (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete according to WP:REDUNDANTFORK. As mentioned, the incidents listed here are already mentioned in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border skirmishes page. There haven't been any incidents this year that are themselves more notable than incidents any other year to warrant this being its own article independent of the main article on this topic. And, yeah, looking at the previous AfD discussion, there seems to have been at least a little bit of sockpuppetry going on? One of the main arguments that was made in favour of keeping the article was that it contains proper sources, which is true, but those sources would be no less proper in the main article. There's no reason for this article to exist, and there's no reason to merge because, as already pointed out, the information here is already in the main article. Archimedes157 (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - It is in my Eyes a good Article and should therefore not be deleted! Austria Football 02 (talk) 10:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

"It is in my Eyes a good Article and should therefore not be deleted!" is directly against AFD policy, just because you think in your eyes it is a good article does not mean it is worthy of being kept. It is directly against Wikipedia Policy per Redundantfork. See WP:AADD, and more specifically; WP:ILIKEIT. Noorullah (talk) 22:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Merge with Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes: I think that non duplicate content should to merged back into the main article. REDUNDANTFORK does apply. Wikibear47 (talk) 08:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

List of World War II weapons of Turkey

List of World War II weapons of Turkey (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 Turkey hardly participated in WW2 I don’t think this is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I will note that OP has not actually made a policy based argument for deletion, that doesn't however mean that they are wrong. I have not been able to locate any independent significant coverage of the topic and there is none on the page, so unless I'm missing something it doesn't meet the requirements of a stand alone list. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the nom's statement does not contain policy-based rationale for deletion, but nevertheless the article might not maintain WP:GNG. I did find this [4], but I'm not too sure if it's reliable or not. Conyo14 (talk) 19:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep World_War_II_by_country#Turkey says "There is no record that Turkish troops ever saw combat." But they did technically join the war near the end. Category:World War II military equipment by country would be incomplete without listing every nation involved in World War 2. The articles list what military equipment they had, not what they used. Dream Focus 15:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  I mean, couldn't the category of Turkey in that link still exist without this particular article? I mean I've only found the one source, but it would be nice to incorporate more. Conyo14 (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep and improve per above. Deletion is not needed. Orientls (talk) 06:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  I doubt that anyone interested in Turkish military history will improve this article as I guess such editors would be more likely to create List of World War I weapons of Turkey Chidgk1 (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to for instance Turkish Armed Forces#World War II. No compelling reason that it should exist. Geschichte (talk) 06:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are arguments to Delete, Keep and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

World Defense Show

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/World Defense Show
• Articles for deletion/World Defense Show (2nd nomination)

World Defense Show (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)

Renominating the article because it has been restored to its original state (after minimal participation in the previous AfD) and has not been modified since the date of its refund (22 September 2024). This circumstance provides ample reason to initiate the deletion of the article once again, using the same argument from the first deletion discussion - "The exhibition fails to meet WP:EVENT. Lacks WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:DIVERSE. Arguably WP:TOOSOON." TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Saudi Arabia. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Technology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Passes per WP:DIVERSE which states Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted. I'm attaching some sources which gives significant national and international coverage for the event. [5], [6] (coverage from an Indian reliable source), [7] and many more. The nominator has not any proper WP:Before. A simple Google search as World Defence show is turning up many reliable sources giving significant overage. 111.92.113.32 (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  Analyzing the attached sources - [1] - EDR Magazine is not an RS, [2]- Firstpost is not a RS: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 424#Unreliable sources? FirstPost /TimeNow, [3] - Alarabiya is also not a RS: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 98#Alarabiya, reliable or not?. As a nominator, I have done required WP:BEFORE and also conducted the simple google search and the google news search as suggested by the IP. However, these efforts did not yield any reliable sources with significant coverage. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  A similar group of IPs, starting with the range 111.92.xx.xx, has been involved in editing another page about a military equipment manufacturing company from the Middle East. It wouldn't be surprising if they were all connected. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

120 Bahadur

120 Bahadur (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)

Film is scheduled to be released a year from now and just started filming. Majority of sources are announcements or press releases. CNMall41 (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep my vote is for keep, kindly understand that there are many Hollywood and Bollywood movies that are upcoming in 2025 some are more than a year away yet many already have established wiki pages on them such The Accountant 2, F1, Now You See Me 3, Jurassic World Rebirth, Jolly LLB 3, and more the list is endless. The information current available on the film 120 Bahadur is good enough to create a wiki page and as time progress and more info is available the wiki page will definitely grow with time. Moreover it is a film about a historically significant event. So the wiki page deserve a place with other films that are up for release in 2025. Bonadart (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Your argument seems to fall under WP:OSE which is not something that can be used to support notability. Can you point out which references are specifically significant coverage that would count towards notability? The ones I see do not but will look at any you provide in case there is something I missed. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

i am in no mood to argue, my contention is if The Accountant 2, Now You See Me 3, Jurassic World Rebirth, Jolly LLB 3 which are pure fiction can have well established wiki page, then 120 Bahadur which is based on real life and a immensely historical and significant event if you may think of, also deserves a place, and if you want to talk of capturing space in that case i think this page doesnt even grab a space more than tip of safety pin out of whole wiki sphere. Bonadart (talk) 04:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

"I am in no mood to argue" - This is a discussion, not an argument. It does sound like maybe you should back away if you are not in the mindspace to discuss. I will reiterate that everything you stated, including in the reply above, would fall under WP:OSE.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Could be draftified, or redirected, but please don't delete.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

If you look at the history it previously was. Creator objected to the draft and moved it back to mainspace. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I see from page history that the page was moved to draft but it was moved back to mainspace but I am giving benefit of doubt that Bonadart will accept the consensus by the closer, if it ends with draftify and not move it back to mainspace till the film gets significant coverage likely after post-production. RangersRus (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, China, and Ladakh. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Draftify. WP:TOOSOON. Sources are announcements and unveiling of the look and is in pre-production with cast and crew not confirmed yet. No significant coverage. RangersRus (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  TOOSOON - then what will say or opine about The Accountant 2, F1, Now You See Me 3, Jurassic World Rebirth, Jolly LLB 3, and more; all these films are 6 months to 1 year away yet they have established wiki pages. most of the crew of the film 120 bahadur are already on board as for cast the film is centered around Shaitan Singh Bhati who is played by Farhan Akhtar which is decided, as for others the cast hasnt been declared but may be revealed pretty soon, as for shooting it has already started as declared. So in all sense and purpose much of the info in wiki page is valid, and so deserves to be in live space. Bonadart (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  You should not bring other pages to discussion on this AFD. Draftify is because the film is too early with no significant coverage and has not made it to post-production. RangersRus (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Even this article is covered by the press release, like most articles that are edited by the creator of this article. There is a risk that it may be a COI (I will investigate the case and come back with details).--Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I think it is futile to Draftify this article if the content creator is going to immediately move it back to main space so I'd like to see some assurances from them about this. A Redirect was also mentioned but it's not clear what the target article would be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

thanks for keeping the discussion alive

my 3 points

1. with all due respect ' if the content creator is going to immediately move it back to main space ' is bit harsh, please understand it takes time and effort to create a page, lot more to develop it. i have no issue if a article is deleted or kept in draft but it should always be done after thorough discussion, once consensus is reached why will any one have any problem, certainly not me.

2. regarding this page as I said earlier, agreed that this film is about a year away but so are movies like The Accountant 2, Now You See Me 3, Jurassic World Rebirth, Jolly LLB 3 but all these films have well established pages already, my point is these films are based on fiction where as this film '120 Bahadur' is based on reality and facts, so it deserves a space.

3. as for sources anyone include better sources if anyone can find.

thanks

Bonadart (talk) 08:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - Hey, Liz, maybe Excel Entertainment would be a good redirect target. However, regardless of the delete or redirect I would recommend protecting the title due to what you say about someone who is likely going to just remove it and recreate the article. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I still do not see any consensus but I'm not ready to close this as No Consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Draftify. We can always simply protect the page in mainspace or require that the draft pass AfC. -- asilvering (talk) 05:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I think there would be complaints for a "requirement" that an editor make use of AFC unless a) there are COI issues or b) the draft is of an article that was deleted through an AFD. There are a lot of experienced editors who view AFC as completely optional. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 28 October 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 no consensus‎. I see quite a few here calling for leaving this AfD open until after the election, when we'll have a much better idea about lasting notability for this candidate. The Keep !votes are more numerous, but the Delete and Redirect ones carry more P&G weight. So I'll close this as no-consensus, and allow for early renomination two weeks from now, when the subject's political status, and the resulting source coverage, is clearer. This makes more sense than relisting, and then expecting those who voiced their opinion before the election to amend their !vote, or the closer trying to discount !votes based on when they were entered. Owen× ☎ 21:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Tim Sheehy (businessman)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Tim Sheehy (American politician)

• Articles for deletion/Tim Sheehy (businessman)

Tim Sheehy (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is actually a second AFD. The outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Sheehy (American politician) was a strong consensus to redirect, with two "delete"s and no "keep"s. This new article was created as a redirect to the same target [8], on the grounds that in the Timothy Sheehy disambiguation page he's "not a politician yet". Another editor came along a week later and recreated the last article from that new redirect. A Google search for him, minus the word "Senate", turns up no significant coverate in reliable sources as a businessman or a soldier. The US is now three weeks away from a national election, and all of the major candidates are getting heavy press coverage. db-repost was declined, and the declining admin took a straw poll of editors from the last AFD at Talk:Tim Sheehy (businessman), and all have upheld the last consensus so far. So this article should be deleted, as it's really a renamed repost of Tim Sheehy (American politician). If Sheehy wins, then that article should obviously be un-redirected and expanded. Wikishovel (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Military, and Montana. Wikishovel (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Draftify Sheehy does not have sufficient notability as a political candidate and businessman; Sheehy has never held public office. Should Sheehy win, we can make the draft an article. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not voting on this AfD but this does make far more sense, to throw my own two cents in here, since he does have potential to become notable very soon. Don't delete the draft with such a high probability of him being elected within the next 3 weeks and 2 days. EytanMelech (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per Wikishovel. Sheehy is not independently notable from Bridger Aerospace, nor does he pass WP:NPOL just by being a candidate for political office. Keep the redirect to the 2024 Senate campaign. If he ends up winning in November, we can re-assess notability then. Bkissin (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Restore redirect to 2024 United States Senate election in Montana Obvious and open consensus rounding, especially with a different article title, is unacceptable. Nate • (chatter) 21:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Restore redirect >>> 2024 United States Senate election in Montana. Djflem (talk) 07:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep.

There are likely thousands of undecided voters in Montana who don't know much about Sheehy, so they'll be coming on Wikipedia to look up information on him. Why would we disenfranchise them by deleting his page???

This is not like Delaware's senate race where it won't matter. This is a major senate race where almost every outlet says Sheehy is favored. It would seem that by deleting this page and denying valuable information to voters, it means you're seeking to help his opponent win. I had no idea Wikipedia was a partisan site seeking to help one candidate win by making the other seem less serious, but here we see i suppose? 2601:CF:0:9A0:B227:9473:F80D:C5D5 (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC) — 2601:CF:0:9A0:B227:9473:F80D:C5D5 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 2601:CF:0:9A0:B227:9473:F80D:C5D5 (UTC).

Please see WP:ITSIMPORTANT. Wikishovel (talk) 07:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep - He is a candidate for US Senate from Montana. Putting aside my belief that this even in itself merits an article creation, he has additionally been covered in a lot of sources, both local and national and even international. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Zlad! (talk) 03:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

KEEP

Tim Sheehy is a major party candidate in a Senate race with major national attention. This race has received millions in spending on advertising, and voters in Montana deserve easy access to basic information on the candidates running in their race. It should also be noted that in an extremely contentious and likely close election, Tim Sheehy is the most likely of any Senate candidate to flip a seat. There are pages for far less notable figures who stood no chance of winning. There seems to be no reason to delete his page except for partisanship.Is — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scooter3 (talk • contribs)

I'm not American, and the outcome of this election means nothing to me, so partisanship (and an anonymous poster above accused me of the same) is not the problem here. As for pages about less notable people, please see WP:WHATABOUTX. Wikishovel (talk) 11:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Strong keep He is ahead in the polls, and is pretty likely to be Montana's next senator. Why delete? Im a democrat myself, and I think that thousands of undecided voters will look at both pages. Wikipedia shouldnt be biased, especially in a major tossup election. Lukt64 (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:ITSIMPORTANT. It's true that he's ahead in the polls, and if he does win, then as I said in my nomination at the top, Tim Sheehy (American politician) should be unredirected and expanded. Wikishovel (talk) 07:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete and restore the redirect. I have absolutely no idea why this was restored, as people notable for just being candidates have no presumptive notability. SportingFlyer T·C 04:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  There are a number of keep !votes above and below which say he should have his page kept because he's a candidate. He wasn't notable before, the page was only restored because he's a candidate, and we deal with enduring notability. There are plenty of candidates from all over the world who failed to win the election and ten years later would not deserve a page. I think that's the case here. If he wins, then we can restore it, otherwise redirect to the election or possibly his company. SportingFlyer T·C 18:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep I've always believed being a major party nominee for federal office should be noteworthy enough to have an article. AvRand (talk) 07:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but the consensus at WP:NPOL from a far higher number of editors than you and I decided otherwise. Wikishovel (talk) 07:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

NPOL states: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.. Djflem (talk) 07:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep As the creator of the page (as well as a Democrat living in Montana), I believe that he is, without question, notable enough for Wikipedia, even if he loses. If he wins, I would probably be in favor of moving the page to Tim Sheehy (American politician) or a new page titled Tim Sheehy (senator). If he loses, I still believe he's notable enough for a Wikipedia page because he founded Bridger Aerospace and was a former Navy SEAL. MontanaMako (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTINHERITED: articles about heads of notable companies regularly get redirected, if they're not notable independently of the company. Not meeting guidelines for notability still applies, even if notability is claimed for three separate things. Wikishovel (talk) 11:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep His aerospace company has a Wikipedia article because it's notable, and he has had numerous articles written about him as a candidate in one of the two most important Senate races of 2024 (Montana and Ohio, since West Virginia is guaranteed to flip after Manchin left). Bill Williams 20:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTINHERITED: articles about heads of notable companies regularly get redirected, if they're not notable independently of the company. Wikishovel (talk) 11:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - In Nevada, the Republican nominee, Sam Brown, has his own wikipedia page. It was created when he first ran for Senate in 2022. Before then, he never ran for office, he was only a military captain. Tim Sheehy is the same thing - He has never held office before and was just a navy seal and CEO of a company. However, being a nominee of what is probably the most important Senate race this year, he deserves an article to inform interested Americans more about him. 2600:1017:B8BC:A39A:4D4F:D187:2698:4225 (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC) — 2600:1017:B8BC:A39A:4D4F:D187:2698:4225 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please see WP:WHATABOUTX and WP:ITSUSEFUL. If Sam Brown is judged to fail Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, then that article should also be nominated for deletion. Wikishovel (talk) 11:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep based on coverage that he received prior to filing for candidacy. Calwatch (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Calwatch: can you provide some examples please? In a search for his name, excluding the word "Senate", the coverage in reliable sources is quite poor. Wikishovel (talk) 22:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

A search earch with navy seal, Bridger Aerospace, Mudlsingers, Afghanistan, or any of a number of combinations will provide many many hits and articles about Sheehy, so whats the purpose of the suggestion? Djflem (talk) 06:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The purpose is to find "coverage that he received prior to filing for candidacy", as User:Calwatch suggests. I couldn't find much, and that's ostensibly what this article is about, Tim Sheehy the businessman. A redirect to Bridger Aerospace would be fine by me, unless of course he wins the election. Wikishovel (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect >>> Bridger Aerospace, the company he founded.Djflem (talk) 06:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Non-elected status is not an exclusionary measure, consensus is that candidates are not presumed notability, not that they are presumed non-notable. There are many exceptions and this may be one of them. Djflem (talk) 07:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep this guy is a candidate for the Senate in a race that could determine which party controls the Senate. He is all over the news and definitely notable. CipherSleuth (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep, but not because "he's important" or "he's in a race". He's been covered extensively by the WaPo ([14] [15] [16] [17] [18]) and the NYT ([19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]). He's been getting significant press coverage since last year, despite the nomination statement implying that the coverage is less relevant due to the final weeks of the election. SWinxy (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AfD suffered from large scale infestation by canvassed votes, as evidenced by the many inexperienced participants relying on irrelevant arguments to keep the page. However, even if we discard those, there's still no consensus either way. Relisting to get more P&G-based views.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep per SWinxy, same rationale should be applied to Eric Hovde Microplastic Consumer (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Leaning keep. I am inclined to think that his notability as a businessman and author is sufficient, even if coverage of these aspects of his life comes primarily in the context of his political campaign. BD2412 T 01:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment WP:POLOUTCOMES suggests that a redirect to the race is an appropriate outcome (and those pages can contain verifiable information about the candidates). In general, we know that NPOL is largely a pass/fail criteria, but even if a subject fails NPOL, they can still pass GNG. The next question is whether the subject is known only for one event (which can encompass a political campaign), and to an extent, we often make a guess about the enduring notability of the subject.

Candidates are hard to make a determination on whether a stand-alone article is appropriate especially when a candidate may only be known for their political campaign (and not public figures prior or after the campaign). If a candidate does have a stand-alone page, is deemed now and forever notable, any (past or future) verifiable information (flattering or unflattering) can be added to the page (with few recourses for a living person, and fewer recourses for a deceased individual).

I say all that but conclude that in the last 20 days before an election, passions about political candidates run high, and it can be hard to be objective in AFD, and harder yet to delete a US candidate running as a major party nominee for US Senate. And, it is especially hard if a candidate who is leading in the polls does not have a stand-alone page but their opponent does. If the subject is not elected November 5, my suggestion would be to revisit this discussion to truly determine if the subject is a WP:BLP1E. --Enos733 (talk) 05:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep I also want to bring up another point that I don't think is getting mentioned is that Bernie Moreno's page was never to my knowledge nominated for deletion while Sheehy's has been deleted more than once. I don't know what makes the difference between the two pages but I'm just saying its there. Wollers14 (talk) 06:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect and wait. There's been a fair amount of coverage predicated solely on his candidacy. In a few weeks, if he wins, this discussion will be mooted.-Ich (talk) 12:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect: per WP:NPOL. Marquardtika (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep I think it's unfair to be quick to delete an article on a candidate who is strongly favored to become a senator. Not to mention Sheehy has other facts outside of his senate run (such as his business). I also think it would be unfair to only have one page for a two-candidate race in what is arguably one of the most competitive senate races in the U.S. this year Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 03:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Strong delete Just by googling just Tim Sheehy instead of Tim Sheehy senate, it is blatantly obvious that this person is famous for just one even. This means the article must be deleted. If he wins his race - it will be reinstated. Radiohist (talk) 07:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  Did you try Tim Sheehy Afghanistan, Tim Sheehy aerial fire fighting, Tim Sheehy Mudslingers, Tim Sheehy Bridger Aerospace, or any of a number of combinations w/o Senate? Djflem (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect and wait The article itself has issues, but if he's not elected I don't see much contributing to notability. Simply being a SEAL isn't notable, although Bridger Aerospace might be. Intothatdarkness 13:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  Bridger Aerospace should be considered notable IMO. It has a bit of controversy and certainly that implicates Sheehy. Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  Bridger Aerospace is an article. Djflem (talk) 18:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Wait I would prefer to say "Delete," but the election is only two weeks out. Don't close the discussion until we know the outcome.Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. I believe it is worth Wikipedia informing the public about him. He's an integral part of an election cycle which helps determine the balance of party power in the Senate, and is running in a red state against a quite vulnerable Democrat senator Jon Tester; this angle adds to the already abundant coverage Sheehy has been given. I remember being peeved previously about how there was no article for Tim Sheehy, despite his campaign. Deleting his article before the election would be short-sighted, especially if he wins. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Even if his campaign is not successful (he is currently leading in the polls), he is a prominent businessman who has done important things outside of politics. We can have that discussion after Nov 5. --rogerd (talk) 16:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NPOL. Just running for office doesn't make you notable, and just being a wealthy businessperson doesn't make you notable. If he is elected in November, the page can always be re-created. Archimedes157 (talk) 11:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep There are multiple articles mentioning Tim Sheehy. This de facto makes him a public figure. LaMoria1 (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Sheehy is not just a generic candidate running for U. S. House or U. S. Senate who has no chance of winning; he is a candidate in an election that is widely seen as one that could decide control of the United States Senate. Even though media coverage of him is related to his campaign, there is a large enough amount of substantial media coverage about Sheehy as a person that I would argue he meets the GNG. I also reject the notion that his article should be deleted if he doesn't win the election; if an article is genuinely notable at one point in time, it should always be notable absent a major change in how we define notability. Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment come on, the election is in 2 weeks. He's probably gonna win, in which case, obvious keep. Oeoi (talk) 04:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  ● Keep You all took the words from my head, All the reasons stated by multiple users is why his page should stay. InterDoesWiki (talk) 18:47, 27 October 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.

232d Medical Battalion

232d Medical Battalion (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)

Unsourced article that got moved back from draftspace. A WP:BEFORE search got mostly press releases. A subject specific notability guideline doesn't exist for military units/formations, and the article seems to not fulfill our general notability guidelines. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 13:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 13:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. We generally keep articles on battalion-sized units per WP:MILUNIT. But move to 232nd Medical Battalion per norm. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Error message comes up on this AFD, as well "Do not use {{Draft article}} in mainspace". — Maile (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, — Maile ,

I don't see any problems with this AFD or the article and I don't know what draft article you are referring to. I've put "nowiki" tags around this template because it is interfering with discussion here. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, I just got that message again by trying to add. See first sentence of this nomination, "Unsourced article that got moved back from draftspace." But if no one else gets that, maybe I'll just avoid this article. — Maile (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Maile66 Hate to say this, but I'm not seeing any error messages, either. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete. All the sourcing on the subject is the unit talking about itself. That is neither secondary nor independent. MILUNIT is not a notability guideline and so per WP:N has zero sway here. JoelleJay (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: I have expanded it a bit and added some sources as part of #NOV24 backlog drive. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow time to assess TheBirdsShedTears' updates
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - the added refs mentioned above do not appear to be independent. So I'm not sure those really count towards notability. I agree with the above that military units often are notable, but I'm not sure we can really !keep unless there is independent coverage in RS. JMWt (talk) 09:24, 25 October 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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Pinkhus Rovner

Pinkhus Rovner (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)

Cannot find any books, journal articles, newspaper articles, or websites mentioning him. Only websites that did mention him are Wikipedia mirror cites. Hell, this is possibly a hoax. Roasted (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, and Ukraine. Roasted (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Agree with points listed above. Multiple google searches (including with aliases) did not return any results. Sources in article do not support any of the article content (one does not exist, and one has very limited information). Wibbit23 (talk) 04:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Keep absolutely, accusations of hoax are groundless. Pinkhus Rovner played a key role in the Bolshevik movement on territory of today's Ukraine. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - a common oversight of AfDeers is not bothering to check the native language sources or the article creators, who are alive and well, to accuse whom of hoax is a grave disrespect. --Altenmann >talk 21:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Can we have some review of sources here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - whenever a subject has a name written in Cyrillic, I always search for it under those letters: see here . Bearian (talk) 04:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still seeking a review of sources to see whether or not they establish GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - a revolutionary, politician, member of 1st and 3rd Congress of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of Ukraine. Plenty of sources listing him as member of congress.

Source: 1) Talks about last name, list people with it. Short 1 line giving name and listing him as a revolutionary. 2) Gives name, dob, deat date, arrests, political positions. 3) Big bio article. also lists sources. 4) Pavlik, I., Lifanov, V., Mychakovskaya, L. Mykolaiv: Streets tell book. Has 3 pages dedicated to his bio and part to street named after him. Also talks about his joint activities in 1918. Image of him along with other members of first congress [25]. Ceriy (talk) 18:52, 23 October 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.

Battle of Khatu Shyamji

Battle of Khatu Shyamji (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 not fulfilling WP:GNG. It is based on single source and also a very insignificant event with not much content to write has been converted into an article.It should be deleted and content, if any found relevant should be merged into something related to List of battles in Rajasthan.Admantine123 (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Admantine123 (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Merge - should be merged to article such as List of battles in Rajasthan as said above by the nominator because it is not such notable battle in Rajasthan to have an standalone page. TheSlumPanda (talk) 13:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Mughal–Rajput wars

Mughal–Rajput wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article is a poor WP:CONTENTFORK (WP:REDUNDANTFORK) from several articles like Rajput Rebellion (1708–1710), Rathore rebellion (1679–1707) and List of battles in Rajasthan. The individual topic like Battle of Khanwa has been stitched together to create an article suggesting that something like Mugal Rajput wars were a single homogeneous event spread over the different period of time. The individual topics are isolated events and a duplication from the List of battles in Rajasthan. So it should be deleted and content if anything that is here but not in List of battles in Rajasthan should be merged to latter. Admantine123 (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Admantine123 (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete like so many Maratha/Mughal articles recently, a hopeless mix of WP:SYNTH, exaggerations, and misrepresentations. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

This is about Mughals and Rajputs not Marathas! Dilbaggg (talk) 08:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article has been a sock magnet, so I don't think Soft Deletion is the best option. It either needs the support of editors to keep it sock-free or to be Deleted or Redirected or Merged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - there is no need to keep this sock magnet as the material is already covered. A hard delete is needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - The Mughals and Marathas have been at war between 1526-1779, this article lists a collection of WP:RS battles and also the cronological events. Every history and major source agress there was a long lasting war between Mughals and Rajputs, there is no denying it. I don't see a reason this WP:Notable historic article has been nominated for deletion! Dilbaggg (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep – Existence of this article is an improvement and provides for easier viewing for interested people. The article title is phrased plurally; Mughal–Rajput wars. Not being a made up single conflict. Deleting this article is an inappropriate course of action for the problem. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep-There were surely wars between Rajputs and Mughals and this article summarizes that but what is wrong in this is its tone and possible same content from other articles. All it needs is an improvement of in depth details about topic and a good tone. Rawn3012 (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 00:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom. Jannatulbaqi (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  @JannatulbaqiJannatulbaqi any specific reason as you have not written anything exept delete. Rawn3012 (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  Hey @Rawn3012, As I have clearly stated, I agree with the argument made by the nominator. Thanks Jannatulbaqi (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Dewair (1606)

Battle of Dewair (1606) (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 a WP: REDUNDANTFORK from Mughal conquest of Mewar. There was no need to create this standalone article as the content is already present in the other article. Hence it should be deleted. Admantine123 (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Admantine123 (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to Mughal conquest of Mewar per nom. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted. I'd like to see if there is more support for a Merge or if this article should just be deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 00:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep - Mughal Conquest of Mewar was a series of millitary campaigns whereas Battle of Dewair is a single battle. I don't see any reason to merge it with the latter. WP: REDUNDANTFORK applies for the same topic with different name. However, In this case the battle is a part of strings of event(Mughal Conquest of Mewar) through which Mewar concluded a treaty. Hence neither it should be deleted nor it should be merged. Rawn3012 (talk) 05:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: I agree with Rawn3012. WP:REDUNDANTFORK states that's it is bad to have "two articles about the exact same thing" - but these are not the same thing, it's a battle within the larger conquest therefore the only thing that matter is if the battle itself is notable. Searches for name (Hindi: दिवेर का युद्ध) return a lot of results especially in Indian media, i.e. Dainik Bhaskar (4th in the world by circulation) made an article specifically about it interviewing academics [26] and there's a lot more as well meeting WP:SIGCOV. MolecularPilot 09:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Military Proposed deletions

The following articles have been tagged for proposed deletion:

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

Current PRODs

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

Military-related Images and media for Deletion

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

• None at present

Military-related Miscellany for deletion

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

Military-related Templates for Deletion

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

None at present

Military-related Categories for Discussion

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

Military-related Redirects for Deletion

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

Military-related Possibly Unfree Files

• None at present

Military-related Speedy Deletion

The following military-related Speedy Deletions are currently open:

None at present

Military-related Deletion Review

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

None at present

Military-related Requests for Undeletion

None at present

Military-related material at other deletion processes

None at present

Military related deletions on Commons

None at present