Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Military history
WikiProject
Main project page + talk
News & open tasks
Academy
Core work areas
Assessment
Main page
 → A-Class FAQ
 → B-Class FAQ
 → A-Class review requests
 → Assessment requests
 → Current statistics
 → Review alert box
Contests
Main page
 → Contest entries
 → Scoring log archive
 → Scoreboard archive
Coordination
Main page + talk
 → Handbook
 → Bugle newsroom talk
 → ACM eligibility tracking
 → Discussion alert box
Incubator
Main page
 → Current groups and initiatives
Special projects
Majestic Titan talk
Member affairs
Membership
Full list talk
 → Active / Inactive
 → Userboxes
Awards
Main page talk
 →A-Class medals
 →A-Class crosses
 → WikiChevrons w/ Oak Leaves
Resources
Guidelines
Content
Notability
Style
Templates
Infoboxes
 → Command structure doc · talk
 → Firearm cartridge doc · talk
 → Military award doc · talk
 → Military conflict doc · talk
 → Military installation doc · talk
 → Military memorial doc · talk
 → Military person doc · talk
 → Military unit doc · talk
 → National military doc · talk
 → Military operation doc · talk
 → Service record doc · talk
 → Militant organization doc · talk
 → Weapon doc · talk
Navigation boxes doc · talk
 → Campaignboxes doc · talk
Project banner doc · talk
Announcement & task box
 → Discussion alert box
 → Review alert box
Template design style doc · talk
Showcase
Featured articles 1510
Featured lists 149
Featured topics 32
Featured pictures 544
Featured sounds 69
Featured portals 5
A-Class articles 687
A-Class lists 40
Good articles 5,561
Automated lists
Article alerts
Most popular articles
New articles
Nominations for deletion
Task forces
General topics
Fortifications
Intelligence
Maritime warfare
Military aviation
Military culture, traditions, and heraldry
Military biography
Military historiography
Military land vehicles
Military logistics and medicine
Military memorials and cemeteries
Military science, technology, and theory
National militaries
War films
Weaponry
Nations and regions
African military history
Asian military history
Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history
Balkan military history
Baltic states military history
British military history
Canadian military history
Chinese military history
Dutch military history
European military history
French military history
German military history
Indian military history
Italian military history
Japanese military history
Korean military history
Middle Eastern military history
Nordic military history
North American military history
Ottoman military history
Polish military history
Roman and Byzantine military history
Russian, Soviet and CIS military history
South American military history
South Asian military history
Southeast Asian military history
Spanish military history
United States military history
Periods and conflicts
Classical warfare
Medieval warfare
Early Muslim military history
Crusades
Early Modern warfare
Wars of the Three Kingdoms
American Revolutionary War
Napoleonic era
American Civil War
World War I
World War II
Cold War
Post-Cold War
Related projects
Blades
Espionage
Firearms
Pritzker Military Museum & Library
Piracy
Ships
edit · changes
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
Purge page cache watch

Military and combat

[edit]

Battle of Kerh (1516)

[edit]
Battle of Kerh (1516) (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)

Challenged draftification. I can’t find the necessary sources to verify and establish the subject’s notability. The subject currently fails to meet WP:GNG. Please ping me if you can find sources. A rewrite may also be needed per WP:NPOV. GrabUp - Talk 09:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of aircraft of Turkey during World War II

[edit]
List of aircraft of Turkey during World War II (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 did anything during WW2 I don’t think this is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plunder of Murshidabad (1742)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Plunder of Murshidabad (1742) (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)
  • First of all, the article is written in the form of a fan-made story, attempting to villainize an entity (or perhaps show off? There are numerous instances in articles about Indian military history where users have included shocking or vulgar acts committed by militants).
  • WP:CITEKILL has made source analysis more complex, but once unreliable sources were cleared, the analysis became much easier. The article clearly fails to meet WP:GNG, as well as old sources falling under WP:RAJ and WP:AGEMATTERS have widely been used (caused the reason for the put down of the last proposal, and i was on a break)

Analysis:

  • The New Cambridge Modern History Vol. 7 (1713-63)* by Lindsay, J. O., Ed:

The book only mentions "Murshidabad" once, with the context found in the parent article on Maratha invasions of Bengal.

  • The same applies to *The Marathas - Cambridge History of India (Vol. 2, Part 4)* by Stewart Gordon;

It mentions the event alongside the "Maratha invasions of Bengal," which, indeed, should also be referenced here. A separate article is not warranted for this event, as it is a minor occurrence within a larger conflict—specifically, a plunder. Such events do not meet the minimum notability standards. In fact, an entire page from a reliable source is missing in this case. Additionally, the use of a military conflict infobox is unnecessary here, as it follows the same problematic pattern seen with articles like "Battle of X" or "X-Y Wars" in Indian military history. This approach has caused numerous issues. In conclusion, the article fails to meet notability standards and is poorly written. The content could easily be integrated into the parent article instead. Imperial[AFCND] 14:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 North Korean Trash Balloon Incident

[edit]
2024 North Korean Trash Balloon Incident (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)

An article for the same topic was previously deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean excrement balloon incident. I don't think this current new article adds much more to the discussion than what is already on Balloon propaganda campaigns in Korea. The current article title also isn't great; should be sentence case as it isn't a proper noun, and this isn't a single incident: it is a series of incidents. seefooddiet (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025–2026 U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq

[edit]
2025–2026 U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq (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)

Pretty much just a hypothetical. It got a little coverage a month ago and nothing since. The U.S. government hasn't officially announced anything. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battles of Belonia Bulge

[edit]
Battles of Belonia Bulge (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 "Battles of Belonia Bulge" article has faced multiple issues since May, as it does not meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Specifically, the article provides insufficient Doomguy427 (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Srinagar attack

[edit]
2024 Srinagar attack (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:NEVENT. I'm only seeing routine coverage, and no in-depth coverage. Not sure if this is going to have any lasting effect or receive any more coverage than what's already there. --Ratekreel (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luka Kuprashvili

[edit]
Luka Kuprashvili (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)

Apparent memorial page for a local commander of a rebellion. According to the article it relies largely on archival (primary) sources. There may be better sources in Georgian that I can’t search for, but the Georgian and Russian Wikipedia articles are based on the same sources as this. Mccapra (talk) 08:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bojong Kokosan

[edit]
Battle of Bojong Kokosan (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)

Entirely unsourced, WP:BEFORE search shows little to nothing, and the AfC is also unsourced but with more context. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ebohon of Ova

[edit]
Ebohon of Ova (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. The article was declined at Afc but finds it's way back to the main space. Ibjaja055 (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Etefa

[edit]
Solomon Etefa (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 tried draftifying the article, but it was moved back. I tried a WP:BEFORE search, but it failed. The sources in the article aren't quite formatted correctly. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 12:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct there is no problem with the citation or reference keep it up Pit09 (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Smoluća

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Siege of Smoluća (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 siege, its relief and the evacuation of the population is covered in a short paragraph in the comprehensive two-volume US history of these wars, Balkan Battlegrounds. It doesn't include much of what is in the current paragraph headed Order of battle, and when summarised would amount to a few sentences at best. A Google Books search adds very little in terms of possible reliable sources, none of which constitute significant coverage. I could trim it down to just what the source does say, but the editor responsible has done this before, and therefore this is a classic WP:TNT candidate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that this was a minor action in the overall fighting for the Posavina region from March 1992 to January 1993, and might be mentioned in a larger article on those operations. But it is definitely not notable on its own. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, i can add sources to this article if you let me. It will take a little bit of time because i am finding sources for another article Wynnsanity (talk) 09:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion you are not right. This is a sige and if we have siege of žepa and another smaller cities we should have for this also. Its not the minor action because a lot of civis were saved and both sides took heavy casulties. There are also not so much books about this war in english because nobody cares to be honest about balkans. I agree that is bad if we have only 1 english and 10 serb sources on english wiki but the other articles for other side also have just some tabloid blogs and they are not deleted or even marked as "bad sources", is it a coincidence? I would not say so
All the best Wynnsanity (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All you need is significant coverage in reliable sources. They don't have to be in English. telegraf.rs isn't a reliable source, neither are blogs, fora, local town news portals with no real editorial oversight, or fanboi websites. Most of the articles being created about the Balkan wars of the 90s at the moment are incredibly poorly sourced. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree that telegraph is not good source. Can you give me a day or two to find better? I think that they are very badly sources because people from that area dont write or talk about it much, its "taboo". Thanks Wynnsanity (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peacemaker, i will undo your text edit today if its okay for you because it will be a lot easier for me to work on this article if i have first version not this one, i will also add content and relevant sources to it right after. I hope you understand and dont mind. Best Wynnsanity (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need, I was caught up with other things and neglected this article. As peace maker said, it does not need its own article since this was a part of a wider Bosnian TO campaign in Lukavac. I might also add that when I first made this article, I was very inexperienced and didn’t know anything about copyright. Orhov (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i made changes and fixed the problem that peacemaker suggested, if you are the editor its up to you, best Wynnsanity (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the article should be retained if more is added, like a prelude or aftermath, that is if it is backed up by reliable material. If not, then that is fine with me. Orhov (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to include that, thanks Wynnsanity (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The citations that have been added, like "Fooian & Foo 2002, p. XXX" are not verifiable as they don't provide the title of the book, or publisher etc. No-one can look at it and then check if it is reliable and accurately reflects what is is supposed to be supporting. Unless the full citations are added, we cannot be assured that significant coverage exists in reliable sources, and therefore the article should be deleted. Also, the removal of the material about the Serbs evacuating and withdrawing due to ARBiH pressure and the town being occupied by them is directly relevant to the subject, and deletion of it could be considered censorship to only indicate one side's version of the engagement. I strongly suggest you re-instate it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but this is totally absurd. First of all, in Bosnia people are all Bosnians(muslim, orthodox and catholic) and you cant look at them "black and white" like you do and in every article saying "Bosnians never did anything", "Bosnian atrocities i dont think so" etc. When we few people(editors) who are benevolently editing wikipedia will be deprived of your non-existent criteria where you always want more and more and more and then delete our works and add stars to your main page for contributions, cringe. This is not "one side" POV because here in the article they only explain what happend during the siege and shelling wich is fair and totally honest and you cant as wiki admin look to this topic like that one side never did anything bad and want a milion sources to be "assured", thats not serious. And when one neutral editor "Fanboi" as you called him posted yesterday all that you have asked for(siege, civis..) you have ofcourse ignored and continued with your agenda. Article was in bad shape until we make it be a lot better with our good faith edits, i personally have a big collection about this topics and this is not Naoleonic War to have thousand best sources. I will undo my edits because i dont know how to add and you will have another sources from other editors wich are also not your taste but every article with "Sanjak NEWS, BLOGSPOT" is okay and "reliable" to you because one side is always the victim and we are all "Fanboi", says who? Bill Clinton? Pretty sad to be honest. Wynnsanity (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what are you on about exactly? I have never done anything of the sort. I have rarely edited articles about the Yugoslav Wars of the 90s because I was there for some of it, but the sudden flurry of poorly sourced articles about obscure events drew my attention. Have you even read the reliable source policy? The verifiability policy? These are fundamental to what we do, as is WP:NPOV. All en WP expects is for these many newly created articles on the Yugoslav Wars to be notable in their own right and reliably sourced. If that is too much for you, then perhaps en WP is not for you. If you tell me what the titles are of the books you provided short citations (authors and year of publication, but nothing else) for, I can check them for reliability and that they actually support what you say they do. If they are reliable and do what you say, then perhaps the article will meet WP:N. I know it can be frustrating when other editors question your work, but that is what we do here. It isn't a blog or forum. In any case, take a chill pill, good grief... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google search for Borojević and it quickly identified him as a self-published author of aviation books (in the main), and results also indicate he served in the JNA then VRS during the Bosnian War and continued to serve in the VRS afterwards. So, for starters, he's not a historian; secondly, he's self-published; and he's closely affiliated with the VRS given he served in the VRS and the VRS were involved in this engagement. The perception (if not actuality) of a conflict of interest and a likely axe to grind is pretty obvious. I cannot see how his book can be considered reliable, and it certainly can't be used to demonstrate the notability of an article. I will now remove the citations to Borojević from the article. If you believe the book is reliable, feel free to ask for a community opinion at WP:RSN. I have also posted this to Wynnsanity's talk page. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You tell me to take pills to calm down, knowing that I'm right in everything I said, but it doesn't matter, I'm used to it here. This is isnt blogforum but is also not your forum to whatever you want. I apologize because I did not write in English how to get to the book, so it turned out that I was manipulating, which is not the case. I think the editor wrote according to that book, I didn't know it was self-proclaimed because it seemed official to me Wynnsanity (talk) 09:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s be really clear here. Nothing I am saying is MY “policy”. Everything I have observed reflects English Wikipedia policy. Now we have more “references” without a title or publisher. What are the titles of the books please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that is impossible to talk with you. You can sell that story to someone else, not me. I don't want to waste my time on insignificant things when anyone with a wrong woldview of can destroy my hard and good work. I'm done with this so delete and do whatever you want. goodbye 2A00:10:990A:F501:40F6:9E0D:C07D:A148 (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Chameleon '93

[edit]
Operation Chameleon '93 (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 supposed subject of this article is not mentioned in the comprehensive two-volume US history of the wars in the Balkans (Balkan Battlegrounds), and a Google Books search results in no hits. Even the village of Skabrnja isn't mentioned in BB. If this isn't a hoax, it is a non-notable firefight that hasn't been documented outside the village in which it allegedly occurred. It doesn't have significant coverage in reliable sources, and is therefore not notable and should be deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be just one in a series of war-related articles created by this new user in a relatively short amount of time.
The leftover reference to Ante Nazor's mention in a Hrvatski vojnik article actually says the name was "Kameleon", so I don't know why we'd necessarily translate that and add a shortened year to it. --Joy (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained about this OP here in the edit section, i will fix typo and if add more content if needed. I tink that just this article needs to be renamed to operation steel 93 and added more reliable content. Balkan Battlegrounds is not the only reliable book about wars in the former Yugoslavia. This book(BB) briefly explains the events without a deeper analysis because they want to include all events in 400-500 pages(its impossible to do in one or two books). All the Best Wynnsanity (talk) 12:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gow is currently unverifiable because it hasn't got a full citation. I will look at the Sekulic book to see if it is reliable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Sekulić was a major general in the VRS, and his book is published by a German press (not sure of their bona fides, but his book is cited extensively in Balkan Battlegrounds. I note there are some questions in BB about his point of view, being a VRS officer. I think it can be considered reliable in a general sense, but I think anything even slightly disputed or controversial cited to him needs to be attributed in-text, ie "According to the VRS major general Milisav Sekulić, ... then cited to his book at the end of the sentence, and thereafter "According to Sekulić, ... Coverage in this book can be used to establish notability, although I'm not seeing significant coverage, just mentions in passing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, even if it happened at all does not seem to be notable enough to have its own article. Durraz0 (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why don't you help the article expand and be even better, that's why you're here, I guess? Or maybe you are here to glorify the UÇK and others like that and spread your nationalism, as you have already done several times? We can delete all RSK and VRS victories but then we would be left with your ridiculous articles where you killed 1k soldiers in 10 minutes. I don't know, just asking. Cheers Wynnsanity (talk) 11:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. Iaof2017 (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Fortant

[edit]
Arthur Fortant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page for many years. It seems he was part of the French military mission to Japan (1867–1868), which seems like an interesting historical incident. However I'm not seeing much that can be described as substantial RS about this person. fr.wiki has more information but is equally bereft of sources. JMWt (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not eligible,this article not have news coverage Cyberpower7 (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have !voted for both !keep and !delete. JMWt (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Ardennes

[edit]
Operation Ardennes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent RS on the page for a long time. I'm not seeing why this is considered notable to meet the standards for inclusion. I'm not really convinced a RD is necessary but as an ATD it could be redirected to List of coalition military operations of the Iraq War JMWt (talk) 09:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zakir Ali Zaidi

[edit]
Zakir Ali Zaidi (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 bio clearly fails GNG, but instead of taking it to AFD, I draftified it to give the creator a chance to get it approved through AFC review. However, they reverted my draftification, leaving me no choice but to take it to AFD. Those arguing to keep it based on WP:ANYBIO #1 should also understand that meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better to login to your account (not a new user who immediately finds AfD)/ no contributions outside this AfD) than presenting your biased opinions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TheBirdsShedTears, While I personally don’t appreciate votes by IPs in AFDs, even when they share the same opinion as mine, but this vote do raise valid concerns that you need to counter if you want to keep this BLP. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib: BLP? TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TheBirdsShedTears, My mistake—I meant to say "bio". — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! I make unintentional mistakes too. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The IP is referring to President (corporate title) which is completely different from Chancellor (education) – President (education). The subject in question served as the chancellor i.e President (education). If you don't know the differences, please don't waste time of other AfD participants. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • TheBirdsShedTears, I get that university presidents are usually seen as notable, but this guy's background as a soldier rather than an academic makes it a bit questionable. No? Just because he was president of a military university doesn’t mean he’s made any significant academic contributions. PS. I am glad you took the IP to task! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I fear that the sources and article may not have been fully reviewed. The subject also held a notable role at the Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad, which I feel adds to his notability. From what I understand, my challenge to the draftification may have been taken personally, which could be why it went to AfD without a neutral or closer review. I'm not against taking this article to AfD; my concern is about questionable review. It TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It seems that when you nominate an article for AfD, there is often strong advocacy against retention, which may come across as challenging the "keep" votes, and influencing other editors, potentially harming WP:CON. (see this, this, this, this, this, and this.........) I'm a bit concerned that this approach might be affecting the neutrality of discussions. The best practice is to review the article and the provided sources very closely, then describe the issue at the time of AfD nomination and let the community decide the fate of AfDed articles. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      TheBirdsShedTears, I think the AGF factor is missing here and I believe this discussion is going off track. Instead of focusing on the subject, you're discussing me and my behavior in this AFD, which isn't the right forum for that. But since you asked, let me clarify: when someone makes a WP:ATA or when someone with a questionable editing history - yes, I said questionable editing history - !votes to change the outcome of an AFD, I feel it’s necessary to counter them. That’s not a bad thing, is it? That said, if you believe this AFD is unjustified, you still have time to explain why it should be kept. If it's based on GNG, please provide links to coverage that establish WP:N. If it falls under some SNG, please clarify that. I hope it’s not NACADEMIC, as I’ve raised concerns about that. And being the Head of the Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad doesn’t inherently make someone WP:N either; they still need to meet some criteria. You must know better, don’t you? PS. this might be my last comment on this AFD to allow you and others to decide its fate. --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to XII Corps (Pakistan). Zaidi does not appear to have commanded in combat, which might attract notable sources; and is not on the unbroken commander's list at II Corps (Pakistan). He is on the list for commanding XII Corps from May 1987 to Aug 1989 (unsourced, however). A note could be added to the XII Corps page to say that in 1989 Zaidi took over the senior military academic staff post, and then died 2020. That would allow that mention to be used as a seed for any future addition of reliable sources to recreate the article. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There’s one reliable source, which isn’t enough for significant coverage. I won’t oppose a redirect. Bearian (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I am a bit puzzled by this AfD. The subject served as a president of the National Defence University, Pakistan. President in this case is referring to the highest-ranking officer within the academic administration of a university. WP:NPROF criterion 6 says that The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. This unarguably tells us that this subject is clearly notable under WP:NACADEMIC. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lycée naval

[edit]
Lycée naval (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)

There were no refs on the page until I added one earlier. On further reflection I am not seeing anything else and I don't think this is sufficient to meet the GNG. fr.wiki is of no real help as the only substantive sources there are from the French government. JMWt (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Le Monde de l'éducation (in French). S.A.R.L. Le Monde. 1994. - Le Monde is a French paper of record and these mentions are in a published collection. I cannot verify the indpendence of these mentions, as they are in an educational supplement, but likely are independent.
  • Gautier, Sébastien (13 July 2016). Une si belle journée (in French). Les Éditions du Net. ISBN 978-2-312-04548-1. - Mentions in a book about diving.
  • Bouvier, Claudia (23 March 2022). Codename Corvus Thriller: Band 1 Die Iskander - Verschwörung (in German). tredition. ISBN 978-3-347-47148-1. - Mentions in a German work of fiction.
  • Lormier, Dominique (4 May 2016). Histoires extraordinaires de la Seconde Guerre mondiale (in French). Cherche Midi. ISBN 978-2-7491-4084-1. - This book is about extraordinary :stories from the Second World War. It mentions this school, which would be very signiifcant, except it is apparently impossible - the school was started in 1968. I do not have the book, and I cannot see enough of the preview to unravel this. It may be, however, that the prior school is what is meant.
In addition to these there are very many news articles and other links (lots of books that are self published - so I ignored those). But it is a particular school in a historic building, one of just a few such schools and hosted in a nationally significant naval training centre. It should be kept in some form. But per WP:PAGEDECIDE, I think the merge is appropriate (at least unless and until enough information is found for a spinout). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like we have "don't delete", looking for more sources (to take us to keep) or for confirmation that merge is the way to go at this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sebiba

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
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)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As nom explains, we literally just went through this and the editor has made no effort to address the problems in recreating it. (I would think this actually qualifies for speedy deletion per WP:G4?) I agree that another option it to make this into a redirect to Hilalian invasion of Ifriqiya; either solution is fine by me. R Prazeres (talk) 00:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Afghanistan–Pakistan skirmishes

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
"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)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We don't have any strong Keep arguments thus far but should some content be Merged into Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of World War II weapons of Turkey

[edit]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 [5], but I'm not too sure if it's reliable or not. Conyo14 (talk) 19:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trying one more relisting to see if we can come to a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, proponents of notability have had more than enough time do demonstrate it and have failed miserably at doing so. There is currently no policy or guideline based argument for keeping the article. Based on our existing policies and guidelines which control notability in this context there is just no way I can support inclusion as a stand alone page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Defense Show

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.worlddefenseshow.com/about-the-show/wds-leadership/ No No No Team information from the official website ✘ No
https://euro-sd.com/2023/06/news/32396/world-defense-show-in-riyadh-announces-surge-in-interest-at-paris-air-show/ ? No No ✘ No
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ukraine-crisis-delays-ak-203-assault-rifle-deal-with-russia/article65221831.ece Yes Yes The article is talking about AK-203 and Ukraine war ? Unknown
https://english.aawsat.com/home/article/4065746/saudi-arabia-japan-sign-15-agreements-establishing-qualitative-partnership ? ~ No mention of the World Defense Show ? Unknown
https://english.alarabiya.net/News/gulf/2022/03/10/Saudi-Arabia-s-first-World-Defense-Show-in-Riyadh-ends-with-7-9-billion-in-deals No ~ Yes ✘ No
https://saudigazette.com.sa/article/616815/SAUDI-ARABIA/Saudi-Arabias-World-Defense-Show-ready-for-launch-after-selling-out-all-exhibition-space ? No ? Seems to be a paid coverage ✘ No
https://www.eurasiantimes.com/thaad-to-guard-saudi-arabia-riyadh-adds-teeth-to/ ? ? Trivial mention ? Unknown
https://saudigazette.com.sa/article/635807/SAUDI-ARABIA/Strong-international-demand-leads-to-sell-out-of-second-world-defense-show ? No ? ✘ No
https://www.timesaerospace.aero/news/events/defence-heads-and-industry-influencers-to-speak-at-world-defense-show ? No ? Seems to be a paid coverage ✘ No
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/defence-notes/sponsored-be-immersed-in-pioneering-tech-innovation-at-world-defense-show-2024/ No No ? Seems to be a paid coverage ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

232d Medical Battalion

[edit]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Military Proposed deletions

[edit]

The following articles have been tagged for proposed deletion:

Current PRODs

[edit]
[edit]

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

  • None at present
[edit]

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

[edit]

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

None at present
[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]
  • None at present
[edit]

The following military-related Speedy Deletions are currently open:

None at present

[edit]

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

None at present

[edit]

None at present

[edit]

None at present

[edit]

None at present

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Military&oldid=1255975141"