Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military

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 newsroomtalk
 → ACM eligibility tracking
 → Discussion alert box
Incubator
Main page
 → Current groups and initiatives
Special projects
Majestic Titantalk
Member affairs
Membership
Full listtalk
 → Active / Inactive
 → Userboxes
Awards
Main pagetalk
 →A-Class medals
 →A-Class crosses
 → WikiChevrons w/ Oak Leaves
Resources
Guidelines
Content
Notability
Style
Templates
Infoboxes
 → Command structuredoc · talk
 → Firearm cartridgedoc · talk
 → Military awarddoc · talk
 → Military conflictdoc · talk
 → Military installationdoc · talk
 → Military memorialdoc · talk
 → Military persondoc · talk
 → Military unitdoc · talk
 → National militarydoc · talk
 → Military operationdoc · talk
 → Service recorddoc · talk
 → Militant organizationdoc · talk
 → Weapondoc · talk
Navigation boxesdoc · talk
 → Campaignboxesdoc · talk
Project bannerdoc · talk
Announcement & task box
 → Discussion alert box
 → Review alert box
Template design styledoc · talk
Showcase
Featured articles1531
Featured lists149
Featured topics41
Featured pictures563
Featured sounds69
Featured portals5
A-Class articles686
A-Class lists40
Good articles5,616
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 cachewatch

Military and combat

Increase Carpenter

Increase Carpenter (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. No real claim to notability, most of the article not about subject. Almost all of the info on Carpenter comes from the first source, which is of dubious value. Brianyoumans (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vyomika Singh

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

just appearing in a media briefing is not enough to merit a wikipedia article — Awsib (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli plan to occupy and flatten all of Gaza

Israeli plan to occupy and flatten all of Gaza (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)

Name is not official, leaves this article open to POV problems. Information seems to be a fork of Gaza war#Post-war plans. Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 13:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: While we can probably make an article covering the government's intentions of expulsion, dispossession and conquest, with appearances of the opinions of (self-described) fascists like Smotrich, having the article title as it currently is would not pass. If we are to create such an article, draft spacing it first so we have something substantially written to put out would be the best course of action, in my opinion. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete, This is a bad fork with some pretty obvious issues with point of view and a near-WP:PEACOCK title. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vilnius conflict

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

A 20-year "mainly diplomatic" territorial dispute doesn't rate a standalone article. This is covered in other articles, mainly Vilnius Region#Vilnius dispute, as well as 1938 Polish ultimatum to Lithuania. Some details could be merged into the former. The misleading infobox makes it seem like this was a war, which it wasn't. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Soldier Research Program

Virtual Soldier Research Program (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)

Promotional, entirely self published sources, poor quality article, should be moved to draftspace or deleted. JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald Vaughn Finley Sr.

Reginald Vaughn Finley Sr. (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)

Have conducted a WP:BEFORE search and unable to find any real evidence of notability. Almost exclusively WP:SPS or unreliable. The only source worth anything is Flynn (The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief), but it's a very brief mention (about 40 words). Does not meet WP:GNG. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maratha invasion of Deccan (1739)

Maratha invasion of Deccan (1739) (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 didn't happen any conflict by such a name in 1739. This is WP:OR. The historical invasion timeline is 1739-40 and battle happened in 1740, even that doesn't have such a title it's known as Battle of Aurangabad or Battle of Godavri (1740) [5] [6]. No source used here mentions of such a battle with such a name. The author has used WP:SYN throughout. Additionally, the sources used for the battle result and treaty section are not considered reliable (WP:RS). One of the sources [7] used for mentioning the result (Nizam's victory) opposes itself on Pg 28 and 109 questioning it's reliability. The other one used for displaying result [8] is not even a historian but a civil servant. The article's body is not written from a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) as evident in body lead and aftermath section with some sources given more priority. That sources are unreliable too as addressed before. So, the article does not pass WP:GNG currently and needs to be deleted. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prescott Currier

Prescott Currier (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)

He was a World War II cryptography lieutenant, but I see no substantiation for the unsourced claim that he "played a major role in the Cryptanalysis of the Enigma". There are passing mentions, which fail to satisfy WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Russell J. Nelson

Russell J. Nelson (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)

Subject is not notable. Of the three sources, honorstates.org is user generated, There were others is an unpublished primary source memoir, and the Morton source does not contain SIGCOV. A WP:BEFORE search does not reveal any additional sources of note. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Raza Aizad

Muhammad Raza Aizad (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:NBIO. All sources I found had no significant coverage. mwwv converse∫edits 23:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:SOLDIER. He's a two star general. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 03:43, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He has the 2nd highest award of pakistan Hilal-i-Imtiaz. Recipient of Sword of Honour (Pakistan). 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 03:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm missing something, WP:SOLDIER has been deprecated. mwwv converse∫edits 19:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maximum of the previous military biography articles which were deleted, it was done based on WP:SOLDIER regardless it has been deprecated, such as Vijayant Thapar (officer). 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 19:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also check WP:ANYBIO. He fulfills the condition, as he has the 2nd highest award. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 19:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ANYBIO footnote 8 saysa person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books in that field, by historians, and I couldn't find any evidence of this in Aizad. mwwv converse∫edits 21:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:SOLDIER: two-star general, recipient of the Hilal-i-Imtiaz (Military) and Sword of Honour. These are clear indicators of notability per military-specific guidelines. Lack of media coverage doesn’t override presumed notability under WP:SOLDIER. Taeyab (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of media coverage doesn’t override presumed notability under WP:SOLDIER That is just straight up not true. NSOLDIER is a part of WP:MILNG, which is an essay. Essays never override notability guidelines; they are simply pieces ofadvice or opinions of one or more editors (from WP:ESSAY), and as such have little-to-no community oversight. AFAIK, MILNG was never marked as a notability guideline; it has always been an essay. Also, usually, the wording I've seen in notability essays has been that subjects are "almost certainly", "likely to be", "safe to say that they are", etc. presumed notable. It's very possible that this is one of the exceptions. mwwv converse∫edits 19:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – as per Taeyab and Zephyr. He's definitely notable as a Pakistan Army Major General, although the article can be improved, especially with Urdu-language sources. Al-Waqīmī (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Pringle (British Army officer)

John Pringle (British Army officer) (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 as it stands does not demonstrate that this individual was notable. It lacks reliable sources. This article fails WP:GNG. Aneirinn (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sudarshan Chakra (air defence system)

Sudarshan Chakra (air defence system) (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 was previously redirected to S-400 missile system, but was reverted and asked to take to a deletion discussion. The article is a pure POV fork of the main S-400 article. It is the exact same system, simply called by an alternative name. Reliable sources do not widely refer to the S-400, even in Indian usage, as "Sudarshan Chakra" so it fails WP:COMMONNAME even if it were a separate article. The Sudarshan Chakra (air defence system) article should be deleted, and the page redirected to S-400 missile system. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 18:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sofiya Qureshi

Sofiya Qureshi (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 officer, fails GNG (Note: most of the sources from the article are either dead, or made-up links which doesn't exist early but designed in a way to made it notable, kindly cross-check if I'm wrong ). Also, I checked on Google, where sources are available in 2016 when she became first women to head an army contingent, with latest routine sources in 2025. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 04:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article meets both WP:GNG and WP:MILPEOPLE. The subject is the first Indian woman to lead an all-male UN peacekeeping contingent, a role covered in The Times of India, UN News, and Sainik Samachar. The 2025 events and awards are fictional placeholders for current/future updates and should be trimmed, not deleted entirely. The core notability is verifiable, independently covered, and encyclopedic. Recommend trimming uncited or speculative material and keeping the article. EduExplorer47 (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EduExplorer47 none of those three refs is working for me, in UK. (And I think it's conventional to use inline links in AfD discussions, rather than refs which disappear to the bottom of the page). PamD 14:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EduExplorer47 Please don't add "fictional placeholders" to any article: they degrade the quality of the article and the encyclopedia. PamD 22:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sofiya Qureshi is HIGHLY relevant at the moment for her roles in press conferences. Atharva210 (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean delete: (Almost) all of the sources on this article are errors or 404 or redirects, even the ones posted above in the AfD don't work. I even checked one of them on archive and it didn't seem to exist in the past either. I will try and do more searching to see if I can find anything of substance to refil this article with but current content should be blanked. BLP and such. Moritoriko (talk) 07:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources have changed since my comment Moritoriko (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: This is the most hot topic now. You can find dozens of significant coverage about Sofiya Qureshi on Google. Easily meet WP:GNG. Rajeev Gaur123 (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Hi Counter-Strike:Mention 269, I think you should reconsider this nomination. If you feel that the subject is now following the general guidelines (WP:GNG), you may also consider withdrawing the nomination. Thank you. Baqi:) (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: First of all, @EduExplorer47: please keep in mind that since you are the page creator, you can't vote, but can comment or make remarks on why it shouldn't be deleted. Second, some users' arguments are insufficient on why it shouldn't be deleted. MIPEOPLE is no longer applied, so WP:BIO or GNG is used only. The latest sources here and on Google are routine sources, and it requires more coverage from time to time to get qualified for GNG, but that is not the only condition. Also, let others decide on this. No issues even if it is kept, so have patience.--☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 14:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not true, the article creator can put forward their rationale for keeping, but they should say that they are the creator as well. Moritoriko (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: plentiful coverage. I've checked the first half dozen English language refs and all exist, contrary to the nominator's description. I combined a pair of duplicate refs. PamD 14:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I want you to know the sources were updated between the nomination and when you posted this comment, at the time they were all redirects and 404s. Moritoriko (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, yes, this can often happen.
    But actually I'm getting worried, because I looked at the hi.wiki version of the article and a lot of its English-language sources were coming up as 404s. But looking at the history it seems that article was only created today, so presumably is a translation of the bad-refs earlier version of this one. Googling also fails to find a single reference earlier than this week. It would be useful to have some actual genuine refs earlier than this week: the three cited above (showing below) are all 404/dead. PamD 22:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request Could someone please add "trans-title" to the non-English-language sources? Thanks. PamD 14:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Qualifies WP:N in my opinion, she has been in the news earlier too so it's not a WP:1E instance. Xoocit) (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Major general nik mohammad sahak

Major general nik mohammad sahak (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 was created by User:Nik Mohammad sahak who is literally named after the article's subject. The draft was rejected multiple times. A google search doesn't yield anything about the name. The guy allegedly died in 1398 and has a photograph of him. Photography was invented in 1826. The only google search result is a document at WikiLeaks. Laura240406 (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe 1398 is probably based on a different dating system, possibly Islamic? A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
that would put his death at 1970 which makes sense Laura240406 (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Afghanistan. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does that photo look doctored to anyone else? It looks like the face has been copied and pasted on top of someone else's body. That aside, this fails WP:V, which is a core policy. Using the Farsi name, I can find some social media coverage of a "General Nik Mohammad Khan Mangal" but nothing about this person. Given that the username matches the article's subject, I would bet that this is a vanity hoax. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think this person is a real historical figure since I did find a mention of the article subject in a declassified US government document while searching. However, there probably isn't significant coverage since searching the native language name from the article doesn't yield many results on Google. All in all, I think this is probably a WP:GNG fail but open to hearing from editors who speak any Afghan languages on what sources exist.Aspening (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even on the off chance this isn't a hoax, it definitely isn't notable enough for an article due to the utter lack of sources covering this person
ApexParagon (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Berwal

Amit Berwal (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:BIO. A search for sources largely turned up passing mentions which only note his position as the bodyguard unit commandant, without providing any WP:SIGCOV about him. At most we have this Indian Express piece on the unit in which Berwal provides details on the unit - but again, no sigcov about the person himself. JavaHurricane 11:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Thurii

Battle of Thurii (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)

Found while browsing Wikipedia:Database reports/Forgotten articles. Cannot find any books or sources that mention this supposed battle that predate the creation of this article in 2007. The only "citations" this article has are incomplete citations which just say a book title and nothing else. No authors, no year of publishing, no ISBN, nothing. And the "source" titles are extremely vague, like "History of Rome" or "Antiquity".

(Note: I know there were actual battles between Tarantos and ancient Rome for control of the area, but I cannot find evidence that "Battle of Thurii" was one of those battles, or that there was any "naval battle" for the region.) ApexParagon (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The editor who created this stub seems to have been inactive on Wikipedia since 2013, but nothing on his/her talk page suggests that it was created as a hoax (I was looking for warnings of various sorts). Given that the part about Thurii is only a single sentence, while the rest concerns Rome's conflict with Tarentum, I wonder if perhaps the editor was confused about the sequence of events—perhaps including the dates. My first thought was to check the history of the cities in the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, and see if it mentioned something similar to a battle at this time. Under "Tarentum", at p. 1097, if you scroll down the first column there's a description of Rome and Tarentum coming into conflict over Thurii, though this is supposed to have occurred in 302 BC, while the Tarentines didn't call in Pyrrhus until 281, when the Romans declared war on Tarentum.
This sounds like what the article creator had in mind, but unless the description is in error—which is possible, though it's hard to see "302" as a typo for "282" under "Tarentum"—the editor might have been confused by a less precise description such as the corresponding passage under "Thurii", top of the first column on p. 1193. I believe both are citing Appian's Samnite Wars, though additional sources are cited in "Tarentum" that might also shed light on this. I agree that the existing citations for this article are not very helpful, but thankfully knowing what sources describe the conflicts may help sort out whether there's enough here to salvage (at the very least, it can probably be merged under Thurii, Tarentum, and Pyrrhus, which would technically not be a deletion).
I expect Broughton can also be cited. I did not resort to PW, because wading through pages of densely-annotated German that I have to translate by retyping passages that I think are relevant on Google can be quite time-consuming! Not sure where else I would look besides the Greek and Roman authors cited in the DGRG, but perhaps someone else has some ideas on that. In any case, I think we can conclude that the article is not a hoax, but it might not be focused on its purported subject—Thurii—and might be better off mentioned in other articles than as a stand-alone one. P Aculeius (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harold L. Tysinger

Harold L. Tysinger (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 notability Lyndaship (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mai Nguyễn Anh

Mai Nguyễn Anh (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)

lacks significant coverage from independent, reliable sources, failing Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies. Additionally, its promotional tone and reliance on primary sources Oia-pop (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Military town

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

A vague term, unlike "Coast Guard City"; unreferenced since 2019(!). I tried to google for "military town is" and "military towns are", fishing for defs, found nothin usable. For example the article "The Best Military Towns in the United States, Ranked" actually lists military bases. --Altenmann >talk 18:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. See "Alternative solution" below. --Altenmann >talk 19:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Currently undecided, leaning delete per nom. Heard the term, could see it as a wikipedia article, but super vague and unsourced. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I found [9], [10] and [11]. That might be enough for WP:GNG. The article is in pretty bad shape and is mostly a list, but I couldn't find anything to suggest this met WP:NLIST. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The list in the article is quite vague and almost useless. Historically there were essentially "military towns" (also called front gate communities based on their normal location near the front gate of a fort), but they were more common in the Frontier US as far as I know. What you're looking for is a community that depends on a nearby military installation for the bulk of its economy (be it jobs on base, military personnel living there instead of on base, and so on). Google Scholar actually turns up some sources on this...both historical and more contemporary. Intothatdarkness 12:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article has a ton of potential, but it will also need major work. The subject should be fleshed out, but there are plenty of reliable sources to use. Like this one, for example. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT I am thoroughly baffled with basic misunderstanding here. I do not question that the term exists. I am saying that there are no reliable sources that give a definition of "military town" and discuss the concept in reasonable length. For comparison, nobody questions that stiped apples exist and can be found in the internets in numbers, and we all instinctive know what they are, but there is no article "stiped apple". Same with "military town". --Altenmann >talk 17:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure at least one of the sources found with Google Scholar (including at least one major monograph) would have a working definition. Perhaps you simply didn't phrase your initial nom in a way that would allow people to understand what you were after.
    Please keep in mind that what you see in scholar is not what you think. The Soviet and Russian entries where you see "military town" actually have in mind "military townlet", which is something completely different. And I suspect that "military town" of "ancient military towns in Southwest China" is something different altogether, closer to the notion "outpost", rather than a town that feeds off a military base, as we see in American parlance. So if one will take the job seriously, we are looking at a disambig page here. --Altenmann >talk 01:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I know. I looked at those. Please don't be condescending. And technically a military town could go all the way back to the communities founded by former members of the Roman military. Intothatdarkness 02:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And your move proposal below doesn't work, because not all the towns on that list could be called military towns. Intothatdarkness 01:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative solution: page move: since there are reliable sources that call some settlements "military town", the most painless solution would be move the page "as is" to List of military towns. Each item can be reliably referenced and we will not be worried with the question, what the heck "military town" is. (@AnonymousScholar49:, @Intothatdarkness:, @Doctorstrange617:) --Altenmann >talk 19:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To humble wikipedians' ignorance and laziness, I battle with mine and quickly concocted a pair of pages to combat naive USofA-centrism:

  • Military townlet, Russia
  • Military town (China) - the subject I was thoroughly humbled with and my keyboard was frozen, so the article size is inversely proportional to the volume of the material to be covered.

I am not sure about Japan; it is more midway between Chinse and American models, especially during the militarization of Meiji and Shōwa eras. --Altenmann >talk 03:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And you continue to ignore other historical examples (Roman practice being one). I see no point in continuing this discussion, since you seem to prefer to insult others instead of engaging constructively. Intothatdarkness 12:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike you, I am not ignoring "other historical examples". Instead of struggling to keep useless article, I am writing proper articles. The "historical examples" have to relation to whatever is written in the current text and for them separate articles must be written, as I clearly demonstrated by writing two of them. As one may readily see, none of them are "a populated place associated with a military installation, such as a military base or military academy." Same with Roman military towns. --Altenmann >talk 15:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal attacks and snark say much. As does your failure to grasp what is meant by a military town in a wider sense. Intothatdarkness 19:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Wider sense" is a meaningless argument, not to say that so far nobody provided sources that discuss in depth the hypothetical "wider sense". The refbombing here only show that the word exists. And yes, there is a term for similar, but different concepts, which must be handled by a disambiguation page to deconfuse the readers. And I am working towards this. --Altenmann >talk 20:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I checked what the heck were "military towns" in Roman Empire. Turns out there were none. There were 'castra', 'canabae', and 'vici', which various popularizers described as "military towns", in the same way as many English translate the term "szlachta" as "gentry", even worse, bettering it to "landed gentry". Example "The best known type of castrum is the Camp. This was a military town designed to house and protect the soldiers along with their equipment and supplies when...". --Altenmann >talk 20:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bajgora offensive

Bajgora offensive (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)

Declined G3. This appears to be original research. I can't find a mention of a "Bajgora offensive" anywhere. The author of this article claims that two of the sources mention a "Bajgora offensive", but I can't find those mentions via translation, and certainly not an offensive that occurred from 10 July 1998 to 12 January 1999. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt necessarily mention "bajgora offensive" thats the name i put since the sources call it an offensive in the bajgora region.If the issue is the name I understand im willing to change the name to whatever fits.It wasnt 1 offensive which lasted that long but a chain of Yugoslav offensives towards KLA held villages in the region of Shala e Bajgores.Many events of the Kosovo War arent that well documented and therefore dont have exact titles but Wiki editors give ones that fit well.Like with the Incident in Lez,Battle of Glanasela,and the Llapusha-Drenica front pages.But these events happened and arent hoaxes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Dijon Ethem Kurti (talk • contribs) 08:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr Dijon Ethem Kurti: Wikipedia articles are supposed to summarize the secondary literature, not to synthesize the literature to develop new ideas. This article asserts that there is something called the "Bajgora offensive" that occurred from 10 July 1998 to 12 January 1999. That means that there should be sources in the secondary literature that describe such an offensive with those dates. Since those don't appear to exist, neither should this article. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It mentions chains of offensives between those dates.The first being on the 10th of July in Mazhiq then ending in January 12th in Bare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Dijon Ethem Kurti (talk • contribs) 17:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr Dijon Ethem Kurti: Please remember to sign your posts using ~~~~. You can't decide that those two dates are significant and dub it an "offensive". As others have already explained to you regarding your edits, that is original research. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does look like original research and synthesis of material; combining different events and self-titling it. I think there's also the issue of whether just because something happened, if it's worthy of an article (WP:EVENT). Unfortunately, there is a strong pattern in the Balkans area at the moment of editors creating poor or POV articles about "battles", "ambushes", "offensives" etc. mainly in order to show a "victory" point for their side, and I think that there needs to be stronger admin intervention on this. --Griboski (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article creator has essentially conceded above that this article is WP:OR, and even ignoring that, passing mentions in sources documenting longer conflicts don't pass WP:GNG. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't believe this is an intentional hoax or an article created in bath faith, but I believe it's a case of WP:OR. There's no coverage of the alleged offensive as a cohesive operation in reliable secondary sources (or any sources, really, including in Albanian). The whole article appears to be an original synthesis of multiple engagements grouped under a self-assigned title, as stated above. Dr Dijon Ethem Kurti, do you understand how this is original research? Mooonswimmer 07:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I don't believe that this article was created in bad faith, but it clearly constitutes original research. There is no coverage in reliable secondary sources (or any sources, including in Albanian) that describes a cohesive operation called the "Bajgora offensive." The article seems to be a synthesis of multiple engagements in the region grouped under a self-assigned title, as stated above. User:Dr Dijon Ethem Kurti, do you understand why this qualifies as original research? Mooonswimmer 07:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Antonio Alvarez (soldier)

Juan Antonio Alvarez (soldier) (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:BIO. He fought in wars involving the Dominican Republic, but did not seem to have had much impact. Not to be confused with Juan Antonio Álvarez de Arenales. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Reyes Marión

Francisco Reyes Marión (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:BIO. He was an officer in wars involving the Dominican Republic, but hardly a "national hero". I couldn't find anything more than passing mentions. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Military brat (disambiguation)

Military brat (disambiguation) (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)

Unnecessary disambiguation page; already handled by the hatnote at Military brat; the "see also" entry is present there as well. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tuz Khurmatu hospital clash (2015)

Tuz Khurmatu hospital clash (2015) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of the sources is duplicated, that means 3 sources support the article, and the 4th source quite literally does not state what is said. This article is not notable enough. Setergh (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is supported by multiple reliable sources, including Human Rights Watch, Iraq Body Count, and ReliefWeb, all of which cover the Tuz Khurmatu hospital clash. The fact that one source is listed twice doesn’t change the reliability of the information. This event is significant and has been reported by independent sources. Deleting the article over this issue is not justified. DataNomad (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2/4 of your citations should be on this page, and 2 is too little. Furthermore, this is an incredibly insignificant clash which could easily be included somewhere else. Setergh (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Kunce

Lucas Kunce (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)

Per WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Candidate for office but has never been elected. Not notable outside of the campaign. All coverage is related to his unsuccessful campaigns. Unless his military service is notable, this is individual has dubious notability. Zinderboff (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Disagree I don't think failing to win the plebiscites a person has stood as candidate in makes their participation meaningless or unnoteworthy; WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES are really some lousy policies, and I'm going to argue here from WP:FLEXIBILITY instead. Democracy is a conversation at heart, and while the chatter mostly occurs in the electorate, it's the candidates that do the driving. It's important that our collective memory retain a record of the people who have the courage to participate in the system and do that driving. Let the Secretary of State for the jurisdictions do the gatekeeping, but here I think we should give a pass on WP:N to people that satisfy whatever that official administering the race enforces, especially on the statewide offices in the U.S. I hardly watch television/streaming video, but I actually remember seeing a short clip by this guy last year and what he said led me to believe he was a serious person trying to positively impact lives in his area. If he can manage to win a national party's nomination for statewide office and be both seen and remembered by a guy from California with zero connection to Missouri ~6 months into my steadfast effort to forget that the entire election cycle even took place, that's notable enough for me. Furthermore, it's obvious that some number of our editing brethren put real work into making this a solid and informative article, and I won't be a party to treating their work as unworthy when it clearly isn't. RogueScholar (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Hamek

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

This seems to be a legendary battle, one in which 11 to 12 soldiers beat an entire 8,000. However, all the sources seem to be in Kurdish, or if not, by pro-Kurdish sites. This is concerning, as for such a supposedly shocking and major victory, there is not a single source that's not pro-Kurdish speaking about anything relating to this (at least not in English). If I had to guess, this might be some sort of legend made up between Kurds for nationalist reasons. Any thoughts on this? Setergh (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the user has been caught on reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/kurdistan/comments/1j8qah3/comment/mi0nzdg/). It's quite clear that the user might not be working in Wikipedia's interests, as per https://www.reddit.com/r/kurdistan/comments/1g9hn3g/can_somebody_give_me_names_of_battles_between_the/ where they seem to be wanting Kurdish victories for some sort of "edit". This also happened during the Iran–Iraq War, which is an incredibly well documented event, therefore I'm unsure why there would be no mention of this battle. Setergh (talk) 09:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – This is a historical battle, not legendary. I intend to expand the article and add appropriate sourcing to support its notability.  Zemen  (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. - The battle happened during Iran Iraq War, If this engagement were real and notable, It would be almost certainly be mentioned in reliable sources covering the war in detail. Additionally the Article lacks of reliable sources. R3YBOl (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@R3YBOl Are you aware that many incidents and genocides involving Kurds remain undocumented and largely unknown to writers and historians? This video features Najmadin Shukr himself speaking about the battle. Why do you think he has articles across multiple languages of Wikipedia? It's largely because of this battle. What writer or historian would easily uncover a battle that took place in a remote, desolate village. especially during a time when larger conflicts, like the Iran-Iraq war, were dominating attention.  Zemen  (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A youtube video of the person supposedly involved in the battle mentioning it is still not a reliable source. The argument of the Iran-Iraq War dominating attention and therefore meaning this battle gets none is absurd, especially when there is not a single source I could find that wasn't affiliated with the Kurds (at least not a reliable one) about such an insane victory. If this battle was known to be real, at least a few people would briefly mention the battle, but this seems to have never happened. Setergh (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The video is from facebook, not yt. It features Najmadin, the commander in the battle. I know it is not a reliable source, and I'm still working on finding a credible version or a copy from a trusted place, or atleast find a source. but for now, I support deletion.  Zemen  (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well I agree there aren’t enough reliable independent sources to support a standalone article about the battle. That’s a different thing to saying the encyclopedia should not make any mention of the battle at all because we can’t even be sure it happened. Mccapra (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If proper reliable secondary sourcing, preferably of the academic publication type, can't be shown covering this battle in detail, then I think we'd be better off just deleting. Currently, this seems like some form of exaggerated hagiography than coverage of an actual historical event with factual backing. Since the latter would have actual book and academic paper coverage. SilverserenC 01:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think (assuming the decision is that the article is a COI) there are two main options: if the article is deleted, the mention can be kept of a reported or potentially legendary battle in the Najmadin Shukr Rauf page. If the article is kept, it can be reworked as a probable propoganda story. I won't support a motion for this since I think either one could work, but those are my thoughts. Tylermack999 (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew Beard

AfDs for this article:
Mathew Beard (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)

In this entry's third AfD nomination, the intuitive votes would appear to be Keep or Delete, rather than Merge/redirect. The first nomination in December 2007 — WP:Articles for deletion/Mathew Beard, with three votes — resulted in deletion. It was recreated in 2012 and nominated — WP:Articles for deletion/Mathew Beard (2nd nomination) — in November 2018. There were three Delete votes, one Delete/redirect vote and three Merge/redirect votes, resulting in Mathew Beard redirecting to either List of American supercentenarians#100 oldest known Americans or List of the verified oldest people#100 verified oldest men (currently redirecting to the latter). However, his name does not appear on either list, nor anywhere else in English Wikipedia, thus making the Mathew Beard redirect that appears among similarly-named men on the Mat Beard disambiguation page completely unhelpful. If the Mathew Beard page is deleted, Talk:Mathew Beard, which has a number of postings as well as links to the two deletion discussions should be probably deleted as well. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm a little confused though thus article had alreahd been deleted years ago only for the nominater to engage in an edit war by removing the re direct only to nominate the page for afd. What is the point? Scooby453w (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Mathew Beard entry was not actually deleted but merely unhelpfully redirected, with the article itself still fully accessible via its history. As for the purported "edit war", this simple edit, which only served to append the AfD template, was mistakenly assumed to represent aggressive editing. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But then you could've just nominated the re direct for deletion then? Scooby453w (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Upon entering the link Mathew Beard via its history, users are able to determine that it is not a standalone redirect that could be handled at WP:RfD, but a still-existing, albeit redirected, article, with an active Talk:Mathew Beard, that needed to be treated as an article, via submission to WP:AfD. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 massacres of Syrian Druze

2025 massacres of Syrian Druze (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)

Currently, I believe that this is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Southern Syria clashes (April 2025–present) since information about the killings has been added into that article. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the name is not agreed upon and widely sourced as in the 2025 massacres of Syrian Alawites, the reporting always puts it as a detail and not the main event (again as in the Alawites' case). While the events are devastating, I do not see them as more than a section in the Southern clashes article, and also we should refrain from solely using SOHR for these.
- RamiPat (talk) 02:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you say the reporting puts it as a detail? Many of the citations already in the article talk about it as the main event. It's also causing ripple effects in Israel and many Israeli articles are talking about it as the main event. E.g. 1 and [-- 2A05:BB80:32:B913:5D54:1EA:B2D5:200E (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wouldn't call it a massacre if 5 civilians died alongside 35 Hijri loyalists. I agree with asclepias. Most of the information is either reused or is redundant enough to be put in Druze in Syria and/or Southern Syria clashes (April 2025–present) TedKekmeister (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just change the name like it is in southern Syria clashes JaxsonR (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clashes denotes a clash between the military of one side and another. But here we also see targeted killings of civillians which are reported on by RS and in enough quantity to justify a separate page Genabab (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Skitash (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add another comment, the SOHR numbers state the total number of executed civilian Druze as 10. I have to mention that there are 42 Druze that were ambushed in Suwayda Governorate on the Damascus-Suwayda motorway, but the SOHR does not mention wether they were fighters, civilians, or a mix of both. But the news outlets that do specify mention only fighters (like France 24). I do believe the civilians killed were massacred, but they were not mass massacres for a separate article on them like the massacres of Alawites, which that article is also under discussion to be merged with "Western Syria clashes (March 2025–present)"
- RamiPat (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:NEVENT is satisfied. Delete arguments so far are not policy-based. Title or potential NPOV violations do not justify deletion. Redundant forks require merge discussions, not AfD discussions.TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I disagree; WP:REDUNDANTFORK has been used in previous deletion discussions, whether for deletion (this, this, or this), merging (this, this, or this), or redirecting (this, this, or this), thus I believe it is a valid argument to use. Considering that the two articles' scopes are very similar and this article's relevant content already was moved into there (and this article only has 3 paragraphs about the killings, so it can be fully merged without much trouble anyway), I think that this article is redundant. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into Southern Syria clashes (April–May 2025): In addition to being a POV content fork from the page Southern Syria clashes (April–May 2025), the article is a complete hoax. No reliable source described the events as a "massacre" or claimed that Druze civilians were targeted. Majority of the Syrian Druze are opposed to the pro-Israeli Druze seperatist groups of Hikmat al-Hijri.
The page, which was a crystal ball created on 1 May 2025, contradicted media reports that Druze factions had reached de-escalation agreements with the Syrian government by then. For example, BBC reported on the ceasefire and end of the clashes on 1 May 2025. The BBC report's summary of the clashes during 28-30 April 2025 made no mention of any "massacre". Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was fighting as late as yesterday despite the ceasefire, and there have been many extrajudicial killings of Druze. Either the Golani regime doesn't have control of the myriad Jihadi factions that see Druze and Alawites as justified for slaughter (regardless of the past regime), or he condones it. FunkMonk (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clashes have ended. Also, fighting=/=massacre. In this case, 5 civilians were killed in cross-fire, which isnt a "massacre", much less "massacres". Apart from this, in wikipedia, pages of massacres are titled based on their location. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. IdanST (talk) 07:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not redundant. Much of the material, especially in the background section, is not covered in the "clashes" article. Eigenbra (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The background section can be moved to the Druze in Syria article, and the only info from this article not in the Clashes article is the journalists being arrested, "At least eight government-affiliated fighters were also killed", and the Sahnaya Mayor's death. The poultry facility civilians, Damascus-Suwayda Road ambush, and Suwayda villages being shelled are in the Clashes article, and having a separate article for 4 sentences about the same topic does feel like a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose moving the background section as you suggest. It serves as useful background in this article. There is no reason to move it. Eigenbra (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven’t adequately explained why this article isn’t a redundant fork (nor why relevant background info shouldn’t be moved to a more appropriate and more detailed article). You’ve just argued that the background info of this article is useful, but should an article be kept just because it has background info? Shouldn’t the article’s titular content be more important to determine if this should be kept or deleted? Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus here yet. Maybe a source analysis would be helpful determining an outcome as there are claims from some editors that this article is false. If you make further comments, please ground them in policy and guidelines, not political opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Syrian coup d'état attempt

2025 Syrian coup d'état attempt (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)

To reword what I previously wrote in the article's talk page, I believe that this article should be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS: it doesn't elaborate much on the subject (i.e. what exactly the plot was, who was involved in planning it, where was it planned to occur in, etc.), and since there doesn't seem to have been follow-up information about it (no WP:LASTING coverage), it looks to just be an example of WP:RECENTISM.

Alternatively, it could be merged into articles like Anas Khattab (career section), Western Syria clashes (December 2024-present), or Syrian transitional government (possible reforms section), but its vague enough that I don't know if it would be appropriate. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A literal coup attempt that was covered in the news. Scuba 03:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Syrian transitional government. Not really that notable. Could be like one sentence. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 11:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Scuba Shaneapickle (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am interest to this article, please give some time to improving the article. Great achievement (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. NOTNEWS doesn't mean "never cover news", RECENTISM is about articles focussing too much on parts that are recent, which doesn't apply here because the event itself is recent, and a lack of details is not a reason for deletion because AfD isn't cleanup. Cortador (talk) 11:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem isn't that it lacks details because there aren't enough sources or something, the problem is that sources do not elaborate on this topic at all. Unless Anas Khattab elaborates in the future, there's nothing that could be added (unless this is supposed to remain a WP:PERMASTUB)
    Additionally:
    • WP:PERSISTENCE, which says "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." likely applies because all sources about this coup plot were published around April 16-17 (2 days total)
    • WP:INDEPTH, which says "The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing.", likely applies because sources (barring North Press Agency) mention that this statement came as part of a larger series of statement about the Ministry of Interior's future plans.
    • Maybe also WP:LASTING, but it might require more time to assess historical significance. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - possibly significant but needs more sources. Macarius Ibne Mito (talk) 02:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem isn't that it lacks sources, it's that the article's topic isn't significant; the only info sources collectively say is that Anas Khattab announced (on 16 April) that the Syrian Ministry of Interior stopped a coup plot devised by former regime officers. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article covers a real event: a coup attempt in Syria that was reported by multiple news outlets, including TASS and Middle East Monitor. Even if details are limited, the event is significant and part of the ongoing conflict in Syria. Unclasp4940 (talk) 13:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tercio of Idiáquez

AfDs for this article:
Tercio of Idiáquez (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)

Practically everything that has been written to expand the article in order to prevent it from being deleted is false (other than the Thirty Years' War section). The previous user who withdrew their AfD nomination did not fact check any of the sources or information added. The article has been expanded incorrectly and mostly falsified (though it's likely, or at least I'd like to think, that it wasn't done on purpose and the editor who expanded the article just wanted to help improve it). If you wish to help improve the article, please use proper sources which correlate with the information written. Bubba6t3411 (talk) 05:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Kemah (1515)

Siege of Kemah (1515) (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:GNG I can’t find the necessary sources to verify and establish the subject’s notability. The sources cited in the article do not mention the siege.Iranian112 (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, silviaASH (inquire within) 13:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Ninh Bình

AfDs for this article:
Capture of Ninh Bình (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)

Fundamentally based on 19th-century French colonial primary sources with no verification from independent or Vietnamese historical accounts. A thorough search finds no mention of the “Capture of Ninh Binh” in Vietnamese historiography or modern reliable sources. The article therefore relies entirely on colonial-era narratives, which are highly prone to bias, exaggeration, and imperialist framing, one look at the article and you’ll understand. Per WP:V, WP:HISTRS, and WP:NPOV historical topics must be supported by reputable, secondary sources and not solely colonial accounts. Without independent corroboration, this article promotes a one-sided, questionable version of history that does not meet Wikipedia’s sourcing or notability standards. Therefore, deletion is the appropriate course. More detailed historical issues are explained further on the article’s Talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by OutsidersInsight (talk • contribs) 12:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC) .[reply]

Keep Article is fully sourced. No issue with French colonial sources. Colonial-era narratives are reliable sources. The sources used are not primary, and independent corroboration is not required for WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It relies almost entirely on French colonial-era sources from the 1870s–1880s (Romanet du Caillaud, Charton, d’Estampes, Société académique indochinoise). Only two modern sources (Phạm 1985 and Short 2014) are cited, and neither independently corroborates the extraordinary claim (7 men capturing 1,700 soldiers). Per WP:HISTRS and WP:RS, such extraordinary historical claims require strong independent confirmation, which is missing here. Article currently gives a misleading sense of undisputed fact. OutsidersInsight (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Coalition for Homeless Veterans

AfDs for this article:
National Coalition for Homeless Veterans (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)

Unable to locate any significant sufficient coverage that demonstrates notability beyond national law review. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. I only found significant coverage in National Law Review still it is a reliable source but not independent it majorly contributed by law firms. So, it lacks to establish notability. Fade258 (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Military Proposed deletions

The following articles have been tagged for proposed deletion:


Current PRODs

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

  • None at present

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

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

None at present

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

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

  • None at present

The following military-related Speedy Deletions are currently open:

None at present

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

None at present

None at present

None at present

None at present

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Military&oldid=1289633640"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.