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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Nik Mohammad Sahak

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)

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)

that would put his death at 1970 which makes sense Laura240406 (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• Delete - it may be the work of Jared. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• 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)

• Delete The sources used hardly qualify as RSes. Therefore, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG generally are not met. This person is not notable enough for inclusion. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, India, and Delhi. JavaHurricane 11:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete It is too early to create an article about him. Agletarang (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Battle of 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)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Greece, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - probably not a hoax. The Catalan article, ca:Batalla de Turis, and the Italian article, it:Battaglia di Thurii, were edited by two different editors who have not edited this article. Both have offline references.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

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

The result was delete‎. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lyndaship (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete No notability.Blackballnz (talk) 08:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing to indicate that Tysinger is notable. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete No proof of notability. Macaw* 14:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO. -- Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete I would also like to see more coverage. Agletarang (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete because there's a lack of significant coverage and his highest military rank is not considered sufficiently high enough to be presumed notable. Bearian (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Oia-pop (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Military, and Vietnam. Shellwood (talk) 10:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

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

The result was Moot‎. It's not clear what you're looking for in an outcome, Altenmann and your engagement with your fellow editors is less than ideal. Since there is no one arguing for delete and yourself are flagging an AtD in a move, there is no need to relist this. Star Mississippi 02:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• 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)
• Comment, I found [1], [2] and [3]. 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)
  • Not reliable sources for wikipedia. --Altenmann >talk 04:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

    Military.com and Task & Purpose both appear reliable to me. Military Spouse, I'm less confident in. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

    Reminiscences of a random military mom can never be a reliable source. And by the way, how these moms define the term, "military town"? --Altenmann >talk 04:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
  • No it is not: it only uses the term, but does not define it. --Altenmann >talk 17:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  • Huh? then these towns mut be deleted from the list, whatever we decide. --Altenmann >talk 01:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. WP:SNOW, and OP blocked as an obvious sock of the original, deleted, article creator. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Dilovan Kovli

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Dilovan Kovli
• Articles for deletion/Dilovan Kovli (2nd nomination)

Dilovan Kovli (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 BLP and an autobiography. The previously deleted autobiography was about an Iraqi artist but this reincarnation has now put him down as a field commander in the Syrian civil war. I can see that Kovli has been added to Hêzên Komandos but this edit was made by a now-globally locked IP account, so is highly dubious. The only mentions of him online are Yahoo and NL Times, which are both image captions giving credit to the Wikipedia user Dilovan Kovli and making no mention of the field commander. Searches in Kurdish ( دلوڤان کوڤلی) yield zilch. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Iraq, and Syria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - User:REAL MOUSE IRL tagged this for speedy deletion but it was removed by a logged out editor for no reason. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

  I see talk of socking, UPE, and AI hoaxing in the last AfD, which would go a long way in explaining the strange IP editor and shift in article topic. I G11'd it as a recreated autobiography, but it seems like multiple criteria would apply. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 16:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: No sources found, two articles linked in article are dead, and I couldn't search them either. Article is highly promotional in tone, high chances it is written by AI due to the language used. (please ping on reply) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 16:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: In addition to being unsourced, the article is highly promotional in tone.--IndyNotes (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per above. This will likely be eligible for speedy deletion under WP:G5 if it's confirmed that creator is a sock (which I highly suspect that they are). CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete and probably salt too due to repeated recreations. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 03:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy delete I've just failed verification on both of the sources in the article. Neither article actually exist, whether as the result of a deliberate hoax or an AI hallucination is unclear. Searching online shows only that the name matches a user on Commons. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: Salt, too. Blatant self-promotion with random references. Aintabli (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - hoax or AI hallucination. GoldRomean (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - Same reasons Spiderone, Aintabli and GoldRomean. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 22:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. Kajmer05 (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Two dead links does not a Wikipedia article make. Will reconsider if more sources are provided to prove notability. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. – robertsky (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Dominican Republic. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Dominican Republic. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Does not meets WP:GNG. Pasados (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete The whole article depends on a single source. CharlesWain (talk) 05:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete If he were a National Hero, it would not be hard for him to meet WP:SIGCOV or to at least get info from more than one source. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep In addition to the source already in the article, there is a paragraph (9 lines) about him in "Soldados de la Independencia, Generales de la Restauración1." Edición Conmemorativa 150 años del triunfo de la Guerra Restauradora, 1865-2015 84.190 (2015), p 56 [4], and his name appears in many other histories, with publication dates from 1900 to 2004, of which I can only see snippet views in Google Books. The article needs editing (and a Talk page). RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep Per comments of RebeccaGreen Servite et contribuere (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per the two sources identified by RebeccaGreen. There are also 15 hits in Books search, not necessarily WP:SIGCOV but difficult to tell due to language and snippets. ~Kvng (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Disambiguations. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:ONEOTHER. hinnk (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. --hroest 17:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete I think that WP:ONEOTHER is sufficient rationale to justify deleting this particular page. Gjb0zWxOb (talk)
• Delete: WP:ONEOTHER. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 17:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Iraq. Setergh (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Delete: It doesn't appear to meet WP:NEVENT guidelines for sustained or in-depth coverage in multiple sources. I don't see why this is notable. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete: Support per nom.

  R3YBOl (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: As per nom.Sigma World (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Missouri. Zinderboff (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

 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)

• Comment Since it was asked by the nom, this person's military service is not notable. LtCol isn't an especially high rank, and JAG officers enter as captains in any case (so he was promoted twice).Intothatdarkness 14:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• keep clearly notable per WP:GNG through multiple political campaigns. WP:NPOL establishes notability but doesnt mean failing NPOL automatically means that a person is non-notable, the person can still be notable per WP:GNG. --hroest 16:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep as per above. He technically fails NPOL, but there is significant coverage of his ongoing efforts in the political discourse and his antics. Bearian (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep as per above. QoopyQoopy (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep echoing Hannes Röst, not satisfying NPOL is not an indicator of a lack of notability. Multi-year sigcov in reliable sources already available in the article, passes the GNG/ANYBIO. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Iraq. Setergh (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Najmadin Shukr Rauf where the conflict is mentioned. We can’t have encyclopedia articles based on vague, unscholarly and highly partisan eulogies. Mccapra (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Mccapra The battle is already mentioned in the page of Najmadin Shukr Rauf, Yet still cited by unreliable sources. R3YBOl (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

• 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. Silverseren^C 01:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

• Delete Support per nom. Kajmer05 (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Mathew Beard

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Mathew Beard
• Articles for deletion/Mathew Beard (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Mathew Beard (3rd nomination)

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)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Florida, Missouri, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per previous nominations. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per the nom there is no notability as he wasn't even the oldest living person https://longeviquest.com/2023/03/mathew-beard-status-reclassification/ Scooby453w (talk) 03:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete along with any redirects that point to this guy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

But then you could've just nominated the re direct for deletion then? Scooby453w (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

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

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

The result was delete‎. WP:SNOW asilvering (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Radwan 1828

Battle of Radwan 1828 (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)

Only one source that doesn't look RS (a site named yazidis.info that doesn't even exist anymore) and also very POV language ("because if they would not have won the whole Yazidi Population would have been destroyd" [sic]) and unsourced claims that could be controversial ("Before the Battle eyewitnesses said that the Kurds attacked the Yazidis many times there taking them as Sex Slaves and killing them") Laura240406 (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Not seeing anything to back this up in the search links. I tried taking "1828" off and seeing what it found but it's nothing relevant. If this topic is real, "Battle of Radwan" is not its correct name. Draft was rejected 4 times at AfC but unilaterally promoted to an article anyway. Given that the article says little, can prove even less, is strongly POV and is borderline incoherent with copious grammatical errors, I think this can be disposed of without any fear of losing anything of value. Even if there is a topic here, it would be far better to start from scratch working from some actual sources not a defunct blog that doesn't really say much or even point to anywhere else to find out more. I'd oppose returning it to draft as there is no sign of even the germ of a valid article here. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - Reviewed this at AfC like a week ago, it was almost entirely LLM generated with only that Yazidi source. Given that nothing else to support this has come up since I'm not convinced that this even really happened. Even then, if this did in fact happen, it certainly does not fulfill WP:GNG if the only thing supporting its existence is that sort-of blog. I'm also strongly opposing draftifying as it is just wasting everyone's time for the original creator to move it back despite repeated declines. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 22:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Definitely not WP:NPOV and only source appears WP:QUESTIONABLE. Also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ezidishingali. cyberdog958^Talk 23:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Support per nom. Kajmer05 (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: WP:G5, I am certain the creator is a sock of MHD1234567890 (talk · contribs) See SPI. Aintabli (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

  CU results from the SPI, notes that the accounts are technically unrelated, but just a week or so ago, Doritoboritoa121 (talk · contribs) drafted this same article on their userpage citing the same sources. I'm unsure if this is a case of WP:MEATPUPPETRY, but this is extremely suspicious. Aintabli (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Only one source, not coming up online... various type edits needed... Tolozen (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete I agree with the nomination this article does not meet WP:RS, the sources are unreliable and biased (also only one of the sources are available) DataNomad (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete There is only one source, this article was sloppily written. There is no real reason to keep it unless more RSes can be obtained. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Per nomination. Ʀasteem (talk) 02:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: The article lacks reliable sources and contains biased language, failing to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality. Unclasp4940 (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete, despite all my attempts at trying to find sources for this, I cannot find anything besides that 1 Yazidi website, and even that's questionable at best. Obviously does not pass WP:GNG. Also, the article creator is very likely a sock of Ezidishingali per other's comments ApexParagon (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. WP:SNOW, etc. No userification, for the reasons described in the discussion. asilvering (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Invasion and Massacre of Kurds in Anatolia 1914

Invasion and Massacre of Kurds in Anatolia 1914 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to be a WP:POVFORK about the Armenian genocide. Only uses a single source and has placed heavy WP:UNDUEWEIGHT in favor of the Ottomans in its essay like structure. Was declined multiple times through the AfC process but was moved to the mainspace by the page creator anyways so coming to AfD instead of draftifying. cyberdog958^Talk 20:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Events, History, Military, and Turkey. cyberdog958^Talk 20:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete under g5 as pretty explicitly involving Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia per Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan. Creator not extended confirmed. Nothing salvageable in the text. Their deaths were not merely the result of passive victimhood...self-inflicted suffering — a direct consequence of political short-sightedness, opportunistic violence, and tribal ambition} Wow. That's not NPOV. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 20:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Delete not enough sources (an estimated 600,000 Kurds., well, source?), and undue weight. Also agree with GLL for arbitration reasons. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 21:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete WP:TNT virtually nothing in this article is accurate. (t · c) buidhe 22:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Polemic and POV. No way to know how much of it is correct. Seems like the Draft was rejected at AfC twice. Also the weird fragment "(O’Ballance, 1996)" makes me wonder whether this was copied from somewhere else although the Copyvio detector doesn't think so. No point in returning it to draft. If there is a topic here then it would be better to find some Reliable Sources and start from scratch using those. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

  @DanielRigal: There are similar citations with the same name in the book that the article cites as a source, but I couldn’t find any direct copying from the available preview of the text in Google Books. cyberdog958^Talk 23:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Support per nom. Kajmer05 (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: see also the deletion discussion of Battle of Radwan 1828 (written by the same user as this one) Laura240406 (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: WP:G5, I am certain the creator is a sock of MHD1234567890 (talk · contribs) See SPI. Aintabli (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete This is a similar problem that Battle of Radwan 1828 has. While this article is not written as sloppily, it overly relies on one source so has a notability problem. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• userfy access I Ask for a temporary userfy instead of deletion, if i can move the article name to Kurdish Losses in Eastern Anatolia (1914–1918) or Kurdish Civilian Impact During WWI in the Ottoman East i am positive that with a great chance i can save the article. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  I oppose the userification of this article. There is no neutral information in the entire article and nothing of value in the text. If one would want to expand the information already in the main article about the event, starting from scratch would be preferable than starting from such a slanted version of events. cyberdog958^Talk 00:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  Cyberdog958, it's the same thing, i just require access to move the article to a broader title that represents broader topic so i can rewrite the article to the best version fit to the encyclopedia. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 03:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Sakura emad: Writing a new article isn't the issue. You can do that regardless of this article being deleted or not. I think starting from scratch would be preferable, because including anything from the text from this article into a new one would introduce nothing but bias. There are no redeeming qualities to this article and anything less than WP:TNTing it would hinder the potential a future article. cyberdog958^Talk 06:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Per consensus. – robertsky (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Arash Aminpour

Arash Aminpour (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 US attorney. No reliable sources, and would seem unlikely any exist. Clearly promotional. WP:NOT. Fails WP:GNG. WP:ANYBIO. Cabrils (talk) 06:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, 'nuff said. Newspapers.com has no results, never a good sign. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Florida, Georgia (U.S. state), Illinois, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: Lack of sufficient press coverage. Promotional tone. It should be speedy deleted, because of no sign of notability. Zuck28 (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. The nomination speaks for itself, but I will also pitch in to say that at least half of the citations are not independent of the subject. --Mpen320 (talk)
• Delete There seems to be no RSes that support notability here. If that changes, please let me know. If we allow for promotional sources to be included, there is no reason every attorney should not have their own promotional page on here. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:GNG. There's literally no allegation of notability, and he also fails my standards for attorneys. He's about as run of the mill as lawyers get. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Article subject is not notable for WP:BIO, is advertising, has no sufficient WP:BIO, WP:WEB, etc., generally does not meet WP:GNG including no significant coverage. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Mukti Bahini. ✗plicit 14:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Freedom fighter (Bangladesh)

Freedom fighter (Bangladesh) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Literally violates NPOV, most countries have some individuals who are deemed as freedom fighters yet you won't find such a page about freedom fighters for any other country, if you search, you will not find it. The article's information is already found in the page of Mukti Bahini, this article is not needed. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Asia and Bangladesh. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Shellwood (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: It has been suggested by another editor that this article be merged into Mukti Bahini and there is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Mukti Bahini. So, this discussion page can be deleted. Somajyoti ✉ 12:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

  That discussion page hasn't updated since 23nd April last time i checked, plus the discussion can be "closed", not "deleted", Alright? plus you did not give a proper argument so Delete. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

  Plus the title is wrong, its supposed to be Freedom Fighter (Bangladesh), not Freedom fighter (Bangladesh). BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

  Put strikethrough on nominator bolded vote. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Merge with Mukti Bahini. Ahammed Saad (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Merge with Mukti Bahini Mehedi Abedin 12:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Bengali Tiger Force

Bengali Tiger Force (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-depth and reasonable sources are not here, please add such information or the article will be removed, heck add even one in-depth reference that was published by a trusted newspaper or channel that is recognised either locally or in national levels, no problem, just add it, WP:GNG should be read. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Organizations, Asia, India, and Assam. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: This is all right. In the 1900s, there weren't really any online newspapers in that region that regularly published news. However, if needed, a book can be quoted. Somajyoti ✉ 11:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - I know but couldn't it be mentioned later, please find a book that mentions it then. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• I searched and couldn't find any, i only found this which is not enough and not even available anymore! If you found any book or source that is in-depth, please add it. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 03:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom Ahammed Saad (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

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

2025 massacres of Syrian Druze

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.

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)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

• 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)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Discrimination, Events, and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - The scope is valid, but the name could be changed to something more reflective of reliable sources. FunkMonk (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

  The article in its current form blatantly misrepresents what happened like the usual Assadist propaganda that has been in Wikipedia since 2013. Daseyn (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - just change the name like it is in southern Syria clashes JaxsonR (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• 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)
• Delete per above. Skitash (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

  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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• Keep per above. IdanST (talk) 07:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Merge to Southern Syria clashes (April–May 2025) or keep. The broader article is relatively short, so the standalone article, which has a lot of redundant background content, is currently not justified. That being said, I think this matter could be addressed as a regular editorial dispute in the talk pages. The article could be standalone if there's enough distinct content justifying it. MarioGom (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

 Comment: The facts matter in this case. How many Druze have been killed? The infobox says 10, but other sources say 43 or more. Bearian (talk) 09:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: The massacres of the Druze must be documented, even the minor massacres like those during the Assad era. Farcazo (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: Whether or not the victims were armed is not relevant to it being considered a massacre. This is an evolving situation. IMV the request to delete is premature. Merging this with a more general article on the Druze is an option but this could be examined at a later date.

In terms of future development of the article one could look into whether the attacks on Druze are sponsored by the regime or carried out by rogue elements. GelvinM (talk) 04:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, I see a lot of coverage on the Druze matter specifically, not including it as a detail on the Alawite massacres. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge into Southern Syria clashes (April–May 2025), per the low number of casualties. Amr F.Nagy (talk) 07:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with notability policy. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• this AfD has been mentioned on Twitter just FYI ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  Can somebody add a canvassing tag? (tweet link here [5]) Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: A significant historical event. Flight-ER-Doc (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: This is a current topic. Deleting it reeks of censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Paris (talk • contribs)

• Keep, Enough coverage in WP:RS to justify an article. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, it documents an important current event. Deiadameian (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• Merge per others. Many !votes here cite no policy one way or the other regarding their positions. Merging would be best. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• Merge per NEVENT. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Liz, again. I'd suggest more input based on our P&Gs please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 01:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• Merge to Southern_Syria_clashes_(April–May_2025)#Extrajudicial_killings_of_Druze The sourcing does not establish clear notability of these events, which are part of a bigger issue. WP:TOOSOON to see if this is worthy of a stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus‎. Neither the keep nor the delete !votes make a strong argument that this topic can't be covered at this location, but no one's really taken up the call for a merge either. It doesn't look like relisting is likely to substantially shift the discussion in favour of one outcome or another. I recommend someone WP:BOLDly split the difference and redirect this one to Syrian transitional government. We can always spin it back out in the future if we get more sources. asilvering (talk) 04:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Syria. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep A literal coup attempt that was covered in the news. Scuba 03:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• • WP:NOTNEWS - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

    by that metric we shouldn't have any election articles, and we should delete the January 6 United States Capitol attack article since well that was just a news story and we're not news! Scuba 13:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

    That’s obviously not the argument here. The second bulletpoint at WP:NOTNEWS is the relevant one. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Merge to Syrian transitional government. Not really that notable. Could be like one sentence. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 11:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep per Scuba Shaneapickle (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete There is no more information than that of Minister Anas Khattab. The same article also says: "although exact details of who specifically was involved are scarce," which means that it is possibly unknown whether they were Assad's remnants or a false flag attack. Farcazo (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete It has no use only a small plan to coup the government. Nothing went into effect. Yesyesmrcool (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

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

• 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)

  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)

  Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Weak keep - possibly significant but needs more sources. Macarius Ibne Mito (talk) 02:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

  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)

• 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)

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)

• Weak keep. It seems WP:TOOSOON to have this article as standalone and not as a couple of paragraphs at Syrian transitional government and similar pages, and so I would find a redirect to Syrian transitional government a preferable outcome for the time being. I think it does not matter much either way, since it's very likely there will be coverage of this event in the years to come, but a redirect seems the most appropriate right now. MarioGom (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Syrian transitional government per WP:TOOSOON. Need more tiem to see if it is notable. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Donald Trump's threat for the destruction of Iranian cultural sites

Donald Trump's threat for the destruction of Iranian cultural sites (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:NTRUMP. The sources in the article and the sources that i can find are all centered around when the threats were issued and do not support any long lasting impact. There's nothing in this article's contents either that justifies it existing and not just being deleted and having its contents merged in other us-iran diplomacy articles. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Iran, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - WP:FUTURE "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place, as even otherwise-notable events can be cancelled or postponed at the last minute by a major incident." Politicians and elected officials make threats all the time - but it does not belong on Wikipedia unless it actually occurs.— Maile (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Merge into Reactions to the assassination of Qasem Soleimani. Seemingly no lasting coverage, and part of this wider topic. -insert valid name here- (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC

• Delete per WP:TRUMPCRUFT. Another one of those "things" by Trump. Unlikely to have lasting coverage nor continued coverage. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete because Trump says a hundred unhinged things a day that he never follows through on. Nothing happened here. Move along. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - Not more than a mention of Foreign policy of the second Donald Trump administration would be needed. Shankargb (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: WP:TRUMPCRUFT 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:TRUMPCRUFT. A perfect example of such. Conyo14 (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. I wish there was a "you supported him, you knew, you were warned, you agreed with my assessment of his status, but you voted for him anyway because eggs" option. Bearian (talk) 07:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete. per WP:TDS Sanemero the Robot Prince (not really, it's a Gloryhammer reference) 16:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

2024 Syrian coup d'état attempt

2024 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 copy and paste what I wrote on the article's talk page:

"I believe that this article should be deleted because, per WP:V, this article's topic lacks enough coverage from reliable sources:

• The events described in the article itself only come from one source, and only one other source is used in the article which supports the claim that a coup happened on 30 November
  • FactNews-UA is referring to HTS taking Maarat al-Numan
  • North Press Agency specificlly says "unconfirmed reports of a military coup in Damascus".
  • Even Turkiyetoday (the other source I mentioned) addresses the subject in a more speculative than objective tone
• I didn't originally know when first typing this, but there already were discussions on Wikipedia on the article from The Jewish Press: [6] and [7]
  • The users in the first link concluded that the validity of The Jewish Press's article (which is almost solely the source of information in this article) is dubious because no other source reported on it (such as SOHR, Anadolu Agency, Al Jazeera English, or Al-Monitor)
  • The users in the second link concluded that the specific article likely was an example of WP:WSAW, though they said that The Jewish Press shouldn't be classified as WP:GUNREL

Thus, the subject of this Wikipedia article (a coup attempt by Hossam Louka in Syria on 30 November) doesn't appear to be reported by sufficient reliable and verifiable sources, making this article violate WP:V." Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Syria. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

  Opposition Honestly, it should stay because I can understand that the creators of the sources have lied, but it doesn't mean that there is no evidence (videos, images) that prove otherwise. They are the sources. I'm going to try to find more sources, but they exist and they are real. Farcazo (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: I want to clarify what I think the sources and the article are trying to say. Basically one part of Assad's military may or may not have tried to take control of the government in order to more strongly fight against the rebels but another part of Assad's military stopped them? Separately I am not convinced this is a notable enough part of the general fighting going on at the time for it to get its own article. Moritoriko (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Soft Delete I wish there was more information out there on this coup, since I remember hearing rumors of it when it was happening as I watched Assad's regime collapse in real time on LiveUA map, but I think the consensus then was it was made up and didn't actually happen.

The only actual source I could find that talked about it was The Jewish Press which is obviously biased against Syria, but it is also a minor newspaper for orthodox Jews in Brooklyn and I'm not convinced they have stringent editorial oversight and fact-checking.

So either someone finds more sources where I couldn't or this article should be deleted. Scuba 13:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete I believe this article falls under the WP:Hoax policy. The article presents this 'coup attempt' as fact, but sources such as North Press Agency and Türkiye Today classify it as unconfirmed reports/rumors. I add to this discussion the investigation carried out by the Syrian fact-checking group Verify-Sy, which classified these allegations of a coup attempt as false. 1 Vrostky (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Tercio of Idiáquez

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Tercio of Idiáquez
• Articles for deletion/Tercio of Idiáquez (2nd nomination)

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)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

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)

• Keep. Military units of battalion size or larger are generally considered to be notable. The answer is editing and improvement, not deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy-based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect‎ to Kemah, Erzincan#History. Aintabli, you're free to carry over whatever you like from the redirect history. asilvering (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Kemah, Erzincan#History: The siege is mentioned in all 4 sources; however, almost all are passing mentions. At best, here, we learn the defending commander's name. Most sources I could find through a quick search were also passing mentions. Maybe this source is not a passing mention, but it merely concerns the route Selim took to reach Kemah. Aintabli (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  The sources refer to conquest, not siege. Iranian112 (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  That's not correct; at least two of the four sources cited explicitly refer to a siege: "kuşatma", "muhasara" Plenty of sources not cited here refer to it as a siege: [8][9][10] "Conquest" and sieges are not mutually exclusive concepts. Regardless, my vote is not to keep. Aintabli (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  Merge into Kemah, Erzincan#History: Changing my vote to merge as the siege is surprisingly not mentioned by the town's Wikipedia article. I suggest discarding the municipality and governor's websites and keeping TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi when merging. Aintabli (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

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

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) .

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Vietnam, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep but severely trim of Gulliver's adventures and epic poetry: "When the mist and darkness dissipated in the morning, the French could see several hundreds of soldiers looking at them on the walls" Really? --Altenmann >talk 07:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• redirect to Garnier Expedition#Capture_of_Ninh_Bình from which this appears to have been copied. I'm not seeing why this needs to be taken out of that context other than to simply generate a higher article count, and issues about sourcing need to be dealt with there in any case. Mangoe (talk) 11:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

National Coalition for Homeless Veterans

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/National Coalition for Homeless Veterans
• Articles for deletion/National Coalition for Homeless Veterans (2nd nomination)

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)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• Update - Information and sourcing is over a decade out of date. See https://nchv.org/ — Maile (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

• Keep per the reasoning and sources in the last AfD about five years ago, which one can see from the sidebar above. jp×g🗯️ 03:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. It appears that a decision is required about the other article first. asilvering (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

March 2025 Daraa clashes

March 2025 Daraa clashes (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)

Insignificant clashes article which gives little to no information to the readers. WP:NOTNEWS. Can be merged to Western Syria clashes (December 2024–present). Ecrusized (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Support since the article's small (the timeline only has 3 small sentences), but idk if it should merged into the Western Syria Clashes article because that's specifically about Latakia/Tartus and western Homs/Hama (though it could just be renamed to something like Assadist insurgency).

I was gonna propose making a Mohsen al-Haymed article, but he's only been reported on in 3 separate months - April 2024, January 2025, and March 2025, which might not be enough coverage for a separate article.

(If this article isn't deleted, it should be renamed to something like 2025 al-Sanamayn Clashes or al-Sanamayn Clashes (2024-2025)) Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Merging the info to Western Syria clashes (December 2024–present) wouldn't make sense, as Daraa is in southern Syria. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Syria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Low level of Oppostition It should remain in place until the Western Syria clashes (December 2024-present) page issue is resolved Because only the title applies to the Western Syria Farcazo (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment. The scope of this article fits better within Western Syria clashes (December 2024-present), yet obviously these clashes did not take place in western Syria. Building off of this, there's significant discussion on the name of the article, and at the current moment it seems that the general consensus leans towards changing the title to a more inclusive name, but disagreement exists on what to change the name too. It might be a good idea to extend this AFD discussion until ongoing discussion on the other article is resolved. Castroonthemoon (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

how about improving it?? JaxsonR (talk) 14:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Military Proposed deletions

The following articles have been tagged for proposed deletion:

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