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

Bruneian–Igan War

Bruneian–Igan War (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)

Contested Prod without improvement. Other than the single reference listed, searches turned up zero in-depth coverage of this event. Searches in A History of Brunei by Graham Saunders did not even see a mention of it. Similarly, nothing was mentioned in Brunei - History, Islam, Society and Contemporary Issues. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Brunei. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

  Problem is, sources about this war in specifically is rare Syazwi Irfan (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 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 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 23:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Increase Carpenter

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

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. If you find an old book source, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 01:02, 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 merge‎ to 2025 India–Pakistan conflict. ✗plicit 23:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Vyomika Singh

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

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Awsib (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Military, and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Too PROMO, simply speaking with the media isn't enough for notability... Most articles used for sourcing are either interviews or talking about the press conference. Appears to have had a routine military career otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom. Page does not fly. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy keep: This is the most hot topic right now. You can find dozens of many significant noteble coverage about Vyomika Singh on Google. Easily meet WP:GNG. atcar10:04, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: Very important person related to one of the most discussed current affairs. Aniruddh 07:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. It is too early to have an article on this subject. Orientls (talk) 11:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: Wikipedia's aim is to benefit the readers by providing information of the trending subject. CharlieChoudhary (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

  Actually, no it's not. Bearian (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence of notability beyond appearance at a press conference. The people voting "keep" above claim that Wikipedia is for "trending subjects" "current affairs" or "hot topic" issues, which is clearly incorrect. Little Professor (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete or merge with 2025 India–Pakistan conflict: Subject is BLP1E at this point and the coverage is routine. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - Not notable enough for appearing in the screen for one event, didn't participate directly. If the person was a one star general or above, it could have been kept.

𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 20:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep There Is a lot of media coverage which makes it notable, even though it is all on one day. Dualpendel (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete or merge with 2025 India–Pakistan conflict: Not enough coverage before this 2025 conflict to warrant a new page. But she, and Colonel Sofia Qureshi were seen as a subtle message from the Indian Govt with regards to religious unity, which is a notable point to be kept under the main conflict page. Valan0912 (talk) 00:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete- While notable given the current context, does not warrant an article pending further developments or contributions. The quality of the article as is is also lacking and subject to misinformation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.192.184 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS - "hot topic" is another way of saying he's in today's news cycle. Bearian (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

As is "even though it is all on one day." Bearian (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete or merge with 2025 India–Pakistan conflict The information in this article doesn't warrant to be an independent Wikipedia article (as per WP:NOTNEWS). Just because someone has appeared on the news, doesn't mean that they qualify to have an article. Wikipedia will lose its credibility in such case. Also, the article uses too many uncited sources, which makes it unreliable and prone to misinformation. 07:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – Wikipedia is not the news. Yue🌙 03:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Just wanted to note to the closer there has been off-site canvassing [1]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete or merge with 2025 India–Pakistan conflict I think this makes the most sense given the arguments made previously. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:1E. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Supports the comment by Bearian. Taabii (talk) 11:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Just a piece of news. Does not deserve individual article. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Kierzek (talk) 17:40, 16 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 The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Israeli plan to occupy and flatten all of Gaza

Israeli plan to occupy and flatten all of Gaza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 13:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: Obvious POV problems — Czello ^(music) 13:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Israel, and Palestine. Shellwood (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: POV issues, and for the 4 lines of text, this can be incorporated into an article on the war. Not sure this is notable enough for a stand-alone article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per above. Mooonswimmer 14:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: POV problems, far too specific a topic. Any content of merit can be (neutrally) included in Gaza war#Israeli leaders' plans. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: WP:SPECULATION. Israel may or may not have a plan. But until it comes to fruition, it's just one more speculation about an ever changing situation in the middle east. — Maile (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: POV issues. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: WP:CRYSTAL and POV issues. Worgisbor (congregate) 16:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: While we can probably make an article covering the government's intentions of expulsion, dispossession and conquest, with appearances of the opinions of (self-described) fascists like Smotrich, having the article title as it currently is would not pass. If we are to create such an article, draft spacing it first so we have something substantially written to put out would be the best course of action, in my opinion. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Snow Delete, This is a bad fork with some pretty obvious issues with point of view and a near-WP:PEACOCK title. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. This is an obvious WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NPOV violation. MidnightMayhem 03:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per almost everyone above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as POV regarding the Gaza war. We do have articles discussing every aspect of this war. Do not redirect as even the name is POV. gidonb (talk) 05:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Merge. The topic is highly notable but WP:SPLIT is unjustified; the content should be integrated into existing relevant articles. Probably a sentence or two can go into the section Gaza genocide#Genocidal intent and/or Palestinian genocide accusation. If Crampcomes has kept the wikisource, then there won't be much practical difference between a delete and a merger - a plain copy/paste won't make sense in any case. If there is no opposition at Talk:Palestinian genocide accusation, then creating a new 5th level ===== sub^4-section there would likely be justified. Boud (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect to whatever the main article covering the topic is. MarioGom (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as per Maile66 as pure Crystal speculation. There is basically one source that this alleged plan was leaked. There is actually a plan by Donald Trump to do this, which is well-sourced and is not a POV fork. The ADL is already on our case. We don't need more fodder for the New York Post gunning to take away the Wikimedia Foundation's charitable status. Bearian (talk) 08:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - I agree with Cdjp1 that while this article provides some helpful content, it is still not suitable to stand as a separate article. There are too many POV issues. Raymond3023 (talk) 11:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NPOV. No evidence that the plan referred to actually exists. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete This is definitely a case of WP:SPECULATION, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:NPOV. There is no evidence that this is actually happening. Definitely does not warrant its own page. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NPOV. Biased speculation. ☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 18:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: This is likely WP:SNOW-worthy now. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 19:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

  I think so too, however it's a bit late here. Can someone else ask an admin to close this? I need to get up early tomorrow for my job.

  Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 20:39, 13 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.

Vilnius conflict

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

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lithuania, and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 10:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: A very cursory search of just the article title showed at least two journal articles about this dispute ([2][3]). Certainly seems like a significant event: a number of sources providing passing coverage credit this conflict with killing any meaningful pan-Baltic alliance ([4][5]). Curbon7 (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• A 20-year quarrel isn't an "event". I'm not disputing that there was a meaningful dispute. There was a decades-long struggle for control of Vilnius, but IMO it should be (and is already) covered in the Vilnius Region article. There is no need for two articles covering the same ground. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I think it’s more commonly called the “Vilnius dispute” and it was a major diplomatic row in the interwar period. Perhaps a move to a new title would be an improvement? Mccapra (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Vilnius Region#Vilnius dispute without prejudice against a later split. This topic is notable. It doesn't matter if it was mostly at diplomatic level. We have several articles on diplomatic conflicts, and that has nothing to do with notability. This dispute is well covered in reliable sources. However, Vilnius Region#Vilnius dispute seems to be better written and more complete, so I see no reason to have a standalone article at this moment. MarioGom (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Vilnius Region#Vilnius dispute per above. I agree: this potentially could be split out, but I can't see assessing an unfinished article against what seems to be a fairly complete section in the main article. If the section grows enough in-place, it can be split out. Mangoe (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect for now. The topic may be notable, but the poor execution (this is very undersourced) is not good enough for an article created recently (2024). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Virtual Soldier Research Program

Virtual Soldier Research Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Organizations, Science, Computing, and Iowa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - The sources are definitely not self published (WP:ABOUTSELF). Any source that begins with ISBN, ISSN or DOI is not self published. I don't see anything promotional here. — Maile (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  Strictly speaking, that's not correct. Anyone can get an ISBN for a self-published book. Also preprint platforms allow you to get a DOI on any submission. MarioGom (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

  Indeed. Moreover, the sources are nearly all by Abdel-Malek and coauthors themselves. Even if they're not "self-published" in the sense kf being run off on the office Xerox machine, they're primary sources and thus unusable. 158.121.180.24 (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep - I do not see any self-published sources, I do see some issues with promo/NPOV and general MOS issues. The paragraphs The Santos simulation platform was developed from the ground up. Using the 215 DOF and based on the use of optimization based methods that enable cost functions to drive the motion, the numerical algorithm drives the motion to predict joint variables across time (also called joint profiles) and subject to a number of constraints. For example, predicting gait of any body type is now possible. Similarly, any task can be modeled and simulated using this approach. Xiang, Yujiang, Jasbir S. Arora, and Karim Abdel-Malek. "Hybrid predictive dynamics: a new approach to simulate human motion." Multibody System Dynamics 28.3 (2012): 199-224. and Over time, the Santos family has grown to incorporate a variety of different body scans to provide a range of models that include our female version, Sophia, and a broad array of different body shapes, types, and sizes. Our research is currently being extended to allow multiple digital human models to interact with each other to complete tasks cooperatively. … Santos was built using state-of-the-art technologies adapted from robotics, Hollywood, and the game industry. VSR research continues to grow in its dynamic capabilities, physiology, and intelligent behaviors through integration of Artificial Intelligence, design optimization, physics-based modeling, and advanced, multi-scale physiological models. stick out to me as being inappropriate. However, the actual subject (VSRP and related inventions) do appear to pass GNG. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 09:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Strong Delete This is a self-promo piece by a research group. Pages detailing a program or approach by a specific group belong on Facebook or LinkedIn, this is classic WP:What Wikipedia is not. It does not matter how many sources etc there are, this type of advertising is not what Wikipedia is for, we are an encyclopedia. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete This is very obviously a research group advertising themselves. Not all schools deserve articles; few departments within schools need articles of their own, and almost no individual research groups merit them. This is no exception. It's just advertising. 158.121.180.24 (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per Ldm1954. This is self-promotion by a research program/company that does not seem to have attracted significant attention. Their papers have received relatively modest citations, and I can't find any indication that this research has been independently discussed, evaluated or replicated in depth within the research literature. In addition, given that it resulted in the spin-off of a private company to commercialise the research, and given that a significant proportion of this article is about the company/product, wouldn't it be the case that this article should actually be assessed under the higher notability standard of WP:NCORP? Because in that case I think this is an even clearer notability fail. MCE89 (talk) 08:34, 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 02:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Reginald Vaughn Finley Sr.

Reginald Vaughn Finley Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Atheism, and United States of America. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Radio, Television, Military, Internet, Alabama, Florida, Georgia (U.S. state), New York, and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see notability yet for GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC).
• Delete. I can't see enough notability either, and the article is too reliant on primary sources. Went up in 2004, and looks like one of those that escaped scrutiny in the days when the article creation/assessment process was less advanced. Leonstojka (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. There are plenty of web pages pro and con about his skeptic activity but I wasn't convinced by the reliability of any of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete not seeing anything to indicate a GNG pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:56, 12 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!} 23:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Maratha invasion of Deccan (1739)

Maratha invasion of Deccan (1739) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There didn't happen any conflict by such a name in 1739. This is WP:OR. The historical invasion timeline is 1739-40 and battle happened in 1740, even that doesn't have such a title it's known as Battle of Aurangabad or Battle of Godavri (1740) [6] [7]. No source used here mentions of such a battle with such a name. The author has used WP:SYN throughout. Additionally, the sources used for the battle result and treaty section are not considered reliable (WP:RS). One of the sources [8] used for mentioning the result (Nizam's victory) opposes itself on Pg 28 and 109 questioning it's reliability. The other one used for displaying result [9] is not even a historian but a civil servant. The article's body is not written from a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) as evident in body lead and aftermath section with some sources given more priority. That sources are unreliable too as addressed before. So, the article does not pass WP:GNG currently and needs to be deleted. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Telangana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete event exist, but no need for a seperate article nor passes GNGHionsa (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Unnecessary to have an article about that. Azuredivay (talk) 09:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - Totally confusing title, how could this be an invasion of Deccan when the Maratha Empire itself originated from the region? Suspicious AI usage. Shakakarta (talk) 04:28, 15 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.

Prescott Currier

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

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Maine, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete (soft) with the hope that eventually, sources might be declassified and show he's notable. Bearian (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep In addition to the sources cited in the article, which are not fully utilised, I found more information about him here which provides a list of more sources, and here. If the article is kept I will use these to expand it and add his portrait. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. While the article needs work, references found give evidence of notability: (1) The NSA calls him a "giant" in cryptography; (2) He was one of 4 Americans who went to Bletchley Park to help with decrypting the Enigma. References to both are now in the article. There are likely more. While I may not have time to do the work, @Hawkeye7 has offered to do the work. — ERcheck (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, the sources discussed until now show notability. MarioGom (talk) 16:36, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Russell J. Nelson

Russell J. Nelson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Philippines, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - he died a brave man, and served his country, but those are not reasons for notability nor inclusion here. No significant coverage. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Per the nomination and sentiments of the above comment, delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 08:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete not much in terms of WP:RS WP:SIGCOV. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:11, 15 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Muhammad Raza Aizad

Muhammad Raza Aizad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NBIO. All sources I found had no significant coverage. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 23:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep - Passes WP:SOLDIER. He's a two star general. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 03:43, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

He has the 2nd highest award of pakistan Hilal-i-Imtiaz. Recipient of Sword of Honour (Pakistan). 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 03:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, WP:SOLDIER has been deprecated. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 19:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Maximum of the previous military biography articles which were deleted, it was done based on WP:SOLDIER regardless it has been deprecated, such as Vijayant Thapar (officer). 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 19:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Also check WP:ANYBIO. He fulfills the condition, as he has the 2nd highest award. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 19:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

ANYBIO footnote 8 says a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books in that field, by historians, and I couldn't find any evidence of this in Aizad. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 21:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

ANYBIO footnote 8 is not applicable for a serving military general.

ANYBIO's first point says The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times — which is applicable for him as he has Hilal-e-Imtiaz awarded by the President. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 04:04, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep – Meets WP:SOLDIER: two-star general, recipient of the Hilal-i-Imtiaz (Military) and Sword of Honour. These are clear indicators of notability per military-specific guidelines. Lack of media coverage doesn’t override presumed notability under WP:SOLDIER. Taeyab (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Lack of media coverage doesn’t override presumed notability under WP:SOLDIER That is just straight up not true. NSOLDIER is a part of WP:MILNG, which is an essay. Essays never override notability guidelines; they are simply pieces of advice or opinions of one or more editors (from WP:ESSAY), and as such have little-to-no community oversight. AFAIK, MILNG was never marked as a notability guideline; it has always been an essay. Also, usually, the wording I've seen in notability essays has been that subjects are "almost certainly", "likely to be", "safe to say that they are", etc. presumed notable. It's very possible that this is one of the exceptions. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 19:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

It is true that WP:MILNG is an essay and not policy, its guidance is rooted in longstanding community consensus on how WP:GNG applies to military figures. The rank of major general, combined with being a Hilal-i-Imtiaz (Military) and Sword of Honour recipient, reflects a career of national-level distinction. These are not routine achievements.

Per WP:NOTE: "The barometer of notability is whether reliable sources cover the subject in significant detail." In military contexts, however, high-ranking officers are often not profiled in depth unless involved in controversy. This doesn’t negate their encyclopedic significance, especially when holding top national honors. Many existing general-officer articles lack deep media coverage but are retained based on clear, verifiable achievement and rank.

This article warrants minor improvement, not deletion. Taeyab (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep – as per Taeyab and Zephyr. He's definitely notable as a Pakistan Army Major General, although the article can be improved, especially with Urdu-language sources. Al-Waqīmī (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep This article is much improved now. Has 3 reliable newspaper references. He was awarded the 2nd highest award of Pakistan for his services by the President of Pakistan in 2024...Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep — (weak) — It needs polishing, language-wise (something which I will probably do as soon as I'm done typing this) but they seem relatively notable. My favorite essay to reference in situations like this is WP:NOTLEVEL. It's probably a bit of a stretch to imagine that they perfectly meet WP:BIO, but I tend to err on the side of caution when a subject may not have extensive English-language references but seem to have not-insignificant references locally. Just my two cents. MWFwiki (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

  Completed some basic polishing. MWFwiki (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep This page is a lot better than before. I would love to see some more sources added to make my keep vote stronger. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Notable enough for having own article. I find the nomination inaccurate. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per Taeyab's reasoning. Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:04, 13 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!} 23:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

John Pringle (British Army officer)

John Pringle (British Army officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article as it stands does not demonstrate that this individual was notable. It lacks reliable sources. This article fails WP:GNG. Aneirinn (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Lived, got married and died, I'm not seeing notability for this person. The house is a listed building, could perhaps be a brief mention there, but there is no article for the residence. There was a physician with the same name, born about 100 yrs earlier, that comes up in sources. Nothing for this fellow. Oaktree b (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Hard to search, considering all the other John Pringles, especially Sir John Pringle, 1st Baronet, but I couldn't find anything significant about this person. You'd think a major-general would leave a footprint or two. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 08:27, 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.

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 S-400 missile system. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Sudarshan Chakra (air defence system)

Sudarshan Chakra (air defence system) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  Redirect back to S400 promptly RΔ𝚉🌑R-𝕏 (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to S-400 missile system as a WP:CFORK. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:41, 13 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. The deletion was withdrawn by the nominator, see [10]. Taabii (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC) (non-admin closure) Taabii (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Sofiya Qureshi

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

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 04:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep – The article meets both WP:GNG and WP:MILPEOPLE. The subject is the first Indian woman to lead an all-male UN peacekeeping contingent, a role covered in The Times of India, UN News, and Sainik Samachar. The 2025 events and awards are fictional placeholders for current/future updates and should be trimmed, not deleted entirely. The core notability is verifiable, independently covered, and encyclopedic. Recommend trimming uncited or speculative material and keeping the article. EduExplorer47 (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: EduExplorer47 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

@EduExplorer47 none of those three refs is working for me, in UK. (And I think it's conventional to use inline links in AfD discussions, rather than refs which disappear to the bottom of the page). PamD 14:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@EduExplorer47 Please don't add "fictional placeholders" to any article: they degrade the quality of the article and the encyclopedia. PamD 22:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

References

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Military. Shellwood (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy keep: The subject is super notable, so she's clearly passes WP:GNG. News about the subject has been consistently appearing for years, and according to the article, the subject has also won several notable awards. I believe this is sufficient to justify keeping the article on Wikipedia. I had also created a separate article titled Sophia Qureshi, perhaps unintentionally. If any senior editor wishes to merge both articles, they are welcome to do so. Thank you. Baqi:) (talk) 11:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  I will note that. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 15:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Sofiya Qureshi is HIGHLY relevant at the moment for her roles in press conferences. Atharva210 (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep The profile is highly notable, in all the premium news portals across the globe. Should be on Wikipedia.Almandavi (talk) 05:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Lean delete: (Almost) all of the sources on this article are errors or 404 or redirects, even the ones posted above in the AfD don't work. I even checked one of them on archive and it didn't seem to exist in the past either. I will try and do more searching to see if I can find anything of substance to refil this article with but current content should be blanked. BLP and such. Moritoriko (talk) 07:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  The sources have changed since my comment Moritoriko (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Speedy keep: This is the most hot topic now. You can find dozens of significant coverage about Sofiya Qureshi on Google. Easily meet WP:GNG. Rajeev Gaur123 (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: Hi Counter-Strike:Mention 269, I think you should reconsider this nomination. If you feel that the subject is now following the general guidelines (WP:GNG), you may also consider withdrawing the nomination. Thank you. Baqi:) (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: First of all, @EduExplorer47: please keep in mind that since you are the page creator, you can't vote, but can comment or make remarks on why it shouldn't be deleted. Second, some users' arguments are insufficient on why it shouldn't be deleted. MIPEOPLE is no longer applied, so WP:BIO or GNG is used only. The latest sources here and on Google are routine sources, and it requires more coverage from time to time to get qualified for GNG, but that is not the only condition. Also, let others decide on this. No issues even if it is kept, so have patience.--☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 14:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  That's not true, the article creator can put forward their rationale for keeping, but they should say that they are the creator as well. Moritoriko (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: plentiful coverage. I've checked the first half dozen English language refs and all exist, contrary to the nominator's description. I combined a pair of duplicate refs. PamD 14:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  I want you to know the sources were updated between the nomination and when you posted this comment, at the time they were all redirects and 404s. Moritoriko (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks, yes, this can often happen.

  But actually I'm getting worried, because I looked at the hi.wiki version of the article and a lot of its English-language sources were coming up as 404s. But looking at the history it seems that article was only created today, so presumably is a translation of the bad-refs earlier version of this one. Googling also fails to find a single reference earlier than this week. It would be useful to have some actual genuine refs earlier than this week: the three cited above (showing below) are all 404/dead. PamD 22:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Request Could someone please add "trans-title" to the non-English-language sources? Thanks. PamD 14:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: Qualifies WP:N in my opinion, she has been in the news earlier too so it's not a WP:1E instance. Xoocit) (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: Yes, definitely qualifies WP:N. Aniruddh 07:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - easily meets WP:GNG — Cerium4B—Talk? • 10:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. This individual has been gaining coverage since 2016 according to the nom. It at least confirms the subject is notable, and is not a case of WP:BLP1E. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep

2409:40E5:11BE:7EA4:8C20:5C6D:CA45:61D1 (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Since I rechecked the article's content, it is in my opinion that the article is no longer BLP1E and the coverage is continued occasionally. Therefore,  I withdraw my nomination to delete this page. --☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 04:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep She passes GNG.

Afstromen (talk) 10:41, 13 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 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 [11], [12] and [13]. 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 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 [14], 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.

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 [15]) 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.

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: [16][17][18] "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.

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