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

AN/MPN-14K Mobile Ground Approach System

AN/MPN-14K Mobile Ground Approach 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)

The AN/MPN-14K is a modified AN/MPN-14 which is fully described in the article AN/MPN. There is a wikilink to the -14K article within the AN/MPN article which is wholly unnecessary since the -14K article does not meet general notability and the -14K article has no citations at all. I recommend the -14K article be deleted (merge unnecessary). — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 20:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Technology, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Chief of the General Staff (Bangladesh)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Chief of the General Staff (Bangladesh)
• Articles for deletion/Chief of the General Staff (Bangladesh) (2nd nomination)

Chief of the General Staff (Bangladesh) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

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

The article has only two sentences and four references, the references do not say anything about the sentences. PauKau (talk) 02:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Probably keep - there's a lot of information on the page which isn't properly sourced, however this appears to be a high level military position to which appointees are recognised in the national media. I don't speak local languages but I suspect there are likely to be more sources about the position in non-English sources.

JMWt (talk) 07:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Actually rereading the previous AfD from Dec 2024 I agree that this isn't ready for mainspace. There are too many asserted facts that are unreferenced. Draft until all those can be sourced. JMWt (talk) 07:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:00, 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 speedy keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

IBM and World War II

IBM and World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

IBM's collaboration with Nazi Germany is already covered in the article about the book, so that part is duplicated here. The United States part is not notable enough for a separate article. I think this article is best deleted, or the US part is extended and this article is moved to something like IBM assistance to the United States government during World War II. PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Shellwood (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Germany, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't really understand the problem. The topic of this page is undoubtedly notable. There is another page titled IBM and the Holocaust which is specifically about a book published under that title. Whether that latter page is notable or not is moot given it doesn't appear to be nominated for deletion. To me this nomination is doomed to failure given that the scope of the other page is clearly a book (and the book is clearly about a specific part of IBM history) and whilst it overlaps with the topic of this nom-ed page, by definition doesn't encompass it. Renaming pages or moving to redlinks is not normally something we discuss at AfD. JMWt (talk) 10:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  My primary suggestion is to delete the page. AfDs can result in a consensus to merge or redirect so I don't really see the problem. The topic might be notable but the article feels like WP:SYNTH, the sources talk about specific parts of the article. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  Ok. Well we don't redirect to redlinks, so there's your answer. I don't have anything to add on your other points. JMWt (talk) 11:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment to summarize, we now have the following articles that summarize info about IBMs involvement during WWII:
  • IBM and the Holocaust
  • Business collaboration with Nazi Germany
  • This article
  • History of IBM

I would say that's a bit much. As an alternative proposal to deletion, I would suggest dramatically shortening the book article and moving that info here. The book is considered a reliable source, but using it in the book article is undue weight due to it being a primary source. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep IBM and the Holocaust is an article on a specific book (full title:IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation) by Edwin Black and not an overall topic; Business collaboration with Nazi Germany is about overall business collaboration with Nazi Germany (so not specific to IBM); History of IBM is an overall company history and not specific to their WWII history. I do think that this article should be built out, but I think IBM's WWII history-which ranges from the US Army's use of punch cards (a good example is highlighted in The Fog of War and described in depth by Robert McNamara and not to mention it assigned Major Major Major the rank of Major in Catch-22) to their involvement in the Holocaust and how IBM was able to profit off both sides of the war technically through Dehomag-does deserve a standalone article. That there are parts of IBM's WWII history in other articles is not a valid reason to delete an article specific to the topic. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  Sure, the book article is about the book, but the summary section in that article basically duplicates the current article. With the exception of the US-side, which is why I originally suggested to move that to a different article. PhotographyEdits (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Which is why I recommend expanding the current article. I fail to see how a summary in an article of a book about a subject merits a deletion of an article on the actual subject. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Because of how extensive the summary is in the book article. Random example: Berlin: The Downfall 1945. It is described in a single sentence, and link to the articles in case that describe it in-depth. I think that is fine. My point for opening this AfD was because I don't think it's a good idea to duplicate the information across multiple articles. I'm not necessarily proposing removing it from the book article, though. PhotographyEdits (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

That's not a good reason to delete. If anything, then the summary of IBM and the Holocaust should be pared down so it isn't as detailed. I would also support moving IBM and the Holocaust to IBM and the Holocaust (book) so that it doesn't give off the impression that is an article of the subject. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, let's do that then. PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:38, 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.

Hayk Gyolchanyan

Hayk Gyolchanyan (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)

Not a notable person. Yousiphh (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Armenia, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Military, Russia, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:GARAGE. Mztourist (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - Totally non-notable. Outside this wiki page, I have found nothing about this subject. Azuredivay (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

The Defense of Cyprus

The Defense of Cyprus (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)

Turkish invasion of Cyprus (1974) is a well-documented but this so-called "The Defense of Cyprus" appears to be a descriptive phrase rather than a subject independently covered in academic sources. The material overlaps heavily with Turkish invasion of Cyprus, and fails WP:GNG. Chronos.Zx (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Cyprus, Greece, and Turkey. Chronos.Zx (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 05:05, 13 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 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Lord Mountbutter (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

2025 India-Pakistan conflict ceasefire

2025 India-Pakistan conflict ceasefire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article is an undiscussed and largely redundant fork of 2025 India–Pakistan conflict#Ceasefire. The "Global Reactions" section is a WP:QUOTEFARM consisting of generic quotes that hardly adds anything to the article. There isn't enough substantial additional content here to warrant a separate article. 9ninety (talk) 10:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Pakistan, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  Delete. There is no need for this fork apart from all the other forks Soni (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to 2025 India–Pakistan conflict#Ceasefire: no reason to have this as a separate, and largely duplicative, article. Redirect to the relevant section in the main article. SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep WP:NOTABLE, WP:GNG Ahammed Saad (talk) 03:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Please read WP:JUSTAPOLICYVeritasVanguard☎ 12:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep : this article need substatial ok, but it is (personal opinion:presumed) notable enough to keep RΔ𝚉🌑R-𝕏 (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete. There is no need to keep this article. The neutrality of the article is also questionable since the sources stated are extremely aligned with either side involved the conflict. This is making the content longer and confusing. Also, the negotiation process has only been elaborated by Pakistan and not India. In fact, India only stated the halt of its military operations as a result of an "understanding" and not that of any "ceasefire" in its statements by various senior officials. Aviator Jr (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete This article doesn't add anything of value to the whole India Pakistan conflict of 2025 whatever is here I'm sure it can be included in other relevant article. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 09:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

merge to main article or expanse it. Great achievement (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Merge to 2025 India–Pakistan conflict — 𝟷.𝟸𝟻𝚔𝚖 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 19:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.64.207 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - Passes WP:GNG. We also have Tashkent Declaration which concerns Indo-Pakistani war of 1965. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  Passing GNG doesn't absolve it of WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Tashkent Declaration can hardly be compared based on quality, and the fact that it ended a major war compared to a minor four-day conflict. 9ninety (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• MergeVeritasphere (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  WP:JV VeritasVanguard☎ 12:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - Big enough thus merging won't work. The subject has enough international coverage to warrant an article. Orientls (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  It may be "big enough", but the content itself is problematic, as it is largely a fork of 2025 India–Pakistan conflict#Ceasefire (which actually contains way more information). Half the article is a background section and a reactions section that is also problematic for being a messy quotefarm. merging won't work There isn't really anything to even merge looking at the section already in the original article. This is a pure content fork. 9ninety (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:RAPID. It will be decided later whether it still deserves standalone article or not, but for now it is notable given the large numbers of international outlets significantly talking about it. Shankargb (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. This article is not needed for a four-day conflict. MrGreen1163 (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep I agree it's a four-day conflict but both sides are still accusing each other of violating the ceasefire and further conflict could escalate so we shouldn't delete it right now. Like @Shankargb said we should decide later whether it still deserves standalone article or not, but for now it is notable given the large numbers of international outlets significantly talking about it.

  Hiltonjohnson (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

  You should see WP:DELAY. I would've nominated it for merging instead if the ceasefire wasn't already fully covered by the parent article, making this article entirely redundant, besides being lower quality. If further conflict does escalate, then that will be covered in the conflict article, and also WP:NOTCRYSTAL. 9ninety (talk) 05:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per above. All set to meet WP:LASTING. Devopam (talk) 05:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and this event hasn't proven lasting significance. And all these arguments still don't address the underlying problem of WP:REDUNDANTFORK. 9ninety (talk) 05:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

  It is not a content fork because it is totally different from the section you are linking. Your wikilawyering and WP:BLUDGEONING are both unconvincing. This article will hold it's true value in future, as the main article will get it's logical closure in this one eventually Devopam (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

  I accept your accusation of bludgeoning and will not comment further. However, I believe that reasonably comparing the main content of the current article (i.e. the Negotiation process and Accusations of violations sections) with the ceasefire section of the parent article should make it clear which one is higher-quality, more complete and up-to-date, better-sourced and more informative about the topic. If I'm not wrong, a WP:CFORK doesn't only refer to a blatant copy, but can also mean a duplication of scope. Is there anything in this article not already covered by the conflict article? In fact, the exact opposite is true. It also possibly qualifies as a WP:POVFORK due to some conflicting or unsourced statements. If this article is to survive, at the very least a WP:PROPERSPLIT should be conducted from the parent page first. 9ninety (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• Merge to the parent article for now. I see no reason for a WP:CFORK specifically for the ceasefire when it can be reasonably covered in the article on the overall conflict. JavaHurricane 05:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• Merge: The ceasefire is not notable on its own and its content can easily be merged with 2025 India-Pakistan conflict. Linkin Prankster (talk) 11:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Merge into 2025 India–Pakistan conflict#Ceasefire 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 16:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep Passes WP: GNG, subject is highly notable because it is getting coverage not only in India and Pakistan but across the globe. The "Reactions" section is a not anymore a WP:QUOTEFARM since it states statements made by officials from countries around the world.

  BangashTalib (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - The ceasefire subject is highly notable on its own because this particular topic is getting coverage across the world,[1][2] and the details of the ceasefire are still being discussed.[3] It has been significantly expanded by Underdwarf58 in last few hours. There are articles also for other military agreements between Pakistan and India such as Simla Agreement, Tashkent Declaration, Agra summit and more. Those supporting merge are yet to show how this topic is not notable. Agletarang (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Merge. The "Reactions" section is very much a quotefarm (the fact that the quotes come from officials doesn't change this), and, without it, there isn't enough material to warrant a split. Notability, while established, is not the only factor to consider: WP:PAGEDECIDE mentions Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page, which seems to be the case here. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• Merge. Is easily able to be merged into the parent article as its size does not warrant a split. Yeoutie (talk) 12:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge per WP:REDUNDANTFORK, I don't see why this information can't be covered in the parent article or why it warrants a split. Rexh17 (talk)
• DeleteWP:REDUNDANTFORK.Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 08:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

  I was initially considering merging this article into 2025 India–Pakistan conflict. But, that page has already become quite lengthy and is densely cited. In contrast, this article has now received enough RS cited coverage after afd and has developed well beyond its initial forked state. I believe it is better to keeping this as a separate article, given the depth of information and independent notability it has achieved. Mithilanchalputra, have a look at the article expanded coverage. Chronos.Zx (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per Agletarang. Still getting lots of coverage. If anything, the whole 2025 India–Pakistan conflict is getting too big, thus this article concerning a highly notable ceasefire is entirely warranted. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete (and redirect to the main article) under WP:TNT because the core of the current article, Negotiation process, is a tiny paragraph of mostly just US press releases claiming credit for the negotiations despite their lack of reliability, and half the article is Reactions blabla. It's likely that quality sources such as The Hindu and Dawn (newspaper) as well as some Western sources have proper information about the negotiations towards the ceasefire and the ceasefire itself, but so far essentially nothing of that is in the article. To justify a WP:SPLIT from the main article, some good sources would first need to be found and their information carefully and accurately summarised. Boud (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Armenian Legion (Ukraine)

Armenian Legion (Ukraine) (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 is no doubt that there are voltunteers from Armenia, but none of the references support the any official status with the Armed Forces of Ukraine. There is no evidence for the modern use of the official ensign; the name looks back to the Armenian Legion in WWII, but there is no evidence for it in Ukraine. Some of the references are untraceable. The page is at high risk of misleading readers. Klbrain (talk) 08:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 11:10, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• redirect There does seem to be evidence for the Armenian Legion's existence, but most of it is from unreliable sources. Does not have the more considerable coverage of other foreign legions like the Georgian Legion. Would redirect to International Legion (Ukraine). Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Federal Disaster Response Agency

Federal Disaster Response Agency (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 a fictional government agency in a video game franchise and does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Article reads a bit like fancruft, written almost entirely in-universe—very little real-world perspective, more suitable for a fan wiki—and the sourcing is fairly weak, largely Valnet and other unreliable sources (Looper, SVG) that describe the agency rather than say anything of interest about it. Subject is already sufficiently detailed at the relevant game/TV articles. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Video games, Military, and Organizations. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Agree with the nominator that this should not be a separate article. It is sufficiently covered in the pages for The Last of Us. Available sources are mostly unreliable/low reliability and nothing establishes GNG of the subject outside the context of the game franchise. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable fictional organization. Galaxybeing (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep: Easily passes WP:GNG. Significant coverage in 2025: [4] [5] [6]. Significant coverage in 2023: [7] [8] [9]. Significant coverage in 2020: [10] [11]. Multiple significant mentions in books which were published in 2022 and 2024: [12] [13]. There are tons of other sources. Just because this article reads bad is not a valid reason for deletion as it can be easily fixed by copyediting instead of deleting it. The argument that its "already sufficiently detailed at the relevant game/TV articles" is also invalid, as it can be used to delete any article on Wikipedia. For example, we can also delete Parkland high school shooting because its already sufficiently detailed by news reports. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Quantity of sources does not confer notability. Most sources linked here are from Valnet which is a known content farm and not helpful for establishing notability. The mentions of FEDRA in a few academic books also don't seem significant enough to warrant a separate article. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Not all sources from Valnet are unreliable. For example, The Gamer and Screen Rant are considered "situational". Also, there is like dozen other sources present in this article which are not owned by Valnet, but you guys ignore them for some reason. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 10:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - Not independently notable from the series, most coverage is trivial or from junk VALNET sources. Sergecross73 msg me 11:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  Well, of course its not notable in real world, it's a fictional organization. There is an entire category on Wikipedia that lists all fictional organizations from various comics and movies. What did you mean when you said that the coverage is "trivial or from junk Valnet sources"? There is 2 dozen sources which explained this organization in great detail from 2020 to 2025. How is this coverage trivial? Also, the majority of Valnet sources are considered "situational", not "unreliable", meaning that they are allowed to be used in articles depending on the topic. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  I recommend doing a bit more research into our notability requirements, as your response would indicate you're not very well versed on it yet. I'm not saying "delete it because it fictional". That would be silly. I'm saying it doesn't have any notability independent of the Last of Us franchise. If all of its coverage is in the context of the series, then its coverage should mirror that in Wikipedia - it should only be covered in the series article.

  This entry was written like it was written for a fan wikia. Its all in-universe summary content. That's not how Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written. This sort of stuff belongs on fansites who dwell over fictional details. Encyclopedias are supposed to be out-of-universe, focusing on things like its creation, reception, impact, etc. This is all just regurgitated story points as is.

  Please read WP:VALNET for the community's general thoughts on those sorts of websites. They're low quality and often aren't seen as good indicators of notability. I recommend you study up on WP:RSP and WP:VG/S and come up with your WP:THREE if you wish to be persuasive. If all you've got is some ScreenRant churnalism and some obscure blogs, as you've presented above, you've got an uphill battle ahead of you. Sergecross73 msg me 13:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  Ok. I just added a real-life history of FEDRA and 4 new sources which are not owned by Valnet. Would this be enough? WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  No, not even close. Sergecross73 msg me 16:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  Can you explain why? WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  Re-read my prior comments. You didn't address or answer virtually any of my points. Sergecross73 msg me 16:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete/merge This is not a Fandom site. Seacactus 13 (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  What does Fandom have to do with this article? WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  Its the same thing I was explaining to you above; you wrote this article in an entirely in-universe style, almost entirely regurgitating fictional story points. That's what Fandom/fan wikia sites do. Sergecross73 msg me 16:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  My recent edit changed this. It separated the fictional history from a real one. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  You tacked on a couple of new sentences recently. That doesn't change the fact that 95% of the article remains in-universe still. Like the entirety of the "Lore" section for example. Sergecross73 msg me 17:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  Well, this section is called "Lore" for a reason. It describes the story of FEDRA in the franchise. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable fictional organization that has no significance outside of its role in the plot of the "The Last of Us" franchise, whose various articles already adequately cover it. I would not be strictly opposed to redirecting this somewhere, but the fact that the majority of the search results for "Federal Disaster Response Agency" are not about the fictional organization, but various real-life groups that are referred to as federal disaster response agencies makes me feel that most people searching for this term might not be looking for information on a fictional entity. Rorshacma (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

  I think the more common search term would be FEDRA, for which we now have a disambiguation page courtesy of WhoIsCentreLeft. That seems sufficient to me. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

  This was actually the same reason I chose delete over redirect. Sergecross73 msg me 02:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

  Look, I read WP:GNG, it doesn't say anything about subjects being required to have significance outside of franchises to be notable. I think you are using made up reasons to delete this article. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 10:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

  You're pretty new to the website. What's more likely? That you don't understand the notability standards yet? Or that seven unrelated editors are coming together to delete your article for "made up reasons"? And to be clear, even if you don't understand things like common WP:MERGEREASONs yet, you haven't even convinced anyone of meeting the GNG alone yet with the awful slate of sources you've provided. Sergecross73 msg me 16:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

  To be fair, WhoIsCentreLeft is correct in that this isn't so much a WP:GNG concern as a WP:NOTPLOT / WP:WAF concern. It's permissible to have articles about specific fictional elements, but there should be discussion about the "development, design, reception, significance, and influence" of that specific fictional element. In the case of FEDRA, the sources, and thus the article by reflection, discuss it in a "in-universe" style, because it's not notable independently of The Last of Us. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

  I know, I've said all of that already. My point was that, so far, no single editor has even conceded that the GNG is even met though. Don't get me wrong, my core stance is that it doesn't have notability independent of the Last of Us too. I'm just saying his core argument about the GNG isn't exactly a homerun either. It's been a few days now, and he's both refused to present his WP:THREE, nor has anyone been noticeably persuaded by the sources presented so far, which is largely Valnet slop and obscure blogs. No editor thus far has agreed with their assertion that the core GNG is met. Sergecross73 msg me 18:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

  Idk. Seven people can be wrong. This article has 29 sources dating from 2020, 2021, 2023, 2024 and 2025. You havent explained why this article is not notable and why these sources dont count for notability. All you did was complain about a handfull of sources owned by Valnet, even though most of them are not unreliable and are allowed to be used in non-controversial articles. You and other users also said that FEDRA doesn't have notability independent from The Last of Us franchise, a deletion reason which does not seem to exist in the guidelines. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

  That's just WP:REFBOMBING. What's your WP:THREE best sources you feel make it meet the GNG? What three are high quality sources that discuss the subject itself in significant detail? Sergecross73 msg me 18:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

  Here are the sources, i added a fourth one just to make sure: [14], [15], [16], [17]. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  1. TheGamer is a VALNET website. Per the guidance at WP:VG/S, "In general, these sites should not be used to demonstrate notability due to concerns over their content farming."
  2. Nerdvada - I've never heard of this website before, but their About Us page don't give me any sort of confidence that it would make our WP:RS standards. No editorial policy, no credentialed writers, etc. They're just self-professed enthusiasts.
  3. Uproxx - I've heard of Uproxx before, but I can't tell what Wikipedia's stance on it. It's not listed at WP:VG/S or WP:RSP. It's an article dedicated to the subject, though its just basic plot regurgitation.
  4. Netzweldt - I've never heard of this website before. Not listed at WP:VG/S or WP:RSP. Similar to the Uproxx article, its mostly regurgitated plot points.

  It'd be one thing if one was just trying to write a fan wikia article or something, but I don't see a path to writing a Wikipedia article that satisfies our notability or content standards. I'll let others respond from here on out, I've said my piece. Sergecross73 msg me 16:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete/Redirect per all. Wikipedia doesn't write articles that are mainly summaries of plot details. Wikipedia writes articles about fiction based on its real-world reception and impact. Only some fictional topics will have received the level of WP:SIGCOV to meet this standard, which is why we don't have an article about every proper noun invented in a work of fiction. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect per my comment above. The relevant guideline is WP:NOTPLOT. ~ A412 ^talk! 19:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect There isn't anything really to say about this other than it appeared in the series. I like fandom but keep the fandom stuff at fandom. Archrogue (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Sheikh Maqsoud Liberation Forces

Sheikh Maqsoud Liberation Forces (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 rely on speculative and unverifiable claims about the group activities, structure & history, which violates WP:NOR. Chronos.Zx (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Syria, and Turkey. Chronos.Zx (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Stay the history of the group must be understood, that is why there are sources and they are not speculative, they are real, Sources are taken from Battle of Aleppo (2024) and Operation Dawn of FreedomFarcazo (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete given the existence of the article's content on Sheikh Maqsoud. Azuredivay (talk) 06:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

  Opposition is like saying that Manbij Military Council should not exist because of the city of Manbij you have to learn to differentiate between city or locality and armed forces Farcazo (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

  Saying another editor "has to learn" something is casting aspersions. Don't. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

  I didn't want to insult him, he just has to differentiate between a city and an armed group. Farcazo (talk) 19:03, 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!} 22:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Joan Willem Schreuder Jonkman

Joan Willem Schreuder Jonkman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I cannot find anything else than genealogical data. Schreuder was indeed the son of the Governor of Ceylon but notability is not inherited. His name does not appear in the cited sources by Kroes, Wrede and Fieberger, that can be consulted online. I cannot find additional sources. Does not pass WP:GNG Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Netherlands. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - The article's creator PeterLSJ has not edited since 2018. — Maile (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails both WP:N and WP:NOTINHERITED. Multiple search engines show nothing significant about the subject. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - his military rank and rank in the nobility are not high enough for automatic notability, and there aren't enough sources for sufficient coverage. Bearian (talk) 20:13, 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 redirect‎ to List of Nokia products#Military communications and equipment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

M61 gas mask

M61 gas mask (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I can't find any significant coverage of this gas mask in reliable sources. There's a few one-off mentions of "Nokia made this one time." The rest are just sales listings or Youtube videos. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 16:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Products, and Finland. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 16:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment They created so much, I found [18], [19], however they are snip-bits. It might be a useful search term. Is there no military tech created by Nokia article? Govvy (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Nokia products#Military communications and equipment. I didn't find any significant coverage. There was a news story in 2024 in Finnish newspapers about old gas mask filters: [20], [21]. M61 filters were mentioned but were not the focus of the story. --Mika1h (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect for now, given the attrocious unreferenced state of the current article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. Govvy (talk) 13:28, 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 keep‎. ✗plicit 14:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Anglo-Algerian War

Anglo-Algerian 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)

Not notable, only one source supports the claim of a war between 1677 and 1682. The "War" section is WP:OR as it not only fails to mention an actual war, but also describes English losses between 1674 and 1681. Kolno (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)Kolno

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Algeria, and England. Shellwood (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

In summary:

• The first source, Matar (2009), claims that "Consul Martin of England reported in 1677 that the Algerian dey was averse to declaring war." This clearly does not support the claim that a war occurred and should therefore be removed.
• The second source, Murray (1873), does mention wars beginning in 1660 and again in 1677, concluding in 1682 when peace was made. However, it also states that "five or six thousand English slaves were brought into Algiers, and about 350 vessels captured" between 1674 and 1681. While this source backs the claim of a war, it still lacks notability, and the English losses it describes do not match the supposed wartime period.
• The third source, Allen (1664), mentions a peace treaty between the two, but it neither mentions that it was to conclude a war, nor does it say that it was signed in 1682. Moreover, the book was published 18 years before the supposed end of the war.
• The fourth source, Hamersly (1880), details naval expeditions and skirmishes in 1661, 1664, and 1666/67, followed by a "humiliating treaty" in 1682 which "recognized the state of slavery of British subjects". There is no explicit mention of a war, and the treaty is shown as a diplomatic submission rather than a peace treaty concluding a war.

Unless more in-depth research is done, the article currently falls in WP:OR and lacks notability. Kolno (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I know a bit about the history here, but on the scope and the scale of the article. There were a lot of pirate captains in the area, with lots of different interests from different parties. I would say there is more than enough on the web to create a viable article. Maybe check out, [22], [23], [24]. There are lots of published books on the subject, saying it's not notable is nonsense. Govvy (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

  I only have access to the first source you’ve provided, which cites Stein (2015) [25]. Stein briefly mentions the context and its impact on the British, but the conflict itself is only mentioned in passing: "ultimately cost the English hundreds of captured ships and thousands of enslaved mariners, weighing heavily both on English trade and on a straitened royal treasury".

  An article covering every Anglo-Algerian conflict is definitely notable, but I am not convinced this specific war is notable enough on its own. It might be, but the page creator certainly did not present it well. A large portion of the content falls under WP:OR, and not to mention that the page was created by a sockpuppeter. Kolno (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep this is a notable subject that is covered in multiple RS (it took me 2 minutes to find these). I suggest expanding the article. M.Bitton (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep There are sources that do mention it's a war. You can check them out.

  [26]

  [27]

  [28]

  [29] (page 52) عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep covered by numerous reliable sources, per above. Skitash (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

References

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.

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 [30]. 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.

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 ([31][32]). Certainly seems like a significant event: a number of sources providing passing coverage credit this conflict with killing any meaningful pan-Baltic alliance ([33][34]). 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.

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)

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)

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)

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 [35], 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)

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 [36]) 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)

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)

Military Proposed deletions

The following articles have been tagged for proposed deletion:

Current PRODs

• Hume Peabody (via WP:PROD on 12 May 2025)

• 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