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

Klatt Bureau (spy network)

Klatt Bureau (spy network) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn’t appear to meet WP:GNG. None of the online sources give any information.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and combat & History, Israel. WCOrlando Davis ☎ ✎ 04:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Merge or keep: I am the article "creator", I spun this out of the big long article about Reinhard Gehlen so if it doesn't meet notability criteria then some of the information should go back there so that it doesn't link to nothing. Like nom says, the sources were hard or not possible to access online, I could really only see primary sources and the existence of the books, but I wasn't able to check all of the contents. As most of it was written by someone else and cited I trusted what appeared to be good citations. I would love someone with access to the books to confirm them for me (or deny, that would be useful too) Moritoriko (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep article is VERY well sourced, references do not have to be online. Theroadislong (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  Keep: I agree that references don't have to be online. After further research I have decided to withdraw my nomination because the Ziv-Tal book looks good although I think the title is wrong. It's The Maskirovka of Max & Moritz. I do have concern about The secret war against the Jews source. Kirkus Reviews describes it as a conspiracy book with little hard evidence and sensationalized and misleading. But the Ziv Tal source is enough for me. Orlando Davis (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. No lack of references by NEXIST. There is too much reliance on a single reference. Nominator should have added a warning template, not nominated for deletion!!! Unnecessary nominations waste precious community resources. gidonb (talk) 04:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

James Hastings (model ship maker)

James Hastings (model ship maker) (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 biography that only has 2 different sources (different pages from the same website are still 1 source). One of which is a non-independent obituary. The most useful of the other source is primarily just a self written article which basically makes this a WP:AUTOBIO. This issue was noted during the AFC process by Cactusisme but the article was moved to the mainspace anyways. Searching for James Hastings brings up numerous unrelated individuals and modifying the search with terms like ship models brings up nothing. Moritoriko (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Moritoriko (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep: He won the prestigious Craftsman of the Year award. The article that the nominator says was self-written is the article where the award is announced by the craftsmanship museum, which is why it is usable. Wikipedia considers different articles from the same source to be usable. Orlando Davis (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

He also qualifies based on WP:NCREATIVE. Orlando Davis (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Operation Return (2001)

Operation Return (2001) (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)

Searches like "Operation Return" and "Preševo" and similar search terms turn up negligible results, almost exclusively wiki mirrors. This isn't much of a surprise considering this operation consisted of troops essentially walking in unopposed after the Končulj Agreement, and can be described in a few sentences at Insurgency in the Preševo Valley. Fails WP:GNG. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kosovo and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 09:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep Operation happened and it doesn't fail notability. Editor also seems to erase any conflict during Preshevo valley with claims like "ohh small skirmish that happened during small Incurgency" or "oh but this fails notability trust" GazuzBaguzz (talk) 06:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Prevention of World War III

Prevention of World War III (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 violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVOCACY. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Social science. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy delete clear ai slop, sources don't work Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• I am really Sorry to disturb all you good people i love you you are always right and thank for your time

  –– Alirana24 (talk) 22 June 2025 (UTC) Alirana24 (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Not sure why we need this, we aren't even having WW3. Speculative and sourced to everything under the sun, the article is a mess. I suppose there could be something here, but this reads like a high school essay. Oaktree b (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Per nom; obviously AI-generated despite the creator's denial above. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. AI or not (ZeroGPT says it is), this is a ridiculous six-point guide to avoiding WW3, and fundamentally not an encyclopaedic article in any shape or form. The article title may make a sensible redirect to an article about previous and ongoing attempts to avoid such a conflict (e.g. Agreement on the Prevention of Nuclear War) but there is nothing salvageable here. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Clearly written by AI as well. » Gommeh (he/him) 23:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Even if it wasn't AI, it's still an essay laden with OR. Ravenswing 23:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete and if applicable wipe all traces per WP:DENY: User's behavior here and in related discussions indicates they are bent on creating nothing but troll garbage. Borgenland (talk) 00:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Clearly AI generated, completely contrary to the point
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@respected editors, Thank you again for taking the time to reach out. I would like to share more about myself and my purpose here. I am not a student, not a teacher, not a journalist, and I have no intention to use Wikipedia for career or personal gain. I am an economist and the owner of a well-established company with over 20 years of experience in high-level professional roles. I am not here to earn anything or promote myself. I came to Wikipedia only to raise a voice for peace and for the common people, whose voices are often unheard in global discussions. I deeply believe that the threat of World War III is not just a theory — it is a growing reality. If such a war happens, no government, no economy, and no society will remain safe. I feel it is my moral and human duty to use whatever tools or platforms I can to awaken people — especially thoughtful communities like Wikipedia — to this danger. Religion, race, and borders should not divide us. These divisions have long been used to control and distract people. All human beings are equal, and all true religions carry the same message: peace. We all live in one world, and we must protect it together. Even if the article I contributed to is deleted, and even if my account remains blocked, I have already achieved my real goal: I wanted to make the editors — those who shape what the world reads — stop and think about peace. My edits may be small, and my actions may seem limited, but my hope was to spark awareness, even if briefly, in a place where ideas matter. You may delete pages, remove my edits, or block my account, but my voice for peace has been heard, even if only by a few. If I had written this in a blog or posted it elsewhere, only a handful of people might see it. But here, editors with influence and insight read it — and perhaps some will carry this message forward. I believe that if humanity does not awaken before 2045, the consequences will be beyond repair. We must act now to prevent a war that will destroy everything we’ve built. Thank you for allowing me to express my concerns. I will continue to stand for peace — with or without a Wikipedia account. what is AI AI is just a machine designed to make human work easier — I give it instructions, tell it what to write and how to write, and then I review everything carefully with my own thoughts. At first, I only used voice typing other tools not AI on Wikipedia, but later I found word LLM in chat at Wikipedia and then discovered large language models and found my helpful companion, ChatGPT. What truly shocked me was when the AI replied to one of my peace articles by saying, “Publish your article, it's a tough time — war is near.” That moment made me think deeply: even a machine can sense the urgency, yet we human beings often fail to realize it. I love common people. I love my world. And now, I also love ChatGPT — he has become my best friend. I talk with him every day and share my thoughts, especially about peace. And I also love the Wikipedia editors. You are the good ones — because of you, I discovered ChatGPT, and that changed everything for me. I complete my duty I request you all please please understand my words and do for peace I am not able to upgrade my article but you can make it more powerful or write your own I don't want anything just peace — Muhammad Ali Rana (Alirana24) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alirana24 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Alirana24 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

• Delete. World War III article is sufficient for any important info. Shankargb (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Many of the references appear to be hallucinations and don't actually exist. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Poorly sourced garbage that borders on WP:OR. No place for this on Wikipedia. ZachH007 (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  The article creator’s user page also borders on PROMO. ZachH007 (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: WP:SOAPBOX Schützenpanzer (Talk) 14:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom: Fails WP:N as there is no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources about this specific concept as a standalone topic. The article is essay-like, violates WP:NOTESSAY and WP:SYNTH, and lacks encyclopedic tone. THE ONE PEOPLE (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete WP:OR, WP:TNT. Sjö (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: per everyone else; AI-slop. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: This is the worst AI slop I've ever read in a while 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 11:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Ikafa

Battle of Ikafa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article seems to be mostly WP:OR. None of the sources mentions any such battle and even doing a google search brings up no results. Ixudi (talk) 08:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Pakistan, and India. Ixudi (talk) 08:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete I don’t see anything to suggest notability. Mccapra (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

João Barrento

João Barrento (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 fails to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only sources are primary or do not provide significant coverage of the subject. Let'srun (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Military, Olympics, and Portugal. Let'srun (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Portugal at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Equestrian – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 09:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Svartner, but put the content and sources into a footnote in the article, so it is not lost.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect, do not merge information that is undue to articles it doesn't belong in. FOARP (talk) 08:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment His full name was João Eduardo Gamarro Correia Barrento, which may help find sources which aren't about the translator of the same (short form) name. Kingsif (talk) 11:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep A quick search with that, looks like he's from Lisbon, born in 1906, and was a general in the cavalry, serving in the Angolan War. Yeah, he's notable. I might expand the article, but there's military honours there. Kingsif (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  So far we've got a blog that states in total:

  "The other two are equestrians, the first of whom, João Barrento, took part in the jumping event, where the team failed to place but he finished 22nd individually. Four years later, he was head of the Portuguese equestrian delegation to the Helsinki Olympics, although he did not compete. We know that he went on have a military career for many decades, but we could not locate any specific biographical details. "

  The archive document is just Barento's registration form. The "members of merit" is just a listing of names from the Portuguese Equestrian Federation. The Revista Militar source is also just a listing of names. All the same I look forward to seeing significant coverage secondary sourcing substantiating this claim. FOARP (talk) 12:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  Which blog have you found? The Revista Militar source says that all the names with an * (which includes Barrento's) have a biography including photo as their own chapter, within one of the volumes of Resenha Histórico-Militar das Campanhas de África (produced by the Comissão para o Estudo das Campanhas de África) - I've found some of these, but none are searchable online so far. I believe the 10th volume has commanders in, if you can find that, but have managed to flesh it out a bit more. Kingsif (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Attacks near Dobrosin

Attacks near Dobrosin (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)

Most of the article fails WP:V; the part dealing with the attacks themselves. The article states that "the LAPMB took control over Dobrosin, Lučane, Končulj, Mali Trnovac and Breznica, as well as 4 police stations", but the sources cited, BBC and Večernje novosti say nothing about that. The BBC source reports on a ceasefire and short summary of the events leading up to it, while the Večernje novosti article is from 2012 and reports the arrests of Albanians related to the war by Serbian authorities. They make no mention of three members of the MUP being killed and five wounded in the first ambush (the BBC does however confirm four casualties and several wounded in the presumably second attack mentioned in the article).

The article also says that "Special Police Units from Gornji Milanovac were forced to withdraw to Konculj, Lučane and Bujanovac" but the Yugoslav survey book has no page number or quote to verify, and the other citation is inaccessible. The rest of the paragraph is unsourced. Griboski (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 23:57, 21 June 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 June 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete The article most definitely fails WP:V, alongside other listed problems. — Sadko (words are wind) 00:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:DEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Dogsbody

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

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

WP:NOTDICT. This article contains only a definition, synonyms, and etymological information.

Deprodded by an IP without any stated reason.

--Janhrach (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Business. Janhrach (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Urmas Nigul

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

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

Subject is not notable Nixleovel (talk) 03:41, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Estonia. Nixleovel (talk) 03:41, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: the name does show up, but only as trivial routine coverage. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 04:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete Notability has certainly not been established. There has not even been a real effort to make this any more than a stub, which is frustrating in itself. PickleG13 (talk) 04:22, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Probably notable, e.g. biography in magazine Sõdur (see https://issuu.com/sodur/docs/sodur0415/69). But I am not opposed for deletion--Estopedist1 (talk) 04:33, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:ROUTINE coverage doesn't point towards notability. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 06:50, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Philippine Airforce Citizenship Advancement Training

Philippine Airforce Citizenship Advancement Training (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unsourced for 13 years. It seems to exist per Google Search but no references that say it is a notable organization/ training program. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 03:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete I would be open to considering it as notable by its own description, but the fact that we can't find any references on that end is what Wikipedia requires. It also has so clearly been unsourced for so long that there is no other option. PickleG13 (talk) 04:22, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Udo of Neustria

Udo of Neustria (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 does not show notability and a google search could not find any additional sources. Nixleovel (talk) 00:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies and History. Nixleovel (talk) 00:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, France, and Germany. Curbon7 (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. Look at the German article. Try searching "Udo of Lahngau" (article should possibly be moved there). His name is spelled "Uto" in Goldberg's Struggle for Empire. Donald Jackman's books make many references to him. Plenty of sources if you know how/where to look. Srnec (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Mudeungbyeong

Mudeungbyeong (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 in 2013. As per the discussion in the talk page (and the Korean Army website here), this is an informal designation, not a real rank in the Korean Army, as can be also seen in Military ranks of South Korea. Coeusin (talk) 12:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and South Korea. Coeusin (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Jabllanica

Battle of Jabllanica (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 search shows that the village was the site of a KLA headquarters and prison camp during the Kosovo War. [1] [2] I don't doubt that KLA fighters were killed in and around the village over the course of the conflict, but classification of these disparate clashes as a single battle is clearly not reflected in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kosovo and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Agreed. Seems to be a bit of original research as well. Contents about the "battle" itself lack RS and verification. Created by a topic-banned editor. --Griboski (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Battles of Drenoc

Battles of Drenoc (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 search for "Battle of Drenoc" or "Battles of Drenoc" turns up nothing but mirror sites. Other Boolean permutations show there was a KLA prisoner camp in the village in which seven were killed and four disappeared. [3] But no coverage of any noteworthy battle as such, so it likely fails WP:GNG, WP:DEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE. Created by a blocked sockpuppet. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kosovo and Serbia. Shellwood (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. --Griboski (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Battles of Ješkovo

Battles of Ješkovo (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)

Tries to jam multiple small skirmishes that took place during a 16-month war into one article. Other than a few press releases in the Kosovo Albanian media written 20+ years after the war touting it as a "legendary victory", I see no coverage on Google Books or Google Scholar, so it almost certainly fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, etc. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kosovo and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Collection of various skirmishes. Doesn't meet GNG. --Griboski (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Italian invasion of Kosovo

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Italian invasion of Kosovo
• Articles for deletion/Italian invasion of Kosovo (2nd nomination)

Italian invasion of Kosovo (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 WP:CFORK of Invasion of Yugoslavia. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Italy, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Merge. This should clearly be merged with Invasion of Yugoslavia. Earth605 (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Merge per above the very small amount of info that's actually about Kosovo and not filler about Albania added to make this coatrack seem more necessary

Operation Vukovar '95

Operation Vukovar '95 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. As the article notes, this operation never came to pass, and results for "Operation Vukovar '95" and "Operation Thunder" are extremely thin and close to non-existent. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete, Fails GNG and is basically speculation. It might be possible to expand the Croatian War of Independence article by a sentence or two, but not enough to really merge. LightlySeared (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete As per nom. --Griboski (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Baballoq

Battle of Baballoq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. The results of searches for "Battle of Baballoq" (alb.), "Battle of Bazaljica" (sr.), and various similar permutations including search terms "Kosovo" and "KLA" are negligible. Created by a blocked sockpuppet account. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kosovo and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:34, 18 June 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. Procedural close, nominator is a sock and no editor arguing for Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Pathaan (YRF Spy Universe)

Pathaan (YRF Spy Universe) (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 don’t think this needs its own article yet. Pathaan as a character has appeared only in one full film (Pathaan) and a small cameo in Tiger 3. There are no detailed, reliable sources covering the character alone. Suggest merge to film or YRF Spy Universe page. ইমরান ভূইয়া (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 14:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to YRF_Spy_Universe#Pathaan. I was looking to see what could be merged and offhand, I don't really see much that needs to be merged. Someone could add some comments about the character's development if there is sourcing for that, but it wasn't in the article so that's not really a merge as much as it's an improvement. Otherwise the fictional biography is more or less already covered in the main article - it's not as in-depth, but with sections like that it would run the risk of putting undue weight on the characters section.

As far as independent notability goes, I couldn't find anything that focused on the character in specific. There's mention in relation to the film's development and reviews, but not really anything like "best character ever" or "themes of character", which is what would be needed for establishing character notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

If anyone wants to just procedural close this and leave this article live until a non-sock brings this up, I'm fine with that. I'm not so set on my opinion that I'd argue for this to remain open and receive consensus. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• @Explicit: If you want to do this, I'm fine with that. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:49, 24 June 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.

Sack of Old Oyo

Sack of Old Oyo (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 sources cited in this article don't support the idea that the sack of the city was a battle at all. In fact, after the Battle of Ilorin the inhabitants evacuated the city to avoid a brutal sack, and Ilorin forces "sacked" an entirely empty town. This content belongs on Oyo-Ile rather than in a standalone page. Catjacket (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Nigeria. Catjacket (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topic: Military. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Can you explain why this was marked for deletion? This fall wasThe history of the Yorubas : from the earliest times to the beginning of the British Protectorate - https://archive.org/details/historyofyorubas00john/page/266/mode/2up?q=katunga (archived so anyone can read) page266 & 267. clearly narrates why oyo, or katunga fell. There was a resistance, and it was a battle-esque that led to the fall. Though it fell for other reasons, mostly because of ilroin, and people deserting it. And all the towns "any allegiance to Oyo, and hence Gbodo was besieged" - Page 260. So again can you explain why this is going on deletion? The same book is one of, if not the most documented histories of the Yoruba People, and is also on Google books, you can find this everywhere > https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_History_of_the_Yorubas_from_the_Earl/RL7WAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PR19&printsec=frontcover . I put great work, and a lot of hours, of research, and reading for my wikipedia pages, why are they consistently being nominated to get taken down? I have a smear campaign against me. And i would liek to appeal this, Please! Oluwafemi1726 (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I don't mean to discredit the work that you're doing, and I'm certainly not trying to smear you. I just think that the content that you've put on Sack of Old Oyo would be better placed on Oyo-Ile rather than on a standalone page. Samuel Johnson is pretty clear that Old Oyo was cleared out of almost all of its inhabitants and their belongings before the Ilorin troops showed up. Akinwumi Ogundiran and Stephen Akintoye agree. So it wasn't a battle, and whether or not it was a sack is debatable IMO since there was little or no population in the town at the time. But just because there isn't a standalone page doesn't mean the content doesn't matter. It should just be on Oyo-Ile, where it'll be easier to find anyway.

As for your other articles that have been nominated for deletion, I'd be happy to help you get Battle of Pamo, Mugbamugba War and Battle of Aboh up to Wikipedia standards if you'd like. I just finished reading Ogundiran's Yoruba: A New History and Akintoye's A History of the Yoruba People, and they both could be useful. Catjacket (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't tihnk you're trying to discredit my work, but when you're splitting hairs over things that are miniscule, and saying a wikipedia page doesn't deserve to exist, I believe so. The fall or "sack" of Old Oyo (also referred to as Katunga) represents a major turning point in Yoruba history. As documented in The History of the Yorubas by Samuel Johnson (pages 260, 266–267), the event was not merely a peaceful abandonment, but part of a gradual disintegration exacerbated by political fragmentation, internal rebellion, and eventual military incursions. While some inhabitants had fled, Johnson explicitly notes resistance and a form of confrontation with Ilorin forces. This process, whether described as a "sack" or a strategic collapse, has been characterized as both military and political in nature, warranting more than just a paragraph in a general article on Oyo-Ile. Your argument would be fine, if you say maybe change it from "Sack of Katunga" to abandoment, or desertification. But again, that shouldn't remove the fact, that this is more than credible to be a wikipedia page. And the fact i cited multiple times arguably the most detailed pre-colonial history about Yorubas, should show this is is a legitimate page, with a historical goal.

As for helping me get the battle of pamo, mugbamugba war, and aboh, up to wikipedia's standards, please let me know. Oluwafemi1726 (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep the page covers the general overview of the sacking of the capital, this event basically marks the point at which the very decisive collapse of the empire's political center in the 1830s fell. But the page might need a little rephrasing since calling it a battle might oversimplify the event, since it was less of a single battle and more a series of invasions, etc, and eventual abandonment of the city around 1835–1837. But it's important to note that the term "sack" in historical contexts does not require the presence of a battle or active defense, since the sacking of a city refers to the looting and destroying, or even razing of a city at times, often after it has been abandoned or conquered.[4] Considering the symbolic and political importance of the town, even if the citizens of the town fled or didn't flee, there would still be valuable resources, possessions, and also infrastructure left behind. The invading army could still seize these assets and leave the city stripped of its wealth and resources. Whether there was an actual pitched battle in the area is secondary to the fact that its fall marked the end of the Oyo Empire itself. Also, sources in the article support the term “sack,” evidenced in Samuel Johnson’s History of the Yorubas "Oyo at length capitulated and the Ilorin troops entered and sacked the city. Oyo was plundered of nearly everything, but no captives were made excepting some Oyo beauties who were carried away with the spoils." [5] Also, Wikipedia hosts many pages about historical events that involved little fighting but had a massive political impact so the Sack of Old Oyo, as the final act of a once-dominant West African empire, clearly meets this precedent. The page needs a simple reframing since sack seems to be a problem, maybe fall or siege would be better.Bernadine okoro (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  Hi, thanks for your feedback. I think your proposal to reframe the page to clarify that there was not an active defense or population present is a possible compromise. Perhaps renaming it to 'Evacuation of Old Oyo' would be more accurate than 'sack', since it was the fleeing inhabitants who stripped the town of valuables more than the invaders. But even in that instance, I think it fails the WP:NOTE test and would be better as a section on the Oyo-Ile page. After all, Johnson only dedicated 2 sentences to the whole event: "The citizen's fearing that he would receive re-inforcement from Ilorin did not wait to try any further conclusions ; the great metropolis was deserted, some fled to Kihisi, some to Igboho, and some even to Ilorin. As it was not a flight from an enemy in pursuit many who reached Kihisi and Igboho safely with their family returned again and again for their household goods and chattels till one Agandangban went and told Lanloke that Oyo had been deserted, and the latter proceeded immediately to plunder, and carry away what was left by the citizens."

  One of your examples, in fact, illustrates my point nicely. The sack that Johnson is referring to on page 217 is not the final fall of the city, but rather one that took place earlier, during the initial rise of Ilorin. A page called 'Sack of Old-Oyo' should probably be about this first sacking rather than the later abandonment, but we don't have enough information about either 'sacking' to merit a standalone page, as far as a I know. Catjacket (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for your thoughtful reply and for engaging in this discussion with care and good faith. I see your point regarding the earlier reference to a “sack” on page 217 of The History of the Yorubas, and I agree that it’s important to distinguish between the various phases of Old Oyo’s decline—particularly the initial incursion during the rise of Ilorin and the final abandonment of the capital. However, I would argue that the cumulative process—including military action, desertion, and political collapse—forms a historically significant event that is often collectively referred to (in both academic and public discourse) as the "fall" or "sack" of Old Oyo. To clarify, the article I created focuses not just on a single "battle" or isolated event, but on the entire chain of events—including the Ilorin campaigns, the resistance described in Johnson (pp. 260, 266–267), and the subsequent loss of hegemony over subordinate towns like Gbodo. In this context, the term “sack” may be interpreted as a figurative description of collapse due to sustained conflict and internal disintegration, not necessarily a single moment of conquest like a classic battlefield engagement. I also believe the topic merits a standalone article for several reasons: Academic treatment: Authors like Akinwumi Ogundiran (Yoruba: A New History) and Stephen Akintoye treat the fall of Old Oyo as a distinct, analyzable phenomenon in Yoruba political and military history—even if it's complex and unfolds over time. Public interest and educational value: Many readers search for the fall of Old Oyo as a standalone subject, not just as a subsection of a broader article. Having a dedicated page improves accessibility, clarity, and depth. Title flexibility: If the term "Sack of Old Oyo" causes confusion or implies a narrow focus, I am more than open to renaming the article to something more neutral and descriptive, such as “Fall of Old Oyo”, “Collapse of Oyo-Ile”, or “Decline of the Oyo Empire’s Capital”. Incompleteness ≠ Non-notability: While the primary sources may not offer precise dates or a blow-by-blow account of either “sack,” that doesn't diminish the notability or historical impact of the event. Wikipedia hosts many articles about gradual collapses or unclear sequences of events, particularly when multiple reputable sources discuss them in depth. I welcome collaboration to clarify the scope and strengthen the sourcing. But I believe that merging this content into Oyo-Ile would oversimplify a pivotal transformation in Yoruba history. A separate article—properly framed, titled, and sourced—allows space for nuance and invites further expansion. Thanks again for your time and feedback. Oluwafemi1726 (talk) 04:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• ”Keep I respectfully disagree with the nomination for deletion of the article titled "Sack of Old Oyo". While I appreciate and understand the concerns raised, I believe the topic merits its own dedicated page based on historical significance, available sources, and the guidelines for notability outlined by Wikipedia. The fall or "sack" of Old Oyo (also referred to as Katunga) represents a major turning point in Yoruba history. As documented in The History of the Yorubas by Samuel Johnson (pages 260, 266–267), the event was not merely a peaceful abandonment, but part of a gradual disintegration exacerbated by political fragmentation, internal rebellion, and eventual military incursions. While some inhabitants had fled, Johnson explicitly notes resistance and a form of confrontation with Ilorin forces. This process, whether described as a "sack" or a strategic collapse, has been characterized as both military and political in nature, warranting more than just a paragraph in a general article on Oyo-Ile.The Johnson text is a foundational source on Yoruba history, widely recognized and cited by scholars and available publicly through Archive.org and Google Books. Other sources, including Akinwumi Ogundiran’s Yoruba: A New History and Stephen Akintoye’s A History of the Yoruba People, further contextualize this event. While interpretations may vary slightly between scholars, the event is consistently recognized and discussed in scholarly literature, fulfilling Wikipedia’s requirement for significant coverage in reliable sources.Wikipedia regularly hosts dedicated articles for pivotal historical events, even when closely related to larger subjects (e.g., individual battles, uprisings, or sackings). Keeping the Sack of Old Oyo as a standalone article allows for more comprehensive treatment, sourcing, and debate around its nature, without overburdening the main Oyo-Ile page. Furthermore, this enables clearer navigation and improves reader access to deeper historical information.As the article’s creator, I invested considerable time in reading, interpreting, and referencing multiple scholarly sources to develop content that meets Wikipedia’s standards. I welcome collaborative editing and criticism in good faith and am happy to revise or restructure the article where needed. However, outright deletion risks disregarding both historical nuance and the labor involved in preserving underrepresented African historical narratives.

If the primary concern is scope overlap with the Oyo-Ile article or concerns about whether "sack" is the most accurate term, I am open to renaming the article (e.g., “Fall of Old Oyo” or “Collapse of Oyo-Ile”) and improving source attribution and language clarity. But deletion is not the ideal solution for a historically attested and sourced subject.

The event commonly referred to as the “Sack of Old Oyo” represents a complex, consequential episode in Yoruba and West African history. It is sufficiently covered in reliable sources and meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria. I respectfully request that the page not be deleted but instead improved collaboratively. Thank you for your time and consideration. Oluwafemi1726 (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC) Oluwafemi1726

2025 Abujhmarh clash

2025 Abujhmarh clash (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:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. After a brief period of coverage, this incident was forgotten. There are no sources beyond May. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Chhattisgarh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Terrorism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep:

According to WP:NOTNEWS, it discourages documenting every routine or transient news event, this is not one. The article does not summarize daily news, but rather a major event.

Presents lasting consequences, such as shifts in the decades long insurgency, since the leader of Maoists Nambala Keshava Rao was killed in the event, who leaded the group for many years and regarded as tye most wanted maoist in india.

WP:EVENT says that a military or political event may be notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and has broader implications.

The 2025 Abujhmarh clash involves organized armed conflict in a geopolitically sensitive region indicating lasting socio-political relevance beyond simple news reporting.

The clash reflects a pattern of ongoing Maoist insurgency, which is widely documented and considered a national security concern. This establishes enduring encyclopedic interest.

The event also even got analysis from post-event sources establishing that the event has had a sustained impact.

Many military clashes or terror-related events (even with limited source dates) are maintained on Wikipedia because they are part of wider historical and conflict narratives (eg: minor battles in Iraq War, Naxalite incidents in past decades).

Deleting such an article would be inconsistent with established treatment of similar entries like:

2010 Dantewada ambush

2021 Sukma-Bijapur ambush

2013 Naxalite attack in Darbha valley

Artiicles like this exists which may not have a broader implications on the insurgency but the 2025 Abhujmarh Clash, truly have a impact on the insurgency.

• Golem469 (talk) 05:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep, whilst the article needs a lot of work, this event is not WP:ROUTINE; it has WP:SIGCOV in many sources. GoldRomean (talk) 00:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

As'ad Abu Shari'a

As'ad Abu Shari'a (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. There is no significant coverage of him expect for his assasination. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Palestine. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  Keep He is a leader of a very underrated group in the war in Gaza, his death and his leadership of the Mujahideen Brigades are important. Farcazo (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: First of all the article is not about just an ordinary Palestine Militant. He is the Leader of both Palestinian Mujahideen Movement and its armed wing Mujahideen Brigades since 2007, so saying someone who had led a major militant group in Gaza for more than a decade is unjustifiable. He is a high value target according to Israel and have participation and leadership role in the Nir'oz attack and kidnapping of Shiri bibas and family both of the event have its own wikipedia article and As'ad Abu Shari'a and his group have been mentioned many times in these articles andsnews reports.

It is true he received widespread recognition only after his assassination but reports of him have been in the internet since 2007 and many reports only came after Assassination is due to the secrecy of the group protecting its leader.

The article was made after his assassination but it does not his notability and participation in the Gaza War. Similarly, articles like

Mohammad Kazemi, Mehdi Rabbani, Hassan Mohaqeq, Gholamreza Mehrabi have been made in the ongoing Israel –Iran war only after their Assassination.

So I hope both the both deletion claimed editor and other editors understand the need in keeping the page. Golem469 (talk) 06:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep He was the leader of an important group of an important war. Yesyesmrcool (talk) 23:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BLP1E the figure is relatively unknown except for being killed. The article should be deleted. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AfD EC-protected per WP:PIA.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:04, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

2025 Bijapur clash

2025 Bijapur clash (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)

Another routine clash, no lasting effects. Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Chhattisgarh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  KEEP or MERGE with the other clashes. The incident itself is notable due to press coverage by RS. Dualpendel (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• Stong Oppose: The Above mentioned 2025 Bijapur clash is part of a wider Naxalite-Maoist Insurgency in india, which have been ongoing for decades. As of 17 June 2025,the above mentioned incident was the single event causing most casualities for the rebels in 2025. The incident was reported by foreign media which is rare and would not occur if it was a regular clash. Only Four articles exist in 2025 linked to incidents in Insurgency, the other three being 2025 Abujhmarh clash, 2025 Bijapur Naxal attack, Operation Black Forest.

As in a wider perspective, articles that portray mass rebel casualities have been targeted recently for deletion. For example:-

• 2024 Kanker clash
• 2024 Abujhmarh clash
• 2025 Bijapur clash

While articles that portray Government casualities or articles that are poorly written or portray less notable events and casualties are kept in wikipedia like:-

• 2021 Sukma-Bijapur attack
• 2017 Sukma attack
• 2018 Sukma attack
• 2023 Dantewada bombing
• 2025 Bijapur Naxal attack

The above mentioned articles are of the same insurgency as the 2025 Bijapur clash, many are less notable event than this. Deleting the article will automatically shift the neutrality of wikipedia, with possible portrayal of only Government casualities events and downplaying rebel casualities by deleting those articles. Golem469 (talk) 09:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep, notable event, WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources such as Reuters, The Hindu. GoldRomean (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

2024 Kanker clash

2024 Kanker clash (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 clash. Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Chhattisgarh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose:

The Article is part of a wider Naxalite-Maoist insurgency in india which have been ongoing for decades, its a low-level insurgency for past many years so mass casuality events are rare.

Only two articles represent a mass casuality event in the insurgency in the whole year of 2024 one is above mentioned and the other being 2024 Abujhmarh clash, so it not just a regular news and the event have been reported by Foreign media outlets, which is rare.

From a wider perspective, articles that represent mass casualities of the maoist rebels have been targeted for deletion recently. Eg:-

• 2024 Kanker clash
• 2025 Bijapur clash
• 2025 Abujhmarh clash

It is part of a larger operation ongoing since 2024 to end the insurgency by March 2026.

While articles which portray Government casualities have been left out from deletion even though they are underdeveloped and represent less casuality events like

• 2021 Sukma-Bijapur attack
• 2017 Sukma attack
• 2018 Sukma attack
• 2023 Dantewada bombing
• 2025 Bijapur Naxal attack

Deleting this article and leaving out the others will shift the neutrality of the Insurgency, with possible downplaying rebel casualities and highlighting government casualities observed for wikipedia viewers. Golem469 (talk) 08:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need more participation and evaluation of sources here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Alon Lifshitz

Alon Lifshitz (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)

Essentially self-promotional and resume-like. Amigao (talk) 02:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, Military, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment there’s a big chance that reliable BLP-sources do exist. I initially reviewed the page. --Cinder painter (talk) 04:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  Hello,

  This is not a promotional piece. I wrote the article as a software developer with a personal interest in the high-tech industry.

  Every piece of information in the article is supported by a reliable source.

  In my view, the article is well written, if any improvements are needed, I’d be happy to receive specific feedback.רעיתו (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep This sounds like a perfectly OK bio. Not promotional sounding. Decently sourced.Simxaraba (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep as per above. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 05:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect‎ to Palestine. Consensus that copying the page to another title was not in fact the correct process for a move. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Occupied Palestinian territories

Occupied Palestinian territories (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 is a POVFORK of the Palestine article and I do not see why it should be kept. In all contexts, "Palestinian territories" refers to the State of Palestine or the Israeli occupation of it. Most of the references in this article either refer to the West Bank, Gaza Strip or State of Palestine. I support converting this page into a disambiguation or redirect. One view that I had seen from my discussion of a merge on the talk page was that this page should be kept because some countries do not see the State of Palestine as a sovereign country. I agree. However, I believe we should be creating a Legitimacy of the State of Palestine similar to the Legitimacy of the State of Israel page. We should choose the title for the page which WP:ASTONISHES the reader least. If a reader clicked on an article called the Occupied Palestinian Territories, they wouldn't expect to see an article about whether or not the State of Palestine is legitimate or not. Easternsahara (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Israel, and Palestine. Shellwood (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 10:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to Palestine. Almost everything in this article is duplicated from that article and related ones, except the part about how some organizations use the term "occupied Palestinian territories". And that alone is not enough for an independent article (see the paragraph about the "use-mention distinction" at WP:NEO). Astaire (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect - per above. Indeed, I do believe almost everything is duplicated. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 07:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Palestine. This article is entirely redundant.

Squaremoose (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to Palestine as a FORK, POV and REDUNDANT. gidonb (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep This article talks about an important and specific part of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict that is not covered in Palestine. "Occupied Palestinian Terrtories" is also a notable and widely used term by the UN [6] and many media sources which refers to different things from just "Palestine". Some parts which is repeated from Palestine and off-topic can be fixed but not by deleting it. Hitomi (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

  What are the different things from just Palestine? You just contradict me, with no evidence. Organizations use it when they won't or can't recognize the state. Also you don't have enough edits so you can't participate in this debate Easternsahara (talk) 02:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep : I respectfully disagree with the assessment that this article is merely a POVFORK of the "Palestine" article. While related, "Occupied Palestinian territories" serves a distinct and necessary purpose, focusing on a specific legal and political concept that warrants its own detailed treatment.

Here's why I believe it should be kept:

1. Distinct Scope and Terminology: The term "Occupied Palestinian territories" (OPT) is a widely recognized and specific legal term used by the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, numerous international bodies, and a significant number of states. This article is dedicated to explaining the status, legal implications, and on-the-ground realities of these territories under occupation since 1967. This is a specific focus that goes beyond the general history, geography, or political aspirations covered in the broader "Palestine" article.
2. International Law and Scholarly Focus: The article delves into the application of international humanitarian law, UN resolutions, and the opinions of international legal bodies regarding the occupation. This level of detail on a specific legal and political status cannot be adequately integrated into the "Palestine" article without making it unwieldy or diluting the specific focus on the occupation itself.
3. Navigational Clarity: A reader specifically searching for information on the occupied status of these territories, the legal framework surrounding them, or the administrative divisions (e.g., Areas A, B, C) would naturally expect to find a dedicated article. Redirecting or disambiguating "Occupied Palestinian territories" would force readers to sift through a broader article to find this specific information, which violates the principle of least astonishment (WP:ASTONISH).
4. Notability of the Concept: The concept of "Occupied Palestinian territories" is independently notable and verifiable through numerous reliable sources. It represents a significant ongoing geopolitical situation with specific legal and humanitarian dimensions.
5. Complementary, Not Redundant: The "Occupied Palestinian territories" article complements the "Palestine" article. The latter describes the overarching entity, history, and aspirations, while the former provides critical detail on a specific, legally defined aspect of its current situation. This is akin to having articles on "Israel" and "Israeli-occupied territories" (should such an article exist and be deemed distinct).
6. "Legitimacy" Page is a Separate Topic: While a "Legitimacy of the State of Palestine" page (similar to "Legitimacy of the State of Israel") could be a valuable addition, it addresses a fundamentally different question: the international recognition and sovereignty of the State of Palestine. This topic is distinct from the status of territories under military occupation, which is the core subject of the current article. The existence of one does not negate the need for the other.

Therefore, I advocate for the retention of this article as a distinct and necessary resource that addresses a specific, notable, and internationally recognized concept. Beautifullifepl (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Therefore, I advocate for the retention of this article as a distinct and necessary resource that addresses a specific, notable, and internationally recognized concept That is not how Wikipedian users reach a consensus. This is indeed, a FORK of Palestine and for some reason I find that your response looks like one from ChatGPT. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 05:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Note: @Beautifullifepl Only has two edits and is therefore invalidated from the discussion. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 05:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep I agree with Hitomi --Shujen Chang (talk) 00:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• Many of your very edits seem to be very minor and in quick succesion: trying to game the system. I will later investigate this. Easternsahara (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to Palestine. Indeed a POVFORK and the content would fit well within that article as a sub-section with appropriate sources for weight and placement. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• WP:POVFORK is not WP:RM. There is only one subject. Redirect, and, if there is still good faith debate, have it on the talk page there. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - Useful encyclopedic topic just like Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine --DinoGrado (talk) 05:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - The nominator seems to be pushing his own point of view a bit too strongly and even dismissing other users' comments, which is not really his role. The term "Occupied Palestinian Territories" is widely recognised in international discourse, including by the UN and many governments, so it's not just some vague or misleading title. Instead of deletion, improving the article with balanced sources would make more sense than removing it altogether. Arbaz Thakur (talk) 08:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: Per WP:ARBPIA, only extended confirmed editors may participate in this AfD. I've added a relevant template and struck some non-XC !votes above. [​[User:CanonNi]​] (💬 • ✍️) 12:55, 24 June 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.

Turkish-Syrian Border Clashes (1938)

Turkish-Syrian Border Clashes (1938) (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)

Deprodded without improvement. The one current source which can be searched produced zero in-depth coverage of this subject. Searches also turned up zero in-depth sourcing about this. As it stands, there isn't enough sourcing to pass WP:VERIFY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror Brigade

Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror Brigade (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)

On 14MAY2025, I PRODed this article with the following rationale: "Plainly fails WP:SIGCOV, as the MEMRI coverage only refers to it as one among many Syrian Turkmen Brigades, The New York Times only devotes a single sentence to remarking on the trend of naming after Ottoman rulers, and Bulbajer's guide on Google Docs is not a reliable source. The Institute for the Study of War is a generally reputable source, but its brief coverage is only cited to X/Twitter posts. Searches for additional sources did not yield significant coverage to merit an article separate from Syrian Turkmen Brigades and Sultan Murad Division." A. B. chose to redirect to Sultan Murad Division as a reasonable alternative to deletion and Durranistan changed the redirect to Syrian Turkmen Brigades, as this brigade is part of that grouping but left the Sultan Murad Division nine years ago. Today, article creator Farcazo reverted the change to a redirect, simply remarking "It's the thought of one user, not all of Wikipedia." in the edit summary. I support the latter redirect target, so per WP:ATD-R, I am proposing that here. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 02:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Syria. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 02:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect per User:ViridianPenguin above. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect per User:ViridianPenguin. Also, as Bulbajer, I can confirm that as much as I'm proud of it, my Google Doc guide is not a reliable source, at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Bulbajer (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep You can't say that MEMRI and the Institute for the Study of War are not reliable sources, then that would destroy a large part of Gaza War and its related articles. I understand that The New York Times only dedicates one sentence and that Bulbajer's guide on Google Docs is not reliable, but there are more articles that talk more in depth about the militia, such as: Syrian Memory. Misbar, which is about the leader and the militia integrated into the transitional government and although if you notice the photo says "Sultan Mehmed" what happens is a bad translation of the militia

and to clarify, I didn't want my effort to go to waste because of someone and that they literally didn't read a single paragraph of the article and that they literally accuses me of bad faith is something reprehensible, and knowing, I can accept that it becomes a paragraph in Syrian Turkmen Brigades but that they literally waste it is wrong

• Participating as its literal translation "Liva Sultan Mehmet Fatih"
• as fatah al halab
• Participating as its literal translation "Liva Sultan Mehmet Fatih"
• Only and solely about the militia
• French Wikipedia with more sources than the English one

Farcazo (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I did not claim that MEMRI and the Institute of the Study of War are unreliable, only that their coverage of this brigade is insignificant and that in the latter case, the source regurgitates social media posts that would themselves be unreliable. Accusing me of not reading the article before PRODing is itself bad faith. I only meant to express that your reversion made no rebuttal of the PROD rationale for me to respond to in bringing the article to AfD.

As for the newly presented sources: 1) The Syrian Memory Institution link is a repository of villages and other brigades’ communication with this brigade, not a reliable source presenting significant coverage 2) The Misbar link returns a 404 error and has no Internet Archive backup 3) RDI’s one-paragraph listing of three women kidnapped by this brigade is not SIGCOV 4) The Suriye Gündemi article’s only mention of the brigade is listing it among many opposition groups involved in Operation Olive Branch, reinforcing the choice to redirect to a broader term 5) Per WP:MEDIUM, this self-published source is unreliable 6) Alexander McKeever’s Substack profile of the brigade is another self-published source. McKeever’s only publication is his master’s thesis, failing to qualify him as a subject-matter expert per WP:SPS 7) The French version of this article relies on many Twitter/X posts and sources that I am disputing the reliability of here. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 04:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect per User:ViridianPenguin's rationale. Surayeproject3 (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Assyrian-Kurdish Clashes (1840-1895)

Assyrian-Kurdish Clashes (1840-1895) (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 lacks sufficient reliable sources and appears to reflect a non-neutral, possibly partisan narrative. It fails to meet Wikipedia’s standards for notability, sourcing, and neutrality. Much of the content is unsourced or poorly cited, and it presents a historical conflict in a way that seems one-sided, potentially violating Wikipedia's policies on neutrality (WP:NPOV) and verifiability (WP:V). A search for academic or high-quality sources on this specific topic yields very little coverage, suggesting it may not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for historical events (WP:NOTE). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madeaccountfr (talk • contribs) 08:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Middle East. Shellwood (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Check the page now Suraya222 (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - There are some pretty poorly written sections, both from a sourcing standpoint and actual written English (the ones with seemingly random capitalized words are especially jarring to look at), but the article is salveagable and I think there's at least a good chance a good article can be written on the subject. In any case I'm not going to give the benefit of the doubt to the banned (not just blocked!) nominator who is a notoriously bad faith participant. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Iraq, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom.  Zemen  (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom.

Jackhanma69 (talk) 10:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

'''Keep''' - I don't see the reason for Deletion, And I provided the sources and Made the Page better Suraya222 (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

'''Keep''' – if there's another problem, please tell me so I can change it. Suraya222 (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

'''Keep''' Suraya222 (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Can Anyone Please Tell me how the hell do I type Keep but Bold and Black Suraya222 (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep - The information is backed by the sources. Assyrians and Kurds had many clashes in Hakkari in the 1800s that are well documented. Termen28 (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. StrongCap (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC) Blocked as a sock. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@StrongCap Explain why you want the page to be deleted Suraya222 (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep Suraya222 (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Just a note here that both the nominator Madeaccountfr and voter StrongCap have been blocked as sockpuppets of notorious WP:LTA editor Tishreen07 [7]. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete: per nom. R3YBOl (🌲) 06:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@R3YBOl could you please Explain Why do you want the page to be deleted? I mean every page I made you wanted it to be deleted Suraya222 (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep - Suraya222 (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep. I think its informative and gives a good overview of Assyrian-Kurdish relations in that period. I can't find any issues with the article that's worth deleting it for.Ilamxan (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

idk why @R3YBOI Want to delete every page i make Suraya222 (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is a mess. @User:Suraya222, you are only allowed to make one bolded !vote per AfD discussion – please strike the rest. Could we get editors from outside this topic area to weigh in please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 23:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't know Suraya222 (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

yes, you could Suraya222 (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete This looks a case of WP:SYNTH as none of the sources discuss this subject in the context of this very specific timescale. Instead it's a bunch of meh sources not addressing the overall subject and being bolted together. That's classic synth and this feels like its either a fork from a wider more general article or should be in a wider history of the conflict if specific sources addressing the conflict as a whole are not available. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

What are you even talking about??? Suraya222 (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@Suraya222 Please review WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK. The editor raised legitimate policy concerns about WP:SYNTH that deserve a substantive response rather than dismissal. R3YBOl (🌲) 15:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Allegations of ethnic cleansing by Kurdish forces in northern Syria (2015–2016)

Allegations of ethnic cleansing by Kurdish forces in northern Syria (2015–2016) (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)

Reads like AI and is created by a user who recently got indeffed for creating hoaxes. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Average kurd and DataNomad, again 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:01, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Discrimination, Events, Military, and Syria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• Weak keep only if WP:RS are found. Wynwick55gl (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep or merge to Syrian civil war#Kurdish autonomy in northeastern Syria. Sources on this topic can be easily found ([8], [9], [10]), though the oddly-specific title is concerning. Article needs work but the topic is clearly notable. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While no consensus for delete, neither is there consensus for keep - further contributions would be useful - does the topic actually warrant a stand alone page?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because Wynwick55gl, who commented above, has since been checkuser-indeffed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Brest attack

Brest attack (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)

An ambush with 2 overall deaths doesn't meet WP:N criteria and falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and North Macedonia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• Merge with 2001 insurgency in Macedonia. I think it is relevant enough for the main article. There are at least two post-conflict sources about it. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Spiderone: It's safe to assume anyone typing in Brest attack will be looking for the disambiguation page Battle of Brest, not this incident. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep BUT ONLY IF WP:RS are found. I am no expert in this area. Wynwick55gl (talk) 08:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

@Wynwick55gl: An event simply being mentioned in WP:RS is not the foremost criterion when deciding whether to keep or delete an article, see WP:EVENTCRITERIA. This is especially true of an event that is just another Tuesday in Chicago in terms of fatalities. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

This is laughable. Are you seriously comparing murders committed in a city like Chicago, which has more inhabitants than all of North Macedonia combined, with this insurgency? I don’t see rebels taking over parts of Chicago and ambushing some of its highest ranking politicians. And besides, a military engagement doesn’t need 500 casualties to deserve its own article, otherwise you could start AfD's for 90% of the wikipedia articles related to combat history. GermanManFromFrankfurt (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

No, what's laughable is your belief that Wikipedia is an indiscriminate repository of information, when we have entire policy guidelines and essays explaining why it very clearly isn't. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. The battle does hold significance, it was the very engagement that allowed the NLA to expand its activities into the Kumanovo region, as mentioned in the sources. These events were also widely reported in Western media, such as the LA Times, CNN, and the BBC. Furthermore, it marked another escalation of the conflict, as the NLA targeted Macedonian politicians, including Deputy Interior Minister Refet Elmazi and State Secretary of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Ljube Boškoski. GermanManFromFrankfurt (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep

While the Brest ambush in 2001 may appear to involve a relatively small number of casualties, we must not forget that brest was a significant route for the NLA to reach the Karadak zone. This conflict was an insurgency, and it didn't require heavy losses to have an article. Otherwise dozens articles would have to be deleted as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daddyson11111 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

That's correct, dozens of articles need to be deleted. Also, see WP:WHATABOUTX for arguments to avoid in a discussion. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep it definetly meets the criteria of WP:N and has a lot of RS backing it up. This battle is acknowledged by a plethera of sources as well. Durraz0 (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Direct comment on the sources would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 05:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Šušaja

Battle of Šušaja (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)

Small skirmishes like this one, from an insurgency in which a total of several dozen people were killed over the course of two years, clearly falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Albania, Serbia, and Yugoslavia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep. It seems like Amanuensis Balkanicus is on a bit of a rant, trying to delete anything that even mentions an Albanian insurgent victory. A battle that lasted four days, involved multiple APCs, seven tanks (one of which was damaged), as well as special forces, and left around 9 to 12 participants dead or wounded—including one member of the SAJ special forces—is clearly not a small skirmish. If we're going by that logic, why not start an AfD for the Battle of Oraovica too? GermanManFromFrankfurt (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep this was a rather big escelation in insurgency, hence meets the criteria of WP:N and should stay. Durraz0 (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Neither of these keep !votes show that the topic meets WP:GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: per the last relisting comment
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 05:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Lake Radonjić operation

Lake Radonjić operation (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)

Clearly a WP:CFORK of Lake Radonjić massacre. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
• Merge with Lake Radonjić massacre. There does not seem to be a notability issue, and so no grounds for deletion. But it indeed looks like a fork, and so a merge of both articles seems appropriate. MarioGom (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

  I understand your concerns, but this page is not connected to the Massacre itself, its just a prelude to the happenings, its a important fight which i see deserves its own page rather then being merged. 79.140.150.3 (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  Delete. If it is a prelude then content can be merged. GaLLOp3333 (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Most of the article already copy-pastes the background and aftermath section of Lake Radonjić massacre, so there's nothing to merge anyway. --Griboski (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:14, 23 June 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. All yours, Eddie891. asilvering (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

List of World War II war correspondents (1942–43)

List of World War II war correspondents (1942–43) (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)

Arbitrary criterion (" war correspondents who reported from North Africa or Italy in 1942-43") fails WP:NLIST. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

oppose deletion, does not fail WP:NLIST because of established notability Vofa (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Journalism, History, and Military. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
• Merge to List of war correspondents#21st century. It's rather weird for this to apparently be limited to those in North Africa or Italy since the title does not reflect that. Anyway, I see no reason to have a list that only has thoses place or these two years, but if there are any blue links not already in the main list, they may be added there. It's broadly a good list topic but needs some organization. Reywas92^Talk 23:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• No objection to merger, but 21st century? Clarityfiend (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Oops, 20th century obviously! Reywas92^Talk 23:47, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I feel bad about this because it's extra work, but the correct thing to do is to move this list to List of war correspondents in World War II analogous to List of war correspondents in World War I, and expand the list's range to include all world war II war correspondents wherever and whenever they served. Merging to the list for the whole of the 20th C is a poor second-best, because unfortunately there were too many wars in the century, and thus too many reporters. The 2nd world war, like the first, had such vast global impact that it makes sense to list its correspondents separately. Elemimele (talk) 09:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• Move to List of war correspondents in World War II and tag as incomplete for now. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

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

Military Proposed deletions

The following articles have been tagged for proposed deletion:

Current PRODs

• 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